On the road to the Pacific Northwest starting tomorrow. I hope to be back first week of August. I’ll try to check in from time to time. Please don’t break anything.
Author: skzb
I play the drum.
Making the Reader Work
Sometimes I get the complaint on my books that, early on, I give information without sufficient context to understand it, leaving the reader confused. It’s true; I do this. I do it for the simple reason that, as a reader, I love when writers do that and manage to pull it off. When they fail to pull it off, not so much. There is no simple formula to answer the question: how much work should I demand of the reader early on? But there are some things to consider.
In general, this information falls into three types: 1) Trust me, I’ll get to it. 2) You don’t need to know. 3) If you need context for this, you’re an idiot. I tend to give information without sufficient explanation or context when, with a first-person or a close third-person point of view, it would be out of character for the narrator to describe it, and that would knock me out of the story (I can think of numerous writers who do this; I shan’t name them).
In The Incrementalists, for example, the first of those has to do with the nature of the world we’ve created, and special terms used in and about that world. With this, it is the author’s responsibility, not to explain, but to earn the reader’s trust enough to convince the reader that, if you just keep going, all will be well. The second has to do with things like poker terms. These will often read as if they are the same as the first; the difference emerges later, when the reader realizes that they’ve never been explained and it doesn’t matter. For the third–if I’ve given you a date, and said that the guy is watching the news, then mention some news stories, well, sorry; you have everything you ought to need and if it bugs you that’s your problem.
The big question for a writer is: How do I earn the reader’s trust? Interestingly enough, one the best ways involves creating more confusion. That is, if on the very first page, there are terms and concepts the reader couldn’t possibly be expected to understand, the reader will have the reaction, “Well, clearly I’m not meant to get it, so the writer must be doing this deliberately, so I’m in good hands.” Zelazny was a master of this technique. Another way is to simply make the events that are clear, or the narrative, so compelling the reader feels the need to continue, no matter what. Zelazny didn’t suck at that, either.
The question remains, though, just how far to push reader confusion. There’s no simple answer. It’s a balancing act, and one of the things that determines how well a given reader will like a given writer is how strong a match-up there is on this balance. Too little explanation and I get confused and frustrated. Too much explanation, and I get bored and insulted. Hit it perfectly, and one of the joys of story opens up, as I go, “Ah! THAT’s what’s going on! Cool!” and I realize that, had it been laboriously explained, I’d have been denied the epiphany.
But the fact is, for some readers, nothing is going to work except a careful, step-by-step explanation of each new concept. For those readers, all I can say is, there are plenty of other writers who will provide that, so I suggest you read one of them.
ETA: David Wohlreich (@wallrike on Twitter) said it beautifully: “When a fish explains what water is, I’m unhappy.”
Anthem of the SFWA-Fascists
We’re the SFWA-fascists, all of us agree
On every single subject as long as it’s PC.
We follow every liberal fad.
But we aren’t ALPHA, which makes us sad.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.
We control all publications as you can plainly see.
We won’t let you speak if we think you disagree.
All SFWA officers are in cahoots,
Goosestepping in rainbow striped jackboots.
We are the SFWA-fascists within the SF world.
We get special treatment from each publisher in town,
And if you don’t agree with us, why, we will shut you down.
Sign our petition for your royalty checks;
Mystery and romance will be next.
The evil SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.
Mainstream publishing we will redesign;
To write we have to see your name on the dotted line.
Our liberal agenda will leave you awed.
We even ignore the voice of God.
Concieted SFWA-fascists who run the SF world.
We’ll shut down all the flirting, but that is just the start.
If you talk to anyone we’ll move you two apart.
No mercy no quarter and no truce
Till the human race can’t reproduce.
That’s how the SFWA-fascists will rule the SF world.
The SFWAs were created for the straight white males.
We must hound them to oblivion until publishing fails.
Gould and Swirsky head the lists
With all those other socialists.
We are the SFWA-fascists who are the SF world.
——————————————————————
Tune: Lily Marlane/D-Day Dodgers
Lyrics: Steven Brust
Thirty Years of This Shit
About thirty years ago, my first book, Jar-head, came out. This is a good time to take a look back. It would be an excellent time to reflect on the changes in the publishing industry if, in fact, I had ever paid attention to the publishing industry.
It is a privilege. I have held, since 1986 when I quit my day job, that writing well enough to publish is a matter of hard work and dedication, and making a living at it is a matter of dumb luck. I had a lot of dumb luck.
I’ve gotten lucky in my covers (I mean, holy shit have I gotten lucky in my covers). Early on, a lucky break (that I still don’t entirely understand) gave me what is called a “lead spot” sooner than skill or sales ought to have provided it. I’ve had amazing editors, who know what I’m trying to do, and want me to do it better, and know how to help. I’ve had an absolutely amazing critique group that did the same. Above all, I’ve gotten lucky that, when I tell the next story I wish someone else had told, it turns out that enough other people like it to keep a roof over my head, food in my mouth, and the lights on.
I’ve had the opportunity to learn from some of the best. I’ve had the opportunity to teach (which, as anyone who has ever taught can tell you, is one of the best ways to learn). And learning is a joy. I’ve been a process geek for almost the whole thirty years; I’ve developed a fascination for what makes a story work, what makes it fail to work, and where there are boundaries that can be pushed. Of all the emotional changes writing has put me through, “bored” has never been one, and I think that is in part because I happened (there’s the luck again) to have a deep fascination for process that constantly plays into my love of story. Sometimes I think of a cool story idea and I go, “I must tell that.” Sometimes I think of a cool way to tell a story and I go, “I must try that.” Sometimes I think of a really cool line: “I must write that.” Sometimes I think of a fascinating thematic question: “I must explore that.” Sometimes I think of a fascinating person: “I must follow him around.” All of these things bounce off each other, and keep me interested, and indeed, delighted.
Yes, writing has been good to me. Professionally, ten years ago I promoted myself to senior writer, and five years ago I gave myself a corner office, so it’s all good. Maybe in ten years I’ll give myself a gold watch. Writing makes me proud and keeps me humble. It makes me crazy and keeps me sane. I make a living doing something I love. It sometimes infuriates me that so few people have that opportunity. I hope and believe that someday that will change. In the meantime, for as long as I’m able, I’ll keep writing the next sentence.
Those Who are Silent on the Defense of Edward Snowden
Today is the Fourth of July, Independence Day. This is a holiday that means a great deal to me. In 1776, courageous and principled people took a stand against tyranny, pledging, as the Declaration said, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. High-sounding words, but full of meaning. And if that weren’t enough to make the day special, 150 years ago saw the forces of the Union strike a tremendous blow against slavery at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. However uncomfortable it makes the contemporary cynic, these were people risking everything for the sake of principle.
The fight against oppression has come full circle; where once it was waged by the United States government, now that government has become the oppressors, and the fight for freedom must be waged against it. The most recent defender of freedom is Edward Snowden, who exposed the anti-democratic actions of the United States, for which he is being slandered by the corporate controlled media, and pursued with a fury George III and Jefferson Davis couldn’t even have imagined.
Several writers I know stepped up and took a public stand against the persecution of Edward Snowden by sending in statements of support to the World Socialist Web Site; some others, perhaps not comfortable with the WSWS, have written statements of support in other places.
But I can’t help but notice some of the ones who haven’t. Without naming anyone in particular, some of those in the sf community who have been most vocal about gay rights, and feminism, and anti-racism, and various forms of what is called social justice, have been strangely silent about this broad-based attack on democratic rights here in the US, and, indeed, internationally. Why is this?
Might it be that they want to stay with “safe” issues, in the sense that anyone you make angry with it can be written off as not worth the trouble?
Might it be that these people are only interested in issues that–whether they are consciously aware of it or not–stand to benefit only those in upper 15% of income levels?
Might it be that they know, or at least sense, that this is a problem that cannot be solved within the confines of capitalism, or, at least, that it challenges society at a deep, fundamental level that what is called social justice only pretends to?
To me, it is tremendously revealing about the nature of these politics that their most fervent advocates are failing to take a clear stand in defense of someone who dared to take an action that benefits the masses of the people against the most powerful enemies of freedom. Instead, they remain secure in concentrating on issues that fall comfortably in line with those in the middle-class mileu in which they (and, to be sure, I) live and work. They remain secure in concentrating on issues in which they can be comfortably self-righteous without threat to their careers. They remain secure in concentrating on issues that are comfortably acceptable to those in power.
While Edward Snowden is hounded from country to country, and the full force of the United States government comes down him because he dared to tell us all things we need and deserve to know, they remain secure and comfortable.
It is revealing; it isn’t pretty.