I think
many people are familiar with the idea of “The Hero’s Journey” (by Joseph
Campbell), but what about “The Heroine’s Journey”?
If I ever
heard of it, I assumed the phrase simply meant the Hero’s Journey
applied equally well to women. Maureen Murdock, a student of
Campbell, came to believe it did not. She developed a model of a
heroine’s journey based on her work with women in therapy. But when
she showed it to Campbell in 1983, he reportedly dismissed the idea,
telling her: How passive is that, eh?
Yeah, I
agree with Murdock, not Campbell, but it was only from
Sacha Black, on The Rebel Podcast episode in which she interviewed
Gail Carriger on The Heroine’s Journey that my eyes were opened. So Murdock in the 90s wrote her book,
for people to use as a model for their own behaviour, to improve
their own lives. Carriger is the author of The Parasol
Protectorate series, starting with Soulless, a whimsical
steampunkish paranormal romance thriller. (I love the whole series.) Most of what I know about this topic I
learned from listening to the Gail Carriger interview, who has just
published her first (and she quips, hopefully her only) non-fiction
book, The Heroine’s Journey.
She said she’d been waiting for someone else to write about The
Heroine’s Journey for fiction writers, but eventually realised if
she didn’t write it, no one might, so she rolled up her sleeves and
set to work. Also, because Murdock’s book was from a Jungian
Archetype standpoint, that concerned Carriger because she felt such analysis often
conflates biological sex and gender, whereas the two journey types are really genderless. In the interview, they start
discussing the topic at around the 24 minute mark. It’s worth
listening to. In it, Carriger explains that in The Heroine’s Journey,
there are big differences in purpose, approach, strength, motivation,
and ending. Key differences: Carriger says (after warning
that what she’s about to say will cause a ‘psychological break’
in people’s minds!), that a heroine’s strength is the ability to ask
for help from others. Western culture has real trouble in seeing
the ability to ask for help as a strength. But that ability lies at the heart
of networking, and making connections. A heroine’s goal isn’t Power, but
Networking, Connection: reuniting with someone taken from her. A heroine’s motivation is not revenge or to
right a wrong, but restoration or connection. Her approach isn’t to take the
offensive, but through communication and information gathering. She’s
a builder and a general, self-aware enough to know when to ask for
help. A hero’s end is usually poignant
isolation, in power. The heroine’s is usually happy, surrounded by
family and friends. The hero’s power comes from his innate
abilities and strengths, but the heroine is strengthened by her
network of allies and her connections. I think I’m struggling with
this concept too, since I had to remind myself of the truth that one
twig is easily broken, but a tightly bound bunch of them is super
strong. Or that ‘old boys’ networks’ can form powerful groups.
The more you look at it, the more obviously true it is. Carriger noted that a heroine is weakened
by isolation from her network, and that often, a Heroine’s Journey
story ends with the restoration of connections. In her book, she gives pithy but
flippant definitions of each type of Journey in the Introduction: The Hero’s: The Heroine’s: Note: neither Journey is gendered:
e.g. Harry Potter is a Heroine’s Journey. Carriger noted that if
as an author your heroine is struggling and the plot is stalling it
may be because you keep putting the heroine in isolation, cutting her
off from her network. That’s what you do in the Hero’s Journey to
force him to draw on his core strength, but for the heroine it
cuts her off from her core strength. So if this is happening it
may be because you’re trying to force your heroine’s story into a
Hero’s Journey structure. Three beats: Descent, Search, Ascent
The Descent (involuntary
withdrawal) 1. Broken network (something taken
away)
2. Pleas ignored 3. Abdication of Power 4. Family Offers Aid – Isolation and Danger – The Search (aided by
companions) 5. (Goes into) Disguise, Subversion
(Hiding) 6. Surrogate Family 7. Visit to the Underworld 8. Delegation, Networking, Information
Gathering The Ascent (structured reunion) – The Compromise – 9. Negotiation for Reunification 10. Revenge & Glory Irrelevant 11. Network Established or Rebuilt Of course, as I listened, I was asking
myself “Is Leeth’s journey a Hero’s one, or a Heroine’s?”,
and realised (yeah, a bit of an epiphany): it’s both. Individually
each book is a Hero’s Journey, but the series as a whole will be a
Heroine’s Journey. That feels both correct and good to me. I’m
writing the series by the seat of my pants, but this structure flows
from Leeth’s deepest motivations: her need to belong and her hunger
for acceptance and love. So of course that’s going to play out
across the series as a whole. Further reading
Some good references I found while
writing this were Carriger’s book
(The Heroine’s Journey: For Writers, Readers,and Fans of Pop Culture
or
the book description page on her web site),
and for writers I think that’s the most helpful reference. A much shorter look at the topic for
storytellers is
Why Screenwriters Should Embrace The Heroine’s Journey, aimed
especially at screenwriters. It uses the film Wonder Woman as an
example of its ten stages of the Heroine’s Journey – with nifty
chart. The wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroine%27s_journey gives a reasonable
overview, pointing out Victoria Lynn Schmidt’s version of the
heroine’s journey (which is set up as
The Heroine Journeys Project, “Exploring and Documenting Life-Affirming Alternatives to
the Hero’s Journey”. Another article good article is Julia
Blair’s The Heroine’s Journey: Examples, Archetypes, and Infographic. In it, she notes
that the Hero’s Journey is rooted in ancient myths that no longer
completely fit the modern world. Her article looks at the topic from
several angles, including Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, noting that
the heroine typically faces challenges from higher up that pyramid of
needs. (Also interesting is that she sees the film Wonder Woman as following
the basic shape of the Hero’s Journey, just with a female
protagonist. I don’t agree.) Maureen Murdock breaks her version of
the Heroine’s Journey (for self-improvement differently): 1. Separation from the Feminine
2. Identification with the Masculine
and Gathering of Allies 3. Road or Trials and Meeting the
Ogres and Dragons 4. Experiencing the Boon of Success.
(The Hero’s Journey normally ends here.) 5. Heroine Awakens to Feelings of
Spiritual Aridity/Death. 6. Initiation and Descent to the
Goddess. 7. Heroine Urgently Yearns to
Reconnect with the Feminine. 8. Heroine Heals the Mother/Daughter
Split. 9. Heroine Heals the Wounded Masculine
Within. 10. Heroine Integrates the Masculine
and Feminine.“Women don’t need to make the
journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All
she has to do is realize that she’s the place that people are
trying to get to.”
Increasingly isolated
protagonist stomps around prodding evil with pointy bits, eventually
fatally prods baddie, gains glory and honour.
Increasingly networked
protagonist strides around with good friends, prodding them and
others on to victory, together.
The author L. J. Kendall's blog
Sunday, 14 March 2021
The Heroine’s Journey
Friday, 11 October 2019
Leeth’s Journey So Far: “Four Books!”
I’m four books in now, and so far I believe I’ve delved deeply into both sides. I had to stop and think though, to consider Barbara’s question. Thirty years ago, I thought the series would be a sci-fi/fantasy action series, but when it came down to it, I couldn’t tell the story without honoring the depths of the characters.
(Because I love Mirella’s cover designs, let me just brighten this short post by including them here:)
Anyway, I realised my answer to Barbara’s question was “both”, even though it means I’ll need to continue a tricky balancing act. I mustn’t let the excitement of the action elements of Leeth’s dramatic life distract me from the compelling human and emotional side of her story as it unfolds. There’s no chance of losing sight of that in Book 5, Lost Girl, but in later volumes it may be something I’ll need to keep in the forefront of my mind.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
I’ll finish with a quick status update. In August, Galaxy Bookshop hosted the launch (see the video) for Violent Causes (The Leeth Dossier Vol. 4): all my books are available on the shelves there! As well, I’ve been learning bits and pieces about book marketing. I’d much rather be writing, so I plan to go back to devoting myself to that — soon. Maybe I’ll spend one day a week on the marketing side.
Things I’ve been learning about are Facebook ads from Mark Dawson and Nick Stephenson, Amazon ads from Bryan Cohen (I even created some ads), drawing up a far too exhaustive marketing plan, and learning bits about getting reviews and starting up a mailing list. I also set up my Facebook Author Page (which I gather if you Like it, you’ll be notified when I post something there). I also 99% converted my Blogger blog site into a kind of web site, only to stumble at the final hurdle. Two days before I discovered how to overcome that last problem, I gave up and recreated my website in Wordpress.org. It’s in pretty good shape, though I still have a small list of things to do. Via my hairdresser Sebastian I discovered the talented Kellie M Davies and through her, the Aussie Speculative Fiction (ASF) FB group.
I also sent some books down to Bendi-con as part of an ASF contingent, and some are on their way soon to Supanova Adelaide and Supanova Brisbane with the same group of Aussie authors. (We also had a small get-together in Sydney CBD, which was a great evening.)
Roger Patulny kindly agreed to shift the meeting date for our local writers’ group Authora Australis to a Wednesday that didn’t clash with the Sydney Mediaeval and Renaissance Group’s monthly meetings (thanks, Roger et al!), so I can attend regularly. And this Sunday (Oct 13) Kristyn M Levis will be talking to our Book Marketing discussion group about Instagram for Authors.
I also created my first Nielsen “Book2Look” book widget (“biblet”) for Wild Thing. Biblets let you look inside a book, share it on social media, find out where to buy it, and more. Oh, and I had a flash fiction sci-fi story accepted by Antipodean SF magazine, called Dangerous January (which will be available there for a limited time). Which also reminds me: I completed the Neil Gaiman Master Class too, and enjoyed it!
I guess I have been working hard after all (but not with blogging — shame, Luke!), even though there’s been far less writing than I like.
Sunday, 22 October 2017
Q&A part 4 — the Darkness of the Story
Spoiler alert!
Once again, because we discussed books 1 & 2, this contains spoilers if you haven't read them: i.e., it’s only intended for people who've read Wild Thing and Harsh Lessons.
L: I have had a few people (a teacher, a book store owner, and a someone in the book industry), tell me it is definitely Young Adult: less dark than some of the stuff available. Amazing, yes? But I never intended it for that market. And I've had other people (YA readers) tell me it's definitely not.
I tend to agree with that.
A: Holy... YA? I mean… I did read my share of YA fiction and the
emotional setup of the story is nowhere near what YA fiction
presents.
Hell it's not even suited for a lot of ‘mature
readers’ to be honest.
L: That was my feeling! Yet (e.g.) my local chemist's son (about 15? — hi, Damian!) is greatly enjoying the series, and was waiting eagerly for the 3rd. Like I said, I've had a few people — who I trust to know what's acceptable as YA — say it definitely is. I find that disturbing and a bit mind boggling.
Some of the moments when I realised what Harmon would do, chilled and appalled me. And definitely, I was literally crying while writing some of that stuff, on more than one occasion.
A: I can imagine that.
Although you did leave out the actual descriptions of the torture or sex. Come to think of it: why? I mean, this story is seriously not for children anyway. And I guess it would make it a bit clearer if this is not left to the reader's imagination. Especially book 2 is pretty vague in that regard.
In book 1 her first time is pretty clear. How the dynamic is set and what very probably happened and how. Same is true with her little encounter with the security chief. Where she used her sexuality as a weapon, or as a means to an end, for the first time. Again, could be a bit more detailed but was pretty clear how the dynamic between those two would be.
The torture stuff with gags and beating is somewhat described but since it's only towards the very end if I remember correctly it's not that central to the story yet. But it could have been a bit more explicit to not leave any doubts in the reader's mind.
But in book 2 things get very vague in that regard. The sex scene after the spanking is totally left to the reader's imagination. And at that point clarity would be important.
But most puzzling is the abuse/torture parts. There are only some flashbacks mentioned by Leeth and those too leave a bit too much to interpretation. Some might imagine things worse than they were. Some may imagine them less bad. And that would result in not really understanding the reactions that follow. You implied he forced her to hurt herself (which is a strange choice. Using the bondage to that end will only lead to another problem just like with the spanking, wouldn't it?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm neither an advocate for explicit scenes in books. Nor am I an adversary to it. But sometimes they could be truly part of the story and help clarify it. Show certain dynamics in the relationship. Like I am sure it would have in this case.
L: The second most important reason for leaving out the detail was to allow readers of different fortitude levels to imagine a level of abuse they were comfortable with. If I made it more explicit, I think it would have been too much for many people. I'm definitely walking a tightrope as it is.
A: But it's important to know how and what she is suffering through there. To understand how far gone (or faulty) Harmon's reasoning is. And also to understand what she is REALLY going through.
Leaving it to the imagination of the reader leads to every reader having a (maybe vastly) different story in their head. Making that story connect to the outlines provided might result in friction, head scratching or gaping holes.
L: To my mind, what's happening and what she's going through is quite extreme. So I hope no reader imagines something worse than what I have imagined! I also think it's reasonable and even healthy for readers to only imagine the worst they're individually comfortable with.
In a nutshell: bad stuff is happening to her.
Knowing just that sketchy detail is enough to let a reader follow the story. Of course, I have to provide much more detail than that to make the reader feel the truth of that glib summary.
A: Well, my psychology lessons were decades ago but:
What Harmon creates is psychic traumas.
Traumas can lead to
PTSD.
PTSD is the last thing any operative needs. (Well it's the
last thing anybody needs, really)
Also it is obvious what he is
doing can only lead to alienation at the very best. More probable it
will lead to hate. In the uniquely human self preservation ignoring
form of ‘I don't care if I die as long as I take him with me’.
So I have a hard time seeing why a psychologist would go that way. There are less personal ways to produce pressure.
That only leaves one good explanation I can get behind: He is a sick bastard who puts his scientific work second and his base lusts first.
L: Keep in mind that people can have major psychological breakthroughs when they survive a great stress, in our world; and that in Leeth's world, magic exists and is another possible outcome. See what you think of Harmon at the end of book 3. I think he's ‘blinded by science’ — and he and Leeth are in many ways ideally unsuited: each provokes the other. But he's shocked by much of what Leeth does, despite much of it being his responsibility.
A: I still smirk and shake my head at the scene in book 1 where she hunts the jogger. But yes, that's what he raised and trained her to. Again… he should have known that everybody needs some form of moral guidelines. Else we are animals guided by instinct. (Didn't Godsson say that somewhere in book 1?)
L: There are also some truly delicious scenes with Leeth I'm dying to write.
A: I am curious to read them. She does deserve a bit of a breather.
L: I certainly agree. I think every reader would be pretty well unanimous in that opinion, too.
A: Actually it is much overdue. I just read the other reviews on the books on amazon.de and then amazon.com after I wrote mine for book 1. And there are some pretty harsh things there. Seems most people feel a lot stronger about it than I do... some of it is way unfair and under the belt. But... you did get under your readers skin. Quite an accomplishment in and of itself!
L: I agree. I went and had Google translate a couple of German reviews, recently. And US reviewers seemed to be more offended than anyone else. So that was when I finally realised I hadn't given enough warning to readers, in the Book Description on Amazon.
A: Yes. It's pretty different from most other stories out there. Going in with the wrong expectations is probably not only draining but even a bit traumatic.
L: There is that! Apart from the one review that said something like ‘poorly executed, doesn't work’.
A: That doesn't fly. You can always be of a different opinions about the story. But the craft part of the trade can be objectively analyzed. And it's definitely not poorly executed.
L: There's also a huge difference between leaving something to the reader's imagination, with hints, and making it explicit.
As well as that, by leaving it vague, and having the reader fill in the details (to the level they're comfortable with), I think makes it more powerful, because the reader is supplying the missing parts.
A: I understand. But those missing parts are not what you imagined for the story. So the more vague the descriptions get the more readers have to fill in. And the farther they get from the ‘facts’. And that makes it hard to understand developments and reactions in the book based on this abuse and torture.
L: But that's an accepted (if odd) truth: each reader brings themselves to each book they read, so each book a person reads is a collaborative experience produced by the author and the reader together. So each experience of the book is unique.
If a book is well-written, I think the experience would tend to be more consistent across all readers, at least on the ‘factual’ side: what happens. But I think the emotional experience for a well-written book would vary a lot; and maybe it would vary more from person to person, the better it's written, because it would resonate with each person's emotional experience differently?
Interesting: I'd not thought about that so deeply before.
A: For example I still don't know what he did to her before her breakdown. Did he use the compulsion to force her to maim herself? And then mock her about it? If yes then that is a new level of short-sightedness on his part. If no than what did happen? I always had the feeling I missed something there....
L: Yes, and yes. But it's not purely short-sightedness: his theory demands such kinds of stresses.
I'm reminded of a panel in Scott McCloud's ‘Understanding Comics’ where he illustrates exactly that point: you see an axe-wielding maniac, you see the victim in the lonely house, and then it pulls right back and you just ‘hear’ the scream.
A: Well.. comics are depictions which put them in a different legal setup. They have no choice unless they want to be seriously restricted in their sales channels. You can write about dicks and pussy and what to do with them all day long and still sell it on Amazon.
L: That's true, but McCloud was making a point about the artistic/emotional effect, ignoring the legal angle. And I do think it's true.
Interestingly perhaps, I think graphic novels tend to be less gruesome than some Hollywood films or TV shows. I wonder why? Maybe because each moment is frozen, and available to be easily studied at length.
Also, I guess the main question is how much is left to interpretation and how much can be misinterpreted.
A: True. Misinterpretation is unwanted; under- or over-estimating I think is less problematic.
L: For the scene where she almost detonated, emotionally, I think it was clear what was going on, physically. If I'd added more, I think I'd be writing an erotic passage (at least, for people who like spankings or - shudder - torture). I don't really think it would have added necessary clarity.
A: Hmm. Hard to say. I only had the feeling I was missing a piece of the picture there. Especially how the dynamic between those two was at that point.
L: By writing it this way, I'm allowing the reader to set the intensity level to whatever they're comfortable with. In my own mind, it was pretty extreme, and I think for the vast majority of people, reading about torture is the very last thing they want to suffer through. I would hate for the books to be categorised as ‘torture porn’.
A: Hmm. Wouldn't you say the intensity level was what it was at that point? The things that happened were the things you imagined to happen. Not what I imagined. Not what any other reader imagined.
L: Well, yes. But then I'm very non- post-modern, and reasonably absolutist.
A: I agree with you that nobody needs to read about the smallest gory detail that is of no consequence to the story. But gory details that ARE of consequence? Or sex scenes that do have implications? I guess it wouldn't be bad to go into as much detail as necessary to clear out any misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
L: I felt more comfortable taking the risk of some misinterpretation (since I felt the broad facts would be quite clear), rather than being overly confronting and possibly losing many readers. I think the books are pretty far out on the limb of what people can accept, as is!
A: But I know… you already got a lot of flak for the dark parts of the books and this would probably antagonize the torch-and-pitchfork faction even more...
L: Yes. I'm confident that's basically a certainty.
I don't think there'd be much lack of understanding as it's written, since her reactions tell the reader that it was very bad indeed: enough to shatter her faith and trust, and to need to escape. And we've seen by this stage that she can endure a lot, so the strong implication is that it gets really bad.
A: Yes. But at least for me it left the feeling I missed a crucial part of the story. Not some gory detail but what did he actually do? Is he just over eager? Is he a bit twisted? Is he totally sick? You know that plays into the question we discussed earlier: How redeemable is Harmon?
L: Well, what he did was just as you supposed, further above. And various humiliations. Is he a bit twisted? Yes. Totally sick? No. How redeemable is he? Well, his actions will speak louder than words in the long run, obviously.
Maybe it would be (barely) acceptable in Germany, and the UK (I'm interested that at last look, I'd had no 1-star reviews in the UK!), where readers can handle it better, somehow? In the US, I think there would have been a massive reaction against it.
A: ALL reviews in .de are pretty high.
Apart from that...
every adult should be able to distinguish between fact and fiction.
And if a story is told that demands a certain level of explicit
detail... so be it.
L: I don't think that's the issue: my hunch is they identified enough with the character to feel (subconsciously) that they were participating, and felt soiled by feeling that way; and especially, they assume that most other people would react that same way: and feel I am ‘polluting’ large numbers of people. That's my guess.
You know how some people react completely irrationally when you ‘push their buttons’? I think my books trigger that kind of reaction in some people.
But fundamentally, I didn't think that an extra level of explicitness in the abuse or in the sex parts would really add to the deeper understanding of the books.
A: As you are the author I accept your judgement.
L: Thanks! I do think it has to be that way.
A: But I dare to disagree. :}
L: And that too is 100% fine, and the way it has to be.
A: I could accept you decided based on the (prognosed) critical or public reception. But that the story didn't need it? I don't know. I still feel like I am missing a part of the picture. But again I am totally aware that that might be just me.
L: I'd honestly estimate that the decision was 70% that the story didn't need it, 20% concern over public reaction, and 10% trusting in my editor's advice.
My editor advised me to tone it down (and I did), but pushed me to tone it down/remove even more, but I couldn't or wouldn't, since it would have changed the dynamic by reducing the abuse. He was quite clear: he said I would lose readers because of it. But I decided the story demanded it, so I kept it in. The story and the characters are more important to me than profit or success.
A: You don't make a name for yourself by doing it the way everybody else does. Your story is interesting because it is different. Its not ‘enjoyable’ like the mainstream out there. Maybe it could have used some more ‘ups’ in between. But the story and what happens is told well. And it all makes it feel pretty unique. And that is a GOOD thing.
I actually doubt you would have reached more people by lightening it up. Well... what kind of story would have been left anyway?
L: I completely agree. And I genuinely feel there is considerable originality in my series; and that that's very much a good thing.
A: For anybody not familiar with SR [Shadowrun] the story is a revelation. And that shows in the reviews. And for those who know SR it is still a very well made re-imagination with some pretty serious deviations. And ultimately it's about characters anyway and at least Leeth and Harmon are unique. So is Godsson and the Enemy of Mankind (I never mentioned how much I like her)
L: Cool: that's exactly my feeling, too. Yeah, d'Artelle was pretty scary.
A: Well... the Department is a bit stereotypical so far. Apart from Dojo. But that's fine. Not everything needs to be unique.
L: I think that's a very fair comment. The Department was certainly heavily influenced by both the Max Headroom TV series and Nikita (the French film). I'm not sure if Nikita was released before or after Leeth's birth in my mind.
I think the author Kristin Cashore also has a very original ‘something’ about her fantasy novels, that help make them wonderfully appealing (at least, to me). I think originality helps.
A: Well.. if you ask me.. it helps. But it's not the most important part. Good execution and consistency is important as well.
L: Quite! I think all the elements have to be at least basically sound: if any aspect is bad, it ruins a book. And if every aspect is great, you have a masterpiece of its kind.
And my hope is that Leeth is a truly unique character. I've read everything I can where the main character sounded like she might be similar. So far, I haven't found her twin!
A: She definitely is unique. So are the other characters mentioned
above.
Though she did remind me of a character in a Shadowrun
novel I read ages ago. I just cant remember the title. (Some girl
experimented on by a megacorp that gets freed during a Run...)
L: I read several of the SR novels; I bought one, Striper Assassin (I tend to buy all the books I discover with a possibly-similar character, hoping that no one else traverses the same path as me. So far, so good!), but didn't think she was very similar.
But I think my editor was observing that it was more likely to have mass market appeal: avoid offending a good percentage of your readers.
A: Now, this is something completely different but this argument reminds me of Kingdom Death: Monster. When he released it, it had no mass market appeal at all. Nobody was even willing to fund it. It is controversial, offensive, sexist as hell and the antithesis of political correctness. And by now it is the most successful game ever brought to Kickstarter.
What I want to say: just because you DON'T whore yourself out to the mass market does not mean you can't be successful. Or will reach a lot of fans. Many of which will come to you just because you do your thing.
L: I know what you're saying, and I agree. But I'm also stubborn (perhaps a little less than Leeth), so I won't make changes that would compromise the story or the characters' integrity.
If I feel strongly about something, I won't change it. If I'm ambivalent, or undecided, I'm happy to accept input and suggestions and advice.
But he didn't pressure me hard: he understood what I was doing, and why; he just wanted to be sure I understood the risks I was taking, and the consequences.
I had to think about what I'd consider a success, and set a modest bar:
if it generated more hours of ‘enjoyment’ (appreciation?) than hours of work to create it, I'd consider it a success. (Assuming one reader needs about 8 hrs to read one book.)
A: And it is good you didn't cave (for the most part). And it is refreshing to hear somebody is going through all that work mainly for the fun of it.
L: I imagine many (most?) writers do. But I'm also trying hard to make the quality at least as high as traditionally-published books.
Anyway, so that wraps up the Q&A between AndyK and myself.
And here's a final snippet of news for anyone who's read right to the end: I've finally sorted out the issues with the templates I used for LibreOffice, so I've been able to make the mass-market (A-format: 4"x7") editions. I worried that someone browsing the print books wouldn't get the ‘warning’ about the story's darkness that I added to the Book Description at Amazon; so I inserted a leaf with excerpts from the reviews I've received. I also made a couple of other small changes: including using the same nice quotation marks for dialogue that I used in Shadow Hunt. (I gave up waiting for the Find/Replace bug in LibreOffice to be fixed, and just spent a day or two on a multi-program edit that worked around it.)
Part of the drive for getting the updated print editions ready was my attendance in two weeks' time at a small (and Free!) speculative fiction convention. (Main days: Sat 4th — Sun 5th November. See: https://www.facebook.com/sydneyfreecons/)
Thursday, 12 October 2017
Q&A part 3
Spoiler alert!
Once again, because we discussed books 1 & 2, this contains spoilers if you haven't read them: i.e., it's only intended for people who've read Wild Thing and Harsh Lessons.
Which Character is Most Evil?
L: Harmon sees himself as logical, clinical, dispassionate, and sees those all as good things. He tells himself that shaping Leeth to develop magical powers is a great gift to her. (From what I've read, there are some psychologists in the real world who are equally blind to the human side of their science.)
A: Until the point where he put his dispassionate thingie into her panties. And generates stress by putting her in gags and schoolgirl uniforms.
It should have been obvious even to himself that he lost it there. And that their relationship is steering towards a big disaster.
L: Well, yes. And he does know he lost it there. Though he avoids thinking about that, and blames her for goading him to that point, and then avoids further thought on the subject.
And he also sees Leeth as resisting and obstructing and heading them towards disaster. In his mind, if she just was a little more ‘sensible", it would all work out.
But Harmon is also consciously trying not to value their relationship, since that would make it harder to carry out his experiment.
But, wow, worse than Stalin — that's saying something!
A: Stalin loved his children. He adored his daughter. :}
L: Erk!
But it's an interesting question, I think: is everyone redeemable, or are some people beyond redemption? My feeling is there are some people who are irredeemable, but they're a tiny minority.
I think much of what Harmon has done is inexcusable, and to the meagre extent he thinks about it, he irrationally blames Leeth for pushing him so far.
A: Yeah.. redirection and deflection. Again as a shrink he should be able to see the signs in himself.
L: He should be able to. But I have read of psychologists who fail in exactly that way, in the real world. Which I think is classic rationalisation.
A: And that, yes.
L: I mean it's what set him on the slippery slope. And he completely misunderstood himself (thinking he could remain detached), and refused to see how much Leeth was in fact breaking down his detachment.
A: Lust and control... I don't see any emotional attachment there?
L: I'm offering that merely to explain my thinking, that I think what he did was plausible: not to defend his actions!
A: Of course. I know. I try to put myself in his head and I have trouble understanding his decisions. I don't have this problem with any other of your characters. To the extent I got introduced to them.
L: That probably means you're a lot more emotionally intelligent than Harmon. I think a lot of people would have trouble getting inside his head. And probably most people would be reluctant to even try.
Come to think of it, that may be the root of the horror from some readers: they may have hated being presented with the possibility of getting inside such a head. Perhaps they felt it might pollute them. (For which I'm sorry.)
Leeth is incredibly stubborn, strong willed and self certain. She copes with stress to an astonishing degree. So to get her to a point where ‘something must give' requires torment way beyond what any non-psychopath would allow. Harmon knows he would never ever get permission to do what he's doing if he asked, or if anyone found out.
A: But this torture also means he is producing someone who hates and despises him. A mortal enemy.
He should know that and look for a better way if he isn't doing it because he enjoys it.
L: Not while she believed he was doing it for some good reason. ‘For her own good.' After that, yeah, it becomes close to impossible for him.
But I don't see how I could have followed the other approach: pretending to care for her while continually putting her under stress. Sooner rather than later she'd complain; and yet he would keep doing it, and so the pretence would break down.
The justification Harmon gives himself for doing what he did, apart from the ‘need' to prevent her acting against the Dept, was the knowledge that it will start generating pressure, and force her to ‘the next level'. It's probably lucky for Harmon that she escaped at the end of book 2 — too much pressure tends to end in a catastrophic explosion.
In my view, after magic returned, extra options appeared for some people when they are placed under unbearable stress. Disten (with Godsson's magical change) is exploiting one of these. What he does seems to me far crueller than what Harmon does to Leeth. Even I think it's utterly horrible.
A: You think so? I would STRONGLY disagree there.
This alien spirit or whatever it is, tries to better humans. By taking away
their emotions. Okay, he kills without much hesitation but... In a
twisted way it seems as if he actually wants to help. He is just....
alien. I don't know all that much about his motivations yet. I
truly can't bring myself to see him as the main antagonist of the
story. Even if he is some form of toxic/insect spirit who took over
in a moment of extreme distress he still is not THAT irredeemable to
me.
Harmon on the other hand, causes pain. Deliberately. And to someone who is dependent on him. Who is helpless. Who he should nurture and protect. He causes her suffering and uses her to satiate his sexual urges. So... I am neither particularly religious (nor particularly moral for that matter) but he is about the most irredeemable character I can remember reading about. And yes, I read ‘Mein Kampf' and a biography about Stalin.
L: The ‘choices' Disten offers his paired victims is literally the worst thing I can imagine anyone suffering through. He consciously does it to put them in a situation where the possible responses are madness or complete abandonment of the ability to experience emotion. With the result that most of them (are so decent and human) that they prefer a third option, and choose death rather than co-operation.
A: Hmm... vs. putting a compulsion on a young girl that forces her to do exactly what she does not want to do. Robbing her free will. Torturing her, abusing her, raping her. Well... I have a clear winner here.:}
L: To me, trying to force someone else to do even worse things than that, to someone they love, feels far, far worse.
For the human and emotional threads, Harmon and Leeth's awful relationship is at the heart of the first several books. But a big theme is the importance of emotions. The more I think about that, the more I suspect that emotions will be the key to the survival of our species in real life, in the long term. [Later note: We will need to create AI which has empathy and experiences emotions.]
A: Hmm… maybe this explains why we have such a different view of who the main villain is in your story.
Because it's hate and greed that drives us to do all the awful things humans do. Wars, environmental destruction... the list is endless.
And yes, I know, for all the dark emotions there are light ones. The question everyone has to answer for themselves is if the tradeoff is worth it.
L: See what you think of Harmon at the end of book 3. I think Harmon is ‘blinded by science' — and he and Leeth are in many ways ideally unsuited: each provokes the other. But he's shocked by much of what Leeth does, despite much of it being his responsibility.
A: ‘blinded by science' doesn't fly.... nonono :-}
The Scopolamine I could understand. But he also used a rape
drug on her to pretty much steal her virginity. He can't book that
under science. And what he did to her in book two is just about
dominance and control. About his own ego, his own lusts and not about
science. Add these ‘games' he plays with her… if all this is
science why did he go to such great lengths to prevent her from
talking about it? If he could explain it as a scientific method then
why hide?
I would seriously say if you wanted Harmon to be in any way a redeemable character you made him far too extreme.
It would be interesting to see a poll from all your readers how they see the antagonists in the story. Maybe I'm alone in my judgement. But I seriously doubt it.
#Harmon_must_die :-}
L: I'm sure you would be in good company! The aphrodisiac drug and sex are a total failure of ethics and morality: he fell to temptation; a temptation which he himself (subconsciously) engineered. There is no excuse for that. But his motivations were more complex than that.
Harmon would say Leeth's personality and her development is important, and he does not want to stunt it, just ‘direct' it. He wants her to grow, even though the decisions she typically makes are often enormously frustrating to him. But he admires her enormously, too. He wishes she would be more compliant, even while recognising that a compliant personality would be completely unsuitable for his scientific needs.
A: Well, of course she doesn't listen to him. As a shrink he should know that raising her in an emotional vacuum will also waste any possibility to ‘bond' with him. He wouldn't need to love her to hold her and comfort her. And this would build trust and a means to direct and control her. I don't quite understood why he wasted that.
By the time of his great betrayal in book two of course all those options were gone. By then he made himself into her enemy. Again something that seems short sighted to me.
I do understand Leeth's character and her decisions pretty well. They are plausible.
But Harmon's character... his decisions puzzle me still. Is he on the line of ‘intelligent people make dumb decisions too' or more ‘things get bad quick if you succumb to lust and animalistic desires"?
L: Partly it's a mixture of both. But more importantly, controlling her is only a means to an end for Harmon. His main purpose is to stress her enough to make her magic Unfold, as his theory predicts will happen.
Affectionate touching makes Harmon acutely uncomfortable.
A: That is actually an important information. Leeth mentions it once if I remember correctly. But it didn't really register with me.
But it hints that something is pretty ‘off' with him...
L: Yes. And tied in with that is his belief, as you say, that ‘things get bad quick if you succumb to lust and animalistic desires'. I see him as not at all emotionally wise — perhaps what drew him to studying the subject of psychology: to try to make sense of people.
A: That is an interesting tidbit of information. Might not be a bad idea to weave that into the story. That Harmon is ‘damaged goods' himself.
Maybe that would make readers a little bit sympathetic for this character.
L: Deep down, he feels it's obvious that he knows what's best for Leeth, and she should just do as she's told by him. So that's what drives the ‘intelligent person making dumb decisions' aspect.
A: Okay, I can get behind that. But the very essence of ‘intelligent' or ‘rational' is that he reflects on his decisions. That should result in the realization that his approach simply doesn't work and only alienates her further.
But I get it, he is the type of guy that doesn't use a chisel if he can use a mallet. And that's what steers him (them) into this disaster.
L: Perhaps the thing that most gets under his skin is having his advice (instructions) ignored or rejected.
A: Okay, this, again, makes sense for the character. But with all his education in this field he should understand the mechanics why someone (especially a child) accepts guidance. And under which circumstances it does not.
L: I agree that Harmon is quite extreme. Whether he's too extreme is something each reader of course judges for themselves. But in my view, even so, Leeth is more than Harmon can handle.
A: I am very curious to see that. Her breakout and rescue is a nice first glimpse…
And I think that will do for now. The final topic we covered, that I plan to share, was the darkness of the story. I'll leave that until next time.
Monday, 2 October 2017
Leeth Dossier Q&A part 2
Spoiler alert!
Again, note that because we discussed the first two books, this article contains spoilers if you haven't read them: in other words, it's only intended for people who have already read Wild Thing and Harsh Lessons.
(As a small aside, in Kesha’s powerful song Praying, most of the lyrics sound to me like they could have been written specifically for Leeth to throw in Harmon’s face.)
Harmon and Leeth's relationship
A: I really hope you let poor Leeth break out of Harmon's Mind Control. It's horrific to read what she has to endure. That's what most reviewers are bashing at as far as I can see. And I understand that. It's beyond dark.L: Harmon and Leeth are certainly the main two drivers.
A: Well.. Leeth seems to be a package on the back seat for much of the journey. During book 2 she mainly reacts. Except the end of course. There the victim finally showed claws. :}
L: I think you're being just a little bit mean to Leeth: learning to be a "super spy" is her dream career, so she was very much in agreement with that development.
A: I know. But Harmon turned it into an abuse spree she can't possible want to be a part of. By the end of book two that showed. To some extent. Also having her trust broken so awfully should leave impressions on her. Would be reasonable if she might even develop trust issues after that.
L: It would have to happen a lot more: she is fundamentally trusting. She'd have to have her trust broken over and over again before she'd decide that was normal, rather than blaming the individuals who'd betrayed her trust.
A: Okay. That is consistent with how she reacts with people. Also makes her more "loveable" for the readers I guess. But will also make her the victim in a harsh world. Curious how that will develop in future books.
L: She'll learn and grow. Quickly.
A: Were you really afraid you wouldn't get enough sympathy for Leeth from your readers? That's puzzling. If I ever felt a character deserved sympathy and compassion it's her.
L: I'm encouraged and very pleased you feel that way. That's of course my own feeling, too. But I know some others don't feel the same way: they say so in their reviews. Even some of the people who liked the book found Leeth hard to like. And of course the 1-star reviewers found both her and Harmon to be monsters. I found it uplifting to see her survive and defeat the odds against her. But my perception is very much within the context of what I see developing in the future. So your comment makes excellent sense to me.
A: Sure.. you see the story and characters in a holistic sense. I as a reader can only see what you presented so far.
L: It is a deep trap she's in. In fact, she's trapped in several different ways. Working her way to her best self will take a while.
A: I feared you would say that.
L: At least it suggests the situation and characters will be rich enough to sustain a lot of things to write about!
A: Come to think of it: There are two things towards the end of book two that I don't really get:
1) Leeth wants to actually kill him when he tries to set her to Zombie mode. She fails because of the compulsions. And then says she is sorry for knocking him out!? Why? After she admitted to herself she is controlled by a monster? That "Keepie is gone"?
2) Harmon making plans about after they got away from the Department. What a "great team they would be". Is he really so delusional at that point that he doesn't see where he pushed Leeth to?
L: Great questions!
1) She's still coming to terms with her new knowledge. She's not certain that giving up on "Keepie" was the right thing to do: she can't help wondering if doing that helped kill the "Keepie" side of him. She wonders if she'd tried harder, could she have brought him back?
Partly, at that moment, she was tired: feeling she should have said more, done more.
Partly, too, she felt it would feel
satisfying to appear polite while knocking him unconscious — just a
touch of sarcasm in her words — though staring down at him
afterwards, it instead reinforced her feeling she'd abandoned
"Keepie".
2) I feel that if Harmon completely
reformed, and was genuinely remorseful, in time Leeth would forgive
him: she's that desperate for love. She desperately wants to be needed,
or even wanted. Harmon, knowing that, knows it could be used,
merely psychologically, but also (he would believe) he could use his
magic to block some memories and implant more compulsions and ideas.
He believes he could manipulate her that way, through varying means
that range from truly despicable and evil (the easy way, for him) to
good (though that would require spiritual pain and a lot of emotional
growth on his part, which he is not very open to).
On top of that, he genuinely admires her, and respects her, and knows he could give her opportunities to express herself that she would relish.
A: Yet he never showed her that, did he? That he admires her or even respects her?
L: A few times he did, yes. Not often. But there are probably ten or twenty instances in the books; and Leeth could list them all: because each one, each tiny crumb, meant so much to her. Harmon himself would probably be surprised by the length of the list.
He knows he could give her opportunities to express herself that she would relish.
A: Again, did he tell her that? In book 2 I mean? Instead he did something that truly destroyed every bit of trust she had left for him.
L: In book 2?
There were far fewer instances; though given it spans only a few
months, perhaps the frequency didn't change much.
A:
Which again, as a psychiatrist, he should have realized right then,
that there is enough to control her right there in her emotional
attachment. "Come on girl. This is important. Do it for me. For
us."
L: But if he took that approach, she would feel it only fair to be able to use the same argument, and that's not something he wants to allow. It would be a two-edged sword. And he himself wants to suffer no cuts.
A: Well, without some form of control for her or choice for her it was always destined for contest, rebellion, controversy and finally animosity.
L: We as readers can see that. Even Harmon, too, probably. But partly, he's not (yet) been honest enough with himself to admit that he cares; but mainly, he believes the experiment is more important than his or Leeth's happiness.
A: So you developed Leeth's character beautifully along those lines. Which makes perfect sense in this environment.
L: So I don't think he's being entirely delusional. He is, however, seeing a rosier picture than is likely, given their personalities and how the two of them interact.
A: [Re 1:] But after he programmed her and used that trigger she did realize he betrayed her trust, right? Then he started to torture her and humiliate her in public (which she obviously abhors more than the pain). So her realization that there is only a monster left controlling her makes sense. "...and she had enough". I didn't see much doubt in her after that point?
L: True. But she has had years of memories and shared history opposing that. She can even pick out nice things he's done for her. In her heart she knows she can't trust him. I think that would be a hard truth for her to accept. And she still wishes things weren't like that. Besides, sadly, in real life many women stay in abusive relationships for a whole range of complex reasons.
A: [Re 2:] Okay, I guess I could rationalize
and understand such a development.
But there is not even the
slightest hint that he even considers he might be in the wrong. And
it's an even longer way to remorse from there.
And it shows
she is desperate for emotional attachment.
But she should also have realized she is more likely to find it
anywhere else but Harmon.
L: If she were older, or wiser, yes, she should have. She's trusting by nature, though. Which I think makes his abuse worse. And she is reaching out: to James, Emma, Dojo, Eagle, Father….
"She desperately wants to be needed, or even wanted. Harmon knows that could be used..."
A: But he never did! That's what I meant in my previous question: he could have used an emotional bond to steer her. Even if the emotions are mostly "faked".
L: Yes, it would have made things easier for him, and worse for her, if he could have brought himself to do that. But he can't bear to start down that path. It's why he reacted so strongly against what he'd learned from that first mind probe in the Institute, when he felt her overwhelming need for love drawing at him: and "ran away" from it by terminating the spell.
A: But by the end of book 2 it's too late for that. Seriously, do you see an emotional bond between them that would allow them to reconnect? After everything he did? After she realized what he did? I can't.
L: Their relationship is deep, and badly messed up, and damaging them both: her much more than him. So I do see it as a possibility, but it's not an end I'm steering towards.
Their relationship will continue to be important, and will continue to change and affect them both.
L: "he could use his magic to block some memories and implant more compulsions and ideas."
A: If he erases her memory all the time she can't actually learn and develop.
L: Agreed. But he wouldn't erase it all. But not erasing it all would likely leave loose ends that might then be probed at to find inconsistencies and cause problems...
A: And he already put so many compulsions on her she is becoming an automaton quickly. And it's doubtful she can actually work under that condition. She definitely won't progress and develop and he probably would have to admit the experiment failed.
L: I don't agree that she couldn't develop in those conditions; but I think he could easily end up in a situation where unless he has her tied up with compulsions and behaving like an automaton, she'd be too dangerous to him personally.
But again, that's not something the story is heading towards.
A: I am just still so
puzzled about Harmon's short sightedness. But again, this is the
makeup of an interesting character, too. A pretty fatal flaw. Just
because someone has power doesn't mean he has wisdom. And he is a
poster boy for that.
It's just puzzling he actually could
keep the upper hand for so long. Considering the amount of mistakes
he made.
L: The mistakes come mainly from his character flaws, and to a lesser extent to Eagle's very subtle manipulations in the background.
And yes, by the end of Book 2 Leeth realises she can't trust him.
A: Also I don't quite get how he supposed her personal development should progress if he so totally controls her. The only thing developing there can be resentment.
L: Her development would be stunted if he controlled her to that extent. But even he knows that.
More importantly, her development doesn't depend on him. So I don't think he's being entirely delusional. He is, however, seeing a rosier picture than is likely, given the way the two of them interact.
A: Well... it is consistent with his personality. I can't argue that :}
L: The point they've descended to in their relationship — what you're calling the fire — I see more as the two of them now being a long way down in a deep pit. I see the changes coming more as an attempt to climb back out of the pit (for one or both), rather than as putting out a fire.
A: Okay, I'd say both are fitting metaphors. Leeth realizes she has to do "something". And he should realize by now he pushed her to that.
L: Yes.
L: If not for Marcie's situation, Leeth would have stayed, directly confronting Harmon, fighting the problem head on, until something catastrophic happened. If she had run away for herself, or run away just to escape Harmon, she would consider that a massive "loss of points" in their unacknowledged battle.
A: ???
He just switches her into Zombie mode and she has to do whatever she does not want to do. Obviously she wants to fight this torture and abuse. But it doesn't look like she has any chance there. It's what made his betrayal so monstrous after all. And why I can't see any productive way those two actually work together. You already described her breakdown. And her realizations that "Keepie is dead and she had enough"
Running away was the only reasonable choice I'd say.
L: I can see
other options. But none that Leeth would have seen, or could
have carried out plausibly at that point. She could have chosen
to stay and endure it: but when I peer into that alternate future, I
see disaster and blood.
I think the running away was a wise
choice for her.
Again, I think that will do for now. The next Q&A topic: "Who is the most evil character in the series so far?"
Although before that I may write a quick article on updating your ebooks at Amazon,
when you have post-publication corrections you want to make.
Saturday, 29 April 2017
Stuffing things up
Here's the executive summary of how it affects people who want to read Shadow Hunt (vol 3 in The Leeth Dossier): please wait an extra day before you start reading it. If you pre-ordered it, please wait for an email from Amazon telling you that a new version is available.
Here's why….
I made Shadow Hunt available for pre-order on Amazon (April 30th, 2017), uploading the draft I had a month earlier (March 26th), while I was working through my editor's 2nd and final critique. (Or 3rd, or 4th, if you include the two earlier book splits!) I thought five weeks would give me a comfortable period — comfortable enough to even allow me to attend the sci-fi/fantasy convention SwanCon, in Perth, and spend a couple of days extra seeing the sights.
Which would have been all well and good if I hadn't made a couple of other errors. The first was not checking the details of when I needed to upload the final version of the book: I assumed the day before. In hindsight this was remarkably stupid, because naturally Amazon needs extra time to check the book carefully before launch. (In fact, they need 72 hours.) My second big mistake was a really stupid failure of basic arithmetic: 30 minus 3 = 27, not 28, right? Yeah, well my brain did the sum this way instead "Let's see: 30, 29, 28: that's three days. So, April 28 is the deadline."
Don't ask. Even I don't see how I could have made that error. Partly it was wishful thinking that the time counted from the end of April 30th, not the start of the day! D'oh!
Maybe by this time I was getting tired, too, because my editing of vol 3 was taking longer than I had expected. Anyway, I completed all my edits and did my 1st polish of the new parts, and then the 2nd polish (a bit rushed, I admit), and sat down one hour before the deadline (I thought) to convert the book to Amazon's format and upload it. I finished that with ten minutes to spare (again: I thought) and then tried to upload. Bzzt: "locked for pre-order release checks."
Uh oh.
It was only then that I realised my stuff-up. I contacted Amazon, but there was nothing they could do: my choices were either to cancel the pre-order at the last minute (and thus prove I couldn't be trusted with the ability to manage a pre-order for a period of 12 months), or upload the revised version with the usual detailed description of changes, and request Amazon to push out an offer to all existing purchasers that a new version is available.
So I chose that 2nd option. This means that the draft copy will only be there for a short period after the pre-order date (a day, I hope), and that people who pre-ordered will soon get the updated version.
The draft version that ‘escaped' can be distinguished from the final version in many ways:
I'm not going to mention any of the bigger changes, because they'd be spoilers, but for the 30 days or so following my upload of my late draft version to Amazon, I think I averaged about 9-10 hours per day working on improving the book. The changes were based on Dave's critique and some extra Q&A with him, an early beta read by a friend as those changes neared completion (thanks, Jon!), and feedback from two beta readers (Sandra, AndyK) to try to resolve a key point. So parts of the plot are strengthened, there are fewer errors and questionable parts (it all makes more sense), and is just generally vastly improved, thanks to all the feedback.
At this point I should also add that on one point, Dave and I couldn't agree (but neither of us were sure any more who was right). I also couldn't reach consensus by the beta readers. I vacillated for a while, but in the end, trusted my gut. So don't blame Dave if there's some thing (or things) about the book which you feel could have been improved: you've no doubt found a place where I didn't follow his advice!
Saturday, 1 April 2017
Free and discount ebook giveaway
The promotion started at midnight (PDT) on March 31st (so that was 6pm AEST, or 7am UTC). It ends on April 2nd.
I've made Wild Thing free for all three days (actually, a bit more: both before and after). Unfortunately, because Harsh Lessons's Kindle Select Term ends (rolls over) on March 31st, the best I can manage is to make it free on the 1st and 3rd days: Amazon have no way of pre-allocating free days in the next term, nor can they set the price to free on the current day, even if you do it at the start of that day.
The purpose of the promotion very much aligns with what I think is the key issue for authors working outside the traditional publishing environment: being discovered by readers. It also helps readers discover books they've never heard of. And who knows, some of those writers in the promotion might become your next favourite author! So I'd encourage you to have a browse of the titles available over there at the Support for Indie Authors event.
Various writers there have been working hard creating promotional images for the event and sharing them for all the participants to use. C.B. organised a Thunderclap; Christina McMullen organised the event and put together the event site, and all the authors helped with promoting and discounting their books. One member, Missy Sheldrake, even made a couple of promo videos you might like to check out, and uploaded them to Youtube here and here!
I'll be back at work on Shadow Hunt from April 1st, having received an interim critique of the 1st 200 pages from Dave at ThEditors.com on Friday night. (He said it's looking pretty good so far.)
(I'll post this same article over on my other blog.)