Category Archives: Guest Posts

A guest post by David Boop.

Despite what jocks, preps and princesses might believe, not all nerds are created equal. Just like any pool of people, some rise to the surface while others languish in the shadows.

Is this fair? Heavens, no. Is it reality? You bet your sweet bippy.

Whether or not you believe all persons are the same in the eyes of God, it is a truth that we place people in mental categories within our minds. Smart – Stupid. Safe – Dangerous. Normal – Awkward. It is easy to drop those we meet into virtual file cabinets of our brain to help us determine how much effort we’ll spend on them.

I grew up a geek in small town Wisconsin. I was verbally and physically abused by my classmates for it. This is a common experience among creative types, including writers, artists, and filmmakers. (Musicians seem to get away with more, I have no idea why. You can be a dork, play the guitar and somehow still be cool.)

It started with my last name, Boop; a funny sounding, easily picked on name. When you have a name like Boop, you’re put into a category of clown, even if you’re not one. My name was used as a swear word around my school.

“I’m going to go take a Boop.”

“I’m going to Boop you up!”

“I Booped your mother last night.”

I didn’t make things any better by not growing out of comics, action figures, video games, cartoons and science-fiction novels. I found very few people to share these interests with in a school focused on athletic excellence. Dating was next to impossible. I was told by a friend on Facebook that there were warnings not to date me or risk being removed from the popular crowd. Girls called me a “goon” behind my back. But this wasn’t solely due to my nerdy proclivities.

I was and, in many ways, still am socially awkward.

I didn’t walk the walk, nor talk the talk. I wasn’t into the same things other kids were and thus didn’t have the vernacular down. Slang eluded me. I came from a conservative household. It is hard to be a “good boy” while feeling pressure to lose your virginity, drink and raise hell. I finally caught up to my peers at nineteen when I went into radio, started working nightclubs and doing stand-up comedy. I finally understood what it took to be popular and that meant being a crazier bastard than everyone else in the room.

The “good boy/crazy bastard” dichotomy has carried over into my career as a writer. Yet, thirty years later, the tables have reversed. Now the popular kids want me to be a good boy; always be politically correct, sensitive to minority and women’s rights and not to sleep around at cons.

Wait! That’s not fair! I just got this down. Filthy mouth, bad jokes and loose morals meant popularity. How and when did that change? These new rules are the same rules my parents tried to instill in me as a child. You mean they were right? (Please tell my child that someday I might be right, too. Please?)

And so I shift again, not always as quickly or effectively as I’d like. I’m still that awkward kid, trying to get the vernacular right. Still trying to prove I deserve to be one of the cool kids.

With the accessibility of publishing and the growth of the genre market, writers who may never been that socially awkward kid are finding success, and thus have no frame of reference to what we’ve been through. And they’ve been given a platform called the Internet. There are too many watchdogs with too little compassion for people like me who don’t always “get it.” Writing used to be a solitary craft with very little exposure to either other writers and/or fans. Back then, when authors did get together, everyone was socially awkward and more forgiving. They welcomed the weird with open arms and it was a safe place to be wrong sometimes.

Now that geek is chic, some people claim ownership of all things nerdy and say that nerds shouldn’t be creepy or inept, holding themselves up as examples. Shows like The Big Bang Theory and King of the Nerds poke fun at what are very serious issues for some nerds. People say they want a Raj or Leonard in their life until one tries to make friends with them and they’re turned away and shunned. It has been my experience that there are writers with little-to-no tolerance for those not playing at their level mentally, socially or politically. Any mistake in judgment is highlighted and waved in front of millions. If the offender does not fit into their definition of “acceptable,” then they should be attacked, banned, kept from getting published in certain circles, despite any skill they might have.

And, to be honest, in some cases they have valid reasons. They are writers who don’t know when to lower their voices, use tact, pay attention to their audience. I have been accused of many of these things, and while I’ve learned and adapted, many others haven’t. Some of these writers are not used to being around the opposite sex, or try too hard to be liked by their peers. They miss social cues, speak out of turn and don’t know when to back off. And when they find themselves in the sights of the socially adept, they have no clue why. Even when they have a light-bulb moment, they don’t know how to change. Most times the damage is already done. They lose friends, contacts and opportunities.

But don’t misinterpret what I’m saying that there aren’t dangerous people out there that need to be exposed. The predators who pretend to be what they are not. These are not socially inept people, they are sociopaths and bringing them out in the open is everyone’s responsibility.

Not all non-socially awkward people are evil and not all socially awkward people are saints. If I’ve learned one thing, there are plenty of buttheads on both sides of any disagreement. Heck, I know I’ve been accused of such by both sides. But we’ve all been bound together by this need to express ourselves creatively. Some of the most imaginative people I’ve read can barely carry on a conversation. Should they be ostracized for what may be the hardest thing in the world to them? I don’t think so.

Despite the challenges, I’ve adapted. I’ve learned to hold my tongue under most situations. I’ve developed patience and looked for deeper understanding when dealing with people in social circumstances. As I change, I’m building better relationships with other writers who understand, those who “get me.”

It’s worth it. I want to make writing work. I have to. The goal is worth the effort. Does that make me smarter than some? Does that make me better than others? No. I’m far from perfect and I still make mistakes…

And that just makes me human.

About David Boop:

David Boop is a bestselling Denver-based speculative fiction author. In addition to his novels, short stories and children’s books, he’s also an award-winning essayist and screenwriter. His novel, the sci-fi/noir She Murdered Me with Science, will return to print in 2015 from WordFire Press. David has had over forty short stories published and two short films produced. While known for Weird Westerns, he’s published across several genres including media tie-ins for titles like The Green Hornet and Veronica Mars. His first Steampunk children’s book, The Three Inventors Sneebury, had a digital release in 2013 with a print release due in 2016. David tours the country regularly speaking on writing and publishing at schools, libraries and conventions.He’s a single dad, Summa Cum Laude graduate, part-time temp worker and believer. His hobbies include film noir, anime, the Blues and Mayan History. You can find out more on his fanpage, www.facebook.com/dboop.updates or Twitter @david_boop.

Physically Reacting to Conflict, Part 2: Reacting to the Threat

April 3, 2015

fictorians

Conflict Emily Godhand Guest Posts The Writing Life Writing Tools No Comments

A guest post by Emily Godhand.

When it comes to actually reacting to the threat, there are many factors that determine if the character will Fight, Flee, Freeze, or Fawn. In his book “Violence: A Writer’s Guide”, Rory A. Miller talks about how violence is, at its simplest, a tool. He discusses how our psychosocial conditioning can heavily influence how we wield and react to violence. Essentially, we use what has worked in the past.

It’s in our nature to find a way to adapt to situations. So a character who was discouraged from solving confrontations physically might find another way to ‘fight’. Therefore fighting need not be entirely explained as a “physical confrontation” within this context.

‘Fight’ can be explained as a show of resistance:

*Physical attack/counter-attack
*Defense (block, redirect, dodge)
*Passive-Aggressive actions or words (“Whatever, do what you want.”)
*Verbal confrontation
*Willfully refusing to fight (”Turn the other cheek” )

Imagine these responses as a spectrum of difficulty; If a character has been allowed to get away with physical violence, or been encouraged to use it, they are more likely engage with violence than someone who has been conditioned to “find another way”.

…hitting people is a hard mental barrier to overcome.

Flight is avoidance of the stressor:

So if fighting is ruled out either by reason or socialization, it makes sense then that your character would want to find a way out. This could be through physically escaping or some attempt to gracefully back out of the situation without tripping over their proverbial train.

There may be situations in which your character can’t reasonably escape, such as in a child in a classroom (he can’t leave school without repercussions), a worker at the job site (they need the money), or fleeing results in negative repercussions (such as in learned helplessness).

If the body is unable to flee, the mind still may. Your character may start to disassociate from the situation, fantasize, or even turn to chemical means of escape.

Freeze is the body shutting down:

And if fighting and fleeing are both ruled out either by reason, socialization, or fear, the body may freeze. In this way, the mind may be perfectly willing to engage or flee if it’s not choked with fear, but the body itself may betray your character and refuse to move. The mind may even disassociate to spare itself from an expected horror. This “playing possum” or “deer in headlights” response is a legitimate survival tactic. Motion may draw a predator’s attention whereas stillness may go unnoticed. Our society expects some sort of active response to a threat, so people who react with ‘freeze’ aren’t likely to see it as a way they survived. Instead they may feel a sense of failure and shame.

Fawn is mitigating the situation:

So if you can’t beat ‘em, and you can’t flee’em, what can you do? You’re left with “Join’em”.
This can also be called “Tend and Befriend” but scientists have an affinity for alliteration and rhyme. This more often seen in women due to socialization within our society. However it is not inherent. Any character may find merit in feigning surrender and working for/with the threat. Other ways this may present are seeking out the social group for protective safety, focusing on tending offspring, or diffusing the situation through diplomacy.

The degree and rate to which adrenaline is released differs by psychosocial history.

Multiple influences, as addressed in the first part, factor into the degree to which we perceive something to be a threat. The more something is perceived as a threat, the stronger the adrenaline reaction tends to be. But the rate at which that adrenaline is released and processed can differ from person to person.

An anticipated threat allows for the adrenaline to “trickle out”. If the character has been trained they can use that to prepare themselves. And if they can’t, the fear can build upon itself until they are overwhelmed. If your character is overwhelmed by uncontrolled adrenaline they are more likely to freeze if they don’t have the muscle memory from training to immediately take control.
By its very nature, an ambush catches the victim without the benefits of an adrenaline rush. Without adrenaline, people are more likely to freeze.

Managing adrenaline comes from training in the environment

Characters who have any degree of training over regulating their emotions, stress, and the social rules of engagement, from school-yard play fights to trained martial operatives, are going to have an advantage over characters who haven’t had any such training.

Sometimes that training isn’t enough. In order to be effective, training needs to be continuous and as close to real world conditions as possible.

An eight-hour “self-defense” isn’t likely to develop muscle memory. A martial arts class may only teach competition fighting, with staged and willful engagement may not prepare your character for the ambush of a street fight. Police officers practice shooting at the range, allowing them relative quiet to focus on perfecting their stance and breathing. However gunfights won’t happen in well-lit rooms while wearing appropriate ear protection. While good for the basics, range work doesn’t simulate the circumstances under which an officer is likely to draw his weapon.

Adrenaline is meant to keep someone alive, but even with the best of training under the best of comparable conditions, it can still work against your character.

Dilated pupils: Good to take in more information about your environment…or give you tunnel vision. Which means you may miss your opponent’s buddies coming in from the side. This can also skew your depth perception where your enemy, 20 feet off, sudden appears right in front of you.

Selective hearing: Also known as ‘auditory exclusion’, it is much like ‘tunnel vision for your ears’; you may not hear your comrades call out to take cover from the incoming grenade.

Increased muscle tone: For increased strength and speed. Side effect? Shaking. Trembling. Lack of fine motor control. The classic movie gesture of showing a man light a cigarette was to bring attention to this hands and how much they moved as an indication of how calm he was.

Increased strength: The reason we only get the levels of strength we do in stressful situations is it has become ‘Life or Death’, and life with torn muscles from overexertion is preferable to death.

Are the risks worth the engagement?

Engaging in conflict is not a decision you can take back, you can only mitigate the repercussions. You accept the risks and sign that contract with your life.
Potential Risks:
Physical harm, of any degree. What amount of harm are they willing to accept?
Social harm, of any degree. Will the crowd turn on you? Will you lose face?
Further escalation of violence. Will it make things worse?
Risk to others. Will I put others in danger?
Ego. Will I be able to live through and with the decision I make?
So all of you writing cops, soldiers, bad-asses, urban fantasy heroines, dystopian rebels, operators, and bildungsroman coming of age beating-up-your-bully stories, keep this in mind:

Committing violence is usually hard, even for the best of us.

About Emily Godhand: Emily Godhand is a cross-genre author who lives in a book fort in Denver, CO, with nine rats who revere her as their Queen.As former psychiatric technician, she draws her inspirations from her work and the constant nightmares she’s had for 13 years. As such, her works tend to focus on an exploration of trauma, immortality, and human consciousness. Read her latest work on Wattpad, where she is an Ambassador.

Physically Reacting to Conflict, Part 1: Perceiving a Threat

April 2, 2015

fictorians

Conflict Emily Godhand Guest Posts The Writing Life Writing Tools No Comments

A guest post by Emily Godhand.

Growing up, health classes taught that when filled with adrenaline, the human body would react in one of two ways:

A) React with extreme violence (Fight)
— or —
B) Run away like a coward (Flight)

And of course they were phrased as such. As if the only fighting that could be done was physical, and that running away isn’t a legitimate survival tactic.

But once I moved out of the realm of elementary school sound-bites and actually evaluated the world I was raised in, I came to the sobering conclusion that the body’s reaction to a threat is much more complicated and twisted than I ever would have imagined. … And I write horror.

The month of April could be devoted to daily lessons how a person’s response to perceived physical, mental, or emotional threats develops from their psycho-social upbringing. In fact, I could probably spend the month contrasting the various different ways a character could develop Complex-PTSD based upon childhood development traumas and the way that would present as an adult. But that’s a bit much and better people have expanded further than I ever could.

For ease, I’ll split this into two parts:
1) Characters perceiving a threat, whether physical, emotional, mental, or social.
2) Characters reacting to a threat (Fight, Flight….Freeze, Fawn)

There are many factors that come into play when determining if the body will perceive a stimulus as a threat.

1) Have they experienced this before?

a) Do they have a frame of reference for what might happen?
“I’ve never met a bear but I’ve heard stories.”
“Mother taught me not to go out at night.”

b) Did it end badly for them if they have?
“Last time I asked a girl out I made a fool of myself.”
“Dont touch me. Don’t you ever touch me!”

c) Could it have ended badly, but didn’t, so they have a false sense of security?
“What’s anyone going to do about it?”
“No one cared/bothered me last time.”

2) Is there a social difference (age, class, gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc).

a) Opponent is perceived to be stronger/faster/better trained, or
aggressive/evil/corrupt.
A male vs a female, if the society discourages females from violence/fighting
An armed person/Police officer/Soldier versus a civilian
Crossing the street to avoid someone of a certain ethnicity or class

b) Opponent has more socio-political power.
Authority/Parental figure vs protagonist
Rich man vs Poor man (who will buy the better lawyer?)
“Antagonist is a respected pillar of this community, who is going to believe
you?”

c) Does your character care?
“I won’t stand for this any longer!”
“Justice!”
“I don’t play well with authority…”

3) Is the character’s perception skewed in some way?

a) History of Abuse
“The last person who hurt me was sex/race/Authority, so I’m nervous
now.”
“Every time I tried to fight, I was punished.”

b) Prejudice
“I don’t trust THOSE people….”
“What’s SHE going to do? She’s 50kg of adorable!”

c) Ignorance or self-delusion
“What? Did I say something wrong?”
“How was I supposed to know they would be hostile to outsiders!”

Each of these will paint a different lens through which your character views the world, and the perception of the power that they wield, the power the world feels they are allowed to wield, and the degree of repercussions for violating that amount of permission.

“But, Em, I’m not a (insert race/sex/gender/orientation/religion) in (insert culturally appropriate location)! How am I supposed to know how their perspective might differ?”

Simple: Ask them. If you have the opportunity and good rapport with someone who might identify with your character, ask for their opinion and feedback on the passage, and what they’d be thinking or worried about in this encounter. Sometimes we have to imagine ourselves in our character’s shoes, and it’s better to get an outside opinion from someone who would have an easier time doing so.

You might be surprised. The world can be terrifying.

About Emily Godhand:

Emily Godhand is a cross-genre author who lives in a book fort in Denver, CO, with nine rats who revere her as their Queen.As former psychiatric technician, she draws her inspirations from her work and the constant nightmares she’s had for 13 years. As such, her works tend to focus on an exploration of trauma, immortality, and human consciousness. Read her latest work on Wattpad, where she is an Ambassador.

Fiction Faux Pas

March 6, 2015

fictorians

Balancing Acts Craft & Skills Marta Sprout 4 Comments

A guest post by Marta Sprout.

You know the feeling. You, the writer of a magnificent novel, stare at yet another rejection notice, which you promptly shred into confetti and promise to use as tinder in your fireplace the next time the wind-chill sags below freezing.

So what’s wrong? Why can’t editors and agents see the brilliance of your story? The simple answer might be fiction faux pas. Here are a few of the red flags that make editors roll their eyes and grab for that nasty form letter faster than you type nope:

The overuse of names in dialog.
Dialog tags that go beyond said or asked.
Too many modifying adverbs.
Holy Moly! There be too many exclamation points here!!!!!!

You work hard to tell a ripping good tale and to present exciting dialog. Knowing what not to do is only part of the equation. What we need is to understand why something doesn’t work and how to fix it. Let’s take a look at what works and what doesn’t:

What would you think if you read a line of dialog that went something like this…

“Enough, Rebecca!!!” he yelled, angrily.

Oh good grief…Referee flags are flying like a brawl on the goal line. Let’s look closer.

There is nothing wrong with using names in dialog, unless you go overboard and make your characters sound stilted and awkward.

“Ben, I can’t stay here any longer.”

“Well, why not, Sarah?”

“Because, Ben, this is where it happened.” (Bum, bum, bum…bum)

The overuse of names can easily sound like newbie theater students trying to be uber-dramatic or like characters telling each other what they already know for the sake of the reader’s enlightenment.

“Well, Elizabeth. We’ve been married for twenty years and have three fine sons.”

(I’m thinking Lizzy already knows this.)

Another reason too many names don’t work is because they act like speed bumps and interrupt the flow of the conversation. Never interrupt dialog unless three guys with machine guns show up.

What about those modifying adverbs? On page 673 of Under the Dome Stephen King wrote: “Glinda,” the girl said faintly. If he can do it, why can’t you? Beyond the fact that he has sold over 350 million copies, even he uses modifying adverbs very sparingly. Verbal exchanges pop NOT when you tell the reader that she spoke angrily, boldly, emphatically, hesitantly, sadly, or joyously, but when you put the full force of those EMOTIONS into her words. Compare these lines:

“You don’t listen,” she said angrily.
“What is wrong with you? You never listen to me,” she said.
Sarah smacked the silverware drawer shut. “What’s wrong with you? You never listen to me.”

In the first line, can you see how the character’s voice is so flat that the author has to tell us the character’s emotional state? The second line is better. We don’t need to be told that she’s hacked off because we can hear the anger rippling in her voice. In the third version, we are getting the emotion in her voice and we see and hear the snap of her gestures when she slams the drawer shut. The point here is that great dialog oozes action, emotions, and your characters’ own distinctive voices. Remember that in any conversation there are two expressions happening simultaneously: the verbal exchange and the body language, which can be even more telling. For example:

Richard launched out of his seat, towering over Sarah. “Do you love me?”

She stared at her lap and continued picking at her red nail polish.

“Answer the damned question.”

Sarah slouched in her seat and yawned. “Yeah,” she said without looking up.

Is Richard going to believe her? Not likely with that body language.

What about alternative dialog tags such as: he screamed, yelled, offered, replied, commented, snorted, bellowed, whimpered, etc? Here’s where the problem lies. Remember that some conventions in writing are done purely for the sake of clarification:

I love eating my dog and my grandmother (yuck) vs. I love eating, my dog, and my grandmother.

Like punctuation, dialog tags are purely for clarity and are meant to be invisible. They aren’t part of the dialog nor are they prose. To avoid repetition it makes sense that we’d be tempted to use something other than said. But trust me on this one, a reader’s eye will glide right over said and asked and remain focused right where you want it–on the conversation.

So, does that mean you will never see “he screamed” in the work of a bestselling author? Nope.

On page 180 of Tripwire, Lee Child wrote: “Get down,” Reacher shouted. If Lee Child can use these type of tags, why can’t you? You can, just do it in moderation and only when nothing else will do. Hint: they work best when showing a voice’s volume.

Speaking of punctuation. Exclamation points work only in extreme situations of utter desperation. Not so much when they crop up in every other line of dialog! Sometimes in multiples!!!!! Unless you write wonderful comic books, use them like hot Sriracha sauce–only when the situation requires a fierce punch. Remember those editors, whom you are trying to impress? They see the liberal use of exclamation points as sure signs of an amateur, which you’re not.

Writing is much more than a list of rules. It’s an art form. You can write anything–if it works. Language is fluid. Ever-changing. There was a time when we didn’t use punctuation or standardized spelling. Word usage evolves. If I had called you nice in 1285, you would have slapped me for calling you stupid. Back in the day of movies such as The Sound of Music, gay meant light-hearted or carefree. Lite is commonly used for the word light. Any form of written language from novels to nonfiction, blurbs to bumper stickers will BTW continue to change. The trick for a novelist is to tell a story that people will remember.

Good luck and keep writing.

About Marta Sprout:

Marta Sprout is an award-winning author. The Saturday Evening Post published her short story, The Latte Alliance, in their anthology “Best Short Stories of 2014 from The Great American Fiction Contest.” Her essays and articles have been published in newspapers and major magazines such as Antiques Magazine. Known for her thrillers, Marta writes full time, assists the Corpus Christi Police Department on crime-scene scenarios, and enjoys kiteboarding, scuba diving, and snow skiing.