Story Constellation Theory: Epic Plotting

Hello hello!

I have a very special treat for you all, and a return to form. That's right; I'm talking about writing again!

Last night, I was talking with a close friend about his epic dark fantasy series. He was having trouble pinning down plot points, and so was I. It wasn't an unfamiliar problem--how do you narrow down all those people and events to just one storyline? It seemed impossible, and I realised slowly that--it actually was impossible.

I had an idea for epic-scale fantasy novels with many characters, to make them easier to write. I realised that the problem is because authors are thinking two-dimensionally, trying to pin a big, epic story down to this:

Source. Look at that thing! Everything after the climax is a mysterious disaster. 

Plot mountain sucks

Epic stories are often hard to follow--no matter what genre they're in--because a lot is happening. Most of those books kinda fall apart because of too many plot threads and really badly balanced tension and characters enough to populate a small town. Fantasy, sci fi, even historical fiction. War and Peace is like that. Gabaldon's stories are a mess, structurally.

I know why. The problem is that with an epic-length story, the plot mountain falls apart. What works fine for a smaller novel does NOT work for the large scale. There are too many elements, too many people, to glue down to just one plot mountain shape.

Authors are thinking two-dimensionally when they need to think three-dimensionally.

Source. Look at all the stars!

Galaxies do not suck

So, think about a galaxy. Big, sparkly, lots of stars. The way we organize that in our heads is to focus on the bright stars and make a constellation around them. Then we figure out the other largish stars in the constellation/formation, and then find the other stellar bodies. Often, said constellations overlap, too. So for a story that is epic in scale, that's basically a galaxy or at least a spiral arm.

So take your bright stars--those are the main characters; not one, but many. Say, five or six at least, or three or four. You get it. If you focus on the character links between those stars, you can map a three-dimensional constellation into 2-D. Then, for those characters--if one focuses on the secondary characters, more constellations appear. Around those characters, other "stellar bodies", tertiary and quaternary characters, also appear. If you look for where those tertiary and quaternary characters actively eclipse the primary and secondary characters, you can figure out which ones to write about, and when. That way authors don't end up describing every goddamn servant in the castle, even the one who empties the slops, unless they're relevant to the relationships.

MS Paint is awesome, okay? Shut up. 

Relationships first. Events are side-effects of relationships.

Figuring out how characters connect to each other IS the plot. Slowly adding those secondary and tertiary characters ALSO helps the problem of focusing too much on the main characters, so that the author and reader get bored of them. It also makes the effects of the conflict more personal and far less abstract. In a war or in any epic conflict--the plotty stuff people struggle with is a l l b u l l s h i t. Wars are made of people. Nations are a fiction. Authors lose track of the fact that stories are made of PEOPLE, because they keep trying to follow the plot mountain and escalate the tension the way they would with a normal book. But the plot mountain isn't sustainable over a long series. Story constellation theory is, because it relies on links between characters, and provides clear points for bringing in side characters--whenever they're involved in the main plot.

The other advantage is that it de-centralizes the idea of a "main plot", something that falls apart in most epic-length series. With several constellations to work from at the same time, authors can relax and space out their pacing, because readers will care about more than just the "main" storyline.

What constitutes a relationship? 

Well, basically anything that constitutes a normal relationship, of course! Friendships, coworkers, romance, antagonism, casual acquaintance; any of those can be represented by one of those lines. A duchess (secondary character) might have three personal servants (tertiary characters), one of whom is sleeping with the cook (secondary character) that is the princess (primary character)'s best friend. The princess might be affianced to a princess from another kingdom (secondary character) even though she is secretly in love with the slightly older Swordmistress (primary character), who is secretly arranging a rebellion to overthrow the princess's corrupt father, the King (secondary character with a lot of intersections, including both secondary and tertiary characters). There may also be quaternary characters, people who walk on or sell someone a purse, etc. They only need to be mentioned as character relationships require them. 

By moving a novel's structure away from events, and onto characters, it's so much simpler to write out. Outlines focus on the sequence of events in the context of the relationship, not just the chronological way things happen. Considering that authors often have to move around the chronology of scenes to make more sense, relating them to character's emotions rather than arbitrary occurrences like a war makes MUCH more sense. Besides--the war might not happen if a different relationship prevents it. And as stated, a war is something that happens between people; it is basically an abstract thing.

Focusing on relationships also helps authors keep themselves from getting too married to plot points, and from losing the small details in pursuit of the big events. If you write about the experiences of a farmer (secondary character) who wants to take care of his family (tertiary or quaternary characters), and therefore enlists as a soldier, then about his slow trek back home and the innkeeper (secondary or tertiary) he falls in love with while recuperating, that gives a reader an idea of the scope of events better than "and then a big fight happened" ever could. Describing the way his relationship with his best friend (tertiary) changes, the way he no longer visits a shopkeeper (tertiary or quaternary character) every Saturday for his paper, also add more realism. 

It is characters we remember, and we shape events around them in our minds. Isn't it time that epic fantasy and other genres caught up with the human mind and soul? We are social animals, and stories are the byproducts of our countless moments of love and hate. This model, the story constellation theory, accounts for that as no other can.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Holy $#@*--On the Use of Profanity

Hello hello!

Ah, profanity. As a reader, I enjoy it for cases of verisimilitude and emphasis. As a writer, well, I love it. I’ve been dinged for it in reviews. As an editor, I long for more of it. So why do so many writers shy away from it?

The most common argument I hear against profanity is that it’s crude and coarse language. However, profanity has little to no correlation with socioeconomic status or personal refinement in most cases. Sure, there are people who use it as a substitution in their vocabulary, but it’s not as common as you’d think. Instead, aggressive, type-A, ambitious people with strong emotions tend to favour it. It’s also common in cases of injury or anger, as swearing actually has analgesic (pain-reducing) effects.

So why don’t people use it in books? While a cozy mystery or a Young Adult novel might not be the best place to drop some F-bombs, I am going to go out on a limb and say that other New Adult or Adult-oriented fiction (ie, most of the market) needs and requires cussing for verisimilitude. Even Jane Austen and the Brontes mentioned their characters swearing, and sometimes showed it--with censoring, sure, but it still happened. Some authors ‘aren’t comfortable’ with ‘inappropriate’ language, but considering that beheading a character or sexual assault flies easily with some of the same authors, I’m left scratching my head. Swearing makes up approximately 0.3-0.7% of language, and it’s a small but crucial portion.

So, when should characters swear? 

Strong emotions are a great time for this. Crying, bouts of anger, an argument, physical pain—all of these are prime times for some cussin’. If your characters are using exclamation marks—as they should, if they’re shouting—they can do some swearin’. Some people even swear when they’re happy—a joyous ‘F$#@ yeah! I won the lottery!” hardly goes amiss. As well, characters who are in the military, known for bluntness, or are teenagers, will likely do some cursing.

I am going to be blunt.  If you, as an author, are uncomfortable with swearwords, you need to get over it. That goes for readers, too, but this is a column about writing, so it’s authors I want to address. You don’t have to pepper your text with F-bombs in order to get the right feel, but a carefully-placed swearword can make a lot of difference. If you’re uncomfortable with swearing, practice saying it out loud (in private if you must) and try to write dialogue with lots of cussing in it to acclimatize yourself. Why do you have to? Because you’re trying to write a good story, and a lack of cursing can result in utter silliness.

“Ow! Ding dang dong diddly!” shouted Claudia. The insane clown grinned and continued to saw away at her toes. “Ow! Shucks and tarnation! That hurts!”

Your characters shouldn't sound like Ned Flanders. Even Ned would cuss if his toes were being sawed off by an insane clown. Consider this revision.

“Ow! Fucking shit! Get the fuck off!” Claudia yelled. The insane clown grinned and kept sawing at her toes. “Fucking--go to hell!”

This is how most of us would respond in the same circumstances, though probably with more screaming. Sure, these words can be seen as ugly, but they’re a natural part of language. Avoiding swearwords altogether is like avoiding the letter ‘z’—it might be rare, but you WILL stumble across it eventually, and having a slice of pi—a would be very odd.

I’ve also heard the argument that authors in the classical era didn’t swear. Anyone who’s read classical plays, Shakespeare, or even Jane Austen can easily refute that. ‘Damn’ used to be considered as powerful as ‘f$%#’, and now it’s used in kids’ movies. That’s right—the logical corollary is that even Jane Austen dropped a few ‘D-bombs’ once in a while, even if they were often censored.  Arguably, you could also say that just because classical authors did it, doesn’t mean it’s right.

So, my final words are these—whatever your religious or moral persuasion, in writing, it simply won’t do to avoid cursing completely unless you're writing children's books. You can make up the occasional curse-word as a substitute, but make sure you use it the same way as traditional curses, swears, and oaths. Don’t make your characters talk like Sunday-school teachers unless they are, and even then—I’m pretty sure every Sunday-school teacher has hit their thumb with a hammer at some point in life. 

What are some of the most creative swear words and phrases you've heard? Let me know in the comments.

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie--get on the mailing list. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

"The First Rule of White Club...": Tokenism and White-Washing

Hello hello!

I haven't been able to drag myself off to Fifty Shades of Grey yet, but my blog is starting to get a layer of dust on it, so I'm here to throw a few posts at you until I can make that happen. (What can I say? I'm usually up for a hatewatch of something like this, and I promised to do it, but I'm really not crazy about the thought of spending thirty bucks on tickets to watch Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan assault good taste and fumble through BDSM horrifyingly.) So instead, let's talk about diversity in writing--especially the dirty side-door policy of cheating at diversity through including tokenism.

Tokenism: is it a problem?

The first rule of white club is that you don't talk about white club. The second rule of white club...well. I'm extremely happy that privilege barriers are breaking down, but as much as this is starting to happen in speculative fiction, there's this safe zone that people are still orbiting. Maybe it's just that I've been spoiled by amazing writers, but between finishing The Night Circus and some of my other reading-around, a particular issue has stuck with me. When a cast features some diversity, but those characters are relegated to sideline roles--should the book get a pass? A lot of authors are lenient on this, but honestly, I'd say no. Fair criticism is part of art, and so is going outside one's comfort zone. Sure, it's fine to start off writing about characters you're comfortable with, but particularly for those of us who are white and born with various kinds of privileges, insulated by our birth-assigned identities, we need to push outside those zones eventually and try to write well-rounded characters. It's not just a matter of equality: it's a matter of technique and pride in the craft. But how do you write diversity?

A challenge to not read white, cis male authors for a year went around recently, and a lot of people lost their minds. I'm not here to talk about that, but I WILL leave this and this here for you to have a look at. The first is a link to Asian speculative fiction authors; the second, a quick sample of some black female writers of spec fic. Considering that there's over 137 authors on these two lists alone, that should give you an idea of just how many sci fi and fantasy writers of colour actually exist--not only do they exist, but there are a lot of them. If you still haven't ventured outside that shelf of sci fi classics, people other than Samuel Delaney and Octavia Butler do exist. They exist now. They are writing awesome books. Go read them.

People of colour, people with disabilities, and queer people are not there to be checked off on a list to prove that your book is politically correct. If you're going to incorporate them into your stories, actually incorporate them. It's no different than doing any other sort of research. If you spend five hours looking up London architecture, you can spend half an hour making sure your Latino characters don't flirt with every girl on the block and talk in exaggerated Spanglish.

Seen here: an author you should read. 

The fake PC fight

This could really be an article of its own, but it's heavily linked to what I've already mentioned, so there's not much point. As a mentor of mine put it, '"I don't want to offend" is often code for "you guys are never satisfied". We need a Fuck That checklist for creators. "If the only time you describe a skin color is for the 'ethnic' types, fuck that. If the black sidekick dies, fuck that. If the woman is put in sexual peril for no fucking reason, fuck that."'

The thing is, he's right. Why is it that diversity, even tokenism, are considered 'going out of your way'? It seems like white voices fighting over (fake) free speech and (fake) sensitivity drown out the concerns of actual people of colour who are affected by the issues.

Why is this still a discussion point at all? If you can put five hours into researching cafe' food in London, you can spend half an hour learning about the South Bronx or immigration processes. It's entirely possible to just write 'normal' PoC and have them fit into a story. All characters' lives should include a mix of the good, bad, and ugly.

Murakami's kind of an easy pick, but he's a really good writer. This collection's particularly good.

But...but...

The discussion tends to go in a certain direction immediately.

"What if I want to write about these characters?" Okay, but why do they have to be white?

"But that's how I envisioned them." Okay, but your imagination doesn't exist in a decontextualized bubble.

"I didn't want to go into racism and sexism and other isms!" If you include rape, social dynamics and fighting, or other forms of conflict, and you mention other characters' backgrounds, why are you leaving out the 'ethnic' characters' backgrounds?

"But I have my gay character come out to the MC!" Does his coming out make a difference? If the coming out doesn't make a difference to the plot, and has no consequences, your gay character is effectively being used as an ethical crutch for your MC. If it has no consequences, than why have the character be in the closet in the first place?

"Won't it distract from my storyline?" Is your storyline so fragile that you can't throw in a line here and there of dialogue to enrich the backstory, or subtle hints in descriptions of characters and rooms, without ruining everything? If your main character is so uninteresting that you're worried fleshing out background characters might ruin them, maybe your main character needs some work.

Behold! More research material!

How to fix it

Give the minor characters a careful scan. Do your white minor characters get all the attention and do all the talking? Do you talk about the backstories of your white characters, but not the people of colour? Are the people of colour disproportionately poor and unfortunate? Do the people of colour act in ways that are at all stereotypical, or speak in different ways than the white characters? Does a person of colour die to save a white character or to underline how serious things are?

Of course, I have to end this with some recommendations for some other favorite authors already doing it right--Minister Faust and Zig Zag Claybourne both tackle diversity issues really well, and Katie de Long proves that you can have your intersectional feminism and romance and get eaten out, too. A couple of webcomics I've been losing my mind over, Nimona and Strong Female Protagonist, also tackle inclusion quite a bit. Again, you don't have to sacrifice your awesome story to talk about these issues. If anything, diversity adds nuance and depth to a story. It opens up new possibilities. Diversity saves us all from boredom and repetition, issues that have plagued fantasy and science fiction for years.

Ultimately, a good story will only be richer for this stuff. Sure, it's daunting, but you can start with short stories featuring protagonists outside your comfort zone, then work your way up. Worried about how to describe a character's skin tone and what kinds of backgrounds characters can have? Trying to figure out how to write a white central protag and still avoid tokenism? Research. At the end of the day, this conversation matters for so many reasons, and if you come at it with sincerity, there will be a lot of people eager to help you.

What are your questions about writing diversity? Let me know in the comments. Let's get talking.

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Descripturbation: How to (and How Not to) Describe Characters

Hello hello!

Today I'm going to talk about one of the thorniest and most often-ridiculed issues in writing--character descriptions. Some authors describe every pimple, dimple, dent, and wrinkle of lace; some basically avoid description at all, which can leave readers feeling as though the characters are no more than wooden silhouettes with "Protagonist's Name Here" taped to them.

So, what does too much detail look like? 

Women's clothes often get the brunt of this. The men's clothes in the same works are often less elaborate, but have a look at the paragraph below.

"Her blue paisley dress had delicate puce and chartreuse ribbons on the puffed sleeves. The layered chiffon skirt was hooped, and numerous petticoats trimmed in yellow lace spilled out from beneath its voluminous edges."

Now, that's ugly, in many ways. There are too many adjectives, some passive voice, and the actual dress combination is pretty hideous. But fancy steampunk/Victorian dresses are easy to ridicule. What does overdescription with a male character in a more contemporary setting look like?

"His perfect nose was Euclidean and his brow was high and fair. He had deeply-set brown eyes with smooth lids, and his eyes twinkled under dark brows and short black lashes. His mouth was slender-lipped and his smile, very wide. His dimples dotted golden cheeks and the creases of his grin reached almost to his dark sideburns. Slick, anthracite hair that had been gelled into perfection flopped insouciantly off to the side.

His neck was slim but strong and his golden skin showed through the opening of his blue and white plaid button-down shirt, a real second-hand item, not a designer look-alike. His Gotye t-shirt had stylized doves and hands opening on it, and his jeans--which were fashionably worn and ripped, but had obviously been broken in--had a dove embroidered on the pocket as well. I stared at his Converse sneakers and fell in love."

As a friend said, "I just think it's kinda awesome that someone who writes so well can just as easily write so BADLY at the drop of a hat."

These two paragraphs are excessively detailed, to an irritating extent, because whatever else was happening in the scene stops DEAD to let the description show itself out.

"His brown eyes sparkled as he grinned at me. He ruffled his slick black hair and leaned back, his band t-shirt peeking through a plaid button-up."

This rewrite is a bit simpler, but it still gets the feeling across without stopping the action dead. It also makes the description more active, contextualizing his eyes and hair with expressions and an action.

What about insufficient detail?

My personal prejudice is that "less is more", but if a story is full of lush descriptions elsewhere, it's probably okay to let yourself go in the character descriptions. For first drafts, it's also okay to go a bit bananas--you can always cut things later. For those of us who write fantasy and sci fi, there are extra challenges, because the books exist in unique universes.

That said, it's often a good idea to trust the reader. They can imagine things, they know how tropes work, and it's okay to skim over descriptions a bit when referring to something that should be ordinary. Wastebaskets, for example, or toilets. Focus on what's different, not just what's the same. For both characters and the setting, it's often wise to add bits of description throughout the book, sprinkling them in. Using relative descriptions can also be helpful in keeping the reader immersed. One of the best things you can do is make a description active, so that the character interacts with their environment rather than being set apart from it. Here's an example.

"She smiled and stretched her long, tanned limbs. She was tall and stringy, and her grey-streaked black hair gleamed like steel in the light of the twin suns."

We know she's on an alien planet--possibly one with low gravity--and that she's an older woman already. It's not a lot, but it can go a long way. But that's the easy stuff--what about specific character description issues?

Source. This is a great resource.

How do we describe diversity without having to say, 'this character is black or Japanese'?

The best thing you can do is get yourself a colour palette of skin tones. Dark skin comes in many, many shades--there are some incredible resources to explain some of those shades.

"Her reddish-brown skin glowed in the sun, and she squinted, her full lips curving into a smile. She unholstered her pulse rifle and trained it on the scruff-rat leisurely, then fired."

Now, you could describe her skin as 'chocolate' coloured, but that kind of description has really fallen out of use. The problem with food-like descriptions is that it's othering and a bit creepy when all protagonists are edible. It's fine in small doses--and I've seen black authors use "almond eyes and chocolate skin" as descriptors, and "creamy" or "milky" skin do get used to describe white characters, but Asian characters don't have "teriyaki or sesame skin" and Latino characters don't have "corn tortilla" skin, Nor do, say, First Nations people have "pemmican complexions". The problem is that people are sometimes unaware that the way they describe others is fetishizing (which makes a person into an object) or just plain absurd.

When it comes to describing eye shape and colour, "almond" eyes are used a lot for Asian characters, but this has become contentious and annoying for the same reason mentioned above. The jury's out on good ways to describe monolids and epicanthic folds, but mentioning 'angled' eyes, 'crinkled' eyes, 'smooth' lids, deeply-set, or teardrop-shaped eyes are all possible choices. It's better to talk to someone from the ethnic background you're trying to describe if you're not sure. As always, research is your friend.

Any final words?

We'll all make mistakes. That's life, and that's writing. Experiment and do research, and run things by friends who can mock you safely (without being too mean) if you're worried that something sounds ridiculous. And, of course, there's always asking your editor or beta readers.

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!