INKBLOTS men and books and gloves-off discussion about fiction and writing

Wilde McComas contemplating
using his stick on me at 'Blots

INKBLOTS – February 16, 2012. Six men on a drizzly Washington evening, warm fire, French wine, good companionship, and lots of words (“Of the making of many books there is no end”). Sometimes we get heated (not just from the crackling fire!). We care deeply about all this, so what would be surprising is if we didn't rankle each other from time to time... this was most definitely one of those times, and all for the good. 

Doug Mac reads the rewrite of his Return to Tarawa, WWII Pacific Theater historical fiction. Doug told us that after working together on Savonarola biography (EP) he realized he needed to do some pretty substantial recasting and rewriting of this manuscript (Writers’ Edge liked this manuscript and judged it with “publishable potential,” a distinction given to only 3% of submissions, but rejected by P&R… so far. Much improved to my ear. Though the comment about the 1^st Pres cathedral-like architecture adding to his budding faith, I found confusing. He doesn’t sound like faith is doing much budding. More like wilting. So it seemed confusing, based on how you have developed his character. I feel like his self-talk ought to reflect more of the double state of mind he seems to be in. Don’t change anything yet, but reread and consider casting him in the more realistic light of a church kid who sometimes wants to want to go to church and enter in to the whole of the life of a Christian, but then show more contrast between the dark side of his fascination with the female, sex, movies—the world and his desire to indulge his fleshly appetites. Make him be tortured by his flesh more, more torn by wanting to be in the world. But then play up the reality for a teen who grows up in the church—they’re Pharisees and are thinking about what might happen if they don’t go to church, or if they break the Sabbath; show his performance-based mentality. Every teen who grows up in the church has this war. So should your protagonist.

David commented that D Mac should minimize attributions that don’t need to be there. My thought on that, “the best attribution is no attribution at all, say some,” but I don’t absolutely agree. They can and ought to be used for cadence and pause.      

Andy wanted D Mac to not tell him how to think about things, but to use more connotation, more subtlety. I wonder if the father is guiding his son in a gospel oriented manner. It sounds to me more like he wants external conformity from his son, like most of us can fall into. What is your objective for writing this? How are you going to resolve this? How is this a critical stage in the rising confrontation and final resolution? The father wants his son to keep the Sabbath, to know the will of the Lord, but there is such a relentless tendency in every generation to prefer legalism (so tidy) over grace (so messy). Unless this is a story about the need for a father to lead his son past the means of grace to the Object of grace, Jesus Christ himself (it makes sense for there to be significant needs both the father and the son have here: both need to reembrace the gospel, look to Jesus the author and perfecter of faith) The father should want his son to believe the gospel, to see the stupendous wonder of Christ and his cross and righteousness. Granted, this is difficult and most often done in a cheesy fashion that diminishes the very thing we want to accomplish, or should want to accomplish. Nevertheless, there are real and reoccurring challenges for kids who grow up in Christian homes. Miss this, fail to confront this, or ignore it, or fail to get down to the genuine issue at stake for a teen who is wondering whether it is all true, and maybe wondering what it actually is, and you relegate your writing to irrelevance. None of us wants to write material that doesn't actually get down to the heart of conflict, and the heart of conflict is always at its root conflict between our proud hearts and the gospel. We and our kids are hell bent on not making the main thing the main thing. Show us this. Make it real, the conflict, and then you can resolve it in the only way conflict can be resolved.

Incidently, our critiques at 'Blots are not just about semi colon use, or attributions, or style, or getting certain facts correct; I think the strength of 'Blots is that we can critique the whole story, get down to the heart of our characters, keep the main thing the main thing in our writing.

John read his charming French Cousins tale, written so warmly for his grandchildren. This is a great illustration of how audience effects our voice in our  writing. I can hear and feel John writing this with love for his dear grandchildren who live thousands of miles apart on differenct continents. Great improvement on bringing the kids' voices into the story in dialog. keep writing on this project. Great potential for a wide audience.

Next I read from the opening of a new nonfiction book proposal I have made to both P&R and Ligonier, with interest from both. It opens on my visit to Amsterdam in 2007 and a disturbing unplanned encounter that set me trying to sort out why there is the historical undulation in the church. D Mac thought I should return to the recent growth and progress of the gospel in Uganda, a good idea I might save for the end of the last chapter, inclusio fashion. A few criticisms of using cliches. Gag me with a spoon! Me use cliches? I'd rather drop dead, slip on a banana peel, fall off a log than stoop to using cliches. 

Tom read an autobiographical fiction piece he is working on--out of the furnace. John said the opening description of his pre-Christian affair with a woman made him uncomfortable. Tom pushed back (we all do this at times, don't we). I suggested Tom read the Bible's accounts of immorality and follow the divine author's lead on how we portray evil. I also suggested Tom read Samuel Johnson's Rambler 4: "Evil must never be portrayed promiscuously but must always disgust + -" D Mac thought it might help Tom to read Flannery O'Conner's Good Country People (discussed in previous 'Blots) where she has a seduction scene that never crosses the line into being titillating, never woos a reader into longing for the sin. 


Dave wrapped up with a reading of the rewrite of chapter one on a new assassin thriller he is engaged in writing. We had previously felt there needed to be more human quality to the protagonist and first person point of view in the tale. 

INKBLOTS - vigorous discussion: Swearing in fiction writing...

INKBLOTS – August 9, 2011

Domaine du Saint-Antoine. Six men tonight. Doug talked about his research on agents, how it works, and the obligations expected of authors marketing their books. He opened a facebook account today. Website next. I’m thinking after today (a frustrating one of multiple interruptions while writing, including social-networking ones, a nice way of saying many largely self-imposed distractions).

I read from Doc M’s piece he was asked to write for covenanteyes.com. He gives us a short commentary on the gospel episode with Jesus and the woman at the well. What Source of Water Will it be for You, is his title. Graham wanted to clarify the meaning of the title. Others wondered if the title couldn’t use some clarifying. A sermonette, until the final ending. Well written with clarity.

Aaron says, “Am I allowed to talk now?” What a crack up. We suggest that first-timers listen in and get the feel of how things go in our gathering. He read a list of factoids, humorous ones: “John has a long moustache,” was a code phrase of the French resistance in WW II. More than 50% of people in the world have never sent or received a phone call. Things like that. Elephants are the only people who can’t jump. Donkeys kill more people than airplanes. Shortest complete sentence in the English language: “Go!” Thank you Aaron (John, his dad).

Dave working on new-old project about the healer. He was approached by WinePress, to do a guided self-publishing of his futuristic thriller, approved for publication by Writers Edge. He thinks he’s going to go with WinePress. Avenger of Blood, next vignette. There’s a folksy, down-home quality about his writing. And there is a .45 and a Bible, not necessarily in that order. The idea for this book is forming, first person, sketches, confessions he (the fictional healer, not Dave, I think) needed to get off his chest.

Graham reads us a sample of what he writes for livestrong.com. He read a book by Ray Bradbury in which he said to be a good writer you have to read poetry. So Graham subscribed to a poem a day on line, and so far he doesn’t get any of it, his words (see more on poetry below). But he continues to read. An article on supplement use in the military. For on line writing he is supposed to use key words, like navy seals, so that it comes up on the google search. Research article. Curious where he gets his authorities, mostly on line sources? I’m thinking so. G had a question for us. He feels like he gives three examples when listing. John seems to feel marginalized tonight. “Graham, why when you ask advice of the experienced writers in the room you didn’t look my way?” Doug suggested using a creative non-fiction episode to illustrate some of the points Graham was making. Dave mentioned M&Ms being a military “supplement” used in WW II. Graham was furiously clicking keys with the input. Uses google scholar search engine for most of his sources.    

We talked about poetry and how frustrating it is. So much modern poetry frustrates, and in many cases it does so because the poet was at war with meaning, and we read it trying to find out what it means, when it means ‘life is absurd and so is this poem.’ Which is a sort of an a-meaning, but is this accurate, does it fit the nature of things in a real world? Sure things do seem absurd, but how would we even know there was a thing like absurdity if there was no meaning? As C S Lewis puts it, fish don’t get up in the morning and comment on how wet the water is today. Water is wet. Fish live in water. What is is not worthy of comment. Poetry that sets itself above meaning makes me frustrated. There’s no reward for the reader, unless he too wants to superimpose his individual meaning over everything he reads. I suggested reading William Cowper or the other Will. These guys really did write brilliantly employing figurative language to explore and adorn meaning, yes, real meaning. Spend your limited poetry reading time reading poets who believed that life is supposed to have meaning, then you can read and know that there is in fact something to ‘get’ in the end. If poetry does not awaken understanding and appreciation of the nature of reality in a real world, why read it? Unless I just want to get inside the head of a guy who wants his individual ‘reality’ to trump the real reality, the true truth. But let’s call it something other than poetry.

John reads his contemporary fiction. “What are you calling about today?” That doesn’t sound like the way people who know each other would speak. “What’s up?” “How can I help you?” “What can I do for you?” Recast when you have Andy feel sick to his stomach. “Sounding defensive but unsure of herself.” But? The relationship is not one of contrast, is it? It seems like closer to an and comparison rather than a but comparison.  Much improved on body language, showing not telling. It flows well.

Dougie reads a chapter that employs swearing in the context of the 36th Texas Division, reforming after the Battle of Salerno, November, 1943. There is so much authentic repartee between the soldiers, as if Dougie actually knows what he’s writing about, as if he’s been there done that. Hmm. The unbelievers were preparing to hit Naples for partying and womanizing, while the Christians, mixed denominations, are off to visit Catholic churches in the town. Out loud reveals syntax that doesn’t work. “One of them is crying” not are. Shows the poverty and deprivation of war in Italy. Good use of smells, fuel and sewage. “Never seen anything like this in Texas.” Try being more specific about the stone work, statues of what? Relics of what? But not clinical description, the awe-inspiring qualities of medieval architecture. Kneeling by their dead bodies, recast this for clarity; antecedent to ‘their.’ Is it their own dead bodies they’re kneeling by? Develop the children a bit more. Make the reader feel the tears the young fellow among them sheds; this did not connect. Do you need attributions for your first-person point of view’s thoughts? I don’t think so, in general. I like how you have the men on R&R finding themselves helping the locals dig out of the rubble, and coming back for more the next day. Avoid clichés as in “through the roof.” The delayed bombs that go off when the civilians are searching through rubble looking for their dead, and then the bomb goes off and people helping others are killed. Islamists do this today. I think every people, whatever the stripe, feel this is great evil. We discuss using language, such as “God damn those filthy Krauts,” said by a Christian when he sees the death of people (include children victims and the swearing will seem still more appropriate) who were trying to help others and were killed by the delayed bombs of the Nazis. When, if ever, should we include swearing in our writing? What is our purpose in doing so? Authenticity, cross-over appeal to unbelieving readers—is there a legitimate time for this? If so, when and how?    

I didn’t read a chapter from Anglo-Saxon tale. After a tough day of writing, or of not-writing. Back at it in the morning.