Chuck Wendig: Terribleminds

Apple-Obsessed Author Fella

Archives (page 318 of 465)

Ten Questions About Stonecast, By Anton Strout

They were like “HEY DO YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW ANSON TROUT” and I was like, “The guy from Happy Days?” and they were like “NO THE GUY WHO WROTE THOSE COOL URBAN FANTASY BOOKS” and I was like, “You mean Anton Strout,” and they were like “THAT’S WHAT WE SAID, STUPID.” Needless to say, it’s a no-brainer to have the lovely Mister Strout here. Please to enjoy as he answers questions about Stonecast:

Tell us about yourself. Who the hell are you?

I have been told by some I am the anti-Wendig, by those who know us both. Which sucks because you keep posting really profound things about writing that I can never quite articulate myself, but they are so on the money! So if I’m the anti-you… then I guess I post profound pity things about writing!

When not overthinking this comparison I somehow manage to write me some quirky urban fantasy because the pain of missing Buffy & Angel runs too deep still. I’ve discovered the soothing balm of Supernatural, which is helping…

Give us the 140-character story pitch for Stonecast.

Damn you. Hmm…

A female Spellmason, D&D nerd, & a glaive guisarme wielding dancer struggle to find the whereabouts of a gargoyle once sworn to protect them

Where does this story come from?

There is a store about three blocks from my office at Penguin… I found it under Gargoyles Cartoon Fan Fiction.

Actually, the whole Spellmason Chronicles stemmed from a one shot short story I did for an urban fantasy. As with most shorts, you’re really capturing a moment in time. There’s usually a before and after that the author must know to color the tale, but it doesn’t get written. In creating the short Stanis, I discovered when I was finished that there was more I wanted to tell about the world I had created. I ran it up the flagpole at Ace, and they went for it… the fools!

How is this a story only you could’ve written?

Well, first of all, Joss Whedon keeps refusing to take my calls to collaborate! I find this an unsettling trend. The whole reason I got into writing was because I found no one was telling exactly the type of stories I wanted to be reading. Yes, there’s a lot of books out there that I love, but I felt that there was a vacuum, and I was the suck to fill that vacuum!  Or something like that…

For a long time I called my Simon Canderous series a sort of Diet Dresden Files, but now that I’m working on book three of my second series, I find I can’t quite compare myself to other books. Not that I’m incomparable. I just think I’m… me. I write stories mostly set in the modern world where the only reaction to the shambling horrors out there is to either scream or meta-deconstruct them with a reference about Hogwarts or the Beholder from Dungeons & Dragons.

What was the hardest thing about writing Stonecast?

Probably handling the two first person narrators to the tale. One is a gargoyle that’s been around since the 1800s, and the other is a twentysomething artist caught up in her family’s true legacy. Keeping the voices of the two unique and separate was a challenge. The gargoyle, Stanis, doesn’t get modern or idiomatic language, doesn’t contract his words. There’s a sad, quiet stoicism to him that I’ve come to enjoy writing from his perspective. Alexandra Belarus, our heroine, is a child of our times… her language has a different almost cinematic flow to it. And somehow I have to make these two perspectives thread each other to create one cohesive narrative… it’s certainly one of the most daunting tasks I’ve put upon myself.

What did you learn writing Stonecast?

How to cry a lot…? The lessons I learn along the way are rarely obvious to me. Occassionally in retrospect I can see it, but not always. In the case of Stonecast I think I learned subtlety. I have had a tendency in my fiction to overstate things for fear the audience would miss it if I didn’t put a spotlight on it. And then a second and third spotlight. My editor has been beating that out of me for years. With writing the dual first person narratives I’ve had to work at the craft of implying things so that narrative 1+narrative 2= narrative 3, where narrative 3 is something I never actually wrote on the page.

What do you love about Stonecast?

What’s not to love?! It has all sorts of things that I am thrilled to have in one book. I got to include alchemy and witchcraft and Dungeons and Dragons references… I even have a tiny brick golem named Bricksley who waddles around doing chores. Oh, and tons of gargoyle-y action.

What would you do differently next time?

I’ve had time management issues on my last two books. It’s led to a lot of panic writing, which causes burst of inspiration all its own. I need to get myself back onto a more regular schedule. Having twins in May is REALLY helping with that. *cries* Actually, what helps is reading a lot of what you post online about write. It makes me feel less crazy, or at least there are other people banging their heads on the padded walls just like me. Comparatively, I feel like a whiny bitch… which is usually when I get motivated again.

Give us your favorite paragraph from the story.

“Hey,” she said, raking her blade in sparks against the brick golem. “We used to wish there to be magic in the world, and we got it.”

“I’m not asking for much,” I said. “Just some real instruction. A Dumbledore, a Snape . . . hell, I’d even take a Trelawney right about now.”

What’s next for you as a storyteller?

I’m under deadline through the end of the year on The Spellmason Chronicles 3, but I’d really like to fit in more work on a half finished young adult book I call my Dickensian Steampunk Voltron Iron Man novel. And there’s a gnawing idea for a graphic novel burrowing into my head… I need to teach my newborn twins to pick up some of the slack, dammit!

Anton Strout: Website / Twitter

Stonecast: Amazon / B&N

Ten Questions About Vicious, By V.E. Schwab

I get a lot of books to potentially blurb these days, and I’d love to hug and squeeze each book to my bosom and blurb them unabashedly, but I’m a slow-ass reader. And already writing four books in the next 12 months. So, when Tor said, “Hey, maybe you blurb this book?” and they waved Victoria Schwab’s book Vicious at me, I told them the same thing I tell everyone else: if I have time, and if I really love it. And I expected neither of those things would come true. I was wrong. So wrong. It was one of those books I opened, and it was like a hand around my neck that yanked me into the story. (My blurb, by the way: “An epic collision of super-powered nemeses. The writing and storycraft is Schwab’s own superpower as this tale leaps off the page in all its dark, four-color comic-book glory.”) Vicious comes out next week. You want to read this.

TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?

I have no idea. It’s always the first question asked and it usually leads to “Oh god, who AM I?” and that leads to drinking…tea, of course. But existential crises aside, I’m the product of a British mother, a Beverly Hills father, and a southern upbringing. I’m a 26-year-old superwholockian who likes to write about dark things. I have two YA books on shelves right now (THE NEAR WITCH, about a village where children start to disappear, and THE ARCHIVED, about a library of the dead) and my first adult novel, a supervillain origin story called VICIOUS, hits shelves this week!

GIVE US THE 140-CHARACTER STORY PITCH:

Two pre-med students discover the key to superpowers—near-death experiences—and set out to create their own abilities. It doesn’t end well.

WHERE DOES THIS STORY COME FROM?

I’ve always wanted to write about superpowers, but VICIOUS actually started out as someone else’s story. Originally, this guy with superpowers came to this city called Merit and was recruited by two rival groups, one that called themselves heroes, and the other that called themselves villains simply because they were on the other side. In writing about those two groups, I became fascinated by two things: 1) the leaders of the respective groups, Victor and Eli, and why they hated each other, and 2) the idea that the labels hero and villain had nothing to do with whether these people were good or bad. They were just opposed.

Everything else got trashed and I started again, this time looking at Victor and Eli and how they got to be arch-nemeses, how Eli came to be thought of as a hero, making Victor automatically the villain. I wanted to explore what happens when you take the meaning out of those words. Who do you root for?

HOW IS THIS A STORY ONLY YOU COULD’VE WRITTEN?

It’s pretty sick and twisted, that dark funny where you feel like maybe you shouldn’t be laughing, and I think that’s very much my own personality coming through. Also I studied hero/villain archetypes in college, and have always been fascinated with the gray between, the Anti. And my editor and I joke that Victor is my sociopathic supervillain alter ego, so this book is pretty much made up of me. But most of all, at its heart, this book is me because it’s mine. I wrote it over the course of two years, in between other deadlines, and I did it entirely for me. It was everything I wanted as a reader and as a writer, and while I’m so very excited to now be sharing it with others, it is more mine than anything else I’ve ever written.

WHAT WAS THE HARDEST THING ABOUT WRITING VICIOUS?

Coming off of THE ARCHIVED, which is an intensely emotional book, I’m used to giving emotional answers, about having to live out my characters’ grief, etc. But VICIOUS is in many ways a purposefully unemotional book. Our main character, Victor, is a sociopath. There is a level of remove (it’s not the kind, hopefully, that makes you as a reader care less, everything just has a careful distance), and so the hardest part of writing a book was, for once, not the emotional component.

The hardest thing about VICIOUS was making the craft element feel invisible, effortless. From a construction standpoint, the book is a puzzle. It’s a braided narrative, five POVs—two main, two secondary, and one tertiary—twisting across a decade-long window. Making it move the way it needs to was no small feat. And then there was the actual logic between the superpowers. No radioactive goo for me. I wanted a medical foundation that was intuitive and compelling, something the reader could see actually happening. Those two components (I know, I cheated and said two, but we can put them under the craft blanket) were the hardest.

WHAT DID YOU LEARN WRITING VICIOUS?

That the trick is not in finding ways to kill characters, but in finding ways to bring them back in one piece.

WHAT DO YOU LOVE ABOUT VICIOUS?

I love that even though there are no heroes, you will root for someone. I love that even though it’s emotionally detached, you will care about the characters. I love that after almost three years with these characters, I still love them. It is the only thing I’ve EVER written that I re-read for fun, and because I miss them.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME?

Nothing. Honestly.

GIVE US YOUR FAVORITE PARAGRAPH FROM THE STORY:

“The moments that define lives aren’t always obvious. They don’t scream LEDGE, and nine times out of ten there’s no rope to duck under, no line to cross, no blood pact, no official letter on fancy paper. They aren’t always protracted, heavy with meaning. Between one sip and the next, Victor made the biggest mistake of his life, and it was made of nothing more than one line. Three small words. “I’ll go first.”

WHAT’S NEXT FOR YOU AS A STORYTELLER?

The second book in my ARCHIVED series, THE UNBOUND, comes out in January, I have a Middle Grade series about a Doctor Who/Peter Pan-esque guardian angel—EVERYDAY ANGEL—kicking off with Scholastic next summer, and a brand new adult book full of magic and Londons (yes, plural) and cross-dressing pirates hitting shelves next fall. If I finish writing it in time. I guess I should get back to work!

V.E. Schwab: Website / Twitter

Vicious (9/24/13): Amazon / B&N / Indiebound

Me! This Saturday! At The Library!

Ahem.

I will be at the Free Library of Philadelphia (Joseph E. Coleman Northwest Regional) on Saturday! You’ll be there. Don’t disappoint me. OR WE’LL DISCUSS YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE.

Details:

Author Visit with Chuck Wendig – Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 3:00PM

Wendig has been nominated for the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer of science fiction or fantasy for his first Miriam Black novel, Blackbirds, described in The Financial Times as “… a splendidly profane slice of urban fantasy – hard, dark and fast… a black comedy that even the Grim Reaper could smile at.”  Other well-received recent books are Mockingbirds and Blue Blazes.

Wendig will talk about his books, especially about the origins of his recently published young adult science fiction novel, Under the Empyrean Sky, the first book in the Heartland trilogy, which Kirkus Reviews called “A chilling post-apocalyptic adventure set on an Earth devastated by poor agricultural practices…A thoroughly imagined environmental nightmare with taut pacing and compelling characters that will leave readers eager for more.”

He will also talk about writing, as he is well-known for his witty, profane, and very practical advice to writers, which he dispenses at his blog, terribleminds.com, and through several popular e-books. A collection of this advice will be published as a paperback in November 2013: The Kick-Ass Writer: 1001 Ways to Write Great Fiction, Get Published, and Earn Your Audience.

Bring your copy of Chuck’s books and he will sign it for you after his talk!

The Forever Endeavor, Part One: Free To Read!

So, as you may recall, I am writing a serialized story for Fireside Fiction Company.

That story is “The Forever Endeavor.” It’s about, as I put it before, a man who finds a very special box with a very special button that does a—well, obviously, a very special thing.

To get full access to all the serial chapters, you need to subscribe to Fireside.

However, were you wanting to read the first installment, well — Tor.com has you covered.

Please also note that the stories are illustrated by none other than (ahem) HUGO-AWARD-WINNING ARTIST, GALEN DARA. *puffs out chest proudly*

Written by Campbell-nominated me. Illustrated by Hugo-winning Galen Dara.

First installment: free.

Rest: awaiting your clickies.

*stares*

25 Things You Should Know About Worldbuilding

Worldbuilding is one of those topics that bakes my noodle every time my brain chooses to dwell on it. I have a whole bucket full of opinions, many of them in stark disagreement with one another. So, this list below should never at any time be taken as “25 Exhaustive Universal Truths About Worldbuilding,” but rather be regarded as, “25 Things Chuck Wendig Thinks About Worldbuilding At This Exact Moment In Time, Oh, Wait, Some Of Them Just Changed.”

Kay? Kay.

Let’s chat.

1. What We Mean When We Say “Worldbuilding”

We’re talking about the revelation of your storyworld and its details through the story itself. It’s easy to think this means “setting,” but that’s way too simple — worldbuilding covers everything and anything inside that world. Money, clothing, territorial boundaries, tribal customs, building materials, imports and exports, transportation, sex, food, the various types of monkeys people possess, whether the world does or does not contain Satanic “twerking” rites.

2. The World Serves The Story, The Story Does Not Serve The World

My opinion: you build a world to serve the story or stories you want to tell; you do not tell a story that is slave to the worldbuilding. Story comes first. Worldbuilding supports the story. Meaning, you must look at the components of the story you hope to tell: it’s got these characters, it’s about this idea, it makes a particular argument, and from there you start to see that the world can organically accommodate and reflect those things. Doing the opposite — leading with the worldbuilding — is what you’d do if you were writing a roleplaying game which has to tell all kinds of stories, not just yours. If you put the cart before the horse the horse is gonna headbutt the cart and knock it over and then you’re all, WAIT NO MY CABBAGES then we laugh at you.

3. Put Differently, You’re Not Writing A Fucking Encyclopedia

If you prioritize worldbuilding, you’re probably going to end up with like, seven different versions of the D&D Monster Manual but no actual novel. Which, again, is super-awesome if you’re writing a roleplaying game, but less awesome if your goal is to write a more static and ego-driven story. Worldbuilding can be a giant time sink and, worse, a distraction that can make you feel productive while also keeping you from lashing your body to the mast of your novel, comic, or film — which, again, is more likely your purpose.

4. Okay, Wait, You Might Be Writing An Encyclopedia

But then again, that’s not to say you’ll find zero value in writing a storyworld bible for the tale at hand. If you’re writing a three-book epic fantasy, and each book is gonna be 150,000 words a pop or more, you may want to find a comfort level with the details big and small of the world about which you’re writing — in certain modes of fantasy, the world is itself a character, and a focused world bible will help you reflect that. Just the same, you’re still better off ensuring that what goes into the story bible reflects the characters and themes you plan to work with, and it’s probably also wise to get some of those story details down in your notes before you hunker down and start writing the bible for Middle Earth II: Shirelectric Hobbaloo. Here’s one test: if you’ve spent a year writing a 400-page story bible (one you could use to break the neck of a walrus) and yet you still haven’t put a single sentence down on your novel, you might be committing too much energy in the wrong direction.

5. Variant Approach: Ninja Genesis

Man, now I have a great idea for a Phil Collins cover band. *dons ninja gear, starts singing Sh-sh-shuriken, sung to the tune of Sussudio* WAIT YOU’RE STILL HERE okay I’ll worry about that later. If you’re lazy (like me!) and don’t feel like you can commit to writing a glacier-sized world bible, hey, you know what? Build it as you go. As you write, introduce details relevant to the story, the plot, the characters, the theme, and to the chapter at hand. This’ll probably require work on the back-end — no, not proctology, though perhaps it’s not unlike proctology, because you’ll have to go back on the second draft and root around and make everything work together instead of the random slapdash worldbuilding you just did. The pro: this is organic and works for lazy people (like me!). The con: more work after the fact, and may not give you a full sense of the world going into the story. Probably better for stories that require lighter worldbuilding, like those based off of our existing world.

6. The Pig In A Purse

Here’s some probably-really-bad and likely-untrue advice: give the audience only those details they need to know to understand the story. Now, it’s worth highlighting what I mean by “story” — story, for me, is not the same as plot. Story is the apple, plot is the arrow through it. Plot is a sequence of events as revealed to the reader, but story is all the stuff in and around that. Mood is a function of story, so when I say to include those worldbuilding elements that are necessary to move the story forward, I don’t merely mean the plot. I mean, hey, it’s totally okay to include a detail that is relevant to advancing a particular mood of gloom, or a theme of “man’s inhumanity to mermaids” or whatever. The problem is when the worldbuilding overwhelms — read: “smothers” — the story with needless details. I don’t need you to describe every family crest, guild sigil, hairstyle, nipple clamp, or blade of grass in the world. (Wait, on second thought: tell me more about these nipple clamps.) This is bad advice, probably, because a lot of fantasy storytelling is very much this: chapter after chapter of rich, robust, wormy worldbuilding loam. Fertile dirt, maybe, but too fetishistic and not necessary to move the audience forward in that space. And moving them forward is, I suspect, the goal.

7. Function Beyond Plot

This bears further reiterating: worldbuilding supports story, not just plot. Which means that your worldbuilding supports mood, theme, conflict, character, culture, setting. It doesn’t have to move only the sequence of events further. The details of the world you’ve created can and should engage with the whole narrative, not just action and event.

8. Action And Dialogue Above Description And Exposition

That being said, what’s true for other stories is true with a story featuring thick, delicious worldbuilding — you’re better off conveying the details of that world through action and dialogue than through giant boulders of description and exposition dropped on your readers from a vertiginous height. I get points for using “vertiginous,” right? Fellas? Ladies? Anybody?

9. A Rich Tapestry Or An Unrolled Tube Of Plain White Toilet Paper?

A lot of worldbuilding is dull as a hammer, as complex as a meaty slap to the face. This is fine for certain modes of storytelling (and a powerful story will set aside any concerns over monochromatic worldbuilding), but in general, if you’re gonna build a world, you’re best introducing some measure of nuance into it. We’ve been conditioned, perhaps, by the news and other forces (school, parents, bad fantasy novels) that everything is black and white, good and evil, that all things are easily slotted into their compartments. Example: the Middle East. Our politicians, our news media, our pop culture portray the Middle East like, “Okay, those are the good guys, those are the bad guys, ta-da, yay, simplistic world-view confirmed,” but if you spend more than five minutes looking into it, you realize the picture looks more like this. Certainly some stories are better off relying on the good versus evil paradigm, but generally, they dominate. More interesting (to me, if not to you) are those stories that are drawn from complexity and nuance rather than from easily predictable, simplistic strokes.

10. The Nature Of “Write What You Know”

Write What You Know is one of those pieces of writing advice that inspires glorious epiphany and pants-pooping rage in equal measure. Genre fiction tends to be where folks hit their heads against it in frustration: “Well, how can I write about murder scenes, alien apocalypses, or humping a sexy elf? I’VE ONLY DONE TWO OUT OF THE THREE. And the third, I was really drunk on monkey schnapps.” With worldbuilding, the question becomes: how can this advice hold up? The easy answer is: it doesn’t. It can come into the writing of characters and situations, but worldbuilding, not so much. The more complicated answer is: you can still borrow from things you understand and translate them accordingly. Maybe you know local school politics or neighborhood hierarchy, and you know how both operate viciously, each an engine that runs on gossip and lies — psst, you can use that. Just give it a fantasy or space opera context, and boom. Alternately, you can borrow from culture, politics and history. Read some non-fiction about other places and different people. Again: translate. Use write what you know as a springboard to know more things, then gaze upon said things through the lens of the fantastic.

11. Remix Culture

We live in an era of remix culture. And reboot culture. Everything that’s not something entirely new either feels like a microwaved rehash or a remix of other stories — but believe me when I say, remixing with worldbuilding is perfectly acceptable. Hell, remixing can be fun. On my iPad I used DJ software to remix Kayne West’s “Black Skinhead” with the Thomas the Tank Engine theme and, pow, now it’s getting radio play in both Moldavia and Moldova. Point is to remix things that are different enough and interesting enough so that the result is something new and unseen — remixing can be magical alchemy or it can be as boring as pouring two different types of milk together in the same glass. (“My world is a remix of Tolkien and Robert Jordan” is far less interesting than, say, “I’m remixing Cherokee myth with Eastern European vampires and throwing in a hefty dash of Stephen King’s The Gunslinger.”) Don’t be lazy. Don’t be predictable. Use other ideas to create something new and uniquely yours.

12. Ew, Stereotypes

If you’re worldbuilding, don’t rely on stereotypes. Noble savages and white heroes and damsels-in-distress and people of a single race acting in a single way. No culture is monolithic, skin color does not determine demeanor or magical racial bonuses, men are not all one thing and women are not all another thing. Stereotypes are lazy at best, harmful at worst. They make Story Jesus karate a kitten and then post the pictures on Facebook that say “SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO.”

13. Your Heteronormative White Male Gaze

Carrying this conversation a little further: if you’re firmly ensconced in your mini-mansion sitting on top of Heteronormative White Dude Mountain, you should cast an extra-long look at any presuppositions in your worldbuilding and sniff for the acrid tang of privilege sprayed all over from your White Dude scent glands. The result of worldbuilding in genre fiction seem to skew strongly toward White Dudes, and this is frequently excused in some way  — “Well, in the Middle Ages, women were basically sexy goats and dudes were the shepherds and I’m just being authentic and something-something slaves and blah-blah-the-Moors–” Mmm, uh-uh, bzzt, wrongo. First: you don’t need to be “authentic” to history in genre fiction that does not use actual history. Second, history is a lot more nuanced than you think. Third, we know you’re just using that as an excuse, so just stop it. You’re embarrassing yourself. For shame. *shakes head*

14. Small Details Are Just As Important As Big Ones

It’s easy to get wrapped up in all the Big Epic Holy Fucksmuckers aspects of worldbuilding — all the weighty topics like RELIGION and POLITICS and THE DANCE MUSIC OF KINGS. But a lot of worldbuilding lives in little details. What they drink at different meals. How they wash their hands. How they treat their animals. What materials they use to construct their sex toys (“BEHOLD THE ORICHALCUM DONG”). These little details can connect to and reflect a larger cultural aspect without bludgeoning readers over the head and neck with weighty exposition.

15. Simple Interactions Pregnant With Worldbuilding Complexity

Just as small details matter, so do the small interactions of our characters. The way one shares her food. The way another addresses a superior. The way a third chooses to couple rectally with the tentacled yelly-beast of Vrall, and whether or not they cuddle afterward, and what that cuddling means culturally. Allow the world to be built through what your characters do and say.

16. Your World Must Be Active And Alive

Worldbuilding is not an encyclopedia for dead cultures and forgotten races. That element can be in there, sure (because, so cool) but this world is one that features actual characters doing actual things and affecting the world. Worldbuilding has a tendency to feel staid and monolithic: “Everybody does this because it’s the culture.” But that’s never really true in our world, is it? Look at it like this: the rest of the world sees America as this single-headed entity, but they also seem to recognize that Americans are not always representative of that entity. That’s the breakdown: the world is one way, but the people are allowed to be another. Because people are alive. They have free will and agency to confirm and deny different aspects of their culture.

17. “But It’s Cool, Shut Up” Is Not An Excuse

All aspects of your worldbuilding should justify themselves in some way. “BUT IT’S COOL I LIKE IT” is not enough. My experience with worldbuilding is that it yields no small surfeit of Really Awesome Ideas that, at the same time, Don’t Really Belong In The Story. “But this cult! They do awesome things! And they spray acid from their nipples in the name of their Dark Lordess, Areola the Aerosolized Acid Queen, and they have magic based on the configuration of moles and skin tags and–” And none of that belongs in the book. Doesn’t connect to characters, plot, theme, anything. Cut it. Save it for a time when you can use it meaningfully, not just because oooh preshus darling I loves the pretty peacock. *paws at the darling, mewls*

18. The Rules

Worldbuilding likes to offer “rules” — in particular, rules about the way This Certain Thing works, which might be magic, or some alien technology, or political ascension, or what happens when you fuck a minotaur while holding a pelican under the boughs of the whispering wank-wank tree. Rules can be critical in helping readers understand the nature of the world and, more importantly, how the stakes of the story in this world shake out. (More on a story’s stakes here.But (you know a ‘but’ had to be coming, right?), rules can also be woefully boring. They can be expository, obvious, and they can rob the story of mystery. You’re not writing a technical manual for HVAC repair. And yet, you also don’t want a world where everything is so unpredictable that it feels convenient and lazy. Here’s how to handle it: you should know the rules and conform to them. But you don’t need to spell them out to the audience. The audience is smart! The audience wants to work. Let them figure it out for themselves, like a puzzle.

19. Wait, I Need To Research My Made-Up World?

Tad Williams thinks so, and I happen to agree. Research trade routes. Economics. Religious persecution. Poetry. Guilds. Alchemy. Djinn. Leprechaun ranching. Medieval donkey shows. Knowing how real things work will inform how they work in your made-up fancy-land.

20. Imagine A World On The Edge Of Conflict

Conflict is the food that feeds the reader. Just as characters enter a story facing conflict, so too should the world in which they live. First, because it’s interesting. Second, because has any world ever been entirely without conflict? War! Famine! Plague! Facebook! Miley Cyrus’ soul-leeching hell-tongue! Conflict is good for your story, your characters, and your setting.

21. Everything Affects Everything Else

Behold the complexity intrinsic to worldbuilding. Everything pushes and pulls on everything else, often in interesting ways. Again, our world makes for good examples: think of how a technological development can change the world in a relatively short amount of time (printing press, electricity, the Internet, Robocop). Think of what happens when a critical resource (food, water, oil, coffee, hair pomade, black market llama squeezings) dries up. Small changes in an economic system can have huge results. A new farming practice can fix — or wreak havoc upon — the environment. Everything is tethered to everything else, and in this, you can find compelling worldbuilding as well as the interesting stories that grow out of it.

22. Subtextology

Characters can speak in subtext. So can the world. Not everything must be spoken or spelled out.

23. Preserving Mystery Is Vital

A fully-realized and known world is also a boring world. Mystery, alongside conflict, is another of those vital vittles that feeds the reader and keeps them hooked. Question marks are shaped like hooks for a reason, I say — so leave lots of questions. The best parts of any map are the ones that fade out and leave us with the dread note of HERE THERE BE DRAGONS. Preserve that uncertainty in your worldbuilding. Never pull back the curtain all the way. Always leave us hanging, waiting for you to reveal more, more, more.

24. Worldbuilding Versus Storytelling

Good worldbuilding does not automatically mean the same thing for the storytelling. I’ll leave you with this io9 article, which compares the worldbuilding of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace with Star Wars: A New Hope. One could make an argument that the worldbuilding in the prequel chapters is more robust and more detailed than what you’d find in the original trilogy. And one would hopefully also argue that this didn’t make for a better experience in any way, shape, or form and may have in fact robbed some of the narrative potency from that universe.

25. Construct Worlds Mapped After Your Own Heartsblood Spatter

Pro-tip: build worlds that you love. That interest you. Whose characters sing the song that drums in the deep dark labyrinthine chambers of the puzzle box you call a heart. If you don’t like it? If it doesn’t conjure themes that fascinate you, if it fails to play with images and ideas that appeal to you, the world will feel flat as a frog under an anvil. Get excited about world building! Embrace the mad genesis. Scream, let there be light, and then cackle, and pull the switch, and watch the storyworld of your dreams and nightmares glow bright and bold like a fucking Christmas tree on Jesus’ own front porch. I mean, jeez, if you don’t dig it, what’s the point?

* * *

You And Your Bad Reviews

After yesterday’s blog post, I didn’t expect another lesson in the phrase, “The juice ain’t worth the squeeze” quite so soon. BUT HEY, HERE WE ARE.

Authors: just as I have suggested it may not be in your best interest to write negative reviews, it’s probably not in your best interest, or that of your readers, to respond to negative reviews.

To recap:

A blog said something about an author’s books, the author got on the blog, everyone started out semi-reasonable but it swiftly descended into rage-face and Molotov cocktails and fecal-pitching, and then another website said something, and the author went there too, and then the original blog did an update and the author went to that post as well, and by the end of it everyone has poop on their shoes and now nobody’s happy.

It was a total shitshow.

I’m not linking because it’s no longer worth the attention, and I’m sure you can scare up the links somewhere if you’re really Jonesing to rubberneck at this particular car crash.

https://twitter.com/knight_francis/status/379390620416348160

Author Francis Knight said, wisely, that authors not responding to reviews is a guideline, not a law — and she’s right about that. This isn’t hammered into stone. But a guideline, it remains.

Here’s why it’s a guideline:

Because it’s usually not worth the response.

It can be! Once in a while, an author can — with the right measure of politeness, kindness, and diplomacy! — actually respond to a negative review. This is especially true in forums that encourage this (some bloggers, for instance, are comfortable with writers swinging by their bloggery huts and talking about their work, even on negative reviews).

For the most part, however, assume this isn’t true.

Assume that it’s not commentary meant for you, and so you’re not welcome. Assume that your response will do little to engender the community’s response. Assume it’ll corrupt the discussion. Assume that you will accidentally read more defensive than you sound or that you might be more defensive than you actually think. Assume that people are going to think what they’re going to think, and that’s that. Assume that no good can come of your response.

Bare minimum, your response should be: “Hey, thanks, sorry you didn’t like it.”

Or, if you’re really itchy: “Hey, thanks, sorry you didn’t like it; I’d be happy to discuss this further, but no harm, no foul if you’d rather me not engage with the conversation.”

You think: I’m a reader, too! I want to talk about my work! I want to engage with you, the people who took the time to read that book I worked so hard to produce — it’s like you’re out there talking about my kid, and it’s my kid, so I wanna talk about my kid with you. But it’s not your child. It’s a book. And your book has to stand for itself. I know! I know. You want to respond! You want to correct details that you feel were stated incorrectly. Or you want to disagree with their assertions. Or offer up some behind-the-scenes information. Or serve up a personal anecdote! Or, or, or. Don’t! Don’t. Don’t. Seriously. BZZT! Do. Not.

Okay. Now, with all that being said…

A couple-few times you can probably — maybe, no guarantees — get away with it.

First, you know the reviewer or have corresponded. I know some bloggers who, if they gave me a negative review, I could probably engage with ’em and we’d all be super-cool about it.

Second, the commentary after the review can engender a larger discussion about important things (sexism, racism, politics, book culture, whatever). Note: this is tricky, especially if you will come across in any way defensively. More to the point: if criticism regarding those things is pointed at you or the book, do not engage. Repeat: do not engage.

Third, you genuinely liked the review and want to say so. Hey, some negative reviews are interesting and/or clarifying. No harm in saying so, throwing around high-fives.

And, as always, kill ’em with kindness.

Oh, and duh. Don’t be a dick.

Because, as I said before:

The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

It really, really isn’t. Hey, listen. Bad reviews happen. They’re a shame, and you feel like — “AAAGRRBLE NO WAIT DAMNIT, STOP TURNING PEOPLE OFF OF MY WORK” — especially if it’s a review that you feel maligns the book unfairly or gets stuff wrong or whatever. It is what it is. Not everybody’s going to like your book. That has to be okay. The review might not be nice. It might be snarky. It might be downright nasty. (Note: nasty as it may be, it isn’t bullying. It may not be friendly, it may not be welcoming or wise, but it isn’t bullying.)

Be happy they took the time to write the review.

Understand that you are potentially not welcome, unless they state otherwise.

Disengage. If you have to, bite a leather belt, punch some drywall, eat a pint of ice cream.

Just the same —

Writers are expected to be professional. The prevailing wisdom says that, just as a writer wouldn’t traipse into a discussion with, say, a NYT critic or an EW review and engage, the writer probably shouldn’t do the same thing on someone’s book blog. The river flows both ways, though. Book blogs, nine times out of ten, are incredibly awesome spaces. Friendly and welcoming and inclusive of everyone, including writers. (Book blogs are some of my favorite places, and my experiences with sites like My Bookish Ways and My Shelf Confessions and countless others have been nothing short of wonderful.) Sometimes, though, book blogs can get a little nasty — very exclusive, very cliquish, very mean-snarky. My advice to those bloggers is the same: don’t be a dick. Just as the writer is expected to be polite and professional, you should do the same, because that whole idea of ‘fighting fire with fire’ actually just creates more fire. If the writer should engage with you in the same way she should engage with a NYT critic, then you should attempt to act with a modicum of professionalism even if the writer will not.

Everybody, repeat after me:

The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

The juice ain’t worth the squeeze.

Der Saft ist nicht wert, den Squeeze.

El jugo no vale la pena el apretón.

Exprimendum sucus est non tanti.

Juice. Not worth. The squeeze.

*drinks juice*

*makes a face*

*shudders*