Sonship and Servanthood: Being vs Doing

(Song to listen to while reading this: Breathe by Jonny Diaz. Or after, if you prefer not to multitask or want to focus on the words of this post and the words of the song.)

One of the main differences in being a son compared to being a servant is that a servant has to work to maintain his position. That is the definition of a servant.

On the other hand, a son doesn't have to 'do' in order to stay as a son. All a son has to do to be a son is just that - be a son. There is nothing a son can do to make him any more or any less a son. He is a son.

We see an example of this in the parable of the prodigal son:

I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants. So he got up and went to his father.
But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. - Luke 15:11-32 (NIV)

In this story, the son wanted to come home and serve his father. He wanted to do. He didn't think he could be a son any more - he thought he had to do in order to be worthy of anything. But he hadn't realized that being a son is not dependent on what he did or didn't do. He was his father's son.

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” - Luke 10:38-42 (NIV)

We see here Martha acting as a servant and Mary being a daughter. Mary was not needing to do anything. All that she needed to was to just be and sit at Jesus's feet.

Servants need to do.

Sons and daughters can just be.

(If you haven't listened to the song, go listen now - Breathe by Jonny Diaz)

The Two Questions: A Framework

I was planning some more posts for the future (some of them requested by readers ... er, a reader, singular) and I realized that this framework is applicable to many of them. So it's in its own post so that I can easily refer back to it.

When discussing an issue, there are two big questions to ask:

1. What should we believe about this issue? (or, what is truth?)
2. What should we do about this issue? (or, how then shall we live?)

It's important to ask both of these questions together. Neither of them should be separated from the other for very long.

The reason is that my actions follow my beliefs. If my beliefs are wrong, then my actions will also be wrong. If my beliefs are right, then my actions will be right.

It's unfair to expect people to act in a right way if they have wrong beliefs. If they don't have the proper grounding in what is true, then of course they won't act in a way consistent with the truth that they don't have.

That's why it's impossible to legislate right actions. A law may increase right actions, but it is very difficult to completely eliminate wrong actions. That's because making a law about something doesn't change people's beliefs about it. The reason that some people's actions do change is because of their belief that 'I should follow the law' or, at the very least, 'I will be punished if I do not follow the law'.

It also goes the other way. If my beliefs inspire my actions, then conversely, my actions should reflect my beliefs. And someone should be able to correctly identify my beliefs based on a knowledge of my actions. (Matthew 7:16)

So why is it important to ask these two questions together?

We can't just ask question 1. If we don't follow it up with question 2, then it remains nothing more than a belief. (Okay ... it will influence our actions, even if we don't realise it is. But I think it's still a good idea to clarify what our actions should be, based on our beliefs. Plus, it acts as a check on our beliefs.)

We can't just ask question 2. As I've already said, we can't come to a correct understanding of what we should do if we don't first have a correct understanding of what is true.

There are some issues where Christians (or people who call themselves Christians) disagree. I feel like applying this framework in those situations could help to allow both sides to understand each other better. Are we disagreeing about an issue because our beliefs differ? If so, then we should inspect Scripture to discover what the truth is (or whether it is an issue on which Christians can legitimately disagree). If we agree in our beliefs and it is our actions that differ, then we can affirm our common ground, stop calling each other names, and work through why we respond to the issue differently. (Which, I imagine, is probably because of other beliefs that interact with our belief about the issue.)

So, next time you are faced with an issue, stop and ask these two questions:
1. What is the truth?
2. How then shall we live?

Definitions
right: consistent with Biblical teaching and principles
wrong: not consistent with Biblical teaching and principles
belief: what you think is true
action: what you do

On Proving the Nonexistence of God

Let us assume that a divine being exists. Furthermore, this divine being, in addition to being immaterial and supernatural, is also omnipotent and omniscient.

Any divine being possessing these characteristics could blind any non-divine being as to the existence of the divine being, and, if they wished, could make it appear that they never existed. Therefore, it is impossible for any non-divine being to prove the nonexistence of a divine being.

"Ah!" but the sceptic says. "If it is impossible for me to disprove a divine being, it is equally impossible for you to prove one."

Not so. The reason that a divine being can't be disproved is that the possibility of the prescence of a divine being brings any natural processes into question. If we start from the assumption that there is no divine being, then there is no supernatural to confuse the natural.

This reason doesn't prove a divine being, any more than it disproves one. All it does is disprove the disprovability of a divine being.

In summary: A divine being could hide itself, so we can't say there isn't one.

^ ^ ^ That's what I thought of while practicing violin today. It doesn't take into account why a divine being would want to hide their existence, but I didn't think it was necessary in order to make my argument clear.

Any critiques? Thoughts? Feel free to play devil's advocate :)

More than Epicness

Epicness is not a bad thing. Detailed worldbuilding, sweeping grandeur, and amazing scenes can create a compelling story. The detailed languages of Tolkien's world make it feel authentic. The sheer size of Erebor, of Cirith Ungol, of Minas Tirith, awe us. The finality of the last march of the Ents, of the death-ride of the Rohirrim, can make our hearts burn within our chests and our fists tighten. Tolkien's work resounds with epicness.

But epicness alone isn't enough. Epicness can be a taster to draw in readers, but it shouldn't be the full meal. Give a reader an epic story, and they'll probably remember it. But after it's been read enough times, the epicness wears thin. Reading about the same amazing scenes and magnificent structures over and over again can get tiring.

But not theme. The best books are those that can be read over and over again, each time picking up some new nugget of meaning and insight, some new thread of hope, some new morsel of mental or spiritual food.

Epicness doesn't do that. But theme does. As does characterisation, which is implicitly linked – I believe – with theme. You can't have a resonant theme without strong characters – at least, not without it feeling forced and contrived. Artificial.

Great stories should have great themes. If a reader is going to take the time to read your story, take the time to give them something meaningful, something worthwhile, out of it.

I'm not against epicness. Give your stories all the epicness you can imagine. Make epicness run home to its momma crying. (Semi-inside joke, if you didn't get it). But give them something that will stay with them forever.

Sacrifice

This is the first in a (hopefully) series of posts co-written by me and fellow teenage author, R. A. H. Thacker, who can be found at Sunset Rising. This post can also be found at his blog.

No, we’re not talking about human sacrifice. Or maybe we are. But we’re actually talking about self-sacrifice–and not some suicidal tribal custom, either. More specifically, how to use it in fiction.

Why does sacrifice stir our hearts? Why does it affect us like nothing else? Because it is a reflection–a representation–of the greatest sacrifice, of Jesus Christ dying for his creation on a cruel cross on Calvary.

When should a sacrifice be used?

It depends on the specific case. If the story is about sacrifice–and the main character learns that he has to give himself up for others–then the climax will be a likely place for it to fit.

However, a story may not be about sacrifice, but sacrifice may still be part of it. In this case, it should be able to fit anywhere in the story–but it depends on the context.

A character could come to realize that he should be willing to sacrifice himself–not simply sacrificing others. As an example from one of my own novels, I (Robert) had a character come to a crossroads. He was a contestant in something like a bloodsport game. He was faced with a decision that had no turning back from–no second choice if he messed up. He could sacrifice himself for his friends–those he had come to know during the bloodsport–and in the process die himself. Or he could decide to let them be killed and go on himself. Out of love, he gave himself up. Both good and grief came from it, but ultimately it turned out to be the best decision for them all. If things had not turned out for good in his sacrifice, it would still have had no less meaning–life was the greatest thing he had. He had fought for it since he could walk. But then he had given up what he had coveted most for what he had found to be truly what was meaningful to him, his brethren around him.

Sacrifice doesn’t always have to result in death, although often it will. Self-sacrifice can be illustrated through characters just by patient service–being willing to die for something, or willing to live for it.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
-Romans 12:1 (NIV)

However, this doesn’t discount sacrifice to the point of death. Even to the extent of death, giving yourself up for God and devoting yourself to him is the greatest service possible.

Sacrifice is an expression of love–a great expression.

Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
-John 15:13 (NIV)

So should all of your characters be regularly sacrificing themselves? It depends on the character. Some characters will have sacrificial love flowing out of them even in the smallest of manners. But some won’t.

However, having an overabundance of sacrifices can make it lose its value somewhat. Especially in a contemporary story, you probably can’t just kill too many characters off. But living sacrifices–your characters being willing to die for something, even if they don’t die–can be common. We don’t inspire others to sacrifice by writing about characters who don’t do it themselves.

In the case of a death sacrifice, if the character who had sacrificed himself comes back, there must be a good reason, else it will mean nothing. The sacrifice needs to have consequences–needs to affect something–otherwise it seems like a worthless sacrifice, just a plot element that the author needed to have happen but didn’t want to actually kill the character.

In some books–allegories especially–there will be a Christ figure. Someone who sacrifices themselves for the world. For example, Aslan from the Chronicles of Narnia is a clear Christ figure–he is the son of the Emperor-over-the-sea, and came to Narnia to sacrifice himself, so that redemption might come to those who needed it.

This is one of the highest privileges in this world–to be able to tell others of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We need to make sure that we represent it clearly, so that people aren’t misled by our stories–fiction though they may be.

If you’re writing an allegory of Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection, make sure you check back to the Bible about what the core messages of Christ’s death are. It was out of love that Jesus gave himself up–not for his own sins. And he died that he might save all people.

In the case of a contemporary story, great sacrifices can still be made–even if not to death.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
-Mark 10:21 (KJV)

Wealth was the man’s greatest possession. He had lived a good life, obeyed all the commandments, but could not give but one final thing–his wealth. The greatest sacrifices lie in what matters most to someone. Your characters can sacrifice without having to die–and their sacrifice doesn’t have to be any less important for it.

We hope this helps for writing sacrifices in your own stories. Obviously, we can’t cover everything in one post. If you have any questions, feel free to post them, and we’ll do our best to answer.

~R. A. H. Thacker and Jag Swiftstorm

Skilled Characters

Should characters be perfect? Skilled in everything, flawless, all-knowing, and all-powerful?

Of course not. Or at least–not most of the time. 'Perfect' (or seemingly perfect) can have their places sometimes.

But should characters be the opposite? Having no virtues, no skills, no learning, and no motivation?

I would give the same answer as to the above question. No–or at least rarely.

I'm not arguing for either extreme here. I'm not saying your characters shouldn't be flawed at all.

But I admire characters that have motivation. That have a particular skill. That have taken the time to learn to do something–and do it well.

I've recently read two books of the Staff and Sword series–A Cast of Stones and A Hero's Lot. The main character, Errol Stone, isn't perfect. Far from it. But he has a skill–or possibly more than one. You'll have to read the book to find out. ;)

Characters don't have to have a skill at the start of a book. Errol doesn't–or at least not one that he knows about. But he grows. He dedicates the time to becoming the best in what he does.

Do we want people to spend the time developing skills in real life? Then 'allow' your characters to. What you want to see happening in the world around you, model in the lives and worlds of your characters.

As a novelist, I'm not in the business of showing the world as it is. I'm in the business of changing the world into what it could be. -- Jake of the Sadaar (source)

Give your characters a skill. Your readers will thank you for it.

-Jag Swiftstorm

Keeping Track of Characters

Warning: I may get somewhat technical later on. However, I will try to keep this post so that everyone can understand it.

Some books have small casts–of maybe around fifty characters total. Then there's others, with larger casts, maybe 200 total characters. And then there's the Lord of the Rings, with millions of characters.

Okay, maybe not millions. But it does have a lot.

If you're writing a book with a large cast (or even one with a small one), you will probably want to have a list of your characters.

What I've done, is to create a spreadsheet in MS Excel, with one row for each character. This has: their name, their age, rank, occupation, species, height, other names which they're known by, year of birth, affiliation (protagonist/antagonist), importance (main character has 0, minor characters have increasing numbers, I go up to 5), year of death, and 'Dead?'.

This means that if (when writing a later book in The Arboreal Shadow) I have a character visit any given city, I'm not going to make up an elder for that city, only to realize later on that the elder (a different person, though) was mentioned in the first book.

Several of the columns, though, I don't edit. The 'Age' column is calculated using the 'Year of Birth'. The Dead? column is a special one, which says Yes if characters are dead, No if they are alive. This is calculated by checking if the current year (which is specified somewhere else in the spreadsheet) is after or before the year that the character died (or will die).

(Click on the photo to get a larger view.)
The characters can be sorted by any of the options – you can show all characters in order of age, or in alphabetical order by first name, or by species.

I've found this character chart to be useful. If you'd like more detailed instructions on how to make it, then say so in a comment and I'll see if I can help you.

Jag Swiftstorm.

Should you Create a Language?

Quon you Desira ta Forme lein Lingyuanet?
Translation: Do you want to create a language?

Many writers will want to create languages for their worlds. And I don't mean just making up where the language came from, where it's spoken, etc. I mean making long lists of nouns and pronouns, adjectives and adverbs, prepositions and interjections. Creating the sentence structure, grammar, syntax, and punctuation.

There's nothing wrong with this. Tolkien created many languages for Middle-earth, some more developed than others. He also wrote in detail about the languages–how to pronounce vowels and syllables, rolled r's and dotted i's.

But Tolkien was a language professor. Now, you don't need to be a language professor and have a degree from Oxford University to create a language.

But, for the sake of authenticity in your language, I would recommend to have studied language in some way. This could be studying a second language, or advanced study on your own language.

If you don't know the nine parts of speech in English, or how they are used, then your created language is likely to turn out a code copy of English–in which every word is simply translated to another word in your language. Real languages don't work this way. Each language has its own sentence structure and grammar.

And English is the worst language to base a realistic language off. English is such a conglomeration of Latin, Greek, Old Norse, French, Spanish, German and many more, that it is a very difficult language to learn and understand.

I have created a language, but I have studied Latin and Greek (and French and Spanish a little bit). When I first started writing Delvish (as I called it), I didn't understand the parts of speech, cases, tenses, etc. Delvish was, then, a code copy of English. I had each English word translating directly to one Delvish word. Delvish had English pronunciation rules–i.e. none.

Now, however, after doing four years of Latin, I have refined Delvish into a more realistic language. It has its own peculiarities and ways of doing things, and its own pronunciation rules and exceptions.

You can create a language without studying linguistics, but I would recommend at least some study in a language before attempting it. (And especially before putting any of that language in any published books.)

These are only my thoughts, and I could be mistaken. Thoughts?

--Jag Swiftstorm

Writing Extra Scenes

I had a thought.

It's quite a good thing to do; thoughts are generally quite useful, in theory. Some may be better thoughts than others; some may be rather pointless, others may be great thoughts, but you just don't carry them out.

Anyway, back to my thought.

(No, it's not the only thought I have, but it is one of them.)

I was reading Go Teen Writers: How to Turn Your First Draft into a Published Book by Stephanie Morrill and Jill Williamson, and it was talking about making your deeper characters.

(It's chapter 2, by the way, in case you have the book and want to go look it up. Just to make sure I'm not lying. And if you don't have it, get it.)

It wasn't the actual exercises that gave me the thought, although they did begin my train of thought that eventually thought up my thought, as you will see if you keep reading down.

(See how crazy my brain is?)

I answered the questions for my antagonist (and my main character, but the antagonist's questionnaire was more revealing). One of the questions asked about a secret desire that your character had. Anyway, to make a long story into a short one, I wrote a short 'story' about my antagonist, and some of the factors that caused him to become the villain he is.

(It wasn't a very good story… badly written… telling rather than showing… narrative summary... but it did the point, and I can always rewrite it.)

So, my thought was…

Drum roll…

Why don't writers write lots and lots and lots of stories about their characters, and their world?

(Or maybe they do, in which case the question should be 'Why don't I?')

Why don't writers/we write scenes that go in between the published scenes?

For example, if your characters are going on a overnight hike, write out all their conversation from the evening. Describe the trip in as much detail as you want. If there are two years in between two chapters, write as many scenes in those two years as you want. It will give you an idea of what your characters got up to during those two years, and will develop their character further.

I guess if writers don't, there has to be a reason for it. Either: a) they haven't thought of it or b) the 'con's are greater than the 'pro's. Or I'm just the only writer who doesn't do it.

Pro's
Character development–you often won't write long scenes with characters sitting around a fire talking, but some of those conversations might be very beneficial for character development.
World development–you can write descriptions as long as you want, because you're the only who'll need to read them.
Story development–sometimes those conversations will spark a new direction for the plot or subplot. And maybe those scenes will become crucial and be used in a later draft or sequel.
Writing practice.

Con's
You might get emotionally attached to those scenes (not likely for some writers, but some might) and want to put them in the novel.
Takes up time that you could spend writing other things.

I would personally say that the 'pro's overwhelm the 'con's, for me at least.

Now that I've written all of this, I can now remember that I have heard some writers say that they do this… maybe I'm just an non-backstorying anomaly.

Only way to settle this… I'll have to ask my loyal, devoted, (and possibly traitorous) (okay, hopefully not traitorous) readers.

The question is, then:

Do you write all the filler/backstory scenes to fit into your project?

For some reason, this post has been written with a much less formal tone than my other ones. (At least it seems like that to me.) Do you prefer my more formal tone, or this 'write-my-thoughts-down-as-they-come-to-me' mad rush post?

Jag Swiftstorm

How to Accidentally Create a Superhuman

A superhuman character, that is. (If you wanted to learn how to become Spiderman, you'll have to find another blog.)

Unlocking the door, Tim opened it, threw his leather jacket onto a rusty hook, grabbed a packet of chips from the cupboard, and slumped down in front of the TV.

What is the problem with this sentence? The problem is that Tim is doing all five actions (unlocking the door, opening the door, hanging up his jacket, getting food, and sitting down) at the same time. Simultaneously.

Unless he's Superman (and he isn't), this obviously won't work. He can't do all those actions at the same time; he does them one by one.

Starting your sentences with '-ing' verbs can cause these problems. (And yes, I know that their technical name is present participle, but we won't go into that now.) This is not to say that you shouldn't use '-ing' verbs, it just means that you need to be very careful when doing so, that you don't cause a simultaneousness problem. (And yes, that is a word.)

Related to this is action-reaction order. The action comes first, the reaction comes after that. Don't have your character reacting to an action before (or at the same time as) the action is occurring. Using '-ing' verbs can cause this, so even if the two actions can physically occur at the same time, be careful that one of them isn't actually a reaction to the other.

Just because these are funny, I'll post some more simultaneousness-problem examples:

Spinning round, Kate ran towards the school.
Slamming a hand over his mouth, Joe screamed a warning.
Switching on her computer, Tina opened Outlook.

And an action-reaction one:

Spinning round, Mary felt a presence behind her.

Note that because Mary should feel the presence behind her before spinning round, switching the two parts wouldn't change anything. '-ing' sentences happen simultaneously.

Feeling a presence behind her, Mary spun around.

Using sentences that start with '-ing' (or number 4's for any other IEW-ers) can vary the sentence structure, but it is important to be careful in using them, as problems can easily occur, as can be seen above.

Jag Swiftstorm

Speaker Tags

"How're ya doin'?" I inquired.
"Oh, I'm fine." she responded.
"I... thought I might ask you a question." I ventured.
"Go ahead," she encouraged.
"Well... you know that patch of land out back of the old house? I was wondering if I could buy it off your papa, and then fix it up and maybe build a little cabin there? Do you think he might sell?" I inquired.
"That old bit of land? That's covered in junk!" she shouted.
"I know, but I thought I could maybe sell it and make a bit of money." I retorted.

Now what is wrong with that? I don't think that there's anything wrong with it, but the speaker tags (I inquired, she responded, I ventured, she encouraged, etc.) are rather flowery and fancy. There is nothing wrong with this, but how about the following dialogue?

"How're ya doin'?" I asked.
"Oh, I'm fine," she replied.
"I... thought I might ask you a question," I said.
"Go ahead," she said.
"Well... you know that patch of land out back of the old house? I was wondering if I could buy it off your papa, and then fix it up and maybe build a little cabin there? Do you think he might sell?" I asked.
"That old bit of land? That's covered in junk!" she replied.
"I know, but I thought I could maybe sell it and make a bit of money," I said.

In the first example, what were you looking at? The speaker tags, or the dialogue itself? In the second example, though, were you looking at the dialogue? The speaker tags were invisible–said, replied, and asked. Using those for your writing means that readers can focus on the dialogue–as long as that is well-written.

Now, I know that you may have heard "Don't use 'said', use more powerful verbs." I think that this may be one exception to the rule of using strong verbs. Now, don't take me wrong here. I'm all for strong verbs. But I think that dialogue is one place where what the characters said is what the readers care about, more than how they said it. Good dialogue (and characterization) should show the reader how they said it, just by what they said.

'Said', 'Asked', and 'Replied' probably cover just about every piece of dialogue in most projects. But what about pieces of dialogue where none of those three words seem to fit? Can you use other words then?

Absolutely. A quote from somewhere–I have no idea where: "There are no rules in writing, there are only guidelines." (If any does know where it comes from, please say!) Other words can absolutely be used as speaker tags, as long as they aren't used too much. After telling your reader twenty times that your character 'demanded' something, how are you going to convey when he really demands something. If you've been using 'said' all the way through, that one 'demand' is going to have a real punch.

In my own writing - I did Command-Find to examine what speaker tags I've used, and these are some of my results:

Said: 426
Asked: 169
Replied: 78
Shouted: 24 (maybe a bit too many?)
Screamed: 5 (although three of them are literal screams, not speaker tags)

As you should be able to see, I try to keep with 'invisible' speaker tags as much as possible.

One final thing about speaker tags though–be careful to not use speaker tags which lead to facial gymnastics. He grinned–he grimaced–he scowled, for exaple. Try talking at the same time as doing one of those, and you'll see what I mean.

These are just my thoughts on the subject, and you may have totally different ideas. If you do, please leave a comment and say what you think–I'm open to hearing new ideas.

--Jag Swiftstorm

Writer's Block

Writers know that they come up against something called Writer's Block. When you just. Can't. Write. Words don't flow, sentences don't make sense, and the story (if you can manage to write) doesn't seem to have any meaning.

Many writers want to know how to solve this. I have read what writers have written about Writer's Block, and this is the answer that seems to be repeated, over and over again.

Write.

Just write.

Force yourself to write, to put fingers to keys, or pencil to paper, or even feather pen to papyrus.

Just write.

If you can't manage to work on your main project, go and write something else. Try something different. If you've never written contemporary fiction, try it. If you're an all-out science fiction/science fantasy junkie, try picking up a sword or bow and venturing into the dangerous realms of medieval fantasy. You don't have to stick with the same thing.

Just write.

Just write.

(This is not to say that you shouldn't do things other than write, but ultimately, the only way to write is to write.)

Resurrections?

I said that the results of the survey (link) and my thoughts on the topic of resurrections would be posted relatively soon. Now, 40 days later…

I only had 4 responses to the survey, but they did express some good points.

The general consensus was that resurrections done through God (or his representative in the fictional world) were okay, but that other resurrections were not.

I would definitely agree with that. All matters of life and death should come from God's hands, whether through a gift of power to an individual or a direct act of God. No dark magic/sorcery.

Resurrections can give a sense of awe at God's power. If used too many times, however, this can be lessened because of the 'commonness' of them.

One person expressed an interesting idea, that I hadn't thought about before. In her words:

In general, I have problems with resurrections that are created by authors. I just don't think that it's for humans, in our fallen state, to judge when a person should be resurrected or not. Really, it's only right for God to do that. These are, of course, just my thoughts, and I could be very mistaken. - Sine Nomine

I would have to disagree with that, at least in a created universe.

In your own world, you are in control. You can do pretty much anything you want.

(Some exceptions would be changing God's principles, such as punishing evil, and always doing what is right. See here for a post by Bryan Davis about that.)

You are in control.

As long as you stay within God's principles, you can have resurrections. Don't have God resurrecting someone as a reward for their sin, for example. But you have to judge whether or not a resurrection is appropriate for the situation in your story.

As Sine Nomine said above, this is only my thoughts, and I could be wrong. If you disagree, feel free to leave a comment and we can discuss it :)

Should a 'series' be one story, or several?

What I am meaning is, are the books totally separate stories, or do they just all meld into one story?

Using the fantasy genre, an example of books that are more disjointed would be the DragonKeeper Chronicles, by Donita K. Paul. The main characters stay the same throughout the series (with the main exceptions of some dropping out in book 4, and more characters being introduced in book 2), and some of the antagonists are the same, but the storylines are separate.

An example of stories that are joined are The Wormling series, by Jerry B. Jenkins and Chris Fabry. The books are merged into one story, and even after reading them three? times, I still can't mentally say exactly where each book starts and begins, apart from the gap between books 1 and 2.

So which is right? And which is wrong? I would say that there is no right and wrong. It is simply a matter of style and preference.

However, I would suggest against being too extreme, as with anything (or just about anything).

If a series is very disjointed, then readers may not feel drawn to read the second book. If the plot has been totally finished, then continuations may be received as pointless attempts to make money.

On the other hand, if the series is totally in one part, then it may be better to advertise it as one book, rather than as a series. The Lord of the Rings is an example of a long work that is advertised and thought of as one book, but can be and is sold in three volumes, as well as in one volume. With Kindle publishing, it will be quite simple to sell the whole series as one unit.

Even if you try to write your series as separate novels, it may, and likely will, merge into one story in the later books. Examples of fantasy book series that did this are easy to name; Oracles of Fire, Binding of the Blade. I can foresee my series, The Arboreal Shadow, doing this, as the first three books are clearly delineated, but then the last three, and especially the last two, will merge into one storyline and one unit as the story builds up to the climax.

And yeah, I really should be working on The Rise of the Shadow now. But I'm just waiting for my current readers to get back to me. (You know who you are...)

So, I would say that the jointed-ness of books is really a matter of opinion and personal taste, as long as it doesn't get too extreme.

The Importance of Voices

Take a moment and think of Andy Serkis speaking a line by Gollum.

'Bagginses stole it from us, we hates them, we hates them! gollum, gollum.'

Now read it out in your normal voice. Doesn't sound right, doesn't it?

Andy Serkis's voicing of Gollum is now what people think of when they think of Gollum speaking.

Some of my younger brothers are (while I write this), listening to a recording of the book of The Hobbit.

When you listen to Gandalf speaking (by a different actor to the narrator), it sounds strange. Ian McKellen's playing of Gandalf now defines what we think of as Gandalf.

However, it is not only the voice (and body) acting of these actors that defines the characters, it also stems from J.R.R. Tolkien's amazing work. He defines the character's voices. When you hear – or even read – someone say something, you can tell who it is. For example, look at these quotes:

'What did I tell you? Something's happening!' cried Sam. "The war's going well," said Shagrat; but Gorbag he wasn't so sure. And he was right there too. Things are looking up, Mr. Frodo. Haven't you got some hope now?'

'Now I know what you bear. Bear it still for me a while!' - Aragorn

Now, those were just random quotes from Sam and Aragorn, and so they may not be the best examples, but I hope they are enough to illustrate the point.

It is important to create 'round' characters. But unless they are the main character, the readers cannot normally get 'inside' their minds and see what they are thinking. They have to infer it from their deeds and what they say.

We (should) have all been told that dialogue is an important part of writing. This is part of dialogue. It isn't what they say, though, as much as how they say it. Does your character frequently use contractions? Or longer words? Or are they more unusual and use Yoda-speak?

If all your characters speak in the same way, then readers may have a problem identifying them in dialogue. If they have their own peculiar speech mannerisms, however, then readers will instantly know who is speaking.

Having identifiable characters is an important part of writing. One of the main ways which characters interact with each other is by dialogue. Having vocally identifiable characters will give your writing that extra 'realness' about it. In real life, everyone doesn't speak in exactly the same way.

My main character is based off me. This means that I don't really have to create a speech mannerism for him, I can just write what I would say. This may be an option. However, you need to be careful. If your character lives on the streets as an orphan and you have been used to speaking very proper English, then your speech will not be suitable for him. In my case, my main character has a similar background and language training to me. Even if you do this, you will still need to create other speech mannerisms for other main characters.

You probably don't need to spend a lot of time defining the speech mannerisms of minor characters, unless they have very peculiar speech patterns.

So, do your characters have speech mannerisms? Can you tell who is speaking by what they say? If not, you might want to consider changing their speech so that it reflects how they would realistically speak, based on their background.

-Jag Swiftstorm