Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Continuity, Rules & Too Many Hobbits.

By Jay Stringer

beep beep beep

Before I hit you over the head with today's top-heavy blog, I have a quick announcement. Do you like Ray Banks? Of course you do, his books are awesome. Do you like Tony Black? Well, again, naturally, you're not fools. And do you like Russel D McLean? Why yes, because he has the finest beard in all of Dundee.

Well you're in luck. Because the three of them will be in the same place at the same time this week, at the Steps theatre in Dundee, this thursday (14th.) I'll be heading oop north to see what hijinks they can get up to.

Go on, you know you want to.

beep beep beep.



Dave's blog from last week set me thinking in a million ways. Most of it applied to comic books, but there's also some film, TV and books thrown in there.

First he talked about following writers rather than characters. We do that, of course, in novels. Aside from the many tie-in books to franchises like STAR WARS or JAMES BOND, we tend to follow the writer. In TV it's trickier, because the writer is not always a selling point. The internet makes it easier to track down, say, which episodes of DOCTOR WHO are written by Steven Moffat, or which X-Files are written by the potato guy. But the show itself is still the selling point, or those two cute vampires, or that dude with the moustache and the list, or other references that show how out of touch I am with the small screen.

Films tend to be sold with the concept, the lead actor and the director. The writer is usually an afterthought at every stage of the process, unless they're also the director, in which case suddenly the marketing men are really interested in telling us who the writer is.

Now, in comics, it's front and centre. Every few years the focus changes between writing and art, each one gets a few years as being the hip element. But no matter which discipline is on top, they're both listed on the cover. And that allows comic fans a choice. They can pick it up just because it's got Batdude in it, they can pick it up because they like the artist, or they can pick it up because they like the writer.

Or any combination of the above.

Me? For new comics I'm where Dave is. I follow a writer. I find a voice that I like, and I follow him or her wherever they go. I have loyalties older than that though. I'm still programmed to pick something up if Daredevil is in it. And I'll take a look if John Constantine or Batman are in it. And the same does hold true of film, books and TV. I'll pick up any new Indiana Jones novel that comes out (not exactly a boom industry) or any film featuring Batdude. But by and large I'm following the writers in those industries, too. When I see a film poster that looks interesting, I check out the small print to see who wrote it. I'm usually looking for the words "Christopher" and "McQaurrie," but that search is rarely rewarded. There was a time when I would pick up any comic that had the name Frank Miller attached to it, but we've long since agreed to see other people.

So I follow the writer in most things, but with an eye on the character, the larger story or the director involved.

But what this leads to, for those of us with geek blood, is questions of continuity.

The word gets used way to much. There are people out there who will declare war if a character is depicted with the wrong shade of hair, or is an inch to short, or if the writer doesn't drop in a reference to everything that's ever happened ever.

It's become such a dark and dirty word simply by it's mis-use. I remember when I was slating the Wolverine movie to anyone and everyone who would listen, and I was raising issues of continuity, and they would roll their eyes because I was just another geek moaning about something that doesn't matter.

But I like to argue for the kind of continuity that does matter. Internal logic. For instance -do i care whether or not Wolverine is portrayed as a six footer of as a five foot runt? Nope. Do I care whether he's Canadian? Well, That feels like an important part of the character to me, but I can accept if the film needs to tell it a different way. However, when the film has a villain who can produce a six foot sword out of his wrist, I want to know how he bends his elbows when the sword is retracted. If a character with mutant healing powers can be given amnesia by being shot in the head, I want to know how that works.

The only sense of continuity that really matters is to the telling of the story. Does it flow? Does it make sense? If it doesn't make sense, is it confusing in a way that's leading to something? Do all of the different parts of the story fit together, and has the writer done the heavy lifting?

Get those issues sorted first and foremost, then worry about the geekier details later. It's useless being able to reference what Bruce Banner was doing in 1996 if you can't remember what he was doing earlier in the story, or if you cant sell us on the motivation of what he's about to do. So get the internal continuity nailed down first, then as an added bonus try and fit the story into the history of the character as best you can.

But if we're following writers rather than characters, how do we deal with those larger issues of continuity? Dave has been binging on Doctor Who. It's a show with 50 years of history, but the quality writing of the episodes he's watched would (I assume) mean that he's not had too many sleepless nights about what the Doctor said to the bishop in 1972. You can watch the first episode of season 5 (31) as if it were a brand new show. Sure, the characters clearly have a history, but then all characters have a history. And if and when your favourite writer steps off the comic book or TV show, you can choose to follow. That can be the end of the characters story.

Here's the thing; We make our own continuity.

We do it all day every day, filtering what we need and what we don't. Which bits of our lives are important to remember and which aren't. Which movies exist and which don't.

When I think of the James Bond films, I think of a handful of films and ignore the rest. When I think of Doctor Who, I think of the many years worth of episodes that I've enjoyed and filter out the ones I haven't. I definitely ignore the fact that the USA/BBC TV movie decided he was half-human, which has never been referenced before or since. Writers tried for years in the tie-in novels to find ways to explain that strange bit of writing, but I just say, ignore it.

As a Batman fan I have to leave out whole decades worth of stories that don't fit with the time line I hold onto. When I read Spiderman I read it with no memory of the clone saga or of Spidey revealing his identity to the world. When reading Green Lantern over the past few years, I did so with no notion that Hal Jordan went insane in 1994 and killed all his friends before turning into a super-being, re-igniting the sun and getting reincarnated as a spirit of vengeance.

Being the Indiana Jones geek that I am, I have choices to make there, too. The films are canon. But the TV show and the books contradict each other ever so slightly, so certain rough edges have to be ignored. He went after items in the books that he also went after in comic books, so I have to simply go with whichever story worked best.

In books I'll take long running series, like Scudder or Rebus, and tend to think only of the four or five that are essential to the character. I'm also currently under the spell that Rebus ended a book earlier and that (until recently) Scudder's story skipped a few books in the early 90's and then stopped altogether after EVERYBODY DIES.

I spent many years in my youth continuing to buy comics out of duty, long after I'd stopped enjoying the story. I still have friends who continue to pick up titles that they don't enjoy every month simply because they want to see where the story or character is going. You can choose your ending at any point. I know that new issues of THE WALKING DEAD come out every month, and I hear good things about them sometimes, but I reached a story beat that felt like a satisfying close for me and I stopped buying the issues. And we each have an opinion over where Peter Jackson's RETURN OF THE KING should have ended, right?

And that's before we all get together to argue over with cut of BLADE RUNNER we want to roll with.

So these are my simple steps to a stress free life in the world of comics, films, TV and continuity;

-Follow the creator(s) that you like.
-Don't sweat on continuity as long as the story is making sense.
-Over time, build up your own version of continuity that allows you to sleep at night.
-Walk away whenever it stops working for you.

Hey, did I forget to mention the rule about slash fiction? I did? Well, here it is; Never, ever read slash fiction.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Wolves and news

By Steve Weddle

We were honored to be mentioned along with some great folks for this year's Spinetingler Awards.

The Do Some Damage collection, TERMINAL DAMAGE, has been nominated for Best Anthology. Incidentally, the BEAT TO A PULP antho, containing work by our own Scott Parker, was also nominated.

In addition to the collection, the Do Some Damage site itself was nominated for the David Thompson Community Leader Award. This, I think, has more to do with the community of people joining us each day to chat about issues in crime fiction -- and Wolves football. So, you know, congrats to all of you reading this. And thanks for the support and the interaction. You can vote here.

And speaking of Wolves and interaction, this week we start the discussion for our most recent pick in the DSD Book Group -- THE WOLVES OF FAIRMOUNT PARK by Dennis Tafoya.


From Publishers WeeklyStarred Review. Dennis Lehane fans will welcome Tafoya's second crime novel, which delivers on the promise of his debut, Dope Thief. A drive-by shooting in front of a Philadelphia dope house claims two victims, Michael Donovan and George Parkman Jr., and leads to an intense search for the gunman. Both fathers--Brendan Donovan, a cop whose son was wounded, and George Parkman Sr., whose son died--can't help wondering if the incident was somehow connected with Brendan's younger half-brother, Orlando, a ne'er-do-well drug addict. Tafoya skillfully shifts among the perspectives of the two grieving fathers, Orlando, and Danny Martinez, the primary investigator on the case. The bleak worldview Brendan articulates ("Nobody knew anybody. Nobody knew the first goddamn thing about their wives or their husbands or their kids or their friends") will resonate with classic noir readers, who will hope Tafoya is their guide through the mean streets for years to come. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
So head on over to the DSD Book Group and let's chat about the book. Ready? Go.

By the way, check out THE LINEUP, a collection of crime poems.

And thanks again to Spinetingler and all who support us and our work.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The devil is in the details

by: Joelle Charbonneau

When you talk to non-writers they all express amazement at ability of an author to sit down at a keyboard and write enough words to create an entire book. I have to admit at one time I felt the same way. However, I would argue that as hard as it is to write a novel, it is even harder to go back with a critical eye and revise it.

Revising is a skill set separate from creating a story. I’m not talking about fixing typos and punctuation, although these are important things to do. True revising is the ability to look at your work with an eye for what works best – not for what you like best. Sometimes the sentences we love the most and the characters that pull at our personal heart strings are not the ones that belong in the story. Sometimes the scene that was written to give a fabulous “the reader really needs to know this” look at the past of the protagonist is totally unnecessary. Learning how to judge which scene, line, word is necessary to drive the story forward and which is just slowing things down is hard.

Really hard.

When revising you have to ask yourself:

1) Does this scene drive the plot?
2) Are my sentence structures varied?
3) Does every sentence (or every other sentence) start with the same words?
4) Does the chapter/scene end with a page-turning hook?
5) Does the dialogue read naturally? (Tip - read this stuff out loud. It will really make a difference.)
6) Do I really need every word in this sentence?
7) Are there large paragraphs of backstory? If so, do they slow down the pace? (Chances are they might!)
8) Is the Point Of View clear?
9) Is the scene in the correct character’s Point of View?
10) Etc…Etc…Etc…

The revising questions go on and on.

Each author has their own reaction to revisions which can range from loving them to hating them. Many who hate them feel that once they hit THE END the story is over. They would much rather be working on a new story than to be dragged kicking and screaming back to the keyboard and open the document again. Then there is the other end of the spectrum where the author revises the same manuscript over and over and over again always thinking there is a better way to tell the story. These writers often get bogged down in the revisions to the point that they can’t let go and start something new.

And just like writing the story itself, every author has their own process to revisions. Some authors need to take weeks or months away from their work before they can go back and revise. Others jump in the very day they type the last page. Neither is wrong. The most important thing is for an author to find what is right for them.

Regardless of which category you fall into, I can promise you one thing – learning to critically look at your own writing is one of the most important skills you can have as a writer. Yes, your editor is there to make sure your work is the best it can be, but sometimes they don’t have the time to put into your work or are having personal problems and aren’t doing their job as well as they otherwise might. And let’s face it, even when your editor is at the top of his or her game, you want their edits to make your really good book an excellent one. You don’t want them worrying about whether your sentence structure needs work when they could be working on finding the final touches that will make your book really shine.

There is only so much an editor (or an agent for that matter) can do. You have to do the rest.

Does that sound preachy? Probably. But I don’t think it makes it any less true. So tell me – do you love or hate revisions? And what is your revision process? Do you jump right in or you need distance from the story before you can start playing with it again?