So how about a Goblin Corps excerpt?

If you're still on the fence about The Goblin Corps, or are otherwise curious about whether or not the book's for you, I've decided to make your decision easier. I'm making an excerpt of the novel available as a free download, here.

This excerpt includes the entirety of the prologue and Chapter One. (The Goblin Corps has long chapters.) And I can absolutely guarantee that, once you've read it, you'll assuredly, 100% either buy the book or not.

(Oddly enough, I have a slight preference for the former.)

Keeping it Unreal

(So what is this? Well, Lou's asked me to contribute to the Pyr blog, and since writing and genre are what I most often think about--and since I haven't yet been invited to participate in a round-table :-P--well, that means that blathering about writing and genre is what I'm gonna do, and what you guys get to read about.) ;-)

In one particular episode of Mythbusters, Adam Savage utters the line: "Reality makes a crappy special effects crew."

You know what else reality often makes? Crappy genre fiction.

Obviously, it depends on the story, and it depends on the reader (or viewer, or what have you). But let me give you an example. I will use me as said example, because I've discovered that I tend to be more familiar with my own opinions and preferences than almost anyone else's. Odd how that works out.

Let's take Night of the Living Dead. It's not only the first of the true "zombie movies," but it's still held up today as one of the greatest of the genre. The mood, the story, the effects, the tension, even a societal message... It's, in almost all respects (and allowing for the differences in time period, of course) a phenomenal movie.

I can't watch it.

Not because it's too frightening. Not because I don't like what the movie's doing. But because of Barbra. One character who spends pretty much the entire movie either hysterically freaking out or borderline catatonic. It's partly the way the role is written, and partly the way it was acted, but she annoys. The ever-loving. Crap. Out of me. Enough so that I cannot appreciate the rest of the movie around her.

Thing is, there is no doubt in my mind that her reaction is probably the most realistic one we've ever seen, or ever will see, in a zombie movie. I feel confident in saying that most of you reading this--and indeed, a statistically significant majority of the people writing this--would turn into a big, blubbering ball of whimper (with soiled pants) if we were actually confronted with an uprising of the walking dead.

But the fact that it's realistic doesn't mean it makes for good watching/reading. I watch stories, in part, to see the characters doing things, taking action, overcoming. If I wanted to watch people scream and freak out and not accomplish a damn thing, I'd turn on C-SPAN.

Now, I accept the fact that, as measured against the bulk of the movie's target audience, I'm in the minority with my reaction. I'm not suggesting that Romero should have made the movie differently. I simply bring this up as an example of ways that, for some people in some situations, realism isn't necessarily the right goal for a storyteller to pursue.

Yes, lots of people talk about wanting "realism" in fantasy, sci-fi, or horror. And I believe that they believe that's true. But I also think, for the most part, they're mistaken. They're misinterpreting what they want.

People don't want realism. People want believability. (Or, if you prefer the five-dollar word, "verisimilitude.") It's not about whether something's actually realistic; it's about whether they can believe it.

It's called "suspension of disbelief." I'm sure most of you have heard that phrase. It refers to the audience's ability to lose themselves in the story and believe in what's happening in the story's context, no matter how realistic or unrealistic it might be outside that context.

Every story needs suspension of disbelief, to one extent or another. And every consumer has his or her own line, beyond which something is unacceptable. For some people, that line is really close to "reality" (or what they perceive as reality). But even for these people, I'd argue, the fact that they want their stories realistic is a symptom of the fact that their line for believability is pretty strict, as opposed to itself being the cause.

Some people don't like zombie movies at all, because for them, the idea of reanimated dead is simply too unbelievable. They cannot or will not stretch their suspension of disbelief to that point. So in that regard, they prefer more "realistic" fare than fans of zombie movies.

But how realistic are "realistic" movies? When I was in high school, I went to see Fried Green Tomatoes. (My date at the time wanted to see it. Shut up.) At the beginning of this movie, one of the main characters loses a friend (or relative; I don't remember) because said individual gets his foot stuck in a railroad track and becomes ad-hoc wheel lubricant.

Okay, no problem. But later in the movie (and quite some years later in the story), pretty much the exact same thing happens to a different character. This second character lives, minus a limb, but it's the same situation: Kids playing on the tracks, one happens to get stuck in the exact same way as a train comes by.

And I couldn't accept it. Threw me right out of the movie. It felt like a level of coincidence that was just too much. Is it possible? Sure. Are zombies possible? No (at least not by any laws of science we currently know). And yet, I can accept the latter more than the former, because (at least when they're well done), the portrayal of zombies is believable even if it's not realistic; whereas the sheer improbability of that coincidence in Fried Green Tomatoes might have been technically realistic, but at least to me, it wasn't believable.

Dragons shouldn't be able to fly (wing-to-weight ratio). But even when they're not explained away with magic, we accept them in most fantasy settings because they fit in well enough thematically that we can believe their presence. Most stunts we see in action movies aren't physically possible. (My mention of Mythbusters above? That show has come close to ruining a lot of action movie tropes, because I'm finding them harder and harder to believe. But in a good action movie, where they feel right, I'm far more forgiving.) But sometimes, a writer can just tell a better story by following dramatic necessity rather than "reality." How many times have James Bond or Dean Winchester been knocked out by a blow to the head? You know what happens with a blow to the head that's hard enough to knock someone out in real life? Either they're only out for a few seconds, or they suffer real, lasting damage. There's almost no middle ground. But how much storytelling would you get out of a secret agent or monster hunter who wound up bed-ridden and drooling after the first act of the first episode? (Also, the first reaction most people have to waking up after having been knocked unconscious is to vomit copiously, but most of us don't want to see that happening on screen, either.)

And of course, all of this doesn't even go into the question of "What's real?" That's a philosophical debate I have no intention of getting into, but just as one quick example: In Jurassic Park, Dr. Grant and Screaming Kid #1 avoid the T-Rex by holding perfectly still, because the critter's visual acuity is based on movement. Except that it wasn't, and scientists figured that out well after the movie was made. So does the fact that the science in that scene was wrong ruin it, or does the fact that it was right based on what we knew at the time make it forgivable even in retrospect? (Also, we know now that dinos in the velociraptor family were probably feathered. How's that impacting your view of the movie?)

What's my bottom line here? Well, in part I'm just ruminating about the hazards and pitfalls of genre writing. (Oh, such tribulations! Woe is me!) But in part, I think, it's more a general appeal to writers and the audience both: Don't worry so much about whether something is "realistic." Write it well, write it consistently with the rules you've already established, write it believably, and the audience (or at least the bulk of the audience, which is all you can really hope for anyway) will believe. If it's not believable, it doesn't matter how realistic it may be; and if it is believable, it still doesn't matter how realistic it might be.

Why You Need to Read Sam Sykes

This review at Pornokitsch of Black Halobrilliantly articulates why you need to read Sam Sykes:

"Mr. Sykes' deconstruction of high fantasy is rooted in the character focus. He can afford to keep the plot mysterious and the world vague because, to some degree, we've all read it before. What he brings to the table is those aforementioned beliefs that adventurers aren't heroes, the 'greater good' is subjective and the battle between predestination and free will has civilian casualties. If traditional (Eddings or Sanderson) high fantasy is the thesis and gritty, dirty realism (Martin or Abercrombie) is the antithesis, Mr. Sykes might be the first synthesis. This is a shamelessly high-magic, cinematic adventure with a huge special effects budget. But, the players are imbued with moral uncertainty and all the familiar tropes are investigated in the harsh light of distrusting logic. Mr. Sykes series isn't Watchmen - seeing how comic book superheroes behave in the real world. It is The Ultimates - layering real world logic over the comic book.  As a result, Black Halo represents a raw new maturity in epic fantasy, something that has me bouncing around like a kitten."

The Charnel King wishes you a great Independence Day...

...and hopes you enjoy your freedom while you still have it. >:-]



All due credit to Claudio Pozas for the awesome artwork.

Join the Empire

For a limited time, Empire in Black and Gold, the first book in Adrian Tchaikovsky's brilliant fantasy epic, Shadows of the Apt, is available on Kindle at the reduced price of $1.99.

The city states of the Lowlands have lived in peace for decades, bastions of civilization, prosperity and sophistication, protected by treaties, trade and a belief in the reasonable nature of their neighbours.

  But meanwhile, in far-off corners, the Wasp Empire has been devouring city after city with its highly trained armies, its machines, it killing Art . . . And now its hunger for conquest and war has become insatiable.

  Only the ageing Stenwold Maker, spymaster, artificer and statesman, can see that the long days of peace are over.  It falls upon his shoulders to open the eyes of his people, before a black-and-gold tide sweeps down over the Lowlands and burns away everything in its path.  

But first he must stop himself from becoming the Empire's latest victim.



"Tchaikovsky succeeds at creating a compelling, absorbing and unique plot populated with characters worth investing time in. Interestingly, the humans in this series could be considered the monsters in any other series, and the insect/human hybrid characters are believable and fascinating. A promising debut by a verbose and lyrical writer. Four stars: Compelling—Page-turner." —RT Book Reviews

"Tchaikovsky's first novel exhibits a vibrancy and creative spirit that commands attention. Set in a world where human tribes are identified with totem insects—e.g., messenger Fly-kinden, military-minded Ant-kinden—the story moves quickly between intensely personal interactions and scenes of large-scale battle... This original and well-told series opener belongs in most fantasy collections and deserves exposure to a wide audience."
—Library Journal

SF Signal says, "Shadow's Son never, ever, gets dull."

Jon Sprunk's new novel Shadow's Lure has just been released, but for those coming to the party late, SF Signal has just posted a review of the previous book in the trilogy, Sprunk's debut novel Shadow's Son. They write:

"Sprunk hits on all four cylinders and convincingly draws the reader into his secondary fantasy world. ...any good Sword and Sorcery story worth its salt has strong writing in it's action scenes. Not the clash of armies, but up-close and personal combat between the hero and his foes. Shadow's Son delivers impeccably. The novel starts off with Caim working his trade, and throughout the book, we see Caim tangle with his opposition in a variety of immersive and evocative settings and situations. From a pure entertainment point of view, Shadow's Son never, ever, gets dull."

Free on Kindle: Joel Shepherd's Sasha (A Trial of Blood & Steel)

Reminder that the first book in Joel Shepherd's A Trial of Blood & Steel quartet, Sasha, is now Free on Kinde. Shepherd's series, which is complete now with the publication of Haven, is a complex, gritty, realistic fantasy that drawns numerous comparisons to a certain other series. Here's what they're saying:

"...quite engrossing... this heroic fantasy should please fans of, say, George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire novels." Booklist

"Shepherd has created a court fantasy similar to George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire....a good epic fantasy that focuses more on the epic than the fantasy. Sasha is excellent reading for fans of character driven stories. I recommend it." Grasping for the Wind

"Sasha was excellent, especially given that this is Joel Shepherd’s first fantasy novel. It offers a huge fantasy world, a fascinating heroine, heart-pounding descriptions of both small-scale sword fights and full-on warfare, several characters that genuinely grow and change, and — maybe most importantly — the hint that this is just the start of what could become a great series. While I wouldn't rank it quite as high as George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, I think Sasha will go down very well with fans of that series because it shares some of its characteristics, including its huge scope and cast, its focus on politics and noble intrigue, and (at least in the early novels of ASoIaF) the almost complete absence of magic and mystical creatures. " Fantasy Literature

“I liked [Sasha]. She’s fierce, strong and courageous. She’s also a bit tempermental and stubborn, but in my opinion these qualities make her even more likeable… This book could have some profound and lasting effects on a female reader by instilling within her a fighter’s spirit and the idea that one can accomplish anything regardless of one’s gender. Think about this: how many female sword fighters so we see in such books like Shepherd’s Sasha? I am willing to guess not many… In this book, a woman is the warrior who leads others in a large battle. The cover alone is telling.”  -Femspec, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2010 

Shadow's Son in Stores

Hey folks,

At long last, Shadow's Lure is out in stores. I took this photo in my local Borders. As you can see, they also have a few copies of Son.

I hope you enjoy the sequel as much I loved writing it. I'm working hard on book three.

--Jon

June Author Round Table

Jon Sprunk

Kristine Kathryn Rusch

Andrew P. Mayer

Erin Hoffman

Welcome to another author round table! This month, we're joined by Kristine Kathryn Rusch (City of Ruins), Andrew Mayer (The Falling Machine), Erin Hoffman (Sword of Fire and Sea), and Jon Sprunk (Shadow's Lure).

-How much pre-planning do you do before you begin a book? Do you write to an outline, or more organically? In writing a series, how much of the series is planned before you begin?

Kristine Kathryn Rusch: Sadly (and I mean that for me), I write organically.  Stories come to me out of order. The end first, the middle last, part of the next book.  It's irritating--rather like putting a puzzle together--but it seems to work for me.

I know the general shape of a book and of a series, but I never know what happens.  For example, I wrote the opening two sections of Diving into the Wreck, then the opening section of City of Ruins, then a section about a character not in either book.  It took me nearly a year to figure out what order the story actually belonged in.  Eventually I did.

And lest critics pounce on this, saying some derogatory remark about how these books compare to other books of mine, let me say this: I write all of my books this way.  And I wish I didn't.

Andrew Mayer:  I do a ton of planning. I tried to write a number of novels when I was younger and never managed to finish them. It wasn’t until I started seriously outlining that I managed to completely move beyond short stories and a novella or two.

Building a strong outline allows me to figure out the story beats, and make sure that I have the requisite amount of character conflict, drama, action, and all that other good stuff. It also allows me to figure out major plotting problems without having to write thousands of words to uncover them.

And for me it’s just more motivating to be writing a story I already want to read.

Jon Sprunk: I outline extensively from start to finish, and it can take me as long as two months just to do that. But I only do that one book at a time. For the Shadow Saga, I had an idea of what books two and three would be about, but not the details.

Erin Hoffman: Embarrassing amounts of pre-planning. I start with characters and concepts, laying out the things that initially inspire the story -- usually fragments of world imagery or dialogue. From there I dig for theme, and that takes quite a while. There's a lot of research, and a development of ideas that probably has a lot more in common with philosophy than storytelling. Once I've nailed down the theme, I start drawing the story and plot from it. I get a bit more distance from the usually very personal thematic parts and hammer relentlessly until I have the spine of a plot I'm excited to write. Then there's a detailed synopsis, basically a short paragraph for every chapter of the book. This often reveals flaws or structural imbalances that I'll work on more and correct. Throughout this I pepper in paragraphs, key moments of the story, that get shoved in a file with that chapter's short paragraph description. In terms of series, I'll know where I want to go and usually have an idea of how long I want to take to get there, but it can and does change along the way. The outline is a series of signposts, but the space in between is a lot more organic.

-Conversely, how much editing do you do? What's your process to get from first draft to finished manuscript?

KKR: Once I figure out the story order, I put the book in order, add the bridge material, trim or fix details that are out of place, and that's all I do. My husband, Dean Wesley Smith, is my first reader, and he lets me know if something's missing.  (For example, in a recent romance novel, I got so caught up in the plot that I forgot the romance.  I fixed that after he read it.)

AM: Once I’m into the writing phase I like to be able to put most of my attention to voice and flow, and let the story form around the outline. 

I try to push through to a complete draft from start to finish running at about 1,500 to 2,000 words a day. I’ll jump around a bit if I have to, and sometimes I come up with something so inspiring that I need to go back and rework the outline to accommodate it. That can be painful, but never terribly so.

Once the first draft is complete I go back and take an edit pass on the whole thing from end to end. That can be a bear, as I’ll often find loose threads, or half-formed ideas that need completing. Stephen King says that he likes to cut from his books as he rewrites, but I’m the opposite. My drafts tend to grow in size. I probably add around 10% on the second draft.

And once that’s done I’ll read it through again. There’s usually less work this time, but I need to go in and see if broken scenes have really been “fixed”, or if I’ve managed to somehow make things worse. I’ll usually bring in readers at this stage. I don’t envy them much, because there are an infinite number of typos in this draft. I haven’t made any attempts to fix much beyond the tone and flow of the language, so there can be a lot of nonsense in there.

Then, the third draft is all about polish. To be honest there should probably be a second round of polish as well, but I don’t always have the time. That’s when I end up making the copy editor’s life miserable.

JS: I do a lot of editing. It's much more stressful than the actual writing. I put a lot of pressure on myself to get it right. I wish I could say I was 100% successful, but I'm lucky to have an excellent support network, including my beta readers, my agent, and Lou Anders at Pyr.

EH: Once I actually start writing, I try to write straight through. I make notes after every chapter, and throughout the process (I email ideas to myself constantly; my gmail account has 93 label categories), but this doesn't typically change the outline. They're moments to refine, minor things to change, realizations about particular motivations or world details. If anything major comes up, I come to a full stop and have to fix it before I can continue. This can be deceptive; there are times I thought I was just tired or stressed, but invariably if I'm having trouble going forward it's because my subconscious is telling me there's something wrong with the story. Once I figure it out and adjust the outline, it all starts to flow again.

-What does a typical writing day look like for you?

KKR: I get up, herd the cats, do my internet work, exercise, have a writing session, have lunch, more writing, have dinner, more writing, then read, then one hour of TV/movie, and sleep. The next day, I start all over again.

AM: I think my book days are more aspirational than typical.

Actual writing days are relatively easy, since they’re easily measured in pure numbers of words. Either I can park myself in a chair and write 2000 words or I can’t. I do find that meditating before I start usually means the work that will get done, but I can be surprisingly poor at that practice even though I know it’s going to end up a net win.

Editing days are a chapter or so a day. I can usually cover 3,000 words of rewrites. But if  I end up trying to pick apart a structural knot that can really slow things down, especially if it ends up being a point that crosses chapters. Also, sometimes scenes need to be completely re-done, so that can throw me back into writing mode for days.

And I’m a truly grass is greener kind of guy: When I’m writing I wish I was editing, and when I’m editing I wish I was writing.

JS: I write in the evenings, Monday through Friday. I have a bit more time on weekends. My goal is a thousand words per day. I try not to take days off.

 

EH: Oh man, I wish there were typical writing days. Someday there will be. I carve out time wherever I can, and so "typical" for me is about flexibility and, often, mobility. My "rituals" are pretty self-contained -- playlists (musicals, movie soundtracks, and lately a Pandora channel built from Victorian composers), software (PlainText -> DropBox -> Scrivener 2.0), tea, where available (just about any kind of full leaf, with extra points for good earl greys or pu-erhs). Other than that, I write everywhere -- on airplanes, in hotels, on the couch...  

-What are some television shows that you enjoy?

KKR: I love Stargate Universe and will miss it.  I love Doctor Who.  My "candy" show this year is  Hawaii Five-O.  I've been watching The Closer on DVD. But my favorite show has got to be The Big Bang Theory.  I know those people.  Some of them might live in my house. :-)

AM: Is anyone not watching Game of Thrones? It’s an amazing translation, and it’s really fun to watch fans of the book engaging with the necessities and shortcuts of television.

I also loved, loved, loved, the Spartacus series that’s on Starz. It’s a rare genre series that can pull out of a bad start the way that show did, but if you watch the first series it goes from good to amazing. The prequels are even better: a good prequel should re-contextualize what you think you “know” about the events that come after it, and Spartacus does that in spades.

Also, something that Spartacus does better than Game of Thrones is make sure that there are emotional stakes in all the sex scenes. It’s a trick worth paying attention to.

Breaking Bad is another amazing show. I tell people that it’s the best “origin of a supervillain” series ever made, and in a lot of ways it’s a non-genre genre story. It does some really breathtakingly brave stuff in terms of creating genuine peril for the “hero” of the show. 

JS: My wife and I are enjoying The Game of Thrones on HBO. We also watch Hell's Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares. Otherwise, I just watch the news. Oh, and Southpark.

EH: I'm more of a movie type than a TV type, but it does seem like TV has gotten better and better over the last few years. I was blown away by Planet Earth, and I have an unhealthy weakness for documentaries about ancient Egypt. I've enjoyed what I've seen of Deadwood, and I think Babylon 5 is a masterpiece of serial SF. I didn't see Weeds until it was five seasons in, and then watched all five seasons in a couple of weekends with my husband. 

Thanks to all our authors for stopping by!

The Dervish House nominated for the John W. Campbell Best Novel Award

The Center for the Study of Science Fiction have announced the 2011 John W. Campbell Memorial Award Finalists. We are thrilled to share the news that Ian McDonald's novel, The Dervish House, is among the finalists. This honor joins The Dervish House's Hugo nomination, Arthur C. Clarke nomination, Locus Award nomination, and BSFA win. At this point, I don't think it's even biased of us to say that if you haven't read The Dervish House yet, you really should.