How to Handle the End Times?

First title in the Eldar Path trilogy

The start of the meta-story, not the end

One of the most interesting comments that has come back regarding Path of the Warrior is the nature of the ending. Without going into spoiler-tastic details, lets just say that while Korlandril’s personal story is concluded, the meta-story of Craftworld Alaitoc is very much left in the balance. This is a deliberate choice based upon the overall structure of the trilogy – across the three books the whole meta-story will be explained and concluded in the final volume -  but it has made me think about endings in general.

On the whole, I almost never tie up every loose end, and sometimes leave a large amount to still be decided by the reader. I just can’t bring myself to do ‘Hollywood’ endings where everything is neatly wrapped up with a bow and presented as a definitive stopping point.

This probably derives from my experience as a world-builder for the Warhammer and 40K games, where the aim is to present information but also include many possibilities for gamers to further explore themselves. It’s a means by which an author can share their world and in some sense hand over part of the control to readers. I really quite like leaving openings for further discussion – where did Item X come from? What happened to Character Y?

Real life rarely gives us neat finishes. There are always few stray threads left lying around after every event, encounter and relationship, some of which never get resolved or can be resolved. It’s the Sopranos approach I suppose.  That is not to say the narrative or story should not have some kind of definable arc and conclusion. There should be some sense of progress, or at least change, from the start to the finish, even if the nature of those changes are not explored to their ultimate extent.

I have taken several approaches to endings in the past. My Warhammer trilogy Slaves to Darkness concludes with a

Shadow King, Book 2 of The Sundering

series of epilogues that leap forward a few years to show what effects the events had on the characters’ lives. (In)famously, Annihilation Squad‘s end is very definitive for the main character, although many people continue to ask what happened to The Colonel and the rest of the Last Chancers (and there are hints as to what might have befallen Kage later on). As with the Path of the Eldar series, the individual volumes of The Sundering leave the narrative at pivotal moments, to be picked up in the other books – though as the third book Caledor will be a proper conclusion to the series. Angels of Darkness has a similarly blunt end for the characters involved, but in recent discussions with Black Library I’ve talked about ways in which the meta-story could be continued if not the individual narratives.

So, Hamsterites, what sorts of endings do you like to write and read? Are they different from each other? What’s your favourite ending (put spoiler warnings if necessary)?

Published in: on July 21, 2010 at 11:38 am  Comments (10)  

Dennis meets Aenarion

New friends for Dennis

Look what the postie brought today. Will listen to the final edit this evening.

Published in: on July 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm  Comments (7)  

The Gaming Contract

I received an email from a chap called Matt a while back and I’ve been working on a proper reply to him, as he asks some very interesting questions. As I can only speak for myself, perhaps other gamers would like to add their answers and views in the comments.

This is a topic that’s been on my mind for awhile and has been brought back to the foreground after ‘Ard Boyz.  The North American blogosphere is divided over how much of an influence tournaments have had over 40k and Fantasy and many seem to feel that ‘Ard Boyz is symptomatic of that.

These events are always majorly competitive with the lists that many people consider to be broken.  To use an example from your own work, Lash of Submission is one such thing.  I have no wish to condemn you over your work on Codex: Chaos Space Marines but wish to use an example you’ll be familiar with.  When dual CSM Sorcerors appeared with Lash and for a time dominated tournaments.  The response that came from GW as a whole that the company was shocked that anyone would do such a thing.  This suggests to me a fundamentally different mindset that we on the other side of the Atlantic aren’t familiar with.

I think you overstate any shock or viewpoint from GW as a whole – or certainly it seems to have come about through a Chinese whispers method. As a developer, I saw it as my job to eliminate obvious abuses while at the same time acknowledging the fact that competitive gamers will always approach any army list with a view to maximum efficiency regardless of other factors such as the background. I don’t have a problem with this, as each competitive player has equal access to all armies and compositions. In short, if a player’s only consideration is winning games and a particular army and selection fulfils this criteria I would expect them to field that army. As turns out, aesthetic, background and other considerations come into play for all but the most hardcore of players, and so variety is maintained. It would be a sad day if everybody decided that double-lash Chaos Marines were the way to go and that was all you saw in tournaments; proof from the frontline suggests that this is not the case thankfully.

I would like to know how the Games Workshop team (present and former) approach actually playing games of 40k and Fantasy.  I have tried reading Jervis Johnson’s Standard Bearer articles.  However, he is writing from a different cultural mindset and there are certain unspoken assumptions in his writing that don’t exist over here.

I would disagree that the cultural divide you describe is as pronounced as you seem to think. The greatest difference between the UK and US is simply one of size. The dispersion of the US gaming community over a much wider area creates a certain bias towards organised events (usually tournaments) and a tournament-heavy internet community, but I do not think that the competitive mindset is massively more prevalent than anywhere else. It was from large ‘garage floor’ games held by many US gamers that the inspiration for Apocalypse arose, for instance.

What I do find particular about the US approach to gaming, as in others areas of US culture, is a leaning towards statutory, rules-based solutions. Even in non-tournament environments, there is a desire for absolute clarity from outside, and an underlying suspicion of compromise and solutions agreed between the players themselves. Put another way, US gamers have a tendency to want independent, blanket arbitration even on issues that can be simply resolved on a case-by-case or local basis. In law, in sports rules and even just in society, there’s a definite bias towards rules-based solutions rather than behavioural changes; or the acceptance that sometimes things need to be fudged to work.

With regard to Jervis’ articles, the cultural difference is due more to generation and experience than any geographical location. As a long-time gamer, Jervis and other senior folks at GW cut their teeth in a very different environment to the one that exists in Warhammer, 40K and The Lord of the Rings today. Coming from a mainly historical wargaming perspective, with very few rulesets universally adopted, the previous generation of gamers depended upon doing their own research, amassing army composition and painting information from many different sources,  and creating their own rules far more than those who have been nurtured on the teat of boxed starter sets and all-in-one Army Books and Codexes. As a child of Rogue Trader, my gaming maturation occurred during a period of shift between the one and the other, and the experience of having to fend for oneself to a much greater extent still remains with me.

Tournament play has been a part of wargaming for decades, but for the majority of the time it has been a subset of the community, with the majority of wargamers refighting historical battles, ‘what if’ scenarios and with an unspoken convention of narrative and accuracy as informed by history and study. Wargaming was indivisible from the love of history, whereas today the gaming aspect of toy soldiers (particularly in a fictional world such as 40K) has become more abstract, and often an end in its own right.

No one particular style of play is given prominence over another in terms of games development policy. This can cause problems, because the needs and demands of different sorts of gamers can be very contradictory, and added to that are the competing requirements of novice and veteran gamers. At the heart of it, GW games were created to allow fans to collect, paint and game with cool toy soldiers, expressing the stories and imagery of the universes on the tabletop. Just as a military enthusiast might want to collect a Republican Roman Legion and live out their exploits in miniature, a 40K enthusiast can collect an army of Ultramarines and do the same for the fictional background.

Beyond this basic principle there is the desire to allow people from all over the world to come together and play their games on a common ground. Everybody plays the same game. In this sense, the tournament approach starts to make itself felt. Coming together with your friends, devising armies and a scenario based on a historical event or speculative encounter before you play takes preparation and commitment. Conversely, having pre-defined army lists and an agreed framework of battles allows players who have never met before to put their models on the table and start playing with the minimum of fuss. This is the ‘pick up’ game, and it is this more than tournaments that I feel has changed wargaming.

In order to ensure such pick up games give each player a reasonable chance of victory, issues of game and army balance come into the equation. However, such a consideration must always be tempered against the first principle – that of players being given freedom to collect and paint the toy soldiers that they like and to recreate the battles they envisage. Such is the nature of this conflict that balance between the two demands will never be perfect. At one end of the spectrum is giving players free rein to collect what they like regardless of the gaming consequences; at the other is heavily restricted force compositions that ensure a fair fight but tell people what they have to collect. Individual rulesets and army list styles sway along that spectrum.

I have no desire to ask you to reveal details covered by an NDA.  I only wish to be informed of the mindset that goes into the game as GW employees and the British wargaming community at large plays 40k and Fantasy.  What reasoning determines what miniatures you acquire and paint? What determines what units you put on a table? How do you go about writing a list? Does your opponent have any say in your list or do you have a neutral third party create your lists? How do you set up the board and determine win/loss conditions? How much terrain do you use? Do you do unique scenarios often? Does the British wargaming community do tournaments as well or do they do more story-based campaigns.

There is no single answer to these questions, either personally or as a community. I think that British wargamers are just as diverse as any others, and as prone to tournament mentality or narrative play as anybody else. There is a thriving tournament scene in the UK, some of which are free-for-all like the ‘Ard Boyz, some of which have additional composition restrictions and scenarios to create what the organisers see as a more level playing field.

No single approach, to gaming, events or tournaments is going to fit everybody. The issue GW must address is how to stream this varied message to the relevant parts of the gaming community. Take War Machine, for example. Designed as a no-holds-barred CCG with miniatures, it revels in its status as a competitive game and a ‘death to the weaklings’ approach. ‘Ard Boyz and other non-restricted tournaments take a similar approach. Conversely, GW games also address those who want to play campaigns, or design their own scenarios, or use ‘counts as’ armies to explore parts of the worlds for which miniatures don’t yet exist, or provide opportunity for those whose passion is simply for painting and modelling, and every shade in between.

GW does not take this decision for gamers, but endeavours (to greater or lesser success) to provide materials that the gamers can then do with as they wish. It is at this point that the gamers take responsibility for their own hobby and recognise what it is they want to get out of it. A major part of this is finding a group of like-minded gamers who are seeking the same thing, so that conflicts of what the players want to get out of their games do not arise.

And to come back to your first point, this is where I think tournaments and competitive gaming get a disproportionate amount of influence and press. Those players who are happy with a more freeform approach, who have found a comfortable gaming club or group of regular opponents are not thrown into the potential conflict of fresh opponents every weekend that tournaments and in-store pick up games might create. Their issues are resolved amicably and quietly between friends, rather than debated hotly over internet forums and with tournament umpires.

I would say that the first part of any gaming contract is with yourself and comes about from exploring what gaming has to offer and admitting without fear of prejudice what it is you like and don’t like from your games. Having done this, you are in a position to seek out those venues and opponents that are most likely to share your goals. Nobody should feel apologetic if they love the tactical challenge and the gaming aspect far above the other parts of the hobby, in the same vein that Golden Demon painting winners don’t feel the need to apologise for not being awesome generals on the tabletop. Regardless of aim, players should conduct themselves with reasonable decorum and do not seek to judge or denigrate the gaming preferences of others. For most of us, we exist in that fuzzy area between all of the extremes, enjoying the gaming, collecting, painting, background and beer in roughly equal measure.

Within that overall context, my choices as a gamer and a games developer are different. As a professional developer it was my job to weigh up the different demands, and the games I played covered the spectrum from trying to break lists to ensuring themed armies were characterful and entertaining. As my natural inclination is towards the narrative end of the spectrum, I was very keen to make use of others whose outlook was from a more competitive standpoint – and even if I disagreed with them I hope that they understand how much I valued their input and dedication.

On a personal level, I am moving back to a less organised and structured approach to gaming, reclaiming some of the spirit of invention and imagination that drew me into this hobby in the first place. I’m still firmly of the mind that I’ll do what I want with my soldiers and games; I don’t need anyone else’s permission (expect my opponents!) and I don’t need outside authority to legitimise my choices. I have some lofty ideas and plans, but unfortunately at the moment don’t quite have the time to push them through to fruition – but that’s the same for most folks, isn’t it?

Published in: on July 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm  Comments (11)  

Roundy Update

Time for a whistle-stop tour round the life of Gav and Dennis and associated miscreants.

First of all, a hearty congratulations to my pal and fellow author Graham McNeill, for winning the David Gemmell Legends award last Friday. I’d say it couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke, but I’ve met him… Only kidding, Big Man!

It is also appropriate that I give my much-delayed thanks for the organisers of Alt.Fiction, which I attended a couple of weekends ago. It was good to meet some of my fellow Angry Robot authors, plus numerous other folk from this business we call writing, including the (in)famous Ian Watson. All-in-all I had a great day, and wish everyone involved my best wishes for future events.

Also I should say thanks to the folks of GW Bristol for the signing last Saturday, and another hello to Chris Wraight. I hope the wolf-wrangling goes well, mate.

What have I been up to since the last update? Mostly, editing and writing. I received the copy-edit back for The Crown of the Blood, which thankfully picked up a few continuity gaffes I had allowed through. Much appreciated. A mix up of manuscript versions threatened to put a big spanner in the works, but the Compare Documents function of MSWord came to the rescue; along with two days of re-entering changes. As far as I know, that’s it for TCOTB for me, until I get my greasy little paws on some sample copies. With classic British understatement, let me just say that I’m looking forward to that moment.

I had my first Horus Heresy meeting with the Black Library last week. Now that I’ve learnt the secret handshakes and the codewords, I’ve been made privy to the great secrets of the 30th millennium. I can’t say too much at the moment (because I don’t know all that much and most of what I know is speculative and vague) but I can confirm that I will be joining the series with a novel. Whether or not that novel might follow-up on events of the Raven’s Flight audiobook, I shall leave to your rampant speculation for the moment. By the end of the day, I was buzzing with ideas and it is in a great part thanks to the other authors at the table – cheers Aaron, Dan, Graham and Jim (as well as the non-writers present). First tricky job: come up with a title for the book.

I’ve been chugging away through The Crown of the Conqueror since then (it’s weird to see books up on Amazon and the like that I’ve not even written yet!). It’s terribly behind schedule, but thanks to the break in the Angry Robot releases due to the reorganisation, I don’t think anyone has noticed yet. My routine has been turned around a bit recently, with most of the writing happening in the morning, leaving me free to watch the FIFA World Cup in the afternoon. Here’s hoping England actually turn up this afternoon…

I can’t get too slack though. After The Crown of the Conqueror I need to do some synopsis work (Path of the Seer and the third AR book, The Crown of the Usurper). No dallying around for me this summer, because I’ll be launching into Caledor after that. The Sundering has been gaining lots of fans, so I need to make sure this final installment is everything people are expecting and more. No pressure, then? And somewhere amongst that lot I’ll be getting the copy-edit of The Purging of Kadillus. Hopefully there’ll not be too much to do with that.

Right, time to resurrect an ancient, dead empire and raze a city. See you on the flip side.

Published in: on June 23, 2010 at 10:09 am  Comments (5)  

Path of the Warrior Signings

First title in the Eldar Path trilogyWith the release of my latest novel, Path of the Warrior, I’ll be hitting the road again. Last Saturday was spent with the good folk (and possibly not so good folk, you can never tell) of  Birmingham. First up was a hectic signing at the GW Birmingham store. Theere were plenty of copies of Path of the Warrior to scribble on, and nice to see a fair number of Malekith, Shadow King and Angels of Darkness too.

After that, it was on to the UK Games Expo, as part of a panel of contributors signing copies of Family Games: 100 Best; alongside fellow former GW Developer Alessio Cavatore, and industry luminaries Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson. To be fair, Ian and Steve were the main event, but Alessio and I did get to sign a few books. Alessio did his best to convince Ian to try out his new game, Shuuro, but I don’t know if he was successful…  Was good to meet up with some old and current associates. Neil Roberts, who most of you will know for his glorious Horus Heresy covers, the always-lovely Ralph Horsley, and fellow author Jonathan Green were amongst those I was chatting to. So much chatting, in fact, that I barely had time to run around and buy some board games before the stands closed…

Here’s some pics from GW – my camera’s memory card was full by the time I got to the Expo, more’s the pity. I think I need to buy one with more capacity.

The Patient English

Everybody say "Korlandril!"

Alt.Fiction

This Saturday I’ll be up the road in Derby, for the genre extravaganza that is Alt.Fiction. For fans of sci-fi, fantasy, horror it’s one of the best conventions in the UK. Check out the list of authors and other guests! As well as hobnobbing with fans and rubbing shoulders with some of the genre’s finest, I’ll be doing a number of other things. If you’re attending, you can pin me down at these times:

1pm- Podcast – Tie-In Fiction

With Simon Guerrier, James Goss, and some reprobate called Graham McNeill.

2pm - Angry Robot Readings

World exclusive first reading from The Crown of the Blood, along with Ian Whates, Andy Remic and Mike Shevdon.

4pm – Local Author Signing

Alongside Kim Lakin-Smith, Mark Chadbourn, Graham Joyce.

When not at these places, I’ll be hanging about, very likely near a bar somewhere. Come and say hello, I won’t bite.

More GW Signings

The following weekend I will be at GW Bristol with Warhammer author Chris Wraight. We’ll be signing from 12pm-2pm, so come along for a chat.

More dates to follow (I hope).

Published in: on June 8, 2010 at 10:17 am  Comments (2)  

Aaaaand… Scene!

So, craft won the vote, with creativity second place. The peeps have spoken and the hamster will reflect the will of the populace.

The building block of a story is not a sentence, or a paragraph, it is the scene. A story could be a single scene, it could be hundreds, but regardless of how long the story is the reader interacts with the narrative through a succession of scenes as they explore the world, get to know the characters and follow the plot.

Smooth and by the Numbers

A well-executed scene is like a well-executed special forces mission. Stick with me here. For success, the writer must identify the objective, choose the right gear, smoothly enter the fray and withdraw without any fuss. Some writers may have these factors pre-planned, others might go into the scene in ad-hoc fashion and improvise their way through. Often, it will be a combination of both, with a general idea of what is going to happen but the precise details not known until the fighting, I mean writing, commences.

And like a good military operation, the debrief is vital. When neck-deep in the white-hot turmoil of the scene, things happen that were unforeseen, and it is hard to keep a clear head. In the calmer moments of the read-through and edit, it is important to evaluate each scene, judge its success and make changes as required.

Hit Hard, Hit Fast

Highlighting the objective is perhaps the element most commonly overlooked. Writers will have an idea of what the scene will do to move the plot along, either in mind or already conceived in a synopsis. Narrative is not simply a matter of plot, but also character and setting. Every scene should include something that furthers the reader’s understanding of all three.

A scene may be heavily weighted in favour of one element or another, but it should never neglect the other two. This is not as difficult as it might appear, because by the nature of writing every scene takes place somewhere (setting), shows the characters (er, character!) doing something (plot).

The two things I see occurring frequently in novice fiction are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Sometimes the writer will produce a scene that is purely plot-driven, and forgets to immerse the reader with the setting or involve the characters in any way other than as vehicles for the plot. On the flip side, sometimes the writer will lavish love and care on the setting and characters, layering description and dialogue into a wonderful tableau, but will totally forget to move the plot on at all. The scene becomes a nice bit of window dressing.

The way to counter this is to ask yourself questions either before or during the scene (and after whilst editing). Does the reader have a sense of where the scene is taking place? In what emotional state are the characters in the scene, and what effect do the events of that scene have on that state? What has the reader learned about the story that they did not know before the scene started?

Most importantly, what reaction do you want the reader to feel as they read the scene?

For example, you may wish to create sympathy for a character, or turn the reader against him or her.  A setting-heavy scene might be conceived to induce a sense of wonder or dread or excitement. Sometimes a scene is needed to draw plot threads together, reminding the reader of everything that is going on, the stakes at play and the consequences of the characters’ failure or success.

Just as the underlying story is built on a platform of conflict, so each scene must serve to further or resolve those conflicts. This may be internal and straightforward – an enemy to be physically overcome – or it could be external and complex – characters confronted by emotional and moral problems brought about by themselves or other characters – and everything inbetween. The conflict can be an argument, a death, a piece of news, a birth, a fight, a terrible realisation, or any number of other things. A scene that has no inherent conflict is just stuff happening, not a part of the story.

Boots on the Ground

Often the most daunting part of a scene is getting it started. It can be the dread-inspiring barrier of the blank page, over and over, throughout the whole story. I often know what needs to happen in a scene and why, but can sit around doing nothing for ages as I work out the best way to guide the reader into the action. There are several ways to introduce each scene, and though it would be awesome if there were hard and fast rules regarding which worked best in which situations, writing isn’t that simple. The important thing to remember is to ensure that you don’t fall back on the same solution every single time. Repetition will make you look lazy even if you aren’t.

In media res is used to describe a story that starts in the middle of the action, and it can be used for individual scenes as well. The opening lines plunge the reader into the thick of what is going on, and then as the scene unfolds the narrative backtracks to fill in the blanks of what the reader has missed. It’s a good technique to use if the reader has a firm idea from previous scenes as to what is going to happen; if it’s inevitable that a fight is going to happen from what occurred two chapters earlier, for instance, then it should not be too confusing for the reader to be thrown into that fight once it is well underway. The downside with using this opening too much is that the story will become a patchwork, jumping forward a lot and then retreating to explain the missing parts in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back manner. Overuse can also mean that the narrative cause-and-effect is continually reversed, so that the reader is left with seeing lots of effect without having a good understanding of why things have happened. To get around this, the writer has to use exposition to fill in the blanks because they did not take the time to explain things as they were going along.

A variant of this approach is the opening line of dialogue. Having a character say something is a nice and simple way of kicking off a scene. This works well if you don’t envisage there being a lot of dialogue in the opening. Why’s that? Because at some point you will still have to tell the reader where the characters are and what they are doing. It comes around to the backtracking I just mentioned, and if done too late the dialogue is left hanging in a vacuum, a conversation without context; but if there’s ongoing dialogue it will get broken up by the description of the scene and lose its flow. Often writers will get around this by drip-feeding the description of the scene and characters through the dialogue. This can work well if what the characters are saying and doing merge together naturally and the dialogue is used to segue into the description.

For instance, the characters may have arrived at a new location. One of them says, “Well, would you look at that.” This gives the writer a route to describe what to look at. That’s a crude example, but by having characters interact with their environment, the dialogue and description can blend together.

This is not a good approach if the dialogue is very important. If you want the reader to concentrate on what the characters are saying, it’s not a good idea to be constantly interrupting their focus with snippets of other information or dropping in a big block of description part-way through. For this reason, one of the best methods of opening a scene is with simple description.

“It was a dark and stormy night…” is a cliché, but its heart is in the right place. There is nothing wrong or lazy about opening a scene with a paragraph or two that does the simple job of describing the setting, the present characters and their actions. Just remember that the description is not purely a one-way dump of information for the benefit of the writer; there may be purely mechanical requirements of time and place but that does not preclude being evocative or talking about the characters. It is possible to mix up this description, so that the physical is related alongside the emotional, laying out not only the place but the state of the characters and their relationship to their surroundings. Don’t just describe the front of the haunted house as the characters walk up the path, describe their sensations and feelings as they do so. Our experience of our environment is only a small part physical, our perception constructed also on emotion, memory and motive.

Lastly, there is narrative voice, or what might be called an info-dump or exposition. A lot of writing guides will tell people to avoid these at all costs, but frankly they are wrong. Sometimes the best way to move the reader along to the cool part of the scene is to be up front about what’s happened, how we got here and why. I say this not because pages full of exposition are good writing, but because pages full of pointless dialogue and action trying not be exposition are not good writing either.

We’ve all come across those sections in stories where the characters are clearly talking to each other about something that they would have no need to discuss in-world, purely for the benefit of explaining things to the reader. It’s poor. As a writer, do not be afraid of your narrative voice. You are not restricted to using characters as your mouthpiece. If the army had to stay in camp for twelve days because of blizzards, just tell the reader and get on with the cool stuff, don’t labour the point by having a whole scene of characters in a blizzard talking about how they can’t do anything. If you are going to include that scene, it has to have some impact on the story greater than conveying a piece of simple information – back to what I said at the start about each scene adding to setting and characters as well as plot.

Gear Up and Roll Out

Having identified the objectives of the mission, you have a number of tools at your disposal to achieve them. The perspective you take, the amount of dialogue, the style and quantity of description all perform different tasks to better or worse effect. Choosing which tools to use is at the heart of writing.

One huge consideration is the matter of perspective. The whole story may have a generally applied perspective which must be adhered to – first-person being a prime example – but even with third-person the style of perspective used, or the number of different perspectives employed, alter the scope of the scene considerably. In general, the more personal the scene, the narrower the perspective; the larger the scene, the more omniscient the voice or the more numerous the character perspectives required. In short, if you’re inside the character’s head the reader will be getting a very narrow, personal view of events, which is good for depth but not for breadth, unless your character is in the advantageous position of having a good view of what’s going on. On the flip side, a wide-angle lens of the scene gives good overview but tends to gloss over the finer points of what the characters are doing.

It is possible to shift perspectives within a scene, though think long and hard about this, and whether the change of perspective is in fact a change of scene. I think very visually, almost cinematically about scenes. Changes of perspective can be achieved by imagining a mental camera pointed at the action. It can move around and show different things, but it also has a zoom function. As an example, one of my first short stories, The Faithful Servant, starts by following a flock of carrion birds over the aftermath of a battle, spiralling down until the protagonist comes into view, at which point his perspective can take over. Conversely, you might start with a close-up shot (remember that’s emotionally as well as physically in terms of description), which then opens out to reveal the wider scene; which in turn could then shift on to somebody else.

Choose how to reveal the information within the scene appropriately. It is at this point that the show-don’t-tell maxim starts to make itself felt. Once your perspective has settled on a narrower front, the characters’ words and actions become the description, showing how they feel as well as what they are doing. Don’t over-qualify by showing something and then telling the reader the same thing. If a character is crying, you don’t have to mention that they are sad. If they are laughing, it literally goes without saying that they are amused.

Just as each scene has its part to play in the overall story, each line of description, each exchange of dialogue should serve to either enrich the setting, move the plot along or develop the reader’s sense of the characters. In particular, when writing dialogue remember subtext and the simple fact that real people often don’t say exactly what they mean or precisely what they are thinking. You can use this to build internal conflict, as characters show their feelings or hide them, have moments of honesty or deception. What they say, what they do and what they think may be contradictory, and as the narrator you manipulate this to paint the picture you want the reader to see; you can choose to give the reader information the characters are not privy to; you can outright misdirect your reader; you can present different versions of events from one scene to another. As a writer, you are not beholden to explain everything; just enough will do nicely.

Get to the Choppa!

One of the greatest challenges I face when writing is not how to start, but how to stop. Having identified your objectives, chosen the right tools, you hit the ground running and execute a perfect scene. The only problem is how you get out of their before it goes pear-shaped. Having an effective exit strategy means that you end the scene where you want to; it doesn’t drag on past its usefulness and it doesn’t get cut short before the job has been done.

All of the comments about starting a scene apply equally to ending one. The final line of dialogue, the last poignant description, the parting comment or cliffhanger make an incredible difference. Whether the scene ends on a high or a low, on a dramatic revelation or a moment of conclusion, all ties in to what the scene was about. The way you end the scene will probably have more impact than they way you started it, because it is the final impression left on the reader before you move elsewhere.

For this reason, the chosen exit strategy must be based firmly on the objectives you set out to accomplish. Do you want to make the reader sad? End on a low point, everybody in tears, the future bleak. Do you want to shock the reader? End with something unexpected and then get the hell out of there. Do you want the reader to be contemplative, concerned, laughing, relaxed, tense? The final few lines will reinforce your efforts throughout the previous scene if done well, and completely undermine it if chosen poorly.

And with that, I shall leave you to ponder…

Published in: on June 2, 2010 at 1:22 pm  Comments (4)  

A Poll-try Effort

I realise it’s been a while since I’ve posted any writerly insights here, so I’ve resolved to find some time to rectify that. Riding the last waves of the UK General Election vibe, I thought I’d leave it up to you lot to tell me what you’re most interested in reading about (plus I haven’t used the poll feature in more than a year and it’s getting dusty).

So, would-be writers and fans alike, what would you like to know more about?

Behind-the-scenes: The less glamourous aspects of being a career writer, such as planning, editing, feedback, marketing and so on.

Creativity: How to use and abuse archetypes, create characters and plot, expand themes, develop settings and that sort of stuff.

Craft: Actual writing technique, turning ideas into words, creating scenes and the use of language.

Presenting ideas: The processes of synopsis creation, pitching ideas, finding creative space and establishing author identity.

Feel free to post other suggestions in the comments.

Published in: on May 21, 2010 at 11:58 am  Comments (5)  

The Crown of the Blood Release News

Just a quickie. Angry Robot, the imprint publishing my first non-BL novel, is leaving the fold at HarperCollins and joining forces with Osprey Publishing. Read the full details here: http://angryrobotbooks.com/2010/05/angry-robots-changes-the-faq/

What does this mean for Gav and Dennis? Nothing major. The move across to Osprey/ Random House distribution will result in a short break in releases, including The Crown of the Blood. Rather than coming out at the end of this month, TCOTB will be in stores in the UK when the releases begin again in September. U.S. dates will be confirmed over the summer.

I for one welcome our new bird of prey masters.

And for MarkT – I guess this explains why your store has had some difficulty ordering through HC lately!

Despite the delay, I’ve still got to crack on with book two – The Crown of the Conqueror. No rest for the wicked, and all that.

Published in: on May 11, 2010 at 10:15 am  Comments (5)  

Recent Activity

Hello Hamsterites!

It’s been a while, so I thought an update was in order. Having finally delivered a semi-secret Sundering project to Black Library a couple of weeks ago, I’ve been steadily working on The Crown of the Conqueror, book two of The Crown of the Blood series for Angry Robot. On that note, I am looking forward to the UK and Australia release of The Crown of the Blood on 27th May. Just about three weeks to go! Ain’t it exciting?

The cover for the Aenarion audiobook has been previewed on the Black Library Blog, along with the art for my Space Marine Battles novel The Purging of Kadillus. Good stuff from Jon Sullivan I think you will agree. In other BL news, I spent some time last week with editors Nick Kyme and Christian Dunn, discussing armfuls of potential future projects, including novellas, audiobooks, short stories and, of course, more novels. For those that keep asking, Horus Heresy work did crop up and there will hopefully be more to announce in the months to come on that front. I also talked to Nick about other Time of Legends subjects to be tackled after I’m done with The Sundering, the possibility of another 40K series and some one-off novel ideas. Even discounting the vague ‘yeah, that’d be good’ stuff on the list, my schedule has filled up nicely for the next two years!

In web-related news, I’ve just participated in the latest SF Signal Mind Meld, discussing the best spaceships in written science fiction. Be sure to check this out and add your own suggestions in the comments.

Along with Alessio Cavatore and other notable games designers, I plan to be signing copies of Family Games: The 100 Best at the UK Games Expo on June 6th.

Last by no means least, I will be making an appearance at the Alt.Fiction convention in Derby on Saturday 12th June.

Watch this space for more event and signings info for the summer.

Reading: Just finished Generation Kill, highly recommended. Having a bit of a comics binge at the moment. Working my way through Joss Whedon’s run on Astonishing X-men and really enjoying it even though I’m not a huge super hero fan. Also reading The Boys, full of typical Garth Ennis savaging of the super hero genre. Also full marks for Kick Ass, a really smart story, great-looking comic. Now that Generation Kill is out of the way, I’ll be getting on with Matter by Iain M. Banks.

Watching: Hard Target, an adaptation of the DC Comics title. Slightly better-than-average fare, with some solid stories and a subtle but intriguing arc. Loving the character of Guerrero. Fringe is hotting up nicely. Can’t believe there are only three episodes of Lost to go – they’re going to have to cram in a lot of stuff, it’s sure to be a wild ride. 24 is very up and down, terribly predictable at the moment, but still supplying some good Jack Bauer moments.

Published in: on May 5, 2010 at 10:02 am  Comments (6)  

SSS – Sloppy Synopsis Syndrome

A typical planning day

As those who follow me on Twitter/ Facebook will have realised, my last project was, at times, a bit of a headbreaker. It took about half as long again as I expected (and planned), which has put my ongoing schedule under a lot of pressure.

What was the problem? Well, when people ask me about writing I usually summarise my process as think-write-think. That is synopsis-write-edit.

You’ll notice that I don’t include thinking as part of the writing… If I have to think and write at the same time, my pace slows down to a crawl. Not only do I get wrenched out of the creative flow, I get frustrated, I can’t think straight and so the problem takes even longer to solve.

This happened on my last project.

The cause is easy to indentify in retrospect. You can probably guess by the title of this post what that cause was. There was a line in the synopsis which blithely assumed a sequence of events in a single sentence. As it turned out, this one line (one line!) needed about 8,000 words to resolve in the actual piece. In a 30,000 word novella, that’s a big chunk of the story that I had not worked out.

I ran into similar issues in The Blades of Chaos. The synopsis called for a character to do a particular thing, but I hadn’t sat down and worked out precisely how she was going to do it. It became such a roadblock during the writing that I ended up skipping the chapter, finishing the rest of the novel and then going back to fill in the gap.  I could do this because the result of the action was known. This wasn’t the case with this latest oversight – the process by which the characters were going to achieve this aim had huge ramifications for the rest of the story.

I am sure I will repeat this error again. After all, I can be a slow learner at times, and sometimes the schedule pressures for synopsis mean that you cannot think through every detail up front. Most of the time it doesn’t matter. Now and then – at least once per project for anything longer than a short story in my experience – it will catch you out.

So, as I start writing The Crown of the Conqueror (yes, I’m writing book 2 of The Crown of the Blood before the first one is released!) I am spending a couple of days sifting through the synopsis, looking for those little assumptions that could turn into major pitfalls. It is my reckoning that the time spent doing that now will more than pay itself back when I start the actual writing later this week. If two days now saves me a week of low productivity and angst later, I’ll take it.

Published in: on April 20, 2010 at 10:33 am  Leave a Comment