#authors in conversation

[iamnmbr3]

Really wish people could learn the difference between a plot hole and a character making a mistake. Just because the character messed up doesn’t mean the author did.

[thatsbelievable]

[wellesleybooks]

Don’t miss these two wonderful authors in conversation Wednesday, April 25th, at 7pm.

[pygmi-says-hi]

writing tips - banter

I LOVE BANTER WE ALL LOVE BANTER HIP HIP HOORAYYYY!!

Banter is a lovely addition to dialogue between characters. It means a lot of different things - sass, genuine insults, flirting....all sorts of options.

But overusing banter can make conversations sound circular. It's a fun 'fluffy' piece of dialogue, but doesn't do the best job conveying plot.

Pedantry vs teasing

Pedantic speech is basically nit-picking. Somebody who can't bear to let anything slide, no matter how small. This is an interesting character trait and one that adds depth, but if it's unintentional it sounds frustrating. Sassy characters are fun, especially when they go off in an inner monologue.

If a character has a quip for everything, it adds a layer of whiny-ness. Sarcasm is a fun way to tease and complain. Constant complaining gets on a reader's nerves after a while. Soon there becomes so much commentary it's hard to dissect what is actually being described.

Unless your OC has no sense of social boundaries, there's usually a break in between jokes to read the room.

How do I know when enough is enough?

Think about the character. If they have that wonderfully sardonic rapport with their peers, that's great! Why do they act like that? Is it a sense of humor? Is there a running joke? When you incorporate the banter, keep it in the confines of those parameters. It'll still enrich the conversation without overwhelming it.

It's a learning curve!!!!!

I like to do it this way:

write the dialogue as banter-y and indulgent as possible. When the scene is finished, I reread and pick out the really funny bits and discard the rest or move it to a different scene.

Sometimes those indulgent character moments help the really good stuff push to the front of your mind. Go for it! You know your story better than anybody else; if it's telling your story the way you want, that's all that matters.

[wolfgirliosef]

it’s so funny she just had this ready to go. if *I* were ivan the terrible i would’ve done it SO MUCH BETTER.

[moeblob]

Gavin mentally: wait... that doesn't add up........

[alloaroworlds]

Over the past few years, I've seen umpteen ally-authored positivity posts telling me that my aromantic experience and identity is not lessened, weakened, negated or erased by allosexuality.

But I've been wondering at the wording.

What if we were also told that our aromanticism can be nurtured, empowered, encouraged or even enriched by our allosexuality? That it can be regarded as much more than a not-diminishing-or-erasing accompaniment to my aromanticism?

At any point in my years as an aro, have allies ever told me that my allosexuality holds the potential to enrich my aromantic identity?

(Have I ever conceived of the idea to write this myself, in all the words--fictional and non-fictional--I have devoted to exploring allosexual aromanticism? What would I write about if I took my aromanticism is empowered by my allosexuality as my thesis?)

Over and over again, I am explicitly told that my allosexuality doesn't make me less aromantic than if I were asexual and/or not-allosexual.

(In practice, however, I am still subject to a thundering chorus of implicit messages stating the direct opposite.)

In ally-authored validations directed at allo-aros, messages telling us that we are not a negative concept, or our allosexuality is not a negative concept, are still more common than stand-alone celebratory, affirming language. Positivity less commonly exists without reference to the negative stereotypes, erasure or antagonism we experience as allosexual aromantics.

What I hear is this: I am not the awfulness our allosexuality isn't or shouldn't be (or doesn't actually contribute to), as aromantics. While true, this message is more about what allosexuality is not than what affirming or celebratory things (especially in relationship to our aromantic experiences and identities) it is or can be.

Maybe it's just me--but positivity posts telling me only what my allosexuality isn't no longer feel quite so revolutionary.

[elegantmarigold]

Gwen said "Lena won't be as laid back as I am about this" with so much confidence and then left the room thinking she handled that so well, completely oblivious to the atmosphere of the room. this woman has never read a social cue a day in her life and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

[morganbritton132]

Eddie posts a Tiktok that starts with him wedging himself between Steve and Wayne on the couch. He gives Steve a smile that all mischief as he says, “You know what being in Wayne trailer reminds me of?”

Steve, who knows what that kind of smile means: Don’t

Eddie: Remember before Wayne knew we were dating-

Wayne: *scoffs at the notion that there was a time before he knew they were dating*

Eddie, rolling his eyes: Okay, fine. Wayne always knew because we were super obvious, whatever. He has excellent gaydar. Before we told Wayne.

Eddie: Steve would stay over a lot and if a Wayne wasn’t working, he’s sleep on the couch so he didn’t suspect nothin.’ That was the arrangement until Wayne said…

Eddie, in his Wayne-ist voice: Eddie, get your boy in your room so I can hear myself think at night.

Eddie: ‘Cause you know, Steve snores and it was keeping Wayne up.

Steve: I didn’t snore back then!

Eddie: You definitely did, but my point is. Talk about the quietest blow-

Steve, smacking Eddie’s arm: Shut up! That’s not- We did not! Ever. Not where - So, just be quiet.

There’s a beat of silence and Wayne turns the page in the newspaper he was reading. Then he says completely straight-faced “Sure was a squeaky bed” and Eddie busts out laughing.

Steve just leaves.

[innocuousghost]

Since the article about Neil Gaiman I've seen a lot of people reassessing their relationship with Terry Pratchett. Which to a certain extent does make sense: they were co-authors and as a part of his cult of personality Neil Gaiman frequently presented himself as The Guy Who Knew Terry Pratchett. So in the public consciousness their legacies seem very intertwined.

So I can understand the pivot to asking about Terry Pratchett.

But a lot of what I've seen strikes me as being paranoid and conspiratorial in a way that I do not think is healthy or particularly useful. ("Did he know? Did he not know? Was Neil Gaiman overstating their friendship? Why did Terry Pratchett really have his hard drive destroyed?")

Now, I never met Terry Pratchett. But for my money? It seems pretty likely that he didn't know what was going on. The article itself states that most of Neil Gaiman's living friends didn't know what was going on: "But in my conversations with Gaiman’s old friends, collaborators, and peers, nearly all of them told me that they never imagined that Gaiman’s affairs could have been anything but enthusiastically consensual." And throughout most of the timeline of assaults the article covers Terry Pratchett was largely either in the late stages of dimentia on another continent or dead.

Though obviously we can't say for sure he didn't know something. (Even if he genuinely didn't know it's not like he would have turned to Rihanna Pratchett and said "Just in case anybody ever asks I want it on the record that to my knowledge Neil Gaiman is not and never has been a serial rapist.")

But ultimately. That's not actually the core issue that's keeping people awake at night I don't think. I think it's "How do I continue being fans of creatives knowing that some of them are secretly capable of legitimate evil without me ever being made aware of it?"

There is a pretty loud and unpleasant contingent on the internet whose solution to that problem seems to be "You can't. The only way to eschew blind celebrity worship is to live your life every second assuming in the back of your mind that every creative living or dead could be revealed to be a serial rapist at any moment. Just in case it turns out they actually are." Which. Doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. Or even feasible. And that is certainly not a lens I would recommend universally applying to strangers. Not even famous ones.

Instead I think it's probably helpful to look at famous strangers the way you would look at strangers in your own life - like the barista at your coffee shop: that they are probably flawed but also presumably decent. And much like with a barista, in your limited interactions (largely exchanges of product for money, with perhaps a smattering of surface level small talk. Much like with celebrities) you probably won't have much opportunity to discover if they're secretly a bad person. So if it turns out they are, it really isn't your fault that you didn't notice.

And based on what I saw in his books and interviews and his memoir by Rob Wilkins - though he was presumably decent I also certainly think Terry Pratchett was flawed. He was occasionally rude (based on anecdotes from people who knew him), some of the jokes in his books about the counterweight content strike me as being in poor taste and despite his flashes of acab I'd say the perspective of the city watch books was actually largely police reformist rather than abolitionist.

Yet I continue like his work (and what small slice I know about him as a person) anyways.

And understanding creatives as being flawed doesn't even mean "there's something unequivocally problematic out there! Hiding! In their work! In their interviews! And if you employ enough of a bad faith reading then you'll be able to find it!" No. (I mean, there might be some genuinely ethically dubious stuff in there but there also might not.) In my experience even just seeing the little flaws, like flaws in their craft are enough to knock creatives off of the perfect pedestal in your mind. Like, stuff you don't even have to be super knowledgeable about the craft in question to notice. "Eh that scene really dragged. That joke didn't really land. Anyways" And I certainly think Terry Pratchett had his craft issues. Just look at the first two Discworlds and some of the middle rincewind books for proof of that. And it can even be smaller than that. Tiny personality flaws that annoy you: Terry Pratchett was very snobby about Doctor Who in a way that strikes me as overly pedantic enough to be worthy of an eyeroll.

We should see the creatives who you admire, who make work you love as earthly and human. Not as untouchable gods who can do no wrong. (Clearly that isn't working out for us for a variety of reasons)

And setting aside the total monsters, I think it's a good thing that the stuff you like was made by people who are flawed. Humans are flawed, the people in your fandom are flawed, your friends are flawed, and you're flawed. But look at all the cool stuff you all make anyways.

[my-autism-adhd-blog]

In Conversation, What Can Trip Up an Autistic Person?

Pete Wharmby, Autistic Author

[thatsbelievable]

[coldemergency]

Ron: Wow, get a load of this guy lol

Tom: He already has

Harry: …Tom… don’t

Tom: Multiple times in fact. Sometimes more than once if you get my drift

Harry: omg

Ron:

Ron: I regret everything that has led to this moment in time

[littlemisscannonball]

He started telling her that he loved her. It just happened, like drawing your hand back when you touch something hot.

— Sally Rooney, Normal People

[wolfgirliosef]

(stalin was right by the way)

[sophiamcdougall]

Sorry if I come off as fanatical, but I do have a LOT of questions regarding the Mars Evacuees universe. So I'll just ask them one at a time, if that's alright. First question: would you ever reconsider writing a third book?

It's been long enough now that I don't think there's any reason not to give the frank answer to this question.

I did consider it. I had a plot worked out. Unfortunately these things aren't always (or often) up to us.

The initial contract was for two books.

Around the time the first book was coming out, I wrote this incredibly mild feminist piece in the New Statesman about the gender discrepancy in bookshop displays and how it made me feel.

And then a certain prominent bookshop chain threatened me. It let my publicist know it didn't want me in its shops to promote my book, because it didn't know what I might do. And then, it decided not to carry the second book, which basically guaranteed it would not sell well.

Maybe those things are unrelated, but it certainly didn't feel like it. My agent and publisher largely abandoned me, (it didn't help at all that my initial editor, who loved the book, had sadly been away with cancer for much of this period) and as sales were obviously disappointing, there was no question of a new contract for a third book. And that's why I haven't published a book since. Aside from the direct damage to my career, the emotional impact was such that I think I'm only over it now. It made it so much worse that when you have a book coming out, you have to be positive about it in public pretty much no matter what is actually happening. It feels like gaslighting yourself. Now, when I talk about this, even people I consider close friends who knew me at the time tell me they had no idea.

I quite recently had a dream in which I was talking to a fellow woman writer I won't name who has been through somewhat similar shit, and heard myself saying, "It's taken a long time, but I think I've healed."

Which might be true. But it did take ten years.