Writers in the Storm

Rob's last male POV blog was so popular we nagged invited him to return to WITS. We asked for it, ladies - we got it! 

Finding the right relationship is the most important decision two people ever make. What percentage of murders result from failed relationships? Fifty? More?

The popularity of the romance genre is based largely, on our fascination with relationships, and our continual search for ways of improving our existing or prospective relationships. That the romance readership is over ninety percent female should provide a clue that this fascination isn’t exactly symmetrical.

Although relationships are central to human existence, we go about finding them in ridiculously unscientific ways. I used to hang out in bars and wondered why so many of the women I met had drinking problems. Meeting a woman at a health club has at least the advantage that they’re interested in fitness. The strangest thing, though, is that a huge number of men and women are unattached, yet unable to hook up.

Men and women perform a mating dance, circling around one another, sending messages that will, they hope, lead to happiness, yet so often finding the opposite. Part of the problem is that these messages can be misunderstood.

Nobody sits down with teenage guys and tells them that when a woman looks at you for more than a second (especially with that little up-down glance checking out the bod), she’s at least considering your eligibility, that the flick of her hair signals her femininity, that any touch she initiates is full-out flirtation.

Nobody also mentions that, uninvited, the same gestures sent by a male are either weird, offensive, or simply unwelcome. Another problem is that men and women are simply looking for different things -- and often using the same words to describe it.

Frequently, neither side of that equation will actually admit (to others and sometimes to themselves) what they really want. When I was young and single, I spent a lot of time analyzing who gets lucky at the bar (or health club.) It seemed a universal rule that the cutest women ended up with jerks. At the time, I assumed this is what women wanted—being a “nice guy” was a sure-fire route to spending the night alone.

A huge sub-genre of romance (typified by the Harlequin Presents/Desire lines) supports this theory -- rich successful (often older but invariably arrogant, with a rich sense of entitlement and low opinion of women) males get the (younger beautiful but needing support) females.

Certainly, going back to our pre-human primate ancestors, women who attracted the protection of powerful mates had better odds of successfully raising children, even if this protection came at a cost (evolution doesn’t favor the happy, it favors the reproductive.)

Recently, though, I read of a study(http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/students/easton/PAID_exploit.pdf) that put a wrench in the gears of my simple theory that women are attracted to jerks. Specifically, psychology researchers found that “jerks” (they called this “lower levels of agreeableness”) are better at picking up cues that women are exploitable. Back to our bar scene. Guys, it turns out, find women who are drunk, wear tight clothes, and who look not too bright, but particularly attractive (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/05/dumb_women_do_men_find_them_more_attractive_.html) especially when it comes to one-night-stands. These women are seen as easy to “exploit” (where exploit means sex without long-term commitment.)

Now, on to the basic question every woman seems to ask.

“What does it mean when he says he’ll call you later?”

It doesn’t mean anything, of course. Guys will always say this. After all, who wants to be attacked by some crazy woman? There are plenty of women a man would be happy to sleep with, yet be unwilling to engage in a relationship with. This is true for women as well, of course, but biologically most women are programmed to seek long term commitments while men are programmed to respond to long term commitments but to look for action on the side. This is one difference between producing an egg a month, with a nine month gestation period and a decade or so of child-rearing vs. producing 160 million sperm a day with a five minute impregnation period.

If he doesn’t call you, it means one of several things:

(1) he’s actually in a relationship with someone else and you were a fling;

(2) he’s a jerk who found you at an exploitable moment;

(3) he didn’t have that great a time; or

(4) he had a great time but can’t remember your name and is embarrassed to call and ask considering all that happened (this was frequently my problem as I’m notorious for being bad with names.)

Okay, so, let’s recap:

• Guys find exploitable women attractive. Exploitable, to a guy means he can get you into bed without having to commit to a relationship. If you want to be exploitable, wear tight clothes, drink, party, and hide your intelligence (i.e., be sexy.)
• Guys don’t look to exploitable women for long-term relationships (biologically possibly because they’re afraid they’ll be raising some other exploiter’s children.)
• But guys won’t notice women if they’re not at least somewhat sexy.
• Some guys specifically look for and pick up on signs that women are exploitable. These men are called “jerks.”
• Guys who aren’t jerks aren’t as good at picking up the signs.

I think the lesson is, if you want a guy who isn’t a jerk, you should show signs of exploitability but not too many—and you should be aware that the jerks will still be honing in on you. Of course, if what you want is a one-night-stand, slug down the extra martini and look around, meeting men’s eyes. You’ll find one (or several if you’re interested in swinging that way.)

Writers too often ignore signals and biological imperatives—partly because they don’t know better and partly because they’re writing fairy tales for women. Most women want to believe that offering sex creates a bond and a commitment in a male. This isn’t generally true, as most males view sex and commitment as distinct entities (necessary but not sufficient.)

But romance readers don’t want to hear about a male who’ll bed a heroine, shower off and go back to work completely unaffected. Partly, though, they gloss over the most important part of establishing a relationship, those difficult, funny-in-retrospect, moments when two people are signaling desperately—in different languages. The woman tries to sign availability… but not too much availability. The man tries to sign power and affluence, but wants to be loved for himself rather than just for his money (which he may not have… after all, there are more billionaires in category romance than there are in the real world.)

Don’t shortchange the reader—share those signals and confused messages with her.

So what do you think? Have you been writing the male POV realistically?  More importantly, do you want to?

Rob Preece is an author and publisher (for micropublisher BooksForABuck.com). His most recent book, NanoCorporate is a near-future SF thriller (available from Amazon in paperback and eBook). He’s also published romances under his own name and as Robyn Anders and mysteries and romantic thrillers as Amy Eastlake. He lives in Long Beach with his author-wife, a desperately needy cat and a cranky bird.

by Sharla Rae

Recently, at one of our WITS critique meetings, we found ourselves asking why one of our partner’s characters was doing something that appeared illogical. The writer explained it wasn’t illogical at all. It fit her character’s motivation. To which we replied, “what motivation? Shouldn’t you clue us in so we’ll understand her actions?" She frowned a little and said, “I really didn’t want to reveal everything up front, for fear of spoiling the story.”

I proposed that she should reveal all the character’s motivations to the reader, but leave the other characters in the story ignorant. Thus, readers know what the other characters don’t. This actually heightens the tension in the story for the reader.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

We’ve all made the mistake of holding too much back. In fact it’s a very common mistake when starting a new story. That said, leaving out character motivations can turn a potentially great book into a corpse.

Characters can walk and talk, cry their eyes out and howl with laughter and still be pronounced dead on arrival. Unless readers know why characters are doing all those things, that is, what motivates them, the story lacks a heartbeat.

Motivation is not just the heart of every character; it’s the heart of the story. It breathes life into characters and pumps the action that moves the characters toward their goals.

Don’t roll your eyes yet. I know that all writers understand the importance of motivation. But I also know after judging many contests that some authors hold back on motivations for the wrong reasons.

Two Most Common Reasons for Hiding Character Motivation

• “I don’t want to give away the character’s secrets too soon; I want to surprise the reader at the end.”Readers are surprised all right! The characters run amuck, acting, reacting and saying things for no apparent reason. Without clear motivations, the book and its characters are as soulless as wooden puppets on strings.

Readers don’t empathize with puppets and won't read far enough to find the "surprises."Knowing character motivations allows readers to identify with them, root for or against them and experience the story’s adventure through them.

• “I’m afraid the suspense or the story tension will be lost.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, knowing character motivations heightens story tension because often the motivations and goals of one character interfere with those of another. Part of the fun of reading a story is discovering how everything knits together  in the end.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. We’ve all read mysteries where a secondary character turns out to have unknown motivations that upset the apple cart. The author gets away with this technique by never allowing the reader into this character’s point of view. However, through other characters, and discoveries made along the way, the author will drop clues that all is not what it appears on the surface.

Still, the above scenario is not the norm. In most cases, it’s not only okay for readers to know “all” character motivations, it’s necessary to understanding their actions. It’s necessary to keep the story's heart beating.

So how ’bout it? Has your story’s heart ever skipped a few beats? What was your mistake and how did you fix it?

By Monthly Contributor, Shannon Donnelly

We’ve all heard “show, don’t tell” and there is value in that advice. If all you do is tell a story, how does the reader participate with his or her imagination? However, a book is not a movie. While a movie requires everything to be shown (or an often awkward voice over to be added if it’s not showing enough), a book has the luxury of being able to use narrative. And that’s where I usually get folks who are utterly confused.

Narrative seems to have gone out of fashion. It's not often taught, and no one seems to really get what it is. So let’s make it easy.

Merriam-Webster gives us the root for narrative/narrating as the “Latin narratus, past participle of narrare, from Latin gnarus knowing; akin to Latin gnoscere, noscere to know.”

This means it’s basically the author telling the reader the information the author knows, which the reader also needs to know. And now you ask, what does the reader need to know, and when does the reader need it, and how much does the reader need. This is where narrative becomes an art.

There is no exact formula for what is enough telling.  However, readers always need to know:

* Where are we? (Place and world – the reader needs to be placed into the scene, otherwise it’s confusing to the reader. Do not throw your readers into the deep end without giving them some help.)

* When are we? (What’s the era, the time of the year, the month, the day, the hour? We need everything that helps the reader settle into the scene as if this moment in time really exists.)

*Who is here? (An introduction to the characters, particularly to the main characters for that scene, and for the story.)

* Why are we here? (This doesn’t have to be greatly detailed information, but you need enough details to make a reader care. Think of it this way—too little and you starve the reader’s imagination; too much and the reader quickly fills up and drops the book down.)

All this needs to be woven together, stitched in with careful threads, not dumped on the reader in big clumps. Or, to put it another way, feed the reader your telling—your narrative—with a teaspoon, not a soup bowl.

Good narrative does a lot of things for you:

*  It condenses information, which helps keep the pace of the story moving forward.

*  It weaves in backstory and plot exposition, so you don’t have to have huge info dumps.

*  It allows touches of your author voice to add atmosphere and mood to a story.

*  It allows you, the author, to set the scene for the reader, thereby setting expectations about the story—you’re basically setting up the reader to enjoy the story (and not have to work too hard).

Bad narrative also does a lot of things for you, but worst of all, poor narrative is awkward, verbose and  tends to make a reader put down the book.

So how do you know if your narrative—your story telling—is working?

*  Have someone else read the story—and just have them make an X on the page every time their attention starts to wander. That’s a place where the telling is probably getting to overload.

* Look at the balance of action (showing) to telling—go through with a colored marker and make sure you’re not telling too much.

* Use the story telling to move into and out of scenes (for transitions.) Within a scene, cut the telling and only show your characters in action. Only tell if you must to clarify action, intent, or motivations (and even then look for better ways to show this instead of tell).

Most of all, if it works, don’t fix it. But if it doesn’t work, time to get back to edits to make the story work for the reader.

Shannon Donnelly regularly teaches an online workshop on Show and Tell: An Interactive Workshop. She’ll be giving this workshop again in June 2012 for Celtic Hearts Romance Writers. Shannon Donnelly's writing has won numerous awards, including a RITA nomination for Best Regency, the Grand Prize in the "Minute Maid Sensational Romance Writer" contest, judged by Nora Roberts, RWA's Golden Heart, and others. Her writing has repeatedly earned 4½ Star Top Pick reviews from Romantic Times magazine, as well as praise from Booklist and other reviewers, who note: "simply superb"..."wonderfully uplifting"....and "beautifully written."

Her latest Regency Historical Romance, Paths of Desire, can be found as an ebooks on Kindle, Nook and at Smashwords, along with her Regency romances. Shannon is a regular speaker at writing conferences, and will be speaking at the 2012 RWA  National conference in Anaheim. She gives online workshops and is the author of Story Telling; Story Showing, an ebook that compliments her popular online class Show and Tell: An Interactive Workshop.