Please join us for Write Up a Storm II tomorrow (October 12th)!
We're writing up a storm from 4:00 a.m. to midnight PDT.
Twenty hours (almost) of opportunities to connect with others, meet goals, and get your words "on paper." If you haven't signed up, do it now! Just click any link in this post or the graphic above.
We'll be writing from the top of every hour for fifty minutes.In the interest of health, we've planned a ten minute break at the end of every hour for walking around and other physical necessities. (If you need to work on a different schedule, say around breaks and lunch at work, that's fine. Keep track of your progress and, when you get a chance, let us know how you're doing.)
During that ten-minute break, you're welcome to post your word or page counts and anything else in the comment section here at the blog or on our Facebook Event page. We'll tally numbers and post them as often as we're able. End of the day tally will be here by Tuesday.
We're hoping for at least a novel's worth of combined word count.
You can commit to hours or only a fifteen minute block of writing time. Just follow through on your goal. That's how you finish a book. And today is a chance to make headway on finishing your book. As Laura Drake says, "You can't sell a book if you haven't finished one."
Here's your dance card:
Laura Drake will start the party from 4-8 am. The coffee will be flowing.
Orly Konig-Lopez will be onboard from 8 am to noon. (And yes, more coffee!)
Jenny Hansen will be playing Eighties flashback videos at the top of each hour from 12-4 pm.
Fae Rowen is taking the evening drive time from 4-9 pm.
Jenny Hansen is running the Night Owl party from 9 pm to midnight.
So let's support each other and make this fun. Writing is, by nature, a solitary endeavor. That doesn't mean you have to feel alone. Join us. Tomorrow's the day.
Susan Spann The Legal Side of Writing for Anthologies (Part 2)
Last month, my #PubLaw guest post here at Writers in the Storm examined some important legal issues authors face when writing for anthologies. Today, we’re taking a closer look at appropriate—and not so appropriate--grants of rights in anthology contracts, which differ from the standard grants of rights in book-length publishing deals.
Before we get started, it’s important to remember that “copyright” actually consists of many different rights, including not only the right to produce a work in different standard publishing formats like print and ebook, but also translation rights, foreign distribution rights, serial rights (e.g., in a monthly magazine, one chapter at a time) film and TV rights, merchandising, and other subsidiary rights.
Traditional publishing contracts often attempt to divide each of these rights between author and publisher, but anthologies don’t have the same interest in rights acquisition as publishers do. As a result, anthologies generally have much shorter paragraphs (sometimes merely clauses) addressing the grant of rights.
The anthology contractshould grant the anthology publisher only the rights reasonably necessary to publish and sell the anthology.
Now, let’s look at the grants of rights which authors should expect to see in anthology contracts:
1. First Print Rights or Non-exclusive Print Rights. (Note that these should be limited to use of the work in the specified anthology only.)
Many anthologies want "first print rights" to contributors’ stories, which means those stories cannot appear elsewhere, in print or electronic formats, before being published in the anthology. (Most of the time, publishers of book-length works want first print rights as well.) An appropriate grant of rights in an anthology contracts would typically read: "Author hereby grants [Publisher] first English-language publication rights" or "Author grants [Publisher] first English-language anthology publication rights."
If the contributed work has been published before, the anthology contract may modify this language by removing "first" and inserting "non-exclusive," or "second" or some other appropriate identifying word. However, the contributing author must let the publisher know about previous publication—normally at the time of submission but certainly before signing the contract, to be sure the grant of rights is properly phrased (and that the publisher is willing to take previously published work).
The contract should also specify that the grant of rights enables the publisher to publish the work as part of a specified anthology only. This prevents the publisher from legally using that grant of rights to publish the contributor’s work in standalone format or use it for other unspecified purposes.
2. Continuing, non-exclusive print or publication rights (as part of, and in reprints of, the specified anthology only).
Grants of rights in anthology contracts should always contain the word "non-exclusive" and clearly state that the anthology's publisher has the continuing, non-exclusive right to reproduce the author's work as part of the specified anthology only. Publishers do need "continuing" rights so the work can be included in reprints and future editions of the anthology. However, the author should never surrender the right to publish the work in other formats, other anthologies, or other collections (for example, in a collection of the author’s own short works).
3. Limitations on how soon the author can publish the work again, or in other formats.Anthologies often want the right to publish works on a “limited exclusive” basis, which is normal—and fine—as long as the term requested is not too long. 6-12 months from the date of the anthology’s initial publication is a reasonable exclusivity period. However, the anthology contract shouldn’t bar the author from ever publishing or using the work again, or demand an excessive exclusivity period.
Note: NEVER grant or transfer your copyright in your work to an anthology publisher. Next month’s post will look at anthology copyrights in more detail, but for now it’s enough to remember: no anthology publisher needs the copyright in your story.
The author should always retain copyright ownership in his or her work.
The Anthology contract should specify that the grant of rights covers English language rights only, unless the translation rights are limited to the translation of the entire anthology (as a whole) into other languages. Translation of anthologies is rare, and most of the time the publisher needs only English language rights to contributed works. Although translation of short stories and other shorter works is rare, the author should still retain the rights whenever possible.
Anthology contracts should never contain grants of subsidiary rights like film, television, app and gaming, graphic novel, and merchandising rights (to name a few). The only time these rights should show up in an anthology contract is when the contract states that the author retains these rights exclusively.
Finally, anthology contracts should always contain a statement that the author retains all rights not expressly granted to the publisher in the contract.This is standard but needs to appear in the contract to ensure that ownership of the rights (and the right to exploit them) is clear.
Anthologies present many authors with valuable opportunities to publish shorter works, “cross pollenate” readership, and gain publishing credits. Authors simply need to ensure that the grant of rights is clear—and not overreaching.
Do you write for anthologies? How do the grants of rights you’ve seen compare with the ones we’re talking about today?
* * * * * *
About Susan
Susan Spann writes the Shinobi Mysteries, featuring ninja detective Hiro Hattori and his Portuguese Jesuit sidekick, Father Mateo. Her debut novel, CLAWS OF THE CAT (Minotaur Books, 2013), was a Library Journal Mystery Debut of the Month and a finalist for the Silver Falchion Award for Best First Novel. BLADE OF THE SAMURAI released in 2014, and her third novel, FLASK OF THE DRUNKEN MASTER, releases on July 14, 2015.
Susan is also a transactional attorney whose practice focuses on publishing law and business. When not writing or practicing law, she raises seahorses and rare corals in her marine aquarium. She was recently named Rocky Mountain Fiction Writers’ 2015 Writer of the Year, and you can find her online at http://www.SusanSpann.com, on Twitter (@SusanSpann), and on Facebook (SusanSpannAuthor).
The following is part of another chapter of my proposed writer’s craft book, A WRITER’S WORKSHOP AT THE BIJOU, currently being marketed to publishers. All the material in this book is based on the movie Thelma & Louise.
Hope folks find this one informative as well and that it helps in their writer’s journey. Thanks for reading.
* * * * * *
The two most important characters in a novel are the protagonist and the antagonist.I'm going to define those terms as are many misconceptions about their roles in the story.
The Protagonist
The protagonist is simply the person through whose eyes and viewpoint we experience the bulk of the story. I feel it a mistake to assign moral qualities to either the protagonist or the antagonist. Therefore, I believe it’s misleading to use terms such as “hero” or “heroine” to describe the protagonist. Doing so assigns a moral value to him or her that is not only inaccurate, but that often leads to creating poor characters.
When you think of protagonists as “good guys” and antagonist’s as “bad guys” or villains, the temptation is great to create one-dimensional, cardboard, almost “cartoonish” characters. Dudley Doright and Snidely Whiplash.
By the same token, the term “antihero” is misleading. By its very name, it also implies a moral quality assigned to the character. The protagonist is neither a hero nor an antihero. They’re simply the person through whose persona we experience the story.
Do yourself a favor. Don’t think of these two characters as “good” and/or “bad.” I think you’ll find you create far more complex and compelling characters by not doing so.
Same way with that term that’s crept into our writing lexicon in the past few years. That main character thingy, or that even more insidious appellation, that “MC” monstrosity. That says… nothing.
Of course the protagonist is the “main character.” But, to refer to him or her with that term, negates somewhat the value of the protagonist. Describing the protagonist as the “main character” implies that it’s the story that’s mostly important (at the expense of character) and that’s simply not true.
All stories, regardless of genre, are pretty much the same. It’s the protagonist in his/her battle in the story to resolve the story problem that’s important. Plots are limited—there are only 6-8, depending on the source. Characters—particularly protagonists—on the other hand, are limitless.
The life of any story isn’t the plot. It’s how the protagonist and antagonist operate within the plot, not the clever and various ways in which the killings, bombings, kidnappings, love and/or sex scenes, naval button contemplations or whatever are depicted. Those things are incidental to the characters and only exist to serve the characters and provide the obstacles for the struggle.
The Antagonist
Likewise, don’t think of the antagonist in terms of villains. He or she is simply the person whose goal(s) conflict with those of the protagonist’s. Period. Again, just as with the protagonist, no moral value is assigned, at least in relationship to the definition of their character. Not the “bad guy” or “bad gal.” If you think of antagonists as villains, you’ll end up with Snidely Whiplash-type characters. One-dimensional, cardboard, cartoonish characters.
The antagonist, just like the protagonist, can be a good guy or gal or a bad guy or gal. Doesn’t matter. Novels aren’t morality plays. As Samuel Goldwyn said to the screenwriter who sent him a script with a theme of good and bad (badly paraphrased): “Don’t send a message. Western Union sends messages and they do it well. Send me a story.”
Can there be more than one protagonist or antagonist?
Nope.
One protagonist, one antagonist per novel.
Now, that doesn’t mean they each can’t have multiple allies. They both can and both most likely will.
Are there exceptions? Probably, although I can’t think of any right now. Remember that just because a novel was published doesn’t “prove” it was any good. Doesn’t mean it’s a good model to follow, necessarily. Bad novels get published just about every day. But, do yourself a favor and don’t use a bad novel for a template. I can pretty well guarantee you that there aren’t very many good novels with “co-protagonists” and “multiple antagonists.”
One of the reasons this is true is that when you begin creating more than a single protagonist and/or antagonist, the reader’s focus begins to get diffused. We can “see” an individual. Once you begin creating crowds, it becomes harder to figure out whose story it is or who we should follow.
Let’s look at Thelma & Louise for particularly great examples of a powerful protagonist and an equally-powerful antagonist.
By the way, the strength of your novel depends on the strength of your antagonist, not your protagonist. Write that down.
The antagonist should be at least the equal in strength of the protagonist, and preferably stronger. This includes all forms of strength, including physical, mental, emotionally, resource-wise… in every way you can dream up. If the antagonist is weaker in any way than the protagonist, then the protagonist doesn’t have to do much to prevail, does he? And, you want the protagonist’s struggle to be uphill all the way.
The protagonist in Thelma & Louise is Thelma. Period. I know the title says Thelma and Louise, but it’s Thelma’s story. Louise is along for the ride and the primary role she serves is the Mentor role. Khouri was well-aware of that. If they were co-protagonists, wouldn’t she have given Louise’s big sex scene the same big stage as she did Thelma’s? She didn’t. It’s Thelma’s story, all the way.
Another factor that determines the protagonist is the character arc. You know, that old Freitag scheme that looks like a roller coaster? Only the protagonist gets that. His or her character has to undergo a significant change as a result of the struggle she’s undergone to achieve the story goal.
Only Thelma undergoes this change in the story. Louise changes a bit, but by and large, at the end of the story, she’s pretty much the same as she was at the beginning. Thelma, on the other hand, has had a profound change from where she began. You’ll see that change as we go along here.
And, the antagonist is… Hal the cop as played by Harvey Keitel. Is he a villain? Nope. Not in the least. He’s undoubtedly the single most moral character in the story. His goal is completely honorable and good… for those looking for good guys and bad guys in their fiction.
It’s just that his goal is in direct conflict with Thelma’s. His goal is to rescue Thelma and her friend, Louise. To save them first from going to jail and then, as the story evolves, to save them from being killed. Absolutely, 100% honorable goal.
Can you see how the terms “villain” doesn’t have a thing to do with Hal’s character? Do you think for a second that if Khouri thought in those terms—heroes/heroines vs villains—she could have possibly written these characters—particularly Hal’s? Not a chance in hell! If her knowledge of story had rested on those kinds of definitions, she would be writing direct-to-video screenplays, if even that.
Please—if you get nothing else from this post—never again think of your characters as hero/heroine and villain!
Are there characters in the story who provide obstacles for Thelma? Sure. Her husband Darryl is about as “villainy” as you could ever wish for.
Just about every male character in the story provide opposition. J.T. steals their money even though he does afford Thelma respect in their love-making. The state cop with the tailored uni and mirror sunglasses and male chauvinist hog attitude is villainy. The tanker driver with his pig-like gestures and intentions is villainy. Harlan, the would-be rapist is definitely villainy. The guys manning gas pumps when they stop, or are leaning up against building posts ogling them, are all minor variations of villainy.
And, guess what? Just about all of those characters fit the Snidely Whiplash mold. No antagonists in that bunch, except in a very limited, stereotypical role, basically as villainous. Louise’s boyfriend Jimmy, is pretty much a good guy, but he’s definitely not an antagonist. He’s one of their few “helpers” when he comes to Louise’s aid (and, by extension, Thelma’s). No opposition to Thelma’s goal there.
The one character whose goal provides consistent and powerful opposition to Thelma’s goal is Hal. She wants to escape; his goal is to catch her.
And it’s that dynamic that makes for complex characters and complex stories. Two individuals, each with a goal at odds with the other. Both with worthy goals. No “good vs evil” going on here at all. Each the very model of a great protagonist/antagonist. A very powerful antagonist.
Look at Hal’s strengths. He’s a lawman with tons of experience catching criminals. He’s got all the technological advantages possible. He’s got a virtual army of people to help him find and catch them. He’s got state of the art computers, communications, transportation, radar, phone tracking capability at his disposal. He’s got the state police along with the FBI at his disposal. He’s got a frickin’ helicopter!
He’s got all this arrayed against a housewife and a waitress in a car and little money and their destination known. He’s extremely powerful and about as strong of an antagonist as you could ever invent. When Thelma defeats him—which she does in the final scene—it resonates with the viewer since she hasn’t beaten a weakling at all but an antagonist that was stronger in just about every single way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOuGXTYAj8
Think about how this story would have been had Khouri made Hal a nasty guy who hated women and just wanted to either kill Thelma and Louise or just wanted to put them in jail. She could have done that… if she thought in terms of “heroines” and “villains.” But she didn’t. She created a protagonist and gave her a worthy antagonist.
Perhaps why she won the Oscar for this story?
Do you have any questions for Les? Who are your favorite protagonist/antagonist duos in fiction? What makes them so compelling?
* * * * * *
About Les
Les Edgerton is an ex-con, matriculating at Pendleton Reformatory in the sixties for burglary. He was an outlaw for many years and was involved in shootouts, knifings, robberies, high-speed car chases, drugs, was a pimp, worked for an escort service, starred in porn movies, was a gambler, served four years in the Navy, and had other misadventures. He’s since taken a vow of poverty (became a writer) with 18 books in print, including Finding Your Voice and HOOKED.
Three of his novels have been sold to German publisher, Pulpmaster for the German language rights. His memoir, Adrenaline Junkie is currently being marketed. Work of his has been nominated for or won: the Pushcart Prize, O. Henry Award, Edgar Allan Poe Award (short story category), Derringer Award, PEN/Faulkner Award, Jesse Jones Book Award, Spinetingler Magazine Award for Best Novel (Legends category), and the Violet Crown Book Award, among others.
Les holds a B.A. from I.U. and the MFA in Writing from Vermont College. He was the writer-in-residence for three years at the University of Toledo, for one year at Trine University, and taught writing classes for UCLA, St. Francis University, Phoenix College, Writer’s Digest, Vermont College, the New York Writer’s Workshop and other places. He currently teaches a private novel-writing class online.
