Write Literature, Not Parables

Many writers think that they're the bees knees. This, of course, leads to pieces or articles depicting the writer's struggle and how we just want our art to be shown to the world and why editors are evil. Well, editors are not evil and, more than likely, these writers are just pieces of crap posing as intelligentsia. 

Art is both objective and subjective. There is a definitive right way to go about the technical creation of a piece. Grammer, conventions, and industry practices all have a right and wrong way to go about them. Sometimes you can get away with breaking a rule but, generally, you just look like a right jerk. The subject-matter and theming are where it gets subjective. Once a piece leaves the writer's desk, they lose ownership of the theme and the message of the piece will be decided by the reader. (Hence, why themes and critical analysis are complete bullcrap according to Salinger.) If a writer crams nothing but their gospel or writes from a specific theme rather than emotional response, their piece stops being subjective art and is now just a tool of conversion. These will also get a writer declined since editors want literature, not a call to apostasy. 

Write pieces for both the audience and yourself as catharsis, not exclusively for one or the other, and not to be preachy. In essence, don't be bad. - Cheers. 

Thoughts on Niche and Keish

Niche: Something that most anyone that manages any sort of business will be familiar with is the concept of niche. Niche is the mixing of two or more market spaces to create a small but well-defined market. For instance, my twitter timeline consists of wrestling commentary, thoughts regarding metal and heavy (real) music, dad jokes, and sometimes stuff about being a professional writer and editor, so my target market is sports dads who appreciate good music and the occasional bit of literature. It may seem small but that's because it is. While I may not have immediate widespread success, I do tremendously well with five people in Brunei.

That's all one needs, to be honest. The form of marketing proven most effective is word-of-mouth. There are some sports dads who want to find creators involved in the same collection of hobbies they are. My dad readers tell their dad friends that I do cool stuff once a month or to check out a journal I'm in and they are introduced through only one denominator of my niche. After a brief time of following, a state of gradual influence occurs where a reader or following starts exploring the other aspects of my niche until they are invested in all elements to some extent.

Create a niche focused on markets you fully passionate about and let your hot little daddies spread your message for you.

Keish: Delicious. -Cheers

Legality in Entertainment: Nothing is Sacred

An issue that most anyone in the entertainment sector has to deal with at some point in their career is legality in regards to ownership of intellectual property. An intellectual property or IP, for the sake of my carpal tunnel, is any idea put into a product. Think game concepts, book plot, lyrics and chord progression in music, or essentially any media you've consumed ever.

Of course, as a creator of a work you want to protect it like it's your precious baby, or perhaps your sisters (R + L = J). The problem is that you can't really protect an idea. Someone might overhear you, or switch editorials, spiteful buggers, and publish an extremely similar work but if it's different enough, you can't do anything about it. Sure, if there are enough similarities, like down to character names and specific details about their mother's facial mole, you can pursue a lawsuit. But broad ideas or basic plot points in and of themselves are fair game.

As you make your way through the publishing game, bare in mind that every story has already been told, people will steal your ideas, and you are probably stealing someone else's idea subconsciously anyway so who are you to judge. - Cheers

Don't Tell: The Need for Justification for Adjectives.

An issue that I have come across recently in works that I have edited for other writers as well as in my own work is a problem referred to as "telling." Personally, I think of it as an unjustified trait or modifier but I went to school for philosophy so I view most everything in human existence as unjustified, especially short words.

The problem that comes from "telling" is that the writer gives us one word to describe an entity in their story, but they don't tell us what that means or how it's present in the fictional actual. We don't actually see the character, we only hear about them. To tell us that a dwarf is grumpy when all of his dialogue is mild and he doesn't have a constant frown is counter-intuitive. One might still include the adjective but they must also include salty language and paint a picture of just how sour this dwarf's mood is through his expression and demeanor. The action should stand, on its own,  to plant the descriptor in the reader's mind without the writer every having to put it in words.

Remember to always justify your modifiers and eradicate short words. - Cheers

Intelligent Story Telling: The Importance of Dumb Conversation.

One thing I hear from several other creators is that they hate small talk. Why discuss recent events when you can have long arching arguments of philosophy? To be fair, I have been known to enjoy both, but the reason of this writing is to endorse dumb or surface level discussion and reflection. Humans naturally discuss things at a surface level. The norm is to be privative and reserve deep conversation until we are already intimate with the other member of the discussion. There's a whole discussion on psychology and philosophy in that, but that's for another moment.

If one does not participate in small surface level discussions then one cannot accurately describe the way humans talk or act. As a creator, this is incredibly important as your characters will be entirely unrelatable without it. Creating characters that exist solely in a realm of esoteric reflection, while entertaining for a single art piece, does not make for good literature or genre work.

One also misses out on opportunities for creative inspiration when foregoing small talk. A good chunk of my own work comes from moments where I'm having a surface level discussion about a sporting event, comic, or any sort of culture and it makes a connection with a thought I had earlier today in the shower. The combination of ideas blends to create a prompt that I need to write and get out of my system.

That all being said, if you were to sit down with me at a BDubs and ask about my thoughts on compression versus decompression storytelling, or first person versus third person narration in comics or genre work I'll talk with you until dead Cthulu rises from his dreams in R'lyeh. But  just don't be snooty about small talk. - Cheers.

Flashbacks: Why? And Don't.

Something I've noticed grow increasingly annoying, and problematic from a critical standpoint are flashbacks. The flashback is a technique used by writers who don't feel like judiciously revealing information through dialogue or scenery. That being said a brief flashback to a vivid detail to capitalize on a poignant moment can make a piece all the more beautiful.

The issue arises when writers feel like telling their story through flashback. A graphic novel I recently read features a five-page flashback with two possible three panels worth of important information. The rest of the information was revealed through dialogue shortly before or after the flashback and made the waste of valuable page space rather saddening.

Ask yourself before incorporating a flashback, "Can this information be revealed naturally through any other method?" And for the love of all that is good and holy keep it contained to a flash of a detail in a single scene. It's a FLASHback, not a backstory. - Cheers

Decompressed Storytelling and You

In recent years, a plague has infested the comics industry and has even moved into screenwriting. That plague is decompressed storytelling, which essentially using prolonged segments of dialogue in the bulk of the narrative to evoke a more emotional response. The norm, before this trend, was to have a meaty chunk of dialogue contained in one panel or to use very snappy and concise dialogue sentences that got the point across with a few jokes, or emotive phrases. The dialogue would then be followed by a hearty serving of action to keep the reader in the moment. Rinse and repeat through the three arcs of a 20-page issue.

The compressed method would pound out the plot rather quickly and in an easy to follow manner then reward the reward the reader with some sweet eye-candy and art focused panels that evoke emotions themselves. While the decompressed method drags the reader through a muddied or often over-simplified plot through two pages for details that could be established in one panel.

I have recently noticed that season two of Daredevil uses a decompressed method which actively detracts from the dopeness that is Jon Bernthal's Punisher. I really want to like this show, but the pacing is making it real hard.

This is my call to action. If you are a writer and you want to tell a decompressed story, don't. - Cheers.