What makes you a writer?

I live in a town rife with weird people, hipsters, artists, yuppies, hippies, yippies, dippies, stoners, boners, phonies, bronies, furries, and freaks. Yes, Austin is all that and more. But there's something else that has been pointed out elsewhere that bears repeating.  For some reason everyone in Austin calls themselves writers. Oh, there are quite a few writers here, to be sure. But it seems that everyone has, or is working on, the great American novel/screenplay/world-changing-poetry. The majority of them head to one of Austin's many coffee shops with their laptops, camp at a table, and sip their double-espresso-mochachino-soy-non-fat-whipped-latte while they tappy-tap-tap on their keyboards. Do you have any idea how many coffee shops there are in Austin?  Not counting Starbucks? Like, a billion.

The life-blood of writers...

And for many of them, the lure of free wi-fi and comfy seats are what draws them to the coffee shop, and that's fine. The writing muses know I don't function without coffee in my veins (not stomach, mind you, veins... I'm known to hook up an IV...), and while I can't function in an environment with so many distractions, I begrudge no one their own writing process. You do you, boo.  I'll do me.

Pictured: Kevin Hart Wisdom

But there's another group that sits at coffee shops. I'm talking about the douche-bag wannabes that show up so they can make a great show of "writing" in public. Keep in mind, if you go to coffee shops to write, and actually write, I'm not talking about you.  Jog on. But, sitting near the writers, is that guy.  You know the one. I'll give you an example. 

I was at a coffee shop once, not to write but to drink coffee. As I said, I can't work in coffee shops. A fellow walked in with his hair swept up in a man-bun/topknot, an unseasonal scarf (it was summer), a wispy beard, and converse high-tops.  He was also carrying a black case, the like of which I've not seen in years, and hope to never see in motion again. He ordered his coffee (I wasn't really paying attention at this point because, as I said, I don't go to coffee shops to write) then sat down at a table.  From the case, he pulled, I kid you not, an old Royal typewriter. 

One of these bad-boys...

The first thing anyone should know about a Royal typewriter is that they're noisy as hell. I mean, they are as jarring as gunfire. Second, there is no spellcheck, no correction, and, in many cases, no auto-return.  And when you do hit return, it jars the whole table.  He loaded his paper and began his aural assault.  The writers (the real ones) that were there were greatly annoyed.  Especially when he struck up a jaunty (and loud) conversation about his latest opus, and how it was probably to forward-thinking to ever get published by a mainstream publisher, so he'd probably have to self-publish it. 

Pictured: Rage Rising

I'm not sure if he was a writer, a wannabe, or a performance artist who was parody-ing all the writers that hang out in coffee shops.  In this case, however, it was fairly obvious that whatever he was, there was one additional thing that could not be denied.  He was an ass-flapping douchebag. 

So how, I hear you ask, can I tell the writers from the non-writers?  How can I tell if I am a writer? How can I not be like Douchy McDoucherton who will assuredly win the Putz-Puller Prize of the year? Calm down.  Listen... Here's how you tell the real writers from the not so real writers. 

In my experience, most writers (in coffee shops and otherwise) are very focused on their work, and dislike being disturbed. They don't loudly talk about their work, and you rarely see them look up from their keyboards. Why? Because we're writing. Sure, we're perfectly willing to talk about our projects, but when we're working, it's not a good idea.  See, it takes a while to get into the headspace we have to be in to be creative. And if you break that concentration, we can't pick up where we left off... We have to try to get back to that place. 

But here's how to know if you are a writer:

YOU ACTUALLY WRITE.

No, really.  You don't go to show off how creative you are.  You don't draw attention to yourself in hopes that someone will want to strike up a conversation about your work. You don't act like a snob about the type of coffee or beer or whatever. You, in fact, sit your keister in a chair and you put fingers to keys, and you write. End of story. You want to be a published author? You have to write something first. You're not a writer, no matter what you do, if you don't write. No matter what you wear, what you drink, who you talk to, what school you go to, or how many books about writing you read, you are not a writer if you don't actually sit down and write. 

Yup.

So, see? It's easy to see if you're a writer.  Do you write? Yes? Then guess what.  You're a writer. By definition. Now the question is this: What kind of writer do you want to be? Bloggers are writers. Critics are writers. Novelists, poets, short-story-writers, all writers. So I guess that answers the question in the title of this post. What makes you a writer? You write. Period. What makes you a good writer? Honing your craft, educating yourself, and about a million other little things. What makes you a successful writer? Opinions vary.  Is it two parts luck to one part talent to sixteen parts tenacity? Maybe. But if you don't sit down and write, you aren't any kind of writer. 

And leave the goddamned antique typewriter at home. 

Until next time...

SAJ

But that really happened!

When my novel City of Demons came out, there was a scene in particular that pulled people out of the story because it was just too unbelievable.  The scene in question was one in which one of the lead characters discussed learning martial arts from a legit grandmaster who happened to teach at the college she attended. Magic murder, they can deal with.  But learning a devastating fighting style in a college?  Too much. Yes, in a book where a killer can crush a person without touching him and a cop can feel the last few seconds of a dead person's life by touching his corpse, the moment that was too big of a stretch was one that actually happened to me.

See, when I went to college, I signed up for a karate course. I thought "it's a college karate course...how hard could it be?" Then I met this guy.

...

That's Dann Baker, legit Grandmaster in Kajukenbo. And one of the best martial arts instructors on the planet.

We've all been there.  Writers are told every day to use real life experiences as fodder for their stories.   Write what you know, and know what you write! And yet, there are certain experiences that, if we use them, we're told they're too unbelievable. Your story may contain magic, demons, monsters, and superheroes, but coincidental things that really happened to you are considered too unbelievable to go in a book of fiction. It's enough to drive you mad.

Don't call me crazy...

It's happened in other situations too.  Students of mine have replied with passionate anger when I tell them that a scene in their thesis is unbelievable. "But it really happened that way!" they scream. "You just don't know what you're talking about!" Fair enough. You're right, I've not had that particular experience that seems to defy logic or physics. The coincidental continuum seems to have collapsed on a convergence conveniently. And it's still unbelievable. "But here's proof!" they shout. They wave photos, articles, protestations and proclamations all day long. And, in the end, I concede, yes, it happened the way you said it did. 

But here's the problem:  If I thought it was unbelievable, it's likely that everyone else who reads it will find it equally hard to believe. And what are you going to do? Run around and wave proof at everyone who has purchased your book?  Accompany your manuscript to the acquisition editor and prove your story to him? Take out a full 60-second ad during Superbowl halftime to explain that this scene in your book really happened that way and that's how you know it could happen? No... Probably not. What's more likely to happen is this:  You send your manuscript out, your agent or editor reads the scene, snorts derisively, and tosses your legit memory into the trashcan. Why? Because it came off as too unbelievable. 

Pictured:  You.

The following are a list of unbelievable things that I've actually done or have witnessed:

• Honked a live squirrel's tail.
• Tailed a 9' Texas Black rat snake
• Skidded on a wet road and done two complete 180-degree turns, banging my car on the rail both times, and gotten away with no discernible damage
• A person backflipped off a second-story balcony to impress a girl - Survived
• A person survived having a full-sized telephone pole hit him in the head
• Had an 800lb roll of plastic fall on me. Didn't die
• Shot a near perfect round my first time shooting a pistol
• Studied with a real grandmaster that I met at college
• Rescued a 1-week old deer and let it sleep overnight in my bathroom
• Rescued an equally young possum

"How dare you, sir?!?"

I have proof of every one of those items, yet I know that if I put them in a novel, someone would cry bullshit on it because, while people can suspend disbelief in the fantastic, their belief in the mundane needs to stay constant. In turning the world inside out and molding it to our peculiar vision, we need to make sure that we give the reader a foothold. A talking squirrel, sure. Sneaking up behind a normal squirrel and honking his tail?  Bullshit. 

The point I'm trying to make here is simple:  If it comes across as too much of a coincidence to one reader, it might do so to the rest of them. I'm not saying you can't include unbelievable life stories in your fiction.  What I'm saying is to be careful. "But it really happened" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's a tantrum. It's a child's argument. You will never get the chance to explain that it really happened or how to an agent, editor, or to your audience. Once you've lost their interest, you've lost them. So make the best of it. 

Until next time, write on!

SAJ

Humility: Training to Make Yourself Better.

No matter how good you are, there's always someone out there who is better than you.  Chances are, quite a few. You train and work for your entire life, and no matter what, the only certainty is that someone, somewhere, will still be better than you. It's a cold hard fact of life.  Deal with it.

Stay with me here.

I'm a 5th dan black belt in Kajukenbo.  My legit rank is "Master" (though no one calls me that... I prefer "Sifu" or just "Scott").  Those five stripes on my belt represent 30+ years of dedication and practice to become a martial artist of what many consider to be a high caliber. And, over those years, you could say I've learned a thing or two about fighting. At 45, I coach people half my age and train them to fight in both tournaments and real life. In the ring, without sounding too arrogant, I'm pretty good and can hold my own.

This is my belt.

Then I met Paul.

This guy...

Paul is only 30, and he can kick in ways I couldn't even when I was sixteen. Paul is lightning fast and wicked accurate. He's easily the best fighter I've ever seen in my life, and there's no two ways about it:  He's better than me. His kata is crisper, his kicks are higher, and his speed is off the charts. He's also one helluva nice guy, and extremely humble. So when he asked me if I wanted to go a round or two with him, I said sure.

Keep in mind, I know the guy can outclass me in the ring and if it came to an all-out slugfest, he'd likely hand me my body parts in a doggie bag.

So the question came up, if I knew he was better and I knew he was going to work me over, why did I agree to fight him? Simple. Paul's the kind of person who will make you better.  By working with a martial artist of his caliber, I become better, whether I mean to or not. A fighter like Paul will force you to step your game up, make you think on your feet, and cause you to work harder.  Not because you want to beat him, but because you want to be worthy to train with him. You can't help but become better when you work with him, and it's an honor to absorb some of his knowledge. I like to think I contribute to the relationship as well (I still know a few katas he needs...), but that's just it. He's that damned good, and he makes me good by proxy.

Same thing holds true for writers.

Don't pretend... You knew...

At Seton Hill, and with other writing programs, we look to the mentors to make us better. Not just the students, mind you, but the pros as well. Some of my very best friends in the writing world have made me better just for having listened to them talk, eavesdropping on their lectures, and having a beer with them and shooting the breeze.

I know, it's difficult. For many of us in this field, there's a certain level of insecurity that comes with the job. It becomes a point to casually mention how many of what you've gotten published, how many awards you've won, what your agent thinks and who else he or she represents, blah blah blah.  It becomes a big distasteful dick-waving contest to see who has the biggest by-line, and when that happens you stop growing. See, it's not about how good you are, or how good you think you are. It's about listening to the folks around you, its about gaining all you can from others, and from learning that it's okay to not be the biggest literary giant in the room. Everyone looks up to someone. Everyone looks up to someone.

Don't be this guy... Please. 

So the question becomes: Who do you want to be?  The guy who brags about how much he's accomplished? Or the guy who listens and becomes great?

You're never as good as you think you are. You're also never as bad as you think you are either. But you can always learn. And the best way to do that is to read the people who are better than you. Talk to the people who are more accomplished than you. Show them respect and learn to admit that there is someone better than you out there. Sure, you get beat a lot. But you learn so much in the process. And in the end, some of that greatness may just accidentally seep into you.

The Haunting of Hill House

This term, I'm teaching an online reading course for Seton Hill University's Masters in Writing Popular Fiction program.  I teach one every semester, but this term, the emphasis is "The Haunted."  So that means, of course, a subject near and dear to my black little heart:  Ghost Stories.

As part of the course, I get to choose books and movies that I feel best exemplify the genre in question.  The first book on the list?  Shirley Jackson's classic, The Haunting of Hill House. While some of my students don't particularly care for the book, there was a reason I chose it, and I'm going to use this blog to explain why.

Reason number one:  While those who read this book in modern times may find it cliche, or even boring at times (guilty), one thing that folks have to remember is that this book was first published in 1959.  Think on that for a moment.  That's more than fifty years ago.  Think about other things that just plain didn't exist in 1959.  I didn't.  My brother wasn't born until ten years later. Man had not yet reached the moon.  Women had the right to vote, but were still largely considered second-class citizens.  And, with a few notable exceptions, the haunted house book was largely unheard of.  If this book comes across as cliche, it's because it is the reason for the cliches.  You read that right.  So many writers that came after Jackson aped her style and plot points.  Why?  Because they were, for the time period, terrifying.  Sure, the work is dated.  Read any of the dialogue and, chances are, it comes across as forced or, at the very least, really old fashioned.  Well... Yeah.  But that's because it is old fashioned.  But keep in mind, it's not the cliche.  The tropes were born in The Haunting of Hill House, which makes it the original.

The second reason (which is actually closely related to the first one) is Jackson's treatment of her characters.  Okay, again, it was 1959.  It was quite bold of Jackson to put a character who was (arguably) gay (Theo) in such a prominent role. Also, look at the character of Elenor.  She's so very damaged, isn't she?  Even without the house doing its best to scare the holy bejeebers out of her, she's got issues.  She has so many deep-seeded psychological issues, it's little wonder the house preyed upon her as the weak link.  Again, things that weren't often done during the time period. I'm not saying her handling of the characters was terribly masterful (look at Mrs. Dudley), but having female protagonists, having protagonists that are damaged, having people with real problems... That was ahead of its time. 

Reason number three is that this story is a very good example of using a setting as a character in the story.  They way she describes the house, without a single straight line or plumb wall, gives the place its own foreboding nature.  The house itself makes the characters (and readers) uncomfortable just by existing.  No matter what happens between the walls, it's all the more horrific because those walls are inside Hill House.  The whole place has its own atmosphere.  It breathes, watches, reacts...  It could be argued that the house, not the ghosts, is the main antagonist of the story.  Granted, we'll be looking at another (and, in my opinion, better) example (Hell House by Richard Matheson), but this was a good primer that predated the next great portrayal by a dozen years.

The fourth reason is really very simple:  It's history. I'm a huge proponent of going back and rediscovering the roots of the genre.  Lovecraft.  Poe.  Blackwood.  Dickens.  Shakespeare.  Believe it or not, there is a great deal to learn from the old masters.  Gaston Leroux, Victor Hugo, Mary Shelly, Bram Stoker.  They all were very much before my time (and yours), and yet there is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from studying their works, especially if you want to be a writer.  

So, yes, Shirley Jackson's little haunted house story is a little dated, a little old, and maybe doesn't relate well to the modern age.  But I feel like it still works.  I'm of the opinion that it was one of the first truly great ghost stories.

The Two Things a Writer Must Do

We hear all the time about things a writer must do to be considered, well, a writer. Primary research, grammar, punctuation, spelling, sentence structure, plot, characterization, and a partridge in a pear tree. All are great things.  And all of them are tools that should be in your tool box.  But, if I'm being honest, there are only really two things that a person must do to be a writer.  Careful, now, because I'm about to dispel a lifetime of myths and magick about my chosen craft, and in so doing I could bring the literary world down about my ears.

Pictured... A world of my making.

The first thing a person, any person, has to do to be a writer is to simply read. You thought I was going to say something really hard, right?  Nope.  Reading.  If you want to write, you have to read.

Remember these things?

And, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what.  I've heard people reflect with genre-snobbishness about how they only read their own genre.  I only read horror, they say, because how else could they maintain their fingers on the bloody pulse of what is truly frightening.  Fair enough.  Wrong, but fair thinking.  See, the more you read, the more you can identify what works and what doesn't.  The best teachers of the craft are, often, not found in the classroom, but on the shelves.  Read the masters of your craft, not just in your chosen genre, but in all genres.  For example:  I write horror.  

Yes, really. Ass.

And, to me, the Gods of Horror are a very short list:  Richard Matheson, Steven King, Clive Barker, H.P. Lovecraft, E.A. Poe, Algernon Blackwood, and Gary Braunbeck.  But if I only read those authors (and there is enough from them to fill a lifetime, I assure you), I would become a very one-dimensional writer.  In case you were wondering, I also read the works of Douglass Adams, Dashiell Hammett, J.R.R. Tolkien, Frank Herbert, William Gibson, and a few that I won't name because they might tarnish my already crumbling reputation as a scary guy.

No.

I also read procedurals, books on psychology, on magick and lore, books on other cultures and ghost stories.  I read books about cooking, motorcycle repair, biographies (anything on Harpo Marx, Charlie Chaplain, or Boris Karloff earns a place on my shelf) and autobiographies (particularly of pro wrestlers, for some reason... Don't judge me, you bastards).  And numerous other things that give me insight into how to tell a story, how to form a linear progression, how to give the reader the experience I want.  These are my teachers.  These are the masters.  I fall at their feet and soak up everything I can, and in the process, I hope to become a better writer.  

Pictured:  A Master.

So that's it.  Thing one that every writer must do is read.  Simple really, yet I often am surprised at how many wannabe writers casually quip "Oh, I don't read.  I don't want to sully my creative process with other people's stuff."  Seriously, I've heard that.  And I laugh at it.  On this point, I am inflexible.  If you want to be a writer, you need to read.  You either believe that, or you're wrong.  

Only two types of people...

Which brings me to thing number two that all people must do to become professional writers. It's a little tricky, maybe a little outside-of-the-box, so follow me on this one.  Place butt in chair and fingers to keyboard.  It's a two parter, so let's break that down.  First, butt in chair:

You know who you are.

One of the hardest things to get a writer to do is to actually sit down and write.  We'll go out of our way to do things that we thing we should be doing.  Dishes, laundry, cleaning out the garage, making warm boxes for neighborhood strays... But the truth is, if you want to be a writer, you have to treat your writing like something other than just a whimsical hobby.  It isn't.  It's a job.  And a damned hard one at that.  Think about how long it takes to churn out a serviceable manuscript.  Months!  Even if you're an obnoxiously prolific writer, it still takes time out of your schedule to tell your story, doesn't it?  And, yes, all those other things have to be done as well, but this is your job!  This is your passion!  This is your craft!  SO PUT YOUR ASS IN YOUR CHAIR. Create a schedule and post it in the main room of your living area.  On that schedule, block out a section of time that says "Between the hours of -insert your hours here-, under pain of death and flogging with a wiffleball bat, none may disturb THE AUTHOR as he/she is working!"  Then stick to it.  Let nothing distract you from your vocation.  

No, not even him.

Your chair is your throne, your office equipment, your business, and your sole property.  Don't let people stack the mail there.  Don't let anyone just sit behind your desk for a moment.  It's your vocation they're screwing with.  Take it seriously.  You have to.  Get yourself a chair upon which you can sit comfortably, and claim it as your own. 

Awww yis!

Which brings me to the other part:  Put fingers to keyboard.  

Like this.

Okay, so some of you still write longhand, so put a pen/pencil in your hand and get to work, but you get what I'm saying here.  Once your butt is firmly planted in your chair, it's work time.  Not hey-I'll-just-check-my-email time.  Not I-wonder-what's-happening-on-social-media time.  It isn't time for your to browse Reddit, or Facebook, or Youtube.  It isn't even time to just check the hockey scores for a few minutes (GO PENGUINS).  It's time to work.  It's time to, you know, WRITE.  How will you ever be considered a writer if you don't, y'know, actually write something? 

The other things mentioned at the top of this picture-laden blog entry will make you a good writer.  But before you can become a good writer, you must first become a writer.  No one is born good.  No one is born with a backlist.  Ray Bradbury said once that your imagination is just like any other muscle in your body, and you must treat it as such. If you exercise it daily, it will grow in strength.  If you don't, it will atrophy and die.  Truer words were never spoken.  There's another saying among painters (I think) that my wife is fond of quoting.  To say it in my own words (because I never get the phrasing exactly right), inspiration is for amateurs.  Professionals show up and get to work. What that means, to me, is that, if you wait for inspiration to strike (or for the muse to leave little idea-turd on your shoulder), you're unlikely to get a story finished, much less make a career out of this.  If you carve out a time for yourself and treat this like a profession, you will at least have a fighting chance. 

So that's it.  That's all you have to do.  Read.  Read everything. Read until there's nothing left to read (which will never happen).  Then write.  Pour your soul on the page.  That's what we do, after all.  When it's all said and done, the only thing we writers really have to do is open a vein and bleed all over the page.   I stole the last graphic in this post from another blog (http://www.thebeginningwriter.com/) because it perfectly illustrates the point I'm trying to make, and I've pinned it to my Pinterest board.  Yes, I have a Pinterest board.  No excuses.  You either want to be a writer, or you don't.  If you want to, but can't be bothered to read, can't be troubled to put your ass in your chair and your fingers to the keyboard daily, then you really can't want it badly, can you?  

Now get to work. 

Common Mistakes: The Ten Deadly Sins

Just because I'm a writer and have been published doesn't mean I don't make mistakes.  I do.  I make 'em all the time.  In fact, some of the worst mistakes I make in writing, I don't even see until someone smugly points them out to me.  Usually, that person is one of my current or former students, and more often than not they are pointing out a mistake for which I've beaten them about the head and shoulders.  So I'm not perfect.  In fact, if it weren't for beta readers and editors, a great many writers would never make it to print.  What I want to do, however, is point out a few of the most common mistakes with the hope that you will learn to avoid them.


See, I'm not saying "be like me" or "do as I say, not as I do."  What I'm saying is, I want you to be better than me.

Had - Had is bad.  I've typed that phrase over a thousand times.  Several professors questioned me on it.  But I stand by it. "Had," when used in anything other than the indication of former possession (he had a ball, but now he doesn't) or distant past is just plain wrong. Here's the thing... If you're talking about something that happened just moments ago, "had" doesn't work.  It's not the word you want.  "He had come into the room" vs. "He came into the room."  See the difference?  The first one was an example of something he did repeatedly over a long period of time.  The second one, he walked in just a moment ago.

Excessive Adverbs - We've all been told that adverbs are just a way of defining a verb.  He ran quickly or whispered softly or screamed loudly.  the problem with adverbs is that they're largely superfluous, and they are perhaps the most overused part of speech since the "had."  To wit:  How does someone run?  Quickly.  Do you know anyone who runs slowly?  Okay, yes, some people do, but the expectation in the written form is that, if a character runs, he's doing it quickly, thereby making the word "quickly" superfluous and redundant.  Of course there are exceptions, but they apply when something happens that is out of the norm.  For example, "He ran slowly.   In this case, slowly is not the expectation, so it's necessary.  You also run the risk of what we used to call "Tom Swifties," which is an adverb that so mimics the meaning of the verb it modifies as to render it superfluous, but comedically so. For example, she sang musically.  Well... Yeah.  Singing is, technically (in most cases) musical. If it's not, there's something wrong with your character's singing voice. "I don't know where we are," said Tom lostly.

Right or Left - Who cares?  Does it really matter whether a character's right or left hand is the one that got slapped?  Do we say that when we speak?  Do we say "I hurt my right hand?"  No, we don't.  Right or left, it doesn't matter.  What matters?  Hand.  I hurt my hand.  I got hit in the temple.  I put the keys in my hand.  He stepped on my foot.  See?  Right or left, who cares.  It's a superfluous piece of information that really does nothing more than muddy up your writing.  Unless there's a specific purpose for the mentioning of right or left, leave it out.

You - When you write, typically, you're writing in 3rd or 1st person.  And as such, the reader (or the audience) is stuck behind what we call "the fourth wall."  This is the invisible wall that is removed so we can get a glimpse into the lives of characters that sit in that three-camera set-up of sitcoms.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory.  See how we only see the apartment from one side?  Ever wonder what's on that 4th wall?  The audience, that's what.  So when you, the writer, use the word "you" (as I'm doing here frequently), it should only be done when directly addressing the reader.  In theater, this is called an "aside."  In literature, this is known as "annoying" and "distracting."

Starting - More often than not, I come across statements that say "he started to run..." or something of the like.  Perform an experiment with me.  Start to run. No really.  What you'll see is that there is actually a moment between not running and running, but "starting" to run is nothing but intention.  There's no movement there.  So if someone "started" to run, I'm left to wonder what stopped him.

Distancing and Filters - Look, I get it.  We all want the reader to know what our characters saw, felt, heard, etc.  It's called description.  But we also want the reader to become thoroughly absorbed in the story, right?  So writers tend to use filters.  "He saw," "She heard," "they knew..."  They're all sensory of one sort or another.  But here's the thing:  Every time you use one of these, you're reminding the reader that "hey... You're reading a story, and being told the story second hand."  There is a way to draw the reader in further, to deepen the POV:  Remove the filters.  Consider the difference:  "He heard birds sing" vs "birds sang."  In the first instance, we are told what he heard.  But in the second, we are there with him.  We hear it when he does.  We know what's going on.

Weak Words - I see words like "this," "these," and "those" all the time.  And guess what.  They're a cop-out.  Words like "this," "these," and "those" are lazy.  They're weak.  And worse, they make your prose read like stereo instructions. The three words listed have their proper places, but their place is not in your narration.  Ever.

Its vs It's - It's really quite simple.  "IT'S" is a contraction.  It means "it is."  "Its" is used in all other cases.  Period.  There's no debate here, no questions, no exceptions.  It's simply how it is.

Your vs You're - Again, easy.  "Your" means possession.  Something that belongs to you.  Your ball, your bat, your nervous breakdown.  "You're" is a contraction which means "you are."

There, They're, and Their - I see this one butchered all the time, and, frankly, it pisses me off.  Someone wasn't paying attention in junior high school.  So for those who still haven't grasped it, "there" is spacial.  "Here or there," "go over there," "what's that over there."  "Their" means "belonging to them."  "Their car."  "Their rugby team."  "Their funeral costs."  "They're" is a contraction which means "they are."  "They're going to murder me when they find out what I've done with their schnauzer, which a buried over there."

So there you have it.  Ten of the most common mistakes I come across in creative writing classes.  There are more.  Sooooo many more.  But these are the most common, outside of basic grammar and punctuation (which are for a whole 'nother blog).  Hope this helps someone.

Ranty McRantypants: On Marriage Equality

Normally, this blog is dedicated to writing tips, advice, and other aspects of the artistic profession that I so love.  But today, I feel the need to talk about something else.  And, since it's my blog, I can do that.  If you find yourself offended by what I'm about to say, please take this opportunity to bugger off and find something else to do.  We'll be back to writing advice soon enough, but do please keep your opinions to yourself.

Thppppt!

Over the past few years, I've seen a lot of ink and airwaves about "gay marriage."  I prefer to call it "marriage equality," but that's not the subject here.  I've seen people on both sides of the fence, and I've heard all kinds of arguments, and I think it's time for me to come right out and take a stand on which side I fall.  So here's the short version:

Everyone has the right to be happy, to be loved, and to declare a life-long bond with whomever they want. Everyone.  "But what about..?"  See the first word.  It's important.  "Everyone."  Live it, love it, deal with it.

Because I said so. That's why.

Look, I've seen so many right-wing Christian fundamentalists scream and bitch about the "sanctity of marriage" and the the "abomination" of what gay sex means, and every time another one opens his or her mouth, my eyes roll so hard that I'm afraid they're going to roll out and wind up in my shirt pocket.  First off, it seriously cracks me up when people who have been divorced, people who are in abusive marriages, or people who got married because one of them was pregnant gives anyone else lip about the "sanctity" of marriage.  Newsflash, people:  You have no room to talk.  And, while marriage can be a religious thing, it doesn't have to be.  Which means that your supposedly religiously-mandated homophobia doesn't apply.  "But God says..." Nope.  Sorry.  The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (remember that little holy document? The one that allows you to be an asshole?) provides for the separation of church and state.  Which means that the moment you say "the bible says" or "against the will of God," guess what... 

Don't let the door hit you where the dog should've bit you.

But why is that?  Why would we want the country to be run by people who actually make laws based on logic or on, Gods forbid, what's  best for everyone instead of based on what your God wants?  Picture this...What if someone got into power who believed in something other than your God?  Let's say, just for the sake of argument, Tom Cruise decided to run for president.

Mr. President... 

Suddenly, all laws are based on the beliefs taught by the Church of Scientology.  Your beliefs as a Christian?  Thpppt.  That's wrong now.  Sorry.  All praise Xenu.  "But that couldn't possibly happen!" you say.  "Because Christianity is the right religion!"  Weird.  That's what pretty much every other religion believes.  And they're just as convinced as you are.  Believe it or not, your beliefs don't really make a big difference to the rest of the world.  They're content to let you believe whatever you want as long as you don't try to force those beliefs on other people.  Which, by the way, you're doing.  Pretty sure you wouldn't like it if the same thing were being done to you.   Moving on.

I read an article today that stated that the "militant" homosexuals are targeting the Christians.  

Yeah... These guys...

Look... I grew up in a small town on the Texas coast.  It was so inundated with Christian fundamentalism that the largest arguments around town was who was more Christian than whom.  And the one thing I saw targeted more than anyone else?  Gays.  I grew up around slurs of "faggot," "fairy," "homo," "queer," and every other slur you can imagine.  I've seen gay men (and boys) get beaten nearly to death for loving someone.  I've had gay friends commit suicide rather than face the hatred they got for being something they couldn't help.  I've seen families ripped apart because people were too afraid to be who they were.  Here's another news flash:  The homosexuals aren't targeting Christians.  They're not "targeting" anyone.  They're not harassing anyone.  They just want to be considered equals to everyone else.  And they should be.  That the homophobic hatred is being called out for what it is, many find threatening.  But really, it's just exposing it for what it is:  Hate.  Plain and simple.

This is you.  Seriously.  This is you.

Really, look at the central message of Christianity (or most other religions, for that matter).  Boil down all the messages and lessons and everything else and you come up with a pretty easy message to get:  Don't be an asshole. And that's what you're doing.  So, if you're really trying to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, cut the shit and quit preaching inequality and hatred.

...

So there's this woman right now who is refusing to do her job, which is to hand out marriage licenses, because she is religiously opposed to same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court (you might've heard of 'em) have ordered her to do the job for which she is paid.  Let me repeat that:  HER JOB IS TO HAND OUT LICENSES.  I wonder, does she also refused to hand out licenses to people on their second or third marriages?  How about mixed-race couples?  How about couples in which the woman is not a virgin (look it up... It's a "sacred" requirement)?  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you or I refused to do our jobs.  What would happen to us?  We'd be fired, right?  What if our religion prevented us from doing the job for which we were specifically hired?  Fired.  Done.  Do your damned job or we need to find someone who will.  The thing that gets me is that she's being held up like some sort of martyr over her "heroic" stand for God's rules.  In a government job.  Re-read the whole "separation of church and state" thing.  Yeah.  She's not a martyr...She's a hate-monger.  What else should we do, lady?  Have "gays only" drinking fountains?  Make 'em sit on the back of the bus?  Have special "gays only" entrances to movie theaters?

*facepalm*

Let's be perfectly honest here.  If you are trying to deny someone the right to marry or love because they are gay, it isn't because of your religion.  It's you.  You just don't want them to.  For whatever reason, you just want to discriminate.  And guess what.  That makes you a bigot.  That makes you a bad person.  That makes you everything that your religion, in theory, stands against.  And, if you truly believe in God, then you have to know that he's staring down at you with sadness in his giant metaphysical heart and disappointment on his face.  Congratulations.

Hope you're happy.

I'm getting married in March, to a wonderful woman.  It's one of the most amazing things I could've ever hoped for, and I can't fathom denying anyone else that kind of joy.  Love is rare.  True love, even more so.  We don't choose who we love.  We don't choose who we're attracted to.  If all the scandals of the past have taught us anything, it's what happens when bigoted assholes deny people the right to be themselves.  Gay, bi, pan, trans, straight... It doesn't matter.  Everyone deserves happiness.  EVERYONE.  Say it with me.  EVERYONE DESERVES HAPPINESS.  Love is not wrong.  Remember the whole "God is love" movement?  Love is not wrong.  Love is good.