10/27/00 -- World Fantasy Con, Day 2

A haze of panels and "What did I do at the con besides go to panels?"

So Jennfire and I talked last night before we went to sleep.  God, I missed her.  And it was kinda like being back at Clarion again, knowing I wasn't going to sleep much, and that I was going to be around cool people and hear neat things and then promptly forget them (or drop them into my subconscious where they'd ferment into story ideas or something that would come back when I needed it).

We got up and went downstairs to find breakfast.  We wound up eating breakfast at the little coffee stand.  Oh, yeah, coffee.  I started drinking coffee again while I was in Boise.  There's something about the Pacific Northwest.  I drink coffee while I'm there.  And, at WFC, it seemed to be the easiest source of caffeine.  So Jennfire and I had breakfast at the little coffee stand down on the second floor.  Coffee and a muffin. The breakfast of champions.

And I called into the office for a brief status update for the project manager's meeting.  (I know, I know, I wasn't supposed to be working).

Then Jennfire and I went upstairs into panel-land.  We did panels in the morning, then wound up heading over to Somebody y Gato's for pretty tasty Mexican food for lunch.  Then back to the hotel to go to more panels.  And to wander around the art show.  And the dealer's room.

Oh, the dealer's room.  There were many cool tables in the dealer's room with many cool books and some assorted other cool stuff (like the jewelry!).  I didn't have much room for other stuff in my suitcase, again.  I should've learned after last year that I'd need more room in my suitcase and backpack than I had.  And I was leaving the hotel early enough that I didn't have to worry about hauling my suitcase around to various panels and it being huge and bulky and in the way.  But I've become spoiled by traveling as a consultant and I like not having to check a huge suitcase and wait for my luggage when I get to the airport.  So I brought a little suitcase.  And my backpack.  And wished I had more room.  But that is a lament for another time.

Gavin and Kelly Link had a table in the dealer's room where they were selling chapbooks and copies of Lady Chuchill's Rosebud Wristlet.  They were also selling books they liked, and some other books on consignment for someone else.  They had a copy of the Fairy Tale anthology that had Greg's story "Sparks" in it.  And I'd been looking for a copy of it and it's out of print, so I bought it.  Ooooh, that's what started it all.  Datlow and Windling are doing a YA fairy tale retelling anthology now and I grabbed a copy of that.  And I bought the anthology that Jennfire's ghost story is in.  And I'd brought Vanishing Acts with me.  And we got a copy of Prospero's Children  in hardcover in our goodie bag and a couple of other paperbacks.  Oy, packing was going to be a nightmare.  But that didn't stop me from being bad and buying those three books.

I ran into Suzy before one of the panels I went and sat in on.  And then ran into her again at dinner.  Along with Gavin and Kelly Link and Alex Irvine and Katharine Eliska Kimbriel and .... shit, I'm terrible with names... some other really cool people whose names I feel really bad about forgetting.  Also, Kelly or Gavin, I'm not sure which, introduced me to Walter Jon Williams who was also amidst the mad crowd hanging out at the coffee place (am)/bar (pm).

A bunch of us (Suzy, Alex, Jennfire, Gavin, Kelly, Derek, Stuart, Katharine, and some of those other people with names that have slipped my mind) wound up going out to dinner at a seafood place (can't remember the name of that, either) and half of us were in a screaming hurry to get back to the hotel for the mass autograph signing.

We were a little late.  But we made it.  I ran back up to my room to grab the books I wanted to get signed.  I grabbed the two Datlow/Windling books, I grabbed Vanishing Acts and I grabbed Prospero's Children, and Jennfire and I went down to the balloon-infested ballroom for the mass signing.

It was crowded.  Wow.  Really crowded.  I found Daniel Abraham (who I had talked to the weekend before at MileHiCon) and got him to sign Vanishing Acts.  He introduced me to Ted Chiang (yes, the Ted Chiang), who signed Vanishing Acts for me, as well.  And Suzy signed Vanishing Acts.  I talked to Kelly Link (she signed her story in the Datlow/Windling YA fairy tale anthology for me) and ran into Beth Meachum.  And Ellen Datlow signed Vanishing Acts and the new YA fairy tale anthology.  Jan Siegel signed Prospero's Children (which has a breathtaking) cover, by the way, on the hardcover). And I got a few other autographs from other writers who had stories in the three anthologies I was carrying around who I found down there in the heat and the balloons.

Word had gone around, we were playing Mafia in the con suite after the autograph session.  Finally, everyone arrived.  We had enough people, barely.  We took the second floor of the con suite and went to town.

Okay, we didn't exactly go to town.  We played I think three or four games, when all was said and done.  But I got my Mafia fix.  Wheeeee!

Anyway, here are some of my thoughts and scribbles from the panels I went to today:

10am - How Much Research do I really need to do?

The short answer to the question that was the title of this panel is: a lot.  The longer answer took the remainder of the hour of the panel.  Panelists through out a lot of ideas of the sorts of details you can throw into your fiction to give it realism, to give readers something fresh and new.  And to prevent you from making blunders.

They suggested researching colloquialisms. Also, they suggested finding the things that you know are the truth that have been misrepresented by history and throwing those in.  The biggest downfall to that is people insisting that you've got your information wrong.  But with that, it's a matter of convincing your readers that no matter what they think is true, that what you're telling them is the truth.  It's like one (or more?) of our instructors at Clarion said: You can do anything as long as you justify it to the reader.

Basically, research is like an iceberg.  About a tenth of what you've found goes into the story, but the bulk of it is underneath giving the structure and keeping the rest of it from rolling over.

When you're writing fiction, the place can become another character.  You want to give the reader a perception of the world, a sense that it is truly different from the world we  live in today.  This is true of historical fiction, of fantasy, and of science fiction, as well.  And historical society is probably as alien (or, in some cases more alien) than the worlds some writers invent.  Especially in historical fiction, you're not just talking about the world we live in without TV, or the world we live in where the characters talk differently.  They also have different morals, different ideals, different ways of thinking about things, different ways of doing things.

The strongest push from the panelists was that writers not work from the default set of opinions about a historical setting or place or event.  That those historical worlds cannot be monochrome; they have to vary from place to place within that setting.  And another thing writers have to remember is that no matter how hard we try, we're not going to be able to get out of our own head set, our own way of thinking and doing and living; what we write will always be a reflection of our own time no matter where we set it.

The story has to be natural, though.  Not outside the fishbowl looking in, but inside the fishbowl looking around.  Also, Powers said, "It is not important that you be accurate in your fiction, but that you be plausible."  The reader has to believe or it doesn't matter how good your facts are or how much research you've done.  You can't go to every reader's house and say, "But that's how it really happened!" when a reader doesn't believe what happened.

Suggestions were made for what sort of research sources to use.  Most of the panelists agreed that research books written recently are not necessarily good for authenticity.  They'll be colored by current perceptions of the past.  Additionally, panelists suggested Britannica, the Complete National Geographic on CD-ROM, illustrated kid's books, and secondary or original source material.

11am - The Politics of Horror

Who might've thought that which political party was in office and how well horror sells might be related?  Well, Gordon Van Gelder, for one.  He and three panelists (two from the UK, one from Australia) talked about how horror booms related to which political party was in power at the time.  Republicans, it seems, cause the sale of horror to increase while Democrats cause an increase in the sale of mysteries.

The panelists felt that the horror boom was a scream for help because nothing was being done about problems such as homelessness and domestic abuse.  

It was an interesting panel and not anything I think I might've thought about.  The panelists also talked about a similar push-pull between Fantasy and SF; while one is popular, the other is mostly out of vogue.

2pm - Fantasy Mysteries

The biggest thing to be careful about when writing fantasy mysteries is sneaking up on the reader.  If you're writing one, make sure it is evident from the start that there is some supernatural element in it, and that there are the familiar mystery tropes, as well so your fantasy readers will know what to expect and the mystery readers will also know what to expect.

There was also some discussion about there being two types of fantasy mysteries: straight fantasies in which the characters solve a mystery, or a real-world mystery where a fantastic or supernatural element intrudes.

3pm - Overused Fantasy Archetypes

So the first question put to the panelists was, Have we seen enough of mermaids, vampires, elves, unicorns, etc.? The general agreement from the panelists was, no, we haven't.  But what we have seen is enough generic fantasy.  We need to take the fantasy elements we're using and keep them new and fresh.  The episodic quest with a clear definition of good and bad and no cost to the magic is a very old and tired idea.

What writers need to do is understand the archetypes that they're using in their fantasy stories or novels.  They need to understand, at a gut level, what the archetype is, what it means, what made it an archetype, and then use it.  You need to understand the symbol to make effective use of an archetype so you can take that symbol and perhaps reinterpret it within a modern context.  If you understand the archetype, the symbol behind it, you can tap into the element that made it and give it your own personal twist.  When doing this, however, you have to find a happy medium between "been there, done that" and doing something that "takes too many risks with what people already know".

Readers want to have something with a different flavor/taste/feel, but they still want to hold onto the familiarity of what they know.

From within the audience, Gene Wolfe threw out this piece of advice, Resist the temptation to lecture the reader on the world you've created.

Another piece of advice from the panel was to excite yourself over the story you're writing.  If your hair sizzles when you write it, it's going to sell; someone will buy it.

And we left on this thought, If you need an elf, you need an elf.  There are archetypes for a reason.

6pm - Matching Narrative Structure to Story

Okay, this was a pretty well-attended panel. Why wouldn't it be, with people like Gene Wolf, Connie Willis, Ellen Kushner, John Crowley and Stephen R. Donaldson?  I had about 6 pages worth of notes from this one. (I didn't expect less given the topic and the lineup.)  We'll see how much of that winds up here. *grin*

The discussion ranged from whether or not the panelists knew the structure of their story before they sat down to write it to what method of writing works best, to how you handle multi-book sagas, to handling reader expectations, and the structure of a B movie.  Additionally, Gene Wolfe answered the question he always wished someone would ask him: I want to be a writer, what piece of equipment should I buy first?  His response: The biggest waste basket possible.

For the most part, the writers on the panel all had an idea of how long a story was going to be when they started writing.  Connie figures out very early when she sits down to write whose story it is because that is going to have an impact on the length of the story, then she figures out all of the details.  John Crowley was in the same boat; he knows what is going to happen and knows the dramatic structure, size, shape, though he doesn't exactly know the details.  He described it like looking at the Sierra Nevadas: you can see the foothills and the peaks, but every exact step isn't known.  Stephen Donaldson said that every idea he has had came with a length tag on it and noted that scale has a lot to do with structure; when you're writing, you have to get characters (and readers!) to a certain place so you have to know where that place is in order to start.  Donaldson builds his stories in reverse: this is the end, to get there, he needs this, this needs that, that needs this other thing, until he is at the beginning.  Gene Wolfe was the only panelist who didn't feel like he knew how long a story was going to be until it was finished.  He said he sometimes has an idea of length, but that idea isn't always right.

On the topic of What works for writing, Gene Wolfe had this to say: If writing on pink paper while sitting in the bathtub works for you, and you're selling everything you write, then write on pink paper while sitting in a bathtub.  What's wrong with you?

Connie says that every new story provides its own new problems.  Finishing one story, or one novel, doesn't make the next one easier because there are always new problems.  Like there aren't enough words to describe everything (like facial expressions).  Nothing gets easier.  Writing a new story is like starting at ground zero every time.  She suggests, if you are having problems, that you read other writers who do what you want to do with your own story--analyze them, figure out what they're doing, and figure out how it will help with the story you're writing.  She went on to say, Steal structure ... not paragraphs.  If you steal paragraphs, you'll wind up in Newsweek.

In response to creating structure, Donaldson said that no one is born with an owner's manual, they have to figure things out as they go and this holds doubly true for artists.  You have to rediscover who you are and what your tools and you have to do it over and over and over.

Donaldson noted that the essence of the story is its particularity, being in that moment.

The panelists discussed the problem of an over-arching story that ties a several-volume series together and how to convey what the reader needs to remember from volume to volume so they have not only the individual stories in each volume, but the over-arching story as well.  There are problems with trying to help the reader understand that they are in a giant, structured, multi-book story and none of the panelists really had a good idea of how to help with this, with how to make sure you get the right details in the reader's mind.

On the topic of conveying information to readers, Connie says that you have to figure out who, what, when, why, why not, and shove it into the reader's face.  How to tell them, without "telling", however, isn't an easy task.  She generally makes a list of things she needs tot ell the reader in a scene and then makes sure she does.

Gene Wolfe went on to say that you can "tell" the reader all sorts of things.  Except the important things.  You have to show the reader the important things.  Gene Wolfe went on to say the same thing Connie did, that you never learn to write, you only learn to write what you're writing right now.  He went a little farther and said that life is not going to get easier.  It gets harder and harder and harder and then you die.  (Hey, what nature won't tell you, Gene Wolfe will.  *grin*)

Structure is important to being a writer. If you want to be a writer, you have to learn structure.

Donaldson said that every creative process has to have room for discovery for the creator. If there isn't room for discovery, then writing becomes a mechanical process and pointless. Then came the discussion of B movie structure where things get more and more over the top until you have to end the movie because your 90 minutes are up.

The parting thought I scribbled down was: Play with reader expectations and your own and do what feels right for you.  Set the bar a little bit higher.