OFF WITH THEIR HEADS: villains, conflict and killing off characters

A couple of disclaimers.

First, this blog will contain SPOILERS for Gabriel’s Ghost, Shades of Dark and the movie, Serenity.

Second, I know I’m not remotely in the category of Joss Whedon. The man is brilliant. Beyond brilliant. Don’t take my questions and/or criticisms of his work as anything more than the ramblings of an author looking to make sense of the craft of fictional entertainment.

That being said, you by now may have surmised I watched the movie, Serenity, recently, and am somewhat perplexed over the death of Wash’s character. I watched the movie, not just because I thoroughly enjoyed Firefly, and not just because Whedon provides one helluva good romp with his stuff, but because I wanted to learn. One of the downsides of being an author—and YA author Stacey Kade (watch for her debut with Hyperion in 2010--right now she's still SFR author Stacey Klemstein) and I were chatting about this—is that reading for pleasure seems to happen less and less. It’s hard to read—or watch—something in your genre and not analyze characterization, plot, conflict and the like. So I found myself last weekend watching Serenity with one eye and breaking it down with the other: oh, bit of a plot twist, there. Oh, some layered on characterization here. Oh, major plot conflict coming up. Oh, here’s the regroup and revise scene…

Then, sitting in the cockpit of Serenity, just having crash-landed on the world of Miranda, Wash gets lanced. Skewered.

And I go, WTF?

Yes, obviously, it was an emotional moment. And writing is about emotional moments. “It’s the author’s job to manipulate the emotions of the reader,” said writing guru Dwight Swain. And I subscribe to that. But it’s also said that fiction must be more logical than real life.

And Wash’s death wasn’t plot-logical. It was emotional, no doubt. It wrenched the reader. But it wasn’t logical to the plot and didn’t create or improve on the growth of a major character.

Emotion for emotion’s sake is not enough in fiction. When it’s done like that, it becomes a cheap shot. Or what writing guru Jack Bickham refers to as “dropping an alligator through the transom.”

Book’s death, on the other hand, was plot logical. It impacted heavily on Mal and that was shown clearly. Mal was the one to find Book, was the one to hold him as he died. Prior scenes showed their friendship and their backstory conflict. Book’s death was a clear catalyst to Mal.

Wash’s wasn’t. For one thing, Wash and Mal had no backstory conflict and though they were clearly friends, it was a calm friendship for the most part. There wasn’t a Wash-Mal issue as there was a Book-Mal issue. Wash was a minor character who served a great role and was also the husband of Zoe, another minor character.

The two major characters, to me, in Serenity, were Mal and River. Writing gurus always ask: Whose story is it? And that’s a huge question that must be answered as you craft your fiction piece. If you don’t know whose story you’re telling, your piece will wander all over the galaxy, lost, in search of coherent and cohesive plot and conflict.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg details much of this on her Sime~Gen site:
http://www.simegen.com/school/workshop/WORKchoosingProtag.html

The main POV character is the one who ACTS FIRST -- the person attempting to impose their agenda on the course of events -- to get things to come out in their own favor. The VILLAIN or ANTAGONIST is the one who is acted-upon and objects.

River, through help from her brother, Simon, acts to escape the psychic detention facility that’s held her and tortured her. They end up—and much of this is backstory—on Mal’s ship, Serenity. But it’s Mal who acts—when the Alliance assassin confronts him, demanding River’s surrender—to tell the Alliance to take a hike and it’s Mal who acts to thwart the Alliance. Zoe, Jayne, Wash, Simon and the rest are all minor characters. The two main POV characters—and most of the movie’s scenes are with one or the other as key—are Mal and River.

Given that, Wash’s death is useless. Simon’s death would have made more sense. River is a main POV character. Simon is her beloved brother. His death would have forced her into “character growth.” Wash’s death doesn’t force with Mal or River into character growth (any more than had already occurred.)

So to me, Wash’s death was a cheap shot, basic stage door faux-trauma simply for the shock value. As a movie-goer, I thought it was an exciting, emotional scene. As an author, I thought it was sloppy.

Now, Stacey, much more a Whedon-ite than I am, had a bit of a different take on the matter:

“Wash...I probably wouldn't have killed him off, no. But here's the thing, it does, in a sick and twisted way, which is Joss's way, make sense for him to be the one to die. He is the MOST innocent out of all of those involved. And Mal...well, I think it all relates back to the Battle of Serenity in the war between the Alliance and the Brown Coats. Mal believed in the war, thought he was fighting on the side of good. He was in charge of a platoon. He and Zoe fought and continued to fight even after the battle was essentially over. Not only did they lose, but he and Zoe were the only ones who walked away. All the others reporting to him died. After that, Mal withdrew. He gave up his white hat, ceased to see himself as a good guy. He wanted nothing to do with helping others or getting involved in any cause. He looked out only for himself and what benefited him. He got involved in helping others only when forced by circumstances and the fact that he couldn't completely tamp down his do-gooder (for lack of a better term) conscience. He did not want the responsibility of all those lives on his "boat." In fact, Mal would have preferred, I think, to die rather than to be responsible for their deaths (see ep "out of gas").

So, in this situation, here we are again, Mal leading innocents into hopeless battle. He's taking on that white hat again, and his hands are bloodied by the deaths of those who follow him. And he's not going to quit this time.He has to confront his fear that he's going to cause the death of all these people and lose AGAIN. He's being forced to be the hero and he's going to go through with it, even if it kills him.”

I can see Stacey’s point but notice how much it relies on backstory—television episodes of Firefly, that the movie-goer may not have seen. The author can’t assume they’ve seen them. So to build a huge emotional twist like Wash’s death based on backstory unavailable to the viewer at the moment strikes me as… less than good. The movie should be able to stand on its own as a cohesive unit.

Now, it may be there were earlier scenes between Wash and Mal that were cut. That happens all the time and that’s a failing of any media—books included—that have time or word count restrictions. You have X amount of pages to do something or X amount of minutes to do something.

But to me, then, if you cut the prequel, the rationale for a major character’s death, then cut the death scene. Or rewrite it. Wash could simply have been seriously injured, his injuries providing conflict to the fleeing crew (Drag him along or leave him behind? Slow us down? Save his life?) and Mal. I would have bought into that fully. It might have even created more conflict and tension.

Wash’s death to me was quick, final and senseless.

I know. People die for senseless reasons all the time in real life. But read what I wrote above: fiction must be more logical than real life.

(BTW, Jacqueline has an excellent critique of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager in a similar vein. I couldn’t find it on the Sime~Gen website but I’m sure it’s there and perhaps she’ll post a link.)

So how does this fit in with my books?

Two characters. One I killed off, one I didn’t.

Del in Shades of Dark. Ren in Gabriel’s Ghost.

I really hated killing off Del because he was a hugely fun character. But Sully, a main character, had to have growth, had to experience sacrifice, had to be motivated to reach deeper inside himself. The two main motivations for Sully in Shades of Dark were Del and Chaz. I took both away from him near the end of the book. Chaz, of course, he regained. Del had to die. But Del had to die not only for Sully’s growth and lesson but to partially redeem Del as a character and yes, to be true to the character of Del as I built him. He wasn’t as much an evil character as a selfish one. But his selfishness was, to a great extent, cultural. As was his penchant for sacrifice and, in the end, sacrifice he does. He dies so Sully can live. Which, based on Del’s upbringing, mindset and culture, was exactly the way things should be.

I took pains to prequel—lightly so but I did it—that this was a possible outcome all through the book. Del’s line of “…and I shall walk again with kings…” and his adherence to Stolorth traditions set up completely the book’s end. Rash’mh han enqerma. A sacrifice in exchange for an unspeakable wrong. This was one of Del’s guiding principles—and yes, villains can have principles—and it was the logic behind his death.

So was Sully’s challenge to Del:

“You’ve told me many times I still need training. That a rogue Kyi like me is capable of utter destruction if I’m not careful. Then heed your own warning. Don’t force me to find out just what I’m capable of. Because when the dust settles, I will be the one left standing. And you know that.”

The character I initially killed off then rewrote and didn’t was Ren in Gabriel’s Ghost. Again, I was looking for a catalyst for change for the main character, Sully. But at the point I would have done it—and I’m grateful to the crit partners who pointed this out none too gently—it would have been more for emotional manipulation that character growth. It would have, in essence, been a cheap shot. The timing and placement were wrong and going back and rereading the old pages, I could see where Linnea the author had run out of ideas so, hey, let’s kill someone.

I ended up not doing so because Ren, alive, forced much more character growth on Sully then Ren’s death ever could have.

It’s a very easy trap to fall into when writing: let’s just throw on a bunch of actions that engender scary and unhappy emotions, and keep the reader reading. But eventually that’s exactly what the story will feel like: things just thrown on. More is not always better. In fact in fiction, more often produces crap. Conflict must come with a why, not just an ouch.

Maybe next week I’ll touch on why the capitulation of the Alliance assassin at the end of Serenity also set my writerly teeth on edge.

Unless you all want to open that dialogue here too…

(and I still think Joss Whedon is a freakin’ genius, and if I could produce stuff even half as good as he does, I’d be a happy camper…)

~Linnea

SHADES OF DARK, the sequel to Gabriel’s Ghost, July 2008 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/

I watched Sully’s eyes snap to black, his lips, thin. His hand clasping mine tightened. Shock gave way to anger, which gave way to something more primal, more male. It tasted of jealousy, possessiveness, dominance.

And all I had said was, “Hello, Sully. I just met Del.”

I poured the encounter into his mind almost as fast as he retrieved it. I held nothing back, not Del’s seductive handsomeness nor the power that fairly seethed beneath his surface, nor the ease with which he rendered me helpless, folding the Grizni back around my wrist.

Questions of Immortality

I've been reading a YA novel called SUCKS TO BE ME, subtitled "The All-True Confessions of Mina Hamilton, Teenage Vampire (Maybe)." Mina's parents are both vampires, the traditional formerly-human, transformed type. (Vampires can't breed; they had her before their change.) The Vampire Council has recently learned of Mina's existence. Because ordinary human beings aren't supposed to know about vampires, Mina is faced with the decision of whether to become a vampire. Her parents and uncle (who's also a vampire; he transformed her father) take it for granted that she probably will accept the change. In preparation, she has to attend classes, which of course she has to keep secret from her friends in high school. It's an amusing book with lots of debunking of myths that, in Mina's world, aren't true. For one thing, the vampire lifestyle isn't nearly so glamorous as the popular media imagine. (Her father is an accountant, for Heaven's sake.)

I've read other books in which the protagonist is given that choice, but no others that approach the topic quite the way this novel does. As for my own vampires, they're members of another species. Most fictional vampires don't get a choice; they're either born that way, transformed against their will, or faced with vampirism as an alternative to certain death. But suppose a free choice existed. Which brings up the question: If you were offered the opportunity to become a vampire, would you accept? Assuming vampires aren't intrinsically cursed and evil, the core question here, of course, is whether you'd want to become immortal. The down side of an indefinitely extended lifespan includes growing apart from all the people you know and eventually being cast adrift in time, possibly afraid to make friends because, from the vantage point of centuries, they'll die too soon. On the other hand, ordinary mortals keep and love pets even though cats and dogs live much shorter lives than we do. Does that mean an immortal would relate to other people the way most of us relate to pets, though, not as equals?

Corporeal immortality has never appealed to me. For me, the fascination of watching history unfold over centuries wouldn't make up for the isolation. Fast healing and immunity to disease and age, though, that's another matter. Those benefits would be tempting. Other considerations depend on what version of vampire lore you accept. Inability to go out during the day would be a major disadvantage; however, that restriction doesn't apply to all folklore vampires or any of the classic nineteenth-century fictional vampires. If the only problem were a slight weakness or sensitivity to sunlight, I could live with that. I'm something of a night person, anyway. Most versions of the mythos agree that vampires can't eat solid food. I'd miss that part of ordinary life very much (and I love garlic). Reputed benefits include superhuman strength and speed, the ability to mesmerize people into obeying your will (a power that could also be regarded as a dangerous temptation), and irresistible sexual allure. Transformation into animals would be cool, if that's part of your accepted vampire lore. A crucial problem could involve obtaining blood without hurting people. Many vampires in fiction can manage on animal blood or bottled discards from blood banks, but would those sources of nourishment be completely satisfying? If blood-drinking has a sexual component, finding a compatible lover could solve the problem, but then the vampire would have to face eventual loss of his or her human lover, even if the lover changes rather than dying; transformation is sometimes assumed to make an erotic relationship impossible, as in Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Saint-Germain series.

I'm thinking of these issues partly because I'm scheduled to chair a panel on vampires and other immortals at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in March. "Highlander" immortals face many of the same issues vampires do, though without the dietary limitations and other vulnerabilities. Peter Pan lives forever at the cost of never growing up (which the author presents, at first, as a boon, but by the end of the book we see hints to the contrary). Some fictional vampires are portrayed as psychologically frozen in time, unable to grow past what they were in life or transcend the limitations of the era in which they were born. Claudia, Anne Rice's child vampire, who can't even cut her hair without having it grow back by the next night, illustrates this premise in an especially chilling way. That kind of immortality, in my opinion, would be a curse rather than a blessing.

Villain Defined

Linnea Sinclair and Susan Grant have fingered the exact problem most writers face. Most of us aren't criminals or megalomaniacs, not even deep inside. Most of us just want to make you laugh, smile, and cry all at the same time. We deal with the tender stuff inside our readers, not the coarse, gross, inelegant world outside.

After all we spend most of our young years reading (even in class, even when supposed to be doing homework, and sometimes even on dates!). We are readers more than we are do-ers, and as a result have a hard time thinking what nasty people would do.

Now we write fantasy (even SF is fantasizing of some sort, about the future, the galaxy, alternate times). And people don't read fantasy to get Headline News. (movies ript from the headlines, maybe, but not reading fantasy/sf/romance). We write classics to be enlightening a hundred or a thousand years from now, not a brief on current events.

So HOW DO YOU CRAFT A VILLAIN?

We don't know any villains. We see them on TV, read about them on Yahoo News, but they aren't in our social circles if they're "larger than life." They hold CNN Press Conferences. We just toil in our solitude hoping for a fan email from someone who has understood our novels.

Villains are complex and deep, so crafting them is especially difficult, as Linnea points out, when you're working in cross-genre with a severe word limit.

You can't include the whole life backstory of ALL the characters. Readers have to know what to infer from a few clues, so you have to craft a villain character readers (who like you don't know any villains) that the reader will instantly understand from a Japanese Brush Stroke image. Because your readers (and yourself) only see villains FROM OUTSIDE, you have to show your villain character from outside. There's no space to go that deep into them, and it wouldn't be fun for the reader.

If you want true-crime that goes into a psycho's head, you read something other than a romance spinoff genre.

So that's why we tend to create cardboard, cliche villains. Next week, I'll discuss how to accomplish this feat of larger than life character invention using Pluto as the ruling planet of Vampires and avoid the cardboard, single-dimenional villain problem. And in fact, I'll include last week's current events.

But right now, let's look at the easier part of the job of finding the antagonist/ villain/ Bad Dude.

So where do you look to find the correct villain for an SF Romance?

Back to the writing basics I keep harping on in these posts.

THEME. PROTAGONIST. PLOT. RESOLUTION.

That's where you find your villain/antagonist/BAD BUY.

The glue that holds the Romance plot and the Action plot together is THEME. Both plots have to be expressions of the same archetypal THEME, to say something about the same issue of morality, life, the universe and everything.

This structure saves you lots of words so you can put two genres together in the same wordage allowed for one genre. It's economics as well as art.

The theme comes from (or alternately generates; every writer and every project may randomly choose a different starting point -- but in the end, all the parts of the story must be in their proper places) -- so the THEME comes from the PROTAGONIST.

Look inside the protagonist, find what his/her life is really about (unbeknownst to him), then TEST TO DESTRUCTION that protagonist's view of life-the-universe-and-everything.

Find the one premise of that character's existence that he/she has never questioned, and present the protag with proof that the premise nearest and dearest to their heart is WRONG.

That's what antagonists do. Show the Protag how wrong he/she is.

The key to a hot romance is figuring out "what does he see in her" and "what does she see in him?" Both questions are answered by the THEME.

The key to a hot KILL THE ENEMY story is figuring out the tie between the two enemies. Why does this hero need THIS PARTICULAR VILLAIN? What inside the hero gives this villain a hook into the underside of his psyche?

Both the hot romance and the hot kill-the-enemy story need RELATIONSHIP DRIVEN PLOTS. They're just different relationships. (or maybe not so different)

WHAT DOES THE HERO NOT-KNOW ABOUT HIM/HERSELF? What does the hero keep secret from himself?

It is by that short-hair that the villain grabs hold of and jerks around the life of the hero and JOLTS the hero into becoming a Hero (Hero's Journey -- we all start as plain dudes and dudettes, and something happens that is NOT OUR FAULT and WHAM we are in a fight for our life against huge forces. And to win we have to solve that inner problem where those forces have hold of us.)

EXAMPLE: Guy photographs you in a compromising situation. Sends photo, demands money. He's got hold of you by your secret. What are you willing to do to protect that secret? The ONLY SOLUTION is to cease having the secret. So you plaster it all over the airwaves and the NYTimes -- you don't "confess" but you ADVERTISE as if it's a virtue not a shame.

When you reach the point where you're not ashamed of what you've done because it has brought you to a new psychological and spiritual level, there is no longer a place inside you where the villain can take hold. You are FREE. Problem solved.

So to find the protagonist's natural antagonist, look deep inside the protagonist. The mirror image in the bottom of the protag's mind IS THE ANTAG.

This is where the amateur writer fails. This is where the "Mary Sue" story comes from. The failure of the author to LOOK INSIDE the protagonist because the protagonist is too much like the author, and so it's too painful to look too deep inside.

As Linnea points out, writing is the hardest work there is but she didn't mention that it's the least paid in money; hence the hunger for fan feedback -- not worshipful gaa-gaa fan feedback, but illustration that the work has propagated into others' lives as goodness.

Writing does drive some to drink because it does require that deep, inward searching and brutal self-honesty that other professions (not even psychiatry) do not require.

Now, sometimes you have to work the problem backwards. So think again about the story element list.
THEME. PROTAGONIST. PLOT. RESOLUTION.

Sometimes you have a protagonist and you know the problem, but what there is about the story that makes you want to write it is the RESOLUTION.

So to find the antag, look deep into the RESOLUTION. Dissect it. Analyze it. Find the philosophical core issue that changes because of the resolution. Lay back with your eyes closed, become the protag at the resolution moment and just FEEL the non-verbal effect you want to create for the reader in that end-moment.

I've been showing you in previous posts how to look at any issue using tools such as Tarot and Astrology to parse the real world down to its immutable (smallest indivisible unit -- just like the Greeks taught us) core components, then re-arrange the components in an original way and come up with a story element you can build on. The problem of generating the antag yields particularly well to these techniques.

Grab good hold of any ONE of these story components I've been discussing, any one, and ALL THE OTHERS ARE DETERMINED.

The art of story telling is just that -- understanding the relationship among things in this world and reflecting that relationship in the artistically created world.

In reality, your nemesis, your antagonist, actually lives inside you. Think back to High School. Who would you hide from? Would you hide from that person today? If your HS antagonist no longer lives inside you, you won't hide now.

Lots of good novels are about the moment of release when an adult vanquishes their HS antagonist forever -- by growing up themselves.

So if you have a protag, you already have the antag, plot, theme, resolution, etc etc. You even have the beginning, but that's the hardest to find. However, if you know the ending, then the beginning and middle are already determined.

In screenwriting, they call this relationship BEATS. I'm learning and practicing how to do that particular paradigm and having a ball at it.

This system works backwards too -- find the villain, look inside, and you'll find the protag who is that villain's nemesis.

The protag and antag are tied together along the axis of the theme. They are each living out different answers to the question posed by the theme.

Take the blackmail example again. The blackmailer has found that knowing someone's secret gives POWER. The blackmail victim has LOST POWER by losing the secret. It's all about the theme of the use and abuse of POWER. So every other backstory detail about both blackmailer and his/her motives and victim and his/her motives, right down to the breed of dog they own has already been DETERMINED by the nature of the thematic tie between Hero and Villain -- they have built LIVES based entirely on POWER, and probably have no room for LOVE.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com

DOUBLE-DUTY: PUTTING A FACE ON CONFLICT IN AN SFR

I just got off the phone—literally—with author Susan Grant. I have no idea how she has time to call in between piloting 747s, writing her books, tending to her fur persons and dealing with two teenagers at home (the last, as I told her, is like having five children at home). But she’s a sweetheart and she calls to chat about writing and what’s going on, and one thing we both hit on was the importance of creating a proper villain in our stories.

She already has hers, lucky dog. I’m still working on mine.

Creating the antagonist (that’s the foo-foo writerly word for bad guy…guy being generic) has always been tough for me. Susan and I discussed the fact that so often in science fiction/science fiction romance, the antagonist is less a person/sentient and more often something like, like the Ubiquitous Evil Empire or Corporation. But even empires and corporations need someone to pull the trigger. And that trigger person has to have the same goals and motivations, fears and desires structured in as your protagonists do.

It’s even better when the antagonist is less the Evil Empire and more the crazed, wacko, jealous, bitter but deep down inside nice person craving love and affection kind of character. Who may or may not work for the Evil Empire but certainly has an agenda or his or her own.

Those are the more difficult characters for me to craft. I’m better at the minions—the characters who operate under the direction of the Evil Empire—than at the individual self-motivated, self-contained baddy.

However, in SHADES OF DARK, I learned just how much fun it was to write the self-motivated, self-contained baddy in the character of Captain Del Regarth. And that made me want to do it again.

Trouble is, not every plot line that leaps into my head comes complete with a self-contained baddy. SHADES did. It was likely the exception that proves the rule. So with my current WIP, I’m trying to create a self-contained baddy or two. Because they’re honestly more fun to write.

Del was hugely fun to write. I don’t want to get into spoilers for those of you who’ve not read SHADES OF DARK (and #1, why haven’t you? And #2, do read GABRIEL’S GHOST first). Del actually had some heroic moments. Del actually saves the day a few times. Del actually is sexy and almost endearing in some scenes.

He’s also selfish, manipulative, condescending and spoiled rotten. And very very deadly.

In my current WIP—the follow-on book to HOPE’S FOLLY and one which I, quite uncharacteristically, can NOT seem to come up with a title for—in this current WIP it feels like I’m going to have two rather self-contained antagonists. Oh, there’s still the Evil Empire looming in the background. But I want to have real faces to put on the conflict.

That means creating two characters as in-depth as I do my protagonists.
Don’t you always do that, Linnea? You ask.

Uh, no. I don’t.

See, let me explain something about writing cross-genre romance, and science fiction romance in general.

Every novel anyone writes has a plot (or should have). In a mystery novel, for example, it’s the whodunit. There’s the cop or agent or PI. There’s the mystery (the dead body, the missing necklace, the kidnapped grandmother). There’s the bad guy. The conflict is clearly between the cop and the bad guy over whatever the mystery element is. In a fantasy novel, there’s the prince, the kingdom to be saved, and the fire-breathing dragon who wants to toast the town. Literally.

Okay, I’m being simplistic but I hope you get the drift.

When you write cross-genre and/or science fiction romance, things get more complicated. You have the adventure or mystery plotline (can the destitute starfreighter captain rescue her friend from the evil alien kidnappers?) and the romance plotline (can the destitute starfreighter captain risk having her heart broken by the imperious military officer who’s help she needs to rescue her friend from the evil alien kidnappers?). Falling in love in the midst of the mystery complicates things. You essentially have two parallel plotlines to construct, work with and solve. (And yes, I’m obliquely dealing with my FINDERS KEEPERS plotline here.) You have the adventure plot. You have the romance plot. You have the emotional conflict between the hero and heroine in the romance plot. You have the physical conflict between the hero/heroine and the bad guy in the adventure part of the plot.

For a good part of your book, your hero or heroine may actually also function as antagonist as well as protagonist, in addition to your book’s other antagonist in the form of the bad guy.

Confused yet?

(Think that’s bad, you should have seen me struggling with GAMES OF COMMAND in which I had two sets of hero/heroines with romance plots to solve AND both male protagonists had valid issues where they could also be functioning as undercover agents for the over-arcing antagonist of the Evil Empire AND on top of that I had to have some actual “has a face” antagonists…phew! And people wonder why authors drink…)

So the author of any cross-genre romance essentially must do twice the work of any solo-genre author in constructing characters, conflict and plot.

Didn’t realize that, did you? (And—more food for thought—we must do it in the same word count allotted to solo-genre books. So we have to do twice the story in the same amount of space. And you wonder why authors drink…)

What I find happens with me is that after roughing out my protagonists in the romance part of the story—and figuring out how they’ll be antagonists to each other for a period of the book—I’m fresh out of ideas for a self-contained antagonist who will come up against my hero and heroine. Just to make life more difficult.

As I said (whined) to Susan Grant on the phone: can’t we just have Generic Bad Guy? Does he or she have to have motivations? Can’t he just be BAD?

Nope. You need a face on conflict.

Susan had one great suggestion: look to the news. The media is full of bad guy stories, from politics in any given country to the pirates in the shipping lanes over in the Middle East, from which to craft an antagonist. Real life examples exist all around us. Greed afloat, in the latter case. A little research into current events—and reading the news analysis of same—can give you a lot of background with which to plop into your antagonist’s character chart.

The other—for me—is simply to do a character chart for the antagonist(s). I’ve really not done them before—at least, not in any detail. (IE: in AN ACCIDENTAL GODDESS I knew what motivated Rigo and Blass at that point at which they appear, but I didn’t know anything about their histories.) Writing Del in SHADES changed all that.

So for me, putting a face on my conflict now means going far more in depth on my “adventure plotline” antagonist than I have before. It means doing a lot of backstory that will not show up in the book other than as motivations. It means forcing myself to give the antagonists some likeable characteristics. I read somewhere, “Remember: the bad guy is the hero in his own mind” and that thought is really what sparked Del and what I hope sparks the baddies in my current WIP.

That doesn’t mean at all that the Evil Empire as antagonist is wrong. For a lot of books—many of which I’ve written—that’s exactly where and what the baddie needs to be. Sometimes the greater threat must really feel greater and all-encompassing. Sometimes one bad-ass dude with a laser pistol just ain’t enough.

But when you need a self-contained bad guy, Susan’s suggestions of starting with news articles (or even history—if she has time to post I’ll let her relate the story about Hitler she told me) is a good jumping off point for your creativity.

Then spend some time working with that character’s backstory, as deeply as you do for your protagonists. Get in to the antagonist’s “But I’m a Hero too!” mindset.

It may not make your book any easier to write. But it will definitely make it more fun.

~Linnea

SHADES OF DARK, the sequel to Gabriel’s Ghost, July 2008 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/

Chaz, Del is not the problem you perceive him to be.

Let’s see. He ambushes me on Narfial, blocks you, wanted to neutralize Marsh and then locks you away from me in some mystical woo-woo place that used to be a shuttle bay. In between all that, he has an annoying habit of calling me “angel” and “lover,” walks a very thin line between harmless flirtation and practiced seduction, and then has the balls to say I’m touchy. I have no idea why I think he’s a problem.

From Roy Blount, president of Author's Guild.

Susan Kearney asked for this to be posted:

>From Roy Blount, president of Author's Guild. Pass it along!

I've been talking to booksellers lately who report that times are hard. And
local booksellers aren't known for vast reserves of capital, so a serious
dip in sales can be devastating. Booksellers don't lose enough money,
however, to receive congressional attention. A government bailout isn't in
the cards.

We don't want bookstores to die. Authors need them, and so do neighborhoods.
So let's mount a book-buying splurge. Get your friends together, go to your
local bookstore and have a book-buying party. Buy the rest of your Christmas
presents, but that's just for starters. Clear out the mysteries, wrap up the
histories, beam up the science fiction! Round up the westerns, go crazy for
self-help, say yes to the university press books! Get a load of those
coffee-table books, fatten up on slim volumes of verse, and take a chance on
romance!

There will be birthdays in the next twelve months; books keep well; they're
easy to wrap: buy those books now. Buy replacements for any books looking
raggedy on your shelves. Stockpile children's books as gifts for friends
who look like they may eventually give birth. Hold off on the flat-screen TV
and the GPS (they'll be cheaper after Christmas) and buy many, many books.
Then tell the grateful booksellers, who by this time will be hanging onto
your legs begging you to stay and live with their cat in the stockroom: "Got
to move on, folks. Got some books to write now. You see...we're the Authors
Guild."

Knight's Fork

UFOs

The latest issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER focuses on UFOs. Personally, although as a long-time SF fan I believe other intelligent life probably exists in the universe, I don't believe alleged UFO reports offer any justification for thinking aliens have visited us in the recent past. The alleged sightings of extraterrestrial craft (such as the incidents discussed in this SKEPTICAL INQUIRER issue) have consistently been disproved with much more credible mundane explanations. As for reports of alien abductions, all the accounts I've come across read like mediocre science fiction written by people who don't know much about science fiction. Many of them also sound a lot like tales of incubus and succubus attacks, a similarity suggesting a psychological phenomenon that has existed throughout human history and has been given different names depending on the beliefs current at the time. Writers skeptical of UFOs often ask why aliens would travel all those light years—even assuming the technology to make the trip, which is a stretch in itself according to our present state of knowledge—just to hover around without making contact. And if the abduction stories were true, why would extraterrestrial visitors choose the people typical of supposed abductees rather than contacting scientists or authority figures? If they are studying our species, couldn't they have learned more than enough about us in the past sixty years or so since the first UFO reports?

Although I don't believe UFOs are actually alien spacecraft, as an SF reader I can think of several plausible reasons why aliens might hang around our planet without making high-level contact and yet apparently without taking any great care to conceal themselves. Think of Jane Goodall and the chimpanzees. A researcher of that type wants the subjects to become accustomed to her presence, but she doesn't want to interact with them directly and thereby change their behavior. Maybe that's the strategy of ET anthropologists observing us. Or maybe the alien scientists do want to manipulate us, and the "abductions" are part of a long-term experiment to find out how we'll react to the aliens' apparently irrational behavior pattern. Maybe Earth happens to be located near a wormhole or some other transportation portal undetectable to our present technology, and the ET spaceships are using the portal without caring whether we notice them or not. That hypothesis might account for the erratic sightings of objects that appear and disappear without being susceptible to reliable tracking. Maybe they're mining or harvesting some natural resource unknown to us. Or, to indulge in paranoia, maybe the natural resource they need comprises human life energy or brain waves; maybe they've been feeding on us for eons, a scenario that would explain the horrors of human history. (That idea comes from a pulp-era novel called SINISTER BARRIER, by Eric Frank Russell, in which energy-beings called Vitons have used us as livestock for our entire existence.)

Or maybe they're watching us to determine our worthiness to be admitted to the galactic community; I hope so. The seemingly random sightings and contacts, again, might be specifically designed to test our reactions to aliens among us.

As for the "interstellar distance" argument against ET visitors, aside from the hand-waving assurance that an unimaginably advanced culture will have solved that problem, not every alien spacecraft sighted in Earth's orbit has to have come from another star. They might have a well-established base in the outer reaches of the solar system, as the villains in Robert Heinlein's HAVE SPACE SUIT, WILL TRAVEL have a base on Pluto. Their technology would certainly allow such an outpost to evade detection by the few probes we've sent that far.

Other than the familiar clichés of invasion and conquest or peaceful assimilation into a galactic federation, what other motives might aliens have for dropping in on us? Trade? Exploration for the sake of pure knowledge? Tourism?

Tree In The Forest

Another source of crazy ideas for Paranormal and SF Romance is the word problem or philosophical puzzle known as a Koan. Take care: these things are addictive.

Rowena and Linnea discussed the flaws in our lead characters -- and how we love to test those characters to destruction.

Obsession is another such flaw, a flaw as dramatically powerful as a drug addiction. Many people get caught up in obsession with a person and mistake that for love.

That psychological mechanism can fasten onto these intellectual/philosophical issues and produce drama and romance just as powerful as drug addiction.

People do go through periods (astrologically) when they are vulnerable to being sucked into cults, or the study of the occult, or the pursuit of magical power to
a) attract their ideal lover,
b) take revenge on the unresponsive object of their obsession,
c) gain power and wealth, political and otherwise, but particularly political because with political power you can direct all your inner angst at the external problems of the world, thus self-righteously protecting your personal neuroses and addictions from change.

A writer looking for source material for popular stories rooted in classics can do well exploring all kinds of religions and philosophies world wide. Of course, you may become obsessed and keep looking and never writing.

http://www.thezensite.com/MainPages/koan_studies.html is a handy starting place.

Or
http://www.whyfaith.com/2006/08/30/if-a-tree-falls-in-a-forest-riddle-answered/

I wrote about how bad I am at philosophical word problems recently:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/05/exogamous-human-female-ive-been.html

My favorite Koans are like the one about if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? And what is the sound of one hand clapping?

These are actually language problems and world-view problems that you can become obsessed with -- or just shrug off as silly.

See my post on Linguistics For Writers:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/11/linguistics-for-writers.html

which discusses the unthinkable.

The Koan leads you into a loop where your thoughts will just slide around the inside of the walls around your mind. Trapped, endlessly trapped -- because you think in language. The answer to this puzzle is literally unthinkable without accessing the realm where your spirit dwells without words.

To start getting out of that endless loop, see my even earlier post on Giving and Receiving.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/11/gift-giver-recipient.html

If you can wrap your subconscious around the model of the universe with the Give/Receive paradigm built into the substance of Creation (i.e. the model of the universe behind the Tarot) you can solve the Koan of this type without any trouble.

Alien Romance writers note how two vastly different cultures and world views blend through the science of linguistics and the vision of Art -- the Western Magical Tradition with the Eastern Wisdom tradition of Zen Buddhism. At that interface, you will find hot stuff for romance. Talk about Romantic Suspense!

You can find 20 of my blog posts on the Tarot minor arcana posted on Tuesdays from August 2007 -- here's the first of the series
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2007/08/folks-first-i-have-to-say-that-at.html

I hope to have a collection of them, with the unpublished volumes on Wands and Cups available for PDF download. Subscribe to this blog or to me at http://friendfeed.com/jlichtenberg to be notified.

These posts on the Tarot for Writers give an overview of a world concept rich with story ideas, especially ideas about Relationship driven plots.

The Tree of Life diagram behind the structure of Tarot is composed of 3 pillars, or vertical columns. Positive, Negative, and the Central Pillar which is neutral.

Male, Female, Neuter. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

The universe structure is inherently one of Giving and Receiving -- and between them is a point at which Giving and Receiving are in BALANCE or synthesis.

What these Koan puzzles are challenging is the structure of the universe you hold in your subconscious as a non-verbal assumption.

Carlos Casteneda wrote a series of non-fiction books
http://www.wisdom-books.com/Author.asp?AUTH=Castaneda
about the training of a shaman in which the candidate is taught to "stop the world" and slide through the "crack between worlds" -- to alter consciousness of reality and thus gain power. One of the exercises was "running the night" -- literally running through the desert without being able to see with the eyes where your bare feet will land, and still arrive at your destination.

The study of the Koan leads to a similar ability. The study of Tarot, likewise. The hint of the possibility that mastering these disciplines could bestow power - power to conquer one's inner fears, one's unspeakable and unthinkable fears - is what sucks some of the vulnerable into obsession with these occult studies.

Now, bravely, back to examining the puzzle of the Koan, the shape and structure of existence.

Can there be giving without receiving? And without both, can there be peace?

Can a hand clap by itself?

Does a falling tree make a "sound" if nobody hears it? That question depends on the definition of "sound" you see, which is linguistic or maybe scientific.

What is the definition of "clap" -- is it a word that means a sound, or a word that means connect with another of your kind? Does it mean deliver kinetic energy to? Does it mean receive kinetic energy from?

What's all this got to do with Romance, especially with non-humans?

The concept of Soul Mate is rooted in the concept of a world powered by positive and negative energies -- where one is not superior to the other, but they are in balance, and compelled by the structure of reality to combine and balance.

Because it is so primal -- more fundamental than staying alive (paranormal romance with ghosts), finding a soul mate is another thing that can become an obsession, a main character's major flaw that must be overcome at the end of the narrative so that he/she can find that soul mate.

A Soul-Mate will have a World View, a vision of the macro cosmic all, lodged deeply in unconscious assumptions, that is either identical to or in complement to the mate's. Thus they instantly fall into silent and total communication; they recognize each other at first sight.

When identical, such souls have a much harder time mating!

Think of the musical chord. There's a mathematical formula for making chords -- but there are a number of musical systems just among humans that all have different formulas for what constitutes harmony -- an ear trained for one system hears dissonance when a chord of another system is sounded.

Souls are like that - NOTES. They combine in CHORDS (families). But the sense of what combines with which to make harmony is DIVERSE.

If it's so diverse among human cultures -- just imagine how diverse it could get adding non-humans.

Now, a Soul-Note from humanity COULD combine harmoniously with a Soul-Note from non-humans.

However impossible, it could happen. Some theories have it that we're not always reborn on the same planet.

So one way it could happen would be if they both had the same answer to the question about the falling tree in the forest making a sound, or the sound of one hand clapping.

Does the giver have any effect on the world if there is no receiver?

And there we are back to unrequited love.

Is unrequited love a bad thing? Is "love" actually a transitive verb - that you must love someone or some thing? You can't just LOVE?

That ability, to just LOVE may be rooted in a view of the universe, an unconscious assumption about the nature of reality. Those who just LOVE tend to be HAPPY.

There's a new study that shows that happiness is contagious.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/hl_nm/us_happiness_4

But they couldn't figure out how the mechanism that vectors happiness works, so maybe it works the same way as this "tapping" or Emotional Freedom Technique works (you can tap acupuncture points on your own body and improve the health of a close friend, relative, acquaintance! as well as your own.)

http://www.emofree.com/ -- ( a marvelous way to engage the placebo effect on yourself -- but oddly, it has been shown you can do it on yourself and help others.)

The Emotional Freedom Technique is also considered a scam by scam busters:
http://skepdic.com/eft.html

So you can see the potential here for conflict between lovers! (How dare you heal me with that scam technique!) (Well, at least now you don't need little blue pills.)

So this study on happiness being contagious might mean that some people, who view the universe in a certain way, may be able to spread LOVE around -- if Love and Happiness are related notes in a chord.

How might the Arcturians look at this argument?

I'm making myself crazy today -- too many interesting ideas all over!

But here are some "unthinkable" ideas to ponder as story material.

1) (USE AND ABUSE OF POWER) Maybe part of the auto-bailout deal ought to be a mandatory Breathalyzer interlocked with the car ignition, so if you're drunk you can't start a car. This is off the shelf technology that has never caught on with auto-makers, so it's not an SF concept. But considering automakers worldwide are now begging for your tax dollars, one of your characters might want to bring up the problem of drunk driving with congressmen/women. That's easy via this website.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Now suppose contacting a congressman/woman led into a searing hot romance via a blending of philosophies? Or into a relationship with someone obsessed with political power?

2) (OBSESSED FICTION READER) Publishing is continuing to melt down. You're going to have to find your daily fix of story via e-books, webisodes, movies, DVD's, (gasp!) TV! Words on paper are getting rare.

Here's a NYTimes article about Houghton Mifflin (huge publishing conglomerate) suspending acquisions of new books. (don't panic; they always do this in recessions)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/books/25publish.html?_r=1&ref=business&goback=%2Ehom


The Chicago Tribune (which owns the LA Times, lots of papers and local TV stations, and the Cubs team) is in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. The Cubs aren't included.

And :

Random House, Simon & Schuster, and Thomas Nelson are restructuring or laying off people. Random, which is described as being composed of "fiefdoms," says it is breaking down the walls between the imprints. Sounds like they will be getting rid of some. S&S is cutting back. Nelson is firing 10% of its staff. One of the last two is also freezing pensions for newer workers. There is an article at the Huffington Post about it, as well as the Wall Street Journal.

If a Publisher falls in the forest of high-leveraged businesses, does it make a sound louder than the sound of an Auto Manufacturer falling?

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

http://www.slantedconcept.com

Addiction, Danger and Flaws, Oh My!

Continuing Rowena’s theme from yesterday, I’m going to yammer on today about the flaws in characters in SFR, not just because I think it’s a worthy subject, but because I think it’s a fun one.

Rowena’s right: we do tend to load our alpha (and other) characters with problems. There are a couple of reasons for that (and many of you probably already know them if you study the craft of writing fiction).

One has to do with the Mary Sue Complex (or Marty Sam, if you will). The Mary Sue/Marty Sam is the character that is too perfect—not only to be believable—but to be likeable. Remember the girl in high school who was not only the best cheerleader but she was the prom queen and class president? Her clothes never wrinkled, her hair never frizzed and she never once had a zit. Remember how much you hated her?

That’s why we don’t write Mary Sues/Marty Sams. Readers can’t identify with them (neither can authors—my hair frizzes and my clothes and my skin both wrinkle). Instead we create characters with flaws, quirks, foibles, follies, addictions and annoying habits.

You know. Like us.

The second reason we love flawed characters is that we want to see a character succeed and grow. If the character is already perfect, there’s no growth. It was either Jack Bickham or Dwight Swain (both are writing gurus and I’m not going to drag out their tomes to figure out who said it) who said that readers have a need to pass judgment on someone (ie: character). Part of that “passing judgment” means judging whether the character DESERVES to win the book’s stated goal. If that character already has everything, is perfect, then it’s likely the reader will find some other character in some other book more deserving.

The third reason is that—according to Dwight Swain—a character “must start a fire he can’t put out” in the opening part of the book. Perfect characters don’t start fires and if they do, they can put them out, perfectly. So the “can’t put out” is lost with a perfect character.

We want the warts and all with our characters.

Only one of my characters to date had a stated addiction to a physical substance—and that’s Sully (Gabriel Ross Sullivan) in Gabriel’s Ghost and Shades of Dark. His addiction was to a substance known as honeylace—a drug of sorts, illegal except when used in religious ceremonies. Sully’s addiction to honeylace was his means of coping with the pain of what he was: a mutant human-Ragkiril, a telepathic shape shifter whose powers were feared and hated by everyone around him. Including himself. It was a combination of self-loathing and self-preservation that made him indulge in honeylace. Honeylace kept his talents muted. He needed that to survive in a world that would otherwise deem him the lowest of outcasts.

But addictions aren’t only to substances. Rhis in Finders Keepers was, quite honestly, a power addict. He was the one no one dared say “no” to. Except, of course, Trilby. She became the fire he couldn’t put out.

Branden Kel-Paten had a number of addictions, not the least of which was his obsession with Tasha Sebastian. I mean, he had her followed—for years. He hacked into her transmits. He dictated long missives to her (that he never sent). He had a secret stash of photos and holos of her. We’re talking serious addiction. (And it has been rightly pointed out that many characters in present day novels would, if real people, likely be arrested and/or committed to psych wards. But that’s because fiction is larger than real life. And—as Jacqueline Lichtenberg has wisely noted, fiction is drama.)

Kel-Paten was also obsessive with his privacy, his ship and his fleet. He was a rigid individual in many ways (his cybernetics notwithstanding) because he found solace and protection in that rigidity.

Both Admiral Mack (An Accidental Goddess) and Detective Theo Petrakos (The Down Home Zombie Blues) were work-a-holics. A benign flaw in some ways and also in some ways an addiction. Both defined themselves by their jobs. And interestingly, in Zombie Blues, so did my female protagonist, Commander Jorie Mikkalah, zombie-hunter extraordinaire. Conversely in Goddess, the last thing Gillie wanted was to be defined by her job. She didn’t want her job at all (and she clearly stated that several times in the book. She wanted to be “just Gillie.” Not a goddess. Not a sorceress. Not someone to be worshipped.) So while I paired Gillie and Mack as opposites, I paired Theo and Jorie as two sides of the same coin.

Did I do this deliberately? Yes. Why? Because of something on conflict I read on Jacqueline’s site:

"What is keeping them apart" is the CONFLICT. Misunderstanding and distrust are minor and trivial complications. The CONFLICT has to be real, about something substantive. And it has to be both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL at the same time - reflected one in the other. And each of them has to have the OBVERSE of the other's conflict if you're going to do dual-pov. Take her internal conflict,
twist it 180 degrees, and that's HIS internal conflict. (You can get a more complex novel by twisting her inner conflict into his external conflict).

I had to read that over about a dozen times before I “got it” and I’m still not sure I totally have it. But it’s something I use to work flaws and addictions and obsessions and danger into my characters and my stories.

In Hope’s Folly, one of Rya Bennton’s inner conflicts is her overwhelming sense of being unworthy. Of not being good enough, pretty enough, thin enough, experienced enough. So I took that and slapped it onto Philip Guthrie’s external issues. I put him in a situation where his previously acknowledged (and in some cases, lauded) experience, expertise and reputation were shattered. His external authority was challenged while her internal self-authority caused her pain.

Rya saw herself as flawed. Philip was born with the proverbial and clichéd silver spoon in his mouth. But because of that, his personal expectations were also very high. And the higher you are, the more painful the landing when you fall.

They both fell…and fell in love.

Flaws and all.

~Linnea

www.linneasinclair.com

High Romance: Addiction in speculative romance

How many Romantic heroes can you think of who are addicts of one sort or another?

Add up all the alcoholics, the sex addicts, the gamblers and risk takers in your favorite novels. You might be surprised. I was... although I've certainly done it myself in the case of Djetth (aka Prince Djetthro-Jason, aka Commander Jason) in Forced Mate, and in Insufficient Mating Material.


Why is that? And, is it irresponsible of us (authors of alien romance) to portray dangerous and potentially antisocial behavior as heroic?


I submit that it is partly a function of characterization. The hero has to have a flaw when "his journey" begins, but it has to be one that the reader can forgive. Therefore, a treatable addiction works very well.

The flaw in his character has to get him into trouble. He has to have an excuse for the sort of behavior that lands him in an unprotected and compromising situation with a bed partner he would --when in his right mind-- go out of his way to avoid.


It is plausible. The alpha male personality calls for some degree of obsession, compulsive behavior, and savage competitiveness. Very often, our heroes are warriors, and may have turned to alcohol or other substances to dull their harrowing memories, or their unhappiness with what their duty and rank requires them to do.

The alpha female personality ought to call for competitiveness, and a certain reckless determination to get her man (or grasp the glittering prize) too! However, we don't see as many heroines who are drunkards, who hazard their own or other people's family fortune and dependent family members at the intergalactic gambling hell.

I'm using Regency Romance terminology. In my opinion, a lot of futuristic and speculative romance is a "Regency", or a "frontier Western", or whatever beloved genre is currently not so much in fashion in an outer space setting. The historian in me approves. So does my lawyer!

Last Tuesday, I did my monthly "Crazy Tuesday" internet radio show. In theory, we were talking about the heroes of short stories, but also heroes who wear short garments such as shorts, loin cloths, breech cloths, kilts.

Diane Davis White, author of Moon of the Falling Leaves, discussed a vision quest, where a shaman would starve himself until he hallucinated. She also described a breech cloth as worn by the Lakota. I never realized that a breech cloth is a tiny, independently hung curtain at the front and a second one at the back.

I'd assumed that TV Tarzans wore authentic garments!

Jacquie Rogers, who is an expert on rodeos, contrasted the breech cloth wearer's lack of sensible protection between the legs to the kevlar underwear sported by rodeo clowns to protect them from the blast, because apparently rodeo clowns have their trousers blown off them (with explosives) on a regular basis.

Risky behavior indeed!

Bottom line. (Hah! Pun!!!)

We already have legal disclaimers claiming that our characters are fictitious and any resemblance to real persons living or deceased is pure coincidence. I wonder if it would be a very good thing if we added a "Do not try this yourself" warning rather like that used by the Mythbusters on TV.

What wording might we use?

Darkover Con

Over Thanksgiving weekend we attended Darkover Grand Council, just north of Baltimore, as we always do. Despite the name, the con no longer has an exclusive focus on Marion Zimmer Bradley's work; it's a general SF and fantasy con of cozy size featuring lots of sessions that address issues of writing craft and world-building. This year's special guest was Patricia Briggs, author of the Mercy Thompson urban fantasies. She's an interesting speaker. One of my favorite panels she participated in was the one about wolves. In most memorable session of the weekend, however, she and her husband described the process of casting silver bullets (with props). It's a lot harder than horror novels make it sound; a main problem is that silver has a much higher melting point than lead. I was surprised to learn silver is also harder. I'd thought it was softer, like gold. A very educational hour! On her website, www.patriciabriggs.com, you can go to the "News Archive" page and click on the "silver bullet" link to read her husband's detailed account of the quest for usable silver bullets. Another celebrity who attended and appeared on several panels was Esther Friesner. As you would expect, she's very entertaining. Among many other authors who've become regulars, Katherine Kurtz, Tamora Pierce, Diana Paxson, and C. S. Friedman were also present.

Sadly, the costume competition has been steadily dwindling in number of entries over the years. This year's contest had only four. A strong hint was dropped that the masquerade will be discontinued. I'll miss it. Our Sime-Gen Faith Day gathering has also decreased since Jacqueline had to stop attending, with only two people in the room this time. (We hope you'll be able to rejoin us eventually, Jacqueline!) We read aloud a portion of one of Jacqueline's Sime-Gen works in progress, an exciting drama set earlier in the history of the universe than we’ve ever seen before.

As always, the eclectic folk group Clam Chowder performed Saturday night. Their songs, both traditional and original, range from melancholy to rousing to humorous. They finished with "Zombie Jamboree," accompanied by a large portion of the audience lurching gleefully up and down the aisles. Darkover has a custom of collecting donations for Children's Hospital during the Clam Chowder intermission, to the tune of four figures each year. Some funds come from auctioning off "comfy chairs" at the front of the room and two opportunities to sing karaoke with the group. The rest of the money, which comes straight from the audience, ostensibly bribes the Clams to sing "Bend Over, Greek Sailor." I won't quote the chorus here, but you can probably guess what kind of song that is. This year, they included a few new verses written especially for the occasion.

To read about the history behind the "Bend Over, Greek Sailor" tradition, go to www.darkovercon.org and scroll down to the link under "Clam Chowder" labeled "fund raiser for Children's Hospital."

At midnight Clam Chowder launches the holiday season by leading anyone who wants to join them in the “Hallelujah Chorus” in the hotel atrium, followed by a Christmas carol sing-along. Alas, I don’t have the stamina to stay up for those events, not with the prospect of waking up Sunday morning for breakfast and 10 a.m. panels. Maybe some year in the future.

Mumbai, Chabad, Terrorism, Love

The Essence of High Drama Is Life

This is a blog about "Romance" -- Romance in faraway places with strange sounding names.

But today I bring you a dose of sobering reality.

It is from that reality in which we are embedded that we draw our fuel for our Art. Outrage, anger, fear, determination, shock, remorse, grief, and conquering all of these LOVE.

Love is the petrol -- the fossil fuel from long dead ages -- our heritage that powers our Artform, our Real Lives, and ultimately our souls.

And so, I have to tell you a real life story.

When I first heard of the coordinated attacks in Mumbai, I was surprised CNN was carrying it full time live. Then I remembered Mumbai is very much like New York, a nation's financial capital, surrounded by water, an easy target, and that a lot of people from India live in the USA -- a lot of Americans live or travel India -- business has burgeoned.

Mumbai is now on the border with Phoenix, Arizona. The world shrank. Bloggers in India were reporting on events in Mumbai as the events unfolded.

So gradually I learned what was going on. Then I heard via personal friends and contacts that one of the restaurant attacks was the restaurant next door to the Chabad Center in Mumbai.

The Rabbi there was on the phone with someone in my network, and I heard that the Rabbi had said that bullets were flying through the Chabad Center. He hung up. They called back. No answer. No further contact with that Rabbi or his wife again.

Chabad (a Jewish organization, but not at all like the ones usually termed "Ultra Orthodox"-- I mean not at ALL like them) had a place in Mumbai?!!!

That hadn't occurred to me. I don't know why I was shocked -- Chabad is everywhere. And it makes sense they'd locate next to a tourist restaurant because they serve the needs of travelers.

So suddenly, I am clinging to the TV screen and rifling through the news reports. What happened to the acquaintance of my friends? Oh, I hope they're OK.

Next morning, I learned 5 were dead in the Chabad House, and 2 terrorists were dead in the Chabad Center. (Later it was 6 dead). Finally, they reported the Rabbi and his wife had been killed. I was stunned senseless but I didn't cry.

There was no word on WHO else was dead. So I dug up a story on Yahoo and in the middle a tiny paragraph said the 2 year old baby had been rescued by "an employee" of the Center. No word on who else died or who the employee was.

I sat there and cried harder than I've ever cried in my whole life. THE BABY SURVIVED!!!

It was his nanny who saved him -- and he came out of there covered in blood. 2 is old enough to be terribly traumatized by whatever he must have seen, heard and experienced. (days later, I learned he made it to Israel and the family had managed to bring the Nanny too so the baby would have a familiar face during the "terrible 2's.")

As I learned the story of this Rabbi and his family, learned how hard their lives had been from those who knew them personally, I figured out why I cried so hard at survival while I was just numb over the deaths. Among all the pain and suffering in this world, there is GOOD.

That baby is important. Survival is important. Life and love are important. Death stalks us all. Love transcends. That baby is loved. That baby is love in our real world.

I learned that the baby's 2nd birthday was Friday, the First of Kislev, the New Moon before Hanukkah. The Biblical portion read on the day the parents died had been sited twenty years ago or so by the Rebbe, on the occasion of another attack on a Chabad Center.

The Rebbe was the Rabbi who headed up the Lubavitch group that sponsors Chabad and sends Rabbis to the ends of the Earth to find people to help.

That Biblical portion that the Rebbe quoted will therefore be this boy's Bar Mitzvah portion -- a portion he will memorize.

What other coincidences surround this child, I don't know. Maybe he, himself, will never appear in the news (once on CNN is enough for a lifetime). He may never do anything much, but that he exists means love exists. Love prevails. Joy lights the world. A tiny candle dispels the darkness. Never doubt love conquers all.

For the official Chabad obituary see
http://www.chabadcenter.com/news/article_cdo/aid/773691/jewish/Mumbai-Jewish-Family-Killed.htm

http://www.chabadcenter.com/news/article_cdo/aid/772546/jewish/Jewish-Child-Safe-in-Hostage-Crisis.htm

All of this became seriously personal to me when I got the following email from a friend of mine, a Rabbi at my local Chabad, who is the same age as the Rabbi who was murdered, who sat in the same classrooms, and knew this Rabbi as he grew up.

My friend talked about this man's personality, his constant optimistic outlook, his capacity for joy, his zest for life, his brilliant mind. I asked then if I could quote this email text that was sent out on Friday.

--------------------------

Dear Friend,

My heart is bursting and eyes brimming with tears and we join the more then 3000 Chabad Centers & World Jewry as the news of the fate of my colleague and close friend Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg rolls in and at least three of their guests Who are still unnamed, have been murdered. A vibrant young Rabbi and his wife dedicated their lives to spreading messages of Torah and Mitzvahs in the far out community in Mumbai, alas, now they're dead!

What were they doing there? What possessed a couple who had a multitude of opportunities in life to move to Mumbai to open a Chabad Center / Lubavitch Center?

Allow me to explain.

Rabbi Gabi and Rivka Hotlzberg moved to Mumbai not as you may yourself understand, to further a career or because the pay was good rather because he was inspired by the vision and quest of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. A vision that was to incorporate every single Jew in the world. Every Jew, no matter where he may find himself physically or spiritually was to have a way to connect to their precious heritage. So persistent and dedicated was the Rebbe to this ideal that he created a global network of his own personal Shluchim (emissaries) to ensure that this happen. Instructions were clear; upon arriving at your assigned community do everything in your power to provide for the material and spiritual benefit of every Jew. Even those Jews who have little obvious interest, were to be sought out and inspired to give them a way back in. The Holtzbergs were in Mumbai as emissaries of this tremendous ideal. Their dedication was a selfless one and a holy one. Their success wasn't one that could merely be quantified in physical terms rather their success was one of spiritual giants! Their success was one that we could only aspire to.

The outpouring of love and dedication from all corners of the community has been inspiring. Like one large family, everyone feeling the pain of the other reaching out to find out what can and needs to be done at a time like this?

The answer is quite clear. The ideals and actions of Gavriel and Rivkah (obm) need to be intensified and strengthened. If they stood for vibrant Jewish life then it is up to each and everyone of us to intensify in our own personal Judaism. To ensure the immortality of the Holtzbergs and the ultimate failure of the terrorists we all need to take a step forward in ensuring that the truth of Torah Judaism not only survive but flourish.

---------------------

I think this Chabad Rabbi has explained what Linnea Sinclair was talking about in her blog entry THE ASSUMPTION OF EVER AFTER (Sunday Nov 30, 2008) and in the comments to that blog entry about "trying" being the entry point into a Romance that results in "ever after." I answered Linnea's comment on her own post that her "try" was all about "risk." And that's what these Chabad Rabbis do: Risk, but knowing that risk is worth the objective, which is love.

My husband later dug out of the international online news that though at first it was thought the Terrorists targeted Americans, British -- any international travelers -- it now appears they were specifically after Jewish Americans, Jewish Brits, etc. I haven't seen that confirmed yet, but now we are hearing warnings that this style of attack may target New York.

Whatever Pakistan/India politics and war history may have been involved, this terrorist act was not strategic (with a bit more planning and warriors, they could have literally taken over Mumbai for a few weeks). It was not just to establish the name of a new terrorist organization in a competition among terrorist organizations.

This attack was hate inspired. A group of 20-something old men raised for 20 years on a mental diet of pure hatred, trained for a year or two in warfare, struck out in hatred. The philosophy: You can kill what you hate by hitting it and that will solve your teen-angst because all your problems are caused by something external to you.

Chabad's response to being hit is to ignite love in the world. And that is absolutely typical of Chabad. I've seen it over and over, from the absolutely most trivial matters of congregation politics to the most vivid matters of global hatred. That's what Chabad does. They love.

Here are two more references for the general response to the massacre in Mumbai.

From Rabbi Zvi Freeman:

R. Freeman writes some nifty articles online. I truly appreciate his wild imagination! Only this essay is cold sober. A question came in asking the classic, how is it that such a horrible thing happened to such a great Rabbi and his family. "This is their reward? This is the protection G-d gives them?"

It is an agonizing classic that has no answer. Rabbi Freeman answered very fully at this URL

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/774032/jewish/What-is-our-response-to-the-massacre.htm

And he said in small part:
-----------------
We will revenge the work of violence by doubling and quadrupling our works of peace and love. We will fill the world with light and wisdom and the spirit of darkness in men's hearts shall forever perish. They come with their guns and their might, with a god of destruction and terror, but we come in the name of the Eternal, the source of all life and healing.
------------------

Here's a page from the central Chabad organization:

Their web page "What Can I Do?"

http://www.chabad.org/special/campaigns/chabadindia/mitzvot_cdo/aid/773655/jewish/What-Can-I-Do.htm
And a quote from them:
-----------------
There are tears, pain, mourning and loss. There is hope, commitment and faith.

But there are no words.

Instead our actions must speak for each of us. The people that we help, the differences that we make, will testify to what we cannot verbalize. The goal of terror is to paralyze, to make us feel there is nothing we can change. We will now work all that more passionately to ensure that nothing will stop us from growing, from developing and creating.

We owe it to the victims—the more than 190 innocent victims, including six of our Jewish brothers and sisters: Gavriel and Rivky Holtzberg, directors of Chabad-Lubavitch of Mumbai; Rabbis Bentzion Chroman and Leibish Teitelbaum; Norma Schwartzblatt-Rabinowitz; and Yocheved Orpaz. May their righteous memory be for blessing.
------------------

In the name of all the 190 victims, we fuel our deeds with love.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/

The Assumption of Ever After

What differentiates a romance-genre book from, say, a woman’s fiction novel or a mystery novel is—according to industry pundits—the requirement in a romance-genre novel of the HEA. The Happily Ever After. This, like a lot of terms in publishing, is shorthand for a style and a series of events that will leave the reader with a positive feeling a book’s end, rather than puzzlement, depression, horror or whatever you’d like to tack on.

That’s why strictly speaking neither Gone With The Wind nor Romeo and Juliet qualify as romance-genre fiction. They don’t end with a positive (happy) commitment between the two lead characters.

Interestingly, what seems to twist the anti-grav panties of the SF set is this very same thing: the HEA. The Happily Ever After. This seems to be a kicking-point when speculative fiction is combined with romance.

What I’ve found interesting, though, is that the non-romance reading set in SF seems to layer a deeper assumption of EVER AFTER on to that HAPPILY than many of the authors—myself included—intend.

A month or so back, in a shameless and blatant effort to get a buzz going for my February 24, 2009 release, Hope’s Folly, I offered electronic ARCS (Advance Reader Copies) to a handful of book bloggers. Most had read me before. Most were chosen because they’d read me before. Stacking the deck, Linnea? Sure. But Folly is book three in the Gabriel’s Ghost/Dock Five universe (both monikers are floating around out there.) I’m not out there to get bloggers to go WTF? as they try to catch up with the storyline.

But as happens with electronic copies, they get passed around to other bloggers (and I’m fine with that). So I was interested to find a blog comment on Hope’s Folly on a blog (Oct. 16, 2008) I’d not specifically sent the ARC to. The comment was decently positive except it raised the issue I’ve started to raise above. The assumption of EVER AFTER.

To wit: “I'm not a romance reader; I'm very much a sf/f reader. Perhaps it's not so surprising, then, that I really enjoyed the sf parts and was mildly appalled at the romance parts. I can't buy True Love between characters who've known each other a week. That's infatuation. That is not a good foundation for a lasting relationship. *sigh*”

Things like this make me want to pound my head on my desk, more than I usually do.

**SPOILER**

Here’s a direct quote from the Folly manuscript where the main character is giving some very realistic appraisal to his impromptu and admittedly foolish marriage to the other main character:

“So, how’s our second week of dating going so far?” he asked. Most people dated first, then got married, but that wasn’t how their life had worked out. Marrying her had been an impulsive move. But it was a move he wanted to be permanent.

So did Rya. The fact that she now had her M-R-S degree, as she called it, was no guarantee of permanency. A real marriage took work. Commitment. Patience and respect.

And that took time.

So now they were dating. Married but dating. Philip rather liked the idea.

Am I—via the character—not saying exactly that? People in real life and in books get married for all sorts of reasons, many of them not the wisest or best. They either make it or they don’t but they do—in fiction and in real life—have the option of trying.

At book’s end—and this is really the last two pages—that’s all my characters are doing: realizing the situation they’re in is not the easiest and asserting that they’re willing to at least try.

Since when does TRY equate LASTING?

In the minds of SF readers who read romance, that’s when. I’ve seen this corollary far too often in blogs and reviews from SF-ers dabbling into SFR.

They assume—ASSUME—that because the two main characters are in a compatible situation on the last page that it’s white picket fence and roses forever.

None of my books promise that. None.

It’s an OPTION. It’s never a GIVEN.

My books end—as most of my readers know—at a point where the two main characters in the romantic relationship have either overcome or ignored whatever major conflicts separated them and are willing now to give their relationship the biggest, bestest try they can. That’s all. It’s a potential of a future together but it is not a guarantee of a future together.

Now, for romance readers who want to envision a FOREVER for my characters, that’s fine. Again, it’s an option. Not a given. But at least the romance readers aren’t damning me for it. Or—to take what I would see to be the opposite side of the coin—they don’t write in blogs that I haven’t shown the two main characters breathing their lasts breaths together at age ninety-nine and then going on to be buried side-by-side in graveyard plots marked Mr. and Mrs.. That, to me, is as much of an off-base interpretation of a science fiction romance novel as it is to assume that the characters have, at book’s end, a perfect and forever after relationship simply because they’ve decided to HAVE a relationship.

Let’s parse that blogger’s comment:

“I can't buy True Love between characters who've known each other a week. That's infatuation. “

Of course it’s infatuation. Every relationship one week in is highly based on infatuation. Physical (and other) attraction. But without infatuation, without physical (and other) attraction, the relationship would never start. That is where relationships start and from there the infatuation matures and the physical attraction matures and the relationship matures.

Moreover, in Folly, both character are very aware this attraction is nuts, too soon and at the wrong time. And they spend a lot of book-time realizing that:

Rya stayed by the ladderway, alternately damning herself and calling herself an idiot. She now had a ridiculous, full-blown crush going on Admiral Philip Guthrie, and every time she thought she’d managed to get hold of her emotions and shake some sense into her head, he’d lean against her or look at her with those damned magnificent eyes, and her toes would curl and she was lost.

Again.

This was just so very much not like Rya Taylor Bennton. She did not get crushes on guys—not since she was ten years old, anyway. Rya Taylor Bennton found hard-bodies who amused her and bedded them. Sex was fun, great exercise, super stress relief. Nothing more.

Then Philip had walked—well, limped—back into her life, amid guns blazing and punches flying. And in two, three short hours her life changed.

Further, I never said it was True Love. The characters never say it’s True Love. Rya sees it as a ridiculous crush.

As for Philip:

He was certifiably insane. He was sure of it. These past few months, the physical damage his body had taken, the stresses of losing one command and gaining another, the deaths of friends and crew—it had all taken a toll. That was the only explanation he could come up with as to why he was so emotionally vulnerable to—and fixated on—Cory Bennton’s twenty-nine year old daughter.

This had to stop. But when the lights had failed again and he’d almost found her in his lap, and then when all means to escape the ready room were exhausted and she was again those few tantalizing inches away from him, and he had the damned stupidity to make the flippant comment that if he’d been ten years younger...

Hell’s fat ass. He was certifiably insane.

She was twenty-nine. She was Cory’s daughter. She had some young buck named Matt hot for her back on Calth 9. She was not for Philip Guthrie, divorced, jaded, and limping around like some ancient—yeah, Welford had deemed him so—relic.

Plus, he had a ship to refit and a war to get under way.

But when he was around Rya... he just wanted to keep being around Rya.

This was not good.

Both realize AND TELL THE READER they’re not at the point to experience True Love. They can, however, experience the beginnings of an attraction that can lead to love and can, legitimately, share that they feel that way. Just like in real life.

What I feel I’m seeing here and in other blog comments like this is an unwitting-or-otherwise filling in of the blanks: This is a romance so this must be about True Love. (Side Note: I don’t think one can define True Love and I wouldn’t attempt to.) There is an assumption that an HEA ending also means Perfection. No more problems, ever. (Tell that to Dallas and Roarke in JD Robb’s IN DEATH series.)

Maybe at one time in romance novels, the Ever After in the HEA acronym did mean an unequivocal forever. But looking at romance fiction today, I don’t think that’s true anymore. I don’t think romance readers buy into “Perfect.” I think romance readers do relate to and respect characters who TRY. Who care enough to TRY.

Moreso in SFR, where there are so many other variables, I think a white-lace-and-roses perfect romance ending would be unrealistic. I don’t write them. That’s why I’m so surprised when some readers take it upon themselves to insert them—and then damn me for it.

I don’t see the same SF readers assuming every one of the antagonists or every one of the political problems is completely vanquished at the end of an Honor Harrington book or the end of a Cherryh book. Cherryh’s FOREIGNER series is, what, eight, ten+ books in? And Bren Cameron still has a lot of work to do. I can’t think of one SF or Fantasy novel I’ve ever read where I felt that Life Was Perfect from thereon in for the characters. Even if the bad guy was shredded, the princess rescued the prince, and the evil empire was in disarray.

I don’t know why some readers cement the assumption of an unequivocal Ever After onto many romance novel endings when they clearly don’t depict that. They DO detail it is possible. They do NOT detail it is absolute.

One more note on the “one week” comment and “That is not a good foundation for a lasting relationship.”

I know this gal who picked up this guy in a bar in New Jersey back in February of 1979. End of February, to be exact. It was strictly on physical attraction: he was a 6’4”, green-eyed, blonde-haired hunk. They didn’t see each other nearly as much as Rya and Philip do. There was no daily basis thing. There also wasn’t the chance to see each other under fire, working, striving and surviving, which I think adds a different dimension to how and when a relationship progresses. But even given the normal weekend dating kind of thing, and the nightly telephone calls, this guy moved in with this gal after three weeks. He gave her an engagement ring shortly thereafter.

This guy and this gal will hit their 29th wedding anniversary in October of 2009.

Okay, this guy and this gal didn’t know True Love in one week. It took three weeks. And almost thirty years later, it’s still there.

I love you, Robert.

~Linnea

HOPE’S FOLLY, Book 3 in the Gabriel’s Ghost universe, coming Feb. 2009 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/

It's an impossible mission on a derelict ship called HOPE'S FOLLY. A man who feels he can't love. A woman who believes she's unlovable. And an enemy who will stop at nothing to crush them both.

The Cost Of Magic

Magic costs the user. Every writer of speculative fiction or fantasy knows that.

Don't they?

Industrial Light and Magic (TM) has its cost. So does technology. I wonder what the long term cost of being "beamed up" was? I know that NASA astronauts suffer for their science. They may not be beamed up, but weightlessness causes their bones to lose calcium, and guess where the calcium goes?

Kidney stones! There are some doozies of kidney stones on display at the Johnson Space Center.

Which brings me to another cost of modern magical conveniences. Privacy.

George Orwell was right about Big Brother!

You can hardly make a Medicare election, reserve a plane ticket, collect your Office Max reward for recycling HP toner cartridges without having to supply your phone number, complete home address, name, date of birth and so much more! Moreover, banks, utilities, my child's school, and everyone else attempts to force me to use the internet for all my business and pleasure. I've even received reproachful letters informing me that (Fidelity "Private" Group) unsuccessfully tried to email (whatever private info I didn't want emailed to me). Instead of wasting valuable ink on the info they weren't able to email me, they direct me to go on the internet to find it and print it myself!

Yes, I may save a copse of trees, and I want to do that. But I know that spammers and hackers are reading my email and tracking my treks around the internet. I can tell (not always) by the sudden deluge of emails from names very similar to those of my friends, offering me cleverly disguised products to enlarge private parts I do not possess.

A few years ago, we were all outraged by Zabasearch, and wanted our names removed from their system. Now, dozens of pop up Big Brothers make names, addresses, phone numbers, maps to guide perverts to your basement window, and even credit reports available to every potential terrorist who wants to know.

Personally, I don't think the credit reports are accurate. I've been getting a lot of threatening telephone calls from the implausibly named "Credit Services" telling me that this is positively my final notice that I may borrow money from them. I've started to press button One, because pressing button Two to be removed from their calling list (I thought it was my final notice???) only encourages them. So, I am very nice to the telemarkers, until I get their names, phone numbers and so forth.

Then I go to the National Do Not Call Registry (now bookmarked on my toolbar) and report them.

I wonder whether the National Do Not Call Registry is as much of a misnomer and George Orwell's Ministry of Truth!

How do I relate all the above (kidney stones, telephone directory searches, phone spam etc) to futuristic, alien romance fiction?

Well, almost anyone can be virtually omniscient these days, if they know where to look. A self-styled "god" could be a high level hacker and an eavesdropper. The difficulty and the challenge (and therefore the fun) would be making him romantic and heroic, wouldn't it?

That's what I'm working on with the god-Emperor Djohn-Kronos.

Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it! While this holiday has one drawback, the crushing amount of clean-up duty afterward, in general I think its unifying character raises it to a high level among celebrations. It's a cultural (not strictly religious) holiday in which all can participate. Almost everyone can enjoy a feast, and anyone can be thankful. Even atheists have things to be grateful for and people to be grateful to.

This year we don't have to face the clean-up; we're visiting one of our sons for the feast. Perfectly fine weather for the one-hour drive, so it should be an altogether great day. Best wishes to all!