Writing Popular Fiction (1974)

     A lot has changed since the mid-1970s, especially if one is writing about that period while still cognizant of the lingering impact of the late-1960s.  It would be wrong to think that the market for fiction is anywhere near the same.  While the shift is likely less jarring than the pre- to post-Hemingway era of American literature, genre fiction – the subject of Dean R. Koontz's Writing Popular Fiction (1974) – one must consider how different the world is the more recent now.
     Koontz was writing about a world where Peter Benchley's Jaws was just released as a book and had not become the first modern blockbuster.  George Lucas had made two films at that point, THX 1138 (1971) and American Graffiti (1973); there was no such thing as Star Wars (1977).  Star Trek (1966-69) was a show that had a decent run on network television and had not yet emerged as a presence in syndication.  The use of vampires in successful fiction wouldn't emerge until Stephen King penned 'Salem's Lot in 1975, and it would not be until Anne Rice brought the sexy vampire back with Interview with a Vampire (1976) that the undead got to be in something more than a sub-category of the horror genre.  Cable television had been around for 25 years but was still something more common in remote rural areas than the sameness of suburbia.  Satellite television existed; it had its first single purpose satellite launched in '74.  The personal computer was effectively unknown.  The VCR existed, but was extremely expensive.  It wouldn't be until 1975 that Betamax came on the scene and allowed for the average person to record broadcast television or watch movies at home at one's leisure.  Hell, print magazines were still a major and viable outlet for a writer to submit fiction.
     Koontz lists seven categories of genre fiction: Science Fiction, Fantasy, Suspense, Mysteries, Gothic-Romance, Westerns, and Erotica.  I would argue that Sci-Fi (wildly expanded over what it was by the mid-1970s, for better or worse), Fantasy, Suspense (still very strong), Mystery (Koontz writes about the more traditional, Agatha Christie style mystery, which has been superseded by a more active plot structure since the early 1990s at least), Gothic-Romance (this is a chaste kind of romance, part Brontë sisters' young girl sent off to live in a strange house and long for the unobtainable man, part supernatural mystery; my understanding is that this market died before the 1970s were over), Westerns (another genre that has widely gone by the wayside; it takes a very well-written book to garner any attention beyond people who go purposely looking for a Western; however, the more modern Western follows a much different plot structure where a man can be a man instead of a slave to the modern world), and Erotica (Koontz divides this category into the Big Sexy Novel and the Rough Sexy Novel; the former category includes everything from the bodice-ripper romance novels of the 1980s and 1990s to the sex-filled stories of Jacquelin Suzanne or Harold Robbins, and even more, while Rough Sexy is effectively porn).  To his credit, I think that Koontz did a fantastic job of delineating the categories and his understanding of them.  I could not think of a kind of genre fiction that would not fit in these groups (though as noted, I believe the Gothic Romance is dead).  More to the point, Koontz, who was not yet 30 when he wrote Writing Popular Fiction, clearly understood all of the genres and the necessary elements to make one acceptable to a publisher.
     Koontz is a little too eager to go to numbered lists (this is more of a personal complaint, because if one is keeping the book handy as a resource then this tactic is fine, but it gets cumbersome if one is just reading through the book as a book).  Then, when doing so would make the most sense, he avoids the tactic and just lists the information with paragraph breaks.  It feels a little odd, but once I understood that he was going to change it up whenever he felt like it, I became much less concerned about it.
     One of the better parts of any book on writing is how many forgotten (or at least unknown to me if they have remained popular) books the author mentions as good examples of the genres.  For the most part, Koontz rattles off well-known and renowned titles and authors, though in some instances he seems to be well ahead of his time.  He praises Lucas' THX 1138 as being one of the two worthwhile (meaning not derivative) science fiction movies, which is impressive mostly because nobody saw THX 1138 when it was released.  Still, it became quite clear that not only was Koontz very well read, he also had no problem throwing other writers under the bus when it came to their abilities and works.  This stood in odd contrast to his straight-out advice that a writer is better served by writing sub-standard, by the numbers genre fiction to earn a paycheck than in taking a 9 to 5 job and neglecting writing for even a few short months.
     Koontz also gives great insight into why the authors of the era were so eager to use pen names.  This always confused me, but apparently there was a prevailing belief that an author could compete with himself (or herself) instead of a loyal following buying more books by the same author.  Likewise, there were genres (this may still be the case) where the audience was thought to only endorse on gender of author – Westerns needed to be written by men, Gothic Romances only by women – and an author often took a name for each genre in which he or she worked.  It still seems crazy to me, but Koontz does an excellent job of explaining that when the publisher tells you to use a different name if you want the advance check, do it.
     According to Koontz, a good story needs:
❶ A Strong Plot
❷ A Hero or Heroine
❸ Clear, Believable Motivation
❹ A Great Deal of Action
❺ A Colorful Background
     That all seems super-obvious, doesn't it?  Yet there are several stories I'd love to develop that I have have yet to figure out how to move the plot to the forefront of the tale.  I have been known to try to force weak or unlikeable characters into the main role.  I cannot remember I time I did not try to hide the characters motivations.  I love restricting action (for no reason).  And I am weak at describing the alien (Science Fiction or Fantasy) settings, or in bringing out the particulars of an environment and making the story come alive because of them.  It is all simple advice, but sometimes I need to be clobbered over the head with it.
     My overall reaction to this book is positive.  I think I would enjoy a conversation with Koontz more than his books (and non-fiction to his fiction), but he clearly has mastered the craft of getting the readable, serviceable story in print quickly.  Dated, sure, but worthwhile.

Here are some of the fun bits I marked:

Koontz wondering about the future for a science fiction novel: Will marijuana be legal? p. 18

History lesson on American politics: In a short novel, appropriately enough titled If This Goes On..., Robert Heinlein writes of a future in which the church's tax-exempt status and the gullibility of the masses propel a backwoods evangelist into national politics and, eventually, a religious dictatorship that covers North America.  Heinlein's argument that the church should not be given an inch of influence in government, lst it take a mile, is given plausibility by the manner in which churches, in recent years, have pyramided their moral influence over government into a multi-million-dollar-a-year pro-church lobby in Washington. p. 21

Just kind of funny: For example, if you were primarily concerned with writing about the total failure of law and order in the city streets after dark by the year 1990... p. 22  (I had forgotten how focused on urban decay 1970s Sci-Fi was.)

Avoid cliched plots: Do not, for example, propose "secret organizations" who are out to overthrown some government and destroy the world.  Only governments themselves have the power to destroy the world.  And organizations out to overthrow governments are usually not secret, though their machinations may be. ...Never propose a villain who, single-handedly, sets out to destroy the world, no matter how wealthy or resourceful he may be. p. 78  (People still violate this all the time, and it is sad that it has endured.)

On p. 83, Koontz misunderstands the duties of the Secret Service while criticizing authors who misunderstand the duties of the Secret Service (he states they only protect the President and candidates).

The unlikable narrator: There is no hard and fast rule for this, in any genre; every story demands its own voice.  However, a good rule of thumb is to use third person for a story whose hero is hard-bitten and extremely competent.  A first person narrative by such a hero, in which he must regularly comment on his own prowess and cunning, may seem ludicrous to the reader.  He may dislike the hero and, therefore, the entire novel.  (This is how I felt about Patient Zero.)

Best title for a book some should be ashamed to be seen reading: Thirteen and Ready! p. 148

Koontz on Women Readers: Many women who read the Big Sexy Novel are terrified of divorce and, rather than seeing it as an answer to the problem, might find it a frightening and depressing non-conclusion.  This might change, too, in coming years, as more and more women realize their value, as people, outside of the institution of marriage. p. 144

Keep it simple: The vocabulary of the BigSN should always be simple.  The fewer multi-syllabic words you use, the better.  This does not mean that the BigSN reader has a more limited vocabulary than other genre readers; however, most BigSN want a book that can be read at the beach, over several evenings, between household chores–in short, a book that is interesting but not so demanding that it must be read carefully and in as few sittings as possible. p. 146

Respect the rules: Writers break rules and still get published all the time.  But these are writers who have published, for the most part, numerous other books: people who have learned all the rules, have proved they can use them successfully time and again, and have therefore earned the right to break a tradition or two. p. 151

Don't write in a particular dated style: Finally, avoid using the observer frame for your story, in which the first person narrator prefaces and ends the story with statements that this was the way he saw it all happen.  This technique, made popular by Conan Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes stories, renders the plot all past even, one long flashback, and it robs the story of its immediacy. p. 166

Style: ...[I]f you are trying to write beautiful prose full of catchy similes and metaphors and other figures of speech, you have reached a point where you should stop and reconsider what you are doing.  Whether or not you recognize it, you have your own voice already, one the reader will identify as yours, and you have only to let it grown of its own accord. p. 166

Style: There is one rule of style that every writer can benefit from: say it a simply, as clearly , and as shortly as possible. p. 167

Style: Economy of language is the most important stylistic goal. p. 170

Everything I Need to Know I Learned from Dungeons & Dragon (2011)

     I have waited a long time to post on this book.  In part because I didn't want to simply give voice to my anger and disappointment that a purposely (seemingly) vacuous person has a position with the company that publishes – and seems to have great joy in rescuing and destroying – Dungeons & Dragons while having no real personal attachment to the game.  Shelly Mazzanoble writes about the lessons she has learned from D&D the way I could try to detail the length and breadth of humanity from having to aid them with finding the products that are right in front of them at the store.  Hey, I'll straight out admit that I used to visit the comparative stores in other markets when I was on vacation, meaning that I must have had some attachment and involvement with that job that went beyond taking home money every Thursday.  It would be extremely hypocritical of me to suggest that Mazzanoble could not have developed an attachment to D&D through her workplace association with it.  But I will insist that her connection is inferior to mine because mine is from my formative years.  Like it or not – and I came to terms with it over a decade ago – I am a Dungeons & Dragons guy.  Just not the kind that could get on board with 4E or be bothered to read any of the Forgotten Realms novels.
     Mazzanoble, on the other hand, is the kind of person that I think my brother aspired to be for about a minute in 1993.  By that I mean that I'm sure he would have loved to have interned at SubPop Records around that time, and he lasted a whole semester out in the Pacific Northwest at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.  Mazzanoble comes off as a cross between a self-doubting/self-obsessed ditz and a functional, conscientious person who has a clue on how to get through life without needing to relate it to a game where the goal is often to murder and rob others.  She seems to have to work backwards, giving information about her life and how her understanding is truly formed by her mother, and then inserting how Dungeons & Dragons doesn't countermand those important lessons.
     Like her other book, it would seem that Everything I Need to Know I Learned from Dungeons and Dragons (2011) was written in an effort to redeem D&D of its image from...well, I honestly don't know when D&D had an image problem in my circles.  I know there was some uproar about it when AD&D was breaking big in the late 1970s.  I also know that bad press continued into the mid-1980s.  But there were D&D boxsets at Toys 'Я' Us and Kay•Bee Toys, the AD&D books fully stocked at the tiny Palos Park Public Library, and a successful cartoon show during the 1980s.  Hell, the worst thing I can think of associated with D&D – other than how some of the players really did look like greasy trolls who shun meaningful human contact, but since many of them were teens or in their early 20s, it is entirely possible they just hadn't mastered good hygiene yet – is the Dungeons & Dragons (2000) movie.
     For all of my bitching, and there could be much more than what I'll show here, Mazzanoble isn't a bad writer.  She is just (in my estimation) writing for the wrong audience.  I have a feeling that the people who think that reality television on the opposite side of the spectrum from Mythbusters (2003-present) or Deadliest Catch (2005-present) aren't likely to be drawn to Dungeons & Dragons.  There isn't a huge Say Yes to the Dress (2007-present) vibe to most D&D sessions.  I'm not trying to knock shows that clearly appeal more to the ladies, but Dungeons & Dragons – even in its more introspective, personal moments – is usually not running short on testosterone.  Every character has a means to go about killing, and most games expect it to happen on a regular basis.  Hell, the original formula for advancing characters was largely predicated on how tough or dangerous the monsters were which the PCs were killing.
     Mazzanoble seems to see D&D as a cooperative game – which it is – but doesn't seem to grasp that it is quite different from a sedentary team sport.  There is almost no mention of character development, by which I mean how the player comes to know and understand his or her PC as a separate being (more than just an alter-ego).  Instead, she seems to think that character creation is the time to understand the character; after that, it is a figure to be moved around on the combat grid and a sheet on which abilities and powers are recorded.  She doesn't come across as cognizant of how D&D may be different from other roleplaying games.  Why could she not learn everything she needed to know from Rifts or Deadlands – except for the fact that she isn't employed by Palladium Books or Pinnacle Entertainment Group?
     She also largely ignores the role that having something that could draw a diverse group of outcasts together, as D&D did before the world became one that accepted and celebrated things like World of Warcraft or Skyrim, would have on the players.  Coming to the game as an adult, where one can play it at work (on the clock), I am sure that she didn't give it much thought.  Her one example of introducing it to children showed her to have little concept of how it might bring people with nothing else in common together.
     This wasn't a bad book.  But it certainly wasn't written with people like me in mind.  Then again, several WoTC employees had no problem telling me that they had no qualms if all the longtime D&D players walked away when 4E was launched (because they had a plan to get a new generation of players).  They also told me that they weren't interested in listening to feedback outside of organized play (because home campaigns can always change the rules as they see fit).  I really wish I had written down those guys names way back when, because I know that one of them ended up being a prominent player in 4E; more than that, I would like to be able to back up my statements by saying something more than the WoTC employees at the GenCon booth told me those things.
     Mazzanoble seems to have to make up for some of that damage, but she still isn't trying to appeal to longtime players.  And I would be forever baffled as to why anyone who wasn't playing D&D would buy or read the book.  It is a fake self-help book that is really an excuse for Mazzanoble to write about herself.  I won't begrudge her that.  I think a lot of us would do that if we were given the opportunity, and I know that I wouldn't be able to make myself as sympathetic as her.  I just don't think that her efforts to wedge D&D into her personal story served her, her story, or the property.

Philosophers in 90 Minutes (Part Four)

     Author Paul Strathern is largely more comfortable writing about philosophers whose contributions fall in the political realm than he is in discussing how Augustine or Aquinas integrated Ancient Greek philosophies into the Christian tradition.  He spends much of Locke in 90 Minutes (1999) not so much discussing (or even mentioning) specific contributions Locke made – using one of the more traditional cop-outs in maintaining that we would only look upon them as common sense" – but in humanizing Locke.  He also does a better than average job of covering the history of the era (considering the brevity of the book).
     At the same time, Strathern takes the time to do some quality English-bashing.  While this is usually tame, he does rise up to show what may be some contempt rather than playfulness in exploring the nature of the English.  See the following example:
           The English have always been very good at being boring,
           and several times in history have emerged for 
           considerable periods as undisputed world masters in the 
           field.  This was one of them.  Under the Puritans all 
           conspicuous signs of enjoyment were banned.  Even 
           Christmas was banned, despite what it celebrated.    
          Citizens were expected to work all day and spend the rest 
          of their time conforming.  Life was given over to Puritan 
          indoctrination, the thought police, informers (on the likes of 
          wicked Christmas pudding eaters), and long sessions spent 
          studying the principles of Markism, Lukism, and Johnism.  
          Until in the end even the English had had enough, and 
          decided to invite Charles II to take over.  They preferred to be 
          ruled by a drunkard who lived with a prostitute, that than do 
          without Christmas pudding. [p. 19-20]
     Strathern also exposes his distaste for actual philosophy (this is made clear in a different book discussed later in this post) by attacking the contributions of philosophers who dared to believe that metaphysics is a fit subject to explore.  I have no idea where this fits in with mainstream, working (in academia) philosophers; it certainly was not prominent at any of the various colleges/universities that saw fit to let me take classes in the subject.  He is more couched in his criticism here, allowing some merit at least to Kant, but only in the aesthetics of the system he created (German philosophers really do have an innate love of systems), not in value derived from the system.
           Without Descartes there might have been no modern philosophy.  

           But it was Locke who fathered its main line of development—the 

           British empiricists, who then provoked Kant to produce the 

           greatest philosophical system of them all, which in turn gave rise to 

           the elephantine folly of Hegel, and the consequent disbelief in all 

           systems by anyone except Marxists and optimistic punters. [p. 42]
     I would have preferred for Strathern to give more attention to Locke's works – he even goes a little light in quoting from them in the excerpts at the end of the book – but I cannot find a lot of fault in the book as a general overview.  It does help to be familiar with Locke's writing going in, but as a short biography of the man, his time, and his general ideas, this book is fine.

     Strathern has probably his best (certainly of those that I have read) book in the series with J.S. Mill in 90 Minutes (2002).  This isn't because Mill is the most influential philosopher he has covered – everyone after Kant has been trying to answer him, and Kant himself was just setting out to refute Hume, and Hume...well, he tried his best to establish that philosophy had no relation to the day-to-day life most of us engage in, the one that lets us hold a job, earn a living, have a good time...basically survive – but rather because Strathern finds many pointed ways to make Mill's arguments in favor of Utilitarianism and general equality easily recognizable in modern Western society.
     Not that the book has an encouraging start.  The entire introduction is dedicated to Jeremy Bentham, with Strathern seemingly eager to reduce Mill to simply repeat the ideas and take the credit.  Strathern does make the effort to show where Mill branched off on his own in regards to the philosophy, but he does so with much amateur guessing as to the psychological motives behind his work (having already exposed his distaste for psychology/psychiatry; it being a fake science, like economics, according to Strathern). 
      He does – supposing on Mill's sexual experience on resentment of his father aside – a rather elegant job of not letting the history of the man or his era overwhelm the deeper thoughts expressed in the philosophy while still doing justice to them.  Here are the various bits of the book that caught my attention:
           A few years later [after entering the civil service at the age of eighteen] 

           John Stuart Mill  also took on the task of of editing the influential 

           Westminster Review, which attracted such writers as Coleridge and

           George Eliot.  (Among this magazine's many philosophical and literary

           achievements were the introduction of Kant to general English 

           readership and a review of of the unknown Schopenhauer, which 

           overnight made him  belatedly famous in Germany. [p. 26]
     This really doesn't stress Mill's importance with the Westminster Review as it does the Review's importance all on its own.  Mill is, by extension, important early on because of his relationship to it rather than vice versa.
           Metaphysics Mill was content to dismiss, but German metaphysics was

           one of the few subjects that provoked his passionate outbursts.  He 

           even declared that being conversant with Hegel "tends to deprave one's

           intellect." [p. 27]
     This combines Strathern's general distaste for metaphysics and his outright hatred of Hegel (or at least the Hegelian philosophic system).  But at the same time it gives good insight into the otherwise proper – to the point of being a caricature of the trait – Mill having human emotions.
      Strathern points out Lobachevsky's introduction of non-Euclidean geometry, which rendered mathematics that "often had no correlate in the physical world.  Mathematical space and physical space were in no way identical: here experience and mathematics were two entirely different things." [p. 36]  This is related to how empiricism cannot explain a complete and thorough understanding of mathematics, a problem which Mill never quite overcame.
           Mill realized that the laws that govern economics are concerned with 

           production, not with distribution.  The productivity of labor, of the soil, of 

           machinery—these can all be organized more or less efficiently according 

           to certain objective laws.  These laws are affected by certain limiting 

           factors, such as nature (glut or famine), productivity (of labor, or machine),

           and so forth.  Wealth is thus produced according to laws and objective 

           factors which enable us to maximize its quantity. [p. 37]
     This is a huge breakthrough in terms of viewing economics.  It had, to date, only been concerned with looking at one half of the equation.  Mill argued that what had long been ignored was the moral component to the distribution of goods, services, and wealth.  It could not be approached with only efficiency or a desire to maximize transactions as the sole guiding principles.
           Utilitarianism remains at least the guiding principle in all labor-market 

           bargaining, union negotiations, and executive salary levels.  It may not be 

           adhered to, but it undeniably informs all such social interaction—it is the 

           one common denominator.  It remains a yard stick by which most of us 

           judge the distribution of wealth.  Ludicrously inflated earnings for senior 

           executives of large corporations are said to be "what the market dictates."  

           This is seen as a matter of production, beyond moral debate.  Objections to 

           such practice make use of Mill's original distinction and insist that it is a 

           matter of distribution.  This means that such remunerations are subject to 

           more than simply economic considerations.  They fall within the realm of 

           moral judgment.  And the most pertinent application here would seem to 

           many to be the Utilitarian idea of the common good. [p. 40-41]
     I would like to think that passage speaks for itself.
           Mill is well aware of Hume's argument and seeks to circumvent it.  He 

           does not smuggle an ought into his argument, where previously there had 

           only been an is; instead he presents a psychological fact.  At this point it is 

           worth reiterating in full Bentham's core Utilitarian principles, to which Mill 

           continued to subscribe: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of 

           two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.  It is for them alone to point out 

           what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do....

           The standard of right and wrong [is] fastened to their throne.  They govern us 

           in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we make to throw off 

           subjection will serve but to demonstrate and confirm...[this] principle of 

           utility."  Mill concurs: "I regard utility as the ultimate appeal in all ethical 

           questions." [p. 46-47]
     Hume had a primary objection of how moral systems inserted ought to and ought not to into arguments without any real logical connection to the is and is not statements that preceded them.  While I find Utilitarianism to be a deeply flawed system for determining proper moral action, it was still an improvement over philosophies that stifled the sense of and role of self in determining moral choice.
           Bentham's concept of liberty had not been entirely theoretical.  His belief in the

           freedom of the individual had even led him to suggest that the law forbidding 

           homosexuality should be repealed: "How a voluntary act of this sort by two 

           individuals can be said to have anything to do with the safety of them or any 

          other individual whatever, is somewhat difficult to be conceived."  Such 

          advanced ideas were not widely promoted at a time when those "caught in 

          buggery" ended up on the gallows.  Betham's opinion on homosexuality, 

          especially coming from a man of high-minded principles who had no 

          sexual experience whatsoever—he remained chaste throughout his life—speaks 

          volumes for the liberalizing effect of his Utilitarianism. [p. 57-58]
     This is the kind of 1830s thinking that I would be okay with us returning to.  I'm not really sure if Bentham's sexuality, or thorough lack of sexual inclination, has any bearing on the merits of his argument; I wouldn't have presented it in a book about Mill. 
           At one point he was asked, "Did you declare that the English working 

           classes, though differing from some other countries in being ashamed of 

           lying, were yet 'generally liars'?"  Mill immediately replied, "I did."  The 

           working-class members of the audience responded with appreciative 

           applause, and Mill was duly elected. [p. 63-64]
     This is a funny story, made better because Mill's original plan for running for office was to do no campaigning, give no speeches, and engage in no debates – thinking that this freed up to voters to make informed choices without undue influence from the candidate.
           "So long as an opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than 

           loses in stability by having a preponderant weight of argument against it. For 

           if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument 

           might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, 

           the worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded its adherents 

           are that their feelings must have some deeper ground, which the arguments 
           do not reach."  [p. 65]
     And that is how Mill crushes the faith-based/intuitive argument.
           "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be 

           Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.  And if the fool, or the pig, is of a 

          different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question." 

          [p. 75, from Utilitarianism]
     Rather strong words for a man who was largely arguing in favor of pleasure (of a sort) at all times for the most people.

           "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." 

           [p. 76, from On Liberty]
     I would like to think the implications of that are easy to recognize.  And yet there is an entire political party dedicated to proving this is not the case, all the while arguing for limited government interference in the lives and over the rights of the individual.

     As strong as the book on Mill was, Hume in 90 Minutes (1999) proved to be a total disaster.  Not only does Strathern spend most of his time expressing how much he loves Hume (in that he is a Humean), he does this while failing to give an engaging (and possibility inaccurate) account of Hume's life. 

     Strathern clearly has a selective reading of Hume's philosophical works (nothing on the Clever Knave, nothing on how the mundane life is anathema to philosophical pursuits is mentioned here). Worse, he seems to have a fundamentally flawed view of it, thinking that there is something more than a general reduction to general uncertainty (on principle, not practicality, logic, reason, or experience). 
     I am not an expert on Hume.  I have read most of An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) as well as most of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), with the support structure of a great professor and competent classmates to help me make sense of the material.  It would seem that Strathern either didn't read them or has a completely alien understanding of the general points of them. 
     If there were a book in this series to avoid, this is it.  Not because it is likely to offend, but because it really does nothing to help the reader gain a better understanding of the man or his works.

How to Write Tales of Horror, Fantasy & Science Fiction (1987)

     How should I describe How to Write Tales of Horror, Fantasy & Science Fiction (1987)?
     Dated?  Sure, to a degree.  Unlike Crawford Killian's Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (1998), it doesn't waste time with instructions on how to set up a web browser.  It does, however, include at least separate cautions against submitting dot matrix printed manuscripts.  I can view this more nostalgically since I was stuck with a dot matrix printer into the late 1990s.  And while I had no qualms about submitting school work from it (stupid me), I would like to think I would have popped for the $6 to have a decent print job from Kinko's if I were submitting a manuscript from that era.
     The contributing authors, all of whom were members/contributors of the Writer's Digest classes or workshops, were surprisingly willing to demean and criticize not just the work of other authors (and most certainly filmmakers), but those writers themselves.  This strikes a much different note from more recent books that stress such concepts as not looking down on (other) published authors.  Apparently, in the early-to-mid 1980s, it was fine for there to be pure way to write horror – which is the primary format in which the contributors worked – and it was different from the way all those successful, mass market appeal authors.  Except for when they wanted to sing the praises of a Writer's Digest member who also sold a lot of books.
     There wasn't much in practical advice in terms of how to develop horror, fantasy, or science fiction.  I guess that is kind of par for the course with these books; an assumption that one writes in a genre because they have a deep and abiding love of it and can draw from their experiences of what other writers have done with it.  Sure, How to Write Tales of Horror, Fantasy & Science Fiction does encourage prospective writers to read both good and bad genre writing.  How else is one supposed to know what to avoid?  More than that, one is supposed to gain a perspective as to which ideas have been ground into lifelessness – relying on an acceptance of cliché rather than anything the author could shape on his or her own.
     Even with its somewhat nebulous advice, I still found myself believing that I was better informed about different approaches to writing.  It is not filled with writing exercises that bog down writing classes (which have disputable positive impact beyond forcing one to write something), nor is it the how to format your manuscript book (very general advice on that topic).  It is mostly a varied group of authors – some quite famous – being somewhat joyful on the subject of writing.
     It is in giving me some insight into some of the published authors of the era (many of whom I had never heard of, let alone read their material).  As someone who is way behind in terms of his overall familiarity with what has been written – which comes from taking a decade long break from serious reading – I can use something like this as both a resource and a kick in the pants.  
     Now, for the quotes:

          "Technology poses no threat to the future of the book," said a 1984 

           report from the Library of Congress; but dull, uninspired or safe 

           fiction does. – p. 22, J.N. Williamson
     It is funny not just because technology is kicking the printed book's ass, but also because also because how how poorly the book was doing in Orwell's 1984.

           As with introducing a human character, you will need to bring out 

           the oddities of your alien gradually; remember that long strings of 

           adjectives are more like inventories than descriptions. – p. 58,
           Ardath Mayhar
     I would love for someone to print this out and paste it to the keyboards of certain writers.  Henry Lopez comes to mind.  "Heavy is the Head" is a prime example of a violation of this general principle.

          Don't mistake action for suspense.  A good novel must be filled 

          with action, and the characters must be kept in meaningful motion; 

          however, a tale can be composed of one gunfight and wild chase 

          after another yet be totally lacking in suspense.  Action becomes 

          suspenseful only if you write with a full understanding of the 

          following two truths: (1) suspense in fiction results primarily from 

          the reader's identification with and concern about lead characters 

          who are complex, convincing, and appealing; and (2) anticipation 

         of violence is infinitely more suspenseful than the violence itself.
         – p. 60, Dean R. Koontz

          There is nothing wrong with [daydream fiction].  (The only people 
          opposed to escape are jailers.) – p. 81, Darrell Schweitzer
     I just really like this general idea.  That fantasy (however one applies the term) is not inferior because it is fantasy.  It can only be inferior if it is written worse than the alternatives while having less to say.

          No writer has orchestrated terror in prose more carefully than 

          Lovecraft, but you won't learn how to write dialogue or deal 

          with character from him. – p. 97, Ramsey Campbell
     And now I understand why I don't think much of H.P. Lovecraft as an author.  Because I am all about character and dialogue (usually to the point that the plot gets washed away, which is a problem); I want those elements to be strong in what I read.

          Always have a rough idea of your first paragraph before you sit

          down to write, and then you won't be trapped into fearing the 

          blank page. – p. 99-100, Ramsey Campbell
     This may be the best general advice on how to proactively deal with writer's block.

          Unless you're fairly sure that you have an unstoppable need to 

          write, you're probably better off putting this book down and 

          going about your business. – p. 147, Alan Rodgers
     No need to sugar coat it, right?  Seriously, the contributors make quite a few efforts to let the reader know that the life of a writer may not be a great or profitable one.  Indeed, one of them died of carbon monoxide poisoning in his mobile home (using a gas powered generator for electricity because the power had been turned off).

The Essential Marcus Aurelius (2008)

     Want the general experience of having read Marcus Aurelius' Meditations (160-180) without the tedium of actually having to read the full text?  I would suggest The Essential Marcus Aurelius (2008).  Not that I'm any kind of expert on the subject, but I know I was greatly appreciative of much of the seemingly redundant philosophy.
     Not that there is anything wrong with what Aurelius wrote – it is just that the same ideas are covered with more skill and tact in other philosophies and/or religions.  It is clear that Aurelius is largely afraid (to some degree) of his eventual death, and found it a constant struggle to find meaning in his life in light of this.  He seems oddly appreciative of life for a man who spent his time killing people at the fringes of the Empire. 
     The strange thing is that the commonness of his writing is what makes it seem wholly unimportant.  George Gershwin seems to have a better manner to explain that fame is not guaranteed to endure in "Nice Work if You Can Get It" (1937), and even there it was as an aside to the notion that love may be a greater reward that external validations,. 
      Anyway, I have selected a few things from Aurelius' Meditations as condensed in this book:

8.51

"It is as if someone standing by a fountain of pure and sweet water were to yell curses at it, yet the fountain never stops bubbling fresh water.  Even if you should hurl mud or even throw shit into it, the water will quickly disperse it and wash it away, and in no way be defiled.  How, then, can you have such a fountain within yourself?  By guarding your freedom each and every hour with kindness, simplicity, and self-respect."  [p. 65-66]
     I mostly like this one because Aurelius seems to be okay with drinking shitty water.  Because the fecal matter is going to settle in that fountain.  I just don't think he thought this through.

10.16

"Stop philosophizing about what a good man is and be one." [p. 76]
     Good advice, right?  But it kind of requires that he stops writing at that point.  There is an entire school of thought that proper philosophers live their philosophies rather than detail them for others.

10.25

"[W]hoever gives in to fear, pain, or anger is a fugitive." [p. 77]

12.13

"How ridiculous, what a stranger in his own land, is the person who is surprised by anything that happens in life." [p. 92]

Philosophers in 90 Minutes (Part Three)

     In St. Augustine in 90 Minutes (1997), Paul Strathern comes right out and admits that the Bishop of Hippo was most likely the brightest Western mind between the death of Aristotle and the birth of Thomas Aquinas.  Unfortunately, he spends much of the limited space in the book lamenting that Augustine spend a fair amount of time trying to stamp out or refute heresies and cults instead of advancing thought beyond the strictures of the Church.  The end result is that Strathern comes off more mean-spirited than joking in his tone.
     There is plenty of worthwhile information in the small tome, but this is one that Strathern would have been well suited to farm out to another writer.  It isn't just because he clearly has an axe to grind against the Church for restricting philosophy for over a thousand years, though that has certainly put off many who have read this.  No, Strathern should have had someone else write this because he couldn't be bothered to put in the work to separate the philosophy of Augustine from Plato or the Church, deciding instead that it was just the merging of Platonic ideas with Christian theology.

     Strathern tries to be a little too cute in Thomas Aquinas in 90 Minutes (1998).  He tells the story of young Thomas' quest to become a philosopher-monk as though it were a truthful fairytale.  It does much to humanize Thomas and take some of the severity out of the era, but it is not a solid foundation upon which to explain the contributions he made to Christian philosophy (and what would come to be known as Thomism).  It is also weird that the picture on the cover doesn't show the cow-eyed, pot-bellied figure described in the book. 
      Strathern decides to spend his energy describing the connective tissues between Aristotle and Aquinas rather than allowing Thomas to have any ideas of his own.  Maybe that is accurate, but it feels like Strathern is still grinding an axe against the Catholic Church and wanting to keep philosophy as something that can only be infected by religion.
     It isn't a bad read; I think it does a fine job of giving a rough overview of Thomas Aquinas in short order.  But it is another one where Strathern was likely not the best choice to have as the author.

Philosophers in 90 Minutes (Part Two)

     Paul Strathern will not be noted for being able to stay on-topic in the Philosophers in 90 Minutes series.  In the case of Socrates in 90 Minutes (1997), he manages to take quite a few pot shots at the field of psychiatry.  It is also worth noting that Strathern thinks that society in general reviles psychiatrists (I don't know if this is the case or not) while making no effort to separate psychiatry – a fake science to Strathern's mind – from psychology or even a modern way of living.
     He also has some difficulty when it comes to nailing down Socrates' particular contributions.  This is more than understandable.  Socrates never wrote anything down and what information that has survived about him is not just contradictory (the two primary sources are not in accordance with one another), but – in the case of Plato – tainted by the student possibly attributing ideas to the master that were, in fact, the student's.
     Still, it is a good, quick read.  Not as funny as the one on Heidegger, but not as dismissive as the one on Kant.  

    I'm not sure what to make of Plato in 90 Minutes (1996).  Strathern does manage to paint a solid picture of the life and times of Plato (though I do know a small amount about both, so I may have been filling in gaps that should not have been with foreknowledge), but he does not give as much attention to the works of Plato as I would have expected.
     In particular, The Republic (~380 BCE) is not given much examination as to its content.  Instead, Strathern mentions the Analogy of the Cave (which is 9th grade World History material to me) and a handful of the characteristics of Plato's sketch of an indeal society.  More time is spent mocking the ideas offered and trying to tie The Republic to Fascims, Nazism, and Stalinist Communism. 
     It is a good book.  In fact, it might be the one book in the series that I would recommend to others as a first read.  But it does not put the focus on the enduring value of Platonic philosophy – which becomes maddening when reading about St. Augustine incorporating Platonic thought into Christian orthodoxy and knowing that Strathern didn't much cover it in the first place – as much as it tries to show the colorful life and times of Plato. 

     I make no secret that my true interest in philosophy is in its various moral theories.  I don't care much about ontology or epistemology (which at some point either degenerates into our uncertainty about everything or rests upon some supposition so we can move forward and understand something).  Give me something about right vs. wrong, good vs. evil.  That is why I was very disappointed that Strathern give only the slightest mention of The Ethics (more commonly studied as the Nicomachean Ethics, as Nicomachus compiled the notes into the text).
     More troubling was Strathern taking up a couple of pages to tell the story of him wandering around (in the rain), looking for Ancient Stagira, looking for the birthplace of Aristotle.  It may be a humanizing moment for the author, but one that isn't necessary in so short a book.  It felt more like wasted space that a way to bookend Strathern's take on the philosopher.
     I think this book could have heaped both more praise and blame at the feet of Aristotle, but Strathern chooses instead to remain somewhat reserved on the subject.  The end result is that this ends up being one of the weakest I have seen.  Not horrible, but not a great introduction to such an important figure.

Philosophers in 90 Minutes (Part One)

Paul Strathern

     I doubt that Paul Strathern, or publisher Ivan R. Dee for that matter, is all that concerned with whether or not he is pleasing the prejudices readers bring to his short little histories of various figures.  He certainly does not beat around the bush with the role the Roman Catholicism played in stifling philosophy and meaningful academic advancement.  As such, people has vented their frustration that Strathern has not properly worshiped the Saints he has covered in the in 90 Minutes series.  I would point these people towards the philosophic figures he has covered, where most are personally savaged to some degree.  When it came to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Strathern generally praises the men, ignores the religion itself, and reiterates (because I think most of us have knowledge of this by the time we decide to read anything on the topic of philosophy on our own) that dogmatic thinking is contrary to intellectualism and any advancement of understanding.
     Strathern generally fits more of the history – sometimes more focused on the individual, sometimes on the era – than the philosophic contributions.  This satisfies one of the things I want to know at the expense of the other, but I will freely admit that most of the men (I have seen one woman covered in his Authors in 90 Minutes series) have ideas that cannot be properly defined in less words than they themselves used.  Giving a nutshell – really more of a sketch – of the contributions is (in some cases) enough for the casual reader, and by always including biographical information about the philosopher in question, there is not only a context for the thought but a humanization of the thinkers.

     I started reading this series with Heidegger in 90 Minutes (2002).  Yes, I found the Swastika shadow funny.  Still do, though Strathern goes to some lengths to ensure that the reader does not easily forgive Martin Heidegger's association with them (most accounts that I have read make it clear that Heidegger was motivated by a need to not be thrown out of academia when the Nazis rose to power rather than any belief in their cause – some stating that he left the party before the Nazis invaded Poland and started WWII).  He paints Heidegger as a needy, neurotic, perhaps asocial individual who found a way to reinterpret the world through the universal fear of death.  That is taking Heidegger's phenomenology shoving it into the smallest nutshell he could find. 
     If one has read either History of the Concept of Time (1925) – translated by Dr. Theodore Kisiel, who I met while at NIU – or its logical extension, Being and Time (1927), then one knows that its is almost impossible to follow Heidegger's line of thought without an expert on call for help.  Strathern fully embraces the difficulty with Heidegger's repurposing of language; how could he not?  But he does get around to giving the reader a rough concept of how phenomenology influenced the children's classic The Neverending Story (1979).

     I was hoping for something more substantial with Strathern's Kant in 90 Minutes (1996).  Largely because I am – as much as I am any one thing – a Kantian.  Instead of giving any attention to Kant's most easily identifiable contribution to the field of philosophy, the Categorical Imperative, Strathern goes with brief overviews of some of the points of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of Judgment (1790). Not Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793), Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), or the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). 
     In a short book, it is nearly impossible to do more than state that Kant destroyed the notion of space and time as we understand them (and clearly, we have chosen not to go his route since we still understand them in a practical sense) without giving the reasoning as to how Kant came to his conclusion and why he may be right.  (Kant argues that time and space are both categories of perception and have meaning only to the extent they allow us to order our understanding and experiences.  Moreover, as we cannot be the things we perceive, we can never have real knowledge of them, but only that of which we perceive – we cannot reason things as we do ideas.  Thus our knowledge of the world is only related to the ultimate truth of the world in as much as our perceptions are flawless and sync up with proper reasoning.)
     Strathern does do a good job of both praising Kant as quite possibly the brightest mind since St. Augustine of Aquinas (and until Wittgenstein) and showing where his limitations were obvious.  This is no piece of idol worship, but Strathern does seem to hold Kant in higher esteem than most of the other figures in the series (at least as far as I've read).  Unfortunately, he does not seem especially well versed in Kantian philosophy (and Strathern seems to believe that current philosophers no longer advocate any kind of metaphysical thinking, which is not what I experienced in my time studying philosophy). 
     There is a better book by Roger Scruton – Kant: A Very Short Introduction (2001) –  and I suggest that one instead.  Not as easy a read, but more rewarding.

     Rousseau in 90 Minutes (2002) doesn't give the reader any sense of just how crazy Jean-Jacques Rousseau really was.  Indeed, it is remarkable how he tries to make him a rather sane, sympathetic figure.  Strathern also doesn't provide any great insight into the philosophy JJR.  As such, this book falls well short – and expectedly so – of David Edmunds & John Eidinow's Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment (2007).  Strathern does give a good general sense to the man who advocated for liberty, but not so much his paranoia or his constant battles against the system he exploited to (farcically) live life on his own terms.  Not a bad read by any stretch of the imagination, but this is not where one should end when reading about Rousseau.

The Writer's Guide to Fantasy Literature (2002)

     I may owe Crawford Kilian an apology.  While I found little in his Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (1998) to be full of worthless and severely out-of-date information, there was at least some consistency in it.  I may have found Kilian's tastes to be counter to my own, but he was trying to give some advice on the subject of writing.  That is not the case with The Writers Guide to Fantasy Literature: From Dragon's Lair to Hero's Quest (How to Write Fantasy Stories of Lasting Value) (2002), edited by Philip Martin.
     Martin is largely the author, but he fills in much of the meager 228 pages (the rest are appendices on resources for writers) with snippets and interviews from selected authors.  This is problematic for two reasons.  First, it interrupts any attempt at a narrative flow.  The examples are meaningless because it is never truly established what the exemplar is supposed to be.  Second, and worse, most of the selected text sections read as meaningless when divorced from their source material (or at least enough of it to give it context and weight).  It gives the impression that lasting fantasy literature is rather bland and unengaging.
     That is not to say that I could not stand to learn a lesson from this book.  Indeed, it served to reinforce how unfamiliar I am with the breadth and scope of authors of 'speculative fiction' that Martin considers to have contributed something beyond the momentary blip on the radar.  Granted, this is a lesson better illustrated by my meager library of read books as noted on Goodreads.com (where each title and author can be tracked), but it is one that can be learned again and again.  The list of authors I have not read is somewhat staggering:
✦ J.K. Rowling (I have, however, seen the third Harry Potter film and know the story from commercials for the other movies)
✦ Lloyd Alexander
✦ Susan Cooper
✦ Diana Wynne Jones
✦ C.S. Lewis (I have seen the three 'live-action' Chronicles of Narnia films, and remain scarred by animated version of The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe)
✦ Beatrix Potter
✦ Madeline L'Engle
✦ George MacDonald
✦ Charles Williams
✦ Peter S. Beagle
✦ Mary Stewart
✦ T.H. White (that's right, I never read The Once and Future King, a book that was required in my Freshman Honors English class...in part because I thought we should have been reading actual Medieval literature instead of pretend Medieval literature)
✦Fritz Lieber (though I am familiar with Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser as characters)
✦ Michael Moorcock
✦ Brian Jacques
✦ Patricia A. McKillip
✦ Donna Jo Napoli
✦ Midori Snyder
✦ Gabriel Garcia Marquez
✦ Laura Esquivel
✦ Louise Erdrich
✦ Anne Rice (and I have no interest in reading her)
✦ John Marco
✦ Elizabeth Hand
✦ Richard Adams
✦ Kenneth Grahame
✦ Graham Joyce
✦ Terry Prachett (who Martin adores, but Kilian execrates in his book on writing)
✦ Orson Scott Card
✦ Neil Gaiman
✦ Alice Hoffman
✦ Franny Billingsley
✦ Kij Johnson
✦ L. Frank Baum
✦ Ursula K. Le Guin (I read a little booklet that she wrote about designing the maps for Earthsea, but I'm not going to count that)
✦ Lord Dunsany
✦ Eva Ibbotson
✦ Robert Jordan
✦ Terry Brooks
     Okay, that is a lengthy list.  And it highlights that my exposure to fiction is not weighted towards the British end of things or the well-received books that had no cultural impact among my age group (which makes me question the "lasting" quality of the works, but since I am wholly ignorant of them I should probably just shut up).  But I think it also speaks to how large the field really is.  If one were to be a dedicated reader of fantasy fiction, chances are that the best he or she could do would be to read about 5% of the published titles in any given year. 
     Back to the book.  The last two sections finally get around to some kind of discussion on actual writing, but that serves to highlight that the majority of the book is dedicated to a stand-offish, shallow review of the nature of speculative fiction.  Had it been an academic review of fantasy literature, dense as that would be, it would have been much more rewarding.  Instead, it was just sort of there to be slogged through, offering almost nothing in terms of insight as to what makes for good or meaningful fantasy literature (or even what elevates fantasy writing to the level of literature).
     If I had only spent two days on this book, I'm positive I'd be less upset with it.  But it took a full week of slow progress and stepping away from it again and again to get to the end.  That didn't feel helpful, and I don't know that there is anything I will keep with me from this.  The only upside is that it costs nothing to check a book out from the library.

The Everything Creative Writing Book 2nd Edition (2010)

     The Everything Creative Writing Book (2010) feels like the kind of book one should read immediately before taking an introductory creative writing class.  It contains a lot of good information, but there is a distinct lack of depth.  It glosses over most of the differences between the kinds of writing it purports to address, giving desperately little insight into applying creative writing to business reports or essays.  Indeed, there seems to be a disconnect between the notion of creative writing and simply not writing something awful in a different form.  Bad writing is not just bad writing, it is bad in relation to its intended purpose in addition to any other failings it may have.
     Perhaps the main problem is that the book attempts to cover too much material.  Letters to the editor, essays, and business proposals all require writing, but probably don't need to be in a book on the topic of creative writing.  Poetry felt rather awkwardly inserted into the mix as well, but I also have a bias against the form because I often have problems finding the rhythm the author intended .  Writing plays (and screenplays) is also covered, something that I gravitate towards because I do enjoy writing an over abundance of dialogue (see this old short story) into almost story.  Why not do it in a format where it is more accepted?  Unfortunately, The Everything Creative Writing Book spends no time addressing the format of plays and scripts.  To make up for this, it does explain a small amount of the lingo for screenplays, like slug line.
     Though relatively recent, the book cannot help but feel dated.  When it references self-publishing, there is still the assumption of printing physical copies of a book (or magazine or comic book) rather than simply choosing the e-reader friendly formats that Amazon and Barnes & Noble make available to just about any aspiring author.  Sure, the information on how to get an ISBN is nice, but essentially the self-publisher is going to search for information on the same topic in more detail on the internet.  Likewise, the information on how to get one's book into libraries feels very thin – another area where the purpose had to be more of keeping the idea in the reader's head rather than giving definitive information.
     What author Wendy Burt-Thomas does the best job of conveying is that the material an author has after the first draft is most certainly not to be considered to ever be on par with reviewed, rewritten, and edited work.  She does not make much of an effort to deal with the difference of authors whose first revisions are complete rewrites (effectively treating the first draft as a means of outlining and providing details for a story that has yet to be properly written), revisions (what I assume is standard rewriting), and editing, except in asides.
     It is hard to find something new in the fourth book on writing I've read this month.  There is bound to be a lot of re-stating the core principles: write every day when you are writing, treat rewriting and editing as serious endeavors, not everything you write is going to be good – even when it is finished.  But Burt-Thomas is somewhat more forgiving in telling the aspiring author that it is okay to take time away from a project (and even from writing, though this is supposed to be kept brief).  When she does the best job of is keeping the material positive at almost all times.  There is almost nothing in the book that will discourage the would-be author, and she is quick to point out that if the criticism is constructive it isn't going to be of much use to correcting the errors. 
     While How Not to Write a Novel (2008) is a more entertaining read, The Everything Creative Writing Book is undoubtedly a better resource when it comes to guiding beginning writers and aspiring authors into finishing their projects.  As long as one ignores how little most of the interviews add to the material, and that the essay and screenplay examples in the appendix are less than stellar (they will no doubt make most writers feel good about their own work), it is a solid book.  My one real complaint about it would be that her suggested writing exercises seem more tedious than insightful, but that is not enough for me to not recommend the book.

This Year You Write Your Novel (2007)

     That's right, I am continuing in the reading of books on the subject of writing rather than actually writing.  However, I avoided these books for so long with little reason  – unless simple arrogance is a reason and not just a cause.  There is a lot of this attitude in regards to politics, where people feel they know enough on the subjects to forever avoid actually learning anything.
     I picked up Walter Mosley's This Year You Write Your Novel (2007) at the Forest Park Public librbary without knowing who the author is (which makes me feel nearly illiterate) because I assumed that it would have some advice on how to budget time towards writing a novel.  Unfortunately  – at least for me  – Mosley's advice is to write every day, every week, for the whole year.  Sure, some of this writing is actually reviewing, revising, and full-on editing, but Mosley wants the aspiring author to put in between 1½ and 3 hours per day on the novel  Every single freaking day..  I think that would lead to a fair amount of burn out if it is all dedicated to the same story.  On the other hand, one of the major reasons I have this blog is to keep myself in the habit of writing something (usually not fiction, and almost never very time consuming material) on a regular basis, and from that I can attest that writing regularly makes it easier to find the rhythm for a story.
     Mosley, however, tends to view the novel as many smaller stories within the larger, connecting story.  Since he has been quite successful as an author, I am going to defer to his judgment on the matter.  Time spent with the smaller bits informs the bigger structure, and that can always change as the writer moves forward with it.  He also discusses the intuitive method (something all of us self-proclaimed smart people think is real writing) versus more structured, planned approaches.  How one spends time on the book is going to differ with each, and I'm appreciative for how Mosley covered this.
      There is also a small section dedicated to the value of the classroom, both in terms of academic study and writers' workshops.  I have long been too [insert one or more of the following: shy, timid, stubborn, arrogant, cowardly] to invite a crowd of people who are also authors (aspiring or published) to have access to my work just so they can point out all of the mistakes I've made.  Yes, I like being overly critical of the work other people do, but I don't want that same spotlight shined back on me.  But if an author is going to be serious about finding the flaws in his or her writing, then workshops seem to be a great tool.  You can find the errors you makes in the works of others (where they are easier to spot) and have others highlight the problems that you never see because you are just too damn close to your own story.
     By itself, This Year You Write Your Novel isn't going to be of much help.  As a supplement to knowing something about writing and a real desire to finish a story, it can be a great aid.  Mosley's acknowledgment that the first draft is going to be terrible (accept it, would-be authors) and that the real work comes from turning the rough story into a readable novel is encouraging.  On the other hand, he doesn't have much to say about how to get published other than to make contacts – another reason to workshop – and figure out who is likely to publish your type of material.  And then be ready for a steady stream of rejection, one that isn't likely to go once an author has had a few books (or more than twenty) published.

Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy (1998)

     If one were ever curious as to the magnitude of difference between the educators at the community college and university level, he or she should pick up Crawford Kilian's How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy (1998, though there is a more recent revision that should avoid some of my criticisms).  Kilian manages to spend 160 pages giving information that could just as easily have been conveyed in a pamphlet. 
     Part of the book is wholly worthless.  Information about how to set one's Netscape browser or using AltaVista as a primary search engine seem damn near laughably ancient 14 years after publication.  Formatting instructions so that manuscripts can be read by Macs and PCs also seems redundant.  Worst of all, Kilian dedicates a mini-chapter to a rushed overview of basic English grammar.
     It is a little difficult to take an author seriously when his books are almost entirely out of print.  Does he know scores more about writing, marketing, and publishing novels than I do?  Absolutely.  Ashton Kutcher has more practical experience in terms of television and film acting than I do, but I wouldn't go to him for advice on the subject matter; I would seek out someone I believe can act at a professional level.  Where Kilian lost me was in his deep and abiding love for Orwel's heavy-handed 1984 (1949) – a fine, but far from excellent novel – while completely misreading Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer (1977) as a manifestation of a white suburban fear of urban black men.  Talk about not understanding the time and setting of the book, and that the racial tensions in Los Angeles did not end with the Watts Riots.
     But to the material itself.  Kilian expends a fair amount of effort to display that he is well versed in the genres of Science Fiction and Fantasy.  He name drops constantly – revered authors become his lifelong inspiration, lesser authors are acquaintances and peers with whom he has debated at workshops, and the truly obscure are mentioned to prove that he isn't just familiar with the most successful titles in print.  Kilian calls out those who write licensed fiction – what he terms formula fiction – as not being real authors interested in telling real stories.  I don't know if this applies to the more recent authors who create their own setting and characters that go on to be licensed; I would assume so as Robert E. Howard is viewed as a real author for his Conan stories.
     Unfortunately, Kilian is very interested in providing a formula for writing a novel.  In his estimation, all Science Fiction and Fantasy novels are about power.  That may be true; the ones I have wanted to write are about political and economic power.  But it reads as overly restrictive to announce that all of them must be.  He provides a blueprint for moving the story forward, something that seems much more valuable as a workshop or classroom tool than a means to work on anything other than formula fiction.
     I found this book to be a waste of time.  Well, not entirely, but I would have preferred he had written a much more concise book that didn't feel the need to be constantly self-referencetial.  From what little example Kilian gives of his own works, he doesn't seem like somebody I would want to read, but I have one of his books on order from the library that I intend to read to give me a better idea of his ability as a fiction writer.  He certainly seems well versed in what it takes to get material published – that section felt more honest than the rest of the book. 
     I cannot say that I am eager to read anything more from this series.  Not just because Kilian did not address "how to get the science and magic right" ('read science journals' and advice on keeping magic internally consistent isn't informative by itself), but because the target audience seems to be much different from me.  What Kilian illustrates well are the following two points.  First, devotees to a genre may harshly judge works by authors who are not as familiar.  Secondly, waiting for inspiration to write is an invitation to being something other than an author.