This morning at 7 a.m. I was at my computer recording a page of The Courtesan Prince on Chirbit, checking my writerly e-mail and responding to a lovely "hail" on facebook from the woman who posed for Ann, the character on the cover of the book. It takes me about 20 minutes. Then I work. But I'm taking a break, now, around 11 a.m., to spend 15 minutes posting this -- despite the text-message interruptions from my middle daughter, Angela. I'll work until I get tired, maybe 8 p.m, with a supper break. But tomorrow is Saturday so the family will have crepes for breakfast and listen to myself and Krysia read the next installments in our respective works-in-progress. I'll have to work Sunday. But some evening next week, I'll take three hours off to write the next bit for the following Saturday. Why? Because there will only be so many Saturdays with crepes and I don't want to miss one. And because I work better when I've had fun. I've renounced writing many times in my life, blaming it for other frustrations or discouraged by the difficulties. But cleaning out papers in my den this month it dawned on me -- I've been doing it ALL MY LIFE and the odds are I'll keep doing it until my muse is well and truly done with me. So like others, I'm working for balance. And maybe the self-knowledge to understand the role of creativity in my life so I, and others, can extract the maximum benefit from it with the least angst.

Labels: discussion, Lynda Williams, Tina Hunter

posted by Lynda at 11:07   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 1 comments

 
Lynda Williams was kind enough to ask me to discuss this topic on her blog today, so let’s start with a definition.

According to Wikipedia a “Work-Life Balance” can be defined as such: “Each individual's needs, experiences and goals, define the balance and there is not a one size fits all solution. Also, what work-life balance does not mean is an equal balance in units of time between work and life.”

So it depends on your needs and goals. If you have a family, or like me are just starting one, you need to take into account how much time your family needs. Can they get by without you one or two nights a week? Is your spouse supportive of your writing? And that pesky day job. Can you financially afford to go part-time so you have more time for writing? Or will you have to eek out whatever time you can during the commute or on lunch breaks?

So you’ve figured out your family’s needs and your financial responsibilities. But you also need to take into account your needs and goals.

So what are your goals? No really, think about them. What do you want to happen next year? In 5 years? In 10? What do you want to be writing, selling, doing, living? Write these things down. If you want to write 2 novels a year and promote them both, you will need more time than someone who wants to write a few short stories. Once you know what your goals are you can start figuring out how to arrange your life to get them. You’ll figure out how much time it will take and where you can find those extra minutes in your day. Talk about your goals with your family so they understand why you need them to take care of themselves on Wednesday nights.

And when all else fails, when you have the goals and the drive but not the support you wish you had, there is always late night writing. You might miss that extra hour of sleep but you’ll love the piece of writing you end up with.

You can find a balance; it just takes work and effort to find it.

Tina Hunter

~ Tina is a published science fiction and fantasy author. She's been doing a lot of work on her work-life balance since getting married this spring. For more information, check out her blog at TinaHunter.ca ~

Labels: discussion, Tina Hunter, Writing

posted by Tina Hunter at 10:00   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 3 comments

 

Thanks, Lynda, for such a great discussion topic! All right, let me dive right in.

Speculative fiction authors often create entirely new worlds. There are no Wikipedia entries for the reader to look up specific things. Either the author explains the world or loses the reader. Add to that the problem that many readers today are not geared towards patience; they want the action here and now. There isn’t time to explain things, include an appendix, and a glossary of terms.

Lynda mentioned her pet peeve was the rebel when creating a new world. Rebels don’t bother me as much. I like a good rebel, though I want to see several rebels. After all, throughout our entire history, those on the edges of society and rules have banded together (i.e. Regency open sexuality, female literacy during the Taliban rule). There were always several people. I want to see that in my alien worlds.

For me, my largest pet peeve with alien cultures is the assumption on the part of the reader (and, hey, even many authors) that the entire alien culture is based completely on one of earth’s specific countries. I don’t want every single alien world out there to be little more than a galactic version of today’s United States. I also don’t want one where the social norms seem to not have evolved past the Middle Ages.

The reverse came sometimes happen, too. In an attempt to make everything very alien, random things throughout human history are picked and smashed together. The problem is that they don’t always fit. There is a reason that the Greeks invented a written language, whereas the Inuit did not. It’s important to understand the history and interconnectivity of these things when creating a world.

I like to take an abstract thing, like art, and think about how my created culture uses art to express themselves. In something as simple as that, I learn a lot about my created worlds. Then, I am able to create laws and social norms that match that impression of something like art. After a while, I have an entire culture created where the laws and norms seem to match each other.

Then I create my rebels. Because, really, what is fantasy or science fiction without a good rebel and her plucky side kick?

Labels: discussion, Krista Ball, Writing

posted by Krista D. Ball at 14:03   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 3 comments

 
Here’s the problem. You have a character out to break the rules — but the reader doesn’t know what’s normal in your alien society. How do you set up behavioral expectations at the same time as you violate them?

In the good old days, a writer like J. R. R. Tolkien could indulge in chapters of Shire life before evil intrudes on the squabbles of the hobbits. I believe some set up is still essential if you want the bang that comes from contrast when something extraordinary happens, but modern writers rarely get whole chapters. Like the movies made of Tolkien’s classic epic, we have to establish norms faster.

The Okal Rel Universe in which my novels are set has been called “complex”, “well-thought out” and “original”. Culture clash between groups occurs regularly and a lot of the fun relies on readers understanding the world views in collision. The more ORU people read, the more they get out of it. But how to get them started?

This discussion, hosted by myself and author Krista Ball, invites you to help us explore the peculiarly SF problem of establishing “the norm” of an alien culture in the midst of having trouble-making characters tromp through it. What works for you, as a writer or a reader, and what doesn’t?

Here’s my main pet peeve to get us started: characters who don’t represent their culture even minimally. At best, a work with a seriously different setting can get away with maybe one entirely anomalous rebel. But if that’s the case, there had better be a strong supporting cast who do represent the “norm” for the rebel to interact with. Then the contrast can illuminate not only the norm but the deviation.

Labels: discussion, Krista Ball, Lynda Williams, Writing

posted by Lynda at 06:00   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 5 comments

 
It's a wrap! Summing up the discussion.

Executive summary

Kick-butt female characters are fun. We don't want to give them up. But we are intrigued by the challenge of portraying their less violent sisters with equal force of character. Sterling examples of past successes are both inspirational and possibly indicative of the greater difficulty of holding the attention of a genre audience in the absence of serious butt-kicking, since many really fine pieces of writing of this sort are not as well-known as the greats of the butt-kicking variety.

Food for Thought

It would be interesting to explore whether this phenomenon is generally true of characters irrespective of gender. In which case, one might expect to find the best known cases of non-violent characters of influence occurring in supporting roles - like Don Quixote's Sancho or Buffy's Xander.

Labels: discussion

posted by Lynda at 07:38   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 2 comments

 
Tina and I will post two original messages each over the next week. One a day. Writers are invited to connect the topics to their own artistic interests. And if you don't write, there's life, reading and media examples to draw on. Today is Tina's second and final post of the discussion.

Wow. What an amazing discussion this has been. Lynda's post on Friday got some really great comments on Facebook. Like from Cenobyte B:

"...Because the genre developed in this predominantly male audience, there
developed certain tropes, and I think one of those tropes is that female
characters must either be lovers or adversaries... I think the era of
multi-faced female characters is just now coming to the forefront of all kinds
of literature, although more 'mainstream' literary fiction has had more time,
more space, and more of an audience to develop these themes. Science Fiction and
Fantasy are still eking on to the 'literary' scene, and so, as genres, are still
having to overcome some of those traditional tropes."

This and other comments over the last week have prompted me to ask myself a question.

As a writer, does the gender we are born to (or choose to embrace) have an impact on our ability to write from the opposite sex?

Many of the writers I know have asked this question at one point or another. It's normally asked if a man can write from a women's point of view convincingly or vice versa. The answer always seem to depend on the author, but for the most part authors are more comfortable writing from their own sex's point of view. There are of course exceptions to this rule. Our own Lynda Williams has a very male dominate cast in her Okal Rel series. I, on the other hand, find is easier to write from the female point of view even though I tend to write from both male and female perspectives equally.

Could this be the cause of these "tropes"? Is it because men were the storytellers? But why would women not write from women point of views when they finally broke into the genre? Was it because the "normal" storyline and characters were expected?

I agree that true women characters are just starting to be seen in genre fiction, and perhaps this is because it's only now become acceptable to portray that in genre fiction. I think fantasy caught on to this much sooner than Science Fiction, but it's coming. A new era perhaps?

I know that Lynda will write a closing post shortly, and I won't take away from that, but for myself I would like to close by saying I think that a strong female character doesn't need to have a fist fight or beat up a guy to captivate an audience. She can be hero without lifting a finger in anger, just as some of my female hero's have done in real life... but sometimes kick butt stories can be really fun to read. :)

Tina Hunter
http://www.tinahunter.ca

Labels: discussion, Tina Hunter

posted by Tina Hunter at 20:52   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 3 comments

 
Tina and I will post two original messages each over the next week. One a day. Writers are invited to connect the topics to their own artistic interests. And if you don't write, there's life, reading and media examples to draw on. Today is my second and final post of the discussion (Lynda).

Presuming, for the sake of argument, that women are less violent than men (1), do female protagonists in SF and fantasy still need to kick-butt to command an audience? If so, should we dismiss it as an artefact of the action-oriented nature of the genre? After all, the average guy can't kick butt like a hero, either, but it's more fun to identify with a Doc Savage than the wimpy guy next door. Or is there something disturbing about the popularity of Amazon-like females who beat the guys at their own game because it underscores how hard it is for authentic female behaviour to get, and sustain, our attention?

I confess to creating high-testosterone females in my own work (2) and thoroughly enjoyed the thought experiment, so I am not pointing fingers. I am merely curious about the whole phenomenon, because it seems to me, as I mature, that beefing up woman-power in terms of how a heroine can pack a punch is almost like admitting women can’t cut it unless they act like men.

Naturally there are exceptions. I'm partial to the portrayal of Captain Janeway of Star Trek (3) as a strong woman who doesn't enact her force of character in typically male displays of physical dominance, even though she's not afraid to crack hulls when necessary. And while no one could accuse Babylon 5's Delenn (4) of being ineffectual, her prowess is not the mash-and-bash kind.

I still suspect there is something about human nature that makes claiming attention for a woman in SF uphill work, and wonder if this is why I instinctively focused on men for my main characters even though in Amel's case – in particular – I set out to explore the traditionally female problem of making a come-back from victimization and overcoming the pitfalls of being too nice for one's own good.

---

References

1. Jurik NC & Winn R. “Gender and homicide: a comparison of men and women who kill..” Violence and Victims. 1990 Winter; 5(4):227-42. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2098088 on September 10, 2009.
2. Williams, L. “Vrellish Evolutionary Biology”. Science Fiction and Organization Conference. Sept 15, 1999. Retrieved from http://okalrel.org/saga/reference/essays/vrellish.html on September 10, 2009.
3. “Kathryn Janeway”. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Janeway on September 10, 2009.
4. “Delenn”. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delenn

Labels: discussion

posted by Lynda at 23:46   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 2 comments

 
Tina and I will post two original messages each over the next week. One a day. Writers are invited to connect the topics to their own artistic interests. And if you don't write, there's life, reading and media examples to draw on. Today is one of Tina's posts.

Yesterday's post by Lynda was a great way to start things off. We spoke about the social sphere of influence that women in our history had and how society changed to take that away.

Society is funny like that. The 1960’s were really the decade for Science Fiction. It was popular, Star Trek and Outerlimits were on the television, and more mainstream people where becoming interested in "those kinds" of books. The changes that started in the 1950's with Rock 'n Roll (which had a profound effect on society) continued into the Science Fiction and Fantasy genres. Racial segregation or integration, women in roles other than the damsel in distress, and the space race/exploration were all things that North American audiences wanted to see and so the genre catered.

In the 1980's and 90's it became more common place for women to be seen in what once were traditional male roles. Women became leaders in industry, medicine and finance. Women have a dominating presence in the office/ corporate world, but can be found in positions like welder, pilot and labourer. Women have integrated into the “man’s world” but most are still responsible for the “woman’s world”. Child rearing, cooking, cleaning.

Today, women are learning how to balance their lives in a completely new way. What’s interesting is that statistics show that more women are watching Science Fiction shows. They are reading more genre books. Is this because they are finding something in the genre that they want, or is it because they are looking for something and hoping that the genre will provided it?

During this chaos, a funny little subgenre called "women's fiction" popped up. Danielle Steel made her millions selling books about strong female characters, timeless values (love, children, home, family), and women's issues (cancer, divorce, children problems). Her characters are women who face tragedy and emerge stronger. This is a genre unto itself now and it's picking up speed.

Is this what all those women are looking for? Or is it that they are looking for something similar but mixed in with something fantastic?

For decades, Science Fiction and Fantasy have shown us what could be, what might be. They have been tools for escape, places of retreat from the real world. But perhaps it's time for a little realism to show through into the genre. Perhaps it's time for a little bit of "women's fiction" to find a place within Science Fiction and Fantasy just as Horror, Mystery and Romance have.

What do you think?

Tina Hunter
http://www.tinahunter.ca

Labels: discussion, Tina Hunter

posted by Tina Hunter at 11:22   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 9 comments

 

Tina and I will post two original messages each over the next week. One a day. Writers are invited to connect the topics to their own artistic interests. And if you don't write, there's life, reading and media examples to draw on.

In a culture where women rule only the social sphere, do they have any real power? Or can whatever semblence of power they possess be brushed away by men should woman-power dare to oppose male goals? History suggests the guys trump the gals when push came to shove, but maybe that's most true of royals and nobles, and less so of everyday households. Or maybe the distortion is due to the kind of things history focuses on. Plenty of women could have won all kinds of domestic battles without it getting into the history books, even if the triumphs were critical to the lives of themselves, their children or their sphere of influence.

In parts six and seven of the Okal Rel saga I explore the gender-differentiated cultures of the Demish. The Silver Demish, in particular, are neo-Victorian with regard to women's roles although they lack the Victorian passion for everything shiney and new. Maybe my own disillusionment with never-ending change in the real world made me interested in portraying a sympathetic - if often humourous(1) and far from endorsing - view of arch traditionalists. Earlier books in the saga contain hints of women's importance on the home front in the Demish world, proving I always viewed Demish women as far from powerless. Or was the Vrellish liege Di Mon right, in Part 1: The Courtesan Prince when he dismisses male deference to a lady in a Demish parlour with "as if make-believe gallantry could compensate for the real disparity of power between Demish genders that lay behind the playacting."

---

1. For example, see Interdicted by the League of Women, an excerpt from the draft of Part 7: Healer's Sword, in which Amel is served notice he must mend his ways if he wants to be accepted by Demish society

Labels: discussion, Tina Hunter

posted by Lynda at 12:17   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 2 comments

 

"Kick butt" for the purposes of this discussion refers to the "fight someone and hurt them" (1) sense of the idiom, and my contention is that it is time to re-invent non-butt-kicking heroines in particular. Fellow writer Tina Hunter has agreed to debate the pros and cons of this idea with me, here, over the next week. Company is welcome! So is sharing the feed if desired.

I arrived at the idea of developing a non-violent heroine because my focal character, Amel, needed a new romantic lead and I wanted it to be someone, for once, who couldn't beat him in a bar fight. I also wanted to work with someone whose sense of self was rooted in a parochial upbringing - the proverbial "girl next door". Her name is Princess Samanda, or Sam for short, and she joins the Okal Rel space operatic saga in Part 6: Avim's Oath as a refugee fleeing the wreck of her engagement to the local "catch" back on her Silver Demish homeworld.

Writing a naive character with a greater capacity to be shocked than the jaded modern reader was surprisingly refreshing and lively. The challenge is: will people want to identify with someone who isn't slinging her enemies about her head when angered? Could I make Sam strong, and fun, without turning her into a damsel in distress?

I loved the way Joss Whedon turned the traditional victim in horror movies into something scarier than the vampires she dispatches (2). Nor does the Okal Rel Saga lack for examples of women you don't want to mess with (3). And I do "get" the idea of it all being metaphor and wish-fulfillment at some level. But what about heroines who act like women of their place and time, more or less, but are still awesome in ways that don't involve beating the bad guys into submission? Can we identify without feeling belittled? And is there anything worth learning from them?

1. "Kick Butt". The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Retrieved September 6, 2009 from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/kick+butt
2. "Joss Whedon". Wikiquotes. Retrieved September 6, 2009 from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joss_Whedon
3. For example see preview excerpt from Part 6: Avim's Oath forthcoming in April 2010 of "Sam Meets Alivda".
   

Labels: discussion, Tina Hunter

posted by Lynda at 11:26   permalink comment? e-mail lynda@okalrel.org 10 comments