WIP Wednesday: Week 23+24

Days Worked On: Probably most of them . . . once again, didn't pay attention
Morale: It was low, then it got higher
Total Word Count: 99,543 (-485 from last week) and several thousand words in the story bible

What I Worked On: World building. ALL THE WORLD BUILDING.

Thoughts: In case you're wondering, there was no post last week because there was really no point. I hadn't done anything and there wasn't anything to say on the matter. I figured I wouldn't bore you.

This week, instead of working on the same nightmare section that I've been looking at for the past forever, I worked on something different. It was fun and therapeutic and reminded me that I actually do enjoy writing. What did I do? Worked on the story bible . . . which I have been ignoring for a long, long time.

Thus, I've been writing out super detailed sections on culture, class structure, character histories, locations, etc, etc, etc. It takes forever, but I think recording all of this information can be super helpful for several reasons:

• It's easier to look up small details without searching through the text
• Plot holes show their faces, so you can fix them now
• Editing is better when you already know everything there is to know

So, you know, that's what I've been doing. Yay!

Anyway, this all brings me to a point I've been wanting to bring up for a while. But first, go look at the WIP Wednesday posts by Jessie at Little Bonobo's Book Café. Note the awesome cultural tidbits that she throws in at the end of each post. Is that not awesome? Yes. Yes it is.

Why is this relevant? Well, I've been wanting to throw in similar, interesting tidbits about my WIP in these posts, but I never do because I can't figure out what to share. What's too spoilerish? What's interesting to read about? Do you even care? I've spent the last week fleshing out more of these details, so I want to tell you guys things. SO MANY THINGS.

So please, help me! How do you know what to share and not share when it comes to your WIP? I feel like I'm over thinking this, so I need your voices of reason. Give me a heads up in the comments.

But first! After a lot of brainstorming, let me share something! Presenting a kinda old, mostly but not completely accurate because of the distances, map I drew of the world in my WIP:

Lovely, yes? Click to make it huge!

On superhero storyline reboots

There's something that the comic book industry has that isn't really prevalent anywhere. And no, I'm not talking about the superheroes. Comics books aren't afraid to break continuity and start over. Which I find pretty interesting.

You don't even have to read comic books to know what I'm talking about, just see Batman. Remember all the silly movies from the nineties and how Christopher Nolan took that material and made it dark and gritty for the newer movies? Better yet, did you know that there are plans for yet another Batman reboot in the future? And what about the new Spiderman that's coming out this summer? Or the two different Hulk movies?

And that's only the movies. If you start looking into the cartoon franchises and the source material itself, you'll notice that this is a trend. Comic books are all about rebooting the same characters and the same ideas, but giving them twists.

Which is fun, in a different sort of way. If you had a history with comics and watched the first season of Young Justice, you knew everyone's darkest secrets before they became an issue. You understood why certain characters were paired off and you knew what the future held for some of them. But that anticipation wasn't bad--it was awesome because not everything was the same.

Now, the reasons these reboots exist is for money. The idea is to keep an interested audience without losing what got them interested in the first place. But I guess what I'm wondering is, why don't we ever see this outside of comic book stories? I'm sure that everyone would jump on an alternate universe re-telling of Harry Potter. So why don't writers or filmmakers or video game producers reboot their stories? The profit is there, there are talented writers who would love to play with previous franchises, and the possibilities are infinite.

So what do you guys think? Would you love to see a reboot of your favorite book or tv show, or is that what fanfiction is for? Would you be willing to take your characters from your own writing and create new stories for them? And what about superheroes--why do these reboots work for them, but not anyone else? Tell me what you think in the comments.

It's all in the presentation

There are times when one spends an entire hour writing heartfelt blog posts. And then there are times when one stares at the computer screen for an hour trying to figure out what to say. In that second case, squid videos are always a good copout. *shifty eyes*


Actually, I want to talk about this video. Yes, all of the deep sea critters are nifty and fabulous . . . but the real question lies behind the editing. What's up with the shaky cam and the floaty letters? I don't know about you guys, but it reminds me of the title sequence to some a vaguely creepy, sci-fi-eqsue tv show, like Fringe or X-Files.

So, a little challenge, if you're interested: let's pretend this really is the title sequence of a TV show. What's the show about? Are all of the deep sea creatures the "characters" of the show? Or is there some kind of paranormal exploration going on underwater? Tell me your thoughts in the comments!

Local libraries and e-books

Okay, remember last month when I talked about my feelings on the Kindle 3 after having one for a year? Well, something has changed since then and now. Something that is worth telling you guys.

My local library started lending e-books. And I love it, for several simple reasons:

• It's easy. You think pirating books is easy? Well, checking out an e-book is easier and 100% legal. All you do is select the book of your choice, and, if you're using a Kindle, download it through Amazon like any other e-book.
• You don't have to go to the physical library to check books out. As long as you have a computer and wi-fi access for your e-reader (3G is apparently out for now), you can check out books from anywhere and at anytime your heart desires.
• As such, you don't necessarily have to live near your library of choice, as long as you have a library card. Maybe your nearest library is over an hour away? Well, it's not a whole lot easier to support it. Maybe you're going on vacation? Well, support your local library from across the world!
• Your library books expire on their own. That means no more worrying about getting your books back on time and no more overdue book fees.

Of course, several of these things are a bit troublesome for the future of libraries. There's a lot of debate going on about whether libraries should have to pay for multiple e-book licenses, whether they should have to buy new licenses after a certain number of lendings in order to compensate for traditional book "wear and tear," and how they are going to survive without the funds provided by overdue book fees.

I don't have any solutions for these problems, but I can definitely say that I love the convenience of checking out an e-book via my local library. It doesn't seem like a feature that would be going away anytime soon, so I guess I'm curious as to what you guys think.

So how do you feel about the e-book revolution in regards to the traditional library? Should libraries be treating e-books the same way they treat normal book checkouts? And, of course, have you ever checked out an e-book from your local library, or are you still waiting for it to offer the service? Tell me your thoughts in the comments.

5 fabulous favorite foods

Knowing what kind of food a person likes says a lot about them. Are they a traditionalist rooted in meat and potatoes, or do they prefer things made out of foam? Keeping this in mind, what are the favorite (and maybe even least favorite) foods of the characters you write about? Easier question: can you list five of your favorite foods? I sure can! And now I'm going to:

Chips and Salsa
This might be the result of growing up in a community with a fairly large mexican population, but I don't care. Not only are chips and salsa delicious, but they're relatively healthy. I mean tortilla chips are a step above other chips *cough*potato chips*cough* and salsa is made from delicious, delicious vegetables.

Image credit to mooshee85

Eggs in every shape and form
It's called the incredible, edible egg for a reason. They're a protein goldmine and considering that breakfast is my favorite meal of the day . . . well, it all just compounds to awesomeness. Eggs can be fried, boiled, saladed, baked in a quiche, thrown on top of a hamburger, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Image credit to myheartbehaves

Bagels with cream cheese
Okay, yeah, I know, this one is kind of weird. But I really like bagels and I really like cream cheese. And I'm not even talking flavored cream cheese or interesting bagels. Both of those things rock, but I seriously start salivating for just a plain, toasted bagel with boring, ordinary cream cheese. Just. So. Good!

Image credit to Birdny123

Sushi
I don't how or why, but sushi rice, assorted veggies, and sea critter bits wrapped in seaweed is tasty, tasty stuff. Also, there's nothing else like it. I enjoy the classic rolls, but I really get excited about recipes that take traditional ingredients and twist them into something new. Blue Hashi's Sleepwalker Roll is delightful.

Image credit to Wes_AW

Ice cream!!!
Hahaha, you know those people who can finish off one of those huge cups at Coldstone Creamery? Umm, yeah. That's me. It's creamy and made from milk and sugar . . . what's there to dislike unless you're lactose intolerant? Nothing. Because ice cream is always good. Especially cookies and cream. Yum!

Image credit to ivan.leung

Keep in mind that this is only five of my favorite foods . . . the, uhh, things I would want on that deserted island with me, you know? But there are still a bunch of other things I love. Like corn chowder and mashed potatoes and peach pie. *drools*

Oh crap, talking about all of this is making me hungry. >_> But before I run off to the kitchen, tell me, do my favorite foods tell you anything about me? If so, what? And, even better, what are your five favorite foods and why do you love them so? Are they things you have regular access too, or are your favorites something special? Tell me in the comments!

Oops! Or, on procrastination

Pahahahahaha . . . this post is so late. I guess that's what happens when I go ahead and watch cartoons instead of blogging.

Speaking of doing things instead of other things, cartoons are probably one of my greatest procrastinatory methods. You know, when I actually am procrastinating. Last night was all about absentmindedness. Anyway, there's just something about animation--it's fluid and smooth and captures things that just aren't possible in live-action filming. I heart it dearly.

And this all brings me to the question at hand: what do you do when you're shamelessly procrastinating? Do you read books? Play video games? Indulge in sports? Go window shopping? Knit, crochet, spin, or weave? Watch cartoons like me? Do something else that I didn't get around to mentioning? Tell me in the comments!

Social writing is bizarre

One of the strangest things about NaNoWriMo* is the fact that it takes writing, an activity that is widely considered to be very solitary, and makes it social.

Super social.

What do I mean by this? Well, NaNo is many things. One of those things involves a lot of sitting in the same room with a bunch of people and NOT talking until the latest word sprint is over. There is intensive writing going on . . . en masse. To an outsider, it probably comes off as very creepy. Hilariously enough, I didn't consider this when I told you all to do it via video chat on Monday.

Anyway, some of you might argue that writing isn't completely solitary. And you're sort of correct. There are word sprint challenges on Twitter . . . well, there are a lot of awesome writerly things on Twitter. But these kinds of things still involve you yourself being alone in a room. Or alone at a table in a coffee house. Or even alone in your head as you children through legos at each other in the next room. Whatever.

Okay, well what about writing groups? Hmm, Sarah, what about those? Well, uhh, in my (admittedly limited) experience most writing groups are about sharing work instead of composing it on the spot. But I could be wrong here.

Either way! What I'm really getting at is this: Social writing is kind of weird and I want to know what you guys think about it.

So, distracting or encouraging? Do you like how it openly involves casual writers, or do you prefer to strictly converse with hardcore writers? Is social writing good for new writers, or does it create unrealistic expectations? Tell me what you think in the comments!

*An Aside: Apparently I'm never going to shut up about NaNo. Sorry. Only not.

Dear Writing Blog-o-Sphere

Dear Writing Blog-o-Sphere,

I think we have a problem.

It's not the kind of problem that's immediately apparent. I mean, 99% of your posts are positive and inspiring and interesting. It's the kind of problem that lurks beneath the words of those fantastic posts. See, the thing is, you have unrealistic expectations.

But it's not your fault. Not really.

The problem lies in speed and time. Naturally, if someone's writing days are going well, they're going to celebrate that success on the internet. They'll tell us all about how they drafted the book in a month and then edited it in two weeks. They'll talk about their deadlines and how they wrote two books last year and how driven they are.

On the other hand, drafting and editing nightmares are never discussed. For good reason, of course. On the off chance an agent visits their blog, well, no one wants to make a bad impression with all that whining.

But where does that put the writer who has been struggling with drafting or editing? Maybe they've been working on their book for years now . . . and with the state of the blog-o-sphere, there's a good chance that they feel alone in that.

It's not true of course. There really are people who work 40+ hours and can only write 2000 words a week. There are people who have needed to completely re-write their books, so the newest draft is only a shadow of the last one. There are people who've spent countless hours writing "useless" content and they're book are still not done.

Finishing is important. I can't deny that. And I'm definitely not dissing on the struggles that have been mentioned on the internet. But do we have to stress on success so much? Can't we somehow embrace the idea that it's okay to work on a book for more than a year? That writing is hard? That's okay to write 5+ books and still be struggling to get an agent or a book deal? That speed isn't everything?

I feel like I might be blowing this out of proportion . . . but I've seen people discouraged because they think they're wasting time and because they can't write something beautiful in six months. And that shouldn't be acceptable.

Thanks for hearing me out,
Sarah

Confessions of a plantser/pantter

I live somewhere between the realms of pantsers and plotters. For the curious and uninformed, some quick definitions:

• Pantsers: Writers who draft without planning anything out. Or rather, "by the seats of their pants." Hence the name.
• Plotters: Writers who meticulously outline their story before drafting. This may involve creating a super intensive story bible.

As you can see, pantsers and plotters make up two ends of the writing spectrum, so it's easy to see how one might fall in the middle. However, most writers seem to identify with one over the other. And for a long time, I thought I was a plotter.

See, I love making outlines and hoarding information about my stories. It pleases my neurotic side to make timelines and such. You guys should see my research folder in Scrivener . . . it's insane.

However, I'm not very good about creating an outline with much depth. My plot points are just that. Points. Meager, pitiful points. Sure, they make an arc, but there's absolutely NO substance. Also, I have yet to outline an ending. Ever.

And this is where my pantsing side comes in. Oh, my characters need to get from A to B? Well, hmm. Not sure how that's going to happen. And they need to start hating each other by C because the first character needs to betray the second one? Yeah. Don't know about that either. And the ending? Oh, well, "dramatic climax" doesn't help at all, so I'll just completely pants the last 17,000 words.

It's a bit ridiculous. How did I ever call myself a plotter when I spend most of my drafting time trying to figure out how to make the pieces of my outline fit together? Yet, I can't call myself a panster either, because I always know where the story is headed.

So, does think make me a planster? A pantter? Eugh. Maybe I should just go wallow in the corner.

However, before that, I'm curious where you guys fall on the scale. Pantser, plotter, or somewhere in between? Tell me in the comments!

Book turnoffs

Well, today's post is a wee bit late as last night I succumbed to something called The Migraine. Wooo. So I'm really quickly going to talk about something that's been on my mind lately.

A while ago I talked about reading "meh" books and how I usually finish them. What I didn't talk about where those niggling story elements that alienate me right off the bat. The, shall we say, book turnoffs? We all have them--specific topics that we don't care to read about because we can't relate or we think they're boring or, well, any number of reasons.

My list is pretty short, but here, check it:

• Paranormal hunting. Hunting demons, hunting werewolves, etc, etc, etc.
• FAERIES IN NIGHTCLUBS. Or really, nightclubs in general.
• Mean Girls style high school drama. More specifically, super cliché Mean Girls high school drama.
• Vampires. I didn't even care about vampires before they were cool.
• Too much satire. I just can't handle it.
• Books that start with someone waking up and their morning routine . . . who cares?!

That's not to say that there aren't good books about these topics. Because there are! There are always exceptions, and I've read some of them. The DUFF has wonderful nightclub scenes, Before I Fall is a fantastic book full of mean girls, and Sisters Red is my favorite book about hunting things to date. And, of course, I'm sure there are some fantastic vampire books out there . . . I just don't go looking for them.

So what about you guys? Are there any specific elements that throw you out of a story? Do you try to give those elements a chance, or do you drop the book as quick as possible? Also, do you have any recommendations for me in regards to my turnoffs? Tell me in the comments!

It's getting closer and closer

The air is shimmering with heat, the local dairy is a parking nightmare because everyone WANTS ICE CREAM NOW, and the hobo spiders are frolicking like elk in mating season. The grass is in a state of permanent wilt, there are makeshift food stands everywhere with signs advertising corn and peaches, and the remnants of summer construction are starting to fade.

All of these are the signs of late August in southeastern Idaho. Do you guys know what that means?

Picture of the autumnal falls in Idaho Falls borrowed from Laughing Anne.

Leaves that change colors. Scarves. Fresh potatoes out of the field. A nip on the air. School supplies. Insects that will be out of sight because they're dead or hibernating. School buses. The smell of harvested alfalfa. Warm clothing like long pants and coats and other cute things. The state fair. New video game releases. Halloween. Sunlight that starts late and ends early. "Falling back" an hour. Gold grain against a dark sky. Cleaning out the garden. Control burns. Blankets. All the birds migrating away. The first overnight freeze.

That's right. It's almost autumn!

Definitely my favorite time of year. There's just something about, well, all those things I just listed. :D It gets me curious though . . . not everyone can love autumn (what's wrong with you people?!) . . . so tell me, what's your favorite season and why? Give me a heads up in the comments.

Should writers use tablets or PCs?

So tablets are pretty popular. They're thin and shiny and you use your fingers in order to make them do things. Supposedly they're going to replace the personal computer.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems like an accurate assumption for the general public--aka, the people who use their computers solely for Facebook and watching videos on YouTube and playing Plants vs. Zombies. But what about people who type for hours everyday? People like writers. Will tablets replace laptops and desktops for those people?

I say no. At least not anytime soon.

I don't know about you guys, but typing on a touchscreen has never been up there on my list of favorite things. The keyboard is cramped and you don't get the satisfaction of actually pressing a key in. I'm willing to forgo a tablet just so I can type without stressing my hands. And yeah, I know, it's possible to hook a wireless keyboard to your tablet--but that's just one extra thing to lug around.

Moving on. There is no tablet version of Scrivener. There is no tablet version of a lot of programs, and if your writing process requires one of them, well that makes things difficult. Continuing on that vein, if you own an iPad, you can only run one process at a time . . . so there's no music + Twitter + writing document + chat window + email. Sure, it's good for staying-on-task, but inconvenient if you need to bounce between programs.

These are little, nitpicky issues and I know of many people who actively write on their tablets. But right now, it seems easier to stick with my laptop . . . which already does everything I want and need it to.

So what side do you fall on in the tablet vs. PC debate? Do you own one of the other? Are you a diehard fan of the desktop and the laptop? Or do you welcome our tablet overlords with open arms? Tell me in the comments.

The weakness of trilogies (also, pirates!)

I want to talk about trilogies. And I'm going to use the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy as my example, because there's a good chance that most of you've seen those movies.

Yes, I'm ignoring that On Stranger Tides even exists, because it's different.

Now, everyone can probably all agree that the first movie, The Curse of the Black Pearl, was awesome. We were introduced to a new world with drunken pirates and people that could become undead skeletons without dying. No one expected that movie to be what it was, and that's one of the things that made it great. Not to mention Jack Sparrow.

Let's skip ahead a bit. The third movie, At World's End, was also pretty exciting. All of the quirkiness and drama in the previous Pirates of the Caribbean movies was amplified and brought the trilogy to a satisfactory conclusion. There was also an epic pirate battle and a giant crab woman. It's kind of difficult to beat that.

So you might be wondering why I skipped the second movie. First, let me be clear: Dead Man's Chest wasn't a bad movie. There was a kraken, and you guys know how I feel about squid. The things is, I don't think Dead Man's Chest was as good of a movie as the other two.

This isn't an uncommon thing. In trilogies one of the installments always seems to suffer and it's usually the second. Why? Because of exposition. Think about it--most of Dead Man's Chest was spent on exposition. We learned about a lot of crazy new stuff, like Davy Jones and Will's dad. Things were further complicated by the love triangle and the British navy and Jack's schemes. But none of the loose ends were tied up. Instead they were all saved for At World's End.

Which is probably a good thing, because if Dead Man's Chest hadn't been the weakest link, then At World's End would have suffered as a movie. And you can't end a trilogy on a dull note.

So what do you think? Is it just in the nature of a trilogy to have a not-so-great second installment? Is there any way to keep a three-part storyline from sagging, or is it inevitable? And why do you think trilogies suffer from this issue, but not extended series like Harry Potter? Tell me your thoughts in the comments.

What do you think I should blog about?

So, blogging rocks. It's a nice way to subject you guys to my thoughts. And chat of course. Because that's always good. However, as of late, I've had a lot of trouble coming up with post ideas that seem interesting.

Seriously. I feel like the bag post is the ultimate low. But let's not talk about that.

Now, at this point some people might take a blogging break. But I'm afraid if I stray from my 3-posts-a-week schedule, then I'll just stop posting. Not because I don't like blogging (because, you know, I actually do like it), but because I'm lazy. Really. Those people that blog everyday? I secretly think they're crazy. Well, maybe intimidating is more the right word.

I guess what I'm really wondering is what you guys do when you can't think of anything to blog about? Do you agonize at your computer for hours or do you do other things until inspiration strikes? And what kinds of posts do you find interesting to read anyway? I'd love some feedback, so give me a heads up in the comments.

What soundtracks do you write to?

Like most writers, I like listening to music while I'm writing. Unlike a lot of writers, my soundtracks usually consist of music with lyrics. As of late, however, this has become an issue. The same songs I was writing to a month ago have become super distracting. So I've turned to soundtracks.

Now I have a decent soundtrack collection. Unfortunately, it's not very writing friendly. For example, the music from Lord of the Rings is so iconic that I can't separate the two in my brain. Some of my other soundtracks are heavy on the ambiance. The Hours has some lovely piano pieces, but it's all a bit ghostly. The Portal 2 soundtrack is fun, but a bit too electronica at times.

I'm looking for something epic and dramatic and meaningful and perfect to write to. But I don't have it.

This is where you guys come in. Because I need your help. Do any of you write to soundtracks? Are you partial to any composers or any soundtracks in particular? I've heard some good things about the music from Stardust, Inception, and Hotel Rwanda, but can anyone confirm or deny? Give me some recommendations in the comments!

Do you finish "meh" books?

If you peruse the book/writing blog circles, you've probably seen this sentiment: There isn't enough time to be reading bad books.

In theory, this makes sense. I don't know about the rest of you, but I generally know pretty quick whether I'm going to like a book or not. Maybe it's the language or the elements of the story, but it only takes a couple chapters for that "off" feeling to set in. As Maggie Stiefvater said last Wednesday, writers start a book out with a certain number of "gimme points." Every time the author does something that irks the reader, they loose points, and the instant those points run out, the book gets dropped.

Now me? I'm pretty forgiving when I read a book. There are only a handful that I never bothered to finish.

You see, I always have this slight hope that things will get better by the end. That maybe if I read one more chapter, something awesome will happen. That somehow the book will wrap up so beautifully that everything I was feeling "meh" about in the beginning will fade away to nothingness.

Sometimes this happens, but very rarely. In my case, that's how I felt about Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments. Even though I couldn't get into City of Bones, I forced myself to read the sequel, City of Ashes, and was happily surprised by how much I liked it. Needless to say, I've been on the bandwagon ever since. But only because I pushed forward.

Which makes me curious about what you guys think. What books have you read lately that you couldn't get into?  And how long does it take you to put down a book? Are there any story elements that turn you off immediately? Or do you always push through to the end, even when you could be reading something you enjoy more? Tell me in the comments.

I have a secret

You read right. A dread secret. It's something I've kept from you all, but maybe if I reveal it now, after we've all become so close, you'll hate me less. Do you think you could bring it in your hearts to forgive me, writers and readers and internet surfers of the world?

Okay. With that hearty exclamation of, "YES," I guess I can tell you.

Are you ready? Here it goes.

I do not like coffee.

*screams and gasps*

That's right. I'm a writer that doesn't like coffee. I don't even like the smell of coffee. When people hand me their frou frou coffee drink with the assurance that "you can't even taste the coffee," well guess what? I can still taste the evil brew lurking behind copious amounts of cream and flavored syrup.

Yes, it's true. I'm the person that goes into the coffee shop and gets a chai latte. Or a cup of earl grey. I scorn your macchiatos and your frappuccinos and your other very long, difficult to spell, Italian-based words. I'd rather drink something else.

Okay, now, in all seriousness. The stereotypical writer seems to love coffee and booze (hey, maybe that's a post for the future). Coffee for those neurotic writing sessions and booze . . . for the same reason. Hmm. Anyway, everyone likes to talk about coffee like it's their lifeblood. Except, well, me.

I like milk.

*crickets chirp*

So! I'm curious about you guys. Love coffee? Hate coffee? Are you ashamed or proud to fall in with the masses of coffee-drinking people? Can we still be friends after this terrible confession of mine? Is drinking coffee really part of being a writer, or is there more to it than that? Tell me about your drinking habits in the comments.

Lexiconic pontifications

Words are the number one tool of the writer. Without words there are no sentences, no paragraphs, no chapters, and ultimately, there are no books. Sometimes the biggest problem of a writer is coming up with the right word for the situation. But this post is not about word choice deliberation. Or, at least, not in such a straightforward manner.

I have a question. How do you feel about using difficult vocabulary in books?

I'm specifically referring to the vocabulary found in YA and adult books. Why? Because most of the people reading them appear to have a fairly stagnant word bank.

That's right. Younger readers are encouraged to learn new words all of the time. But, teens and adults don't actively try to improve their vocabulary and, thus, the average reading level of adults in the United States is somewhere in the 8th-9th grade range.

I'm asking because a lot of people think challenging vocabulary is obnoxious--especially when there's a lot of it. Sure, the Kindle has made this less of an issue thanks to its dictionary function, but not many people have e-readers and not every word is in the dictionary (ie: foreign words).

Now I think that writers should feel free to use whatever words they want. The instant you start paring down your vocabulary to accommodate people, your story suffers. You have to write what you feel--what fits with the book. For example, what would a story in a cake shop be without mention of fondant?

However, you must be aware of your audience at the same time. No one wants to look up a word every five sentences. Make it easy to infer your meaning. Also, you definitely shouldn't be using complex vocabulary in picture books.

So what do you think about words like luxuriate and mien? Do you want to see them in a book? Or should writers try to limit their vocabulary? Do you think that writers threaten to alienate their audience or muddle the meaning of their stories through certain word usage? Tell me what you think in the comments!

The Man Story

Hi. I have a question for all of you. But first, some background!

So I spent my college education primarily as a creative writing major. As such, I spent a lot of time in workshop classes. For anyone that doesn't know, a workshop is basically a giant critique group. There's kind of a debate on the net about whether they're a waste of time or not, but I'll talk about that some other day.

Anyway, there are two things to know about fiction writing workshops in college: 1) they're all about short stories, and 2) they strongly encourage that you write literary fiction. When you Take these two things and throw them at a dude, something exciting will happen. This is what we like to call the Man Story.

But let's cut to the chase and just define what makes a story the Man Story:

• The author and narrator are both college males
• The narrator's best friend is kind of a womanizing douchebag
• But the narrator actually is a decent guy
• They may smoke pot together at some point
• The narrator doesn't know where he's going with his life
• There is a girl who once had relations with the narrator or the douchebag
• The narrator and the girl have unresolved sexual tension
• There is usually some kind of mundane task involved
• And a lot of the time said task doesn't gets completed
• The narrator has an epiphany of some sort--usually that his life sucks
• Nothing much really happens at all ... other than the mundane task

Does that sound familiar to you guys? It probably will if you've gone through college level creative writing workshops. Then again, maybe it won't. Which is why I'm posting this today, because I'm curious whether this phenomenon was limited to Montana people or whether this is worldwide sort of thing.

So really, tell me. Does this sound familiar? Have you read the Man Story before? Better yet, have you written a version of the Man Story? Tell me about it in the comments.

YA lit and first person narrative

I've noticed a trend lately. There's a good chance you've noticed it too if you read YA literature. It doesn't matter the genre really, this trend seems to fit any category. And no, it's not vampires.

It's first person narrative.

I suppose I should back up for the possibility that some of you have no idea what I'm talking about. Quick rundown time! First person, second person, and third person are the three basic types of point-of-view narration in writing. Here are the differences:

First Person: I like squid because they are cute.
Second Person: You like squid because they are cute.
Third Person: Sarah likes squid because they are cute.

I dare you to say Mr. Bobtail Squid isn't cute.

Now for some real life application: First person takes place in the head of a character. Second person is generally limited to Choose Your Own Adventure novels and instruction pamphlets. Third person is outside of a character's head and can take the form of a narrator. Ultimately, first person is really intimate, second person pulls the reader into the action, and third person can zoom in and out of narrative focus.

Now let's get back to what I was saying.

I don't have anything against first person narrative, but it's starting to feel like whenever I pick up a new YA book, it's always in first person! Maybe it's because it's so easy for people to relate to something written in first person, or maybe it's because all of the current writers happen to really like first person. Either way, first person narratives are really popular right now and I'm curious about the whys of the matter.

Personally, I've always felt that third person has a delightful flexibility. First person is fun to read and write too, but I usually stick to third. Which is maybe why this whole first person narrative explosion is confusing to me. I'm biased. So I'm turning the question to you guys.

Are you partial to the first, second, or third person narrative? Is one better than the other? Why? Do you like to write in one and read in another? Or doesn't it make a difference? Please tell me in the comments.