I've noticed that a common theme on the Wayfarer's Tavern is job interviews, unemployment, seeking jobs after college graduation, etc. There's even plenty of individual threads devoted to the subject. I know someone who works for an HR department and her job is literally to sort through resumes all day, and I've also had great personal success for landing jobs myself. As such, here are some resume tips. - Leave some white space. This one surprises a lot of people, because generally, the mindset is the more credentials, the better. No one has a perfect-sized resume, and least not one that naturally appears that way without lots of tweaks. Most people either have too few credentials and risk looking unqualified, or they have too many and their resume is either in tiny font, or three pages stapled together. But most of us have had job experience that's related to different areas, so not everything will be relevant to the job you're applying for. If your resume is too long, and your experience as a landscaper isn't relevant to your potential job as a layout editor, don't list it on the resume, and vice versa. However, if your resume is too bare, take these experiences and make them relevant to the job you're seeking. Look for common-denominator skills and how they can transfer from the old job to the new one. When you're an HR manager who seeks 20 hard-to-read resumes, and then one with plenty of white space, only the relevant info, and font size that's easy to read, guess which one stands out in a good way? - Avoid TMI. If you were a secretary, and one of your duties was inventing a new spreadsheet layout that everyone in the office adopted, list that - it shows that you're 1) computer-savvy, something employers like, and 2) you know how to innovate and improve the workplace setting. But if you were a secretary, don't list "answered phones, sorted files and typed documents' on the resume as a description of the job. - Make damn sure your adverbs aren't weak. "Created," "Developed," "Executed," "Led," "Inspired," "Invented," "Managed," "Empowered," "Enabled" etc are all good words. "Had," "Got," "Did," "Made," and the god-awful "was" are words you need to run away from as though they were carriers of pus-causing plague. - Think about what you can do for the company, and put this in your objective. Some companies want innovation, others want unity, others want tradition; some focus on products, while others focus on relationships; etc. You'll need to study 1) their mission statement, and 2) their corporate culture. This knowledge will impact your objective at the top of the resume as well as the way you position your various experiences (The fact that I'm a fiction writer has actually helped in some interviews. Other interviewees won't care. Learn what the company wants, and what to bring up or not bring up in different situations). - If you write a cover letter, end with a professionally assertive tone. For example, "I will follow up within the next two weeks about my prospective employment, but until then, feel free to reach me at [phone number" is much better than something like "If you want, you can contact me about my job, if you want to, but you don't have to!" Okay, I am exaggerated on the latter example, but you don't want to come across as timid or afraid. Timid, afraid people don't do well in the workforce. Feel free to add to the list. This is just some of the ones not as heard about. Of course we all know to dress professionally for interviews, research the company etc so I didn't go into those.
I've seen a lot of blog entries and forum posts about writers' block. I've successfully catapulted myself out of Writers' Block Land many times, and I decided to create a blog entry that's hopefully more helpful than just "try to be more confident and let the ideas flow!" Because we all know that's not useful at all. *Bleck.* Okay. Here is some tangible advice that you can try. We all have our own preferences, and what works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. However, these tips have helped lots of people in NaNoWriMo write-in events; local writers' meetup events; writing workshop classes; etc. So maybe they are of some good, who knows. 1. Pick a modest daily quota and stick to it. Make the quota small. I.e. if you normally write 1,500 words a day, when not stuck, then set your "stuck quota" to something like 200 or 300 words a day. This is really easy to do - I think it's about two paragraphs - and you'll be able to leave your minimum goal in your wake most days, hence feeling awesome about yourself. Gaining this confidence from getting started will often warm you enough to un-stick you, and working in small increments is what leads to 3,000/day word counts (my record is 7,500 in a sitting). But the key is, you need SMALL goals. If you set out with a plan to write 3,000 words, or even 1,000, all at once, it'll seem like a mountain and you'll feel like crap. It's like working out at the gym: for the first 20 minutes or so it sucks, but you stick with it to try and suck it up past 30. Then another 5 mins, then another 10, etc just to push yourself. But after an hour, when you see something like "900" on the "calories burned" screen, staying on the StairMaster is suddenly much more appealing. Or, to be less drastic, going to a salsa club with line dancing might make you feel awkward for the first 10 minutes, but after that, you're fully confident and into the fun. Forcing yourself to write to a minimum bar, even if you don't feel like it, will more often than not get you out of your worry rut and get your juices flowing. Even if not, say if it's an off day, you'll feel good about yourself for the fact that you got some progress in even though you weren't really feeling it. Because on those days when you're really swamped, you won't be able to realistically do 3,000....but there's no excuse for not setting aside 10 minutes to do 300. 2. Write an exaggerated character. This could mean a sufferer of a painful degree of social awkwardness; an annoying, clingy individual who bugs the crap out of your other characters; a mean old git; a sexist/racist/homophobe or someone else of extreme views that you find offensive; a school bully; a bureaucrat drone who is written more as a satire of bureaucracy than anything else; someone who lacks common sense to the point of comedy; etc. Throwing in an encounter with a person who makes your MCs think "How do I handle this?" will push your character development skills by forcing you to examine and explore how your characters will react when tested. Not just how they react to the addition, but also to each other, themselves, their surroundings, etc. Plus, I know that Satire Mode really gets me into that "hehehe, sock it to 'em" groove of leaning forward, pounding nonstop at the keyboard, and cackling inwardly about what I'm writing. It's just....fun. And even if you don't actually use the scene in your book, it'll still get your creativity flowing. 3. Ease tomorrow's workload. If you have a stiflingly busy week, then pave a path for yourself. Let's say it's a Monday - just do your 300 words (unless you are in the right mode to crank out more words - dear God, don't oppress yourself) and your work for that day, but then do some things that you would have done tomorrow, as well. Then tomorrow's to-do list will be shorter and you'll be more freed up to write. 4. Don't worry about the idea that you might write badly if you write with writers' block. You'll end up tweaking most scenes several times anyway, so what's the big deal? Also, this is used as a lazy-ass excuse far too many times, both with writer's block pauses that last too long and with "aspirers" who put off their first writing projects. All writing consists of 1) writing something; 2) looking it over and tweaking it, and maybe making changes and maybe not depending on whether you are happy with it; and 3) finalizing said tweaks, if needed, until you're happy with it. And then your writing will be good! The only way to be a bad writer is to not write. 5. Listen to music *before* you write. I'm not 100 percent against listening to music while writing, but there are plenty of drawbacks. First off, if you are really into the song, your mind will want to focus on listening to it instead of writing, which will slow down your process. Also, make sure that the lyrics/tone of the song doesn't match too closely with what you're writing. You're writing a story of its own, not written material to accompany a soundtrack. Plus, it'll be jarring if a song sets up the perfect mood, but right in the middle of writing the scene, it changes. 6. Talk to real-life writer friends about your plot holes. When your issue isn't just insecurity about pulling off a scene - it's actually a case of a major, gaping plot hole - talking to writer friends about it helps. Don't get me wrong -- your friends shouldn't spoon-feed solutions or tell you how to write your story -- but the mere act of talking out loud about it will cause ideas to pop up in your head on their own. This is one of the biggest advantages of talking about it in-person as opposed to an online setting where you have to type out your problem. That helps, too, but not to the same degree. And, of course, if your friend can help you flesh out some new idea to close the plot hole, that's even better. (Key word being "help flesh out," not "spoon feed." It's YOUR story, YOU call the shots and do the work). That's all I can think of at the moment. Really, the only reason why writers' block is such a problem for so many people is because they let it beat them. Don't let it beat you. Get at your keyboard and write. It may feel forced at first but that feeling will go away, and the tips above have helped a lot of people, so they might help you. Happy writing!
A lot of people wonder how to create tones via showing not telling. I.e. if a character feels lost, or sad, or calm, how do you express this without a bunch of infodump sentences beginning with "he felt____," "she thought that___," etc? The answer is rhetorical devices. This refers to elements including punctuation; word choice; sentence structure; paragraph structure; etc. You're allowed to break the rules of grammar sometimes (like using fragments as sentences if you really, really want an extra-chaotic feeling: this should be used sparingly, though, or else it will lose effect and make you look like a bad writer). But in order to break the rules of grammar, you have to know them first. Make sure you know what you're doing when it comes to the S.P.A.G. aspect of writing. A basic English composition or grammar book will help a lot, if you want or need to brush up. To proceed, here are some types of rhetorical devices and how to use them. If you can think of more, please feel free to add them in the comments. There's no way I can type them all out, but here are some of the basic ones that I use the most. If you'd like more information beyond this blog post, here's a good place to start: http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html 1. Active/passive voice: - A general rule of distinction is that a sentence with "is," "was" or any other form of "to be" is in the passive voice. For example, "The officer ticketed the speeder" is written in active voice, and "The speeder was ticketed by the officer" is passive. If you're striving to create a dynamic tone, you want active voice 99 percent of the time. Passive voice has its time and place when you want to create a detached tone, for example, if the character feels isolated from the setting or from the character(s) around him/her. If it's just simpler to use passive voice, that's fine too - for example, it's fine to say "The chicken was plucked when Joe bought it" instead of "The employers of the meat store had plucked the chicken before Joe bought it." But if you're writing a fight scene, and it's filled with sentences like "The pain was really bad," "His stomach was punched," etc then chances are it's not good. 2. Asyndeton/Polysyndeton This refers to the length and flow of your sentences. Asyndeton refers to prose that's short and choppy, and polysyndeton refers to longer sentences with more clauses (There's a little more to it than that, but I'll explain after the examples). Asyndeton creates a tone that's hectic, chaotic, fast-moving or desperate. Polysyndeton has a calmer, more meandering feel and helps create the impression that whatever's being described is not a jolting situation of any kind. Examples: "It was my first day of high school, and the sea of strange faces blurred together, but I hoped lunch period wouldn't be too bad." versus "It was my first day of high school. The sea of strange faces blurred together. I hoped lunch wouldn't be too bad." The second has a more desperate/chaotic feel to it, just by the structure, doesn't it? It's not just about length though...you can use commas, semicolons, dashes etc to cause the breaks, but asyndeton's key feature is that the syntax has a broken feel to it to create a broken tone. I.e. "It was my first day of school, I looked like crap, I didn't know anyone--their faces blurred together--and today would be hell." It's technically not a short sentence, but it's not all smooth and flowy either. Hence, it is asyndeton. Also, breaking patterns of any kind in writing will create emphasis on whatever breaks the pattern. If you have a series of polysyndetic sentences, with an asyndetic sentence right after, then that asyndetic sentence is going to have a lot of impact. 3. Cacophony/Euphony This refers to the way your words sound phonetically. Cacophony has a lot of harsh sounds, like "ck," "cr," "qua" etc, and euphony is marked by softer, gentler sounds like "sh," "fl," words with lots of vowels etc. The way the words sound have a psychological effect on people. If you have a copy of any of the "Lord of the Rings" books, look at how the Black Speech of Mordor has a lot of cacophony, while the Elvish languages have a lot of euphony. 4. Parallel Construction: Setting up a few sentences in a row that all have a repeated element of some kind, whether it's sentence structure, a beginning word or phrase that gets repeated, etc. The effect of parallel construction is that, when done right, it serves as sort of crescendo, like you're building up for emphasis and the emphasis will fall on whatever breaks the parallel construction pattern. (Just like how an asyndetic sentence after a series of polysyndetic sentences has impact.) Example: "He walked down the hall; he paused at the door; he braced himself and shoved it open. He reeled back. The stench hit him with full force." Two repeated elements: the sentence structure (subject --> verb --> object), and the word "he" at the start. Anaphora is a specific type of parallel construction in which the repeated element is, specifically, repetition of the beginning word or phrase. Like my example above, and also MLK's "I have a dream" repetition. 5. Antithesis: Antithesis refers to structuring your sentence, and choosing words, in a way that focuses on opposites. Balance is also a crucial element. Think of an antithesis sentence as a teeter-totter with a fulcrum in the middle, and place the opposites on different sides of the fulcrum. The "halves" of the sentence should be equal in terms of length and setup. You also don't want a lot of excess words. Antithesis is a good one to use if you want to sound memorable, i.e. if you are writing a wedding toast or eulogy. Not to say that all antithesis are moving and eloquent, of course, but if you are consciously trying to sound eloquent, it's a good tool to use. Examples: "Let's agree to disagree" - single antithesis "We will fight until they surrender" - double antithesis (we/they; fight/surrender) "During a dark, cold depression, they found bright, warm happiness" - triple antithesis
I can't judge anyone's story unless I've read it myself. Lots of ideas sound awesome, but are written terribly, so the story sucks. Likewise, lots of ideas seem stupid when summarized, but turn into great stories when you sit down to read them. With that said, though, certain things I hear about make me shrivel up inside a little bit. One of them is when the author's MC is clearly invincible, to the point where no obstacle can actually threaten him/her. After a while, readers realize that, so they learn there's no reason to fear for the MC. Tension buildups, scary moments and ominous subplots lose all their power. The main character always has an easy way out, hence the name of this blog post and phenomenon. There's no one-size-fits-all blanket labels for what constitutes "Easy Way Out" writing. I've read stories with mind-reading characters that scream E.W.O., and stories with mind-reading characters that have enough balance and stakes to keep the tension there. It's not about what power or advantage the MC may or may not have; it's whether the author takes effort to counteract this power in some way. Main characters who have a certain power - be it mind-reading, being able to shapeshift, invisibility, etc - AND can use the given supernatural gift whenever they like with no negative consequence or repercussion - really have no reason to worry about anything. Bad guy coming? Just turn invisible for as long as you want, no big deal. Evil plot going on that you have to fight against? No prob, just read the minds of all the bad guys, then thwarting their plans will be easy! A few ways to avoid the Easy Way Out effect.... 1. Give them limitations. Perhaps they can only use the power a certain amount of hours per day/week/month/lifetime. This will force them to choose very carefully, and not always be able to rely on the power when they might like to. 2. Make the power something that's both a blessing and a curse, depending on circumstance. I.e. shapeshifting into a wildcat would be awesome if it happened in a setting 100 percent controlled by you. But what if you turned into a wildcat at 3 p.m. every Sunday? Depending on what you're doing that Sunday, it could be great...or, it could be a complicated disaster that forces you to figure out some way to cover your ass. 3. Make the powers balanced out. Maybe your powers are only strong enough for use if the rest of your "normal" life is in the tubes. If you've got your stuff together and have positive smoothness in your life, the powers will become latent. You can either have a good supernatural life, or a good regular life, but not both at the exact same time. OR, using your power could detract from some opposite power. For example, using your power to see in the dark will weaken your everyday eyesight, or mind-reading too often will allow other people to gain access to YOUR thoughts. This type of scheme puts checks and balances on the powers, so the MC doesn't Have It All when the timing is Too Convenient and seems like a poorly-thought plot device. I've read many stories where the MCs have powers. Powers are cool. Just don't let them turn your MC into such a perfect and obviously unbeatable being that the story's suspense is gone, to the point where cheering for them or fearing for their fate are pointless because we know they'll win without any losses anyway.
There's a common type of post that I see frequently that really, really bothers me. It's not a type of thread; rather, it's a type of response often given to developing writers who are still fleshing out their plots and looking for ways to add novelty. It pisses me off so much to see responses along the lines of "No story idea is truly unique anyway," "Every story idea has been told already, just in a different form," "Everything's just a rehash of something else," etc. If you are the type who gives these responses, before you zap me with the cattle prod, hear me out. I realize that there are certain structural elements that most stories have in common. For example, most stories have the "motivation point" that causes the MC to step up to the plate and take on whatever role makes him/her the protag. Most stories have a battle/dangerous moment/part where someone dies/etc. Most stories have a tense buildup in the latter half, followed by a climactic sequence and resolution. But not ALL stories have these, and even if they do, it doesn't mean they can't be unique. That's like saying that no painting can really be unique because they all rely on color patterns. Or that no rock song can be unique because they all (most) contain an electrical guitar riff at some point and because most rock songs have a buildup and a bridge (the bridge is the really intense part about 2/3 of the way through a song). Or that no individual person or animal can be unique because we all have the same biological functions. We have the writers who paved entirely new genres, and whether or not their work happens to be our cup of tea, we still have to respect them for carving out new territory. Before J.R.R. Tolkien, fantasy was considered solely for children, and was only told in terms of simple folklore and fairy tales. Before S.E. Hinton, realistic young adult fiction didn't really exist, and the only books for teenagers were innocent and sugarcoated (Nancy Drew, the Boxcar Children, etc.) At some point, there was the first mystery novel; the first romance novel; the first horror novel; the first chick lit. Were these all merely spin-offs of other stories, made unique only by the descriptions of places and the names of characters? No. I think not. Even if you don't pave a new genre, you can still be perfectly unique in whichever area you choose to write. Just because one plot element might be similar to something occurring somewhere else -- i.e. a lot of stories have the element of the protag girl with a crush on a guy friend, or the character archetype of the snooty neighbor/mean popular girl -- it doesn't mean that Story 2 is "just a rehash" of Story 1, or that the plot element will play out in a way even remotely similar to that of the other book. The only people whose stories aren't unique are the ones who make the conscious effort to comply with "norms" - there should be no such thing as a norm in the world of writing, but many people feel the need to turn other writers' story aspects into set-in-stone precedent, as though we were discussing case law instead of fiction writing. And this brings us to our next topic. I've noticed that a lot of the people who hand out these "Don't strive for too much novelty, it's all just a rehash anyway" cards are also the ones who say that in order to be published, you have to follow the Cookie Cutter Script. I think you know what I mean by this. The people who cut a certain plot element that they really like, or add a plot element that their story doesn't call for, simply because other successful books happen to have or lack said element. The people who just take published works with a lot of spotlight, like "Twilight" or "LOTR," and retell the exact same story without putting much thought into paving new grounds themselves. Look, if you want to be a lazy conformist who denies the existence of uniqueness in order to make yourself feel better, fine. But don't shove that mindset -- a nihilistic and anti-individual-potential one -- down the throats of new writers. Some of these writers are young kids, and/or people testing the waters of writing for the first time, still gaining a sense of security in this tough, competitive field. Don't drive them away by sending the message that they have no ability to set new ground. Most of us writers write because we want to defy the conformity script that other people have described. We want to pave a path rather than follow one. We want to create a world of our own rather than swallow the same rules and norms of everyone else. A writer is supposed to be an individual, and a true individual is not afraid to deviate from standards and light previously unseen sparks. I cringe to see "writers" who deny this is possible.
My first three blogs have consisted of a "don't seek approval when breaking the norms" post, an anti-censorship post, and a "get off your ass and actually write instead of passively saying you'd like to" post. I plan to use my next few blog posts to give some tips about good writing. Today's topic deals with how to convey backstory information without going into an infodump or flashback. A big part of this refers to the commonly-used "Show Not Tell!!" phrase, of course, but it's more of a specific subcategory. It's easy for most people to understand that writing "Jane's eyes shifted around the room as she took rapid steps backward toward the door" is more vivid and natural than "Jane was nervous and wanted out." But let's say there's a huge chunk of backstory information that you need to convey: for example, your MC was in a traumatic house fire before the events of the book began, or your MC lives in a fantasy world that's inhibited by wolves that eat people at night. So many developing writers descend into Infodump Mode or feel forced to use a flashback/dream. But you don't have to. My advice is the phrase you might have heard me post hundreds of times on the boards..."Slip it in naturally." Here's what this means. I explain best through using examples, so here goes. (Starting with the fire example. Let's say the kid is in school working with fire in chemistry class.): "Jess, are you okay?" My lab partner shot me a pointed glance and tilted her head toward the undone worksheet. "Yeah, hang on, I'm almost done." The match shook in my hand. Yellow tongues of flame licked even closer to my finger. Too close. "Here, you take this." I shoved the match at her. She took it, and I ignored the irritated sigh, too busy yanking my sleeves back over my arms. But the scars had already been exposed for a second. The damn burns looked just as gross now as they had three months ago in the hospital. "Sorry," I said, forcing a smile. "I was just worried we'd run out of time." I didn't want questions touching too close to what had happened to my home, my family. Not now, not ever. (Then move to totally non-fire-related things. You've conveyed that her home/family was damaged in a fire and she still suffers from it. Mission accomplished. Done. If it's hugely important info that plays a big role in the story, just do this type of thing several times -- spaced out, maybe once every few chapters. Readers will get it. Less is more. No major infodump, flashback or nightmare required. Okay, now for the wolf example. This one might help if you aren't sure how to convey certain aspects of your fantasy world. Let's say there's loose werewolves roaming around that are going to come out soon: Joe knows this, but Mark and the reader don't know. Mark: "Why are you looking so anxious?" Mark realized how quiet the woods were when Joe stopped talking and grew focused--too focused for comfort. Joe: "We have wolves in these woods. They'll get to the animals back at the farm if we don't make sure they're all locked in for the night. Let's go." He began taking quick strides in the direction of the house. Mark: "But the animals are already locked in. You checked before we left." Joe: "I said let's GO." He walked faster. In the distance behind them, a distorted howl screeched through the night. Joe fought to keep a calm face so Mark wouldn't find out that the animals were the least of his worries. He'd just panic and fall behind, and the last thing Joe's family needed was yet another monster hunting them down. See how that works? You don't need to explicitly state anything, like "Jess was in a traumatic fire" or "The wolves in the woods in Joe's town are actually werewolves." Nor do you need any type of long description or flashback/dream to convey it. You can slip information in very subtly -- in once sentence, even, rather than paragraphs -- and readers will know. The two clips certainly aren't perfect, but they're just supposed to show that it only takes a little bit to convey something, no matter how crucial to the story. I'm not saying my examples are 100 percent free of tell-not-show: If you want to be a purist and get technical, then you could classify the phrase "He answered the phone" as a tell-y infodump, but that's not what this post is about. The main idea is that less is more.
This entry goes out to all of the newbie writers, or to all of the people who have said they'd like to be writers someday. Don't "aspire" to be a writer. Just BE one. If you write actively, even though you'll have lots of improvement to do (we ALL have lots of improvement to do while working on any given piece, although the areas in which we must improve will vary by levels of experience), then You Are A Writer. Congratulations. But if you "aspire" to write, it means you're thinking in your head that you'd like to to be a writer, while not doing any writing. This gets you nowhere. When you're a kid, and you say that someday you'd like to be a doctor/vet/teacher/lawyer/firefighter/businessperson/etc, you can't just jump into the field right away at age 8 (unless we're talking about lemonade stands: hey, you're never too young to be an entrepreneur). You've got to learn the trade first, and maybe go to college, and actually grow up. But being a writer doesn't require adulthood. It doesn't require any specific degree or license. It doesn't require a certificate of approval (for those who worry about what other people will think of their idea, my first blog post, "On Creativity and Independence," might help you with that.) So just do it. If you write something for the first time, and it sucks, then fix the parts that suck, and learn some more techniques (rhetorical devices = key to good writing: I'll blog a helpful list of those some other time). Then write something else. Push yourself. Grow. If you have the attitude of "I'll wait until I know more about writing, and then write" or "I know my writing would suck now, so I'm going to hold off," and you've had that attitude for longer than it takes to sit down and try mapping out a plot, then guess what. You're not going to become a writer. Not anytime soon, at least. Because if you don't write, there is no other way to hone your skill. Getting your elbows dirty is the only way to become good. Period. And there will NEVER be a time when you write something that's just the way you want it the first time around. My first versions are full of plot holes, and I've been writing literally since the same time I learned to read, which was almost 20 years ago. The're ALWAYS there, and it's frustrating to fix them, but pushing through that frustration is part of being a writer. Writers are dynamic people, whether you think you're dynamic or not. And holding off and waiting, not wanting to take risk, not daring to take a hit, isn't dynamic. Taking the first step forward is - and it's what you have to do to be a real writer, not just someone who *wants* to be one. If you're reading this, and the aspiring type I'm describing is a description of you, don't take this as a bashing. Take it as a challenge. Go start mapping out your plot - for real, on paper or a computer, not just vaguely in your mind. Then write the first paragraph. And the one after that. No magical fairy godmother is going to whisk you into a writer because you "want" to be one. The only one who can get you there is you.
I, like Thomas Jefferson, “have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Most forms of tyranny can only chain a person outwardly. As Mahatma Gandhi stated, “You can imprison me; you can torture me; you can even destroy this body – but you will never imprison my mind.” A person can be wrongfully searched, or arrested without cause and due burden of proof, or segregated into subpar conditions, but the tyrant cannot actually control what goes in their target’s (I know better than to impose the condescending label “victim” on anyone) mind. But a censor can. Censorship denies advocates the right to advocate, and denies would-be fighters for an idea of the knowledge that the idea even exists. A censor can stop a revolt against cruelty before it can even begin. Even if there's no large-scale injustice to combat (which, throughout the centuries, there always has been), censorship stops the mind from growing and therefore stunts human development. Censorship undermines the core principles of freedom and independence, implying that humans are all incompetent, flailing creatures who cannot determine for themselves what books to put down, and therefore need a board--or, God forbid, an individual--to determine this for them. Worms choose for themselves whether to crawl upward or remain underground, and censorship places humans at below the level of worms. Henceforth, the most depraved form of tyranny is the oppression of an individual’s right to freedom of expression. Think about it. If the government abused your Second Amendment, or Fourth Amendment, or Sixth Amendment rights, you would stand up for yourself in a court of law and assert that your Constitutional rights had been violated. You would assert that, as a sentient human being living in what was designed to be the freest nation on Earth, you have the right to be safe in your person, your home, and your liberties without any intrusion without the due process of law. With the publicity gained through freedom of expression, other supporters could take up your cause and help advocate on your behalf. But you could not maintain your rights as such if you were silenced. In addition to protecting our ability to defend all our other natural rights, free speech has always provided the solution to each historical problem. For example, when racial minorities and women suffered discriminating, subhuman recognition, no law swept the problem away overnight. In fact, the unethical treatment of over 50 percent of the population (women and minorities combined) WAS the letter of the law. Equal-rights advocates such as Rosa Parks; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Susan B. Anthony; and Booker T. Washington used the power of freedom of speech to draw nationwide awareness, acceptance…and action. Had the government been allowed to suppress them for creating controversy, or for offending the majority’s pre-established beliefs, no social change would have been achieved, and we would probably be suffering under the same inequality today. In the words of founding father Samuel Adams, “It does not require a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds.” No brushfire will survive when extinguished as a spark. If you are in a position of power, remember the importance of free speech. If you are in a position to censor, think about its effect before doing so.
First, let me say that I realize writers, especially developing writers, sometimes struggle with insecurities or worry about whether their story idea sounds interesting. I get this. I'm a firm advocate of writers (and all other individuals) being the master of their own work, hence not seeking validation, and I agree with the content of Cogito's "A story concept means nothing, it's about the way you write it" template post -- but we're all new or nervous at some point, and I think everyone has sought out someone's opinion on an idea at one point, too. I understand this. But what I fail to understand is when people act like their writing must obey cut-and-dry formulas or, even worse, that it stands on the foundation of the approval of some mass collective. There is no "Plot-Sanctification Bureau." Writing is not a field of formulas, and it sure as hell is not a field of lemming-style followership and obedience. Fantasy and science fiction should, theoretically, be the widest frontiers of experimentation, because the stories take place in a world the author creates on their own. But some of the questions and concerns I've seen from people show that many think we're all crammed in narrow alleys (with ceilings!) when it comes to what's "okay" to write. Stop acting confined to ideas that have already been used in any given genre. Not all fantasies HAVE to use wizards, elves, mages, enchanted swords/stones, or main characters with exceptional powers. Not all science fiction stories HAVE to include spaceship crews or time travel. Granted, there is nothing wrong with any of the elements named above. If your story calls for mages or elves, then of course use them. But don't go around asking questions like "Is it okay for elves to be ugly and live underground?" and "Is it okay for vampires to disguise themselves as PTA members?" or "Do you think people would want to read about [fill in new creature here]?" Same goes for realistic fiction. In romance, it's okay to spice things up and have an unexpected twist of events of who gets with who. In YA, the girl doesn't always have to have a crush on her best guy friend. Again, there's nothing wrong with either of those things in themselves, but so many people act like there's a script they can't deviate too far from or certain elements that must be included. That is bullcrap. It's as though, because certain elements have been used a lot in any given genre, people think these things are required ingredients and they have to step around testing their standing in others' eyes before breaking away in favor of something entirely new. When writing independently --and, more importantly, when paving your own life -- breaking away from norms and other explored territory is not something to seek approval/permission to do. And as writers -- as individuals -- the virtue we must embrace more fully is independence. We should be touting it, wearing it on our sleeve, not tiptoeing up to it like we need a grant from the rest of society to be our own person. This applies to both writing and life. As long as your story is gripping, who cares how you write it? Writers are innovators. Innovators create. Don't be a follower; create something new. The biggest roadblock to creativity is fear. In order to be creative, you must be fearless. Step forward. Be bold. Don't seek approval or permission. Don't be afraid.