DPOV vs. Being "Description Blind" - Novel vs. Screenplay Example

I've recently discovered that I have been a bit "description blind" before from working on screenplays. And yet, the more room I'm given on my novel Sojourners to have more text for description has, ironically enough, sharpened me on a skill I developed from screenwriting - describing emotions through actions.

Here is another first paragraph from my second chapter exercise in 3rd person POV (notice I've also changed my paragraph from present to past tense for easier readability):

Michael Escalante, dressed in dirty jeans, a stained blue work shirt and steel-reinforced boots, was the only manager who ate in the plant commissary. The rest of the managers followed the lead of Ted Ortiz, who, as a reservist B.C.L. Army captain, didn't believe it was appropriate to “mix” with the workers. That asinine attitude was another reason he would've fired Ted, except Ted worked directly for Emilio, so he was obviously Emilio’s informant. As he munched on one of Tomas’s wrapped ‘gater carnitas, he could feel them upstairs glare into his back as he and the rest of the plant waited for Emilio’s call. The portable phone was by his right hand and his hand kept drifting towards it. He considered going up to Ted’s office and asking him to call his father on their behalf, since Ted witnessed the tests himself yesterday morning. Before he could scoot his chair out, he thought better of it. Ted was a political animal and such a request would smack of weakness. Michael was not one to give Ted more power over him.

Now, if I was to do this as a screenplay, here is how it would look:


INT. MANUFACTURING PLANT - COMMISSARY - MIDDAY

The commissary is only a few plastic tables and cracked plastic chairs, refrigerators and futuristic microwave ovens off to the left.

MICHAEL ESCALANTE (22), in a dirty shirt, jeans and boots, sits eating with several other workers, a phone beside his right hand which his right hand keeps trying to reach out for. Everyone looks tense and downcast.

Offscreen can be heard two reporters talking indistinctly.

Michael looks behind him and up the stairs at

INT. MANUFACTURING PLANT - UPSTAIRS OFFICES

A set of cubicles behind a glass wall, looking down on the plant floor.

TED ORTIZ (mid-40s), wearing a clean button-down white shirt, holding a steel cup of coffee, stands next to an ENGINEER, glaring down at Michael.


Notice what the screenplay is missing that's present in the novel. First, the screenplay doesn't care about what food he eats, though, if we kept in the dialogue from the last chapter about Tomas's wife packing food, we might note it. There is no way to "hear" or "read" thoughts, as can be done with a novel. In both cases, there are no words spoken. The exception, of course, would be if there was a narrator, but that is a very cliched device.

Notice the final line about the reporters. That is described in the next paragraph, but, since it's part of the auditory nature of the scene, I have to describe it now.

At one point, I had to use a device to get across the idea of the tension between Michael and Ted by cheating it. The novel doesn't say Michael turned around, but it's needed to see the tension. However, without other dialogue, we can't know as readers why that's the case for the screenplay. That's why screenplay adaptations of novels are so difficult - you can't show or hear thoughts, but only through action and dialogue can you hint at it. Screenplays are the art of making concise, of hinting at meanings and relationships.

Screenplays can be great fun because reading interior thoughts is definitely a bit of cheat in screenplays, but the novel opens up whole new dimensions I'm enjoying. But deep point of view (DPOV) is a very useful skill for both styles of writing.

POV considerations - My Second Exercise and a Challenge

I'm still working on my POV issues with Sojourners after I read two short books and will read one more. I'll provide recommendations in a future post, but one nice blog post I found was very cool, so I am siting that below:

http://storysensei.blogspot.com/2005/11/deep-point-of-view.html

Deep point of view (DPOV) is a new concept for me, but very interesting. Essentially, after you decide whether or not to use 3rd or 1st person POV, and decide about how close to observe, then DPOV is about how to best describe the scene from a sensory-heavy use of description while removing directly feeling words.  For me, I'm not used to having to do this because, as a screenwriter, you're so focused on slim action and heavy dialogue, it normally isn't an issue. So this was great stuff.

Anyway, before moving forward, read the previous log if you haven't already. What I did before was to show a version of my very first paragraph of my first chapter of Sojourners in an exercise if I were to use Close 3rd person POV. Anyway, here is a slight revision where I try to engage in DPOV:

Michael Escalante hums as plugs in the last three probes into the yolk yellow composite padding of the articulating robotic foot sixty centimeters above his head when Tomas’s stocky legs appear on his left. His right sausage hand holds out a portable phone like a plutonium hot potato, “I can’t stall him anymore, Michael. He demands I hand you the phone right now.”

I'm also starting to reread Orson Scott Card's book on character and viewpoint. I'll let you know how it does compared to the first two small books I read on POV.

Now I have a challenge for you, my blog readers. Try this:

1. Take one opening paragraph from any chapter of a book or manuscript in progress

2. Read the Story Sensei blog on DPOV

3. Rewrite that same paragraph using those short, practical principles of DPOV

Anyway, let me know if you're having problems with POV and how you've been handling them.

Considering Points of View - I Perform An Exercise

If you saw my earlier posts, you know that I'm not a big fan of writing 3rd person POV. I'd rather write 1st person POV, but I realize that both have their advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage in my SF novel Sojourners is that, with 1st person POV, it tends to be dialogue-heavy and description light. I have to find the balance between setting the hook in and maintaing a good pacing.

In light of my concerns, I went on to Amazon and found a couple of good books I've started to read. I'm finishing the first, but haven't had a chance to start the second yet. I'll reveal those in a future post.


However, I did decide to try a version of my first chapter as 3rd Person Close POV. Here is my first paragraph:

Michael Escalante is plugging in his probes into the egg yellow composite of the robotic foot lifted up sixty centimeters over his head, the blue base-coated walker’s ten tons balancing on the other three feet, when Tomas’s stocky shadow appears over him, holding out a portable phone like a plutonium hot potato. “I can’t stall him anymore, Michael. He demands I hand you the phone now.”

What I'm trying to do is set the scene. I know it's not much. If I was to critique myself, I would say:

Pros:
1. Some good visual perspectives.
2. A sense of action and urgency.

Cons:
1. Not engaged the other senses.
2. Not sure if there is a captivating visual yet.

This could well be part of my next draft, not my current draft, which is mostly 1st person POV-based.

I have my plot, characters, dialogue / voice and most other aspects straight. But I have to determine the best POV.

Please let me know what you think.

Trying to Handle My Issues with POV, Pacing, and My Screenwriting Habits

I've been working over the past few days on my novel Sojourners and feel like I'm making some progress, but I'm not sure if I'm ultimately going the way I need it to. If you read my earlier posts, you know that I'm struggling with the point of view (POV) of my story. Essentially, though I have no problem reading 3rd person POV (the God perspective), I have a tough time keeping engaged when I write in 3rd person. It's tough for me to maintain interest where I'm treating characters like puppets, moving the from place to place.

But I'm in the middle of an exercise where I'm doing a mix of 1st- and 3rd-person POVs.

Let me explain a little bit about my bizarre-o story structure:

1. I'm starting off with my main character Michael, having been captured by pro-Earth forces, but is comatose, critically wounded, and is being taken back to Earth. Since they don't know whether he'll survive to make it back to Earth, Lt. Chin, an Intel officer, used nanobots to connect to his brain and create a simulated environment so she can interact with him. During this time, the 1st person POV is that of Lt. Chin.

2. Once she starts interacting with him, they find the memories they want to "replay" and then it becomes a 3rd-person POV where they are both re-experiencing his memories from his limited 3rd-person POV.

So, here's my dilemma. As I read through this, I wonder - am I nuts? Are these some serious and unnecessary convolutions that could just be avoided by jumping straight to #2 (3rd-person POV?) Or is this a good way of scaffolding the story.

Here is where I'm torn:

Jump Straight into the Story vs. Set a Good Hook: As you know, readers are not patient people. Most people give a story maybe 10 pages, so not a lot of time to hook people in, so jumping straight in seems like a no-brainer. However, readers also need to know the stakes so they have a reason to care about the character, as well as knowing the main characters "ordinary world" (see Vogler's The Writer's Journey). It's at least an issue of pacing.

Levels of Description: The advantage of a 3rd-person POV is that you have the opportunity to provide a deeper level of description (see Buckham's books on Active Settings), since most people don't talk about the backgrounds when they're telling you a story (esp. epistolary 1st POV). It makes the 1st person POV dialogue-heavy, almost like a screenplay. For me, coming from that background, I'm very comfortable with that, but maybe it's now more of a hindrance than a help, but I like how it reveals character and speeds up pacing.

Maybe the crux of my dilemma is my hanging on to bad screenwriter-based practices where I need to let it go and commit fully to novel-writing and assume that requires 3rd-person POV to tell well, though other novels have pulled it off. *Sigh*

I'd welcome and feedback on this one. I'll also address this with my writers group, but our next meeting is several weeks away. I'm also procrastinating on my edits, probably using this exercise as my excuse. It's amazing the games we wannabee authors play in our heads, isn't it?

Some Book Recommendations for Wannabee Working Authors

I know my recent posts have gone a bit long, so I thought I'd change it up with a short, but hopefully useful post on some books I found to definitely be worth the read (in no particular order):

The Art of Dramatic Writing, by Lagos Egri:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Dramatic-Writing-Lajos-Egri/dp/8087830709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411427680&sr=8-1&keywords=egri+art+of+dramatic+writing

This is an oldie, but a goodie. It was written for playwrights, but the principles apply well to all good writing. I found this invaluable.

Story, by Robert McKee
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Structure-Substance-Principles-Screenwriting-ebook/dp/B0042FZVOY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411427785&sr=1-1&keywords=mckee+story

This book is a bit of a conundrum in that there's nothing quite like it and it's very difficult to describe. It is intended primarily for screenwriters, but the principles apply equally well to novels. A key idea is the distinction of arch plot and multi-arch plot. And who hasn't seen Adaptation?

Save the Cat, by Blake Snyder
http://www.amazon.com/Save-Cat-Blake-Snyder-ebook/dp/B00340ESIS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411427902&sr=1-1&keywords=save+the+cat+by+blake+snyder

Another screenwriting book that applies as well to all story types. It's a very good model, but also see the next book with an equally compelling model. The key ideas include using a log line to refine themes and a different way of looking at genre, among many other useful ideas.

The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structures for Writers, by Christopher Volger
http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Journey-Mythic-Structure-3rd/dp/193290736X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411428004&sr=1-2&keywords=the+heroes+journey

The title is write on (sorry for the pun). It is based on Joseph's Campell's Hero's Journey, which is also known as monomyth. It is a great book, looking at story from a character-centric perspective, so his / her journey helps dictate plot, making the story much more relatable emotionally.. Between this and Snyder, you'll never look at books or movies the same way again. To me, this is essential!

Elements of Fiction Writing - Characters & Viewpoint: Proven advice and timeless techniques for creating compelling characters by an award-winning author, by Orson Scott Card

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Fiction-Writing-Characters-award-winning/dp/1599632128/ref=la_B000AQ3SS0_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411428271&sr=1-15

One of the leading SF novelists (Ender's series) has put out several great books on writing, but I think this is excellent. And when a successful author tells you something, you should listen.

Writing Active Setting Book 1: Characterization and Sensory Detail, by Mary Buckham

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Active-Setting-Book-Characterization-ebook/dp/B009MRLXQW/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411428395&sr=1-2&keywords=active+setting

This is part of a series, but this is the only one I've read so far, and it is great. Short, but great.

The Anatomy of Story: 22 Steps to Becoming a Master Storyteller, by John Truby

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Story-Becoming-Master-Storyteller-ebook/dp/B0052Z3M8A/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411428480&sr=1-1&keywords=truby+anatomy+of+story

I have to admit I'm still reading this one, but when the professional author in my writing group recommends it and I find it on target, I have to include it.

This is far from an exhaustive list of what I've read, let alone what's out there, but I've found these essential reads, so I hope this helps.

Contenders not included: Stephen King's On Writing (haven't read it yet), Aristotle's The Poetics (there are so many books abut it, which explains 3-act structure, so I'm not sure which to recommend), and the Syd Field books are very good, but I'm not sure how relevant they are to novels.

Please let me know what you would add to this list or what you think of my choices.

Thanks!

You need to Find a Writing Group - Sorry, Long Post!

I know, I know, I said there are writers and there are authors (see my first post). But every author has to start off as a writer. An author is a writer determined to publish, not just bury their work in a closet, under a desk, or on his or her computer.

I've been a part of two writer's groups - one for wannabee screenwriters, and the present one for wannabee (and actual) authors. From that, I learned two distinctly different approaches to criticism - and most everything else.

In my screenwriters group, what we did was print out copies to hand out to fellow screenwriters to read 25 pages of a screenplay - beginning, middle, what-have-you. And what I mean by read is "read aloud" - so when it was my turn to have my screenplay read, I would "cast" a narrator and every other part and hear it read. That was incredibly helpful, because you hear what sounds clunky that didn't when it was only in your head. Afterwards, we would go around in a circle adnd each wannabee screenwriter would provide her feedback and notes on the fly and hand those to me to tweak as I saw fit. This meant that the screenwriter would have to be put on a schedule, so it might take  up to a couple of months to have the opportunity to get your screenplay read and critique.

In my writers group, we put all our work on a cloud share, one folder for each wannabee author, and each writer would read one chapter of everyone's work-in-progress and have notes ready in advance. There was no reading aloud and every writer expected each week to have some critique available to them. We go around in a circle, every other writer providing their critique before moving on to the next writer. Then the writer would take home the notes made by his fellow wannabee authors.

These differences are essentially dictated to by the nature of the written media. Screenplays are very dialogue heavy, with slight, nuanced action descriptions, so the reading aloud is a very useful way to provide feedback. Whereas the writers group provides feedback on novels, novellas, or short stories - a medium where internal dialogue and rich description are at least as important as the dialogue, so less is gained by reading aloud in the group setting and it provides more constant and consistent feedback.

But the differences between these two groups went much deeper than the format of the meeting or the media. It was the way criticism was treated. First, some background.

In the screenwriters group, most everyone had gotten to know each other after attending a pricey weekend screenwriting seminar and formed a bond based on that event. Afterwards, they commited to help each other develop their screenplays. Their core was stable, but starting to crumble as people realized their hopes of actually selling their screenplay or making it themselves was almost astronomically slim. As a result, many persevered with different screenplay projects, like TV episodes to act as a "calling card" to get a real job, or create a low-budget film and convince others to finance it, etc. I did this for years and was incredibly fortunate to have a friend who could gather resources (mostly) gratis to help make two short films to act as calling cards (see my first post for further details). In the end, it worked in large measure for Rick, who was both a co-writer and director. For me, not so much.

My problem with this screenwriting group wasn't the crumbling membership due to a descending sense of hope, but how they critiqued each other. Though I did get some very useful feedback, after about nine months to a year, I realized I was getting the same kind of feedback as the established members gave each other - namely, "that's pretty good - you can tweak x and y and make it better, but keep going..." I realize now that the reason for that less-than-useful approach was 1) a sense of malaise had settled over the group, and 2) they'd become more concerned about maintaining their friendship than risking real criticism. In other words, they'd devolved into a social club.

Understand, I'm not anti-social, but, if I want to be successful, I need a whole lot more than "pretty good" and minor tweaks - particularly if the screenplay, at its core, sucks! It's like they're saying, "Since you don't have any hope of selling this screenplay or making this movie, go ahead and maintain your fantasy and fart around, doing whatever makes you happy until you realize how hopeless the whole effort is." I was in this group for five years and inevitably saw people drop out and not get replaced because new members saw they weren't going to get much real help!

What was my history with the group? At first, I was a sponge. I just listened and took it all in. Later, as I kept reading screenplay books and learning what I thought worked and what didn't, I jumped into providing honest feedback. Big mistake! I immediately began offending people because I would either say this wasn't working (and once I used the word that should not be spoken as criticism - "stupid") and pissed my "colleagues" off!

The funny thing is, this dichotomy in our approaches actually provided me with a new friendship. Once, a new guy came along to the group and, when his time came up on the list, he brought out an SF screenplay. We read through it and everybody else did their "pretty good - just tweak x and y" bit and then it came to me. Literally, when I started, they went "well, here goes Jim".  Funny. Anyway, I started off asking questions about his world, his characters, and their conflicting goals. The new guy admitted he wasn't sure of those answers, so I suggested he determine those answers and then go back to it. He took verbatim notes on my questions and I never saw him at our social club again. Six months later, we ran into each other at a social function and he re-introduced himself to me and said I was the only one to offer him valuable feedback. I'm not saying this to toot my horn. What I am saying is - you need a group of people with the goal of being successful authors (or screenwriters) and that requires people willing to offend you to help you make your work the best it can be.

I'm very fortunate to say my current writers group is made up of such people. One full-time career author, three published authors in different genres who are making money on the side and have a following, and a few wannabees like me. My friend Ed invited to the group (which is invitation only) because I knew him and two others and they had seen my shorts and believed I had the potential and the commitment to become an author.

Now, if you read my previous post on my Crisis of Confidence (if not, please read it), then you know they place the work ahead of trying to stroke each other's feelings or ego. "Iron sharpens iron" is never more true than for authors and wannabee authors. Mere writers are afraid of it or have, unfortunately, had bad experiences with it. I've had to have a thick skin to keep going through all my efforts, but I can say without doubt that my current project Sojourners would have no hope of publication except for taking in and working with their incisive and in-depth criticism.

That is what you MUST have - a group of committed fellow wannabee authors who are willing to tell you the truth about how they see your work and are willing to provide constructive criticism.

But what if you don't have such a group or want to form your own? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Form a charter where the rules are spelled out for all members. In it, put in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to provide in criticism and how to react to it. For example, no one wants to provide you with a good critique if you constantly interrupt them to defend or "explain" yourself. In our group, the rule is - if you as the critiqued author are asked a specific question, answer that specific question. Otherwise, simply listen, remembering that they are trying to help you write to your potential. On occasion, if I'm unclear about a critique, I can ask a question to the critic, but that shouldn't be used as a chance to "explain myself" (though I admit I've tried!)

2. Look for or advertise on the Web. Every social media site provides such a capability. But you'll need to decide if you want to do a local, meet-in-person group or a virtual group where you get together on Skype or something similar. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

3. Commit to listen non-defensively and critique humbly, but honestly. You know the saying about opinions - everybody's got one. That doesn't make yours better or worse, except for these caveats, First, if they're published, they've been through the grist mill and their critique should be weighed more heavily than not. Second, if they are in the same genre, that can be very helpful. But neither makes that person the Pope. Follow the Rule of Three - if three people tell you that something doesn't work, you probably want to listen to that and take steps to tweak. If only person says something and it seems way off the mark, you can let it go.

4. Pick members at varying experience levels and different interests. I'm grateful that my current group is made up of several non-SF readers. Beside which, my next project will not be SF-related, so their varied perspectives provide me a deeper richness. Besides, what could be more boring that being around people all with the same mindset, all equally clueless, and all trying to do the exact same thing at the same time? It sounds like a recipe for a social club - or high school!

Sorry. I promised a short post. Next time, next time.. Please let me know what you think. Have you been in a writer's group before? What was that like and do you think it's useful? Thanks and look for tomorrow's short post.

Last Week's Crisis of Confidence - Now on the Rebound - Long Post!

As I stated in my first post, I've been working on my novel Sojourners for about a year and a half and I've only completed my first or what I like to call my "crap" draft. Sojourners is a science fiction (SF) novel of epic scope centered around one person's often tortuous journey through his own troubled and chaotic work, divided by prejudice against the seeming native inhabitants, infighting between the human leagues that have been forced to settle there after crash-landing and being forgotten for over 200 years, and are now reeling from the recent arrival of human astronauts with their own agendas. All this on a world full of alien artifacts from a culture that collapsed a millennium ago - but left the machinery running...

Like I said, a big story and one I hope is intriguing enough to sell once completed. But a novel of that scale isn't easy to write because I need (in no particular order):

1. Multidimensional protagonists that are innately interesting, consistent, and not simply serving to further the plot. Similar requirements for allies.

2. A pacing that doesn't merely rush from set-piece to set-piece, but also doesn't bog down.

3. A plot that actually seems reasonable under extraordinary circumstances.

4. A rich world with its own nature, history, geography, politics, economics and a consistent set of rules.

5. Antagonists that are also interesting, multidimensional (not simply villains), with their own internally-consistent motivations, with power and standing that make them formidable, but not so much so that they seem unbeatable, even in the hands of a brilliant writer's (hah!) devices. In Sojourners, I actually several antagonists for each of several layers / scales of conflict.

6. An involving narrative style that keeps you hooked while providing a consistent POV or set of POVs.

7. Conflicts that arise organically as the protagonists and antagonists struggle over conflicting agendas on my world according to the "rules of the world(s)". In other worlds, no heavy-handed application of deus ex machina, as is all too prevalent in SF (Johnny Wiz Kid just pulled out the meta-phasic alien super-weapon and blasted all his enemies to oblivion - unacceptable!)

8. An overarching theme to tie it all together so it doesn't become a muddy mess.

Sounds easy, right?

Anyway, one of my big issues is POV. I don't enjoy writing 3rd-person POV stories. I don't have a problem reading them, but I get bored writing in that POV. It also raises questions like:

1. Is the POV God?

2. Is the POV some hidden invisible camera following one character or or a close group or several groups of characters?

3. Is the POV a detached perspective inside someone's head?

And what is the "voice" of that 3rd person POV?

So, not thinking that writing an epic-scale SF was enough of a challenge, I decided to add to it by doing a 1st person POV. I know - not easy. But I've always liked the idea of, in a different world, having someone tell me their story. But that's a epistolary format - which is just plain nuts.

Some of you who've wrangled with the issue are probably agreeing with me that I am nuts and have no chance of getting published except by self-publishing. Why not just bite the bullet and go to 3rd person? The truth is, I did try a short draft of my first chapter and it wasn't convincing to my writers group.

My writing group is one of the best things to happen to me. Unlike some artists, I love feedback while in progress because I love to be challenged - especially when I can't see the forest anymore. Mine is made up of authors (yes, authors and wannabe authors, not simply writers) working in a mix of genres - some SF, some fantasy, others romance, historical or crime-romance. Yep, eclectic. That's good and bad.

The good - you have to "explain" thing in a way that makes sense to people who don't regularly read SF, so they don't know the hackneyed shtick of most SF novels. The bad - they don't understand SF novels in general, so they often don't "get it" in a way that most SF readers would, so I am tempted to "dumb it down", which is not helpful for my intended audience.

Anyway, my writers group has been very patient with me. They have been through several drafts of several chapters. At one point nearly six months ago, I realized my main character simply wasn't working, so I pulled him out and rewrote the novel from the perspective of a new character undergoing the same general circumstances and started again. Not easy, let me tell you. And they had been pleasantly surprised at how well my unlikely epistolary style was working, keeping them engaged, enjoying how I described specifics, had well-fleshed-out characters, a good pacing, an economy of storytelling. I was making the seemingly impossible work out.

On to last writing group - I thought I was doing pretty well in my latest chapters. I was excited, feeling ebullient over the progress and pacing I felt I was making. Then my group started weighing in on my latest chapters:

1. My auxiliary characters were not convincing and were muddy.

2. My main characters were all over the place.

3. The motivations for everyone were unclear.

4. My action descriptions were confusing.

5. One even said they were getting "bored" by POV and I needed to change it up (yet again).

I was stung. I'd love to say that my ego was separated from my work, but, as every artist knows, that's not possible. It's why many wannabee authors cringe at the very idea of criticism - they're either way too insecure to put their work out because they couldn't handle the criticism or they'd been hurt by bad critics. As a result, they crawl back into their caves and become merely "writers" (see my first post).

Now, I welcome good feedback - especially good critical feedback. As long as it's got any constructive suggestion I can use. That doesn't mean I automatically agree and implement - but, if at least two or three agree, I have to consider taking steps to fix my problems. In a similar way, positive feedback without specific reasons why it works doesn't tell me how to successful keep doing something right. Anway, maybe it was other stressors in my life or I was simply shocked at the difference between my self-evaluation vs. their evaluation of my work, but inwardly, I was devastated.

Devastated for me meant doubting my novel, my skills as an author, and my aspirations for trying to be a career author. I knew it can be done - we have someone in our group who is a career author - but I wasn't sure any longer I could do it. My spirit, my ego, was crushed. I took up their marked drafts, however, and gave it a day.

And the next day it didn't get better. It got worse. So, using our private Facebook group, I put out my concerns to my writers group and asked for feedback. My writers group is very good. They were very encouraging. They told me to keep at it, finish the draft, then re-evaluate.

I wish that worked for me, but it didn't. What did I do? I experimented with my POV's yet again. I wrote pages, kind of liked where it went, and considered whether I needed to start my novel over yet again. But I decided to "phone a fried", my old friend who originally invited me into the group. He was getting ready to go on a trip, but he was very generous with his time and, when I asked the hard questions, like "Should I even keep going on this epic or do something else?" and "Am I crazy to epistolary?" and "Should I try another POV?" (Note, I didn't ask the really hard question - "Do you think I even have the talent to be a writer?" The reason I didn't, however, was simple - he invited me in to his group and he's a practical writer who wouldn't invite me in to stroke my ego, but because he did believe I had that talent. And since others had to agree, and a couple of them had read my short film scripts or seen my short film, they also agreed I had the talent.)

My author friend's answers were basically the same as the other writers, but also reminded me that, since several don't read or write SF, to not weigh some of their very specific feedback as heavily - especially the "boring" feedback - and believed my story had a lot of merit and "you owe it to your characters and yourself to see it through". BING! Man, those were magical words for me.

Why was that magical feedback? Because, if you spend enough time with your characters, they do take on their own reality in our heads. Artists can be considered functional, creative schizophrenics because we create and use and sometimes even allow ourselves to be manipulated by personalities we create from within ourselves. If you haven't experienced that yet, you need to let go of the reins and let your characters have room to roam in your world and teach you. If you think that's esoteric crap and not practical truth, you aren't ready to be an author quite yet.

So, since then, I'm doing two different approaches. I found a good alternate POV I like and am pursing. But I'm also continuing with the edits to my current draft and will keep going with it. That way, I may well be on my way to my next draft while I see my current draft to completion. It's more work, but I'm hoping for a cross-pollinating effect.

If you're reading this and have had a similar experience, share how you handled it - good, bad, ugly and beautiful. After all, we're all struggling with the Muse in our own way.

Sorry for the long post! Hopefully you'll find your own nuggets that are useful to you. Next post I promise will be short(er).