A Short Secondment to Starting Stories

               Below is, as the post title suggests, a short piece I wrote on my lunch break at work (because I'm so cool and have loads to do at lunch time). I've tried to capture the idea of isolation and bleakness while also putting some effort into a couple of tricks to make the narrative a little interesting despite the heavy feeling I want it to carry. Importantly, it is untitled and I just sat down and wrote it without worrying where it was going - I did this to show it can be done, and that writing doesn't have to be a crystalline, perfect creation from concept through to closing the concluding cover. I don't know where this is going, or what the character names are, or even where it is set, but I wrote it and I feel it is definitely strong enough for me to build on at a later date for another project, or to modify so I can add it into another project.

Untitled.

            It was close to the middle of the day. The sun scorched the scorched the street and the man who stood in it, sheltering in what sparse shade escaped the heat. It was too hot to work at this time and most were inside, cowering in the hot boxes their houses had become. This one man chose not to cower, instead braving the midday glare of the sun to be outside. His skin was dry and rough, cracked across his hands like the ground further out from the town; he rarely chose to hide inside when the world might offer something. Today had only offered heat and silence until the figure had appeared on the horizon. The man in the street had watched him from the shade for nearly an hour now. The figure revealed itself to be a man in yellow clothing on a horse. It was not the yellow of sun and sand staining but a bold and bright colour, nearly golden in its richness. The man watched as the rider approached, head unbowed by the height of the sun's heat. It appeared today did have something to offer, the man in the street thought, as he stepped out of the shade's safety to greet the man in yellow.


           Bam! Two hundred ish words of pure creativity! Not quite creative genius, and certainly not up to what I like to think of my normal standard; I noticed at least a dozen improvements which could be made as I typed it up. I left it as it was though, as a true and fair representation of what I could manage in twenty minutes without time to edit or review.
     
           I've tried to make the two characters have similarities and differences, such that I could in a section as short as this. They are both meant to exude a certain amount of pride and/or determination, perhaps defiance even, in their description but I wanted to make the man in the street disdainful compared to the aura of mystery I wanted to enshroud the rider in yellow. This grew from the decision to write in two characters, which I made very early on; I thought I'd have a little more time, and swiftly after creating the first I realized my plan for him would make him pretty unlikable if I didn't have another to counterpoint the views I wanted him to have. As it was, I did not actually get to the stage in the narrative where dialogue could happen and so you, as the reader, have yet to appreciate this.

              I point it out now because I've always found that if there is only viewpoint in any piece it creates an immediate potential barrier between the text and the reader - if the reader doesn't agree with the viewpoint, no matter how justified you might think it is or have written it to be, then they won't get on with the character or story. Hence I try to have at least two characters, if not three, so that they can each exhibit strong personality traits which differ from one another. By doing this I hope that at least one of them will appeal to the reader and so spread my net wide as far as catching and retaining interest is concerned. In fact, taking the net analogy a little further, if you make one out of rope tied in just one way you won't catch much and often smaller prey (readers newer to your genre of choice or with less time/interest for/in reading) will escape. If you bind the sides of your net with a second you will retain far more, and a third set of knots give extra security to it. More rope than that becomes clutter and clumsy, making your net difficult to use.

          Yes, that's the best I can manage write now. I appreciate this is a short post but I wanted to get something up; it's a busy week and as I have tried to keep clear thus far in my writing some words are far better than no words.

Stylus at Dawn

                 I have been challenged! To write something, rather than an event as dramatic or enthralling as a duel, I should explain. I have been charged with writing a piece which is a scientifiction and demonstrates character growth or change within five thousand words. Some would argue that I could use five pictures, using a certain equation most are familiar with, but I have neither the talent nor the patience to hone it for that to be a viable choice. I am about six hundred words in, due to time constraints rather than lack of ideas (fortuitously) but I am not worried that the deadline of a week will pass to find me in failure.

                Now, I used a word in that paragraph that some people (and Microsoft Word) would say isn’t real, or perhaps that it is a misspelling. ‘Scientifiction’ is that word (I hope, or my editing skills need more work than I thought) and it is quite an old fashioned one. I suspect a large number of literacists (an actually made up word, a spoonerism of ‘literary artists’) might not be familiar with it. It is an interesting term that is used to describe a sub-section of the science-fiction genre. In my mind the great, bloated and vast genre encompasses a huge amount of writing and a similarly pronounced potential for the exploration of ideas in the future and because it is so big can sometimes lose meaning. To give an example; Alien, Man of Steel and The Time Machine are all science fiction but differ quite substantially in content. As with most works of fiction these fall into several categories, and as with most science fiction pieces that particular descriptor is unfortunately lacking in descriptive detail. This is why I use the term scientifiction.

                Scientifiction is another spoonerism, borrowed from a university lecturer in my first year of study, for ‘scientific fiction’. This is now a sub-genre of science-fiction, but was probably the original genre before fantasy and science fiction started overlapping to the stage of being close to indistinguishable in some areas. It describes a piece or story that is based around the idea of fictional science, and explores it. Sometimes very little else happens in the story – Flowers for Algernon is one of my favourite examples of this. It is a really touching story of the romance between two individuals, one of whom is a scientist and the other a (willing) test subject. I highly recommend it, and it is only a short story, and it is a good example of scientifiction. It explores the effects of a new (and entirely fictional) scientific discovery on the two main characters and how they react to it.

                How is this different from other science fiction – or indeed, other fiction in general? Firstly the story is about mostly character reaction to the discovery and their responses to each other’s reaction. Usually there is a more interactive element in stories that are so character driven, but the focus in Flowers is overwhelmingly how the discovery affects the characters. This is not to say there is no interactive elements – there definitely are – but the science is central to everything that happens. This focus drives the piece forward, which is a strength, but at the same time because there is an intensity to this central element stories tend to be shorter as it is harder to maintain that diamond-edged concentration on a single subject through an entire novel. I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just pointing out it is difficult. 

                Yes, other genres have a similar, concentrated focal point. Gothic horror is an example with many stories that keep the reader tightly bound on a single subject. One of my favourite stories of this genre is The Red Room by (author) which I read during my GCSEs (middle school finals). I remember reading it in class and feeling almost claustrophobic, like there was a pressure pulling on me as I lived through the narrator’s horror. It was my first foray into what a friend of mine calls entrapment-horror and for all the reasons he hates it, I love it; the feeling of inescapable, inevitable doom good Gothic and/or horror stories induce is a thrilling feeling for me, although I appreciate that in the same way not everybody enjoys skydiving this emotional state is not everybody’s idea of an enjoyable reading reaction.

                Returning to my point – I am aware that my writing (and my conversation) can be haunted by tangents – scientifiction looks at imaginary science. If you are familiar with the Star Trek series, you will know they have the ability to travel at ‘warp speeds’. The science behind this faster-than-light travel is often alluded to but as something everybody is familiar with, and it is never really explained in any detail. This is, obviously, partly due to the fact we don’t know how to travel faster than light so explaining such is pretty close to impossible. If the show had a scientifiction grounding, however, conversations about the process would be more common place. They would probably involve a lot of jargon or ideas that sound legitimate but are actually improbable at best as scientific theories. 

For example, a new element – Kirkium, for the sake of an example – could be invented (read: discovered on Jupiter) that reacted in a particular way with something like lead which is cheap, common and plentiful to create a clean form of energy that was easily convertible into electricity (as that is the most common and accepted form of energy we use currently) in vast amounts. Then, on one of Jupiter’s moons (probably Titan) another element is discovered which is super dense yet easily forms alloys with more common metals in small amounts, making a super-strong molecular compound that can resist every pressure it is put under and doesn’t become brittle at absolute zero temperature. This is how starships are powered and can be flung through the void at faster than light speeds without smooshing them into a small lump of variously composed mush.

The above scenario is possible, although improbable and very difficult to substantiate at the present time. However, because it is possible and potentially plausible people are more willing to accept it - or suspend their disbelief – because the result is both brilliant and believable as a theoretical concept: If we could produce enough electricity and if we had a sufficiently structurally-sound construction material then the result is possible. This is the conceit we are willing to accept, and science fiction expands slightly on what those ifs are. Scientifiction explores the discovery and application of those ifs, which is the difference.

Now, I appreciate that might not sound like the exciting, rip-roaring adrenaline ride that some people look for in literature and nor is it the emotionally moving epic other want, but for some the exploration of a theoretical concept is incredibly intriguing, and I am one of those. So the challenge that has been laid at my feet is one I face with relish, and the genre is one I am happy to discuss – and little known enough I thought some might find it interesting to learn about. It strays flirtatiously close to creative non-fiction in some cases and if you enjoy relaxing to an intellectual piece or the exploration of a concept (not necessarily scientific in nature) then it would be worth a look. 

BIG BAD WRITING TIP FOR THE WEEK:

Don’t procrastinate. I talked about making time last entry; don’t put off writing simply because you think you will have time later. Get some done, even a little, and sometimes it unleashes a torrent of creativity. Keep it dammed up and you may find your ideas dry out before you can bathe in their refreshing waters. I failed in that this week, writing blog entries and having a social life rather than writing under this misconception I would have some free time at work. I didn’t, so am behind on the above challenge. So if you’ve made time, use it!

Page One

Good morning, afternoon, evening, night; whatever time of day you’re reading this. Since my last post was written I’ve done approximately 300 words of writing, so massively off target. Which saddens me greatly, but I’m still trying to find the time to fit writing into my schedule. It battles with work, which I basically have to do, going to the gym, which I don’t have to do but it certainly helps my dieting, and having a social life, which is again not absolutely necessary but still important to me. Previously I would have done it in the time I now spend at the gym but since I can’t spare that I have had to find other times to do it.

So this entry is about making time! This is an area of scientific study that has not been wholly explored yet, so really what I mean is budgeting time. If we suppose you get seven days a week and twenty-four hours in each day, this gives you one hundred and sixty-eight hours a week to budget. In my case I work nine hours for five days a week and sleep an average of seven hours a day for seven days a week, which leaves me with a paltry seventy-four hours a week spare. Working into that an hours travel time for each work day to cover the journey there and back, my free time is whittled down even further to sixty-nine hours a week.

While this could be seen as an auspicious number, it is less than half of my weekly hour amount. I then spend an hour and a half in the gym four times a week, for a total of six hours which lowers my total to sixty-three. So I spend over one hundred hours a week on things I cannot really avoid. On the flip side, this leaves me with sixty-three hours a week in which I can do anything I want! And that is quite a long time, realistically – to put it into context, I could feasibly have another full time job, or double the length of time I spend asleep, and still have time left over. So what eats away at this considerable amount of free time?

Firstly, everyone needs time to themselves. Relaxation is a very important element of a person’s day-to-day wellbeing; if you don’t make time for yourself you’re not really living for you. So some of it is spent on that – an amount I cannot specify, unfortunately, since it can and will vary. I could do some writing in this time but I stand by my belief that if it feels like I’m forcing myself to write then I won’t enjoy it and, worse, the quality of my writing will suffer. Don’t let this stop you; write anyway. I have a friend who made himself write something, anything, on a Saturday morning between nine and eleven just so he was doing some. It didn’t matter what he wrote, whether it was for a main piece or not – it just mattered that he wrote.  Writing is like exercise – you might not want to do it to begin with but once you’re into the flow of the script you’ll find it pretty easy to continue.

Secondly, nearly everyone has friends and like any relationship friends need maintenance. Some less than others but the other fact to consider here is that nearly everyone enjoys spending time with their friends. Could this be included in relaxation time? Quite possibly, but as a self-confessed introvert I sometimes find it difficult to recharge and recuperate while in social situations. Either way it is fairly rude to begin writing while meeting up with friends unless that is what you’ve met up to do. Writing is usually an insular activity especially when you have a brilliant idea in mind and other people don’t accept the sheer amazing power of your vision – which sounds grand, but I think everyone has come up with an idea they think is absolutely perfect and any suggestion that it is less than that is both gutting and bitterness-inducing. After a particular experience like this I call these jellyfish-moments, which helps me diffuse my frustration with them. At some stage I will give examples of them to demonstrate.

                So, for the sake of the maths I’ve used here, I will slash my remaining free time by two thirds. This leaves me with twenty-one unassigned hours. Let’s put that in perspective: I write at fifty-two words a minute when I know what I’m writing. We’ll lower that to forty for the sake of bio-breaks and pauses for thought. Sixty minutes in an hour means that at three-thousand, one hundred and twenty words per hour without breaks or two-thousand four hundred words with breaks. So in my twenty-one unassigned hours a week, I could potential write a massive fifty-thousand, four hundred words a week – or, if I really pushed myself, a stupendous sixty-five thousand five hundred and twenty. That’s a whole book! Or the better part of a novel! And all it would require would be three hours a night spent writing.

                Obviously, this is sounds too good to be true – and, sadly, it is. If I enforced this regime it would make me a recluse, which is not something I want to be. Despite being an introvert I still like going out and seeing people; not all of us eschew human contact simple because we are not extroverted. So the above equation and plan is a bit of a jellyfish (BAM! Already an example). But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have merit as a theory. Could I not give one hour a day over for writing? Easily. I could even do some while I eat.

                This is because writing as an activity is not simply throwing words out on a page in a vaguely prose format. It can include brainstorming, note making, editing, doodling or even throwing out ideas and/or pages. It’s all part of the creative process and it all progresses you towards your ultimate goal: Fame and fortune through brilliant literary feats.

                So I am going to start today spending an hour a day focusing on my writing. It doesn’t even have to be all at once – snatches of time you get free at work can be used to scribble down some notes furiously while you’re manager isn’t looking and then a half hour once you have some time to yourself to collate them and make sure they are actually all helpful and remove anything that is too jellyfish like. I urge you to do the same, if you want to keep writing, start writing or even just dabble in it. It doesn’t have to be linked, it doesn’t have to be perfect; it just has to be written.

The First Word on the Page

                   Over New Year we all have little epiphanies and revelations about things we should do more, or less, or better, or worse. Mine came when I heard someone make the comment, “A writer who doesn’t write anything isn’t really a writer.” I am a writer who writes very little and my initial reaction was to go and defend myself, but a little voice in my head said very, very quietly that he had a point.

                This understandably troubled me; it challenged my assertions about who and what I am. Part of why I agreed with him was because I’ve been troubled by how little writing I am doing at the moment. I use the excuse that I’m pretty busy and don’t have a lot of time, but I’ve also recently been telling people that we make time for things we want to do, and how we spend our time defines what we want. By that precedent I am at best an occasional writer, which saddens me. Since I don’t like being in this emotional state I have decided upon the resolution to make more time for writing!

                Before we go any further, I have to highlight the fact I am not a published author. I am not a famous, successful hero of fiction or literature and neither have I made my fortune spinning tales (yet). This blog is about the struggle to achieve that goal, the journey to get there and the joy of what you discover on the way (and, sometimes, the pain found therein as well). So hold your snide remarks and instead aid that cause - post your opinions, experiences and questions below so everyone can benefit. That's right - COMMUNIST IDEALISM! I'm sure that's something we should strive for and, if science-fiction has taught me anything, be wary of giving to machines.

                So what am I doing writing a blog? Why spend time writing this rather spending it writing fiction? I have found that scheduling is actually really good for time management – shocking, right? – so I’ve started using a journal. This allows me to plan ahead a little and I’ve found that to be rather empowering. My aim with this blog is similar; by writing this regularly I will be thinking about writing regularly and, hopefully, writing more regularly too as a result.

                One of the things I’ll be doing is addressing elements and aspects of writing that can be or have been problematic for either myself of friends who write. The first of these is the most obvious, as it is where everyone starts; titles and beginnings. Some people say the hardest step is the first one – I personally don’t agree with this analogy, as I don’t think writing is always an uphill struggle, but even if I did I would argue it is only difficult to conquer this as a first obstacle because you make it one. 

                How can you avoid getting stuck in the mire of mentally-sapping mind-mud? Step one; don’t give it a title. By all means note down ideas but don’t get hung up on it. The issue with titles is that they are supposed to embody and encapsulate the entire book – or play, or manuscript, or whatever you are writing. How can you choose a title without having written most, if not all, of your work? How do you know what your book is about without going through the creative process? Any book evolves as it is written and if your book was written in a day it probably needs some work. So don’t limit yourself by calling your book something gripping or edgy like ‘Dead Clay’ and then stressing about how to make the sixteen chapters that seem to have no relevance to your title have relevance. Note ideas down but don’t fixate on them. Which is easier to change; several thousand words or your title which is made of maybe half a dozen?

                The next problem is another obvious one; starting your piece. The biggest shift in effort between any two points in an endeavour is between ready and running, having nothing on the page to beginning to fill it, going from thought to action. Like everything, writing is subject to inertia and entropy; it’s difficult to start because you haven’t started and it’s easy to stop because it takes less effort and time. There are also your subconscious fears to consider – what if I change my mind? What if what I write doesn’t make sense later? What if it is just poor quality? These questions seem reasonable but are fairly unimportant in reality; you are not carving the words in stone. You will be able to change, alter or scrap them entirely at a later date if you so please. If you’re not happy with what you write you can change it – you can unmake its imperfection and re-forge it into something golden.

                So just out pen to paper; let ink spill forth across the page as a mighty flood of creative invention. Not sure what to write about? It doesn’t matter. First person? Third? Narrative, descriptive, or biographical? It doesn’t matter. I find I rarely know exactly where a story is going but as a result of just adding words to it the story writes itself and grows. Of course I edit, of course I rewrite and yes, of course I scrap projects occasionally. You are a writer, not an architect or construction manager; the things you create are far easy to alter or even abandon. The chance of failure or abandoning your piece should not be a reason to abstain from or avoid writing. On the contrary; through finding the faults in a piece, and in yourself as a writer, by writing without a rigidly set plan you can improve thereby letting both your work and your writing ability grow.