Author Liesel K. Hill's Musings on Fantasia...
Showing posts with label citadels of fire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citadels of fire. Show all posts
Friday, January 5, 2018
Writing Advice NOT to Heed: Strong Female Characters
Lately I've been thinking about all the advice newbie writers are given. Some of it is good. Other pieces are great. But as is the case when learning any craft or industry, you end up getting a lot of advice that simply isn't worth heeding. Of course you often don't know it until years later.
When I was shopping around my first book, Citadels of Fire, to traditional publishers, what I heard over and over again was that I needed a strong female character and to sell the book, I needed to capitalize on her strengths in the description.
The problem with that is that my female character, Inga, isn't what most people would consider traditionally strong. In fact, I sort of wrote her to be weak in the beginning so the audience could see the dynamic change in her over the course of the trilogy. Even though I thought she was a compelling character, I couldn't think of any particular strengths she had that I could capitalize on, so I had a hard time selling the story to traditional publishers and agents.
Part of the problem was being so new and not understanding how to frame my story in a way that readers and others in the industry can latch on to. That's a skill that comes over time
But my point is that if you listened to traditional publishing advice, it starts to sound like every story must contain a tough-as-nails, leather-wearing, Laura-Croft-type kickass character or the story won't sell.
That's simply not true.
I'd venture to guess that any character you write will have strengths. They just may not be the traditionally "strong" female characters that the industry likes to rave about. Anything can be a strength. Even things that are low key. Look at Jane Eyre. On the surface, she appeared quite plain and boring to most people, but she's one of the most beloved female characters of all time. Decide what your character's strengths are and play them up. A lot. Just don't assume they have to fit into any particular mould.
And don't get me wrong: kickass characters are great and they do tend to be fan favorites. But there are other fish in the sea. And there's a lot to be said for starting your character off in a place of weakness and letting your audience watch her/him grow. My audience has connected with Inga in a way that has pleased me immensely. They love her because they can see her growing stronger from one book to the next.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here (sarcasm) and say that it's less important for your character, male or female, to be "strong" (what's the definition on that anyway; it's a total umbrella term) than to be relatable. It's the characters unique traits that will connect your audience to them.
Let's take a look at a couple of character examples who tend to be fan favorites: Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley.
Hermione definitely kicked butt with her spells various times over the series, but she wasn't exactly a leather-wearing martial arts expert. Her strength was in her goodness and her academic smarts. She wasn't strong in a physical or conventional sense, but because everyone either knew a girl like her, or WAS a girl like her during their school days, she's very relatable.
And how about Ron? He doesn't have any tangible qualities to point to. He's your average every-boy. His strengths are in the non-tangible: humility, kindness, and loyalty to his friends and family. But because he's just so human and boyish, he's someone every single one of us can relate to.
See what I mean? So pick your characters' major traits (the less like other characters, the better, in my opinion) and just bring them across in a strong way.
Ignore the hype that suggests every successful story must have a strong female character, a vampire or werewolf, an exotic setting and a pornographic love scene. Because if that's all we had to read, well...that would be awful. ;D
How do YOU bring across strength in your characters?
The problem with that is that my female character, Inga, isn't what most people would consider traditionally strong. In fact, I sort of wrote her to be weak in the beginning so the audience could see the dynamic change in her over the course of the trilogy. Even though I thought she was a compelling character, I couldn't think of any particular strengths she had that I could capitalize on, so I had a hard time selling the story to traditional publishers and agents.
Part of the problem was being so new and not understanding how to frame my story in a way that readers and others in the industry can latch on to. That's a skill that comes over time
But my point is that if you listened to traditional publishing advice, it starts to sound like every story must contain a tough-as-nails, leather-wearing, Laura-Croft-type kickass character or the story won't sell.
That's simply not true.
I'd venture to guess that any character you write will have strengths. They just may not be the traditionally "strong" female characters that the industry likes to rave about. Anything can be a strength. Even things that are low key. Look at Jane Eyre. On the surface, she appeared quite plain and boring to most people, but she's one of the most beloved female characters of all time. Decide what your character's strengths are and play them up. A lot. Just don't assume they have to fit into any particular mould.
And don't get me wrong: kickass characters are great and they do tend to be fan favorites. But there are other fish in the sea. And there's a lot to be said for starting your character off in a place of weakness and letting your audience watch her/him grow. My audience has connected with Inga in a way that has pleased me immensely. They love her because they can see her growing stronger from one book to the next.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here (sarcasm) and say that it's less important for your character, male or female, to be "strong" (what's the definition on that anyway; it's a total umbrella term) than to be relatable. It's the characters unique traits that will connect your audience to them.
Let's take a look at a couple of character examples who tend to be fan favorites: Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley.
 |
| Source |
Hermione definitely kicked butt with her spells various times over the series, but she wasn't exactly a leather-wearing martial arts expert. Her strength was in her goodness and her academic smarts. She wasn't strong in a physical or conventional sense, but because everyone either knew a girl like her, or WAS a girl like her during their school days, she's very relatable.
And how about Ron? He doesn't have any tangible qualities to point to. He's your average every-boy. His strengths are in the non-tangible: humility, kindness, and loyalty to his friends and family. But because he's just so human and boyish, he's someone every single one of us can relate to.
See what I mean? So pick your characters' major traits (the less like other characters, the better, in my opinion) and just bring them across in a strong way.
Ignore the hype that suggests every successful story must have a strong female character, a vampire or werewolf, an exotic setting and a pornographic love scene. Because if that's all we had to read, well...that would be awful. ;D
How do YOU bring across strength in your characters?
Monday, January 9, 2017
Accuracy in Historical Fiction: The Histfic Writing Process
Good morning, Fiction Lovers! How was your weekend? Good, I hope. Mine was great! Fun, but busy. And VERY snowy here in Utah.
Today I want to talk about the writing process where historical fiction is concerned. Probably the biggest question I've been asked about my historical fiction writing process since Citadels of Fire released is how I go about separating fact from fiction in my historical stories? How do I decide what to keep and what to change?
It's a great question! Unfortunately, there's not a cut and dried answer. There aren't any rules that apply across the board. As I mentioned in my IWSG post last week, any rules are really just guidelines. It's up to the author and what they're trying to accomplish. Let me illustrate:
For most historical eras (and the farther back you go, the more this is true) we don't have many specific records for specific people. There are, of course, the infamous "annals of history" but they often leave things out, and are usually written by the victors of any conflict, which can make them very one-sided. In many cases, we living in this modern era can look at the entire picture and draw more objective conclusions than what the victors of the time would have had us believe. Still, that's not always done and sometimes it's not always even possible.
But certainly before the information age we didn't have websites detailing the reigns kings and queens, or the personal blogs of peasants and knights. (Wouldn't that be cool?!) We're lucky when bits and pieces of journals or other personal effects survive into our age.
So this is where our fiction skills come into play. And I use the word "skills" because a lot of insight must be used here. In my opinion, a good historical fiction writer doesn't just force historical figures or events into their story. Of course character and story need always come first in great fiction, but to change historical events to fit your story strays into the alternate history genre. And that's totally fine if that's what you write, but it's not, in my opinion, exactly the same as historical fiction.
(And yes, I'm being very nit-picky here. These are nuances. Most people--most readers, in fact--would just say, "who cares? History is history is history." But a writer has to take these things into account.)
So that's why I take the angle I do on historical fiction. I do everything in my power not to change any actual historical events to fit my story. I have been known to mess with the timeline a bit, but what year it happened in, in my opinion, isn't nearly as essential as what actually went down. (Of course that's just one writer's opinion. I'm sure there are some who would take the opposite angle and would have valid reasons for it.)
The skills come into play in a big way in historical fiction through analyzing character motivation. You have to be able to look at the events--those we do have record of--and make deductions about why certain people chose to do what they did, what their motivations would have been, and what they would have been feeling. That's far more difficult than simply bending historical events to fit your story. It also brings history into the story in a much more concrete way, and helps your readers connect with the history, as well as the character.
With a few well-documented exceptions, we have little in the way of exact conversations--much less internal thoughts--of historical figures. So this is where things get fun and creative. What was the character's reasoning for their decisions? What thoughts and feelings would have led the to that reasoning? Especially when we're talking the decisions of kings, queens, and generals that often led to war, death, and devastation.
So for my Kremlins trilogy, which is based on the reign of Ivan the Terrible, we have plenty of records of what happened, what Ivan did, and what the results were. But the real fascination for me is exploring his psyche and what made him the way he was. Although more harsh than most of us are, Ivan was a relatively decent man in his young adult years. But he slid into utter madness after his wife's death, and an entire nation suffered for it.
Ah, the stuff of historical legend. Makes for a brutal and compelling story.
That said, I always include a historical note so the reader knows what, if anything, I've changed for the story. I think it's the duty of histfic writers to make sure readers get an accurate view of history. Histfic readers are phenomenally intelligent. They get that histfic will have make some non-historical changes. Most I've talked to tell me that, when enthralled with a historical era they've read about, they immediately jump online and read up on the facts themselves, so it's not a huge problem. But at the same time, I would never want to mislead anyone as to what actually happened in history. So as long as you make clear to the reader what compromises you've made to serve your story, and you're being as true to the history as you know how, I think the reader will go with you and simply enjoy your book.
The second question I'm being asked a lot is when book 2, Bastions of Blood, will be released. Unfortuately, I don't know yet. I'm in a bit of a hurry-up-and-wait situation with book 2. The publisher that was supposed to release it nearly went under a few months ago. They were bought out by another imprint who decided not to publish book 2. So I'm in the process of copyright-reversion for BoB. It's all cued up and ready for release, but not all of the legalities are squared away yet, and obviously those have to be honored.
I'm hoping it will all work itself out in the next month or so. I'll announce the release date as soon as I know what it is. Promise. I can't wait for everyone to read part 2 of Taras and Inga's saga.
(Book 1 available through Amazon, B&N and most other major retailers.)
What are your views on historical accuracy in historical fiction?
It's a great question! Unfortunately, there's not a cut and dried answer. There aren't any rules that apply across the board. As I mentioned in my IWSG post last week, any rules are really just guidelines. It's up to the author and what they're trying to accomplish. Let me illustrate:
For most historical eras (and the farther back you go, the more this is true) we don't have many specific records for specific people. There are, of course, the infamous "annals of history" but they often leave things out, and are usually written by the victors of any conflict, which can make them very one-sided. In many cases, we living in this modern era can look at the entire picture and draw more objective conclusions than what the victors of the time would have had us believe. Still, that's not always done and sometimes it's not always even possible.
But certainly before the information age we didn't have websites detailing the reigns kings and queens, or the personal blogs of peasants and knights. (Wouldn't that be cool?!) We're lucky when bits and pieces of journals or other personal effects survive into our age.
So this is where our fiction skills come into play. And I use the word "skills" because a lot of insight must be used here. In my opinion, a good historical fiction writer doesn't just force historical figures or events into their story. Of course character and story need always come first in great fiction, but to change historical events to fit your story strays into the alternate history genre. And that's totally fine if that's what you write, but it's not, in my opinion, exactly the same as historical fiction.
(And yes, I'm being very nit-picky here. These are nuances. Most people--most readers, in fact--would just say, "who cares? History is history is history." But a writer has to take these things into account.)
So that's why I take the angle I do on historical fiction. I do everything in my power not to change any actual historical events to fit my story. I have been known to mess with the timeline a bit, but what year it happened in, in my opinion, isn't nearly as essential as what actually went down. (Of course that's just one writer's opinion. I'm sure there are some who would take the opposite angle and would have valid reasons for it.)
.JPG) |
| Source |
.JPG){kind=link}
With a few well-documented exceptions, we have little in the way of exact conversations--much less internal thoughts--of historical figures. So this is where things get fun and creative. What was the character's reasoning for their decisions? What thoughts and feelings would have led the to that reasoning? Especially when we're talking the decisions of kings, queens, and generals that often led to war, death, and devastation.
So for my Kremlins trilogy, which is based on the reign of Ivan the Terrible, we have plenty of records of what happened, what Ivan did, and what the results were. But the real fascination for me is exploring his psyche and what made him the way he was. Although more harsh than most of us are, Ivan was a relatively decent man in his young adult years. But he slid into utter madness after his wife's death, and an entire nation suffered for it.
That said, I always include a historical note so the reader knows what, if anything, I've changed for the story. I think it's the duty of histfic writers to make sure readers get an accurate view of history. Histfic readers are phenomenally intelligent. They get that histfic will have make some non-historical changes. Most I've talked to tell me that, when enthralled with a historical era they've read about, they immediately jump online and read up on the facts themselves, so it's not a huge problem. But at the same time, I would never want to mislead anyone as to what actually happened in history. So as long as you make clear to the reader what compromises you've made to serve your story, and you're being as true to the history as you know how, I think the reader will go with you and simply enjoy your book.
I'm hoping it will all work itself out in the next month or so. I'll announce the release date as soon as I know what it is. Promise. I can't wait for everyone to read part 2 of Taras and Inga's saga.
(Book 1 available through Amazon, B&N and most other major retailers.)
What are your views on historical accuracy in historical fiction?
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)