short story boom?

Lately, there's been some high-profile debate about a possible boom in short stories. Earlier this month Leslie Kaufman wrote Good Fit for Today’s Little Screens: Short Stories for The New York Times which states the internet is a good thing for short-story writers. She states, Story collections, an often underappreciated literary cousin of novels, are experiencing a resurgence, driven by a proliferation of digital options that offer not only new creative opportunities but exposure and revenue as well. It's an interesting article. You should check it out.

However, last week Laura Miller disagreed in Sorry, the short story boom is bogus for Salon.com. She states, This would be good news — if there were any reason at all to think it was true. and goes on, at length, to discuss "this imaginary renaissance." This is also an interesting article. You should check it out, too.
To be fair, Miller does say, With the exception of certain communities of genre writer and readers — most notable in science fiction — these writers aren’t reaching a wider audience because they aren’t especially trying to.

As an author with a MFA, I'd say authors have always written short stories. It's a great way to hone your craft. Short stories also enable writers to experiment with all aspects of writing/story-telling. Historically, short story markets for mainstream and literary fiction have been limited. Is this still true?
As a student and writer of science fiction, there's a strong tradition of SF authors writing and selling short stories. SF was born in the pulp magazines. The biggest print pro-rate markets still exist and there have been some new pro-rate digital markets. I would say the SF short story market is booming.
As a reader, there are definitely a lot of new opportunities to buy short fiction via all the digital markets.
So, IMHO, readers are reading short fiction and authors are getting paid.
Boom!

What do you think?

Changing Directions

One of my critique partners is generally very positive. At a recent meeting, she was not as positive as usual. The gist of her message was: this is boring. Wow. If my most positive partner thinks something isn't working, it must not be working. And when I was honest with myself, I knew the book was treading water. Nothing was really happening. Egads!
Writer's tip: if something doesn't seem to be working, even if it's only in the back of your mind, it's probably not working.

So, I went back to the last time something interesting happened and asked myself how can I keep the excitement level up? How can I make the action build? Obviously, my first idea—which I wrote—was boring. So I got out a sheet of paper and wrote: What could happen? What would be exciting? It was like pulling teeth, but I made a big list of possible events, some of them ridiculous, some of them silly, some of them boring. The rule was: nothing was off limits. Use your imagination.
I then picked an idea which was more exciting and wrote a new chapter.

After I finished the new, much better, chapter, I tried it again. What could happen? I picked a new interesting idea and wrote a new chapter. Rinse and repeat. :)
Yes, I did end up throwing out about five chapters, but now, my imagination is sparking. I can't seem to stop thinking of exciting new ideas for what happens next. Huzzah!
The moral of this story is: don't be afraid to change directions in your writing. Of course, everyone's process is different.

What process works for you?

critiquing

My critique groups have been undergoing quite a bit of change lately. I don't know if everyone's making changes and resolutions at the beginning of the new year or what. The net result is I have some different critique partners. And they are writing and submitting up a storm. Yeah! I love the enthusiasm new critique partners bring to a group. There's a certain honeymoon period where they seem to think, 'You mean I get write stuff and get a bunch of feedback for free?' Of course, the honeymoon can end when they actually study the critiques they get. 'You mean my work isn't perfect?' If writers can consider critique and keep writing and keep going to group, that bodes well for their writing career.

Critique group exists to give feedback. Critiquers should say briefly what works in a piece, but they should also say what doesn't work. Critiquers should also be very specific. 'This rocks.' or 'This sucks.' do not contain any actionable information. 'This plot twist was unexpected but takes the work in a new and exciting direction.' is specific. 'When the protagonist beat up the little kid, he was very unsympathetic.' is specific. Be specific when critiquing!

I find I often say some of the same things over and over to critique partners. I'm not sure what to make of this. One of my MFA professors called this "bobble-headisms" and said each writer has certain mistakes they tend to make. The example he gave was one writer who's characters kept nodding their heads all the time. Good writers learn what mistakes they make and try to correct them before they submit to critique group or for publication. This particular professor recommended making a hit-list of writing problems and then looking for them after a draft is finished and wiping them out. Bam! Bam!

I started this post thinking about critique partners, but maybe I need to do my own homework. What mistakes do I tend to make? Hhm...
How about you? What mistakes do you tend to make? Do you know? How can you find out?
Good luck!

writing process is a snowflake

I have a number of critique partners now and I've had scads more if you add up those from the past. And if there's one thing I've learned from all these writers it is: everyone's writing process is a snowflake--unique. (Please don't confuse this with The Snowflake Method of writing.)

I'm a pantster; I do not plot my novels in advance. Does this mean I have to do revisions? Definitely. Would it be more efficient to plot the book out in advance? No. The Muse is a tricky mistress. I tried this once and it sucked all the joy out of writing for me; I never finished that novel.
On the other hand, I have a writer friend who totally plots the book out in advance. She creates a detailed ~50 page outline before she starts the book. More power to her. Thus, obviously, any amount of plotting can work.

I do usually start with a Big Idea for my novels. Alternately, I have a writer friend who couldn't tell you what the Big Ideas are for her novels even after they've been published. Any amount of Big Idea can work.

What works for a lot of writers is to give themselves permission to write a crappy first draft. Then, you can go back and fix whatever you personally need to fix in rewrites. One of my critique partners has trouble with dialogue tags. One of my critique partners has trouble with descriptions. One of my critique partners has trouble with adverbs. IMHO, if you stop and obsess about getting everything perfect right out of the gate, you'll never make it to the finish line, aka "The End."
But, if you need to obsess, go for it. :)

Take advantage of your snowflake. Do whatever works for you! Good luck!

story paradigms

I read an interesting article about different paradigms in story-telling: "Thought Experiments: The View from the Other Side: Science Fiction and Non-Western/Non-Anglophone Countries" by Aliette De Bodard. You can read it on the web here: http://www.asimovs.com/2010_09/thoughtexperiments.shtml. De Bodard claims A common criticism leveled at science fiction is that it is dominated by the Western world, leaving little space for other countries. As she lays out, this is somewhat true, primarily because of marketing and other commerce issues.
What really caught my eye was the concept that different cultures have different story paradigms.

I've long been a fan of Robert Silverberg's theory of story. You can read about it on the web here: http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0404/ref.shtml. The gist is: there is indeed one story only: the story of a conflict–perhaps with some external force, perhaps entirely within the soul of the protagonist–that leads to a clear resolution and illumination. The story paradigm was handed down through Western culture from the ancient Greek tragic drama.

But apparently this isn't the only story paradigm. Not all Earth cultures descended from the Greeks, after all. As De Bodard outlines, The great novels of the Ming and Qing dynasty (fourteenth century to twentieth century) are not plot or character-centered, and do not have a neat, tidy resolution or a climax. Rather, they aim to present a variety of images, themes, and personalities, ... “infinite overlapping and alternation,” a feeling of endlessness that is not rooted in some underlying meaning of the world.

Wow!

What do you think? Does this free your creative juices to flow in new and unexpected directions?
And kudos to Asimov's Science Fiction for making such interesting articles available.

ghetto or gangnam?

Here's an interesting question that's been wending it's way around cyberspace lately: 21st Century Science Fiction and Fantasy: Ghetto, or Gangnam Style?: Science fiction and fantasy creators and fans were originally outsiders… misfits who got no respect from the mainstream… who stood on the outside looking in. How much has changed in today’s world… a world in which popular culture oozes SF and fantasy elements?

IMHO, Science Fiction and Fantasy are mainstream now. We live in a SF/F world with our cell phones, aka mini super-computers in the palms of our hands, quantum dot televisions, privatized space travel and all the rest. Almost all the highest worldwide movie grosses have been in the SF/F ouvre, e.g. Avatar, Marvel's The Avengers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, etc. Conferences like Comic Con and their imitators are rampant. Many of the most popular TV shows are in the SF/F genre, such as Big Bang Theory, Supernatural, The Vampire Diaries, Once Upon a Time, Person of Interest, Revolution, Beauty and the Beast, Arrow, depending on which list you consult.

Even if we just focus on fiction, what do we see?
What were the best-selling books in 2012? Yep, you guessed it, many science fiction and fantasy titles, including The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay, Heroes of Olympus: The Mark of Athena, The Hobbit, A Game of Thrones, The kane Chronicales: The Serpent's Shadow, A Dance With Dragons, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords and a lot more. And that doesn't even include the whole Twilight vampire series which was super hot in 2010 and before, and the whole Harry Potter series which was white-hot in 2007 and before.

Here's another indication SF/F has become prevalent: Doris Lessing won the Novel Prize in Literature in 2007, partly for her "space fiction"--as she put it.
So that's my 2 cents, SF/F is as popular as Gangnam Style. :)

What do you think? Ghetto, or Gangnam Style?

No Death Star

I don't know if you all ever participate in We the People: Your Voice in our Government, but there was an interesting petition lately "Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016." I can only assume this was a joke? Since it garnered over 25,000 signatures it got an official response from the white house. Check it out on the We the People website, or below:

Official White House Response to Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016.
This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

By Paul Shawcross

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

• The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
• The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
• Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

However, look carefully (here's how) and you'll notice something already floating in the sky -- that's no Moon, it's a Space Station! Yes, we already have a giant, football field-sized International Space Station in orbit around the Earth that's helping us learn how humans can live and thrive in space for long durations. The Space Station has six astronauts -- American, Russian, and Canadian -- living in it right now, conducting research, learning how to live and work in space over long periods of time, routinely welcoming visiting spacecraft and repairing onboard garbage mashers, etc. We've also got two robot science labs -- one wielding a laser -- roving around Mars, looking at whether life ever existed on the Red Planet.

Keep in mind, space is no longer just government-only. Private American companies, through NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO), are ferrying cargo -- and soon, crew -- to space for NASA, and are pursuing human missions to the Moon this decade.

Even though the United States doesn't have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, we've got two spacecraft leaving the Solar System and we're building a probe that will fly to the exterior layers of the Sun. We are discovering hundreds of new planets in other star systems and building a much more powerful successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will see back to the early days of the universe.

We don't have a Death Star, but we do have floating robot assistants on the Space Station, a President who knows his way around a light saber and advanced (marshmallow) cannon, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is supporting research on building Luke's arm, floating droids, and quadruped walkers.

We are living in the future! Enjoy it. Or better yet, help build it by pursuing a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field. The President has held the first-ever White House science fairs and Astronomy Night on the South Lawn because he knows these domains are critical to our country's future, and to ensuring the United States continues leading the world in doing big things.

If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Paul Shawcross is Chief of the Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget

Excellent response, Mr. Shawcross!