New Project

So in a sense I'm in a lull between projects. I just finished a middle-grade science-fantasy novel called UNGIFTED, which is now on submission to agents. Regarding my science fiction mid-grade novel, SAVAGE JUNGLE, which is my thesis for Seton Hill's Writing Popular Fiction program (I could rant forever about how much I love that program), it's in its "nitty gritty/polishing" stage. I might take a little break first, but it's definitely time to kick off a new project.

I've been playing with a couple MG dystopian ideas. One of them is similar in a way to THE HUNGER GAMES, and given that book's (and movie's) immense popularity right now, I feel like it might not be the best idea to pursue that project at the moment (talk about going AGAINST the trend on that one). The other one, however, I'm equally excited about and has one of those premises that is similar to tons of stories. In fact, recently I found a couple books that use this same general premise, one of which has been inspiring. At first I was horrified. I thought I'd conceived a fun, original idea, but nooooooooo, it has been done quite a few times. Thankfully, though, the stories are still very different from my idea (I read them) and each other, so I think I'll go ahead and write mine. It's funny how so many stories can be written using the same basic premise (no, I'm not going to reveal what it is, but believe me, it's been around), yet turn out so wildly different. It's also a wonderful thing.

Anyway, I've already written some of this new book, so all I need to do is pick up from where I left off before. Should be fun, and I should be getting to that soon depending on how long my "break" is. I'll keep you updated!

Reading Out Loud

Wow...OK, I know I said I'd do a post a week, and now it's been quite awhile since my last post (I'll have to be more timely in the future), but I would like to talk about reading your own manuscript out loud. I've been doing this for my non-thesis manuscript called UNGIFTED, and it's such an incredible exercise. It's amazing the things you catch when you actually hear the words. Not only did I catch sentences and phrases that were a mouthful to say (since I stumbled over them), but I even caught some minor inconsistencies (like what characters were wearing). I was surprised by that last one. Another big one is repeated words. These can be tough to catch when you read silently, but when you read your work out loud, you actually hear any repeated words; they're like little red flags.

That being said, reading UNGIFTED out loud is the final step before I start to query it. I think this exercise is best done right before querying, because the things you catch are minor or small-picture rather than big-picture. This book has gone through several drafts and has received lots of feedback and it's in the best shape I can get it in at the moment from a story or "big-level" perspective. But every time I read another chapter out loud, I'm so glad I did! OK, off to read another...

New Blog Direction

OK, so I haven't posted a blog entry for awhile, because I created this blog for a reading course in a grad program at Seton Hill University. I'm currently in its excellent (and I mean truly excellent) Writing Popular Fiction program, working on my thesis of writing a novel. I entertained the idea of having a blog before, but never actually did it until I joined this program, since it was a requirement, as I said.

I have to admit that although I enjoy writing entries on my blog, it also feels kind of weird. Like I'm talking to the world, but in reality the world doesn't give a crap. Well, that's what it feels like, anyway. Like I'm shouting, "Hey - here I am! Listen to me!" You know?

*Dead silence*

Oh, right. I forgot...

Anyyyyway....since I'm done with that particular course (a horror reading course - and it was horrifyingly fun) at Seton Hill, I'd been thinking about what to do with this blog. I mean, now I have this blog, right? I wasn't sure what to post, though, but NOW I have an idea. Since I've been writing a novel (well, two - one for the program like I said, and one on the side) and I'm nearing completion of it (I'm referring to the one on the side here), I figured I might as well chronicle that novel's journey. Not just to completion, but also my search for literary agents/publishers and anything perhaps remotely related to the writing/publishing world.

Exciting, huh?

*Dead silence*

Oh, right. Whew! OK, anyway, my new goal is to post a blog entry AT LEAST once a week with a typically writing-related subject, though I guess I might post other things that randomly grab my fancy - oooh, shiny object! - from time to time.

I guess that's it for now! So stay tuned, everyone........

*Dead silence*

Ghostbusters: No Rhyme or Reason

This was such a fun assignment: watching good ol’ Ghostbusters starring Dan Aykroyd, Billy Murray, etc.  It had been a while since I last saw it, but it’s one of those movies I’ve seen many times throughout my life.  A classic, for sure.  This time around it was just as enjoyable as always, but after the readings and watching other movies in our class, I couldn’t help but notice the complete lack of “reason” for not only parts of the plot, but the ghosts themselves.

For example, the people of New York City are very skeptical of the Ghostbusters.  When they’re just starting out in the abandoned fire station, members of the public call them to ask if they’re business is serious or just a joke.  Not to mention the Ghostbusters slogan, “We believe you” (or something along those lines) goes to show how they’re the subject of scrutiny, if not mockery.  Then, after they catch the ghost Slimer, paranormal activity increases in the city and the Ghostbusters become very busy.  So busy they need to recruit another colleague and become city-wide celebrities.  Now, it could be just me, but what’s the reason for this major increase in paranormal activity in the city?  I don’t believe one is supplied (though correct me if I’m wrong; I could’ve missed it), and it doesn’t seem to be tied into the main story problem of the demon Gozer entering from 55 Central Park West.  I guess we’re supposed to just buy it.

Also tied to plot, there’s a point when all the ghosts are freed from the Ghostbusters’ captivity and wreak havoc on the city.  I think this was an attempt to make things worse, as is required of all stories (or at least makes them stronger).  But you never get a sense that things have really gotten bad, except for a couple seconds-worth of ghosts inhabiting the streets of the city, eating hot dogs (Slimer), etc.  It falls flat in my opinion, because the newly released spirits never pose another problem to the Ghostbusters or the town, so it feels contrived to me.  Perhaps if they tried to get in the way of the Ghostbusters trying to stop Gozer it would be more effective.

All of the ghosts look Halloweenish, too, with no reason for why they appear and are the way they are.  Take Slimer, for example.  What is that?  Who or what did it used to be?  It looks more like an overgrown toad than a spirit that used to be a human, and what does its slime have to do with anything?  In all the works we’ve read and seen, there’s some kind of explanation – like a vortex in The Grave’s End or the brutal murders that occurred in The Overlook in The Shining – for the hauntings and the spirits’ existence and nature.  But not in Ghostbusters.  No explanation is given for where Slimer came from nor why he is the way he is.  Of course, this is a comedy, and quite a whimsical one, so it didn’t bother me.  I can’t help but think Slimer was a pun of the green slime trope we’ve seen in horror stories, even in this course (most notably in The Amityville Horror where green slime drips down the walls).  Maybe it’s even mocking the stereotype, I dunno.

I was surprised, however, based on the whimsical nature of the movie, that a fairly in-depth explanation and backstory for Gozer was supplied.  In a nutshell, it was that a mad doctor built 55 Central Park West with the intent of summoning the Sumerian god of destruction Gozer in order to destroy humanity, which according to him (the mad doctor) is too sick to live.  So concerning the main plot, an effective reason (or at least a reason) was supplied compared to some of the other movie’s ghosts/spirits and plot points.

Lastly, I want to touch on the ending.  I think it’s impossible for anyone to forget the hilarious Stay Puft Marshmallow Man that attempts to destroy the city.  But how they bring down this terrible mound of marshmallow and the threat of Gozer felt like a cop-out to me – simply shoot the gate where Gozer entered with the energy streams of their proton packs.  Okay, I know that they “merged” the streams, which they weren’t supposed to do, but it still feels like a cop-out.  So they do it at their own risk, and – surprise, surprise – IT WORKS and everybody’s okay!!! Please…Would’ve been funnier if they found a lock on the gate and just turned it or something.  Then Billy Murray could make one of his dry, but always hilarious comments along the lines of: “That’s why you need the Ghostbusters for a job like this.”  Would’ve fit in with the whimsical nature of the movie, in my opinion.

Anyway, all in all I enjoyed the movie, mainly because it's built around the laughs.  The point of it is not to have a point, I think, which makes some of the plot holes and copouts a bit easier to bear.  At least for me.  And that’s also what made it fun, and funny, to watch after reading the books and watching the movies in this course where the reason for the hauntings are carefully developed and explained.  If making a horror story as realistic as possible contributes to making it scary, removing all the realistic factors and making it more whimsical certainly makes it funnier, which is obviously Ghostbusters’s intent.

A Christmas Carol: Nature of the Ghost

Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol is an enduring classic, of course, and the definition or nature of the ghost I think appeals to most people’s definition of one.  Jacob Marley’s ghost describes what it means to be a spirit on page twenty: “’It is required of every man…that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death.  It is doomed to wander through the world – oh, woe is me! – and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!’”  I think this fits the typical definition of a ghost, because it’s the idea that spirits that have some kind of unfinished business must remain on Earth.  According to Marley, a spirit’s job is to travel the Earth and share its happiness with others, but if it doesn’t, then it must tour the Earth forever in death, watching it all, forced to miss out on the happiness it could’ve had.  The only part that seems different to me than the common definition of a ghost is the fact that the spirit must tour the Earth.  In some of the ghost stories we’ve read, like The Amityville Horror, The Shining, etc., spirits have been confined to the house or building they haunt, and I think that tends to be the case for the typical ghost.

            I really like the idea that ghosts are forced to wander the world, but I feel like it wouldn’t necessarily apply to all ghosts.  It does to Marley, and would to Scrooge, based on their lives, though, of course.  The reader learns Marley’s life was a lot like Scrooge’s on page twenty-one: “…My spirit never walked beyond our counting-house – mark me! – in life my spirit never roved beyond the narrow limits of our money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before me!’”  Because Marley was so confined in his life – so obsessed with money – it makes sense why he would have to wander the Earth – to see what other parts of life he missed out on.  But I feel like there would be other types of people in which that punishment wouldn’t make sense.  My initial reaction as I read this part was, What about the people who are too worldly?  Surely they exist.  I’m thinking about the people who get too swept up by everything – they travel the world and get caught up in every little thing it offers to the point where they miss out on important interpersonal relationships, or intimacy with family or even spouses.  These people shouldn’t be doomed to wander the Earth forever, as that’s basically how they spent their life and it didn’t help them with their particular plight.  Instead, they should have a more “confined” afterlife.  Perhaps be destined to follow their spouse or family members around, or be stuck in a regular family household or something.  Something that enriches their depths with people rather than a broad awareness of Earth.  Just something I thought of as I read.

            Another idea in A Christmas Carol that ties into the nature of the ghost is on page twenty-five.  After Marley’s Ghost leaves, Scrooge witnesses phantoms drifting outside his window, all moaning and full of misery.  I found it interesting how Scrooge realizes why they’re so full of misery on page twenty-five.  “The misery with them all was, clearly, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power forever.”  In ways this also sounds like a typical definition of a ghost.  The idea that ghosts try to contact humans, but always have difficulty doing it, or can’t at all.  What I find interesting about this definition, though, is that the ghost tries to do it for good, to benefit people.  In most of the stories we’ve read for this class, the spirits tried to antagonize or hurt the living, although there were a couple exceptions, like in Grave’s End (well, we don’t know for sure if the spirits were benevolent or not, but they appeared to be) and The Lovely Bones (Susie, as a spirit, wants to contact people to comfort them).

And, there you have it, a common take on the ghost with a couple tweaks that makes it different.  Probably a good idea for writers of the ghost story – take an old or “regular” definition and add your own twist.

SOURCE:

Dickens, Charles.  A Christmas Carol.  New York: Penguin Group, 2008.

Paranormal Activity: The Camera Technique

I love this movie.  Probably one of my all-time favorites.  Loved it the first time I saw it, and even though I knew what happened the second time, I still enjoyed it.

I think I like this movie so much because it feels real, like it could actually happen.  This mirrors what Scott said about what makes people enjoy a horror story: the realness of it, as if it could happen to them or somebody they know.  It’s that realness that freaks them out and makes them want to read or watch more.   I definitely got that feeling with Paranormal Activity, and I think a big part of that is because of the camera technique – the idea that it’s being filmed by somebody who’s part of the story.  I think this technique works so well for horror, because it makes the action feel real, like it was really caught on tape by somebody.  And this movie puts that to great use.

Of course, it also can be a bit of a detriment at times.  There were moments (I’ll point one out in a moment) when it seemed odd to me that they’d be filming, but I think it definitely works overall, since the character Micah films because he wants to capture the paranormal activity that has been plaguing him and his girlfriend, Katie, so to speak.  Therefore, when Katie screams off-screen at one point, it didn’t bother me that he picked up the camera and ran to try to film any kind of ghostly action that may be occurring.  Of course, it turned out to be a spider at that moment, but the scene was a nice reminder that they’re filming for a very good reason.

This movie also tackles the “Why don’t they leave?” question at least somewhat well, which is one I’ve been having problems with lately with a lot of the books we’ve been reading in our horror class.  It’s still not without holes, but I think the concept overall is pretty effective: they can’t leave (or at least there wouldn’t be any point in leaving) because the ghost isn’t in the house; it follows Katie wherever she goes.  I can buy this for awhile, but like I said, eventually it still became a bit of a problem for me.  I know Micah’s in love with Katie, but at some point I think they’d try the desperate measure of leaving – even if just for the blind hope that it really is something tied to the house.  You might as well give it a shot, right?  Things got so spooky, I figure they’d be running to friends’ for family, and surrounding themselves with other people, if not merely to feel more comfortable and supported.  But, of course, more people would make the story feel less creepy even if the strange activity continued.

By this time in the movie (towards the end), it also felt odd to me that Micah would still be filming.  I mean, they’ve caught so much activity by this time, what would be the point of any more, especially now that they’re lives seem seriously in jeopardy?  In particular, I’m thinking of the scene when Micah’s talking to Katie on the bed, and she’s speaking in an almost dreamlike state (overall, a very awesome, spooky scene).  By that point it’s obvious that she’s possessed, or at the very least something is horribly wrong with her.  Not only would I not have the camera running, but I’d be fleeing from the place like there was no tomorrow – or at least trying to get this woman to a hospital or something to be checked on (whether or I not even believed she could be helped by doctors).  No matter what, the last thing I’d be doing is filming her and then agreeing not to go anywhere, but to go to sleep, which would totally not be possible at that height of the freakiness.  Then again, that’s my opinion.  But the spook factor of the movie was so high in general that these scenes didn’t bother me that much.  I anticipate other people having differing opinions on that point, though.

Grave's End: Why Don't They Leave?

It was interesting and fun reading this book after The Amityville Horror, and although it’s of course perhaps impossible to know if it’s truly real, it certainly felt a lot more believable to me than The Amityville Horror.  I think it’s because it’s quieter: the things that happen in the house are stretched over a much longer period of time, and the events don’t really escalate in craziness like they did in The Amityville Horror.  They went more in cycles: a few creepy things, then nothing, then a few more creepy things, etc.  Also, even though lots of different things happened in the house (floating objects, “suffocating dreams,” balls of light, images of people, “the Mist,” etc.), for some reason it didn’t feel like it was too much.  Again, I think the reason is because everything was stretched out over time and the “hauntings” were a lot tamer compared to the ridiculous things that happen in The Amityville Horror (green slime, red-eyed pig, etc.).  Then again, the Lutzes thought a demon lived in their house, whereas Elaine and her family always thought they were just regular ghosts or spirits, not necessarily malevolent.  So that can supply a reason for the difference in the hauntings’ nature.  Still, like I said, I found Grave’s End more believable.

Again, something I found hard to believe – like in The Amityville Horror – was the family not leaving the house.  Sure, there were financial reasons and the hauntings weren’t as intense as in The Amityville Horror – at least for the most part – but in my opinion the events were still more than creepy enough that you’d think the family would run away as fast they could.  At least, that’s definitely what I would’ve done.  Like I said, even though Elaine had financial issues, there were still places she and her family could’ve gone and stayed.  So what if they’d be cramped?  A cramped living space is still head-over-heels better than experiencing those freaky things on a somewhat regular basis.  Seriously, how did they ever sleep in that house?  After experiencing only a couple of those things I don’t think I’d ever be able to sleep there again.  Even if I were in the same room with the other family members, like the family did sometimes.  Just doesn’t make sense to me. 

Plus, Elaine is, well, sort of a wimp (not that I wouldn’t be in her position).  At one point she explains how she feels bad about always having to run to a man when things get tough, she apologizes to her daughters for being too clingy and overprotective, she gets courage to ask for a divorce after twenty-two years, etc.  She also says how she was always more freaked out about the place than her daughters.  This is what made me think she’d leave in a heartbeat, so it was another reason I didn’t buy her and her family staying there that whole time.

However, I have to admit that Elaine does give at least one good reason for why they never left, in my opinion.  Her reason is that her daughters grew up in that place, so they became used to it and didn’t want to leave, whereas the hauntings always freaked Elaine out, because she had lived most of her life in regular, “non-haunted” houses.  This works well to convince me later in the novel, but there’s still the fact that these hauntings existed when they first moved in.  And, obviously, they didn’t run from the place even after the original hauntings.  It also negates the reason they give later for not leaving because they have so many friends.  They wouldn’t have had friends when they first moved in, either.  Like I’ve been saying, I just don’t buy that they wouldn’t run the hell away from the place after experiencing just a couple of those creepy hauntings.  And lots of them happened overall!