Showing posts with label genres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genres. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

(Work-in-) Progress Reports: Bonnie and Clyde

Word count (to the nearest thousand): 3,000 for Bonnie, 24,000 for Clyde
Status: Chugging through the first drafts
Attitude: Excited

Look, a (work-in-) progress report! It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these. I’m happy to report that my new project, who shall be known from this day forth as Clyde, is coming along at a nice pace. I’m not writing him quite as quickly as I wrote Steve, but then, I have been a bit distracted, what with “The Writer’s Voice” and all. Still, I’m hoping to finish the first draft sometime within the next month. We’ll see how I do.

Clyde is a straight-up MG contemporary, with no fantastical elements or funny business. He’s a cute, quirky little manuscript who’s forced me to get in touch with my inner nerd:) But mostly, he’s just forced me to admit that I might really be a writer of realism and not a writer of fantasy.

I started to suspect this while I was writing Steve. Sure, Steve has a few less-than-plausible plot points, but I truly believe that, at his core, he’s a genuine historical, with period characters making period decisions according to the standards and mores of their day. Steve is about real life, and so is Clyde. Real life, apparently, is what I write about.

To further cement this theory, my other Shiny New Idea is also for a contemporary, this one a YA. Since I kind of think of these two manuscripts in the same thought, I’m naming this one Bonnie. She’s going to be my pet project for the time being, my experiment, and as such, I’ve only written a little more than her first chapter. Once I get my buddy Clyde into the hands of beta readers, I’ll reward myself by writing Bonnie:)

I’ve wanted to write a book set in two different timeframes for a few years now, so I’m going to try that with this one. I’ll tell the front story moving forward from a particularly significant day for the MC and the back story moving backward from another equally important day. This will also give me a chance to try my hand at present tense. In truth, I’ve never been a huge fan of present tense--it often feels like a gimmick to me--but in this case, I think it will help me keep the front and back stories straight.

Yep, these two projects have definitely forced me to reevaluate my own writerly self. I’ve always considered myself to be a writer of big, bold fantasy and science fiction, with lots of explosions and action scenes. But the truth is, I think I’m better at writing the quieter, more intimate moments between characters, and for the first time in, well, ever, I feel like I’m playing to my strengths.

So how are your projects coming along, and have they ever forced you to think about your writer-self differently?

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Are You More Literary or Commercial?

I recently read Mary E. Pearson's THE ADORATION OF JENNA FOX, an intriguing, thought-provoking piece that stayed with me for days afterward. The book raised a lot of philosophical questions about what it means to be human and the nature of immortality, but what JENNA really highlighted for me was the difference between literary and commercial fiction.

For those of you who haven't read it, here's the basic setup: Seventeen-year-old Jenna Fox wakes up from a nearly two-year coma to discover she remembers nothing about her former life or the accident that nearly killed her. Luckily, or unluckily, for her, she lives in the future, when biotechnological advancements have made it possible to sustain life far beyond the limits of humanity. The problem is, not all of these advancements are exactly ethical--or legal.

Now where would you go with an idea like that? Would a pair of federal agents show up a hundred pages in? Would a midnight escape be in order? A firefight, a car chase, a few explosions, maybe? If JENNA had been my idea, I'm sure that's where it would have gone, but I suspect these plot elements didn't so much as wander across Ms. Pearson's cerebrum. Because she's obviously of a more literary persuasion and I of a more commercial one.

What's the actual difference, then, between literary and commercial fiction? That's hard to say, especially since, like most things in this industry, it's subjective. But if I had to articulate it, I'd say the primary distinction lies in the source of the conflict. In literary fiction, the main conflict is often internal, or generated by a character or characters' inner struggle to achieve enlightenment. Commercial fiction, on the other hand, tends to rely on more external forces to create the friction: murder investigations, previously undiscovered worlds, love triangles, and the like. Put another way, literary fiction is more character-driven and commercial fiction more plot-driven.

Which is not to say that literary fiction has no plot or commercial fiction no internal conflict. The fact is, if your literary novel has no story arc, your readers are going to feel like they're just spinning in circles; similarly, if your commercial book has no character development or inner struggle, your characters will come across as flat and unchanged by the novel's end. But the main conflict will generally be internal or external, and one belongs to literary fiction and the other to commercial.

THE PRESTIGE, the novel and the movie, is an excellent example of this dichotomy. The movie, whose screenplay was adapted by brothers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, enthralled me with the intricacies of its storyline, so I decided to give the source work, Christopher Priest's novel by the same name, a read. Fifty, a hundred, two hundred pages in, I wasn't so enthralled. Christopher Priest had a great idea, I thought, but the Nolan brothers made it sing.

But by the end of the book, I realized that thought probably said more about my own writerly perspective than the caliber of either work. By the end of the book, I realized the two were just coming to the project with different sensibilities, and thus had different goals. Mr. Priest was more interested in exploring the nature of Angier's obsession and how that obsession eventually pushed him to compromise some of his most basic values. Conversely, the Nolan brothers wanted to create a fast-paced fantasy thriller about dueling magicians in nineteenth-century England, one that is perhaps best summed up by its first line: "Are you watching closely?" And so they ended up with two very different projects, even though they both started with the same basic idea.

Neither genre is better than the other, then. They're only different. So now that we've established that--and which one I am--I have to ask: Which one are you?