"It's been a long time since he's flown."
Jul. 1st, 2008 11:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't know how long now it's been since I've had to struggle with "dreamsickness" in the ayem. The pills have been doing their job, so I know that it's been a long time. But this morning, it's on me like hair on a yak, the inability to detach from there and be here. Dreamsick. And, even now, it seems a rather silly sort of dream to have one's head stuck inside of, a silly dream to be so locked onto. Here's the Hollywood pitch: A Riddick movie, that's really a Batman movie, only the Joker wears V's Guy Fawke's mask. See? Oh, and I was the Riddick/Batman character. I made a bomb from a fire extinguisher. If that can be done in waking life (and I expect it can), don't tell me. And no, I was not male in the dream. You have to imagine a fusion of Richard P. Riddick and Batman who happens to be female.
Also, I cannot believe that I waited this long to create a Howard Hughes icon for the journal. He's so very dashing in that photo.
Thanks to the cool air of Dr. Muñoz, I had quite a good writing day yesterday. 1,366 words on Chapter Two of The Red Tree. And I begin to see something I should have seen long since. Not only will this novel be, in many ways, unabashedly biographical, but I also find myself, from time to time, using the immediacy and intimacy of its first-person narration to grind axes. Yesterday, it was those annoying people who have had trouble reading my books because of the way I blend dream sequences into the narrative (here we are, back at bloody dreams), without "warning," without telling the reader what is a dream and what is not. Those unperceptive people, and the sort of instructors, etc. who teach that using dream sequences in prose is a "cheat." By now, you should know that my attitude towards both sets of people is "Fuck the lot of you," but it also seems to be the attitude held by Sarah Crowe in her lonely old house off Barb's Hill Road.
Another thing. A couple of days back, James Owen (
coppervale) was commenting on the length of novels. He wrote:
Well, the accepted definition (I believe) is that to be a novel a work must be at least 40,000 words. Fine. But when was the last time you saw, read, wrote, or bought a 40k word novel? Half of my friends on livejournal are working on novels, and I'd be hard-pressed (in a pinch) to find one working on anything smaller than 100,000 words. In the last week, I noted two with uncompleted books with wordcounts already exceeding 150,000 words. And these aren't trilogies (in progress) but single books (which may be parts of a series, now I think on it). So, based on a totally unscientific perusal of my working friends' 78blogs and my recent-acquisition bookshelf, there aren't many novels anywhere NEAR the low end these days - unless you look at the YA shelves.
This is an old gripe with me, and one that has direct bearing on the writing of The Red Tree. Many of my favourite novels are, in fact, quite short, and certainly far under 100K words. For example, The Haunting of Hill House, Cannery Row, Grendel, The Wasp Factory, The Road, Billy Budd, Turn of the Screw, and Ironweed. The list could go on and on. Great novels, many under 75k, or even 50k, words in length. But I was made to sign a contract that specified a novel that would be 100k words in length. So, rather than allowing the novel to be as long (or, rather, as short) as is needed for the story at hand, I must attempt to push to, pad it, stretch it, or try to convince my publisher to accept a shorter book. And one should never, ever force a story to do anything that is not required of it. There, that's an actual piece of writing advice. I will confess that, being generally disinterested in the ins and outs of publishing, the reasons for this bloating of the American novel escape me. If I had to guess, though, I'd point back to the rise of the blockbuster novel in the 1970s and 1980s. Often, these were thick books. Very thick books. Obscenely, unnecessarily thick books. The example that leaps immediately to mind is Stephen King's It (1986). Could have been half as long, and would have been better for it. But then I still maintain that the original version of The Stand (1978) was far and away better that the longer 1990 publication (which, among other unwise things, "updated" the story from 1980 to 1990). Or look at J.K. Rowling. The books get fatter as the phenom of Harry Potter grows, and that last one is so flabby as to be almost unreadable. Anyway, if I point to the oft-bloated bestsellers as a trend, then maybe I can also suggest that this led to a sort of reader expectation. "Good books are long." Something like that. "I want my money's worth." Along those lines. I can easily imagine many indiscriminate readers buying into (and/or actually creating) this expectation. It becomes, in a consumerist world, a question not of quality, but of quantity. Books have become, in the last twenty or thirty years, unreasonably expensive. So, who wants to spend the same amount of money on a "thin" novel when they can "get their money's worth" with a fat one? Frankly, I think that people thinking of novels the same way they think of pizzas is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.
Regardless, I'm looking at where I am at this stage of The Red Tree, and I'm guessing that it's a 75k-word novel, maybe. I've written a little more than 20k words at this point, which means I'm getting a feel for its length. Which leaves me with difficult decisions ahead of me. And, I should say, I am not inherently opposed to long novels. Not at all. If they need to be long. Moby Dick, The Lord of the Rings, Watership Down, Dune. It's just that I am opposed to the idea that novels must be long. Bigger is not, we are beginning to see, better. All-you-can-eat-buffets, Hummers and SUVs, those grotesquely vast McMansions, the human population, and the bloated novel...all these things rely on the lie that more is, by definition, better, when, in fact, many times, it's disastrous.
Not much to the remainder of yesterday. There was a very satisfying email exchange with Peter Straub, whom I would run away and visit this very day, were I not chained to this desk (Spooky keeps the key). I spoke with my new editor at Publisher's Weekly about the specifics of the reviews I'll be writing for the magazine. Spooky and I played three games of Unspeakable Words (I won two, she won one). I read part of Chapter Four, "A Hint of the Sea," of Fraser's book on the Traissic. Late, I had some grand rp in Second Life (thank you Lorne, Bellatrix, and Joah). And yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska event, and hardly anyone seemed to take note. And no, I have not forgotten I said I would post photos from Sunday evening's trip to Moonstone Beach. They are behind the cut:

A deceased example of the common spider crab, Libinia emarginata.

Heavier surf than usual.

The tide rises.

Kelp, and I'm thinking Saccorhiza dermatodea. This frond was about eight feet long.

Irish moss, Chrondrus crispus.

A grand assortment of "seaweed."

The claw of an unidentified crab.

One of Spooky's impromptu stone altars, built from the ruins of one she built on June 10th.

Another of her arrangements.

Two Piping Plovers, Charadrius melodus.
Also, I cannot believe that I waited this long to create a Howard Hughes icon for the journal. He's so very dashing in that photo.
Thanks to the cool air of Dr. Muñoz, I had quite a good writing day yesterday. 1,366 words on Chapter Two of The Red Tree. And I begin to see something I should have seen long since. Not only will this novel be, in many ways, unabashedly biographical, but I also find myself, from time to time, using the immediacy and intimacy of its first-person narration to grind axes. Yesterday, it was those annoying people who have had trouble reading my books because of the way I blend dream sequences into the narrative (here we are, back at bloody dreams), without "warning," without telling the reader what is a dream and what is not. Those unperceptive people, and the sort of instructors, etc. who teach that using dream sequences in prose is a "cheat." By now, you should know that my attitude towards both sets of people is "Fuck the lot of you," but it also seems to be the attitude held by Sarah Crowe in her lonely old house off Barb's Hill Road.
Another thing. A couple of days back, James Owen (
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Well, the accepted definition (I believe) is that to be a novel a work must be at least 40,000 words. Fine. But when was the last time you saw, read, wrote, or bought a 40k word novel? Half of my friends on livejournal are working on novels, and I'd be hard-pressed (in a pinch) to find one working on anything smaller than 100,000 words. In the last week, I noted two with uncompleted books with wordcounts already exceeding 150,000 words. And these aren't trilogies (in progress) but single books (which may be parts of a series, now I think on it). So, based on a totally unscientific perusal of my working friends' 78blogs and my recent-acquisition bookshelf, there aren't many novels anywhere NEAR the low end these days - unless you look at the YA shelves.
This is an old gripe with me, and one that has direct bearing on the writing of The Red Tree. Many of my favourite novels are, in fact, quite short, and certainly far under 100K words. For example, The Haunting of Hill House, Cannery Row, Grendel, The Wasp Factory, The Road, Billy Budd, Turn of the Screw, and Ironweed. The list could go on and on. Great novels, many under 75k, or even 50k, words in length. But I was made to sign a contract that specified a novel that would be 100k words in length. So, rather than allowing the novel to be as long (or, rather, as short) as is needed for the story at hand, I must attempt to push to, pad it, stretch it, or try to convince my publisher to accept a shorter book. And one should never, ever force a story to do anything that is not required of it. There, that's an actual piece of writing advice. I will confess that, being generally disinterested in the ins and outs of publishing, the reasons for this bloating of the American novel escape me. If I had to guess, though, I'd point back to the rise of the blockbuster novel in the 1970s and 1980s. Often, these were thick books. Very thick books. Obscenely, unnecessarily thick books. The example that leaps immediately to mind is Stephen King's It (1986). Could have been half as long, and would have been better for it. But then I still maintain that the original version of The Stand (1978) was far and away better that the longer 1990 publication (which, among other unwise things, "updated" the story from 1980 to 1990). Or look at J.K. Rowling. The books get fatter as the phenom of Harry Potter grows, and that last one is so flabby as to be almost unreadable. Anyway, if I point to the oft-bloated bestsellers as a trend, then maybe I can also suggest that this led to a sort of reader expectation. "Good books are long." Something like that. "I want my money's worth." Along those lines. I can easily imagine many indiscriminate readers buying into (and/or actually creating) this expectation. It becomes, in a consumerist world, a question not of quality, but of quantity. Books have become, in the last twenty or thirty years, unreasonably expensive. So, who wants to spend the same amount of money on a "thin" novel when they can "get their money's worth" with a fat one? Frankly, I think that people thinking of novels the same way they think of pizzas is one of the signs of the Apocalypse.
Regardless, I'm looking at where I am at this stage of The Red Tree, and I'm guessing that it's a 75k-word novel, maybe. I've written a little more than 20k words at this point, which means I'm getting a feel for its length. Which leaves me with difficult decisions ahead of me. And, I should say, I am not inherently opposed to long novels. Not at all. If they need to be long. Moby Dick, The Lord of the Rings, Watership Down, Dune. It's just that I am opposed to the idea that novels must be long. Bigger is not, we are beginning to see, better. All-you-can-eat-buffets, Hummers and SUVs, those grotesquely vast McMansions, the human population, and the bloated novel...all these things rely on the lie that more is, by definition, better, when, in fact, many times, it's disastrous.
Not much to the remainder of yesterday. There was a very satisfying email exchange with Peter Straub, whom I would run away and visit this very day, were I not chained to this desk (Spooky keeps the key). I spoke with my new editor at Publisher's Weekly about the specifics of the reviews I'll be writing for the magazine. Spooky and I played three games of Unspeakable Words (I won two, she won one). I read part of Chapter Four, "A Hint of the Sea," of Fraser's book on the Traissic. Late, I had some grand rp in Second Life (thank you Lorne, Bellatrix, and Joah). And yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska event, and hardly anyone seemed to take note. And no, I have not forgotten I said I would post photos from Sunday evening's trip to Moonstone Beach. They are behind the cut:
A deceased example of the common spider crab, Libinia emarginata.
Heavier surf than usual.
The tide rises.
Kelp, and I'm thinking Saccorhiza dermatodea. This frond was about eight feet long.
Irish moss, Chrondrus crispus.
A grand assortment of "seaweed."
The claw of an unidentified crab.
One of Spooky's impromptu stone altars, built from the ruins of one she built on June 10th.
Another of her arrangements.

Two Piping Plovers, Charadrius melodus.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:55 pm (UTC)You're very welcome.
I still laugh at the fact that book five of the Wheel of Time (a series I despised from day one, talk about Tokien rip-offs) is as long as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy put together.
Gods. Is this that Robert Jordan fellow?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 07:34 pm (UTC)Oh it is indeed. My ex-girlfriend was quite taken with his books for a couple of years. She tried to drag me into it but it took me over a year to finish the 700 plus pages of his first book and I vowed to not trod down that path again. I hated the writing and the blatent Tolkein stealing, and I say with no shame that I let out a good laugh when he died recently with his epic work still not finished with some tweleve books of it already published. I'm all for epic story telling but if you can't tell a story -- one story -- in what I believe is something like over 9,500 pages, just give up as an author.
I think another problem that plagues writers as well as directors -- the inability to have faith in your audience. There are plenty of books, films, and some of your books and short stories, in which I am given a hint of something past, some back story only hinted at, and I can be happy when I get to the end of said story or movie and have found that piece of information was not elaborated upon and exasperated. Too many authors feel a story cannot survive without us readers knowing absolutely everything that has transpired in these peoples' lives from birth to death. It simply isn't necassary to enjoy a good tale.
Despite the fact that I believe the populace is mostly dim and dull, I find it disparaging that artists, whom I feel have only one job -- to tell the truth -- find it necassary to cater to the common denominator and not really raise the discourse to the heights it could be. Past civilizations certainly knew what good art should do, and yet today we'll settle for over-elaborative authors, filmmakers, and American Idol, just because we want everything spelled out to us and tied up neatly with a fucking bow. Art is supposed to raise our souls out of the muck and mire of everyday exsitence, but so much these days just does enough to make sure we don't drown in the muck and stay barely conscious and afloat.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:54 pm (UTC)A few of us noted the Tunguska anniversary, but not enough. However, everyone's been crapping themselves over AMC's new The Prisoner miniseries. I guess it's all about blogging priorities.
I must admit to being that species of geek who finds The Prisoner vastly overrated.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Length of novels
Date: 2008-07-01 05:24 pm (UTC)It's like the fast food mentality, only we're talking about our minds.
What ebooks and Kindles will do to this will have to watched very carefully.
Re: Length of novels
Date: 2008-07-01 05:53 pm (UTC)It's like the fast food mentality, only we're talking about our minds.
Yes, exactly.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 07:58 pm (UTC)We help create worlds, we make characters, using nothing more than letters on a page. If asked what Deacon looks like I bet all of us would have a different answer. We readers, are all a part of a rapidly diminishing population, those who read for fun and enjoyment.
I am sure there are authors (Cormac McCarthy, John Twelve-Hawks, Ernest Hemingway, Jack Kerouac, James Frey) that are pushed because they are critic darlings and people read it and go "Yummy, how delish," even though it really is a shit sandwich. (to me at least)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:50 pm (UTC)I am of the opinion that Tolkien should have been edited with prejudice.
I respectfully disagree (though, he was edited).
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:36 pm (UTC)Horrifically prosaic, I'm afraid: it's simply easier to charge higher prices for a paperback when it contains a larger number of pages. It's your pizza equation, turned lengthwise (literally). I watched such monstrous logic overtake Western publishing during the 1980s: the shit-caked tail of business suddenly wagging the Holy Dog of art.
I've always found being given a Procrustean bed into which to fit a longer work (like a novel) destructive to the end result. "Your novel must be such-and-such number of pages long." Somewhere toward the half-way, three-quarter-way mark, I start thinking about stretching and/or compressing things to meet page/word targets ... Have you found this?
"Not only will this novel be, in many ways, unabashedly biographical, but I also find myself, from time to time, using the immediacy and intimacy of its first-person narration to grind axes."
The very notion intrigues this reader deeply.
"I made a bomb from a fire extinguisher. If that can be done in waking life (and I expect it can), don't tell me."
It can. (*ducks thrown book*)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:46 pm (UTC)Quite well worded.
Somewhere toward the half-way, three-quarter-way mark, I start thinking about stretching and/or compressing things to meet page/word targets ... Have you found this?
Well...I'm having to figure out what to do about The Red Tree at this point. And when I was writing Daughter of Hounds, which wanted to be a longer novel, had to be "shortened" from my original concept of 200k words to about 133k words. But no, normally I write until I come to the end and then stop, with no thought to length.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:40 pm (UTC)The funny thing is, I suspect Shakespeare plays were the pizzas of his era. And Dickens was certainly pizza (insert here rant about studying as literature a man who strung out stories into serials because he was paid by the word).
I think it ties in with another aspect of novel-writing that I know you disapprove of... valuing the story told above and beyond the words used to tell it. Modern novels are long because writers feel free to use the vernacular in narrative. Words are just the building blocks to show plot and characters to the reader, instead of being chosen carefully and edited down for their own sake. I'll admit that these books are easy to read, but some of my favorite books are ones I haven't actually finished reading yet, because the language and ideas are too dense to parse without bringing concentrated effort to it. (Quicksilver (http://www.amazon.com/Quicksilver-Baroque-Cycle-Vol-1/dp/0060593083/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214933885&sr=8-1), I'm looking at you.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:49 pm (UTC)I'll admit that these books are easy to read, but some of my favorite books are ones I haven't actually finished reading yet, because the language and ideas are too dense to parse without bringing concentrated effort to it.
I simply cannot fathom reading anything, anything at all, without bring a concerted effort to it, whether we're talking Harry Potter or Tolstoy.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:49 pm (UTC)Thank you for the photographs of Moonstone Beach.
You're very welcome. Next visit, we take you there.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:56 pm (UTC)Thank you ever so much for ripping my heart out (especially with The Melusine).
Anytime. That's why Panthalassa gave me claws.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:23 pm (UTC)All I need you to say is, "I'm the goddamned lesbian Batman." I'm convinced you can do it with conviction.
...photos from Sunday evening's trip to Moonstone Beach.
Damn I can't get over how weird it is to forget that places like this exist. *lesigh*
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:29 pm (UTC)All I need you to say is, "I'm the goddamned lesbian Batman." I'm convinced you can do it with conviction.
Dude...you make it sound...fun. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 06:32 pm (UTC)This is not an invalid question. But I also think it's where we must divide "fandom" from "readership." Sure, many books leave me wanting more. That's what a good book should do. But that doesn't mean anyone has a right to demand more, or that I should ruin a story by creating more when more is only justified by a reader's desire, not the inherent needs of the book. The ending must be true. The rest is fanfic (and fanfic can be fun, but...).
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 07:33 pm (UTC)It used to be my favorite SK novel until Bag of Bones.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 07:50 pm (UTC)It is long, I grant you that, (I think the coke might have something to do with that) but to make it any significantly shorter would neuter or spay the characters and their development.
I would point to a far, far better King story, a novella, "The Body," which is pretty much It without the bloat and with an ending that actually makes sense. The number of characters and time frame do not require the horridly bloated text (which even King has mocked, referring to the novel in print as shIt).
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-07-07 09:51 pm (UTC)oh so there was McGuyver in it too