Creating the Fellowship: Characters!

It's the first day of Indie E-Con, which is all about Writing! Check out the other stuff going on today at the main hub!

Why do we read books and become fans in the first place? Sure, sometimes you can fall in love with specific worlds, but let’s be honest; it’s really the characters that win our hearts. The perfect group of characters is what makes a book go from a good read to a fantastic I-want-to-read-this-book-again-and-again read.

But as a writer, balancing out how many characters you need for a story can be hard, especially when it comes to the main characters. Sure, you always have your protagonist, but sometimes, you need more than one, whether you change points of view, or you have a group of companions as your main cast, most of the time you’re not going to just have one character in the limelight.

So how do you craft your Fellowship? Here’s some pointers and things to think about.

Duos

The duo is always a great option. Think Sherlock and Watson. Whether this comes in the flavor of best friends or a hero-sidekick thing, siblings/twins, or even your MC and their romantic interest, everyone loves a solid duo. Duos are the most versatile of main character groups, because being made up of only two people, it is pretty much to be expected that they are going to be joined by other characters along the way. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam are the main duo, but they are joined by Merry and Pippin, as well as Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir later. Even though the Fellowship as a whole really qualifies as more than just a duo, you can break them up into duos and trios as the series progresses, which is a great tactic for fantasy/quest stories. Romances usually feature duos for the main couple, but this too can branch off as he and she usually have their besties, or family members along with them, sometimes creating sub-duos, but your couple should always be your main duo. If it’s a duo like Sherlock and Watson, they should always take precedence over any other characters. Best friend duos should never have one of the other usurped by supporting characters, unless that is purposefully part of the plot.

Trios

Trios are my personal favorite. I used this tactic in my Anthony Maxwell book with Anthony, Tobs, and Scamp as the main trio. The trio is also very versatile, and sometimes a duo can become a trio with like the addition of Castiel’s character to the Winchesters’ duo in Supernatural. Trios are perfect for series books and procedurals like mysteries (such as in Jonathan Stroud’s Lockwood series or Percy, Annabeth and Grover in the Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan) because they have enough characters to offer differing opinions, but not too many to confuse the reader by having to add too many characters to a storyline. Trios can also be branched out into four people (like the Three Musketeers plus D’Artagnan). Maybe your trio picks up another member along the way or there is another, secondary character, that they sometimes go to for help and can be an honorary member of their gang. The important thing to remember when writing trios is that even if you do add more supporting characters along the way, the trio, especially if it is one loved by the fans, should always stay the main focus of the story. Good characters are never going to get boring, and your readers will always want to see more from them.

So What’s the Perfect Number for a Group?

Sometimes, you need more than just a duo or trio. Some stories need to share space with more main characters. I ran into this with my Modern Tales of Na Fianna series, because there are a lot of characters the reader needs to get to know, and I put emphasis on different ones throughout the series. But my main group is Ciran’s Company, a group of six friends who got thrown together in Book One because they were all going on a mission to rescue their family members who were being kept prisoners by the Goblins. There were even more characters introduced in this story between King Eamon, and his Captain of the Guard Killian, as well as Ciran’s family. Balancing this many characters can be tough and from a reader’s perspective, very confusing, if done incorrectly. The best way to introduce a bunch of characters is to do it gradually. Think about the beginning of The Hobbit. That book featured a company of 15 characters including Bilbo and Gandalf, but we were introduced to the dwarves a couple at a time as they came to Bilbo’s door. While we don’t truly get to know a lot of their personalities from the book, the idea is a good one. Start off with your main character and his closest family members or companions and work outward from there. I also like to think about Eight Cousins by Louisa May Alcott. Rose was introduced to her seven cousins by the eldest of them, who pretty much explained their characters in a quirky and humorous way. The reader is presented with a group of very different and unique characters and doesn’t have a hard time figuring out which boy was which throughout the rest of the story.

Five to seven characters is a decent number for a larger group of main characters. It’s not so many that your readers will be going…wait, who was that again? And few enough that you, as a writer will be able to create several characters with distinct personalities that will not just all run together after a while as can happen when you are forced to come up with too many characters. It is also enough characters to be able to accomplish deeds of daring do, or a good crew for heists and such (Like the group in the show, Leverage or Kaz’s crew in Six of Crows by Leigh Bardugo). They can even be joined by other people too if needed, my advice on that subject is to introduce any other characters you might be planning to join with them separately so they are not lost in the main group. Then you can have fully established characters to work with once you join groups up so you don’t have to do a lot of awkward characterization when you should be focusing on your action scenes.

How Many is Too Many?

Yes, it is possible to have too many characters. I have written several books where I had to scrap characters from the original idea because when I started writing it, there just didn’t seem to be a need for them or their inclusion would just complicate the storyline. This is a worthy sacrifice for the sake of your story, and if you like the character you can always use him in another book or even a sequel, but it is important not to swamp your readers with too many characters.

If you think your book might have too many characters, here’s an easy way to figure that out. Set aside the MC and the characters you know need to be in the story and look at each of the others. Think about what they add to the plot, and how their existence effects the plot and the MC. Everything in a book needs to tie together, or the story will be confusing, so if you add characters that you think might be a cool addition, but really have no effect on the plot whatsoever you may just end up confusing readers. I have read various books where it’s pretty obvious the author just threw in a character either to prove some kind of point or for comic relief or something but the character never really fits in and it just turns out to be more annoying than anything. So learning how many characters is too many, is a good lesson both for new writers and even for experienced ones to remember. The last thing you want is for your readers to wonder, why was that guy even in this book? If you’re not sure yourself, this is a good question to ask your trusted beta readers.

So there are some tips on how to figure out how many characters you need in your book, and how to handle them. I hope this might have offered some assistance J Let me know how you decide how many characters your book needs. Does it just happen? Or do you take a lot of time and consideration with it?

No Such Thing As Beginner's Luck in This Game--This is for YOU New Writers!

Not to sound mean and discouraging (because this post is really meant to help) but you cannot expect to sit down and write a perfectly good novel the first time round. Sorry, but it's physically impossible. And you know what? That's a good thing, because if you don't mess up and have the opportunity to learn from your mistakes, you'll never be a good writer. Today I'm going to address several problems a lot of beginning writers have to help you along a little. I've had them, we've all had them, but we've all gotten past them and become better writers. I hope that might give a little hope to those who might be discouraged, that, yes, it does actually get easier as long as you're willing to learn from your mistakes and also to change things that really aren't working, even if it's painful. I've had the pleasure of helping some new writers with their stories and to me, it's a really fun, if not sometimes hard, job. In doing so, I have come across several common "mistakes" that new writers are wont to make. Here's a few words of advice that might help other new writers move past those, or at least get you to thinking.


For those who write too little:

Something I have seen a lot from new writers is lacking content. This was something I personally had a problem with when I started, and sometimes still struggle with, so I know a lot about how you can go about fixing it. Sometimes you just don't get everything onto the paper that needs to be there, and scenes feel hollow and flat because of it.

Why?: When you write, you picture something in your head, a lot of times very visually, and when you're new to writing, you might now always get everything down because you subconsciously feel that the reader will automatically know what's happening, like you do. Well, we're not in your head, so we need a little more help picturing what's going on. This might be what you're thinking of:

Caroline reached across the table to grab the sapphire necklace from Richard's hands, horror washing over her face. "You did not steal this!" she cried, but his proud smirk and the way he lounged back in his chair said it all as he replied, "What did you expect?"

This might be what comes out:

Caroline grabbed the necklace from his hand. "You did not steal this!" she cried. "What did you expect?" Richard replied.

Here's the information we have in the first snippet that we don't have in the second:

-They are sitting at a table
-The necklace is sapphire, and therefore likely expensive
-We know Caroline does not approve that Richard stole it whereas in the second one, we don't have anything to go on for her reaction except the ! which could indicate any strong emotion.
-Richard is obviously proud of what he did, and a commonly cocky individual. In the second snippet, we don't know how he replies-it could be indignant, angry, or anything.

How do you fix it?: This one's a little hard to catch for new writers, because it's not easy to pick it out by yourself. You really need another reader to be able to tell you when you're missing things. Fixing it isn't hard though. Adding things is always easy. All you need to do is take a really good picture of what is in your mind and write the scene out on paper. You might have problems with adding too much on occasion, that can happen too, but eventually you'll get the right recipe. Just remember that the most important parts are description of surroundings, emotions during dialogue, and movement of characters. We need to let readers know that they are not just talking heads, but real people.


For those who write too much:

On the flip side, there are those beginning writers who write TOO much. Not as common, perhaps, but it happens. Some writers are almost somewhat paranoid, and feel they have to put everything down, even the little mundane things that, to be frank, are just going to end up boring readers. I might enjoy Sir Walter Scott's books, but, let's be honest, he's really bad about this.

Why?: A lot of times, it might be the result of lots of research done. Which is good! Research is always a very good thing, and to be a beginning writer who does copious amounts of research for their book, is getting off to a very good start. However, the reason this can be a crippling effort for new writers is because they have not yet learned what to put in and what to leave out. That's always the bane of research. Veteran writers learn to bite the bullet--we only really use a very small percentage of information we have researched for months. It's hard not to share your knowledge, but you have to know what you can safely put into yours books and what needs to go at risk of boring the reader. We need to have enough information on a place, or historical setting to know what's going on and where we are the significance of it, but after that, the rest needs to go.

How do you fix it?: Close you eyes and chop. Sometimes consolidation works, but the best thing to do is just chop it out. Here's the rule I usually tell new writers and even myself: If it does not further along the plot or help the characters in some way, it needs to go. A good solution is to make a detailed author's note or appendix in the back of the book so that you can put all that information you researched there, for interested readers. Some people are going to be interested, and want to read more about the subject, but they should also have a choice and not be bombarded with things. Keep that in mind and never forget that just because you spend three months researching a subject, it doesn't give you leave to put every note into your story. That's just the way it is.


Explanation Through Characters:

This goes hand in hand with the last one and this isn't something that only new writer's do, but you should stop doing it as soon as possible if you're a culprit. I have read plenty of published novels with this problem, and it has always been annoying, lazy, and something that makes not only your readers seem stupid, but your characters as well. It is never okay to explain something to the reader by having the characters ask questions, unless it has never be address to the characters and it is actually part of the story.

Why?: Yes, things need to be explained in books sometimes, but never like this:

"Jim, could you explain again why we have to carry iron out on All Hollows?"
"Because it repels the faeries," Jim said, handing around the small blades. "It's one of the few things that actually hurts them."

Instead of explaining it like that, try something like this:

Sean held up the knife that Jim had given him, standing his ground as the faery advanced. As soon as he lunged with the knife though, the faery leapt back with a hiss. Sean cast a glance down at the small knife with new admiration. So that was why Jim had insisted on his carrying it!

Let the reader find out with the character, not by asking, but by experience. It is okay for a character to ask things sometimes, but not just so we can let the reader know information.

How do you fix it?: Try something like the example I gave above. It goes back to the classic rule "show don't tell". That is not by any means a stupid rule, it is very relevant. If you have a problem with this a lot, you may want to consider trying a book in first person. First person characters are allowed to have asides to the reader where they explain things. The reason it's okay, is because, one, they aren't actually asking another character, they're internalizing it, and two, a lot of times, a first person narrator will have some interesting quirk of character that will make his explanation more enjoyable to read. If written in first person, the scene above might read something like this:

"Take this, and don't lose it whatever you do," Jim said, handing me the small blade that I looked at critically. 
"This is pitiful," I said. "What good is it going to do in a fight?"
"It's iron," Jim said with a meaningful look, and I finally realized the significance: Iron is one of the only things that will ward faeries and on a night like tonight, I was going to need all the help I could get."



On Writing Descriptions:

This is something that takes a while to learn, but is actually very easy and fun. It kind of goes along with learning to add the right things to make a scene more interesting, but it also forces you to be more visual.

Why?: It's hard at first learning exactly how to describe things, whether it be people, places, clothing, or even movement or action. A lot of new writer's have trouble finding the balance between too much and not enough, especially when describing characters and places. This is another thing that you might need another pair of eyes to help you with.

How do you fix it?: Practice for the most part, but also looking at the thing you're trying to describe if possible. For characters, find someone who looks like them, for places, visit if you can so you can feel the atmosphere or if it's something you made up, find pictures that kind of look or remind you of it. Do exercises with just describing things, maybe give them to friends and have them tell you back what they think the place looks like just from your description. This is, unfortunately, one of those things that has no simple solution but practice, but like everything else with writing, it will eventually become second nature.


Cardboard Characters:

This is a big one, and one I always stress as majorly important to new writers. Most people read books and fall in love with them for the characters. Sure, nothing can beat an awesome plot, but if it's not accompanied by well-rounded, real characters, then it's always going to flop. Characters are the life of the story, they are what drive the plot, or get caught up in it, they are the ones readers connect with, often on a personal level. They have to be just as real as the people we know. In short, they can't seem like characters, and it's your job as a writer to make them as real as possible.

Why?: New writers make the mistake of writing characters as characters, not as people. Puppets. stereotypes and suchlike. But that is not how you form a character. They need to be flesh and blood, not paper and ink. You need to believe that it's possible for them to walk in the door. A lot of times new writers don't know how to listen to their characters and because of that, they just throw them into situations they probably wouldn't normally be in. The characters are made to fluctuate--they don't have a solid character. They seem flat, two-dimensional, and all the supporting cast melt together. This is never okay. Each character needs to make some sort of impact on the reader the instant they step onto the page. How you write dialogue goes into making the characters too. If they don't have their own voice, or you can't distinguish who's talking just by the lines, then the characters aren't living. In my favorite books, someone could read a snippet of dialogue and I'd know the character who was talking. That's what you have to do.

How do you fix it?: This is the hardest thing to get right, and you never will until you hear your characters in your head. If you are not hearing your characters in your head, then you are not officially a writer yet, and there's nothing you can really do until they start coming to YOU, not the other way around. If that last bit sounded weird to you, then you're obviously not there, because veteran writers know exactly what I'm talking about. And trust me, there's going to come a day when you're just as crazy and have people talking in your head. I distinctly remember when my characters first started talking to me, and my writing was so much better because of it. Yours will be too. I can't say when it's going to happen for any individual, you can't coax it, it's just one day you're going to be lying in bed, and you'll start hearing people converse in your head. And that's when it starts. And once that happens creating characters will be easy and effortless, because YOU don't create them, they create themselves.

My blog is named "Character Purgatory" because that's what I call the place all my characters sit in my head. It's like my mind palace (totally slipped in a Sherlock reference) but just for characters. Like the green room in a theater. Still weird? Just wait.

What I usually tell new writers is to pick up their favorite books, ones with their favorite characters and really take a look at what makes that character tick and why exactly you like them so much? What are the qualities that make you fall in love with them? I'll say this: I'm not a huge fan of fan-fiction (at least not shared fan-fiction) because of what people do with it (and I'm not nocking it all either because I'm sure there is actually some pretty good and decent stuff out there too) but I learned to write on it (Redwall fan-fiction, yep) and that taught me a lot about forming characters. I used ones I loved from the books, and added some of my own, and in order to keep the original characters from paling in comparison, I had to step it up, and learn how to create the hard way. This might be a good exercise for people who have problems forming characters. And the best part? No one ever has to read these stories if you don't want them to. I have tons of stories no one has even seen or heard about from my days of practice. They're bloody awful, most of them, but through those that I wrote by trial and error, I learned a lot about writing in general and certainly about writing characters.


And as for my last parting bit of advice? Read. Read and read and read some more because you can't write unless you know how words are strung together, and characters are created and worlds are built. The beginning writers I know who are hugely avid readers (and who read GOOD books by brilliant authors) write that much better than ones who don't read as much. And also, the best thing you can do for yourself is to know from the start that your first story is not going to be perfect. Ever. It just doesn't happen.

I hope these little tips might help some people out. If you have any other questions about things I might have missed, or personal concerns, let me know! I'd be glad to help =)

(All the snippets were written by me, by the way, I came up with them on the spot, it's my curse, now I have these characters in my head and am starting to wonder about them...)

Writing Reluctant and Anti Heroes

Reluctant heroes have always been one of my favorite types of protagonists. Why? Because I personally think they have more character over all. Sure, I love those really awesome heroes who just go in and do what's right without even having to think, but then I also love those reluctant heroes who might take more convincing, but always turn out good in the end. Sometimes you might want to yell at them, and deck them for their stupidity, but you have to love them anyway. Today I'm going to be talking about writing reluctant and anti heroes (and also the difference between them)

First off, let's talk reluctant heroes. The reason I decided to write this post is because in my current WIP A Company of Rogues which I introduced a while back, my hero, Michael Crandon, is very much a reluctant hero, and I have really enjoyed the dynamics of writing a character like him as I have never really gotten to do that before.

Reluctant heroes are protagonists who are thrust into situations which force them to act against their will and become the hero of the story. In my story, Michael is trying to make a quiet living for himself and stay out of trouble as much as possible when he finds out that an old enemy from the days when he was a thief, thinks he stole an emerald necklace that they had tried to steal before on a botched heist. If that isn't bad enough, a young man shows up on his doorstep looking for help after having gotten tangled up with Michael's enemy. Michael knows he has to do something about it, and grudgingly decides to try and figure it out.

The first thing to know about reluctant heroes, is that they usually initially only do things if they somehow profit in it. Apart from Michael's conscious--which he always denies he has--he knows that he will never be able to achieve the peace he wants if he doesn't figure out a way to get his enemy, Randall, off his tail. Thus, he decides to help Reilly, mainly for his own gain. This doesn't mean that your hero doesn't also suffer from scruples or inner compassion--it just isn't at the forefront, and they rarely let it show to others.

It might take a while for reluctant heroes to rise to the occasion, and sometimes, they might need a push, in some cases a brutal one, to get them going. A lot of times, reluctant heroes are also self-professed cowards. Whether they actually are cowards, or they just say that as an excuse to not do what's right, is up to the author.

A good example of a reluctant hero (and one of my all time favorites) is Dustfinger from Cornelia Funke's Inkheart books. Dustfinger really is a coward, and he likes to pretend he doesn't care for anyone but himself, and often he can come across as really not a very good guy. You might still think of his negatively even when you know more about him, but he was also very much able to rise to the occasion and sacrifice everything for the people he cared for. If you need a good reference for what a reluctant hero is, do read Inkheart as Dustfinger is a prime example.

So, as a recap:

Reluctant heroes are heroes who need a kick out the door sometimes; perhaps it's something that happens to them to change their mind, such as the death of a loved one, or maybe they see some sort of self gain in the venture to make them take part in it--in which they only expect to go part way, but usually end up doing more than they ever considered they were capable of.

A reluctant hero can sometimes be a completely hatable person initially, and this is okay, as long as he changes for the best in the end.

A reluctant hero must always be a dynamic character. He has to learn something by the end of the book/series, otherwise readers are not going to find him very likable. He must overcome his reluctance and rise to the occasion, whatever that may be. (i.e. If he is a coward, he must willingly put his life in danger for the sake of another.)


Now we can talk about anti heroes.

The difference between a reluctant hero and an anti hero is that, unlike the reluctant hero, the anti hero can be as brave and courageous as your typical knight in shining armor, and more than willing to do what needs to be done. The only difference is that he is not in himself, a good person. In general, anti heroes are the kinds of people you would never expect to be a good person, such as a torturer, a member of a disreputable group of people (use your imagination) or someone on the wrong side of the law. And no, I'm not talking about characters like Robin Hood either. Like reluctant heroes, anti heroes usually do things for themselves above all else, and their personal gain is usually what they think of first, but unlike them, they are rarely cowards.

An anti hero always lives by his own moral code, whether that be moral or no. He might just possibly be technically a murderer, or something just as bad, but in his own eyes, it would always make sense and be for the best. Like the reluctant hero, he has to have his 'rise to the occasion' moment, but it might be different than that of his reluctant cousin.

The fun thing about anti heroes is that there are several different genres of them. First you have the guys that one can either see as a villain or someone in the right, depending on the reader's (or sometimes even the author's) point of view. Then you have the characters (the ones who usually end up being vigilantes or private investigators or other such people) who might technically do the 'right thing' but go about it in a fashion few decent people would think to do (thus the 'their own moral code' thing.) Think a lot of Noir heroes, or others like that.

I haven't really gotten the chance to write a real anti hero myself, but I've always found them fascinating characters. They have the chance to be very dynamic, and while they can sometimes come across as the 'bad boys', they usually are still incredibly likable. Another things is that anti heroes don't always have to change their ways either, or at least not entirely. They should, of course, have their moment of rising to the occasion, but that doesn't have to take their character away entirely. If you write a really good anti hero, readers might not want to see him turn all 'goody goody'.

A good example of an anti hero is Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Some might view him as the villain, others might see him in a sympathetic light, and that makes him an interesting character. The thing that makes him different from an actual villain is that he was turned bad by tragic events. If his home and people hadn't been destroyed, he probably never would have been in the position he was. Characters like this, even if you can't really find much actual 'good' in them, usually have at least a natural nobility underneath it all.

To recap:

Anti heroes are heroes one wouldn't normally expect to be the 'good guy'. They always follow their own moral code whether it be moral or not.

You can actually play them up as the villain, but he must have a defining moment in which he turns around. He doesn't always have to change his character, however, unlike the reluctant hero, who, while he might struggle with his personal character for the rest of his life, is still a very changed man after his defining moment.


I hope this post might help those who are considering writing reluctant or anti heroes. If you have any other tips or examples of the two in books or movies, drop a comment!

Slainte, Hazel

Kickstarter or Indiegogo: What Might Work Best for You?

Well, I promised a post about using Kickstarter and Indiegogo to help fund your writing ventures as I have just done, with moderate success. I hope this post might help other self-published writers who are looking into setting up a campaign. Mainly this is about Kickstarter vs Indiegogo but there are many other funding websites out there as well.

Anyone who has been following my blog and my own campaign will probably know that I was originally going to use Kickstarter, but ended up going with Indiegogo instead. I'll explain more about that later, and I don't want to deter anyone from using one or the other, it really depends on what works better for you.

To start off, Kickstarter is probably the better known site. And it is a really good site, especially for people who have lots of contacts and other people willing to help them spread the word. It is also great for people who are planning on relying mostly on the support of family and friends. Since I don't have a lot of either (especially not ones with money) I was a little wary about that. The thing about Kickstarter as opposed to Indiegogo is that it is an All or Nothing funding campaign. That means that if you don't make the amount you planned to, then you don't get anything. There is an upside to that, as it will probably induce more people to donate (possibly) and there's the obvious plus that even if you donate and the campaign doesn't pull through the donators don't lose anything either. The only problem for the person who set up the campaign is that you end up with zero. My philosophy has always been 'a little is better than nothing' and anyone poor enough to set up a campaign would probably be happy with whatever they got, even if it wasn't the whole amount. It just seems kind of anticlimactic to me. But again, if you're almost positive that you will be able to fund your campaign (or have a rich relative to beg for the difference at the end) then Kickstarter would be a great site to go to. It has good repute, and it relatively easy to use. However. I had a really hard time setting up the Amazon Payments account (which is ultimately what made me quit Kickstarter.) I didn't understand why they couldn't use Paypal like every other sane person does now days.

Indiegogo, on the other hand, was, for me, so much easier and exactly what I was looking for. It might not be as well known as Kickstarter, but it still has good repute, they are very helpful and even have a real person you can contact if you have a problem. Kickstarter didn't, they only have a FAQ board that never answers the questions you need to know. Indiegogo does All or Nothing too, but they also have the option of Pay As You Go which means that every time someone donates to your campaign, the money goes directly to you. You don't even have to wait to use it until after the campaign. This was how I was able to pay for my giveaway copies and shipping. This also means that you still get the money you earned even if you don't make your goal. They do take a larger percentage of the earnings if you choose Pay As You Go, but if you do make the whole amount, they will pay you back half of what they took. So technically, it's still better to make up your whole amount, but you're not stuck with nothing if you don't. Also, Indiegogo uses Paypal or direct deposit as their payment options. Direct deposit takes longer, but if donators pay with Paypal, you get the money instantly. And setting this up, is simply putting the email that goes to your Paypal account into the site and verifying it. Whereas setting up Amazon Payments through Kickstarter was like the Spanish Inquisition.

I'm not saying Kickstarter is going to be so horrible or everyone or so hard to start up (I have infernal bad luck with these kinds of things) and I have known other authors who have had really great success with Kickstarter as well. But if you want to go a pretty much no-hassle way, then I would definitely suggest Indiegogo. And for the record, the account through which you are paid by Kindle for selling your books on Amazon is NOT an Amazon Payments account. I don't know what exactly it is, but it is not what Kickstarter wants when they want you to set up and AP account. So don't think you already have one if you sell your books through Kindle.

Anyway, I hope this might help a little. In truth you will have to figure out which site works better for you. If you have any other questions, let me know!

Slainte, Hazel

By the way, I'm going to be revealing my new Work in Progress sometime within the next couple weeks or so! I'm very excited to share with you all what I have been working on recently!

It's the Little Things-- Writing Convincing Villains

Okay, so I know I've written several different posts about villains and how to craft convincing ones, but I wanted to go into a little more detail in this post because I have read several books lately (not to name names) that have had unconvincing villains in them. Whether it was that they just didn't come across to the reader as evil as the characters in the book seemed to think them, or they lacked a purpose. It comes down to two things really: Number One-- Show, don't Tell. And Number Two-- It's the Little Things.


We'll start off with purpose.

A villain doesn't always need a reason to be evil, but he does need a reason to be doing what he's doing. Even psychopaths usually had something in their past make them do what they do. Sometimes that's not the case, but we're not talking about psychological thrillers here, we're talking about normal villains. The villain's reason for what he's doing needs to be made clear to both the reader and the author. I know how hard it can be sometimes to get an answer from our baddies on why the devil they're doing what they're doing, but you cannot expect to finish a book until you know what that is. Whether it's that he has an old vendetta with the hero, i. e. the hero got the girl way back when and the villain is holding a grudge, or perhaps the villain he power hungry like Napoleon and wants to take over the world (though that is a very overdone story line, it can still work in some ways, or on smaller scales. These are just examples.) The villain is put in the story to cause conflict for the hero, so he has to have a reason to do so, before you can figure out the plot and what your hero is going to do about it. Let me say again, as I know I have before, the most important character in any story is, in fact, the villain.

Now we'll move on to how you can create a convincingly evil villain.

I've already talked about how to make villains that might not be all bad, so today I'm just going to focus on making really nasty ones. This is where the "show, don't tell" and "little things" come into play. So often I have seen authors (again not to name names) rely on huge displays of evilness to display the fact that their villain is "so evil". Or make him so cartoony that you can't take him seriously. I love a cliche villain, but there's a place for them, and even then, they can really just come across as silly if not written right. You have to establish a villain that the readers knows is capable of all he says. Someone who will make you shudder when the hero has been captured because you know your favorite guy or gal is actually in danger.

I have read books where characters are always going on about how evil the villain is, but readers never see it.  I don't want to HEAR how evil this guy is, I want to SEE him demonstrate something. It might not always be pretty, but you want to have a convincing villain you might have to do something nasty, even something so horrible as kill off an innocent, or a child if this fits your villain's modus operandi. This will let the reader know this is one serious bad guy, and will make them cheer all the more when he meets his demise. Another thing I personally like to do even though it's a little cliche, is have a scene where the villain tortures one of his men or another minor character. This shows what could possibly happen if the villain gets a hold of the hero, and builds anticipation in the reader, especially if your main characters are captured.

Of course, it doesn't always have to be something so drastic, remember the little things. It could be a nervous twitch or a creepy smile, but you shouldn't always rely on appearance either. Small actions such as a villain invading a character's personal space, playing with a blade, that sort of thing. And who isn't creeped out when the villain sets his sights on the heroine? Or, even creepier in my opinion, when the female villain sets her sights on the hero *shudder*. And instead of having your villain monologue (unless of course, that's just his character) Just have him use suggestions of what he will do. We all know that when the imagination is left to it's own devices, things are so much worse.

The subtle villains are always the creepiest in my opinion, the ones you never know where they will pop up next, or what exactly they are capable of. Never put all a villain's cards on the table at once, otherwise, the reader will be bored with him after the first half of the book. Always save something for the climax in the end. Something the reader won't expect, and maybe you won't either.

I hope this post might help new or even old writers create a more convincing villain. What do you think are the scariest aspects of a good villain?

Slainte, Hazel

Finding....A Better Title

Well, this isn't exactly a Trend Post, but I will be talking a little bit about trends in it. I've seen a lot of title trending going on lately, particularly an influx of novels titles "Finding (enter person's name here)". Now, I don't mean to offend anyone who's book is one of those titles, but I do think it is important to address the fact that trend titles are not going to get you more readers. In fact, it might just look like a trended title is a knock off of the original.

Titles, for me, are about as important as the book cover when I go to choose a book. A book entitled "The Rogues" is going to pike my interest a lot more than say one entitled "Ruby Red". For the record, I'm reading "Ruby Red" by Kristen Gier right now and enjoying it, but I would not have picked up the title if it had not been recommended to me by a friend. I judge books by their titles as much as I do by their covers, but I don't like to be too judgmental either, because I might miss something I would really enjoy.

However, as a writer, you really need to choose a title that works for your book. When I choose a title, I try to reflect the kind of book it's going to be. I like to think that titles such as "On a Foreign Field" promise a historical war novel, which is what it is, and that "By Blood or By Bond" makes one think of strong ties and also possibly a historical novel, which is obviously what the book is about. I love when authors actually sneak the title into the book or have the title be an obvious lead in to the book itself. Series books can get away with having perhaps not to interesting titles, because by the time you hook readers with the first book, you have loyal fans for life (unless you do something to really tick your readers off.) Of course certain genres have certain kinds of titles. You can usually tell a mystery, thriller, and a romance from their title alone, (This is kind of what I think of as 'blind taste-testing' of books). Another favorite way to title books of mine is using a line of a poem. Most of my older, never-will-be-published books had Scottish poems as their titles. I actually carried this into the title of "Freedom Come All Ye" which is a song that I feature in the book. It also has a significant meaning to the story in itself. I would imagine the person who picked it up, even without knowledge of the Scottish folk song, would think that it was a book about freedom fighters or something of that nature, which it is: a novel about a young William Wallace.

I think titles are a very personal thing, which is why I am against title trending. Don't title your book like someone else's just to get people to read it. In fact, I'm kind of against putting a character's name in the title at all unless it's a series like my eventual "Anthony Maxwell Mysteries" but that should not be the title itself. The only time I would ever do this is if I were writing a book about a historical figure. Just for an example, I could call a book about William Wallace simply "Wallace". Anyone who liked reading about Wallace would probably pick up the book to see if it was about the famous Scottish hero, I know I would. Nigel Tranter entitles one of his books, "The Young Montrose" and yes, it is about James Graham, Earl of Montrose. The title should mean something to the author, that is why I personally do not wrack my brains for a title, I let it come to me. When I can't think of one, I resort to looking through poems or quotes that remind me of my book and take a phrase or line from that.

Authors, how do you go about choosing a title for your books and what are your thoughts on title trending?

Slainte, Hazel

Why I Read What I Do

Earlier this month, I asked my freinds to tell me why they read the books they do and then I posted their answers here in a multiple guest post Now I've decided to answer the challenge for myself!

I am both a picky reader, and yet, I am willing to take chances as well, because some of my favorite books have been ones that I was somewhat wary of reading to begin with because I wasn't sure if they would be good or not. There are certain things I will always give a go to though-- anything to do with Scottish or Irish history/folklore are a definite. If it has fairies in it, or ghosts then I'd at least like to try it out. I can't refuse books about young men going off to war, especially when the book promises a good brotherly camaraderie between characters. Brothers in Arms stories are always good, and sometimes I'll even go out of my normal genre to read books that have a really good brotherly relationship between characters like "Witchlanders". It's not the kind of book I would probably ever read, but I really ended up enjoying it. I'll also take chances with books that sound different from the normal, like interesting alternate histories, or cool steampunk novels or just something out of the ordinary like Maggie Stiefvater's "Scorpio Races" and "Raven Boys". I don't usually read Romance, and if I do, it's usually paranormal. (No, I don't mean with vampires and werwolves). Usually I like time travel romance, or ones where ladies fall in love with a ghost or something (pretty much Lynn Kurland) or even fairies on occasion as long as the books are not too much like "Twilight". I also like Classic Romances like Alcott. I also rarely read anything contemporary. When I do, it usually has to have some kind of weird thing like ghosts or fairies, or some other thing like Cornelia Funke's "Inkheart" and "The Thief Lord". Though occasionally I enjoy a spy thriller or something of that nature. Fairy and folk tale re-tellings set during the modern era (or any other time) are things that catch my attention too.

I do judge a book by it's cover. Covers get your attention! If the book has an angsty historical guy with bloody weaponry on the front and no girls hanging off of his arm, then that is a book for me! Anything that looks historical or steampunk, are the kind of things that immediately catch my eye. Also anything that looks like Scotland or Ireland do too, although if it's a Romance, then, I probably won't be inclined to read it. Titles also catch my interest, or turn me away, depending. Like I'm not going to read something called "(enter possessive name here) Desire" or anything that sounds like one of those teen romances or modern day books about girls hating each other's guts. But if a book is titled something like "Viking Warrior" "The Rogues" or "The Forest Laird" (to name a few that caught my attention from the title alone) then I'll definitely pick it up. Also if it has a title that is obviously historical, has anything to do with a fairy tale re-telling or something from an old poem or Shakespeare than I'll be willing to at least look further and read the synopsis. However, (except for some very rare times that this kind of title appears in a series I want to read) I will almost never pick up a book that is entitled "(Name your favorite man's name/occupation here) Daughter". I'm sorry, these books just don't do it.

Content factors into how a choose a book too. Unfortunately, a lot of times it's very hard to tell from the description. The only R-rated books I want to read are for violence. I'm not a fan of descriptive sexual content and will not usually read books with that in it. Sometimes if it's a book that is really good besides several moments that really didn't have to be there anyway, I'll just skip around though the book wouldn't get a five star rating. I don't usually like to read books with lots of language in them either. Again though, if I love the story and characters, I can bleep out the language. (Though again it wouldn't usually get five stars) But if there's language + dirty romance, than I won't read the book at all.

I'm also very picky about the kind of characters I want to read about. I usually pick up books with male protagonists because female protagonists can sometimes be very annoying characters. I'm not saying I wouldn't read a book with a main heroine, but if the books smells of the heroine trying to prove a point by being a girl, being stupid, or being an all round man-hater, than I will not even give the book a try. Those kinds of books just drive me up the wall. But guy characters can have their problems too. I don't want to read a book about a guy who's a complete cad. A little barracks room talk is fine, in fact, I like heros who are real guys in every sense of the word, but if he's like James Bond--no. That annoys me. My favorite kind of heroes are the oddballs, the outcasts, ones who go against the normal. (Kind of like my own characters :P) I also like flawed grey heroes. Ones who will get the job done properly. And if properly is killing really really nasty people in nasty ways, than I am totally good with that! I have to admit I don't like goody-goody heroes. Honorable only gets you so far. Pretty much, as long as the guy is honorable toward women, than that's all I care about. He can do anything he wants on the battlefield.

So that's pretty much why I read the books I read. Now I'm going to go read!

Slainte, Hazel

Marketing is like Precisian Ops

Yep, it's true, and I'm finding this out more and more as I look into marketing my new book "On a Foreign Field". There is a serious amount of planning and timing you have to do to make your marketing campaign go off without a hitch, and even then, just like in a battle, it could still go wrong, and probably will. Right now I feel just like a general with my map and little soldiers, marking my attack plan and going over it with all my lieutenants. Marketing is a very important thing to self-published authors--it will sound the success of your sales. Of course, the success of your book itself is all up to your own writing and who happens to read it. Not everyone is going to like a book, and that's just the way it is.

As an example of what one might go through during marketing, let me tell you a bit about what I'm planning on for my campaign of "On a Foreign Field":

(1) Most importantly--obviously--is publishing the book in the first place. This is the easy part. I have the proof copy, and now all that needs to be done is myself and a fellow writer are going to go through it again and after we make sure all the edits are done, I will re-submit my manuscript, and if all looks well, then I will be able to successfully publish my book!

(2) Then comes the 'fun' bit. I am also planning on publishing it in a Kindle format, and since this is something I have not done before, it might take a little longer. Then I'm going to do a free promotion for it to generate interest and maybe get some nice people to review it =) There is no better incentive than free items for people to try something.

(3) After that, I am setting up a virtual book tour, where I will be appearing on blogs around the web and doing interviews and guest posts and all that fun stuff. I need to set this up with one of the sites that does this, and in doing so, I will have to make sure everything else that I need to run at the same time is in place. Get those soldiers into position!!

(4) While the blog tour is on, I am planning to do a giveaway on Goodreads for several copies of my book so that everyone who sees the tour will have a chance of winning a free copy (and maybe some other fun things specific to the tour itself). This also means that I have to make an add on Goodreads to gain even more interest while the giveaway is running. Again, nothing is better than free things to garner interest!

Hopefully, if all goes well, one might be able to sell enough copies to gain back the price of the campaign. It's not like self-published authors can tax the common folk for the king's ransom, nor even rob the rich to feed the poor. We're all alone in this, but if you do your marketing and promoting right, than you may just reach the success you wish for! The most important part is not giving up.

So I wish the best of luck to any other writers who are campaigning and I hope to see you around. If anyone has any other tips for me or other writers, put them in the comments below!

Slainte, Hazel

What's in a Name?--Choosing the right names for your Characters

Probably the most important thing about creating characters for your novel is choosing a name that fits their personality. This can sometimes be stupidly easy, or blasted hard, depending on how stubborn the character is. I choose my names differently for every character. Sometimes I start out with a name I really like and I mould a character to fit the name. This is the easy way to do it, if this doesn't happen (and it rarely does) then here are some other tips that might help you.

I find names from all different sources; sometimes I even like to look through the character list in the back of my Complete Shakespeare where you can always find some very unique names. Another great source is 2,000 Names.com This is by far the best name site I have found (and you don't have to endure the pregnant woman adds or the pink and blue of baby name websites!) The best way I have found to find a character name for those stubborn people who seem like no name will ever fit them, is go to this site, find the country or the time period I am working with, and go through the list of names alphabetically, writing a list of all those that catch my fancy. Once I do that, I go over the list again and narrow it down. A lot of times, certain letters or sounds just will not work for a character. Your hero might not be an "A" person, he might be an "H" person or a "J" person. I don't really know how to explain this, but I have somewhat of a sixth sense when it comes to finding names. I say them out loud to myself and watch as my character shakes their head. When they finally seem to like one, you'll know, because it will click. I find that if the name sticks in your head and you start thinking of your character with that name on his little "Hello, my name is___" tag then this is probably the best bet for you. Another great way to find names is road names. I have named so many characters just by names I see for roads and town when traveling.

Sometimes you might have a name you love and really want to use it so you slap in onto a character in hopes that it will work out. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't, and your character is acting up and going out of character, then you might need to change the name. Another thing I like to do is play around with spelling. I get bored of normal names like John and Henry but if you like these names, you might like to consider spelling them differently. I like Jon myself, and one of my characters in my upcoming novel is named "Henridh" which is just a Gaelic spelling of "Henry". You might be having trouble with your "Kate", but if you change her name to "Cait" she might work out a lot better!

The best overall advice I can give on this is find names you like, something different and unique and things the reader will remember. Now the only problem is if you write historical fiction as I do, and you end up with three Johns and Williams. (Sigh) What is a writer to do?

Slainte, Hazel

Also, here's the results of the poll "Do you think eyepatches are dashing?" before I change it and put up another one:

4 said Yes
2 said NO
and 0 were undecided. Roster will be happy to know that more people think that they are dashing. ;)