Wednesday Writers: Zoë Sumra

Long before I started taking my writing seriously I was a member of the Brotherhood Without Banners, the George RR Martin fan group. Our online home was a place called Westeros.org, and it was my first real taste of the joys of online community. The people I met there were some of the most generous and genuine folk you could imagine and, while I have scaled back my posting, I still keep in touch with many of them and consider them a big part of my life.

This generosity of spirit was demonstrated a few weeks ago when I was moaning on Twitter about how much I hate proofreading. It’s something I suck at, I am a big picture sort of guy, rather than being gifted with a great attention to detail (or, to put it another way – I am lazy). Zoë was kind enough to offer me some tips and I was so impressed that I rewarded her kindness by asking her if she would like to write a post on the subject, knowing it would be of great interest to the many other writers who struggle in this area.

Instead of stabbing me in the eye for presuming on our somewhat limited acquaintance in such a way, Zoë immediately agreed and produced a truly exceptional article which I am sure will be a great help to this blog’s readers. Any proofing errors below are, of course, mine!

When David first asked me to contribute to Wednesday Writers, I was pretty daunted, given the extensive writing credits of so many of the other contributors.  I have never had a novel picked up and have never submitted a short story.  I do have professional publishing experience, though, but from the other direction.

I started proofreading at an early age.  I was the annoying little oik who wrote a letter to Corgi about the typos in my edition of Dragonflight when I was nine, although, owing to the practicalities of obtaining stamps, I never posted it.  When I started writing novels a few years later, I absorbed as much as I could from as many different sources as possible about editing, and carried that on as a saleable talent as well as for the pleasure of improving my writing.

Proofreading and Editing: In The Beginning

So.  Your completed first draft is staring at you.  Well done: it takes a lot of work to get this far.  You’ve heard of editing, but don’t know where to start…

Novels require three types of editing: structural editing, which addresses issues of story structure, character development, plot progression, flow etc., line editing, which is nitpicking each individual word independent of the plot, and proofreading.  “Copy editing” may refer to either line editing or proofreading depending on which country you are in.

Holly Lisle has perfected and promoted her One-Pass Revision technique where she tackles structure, line editing and proofreading in one large revision phase.  I typically proofread while I am editing my novels, though I do structural edits and line edits separately.  Once you are confident with structural editing, line editing and proofreading, you will find yourself doing all of them at once, but they are different skills.

Structural editing is beyond the scope of this article, so from now on I will assume that the draft you proofread is structurally sound.  You should have already cut out extraneous scenes, rearranged dialogue and action to improve the book’s flow, deleted unnecessary conversations where characters discuss their plans for the next chapter, riffled two characters into one, changed three characters’ gender, and knocked the book down to its approximate final shape.

Line by Line

No matter how tight you thought your first draft prose was, it will invariably be less concise than it could be.  Now, consider your working genre carefully.  In literary fiction, prose is critical, whereas in SF, fantasy, horror, romance, crime, thriller or any of their subgenres, the author’s usual aim is to stop the prose from getting in the way of the plot.

We genre authors therefore have a great opportunity to remove 10% of a book, or anywhere up to twenty thousand words, at the line edit stage.  (This is habit-forming.  I line-edited down this article by 10%.)  Did you say something in nineteen words where you could have used twelve?  In twelve words where you could have used seven?  Knocking out extra words will knock down a wall between the story and the reader.  Adverbs are a big pitfall: most of them are unnecessary.  It’s more effective to delete the adverb and use a more precise verb.  English has rather a lot of them.

During a line edit, ask yourself whether each word is in its correct place.  Sometimes you will want to use a coruscation of purplish, perfect prose: keep these patches to a minimum.  Over-wordiness is off-putting to readers.  If you are writing a pure romance novel the mileage will be slightly different, particularly on sensual topics such as sex and food, but on the whole, you will still need to pare down the book.

Other things to spot while line editing include unintentional rhyming and rhythm repetition (intentional is great: unintentional isn’t), overuse of the definite article, overuse of the construction “the pen of my aunt” (what’s wrong with “my aunt’s pen” unless you are writing dialogue for a character whose first language has no possessive?), inappropriate variations in each character’s dialect/register, repeated use of the same word in any given four or five lines of text, starting successive paragraphs with the same word even if this word is a character’s name or “the” (in general, twice in succession is OK but three times in succession is not), repeated use of the same punctuation marks and sentence structure, unintentional double entendres, and unintentional use of phrasing that could cause confusion.

Line editing will alter your prose, but this is a necessary component of polishing your style, which will change every year you write.  As you grow as an author, focus on creating a pleasant environment for your reader.  In genre fiction, the story is important.  Pare out those words that are getting in the way of the story.

(For pointers on line editing literary fiction, please contact a specialist.)

Whither Proofing?

Proofreading is line editing’s analytic companion, complete with librarian-glasses and a disapproving expression.  Line editing is a craft with more than a little art in it.  To proofread is to correct your mistakes.

This includes mistakes in typography and in content.  If a character is called Maria 95% of the time and Mariah 5% of the time, proofreading is the process that picks up that discrepancy.

Before you start proofreading you should create relevant lists of character names and titles (especially if complicated), fictional place names, relative distances between plot locations, time taken to travel between those locations etc., so that you can check during the proofing step that they are correct.  Even if you are certain of your facts, keep appropriate reference material close at hand, just in case a fantasy country moves position on the map while you aren’t looking.

Pay particular attention to technical terminology – make sure you aren’t constructing cutlery from silicon and circuits from silicone.  In my day job I once printed a finance industry textbook that lauded the delights of pubic accounting in a chapter that should have been about public accounting.  (I didn’t proofread that one.)  More relevant to most here will be my mistake while writing an SF novel of putting a decimal point in the wrong place, overstating the speed of light by a factor of ten, and factoring that error into my spaceplanes’ speed and the distances between my space stations.  That one took a while to fix.

The Art of Proofreading

Your right brain may be rebelling at this point.  On the face of it, originating and proofreading are two diametrically opposite skills.  The one requires creativity and spontaneity: the other is an exercise in concentration.

You need to learn to take off one hat and put on the other.  Just as with synopsis creation, something else that differs from writing fiction, proofreading is a necessary part of the strong writer’s skill set.

In order to proofread you need a high standard of English spelling, punctuation and grammar, and the discretion to know when to use misspellings, variant grammar and creative punctuation.  If you know your English is faulty for any reason, including dyslexia, someone else needs to proofread your work.  This may have the side effect of correcting things you did not want to be corrected, such as appropriate misuse of language according to context and character.

How Not To Edit

Editing requires concentration.  If you corrected obvious proof mistakes while you were working through your structural edits, and if you are not combining a proofread and a line edit, you may find yourself proofreading a pretty clean copy.  It is quite difficult under these circumstances to maintain concentration.  Make sure you do so.  The moment you lose concentration, your eyes will slide past a mistake.  That said…

Editing is a marathon, not a sprint.  Studies of schoolchildren and university students show that neurotypical humans have a concentration span of around twenty to thirty minutes.  Every half an hour, stop and look at pictures of kittens (or supercars, or My Little Ponies, or mediaeval Welsh castles, etc.).  If you persist for too much longer than this your concentration level will drop and your work’s quality will suffer.

It will take you a long time to edit a book properly.  Don’t become discouraged when you realise you have been working for hours and are still only on chapter 6.  This is the step where a book becomes finalised: you can’t skimp on it.

Electronic v. Paper Editing

Modern editing professionals work on screen ninety percent of the time.  There is a specific drawback to doing this for one’s own writing – even if you handwrite your first drafts, the version you line edit and proofread will be a Word, OpenOffice, Indesign or other DTP document that you have seen several dozen times before.

The notorious difficulty of proofreading one’s own work stems from this familiarity: as authors we become too used to each sentence’s visual appearance.  I therefore suggest that before attempting to proofread, you change either the font, or the font size, or both.  One of my sentences spent nine months missing a “was” before I read it in Palatino instead of my usual draft font, Times New Roman.

As an alternative, you can print out your book and proofread it on paper.  This has three down sides: it is expensive in terms of paper and ink unless you work for a very understanding (or oblivious) manager, the results will take up space on your shelves, and you have to make each change twice – once on paper and once when typing it up.

Despite this, I normally line edit and proofread on paper after my major structural work is done.  I find it helps me to focus on just the errors in the text rather than on the story structure.

Nitpicking on Screen – Markup Functions and Not Using Them

Microsoft Word has a markup version whereby you can enter changes for later approval.  If editing someone else’s work, use this.  If working on your own, just put through everything you can at once, and create a separate document for noting serious inconsistencies.  You know when you’ve missed out a punctuation mark rather than leaving it out for dramatic effect, you don’t need to ask which of two spellings of a character’s name is correct, and if you notice a discrepancy in the current-year income of Fantasy Country W, maximum acceleration in a gravity well of SF Spaceship X, scholastic history of Fictional Character Y or lethal dose of Genuine Poison Z, make an entry on your problems list and work out later which is correct.  (You do not have permission to ignore the problems list.)

Nitpicking on Paper – Proofreading Marks

In order to line edit or proofread your work on paper, you need to use proofreading marks.  Learning the BSI Standard marks, or equivalent, will be useful for the future if you ascend the ladder far enough to sign with a publishing house.

Even if you normally single-space your drafts to read on screen, double-space or 1.5x space your final draft before printing it out to edit.  You need room to mark it up more than you need to save paper.  If you are concerned about the number of trees you are killing, reduce the font size and narrow one margin, preferably the left (you need one wide margin).

The usual method of marking a page is:

Left margin                                          In the text                                       Right margin

X (denotes there is an error)               Textual mark                                  Marginal mark

The most basic BSI proofreading mark, the insert mark, looks like the foot of a Hangman tree: image002

If you have missed out a word or punctuation mark, put this symbol in the missing item’s space.  Note the missing item in the right margin.  If you can’t fit it in, for instance if you have left out a fantasy nobleman’s full title, an SF IT technician’s whole shopping list, or most of a paragraph because you leant on the DELETE key while doing the structural edit, put a capital letter (for reference) in the right margin and write out the missing text on the reverse of your current sheet.

If the missing item is any punctuation mark other than an apostrophe, circle it for added visibility.  Don’t circle missing apostrophes, in order to distinguish them from commas.

Score through text to be deleted.  Underline text that should go in italics.  If text is in italics incorrectly, underline the affected text and score through said underline.  Double underline denotes a change to small capitals, and triple underline denotes a change to large capitals.

The BSI mark for inserting a paragraph break looks like this:  image004

Underline the last word you want to put in the shortened paragraph, put a vertical line in the break place, and add a line over the first word in the new paragraph.

If you have been overenthusiastic and marked up something that does not need correcting, “stet” means “leave this the way it was”.

These marks and others are online at http://www.lancingpress.co.uk/factsheets/images/proofmarks1.png.  There is much more to learn about proofreading marks, including the minutiae of when to use a blue pen and when to use a red pen (really), but this will get you started in on-paper editing.

Twice to Tango?

Should an author line edit just once?  Extra passes are likely to give diminishing returns, partly because you will have picked up most errors on the first pass, partly because of enervation.  I prefer to read through the book as a book once I have edited it, and to try to experience it from the reader’s perspective.  If I’ve missed any proofreading errors, or if my prose isn’t tight, I’ll notice.  Proofreading twice is an option you should certainly take if your “final” read reveals a lot of errors.

When Enough is Too Much

A famous author once observed that when a book is finished, the author should stop writing it and step away.  The same goes for editing.  You can’t keep reworking that one scene again and again, and neither can you keep on editing its every sentence into perfection and checking it for punctuation errors.

Your novel will never be perfect.  Your goal is to make it as good as you possibly can, and release it into the wild.  The search for perfection will carry on, into your next novel.

Zoë Sumra started writing fantasy novels at the age of twelve, because she lived in the countryside and there was nothing else to do.  Twenty years on, her working credits include typesetter, proofreader, print controller and stock controller, sometimes all at once, in two branches of non-fiction publishing.  None of her fantasy or SF novels have been published, though not for want of trying.  She cherishes the moment when Alastair Reynolds opined that her most recent novel’s opening was “pretty good”.  She is an associate member of the Society for Editors & Proofreaders.  Away from the written word, she is an enthusiastic amateur fencer, currently ranked inside the British top forty at women’s sabre.  Her knees hate fencing and are plotting a rebellion.  She lives in London with her husband. You can find her online at http://zoeiona.livejournal.com

zoe in wedding dress

Chronos Ballot announced

So, I am still on the road – currently in Perth. While it has been a little stressful on the work side of things (not helped by missing a flight for the first time – not a pleasant feeling), it is balanced out by getting to see some friends while I am here!

I also received some texts and emails last night telling me that the Chronos Awards ballot has been released, and that I am on it! All very exciting, but even more exciting to see some good friends on there as well. So, whatever happens, there will be reason to celebrate!

You can find the complete list below, and voting instructions are here (scroll al the way down). Whoever you thinks should win, if you are eligible please do vote. Like the other awards, the more community investment in the awards the healthier they are.

Best Long Fiction

Bread and Circuses by Felicity Dowker (Ticonderoga Publications)

Salvage by Jason Nahrung (Twelfth Planet Press)

Walking Shadows by Narrelle M. Harris (Clan Destine Press)

Year’s Best Australian Fantasy & Horror 2011 edited by Liz Grzyb and Talie Helene (Ticonderoga Publications)

Dyson’s Drop by Paul Collins (Ford Street Publishing)

No Award

Best Short Fiction

“Five Ways to Start a War” by Sue Bursztynski in Light Touch Paper Stand Clear, edited by Edwina Harvey and Simon Petrie (Peggy Bright Books)

“The Mornington Ride” by Jason Nahrung in Epilogue, edited by Tehani Wessely (FableCroft Publishing)

“Nematalien” by LynC in The Narratorium, edited by David Grigg

“Fireflies” by Steve Cameron in Epilogue (FableCroft Publishing)

“The D_d” by Adam Browne in Light Touch Paper Stand Clear, edited by Edwina Harvey and Simon Petrie (Peggy Bright Books)

No Award

Best Fan Writer

Alexandra Pierce

Jason Nahrung

Nalini Haynes

Bruce Gillespie

Grant Watson

Steve Cameron

No Award

Best Fan Written Work

Reviewing New Who series by David McDonald, Tansy Rayner Roberts and Tehani Wessely

No Award

Best Fan Artist

Dick Jenssen

No Award

Best Fan Artwork

“The Entellechy” by Dick Jenssen, cover art for Interstellar Ramjet Scoop for ANZAPA 267 edited by Bill Wright

No Award

Best Fan Publication

Dark Matter Fanzine (www.darkmatterfanzine.com), by Nalini Hayes

SF Commentary, (http://efanzines.com/SFC/) edited by Bruce Gillespie

Viewing Clutter, DVD and Blu-ray reviews blog (http://georgeivanoff.com.au/other-writing/reviews/viewing-clutter/), by George Ivanoff

No Award

Best Achievement

Continuum 8: Craftonomicon (51st Australian National SF Convention) Program by Julia Svaganovic, Emma Hespa Mann, and Caitlin Noble

“Snapshot 2012″ by Alisa Krasnostein, Kathryn Linge, David McDonald, Helen Merrick, Ian Mond, Jason Nahrung, Alex Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts, Tehani Wessely and Sean Wright

No Award

Best Artwork

The award for Best Artwork is not being presented due to insufficient nominations being received.

Wednesday Writers – Robert Hood

It’s hard to sum up the achievements of someone like Robert Hood in a paragraph or two, Not only has he won, or been nominated for, every Aussie Award imaginable, he is also critically acclaimed on the international scene. He has edited successful anthologies, and continues to be one of our best short story writers. With credentials like that, it is no wonder he is sometimes called the “wicked godfather of Aussie Horror”. Plus, he knows more about superheroes, giant monsters and comics than just about anyone!

On top of that, Rob is one of the nicest guys on the scene, who goes out of his way to encourage other writers and to share his wealth of knowledge. I’ve had the pleasure of being on panels with him and I know how much I picked up from the experience, let alone the audience! So, I was very keen to see what he would write for Wednesday Writers and, as you will see, I wasn’t disappointed!

When is a Giant Monster Not a Giant Monster?

First, some contentious generalisations about famous works of fantastic fiction:

1. The original 1954 film “Gojira” [Godzilla, King of the Monsters] isn’t about a giant monster that trashes Tokyo.

2. William Blatty’s The Exorcist isn’t about the demonic possession of a teenage girl.

3. J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings isn’t about elves, hobbits, and rings of power.

4. George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead and its sequels aren’t about zombies.

5. Superman comics aren’t about the ultimate alien superhero.

6. Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein isn’t about a man-made monster that runs amok.

What are these stories about then?

Often that’s hard to pin down to a few words. The fictional entities in the stories named above tend to carry a weight of meaning beyond their fictional existence, and that weight of meaning can be variable, subjective, indefinite, complex. I would argue that the complexity is their strength – but that’s a discussion for later.

Meanwhile, here are some contentious (and over-simplified) suggestions as to what the above works are about:

1. The monster Gojira is, as director Ishiro Honda himself said, “radiation” (in the wake of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagaski).

2. The Exorcist’s demon depicts the fear that parents’ feel as their children grow away from traditional values, becoming alien and incomprehensible in the process.

3. Tolkien’s elves, hobbits and orcs, and their struggle over the One Ring, depict various notions regarding fate, free-will and responsibility.

4. Romero’s zombies are the purveyors of ravenous social chaos, feeding off the vulnerabilities of humanity.

5. Superman is a manifestation of our somewhat conflicted abandonment of the idea that there exists an all-powerful deific “hero” working to save us from the bad guys.

6. Frankenstein’s creature represents humanity’s desire to attain ultimate power over its own destiny, and illustrates the flaws in human nature (and society) that make such an ambition problematic.

Okay, all these interpretations are open to debate and other meanings will inevitably be offered to “explain” the various works. Moreover, I’d argue that all of these explanations, while true on some level, are too limited to represent a “final” understanding of the various stories’ meanings. But my point is, all these stories can be seen, and are seen, as carrying meanings like these – and in part that representational depth is precisely why they have had ongoing cultural impact. It’s why they’ve proven so fascinating to generations of readers and viewers.

In writing-manual-speak, what they demonstrably have is a theme. A “theme” is what a story means, beyond its basic plot. It’s the lack of a theme that audiences are referring to when they say a book or film isn’t “about” anything. It feels empty, trite. There’s nothing going on below the surface. There’s nothing that gives the story relevance to them. We’re not talking about a “moral” here, but a connective idea.

Sure, but first and foremost shouldn’t a good story just be a good story?

Putting the rhetoric aside and contrary to my original statement, I’ll admit that all these stories are, and should be, in fact, about their central plot elements, be those elements giant monster, demon, hobbit, zombie, superhuman, or artificial creature. The stories work because their fantasy elements are treated as real within the context of the book/film/comic. They are not simply abstractions. They are not hollow vessels designed purely to carry philosophical viewpoints or moralistic homilies. Such creations are, in each of the instances mentioned above, well-conceptualized characters, existing as “realities” within effectively developed plots (though, of course, Superman isn’t a single work – but a gradually developed set of images and tropes that have an ongoing creative existence). I’m not denying the value of pure plot. All stories have a plot and that plot is important, for lots of reasons. These stories are entertaining because of their plots. The plots draw their audiences in and tie the narrative elements together. They carry their own meaning within an imaginative context and it is the plot, and the characters that drive it, that the reader/viewer engages with, at least on a surface level.

Rob_Hood-at-Notionssammlest

But that’s just paddling in the shallow end of the pool.

Generally, stories that are only about their surface plot elements are easily forgotten and fail to linger in our individual and cultural imaginations. They don’t have the sort of iconic impact that all the works mentioned above have had. They don’t resonate.

And without some sort of resonance a story doesn’t become what it needs to be: more than the sum of its parts.

Anyone who reads a lot of slush for an anthology or magazine will know what I’m talking about. Apart from the terminally bad, there is in any slush pile a middle ground of okay, fairly competent, decently written stories that just don’t offer any compelling reason for the editor or reader to consider them above other stories. They sometimes get over the line because of effective characterisation or an interesting central idea or something like that – but only when more memorable stories are lacking.

Indifference toward them usually comes about because they don’t have depth, a driving force. They don’t mean anything. They don’t have a developed theme.

For me, the meaning within a work of fiction is about the creation of metaphorical patterns. I may be writing a zombie story, but for it to rise above its competitors (given that it is well-structured, well-written, and has effective, emotionally engaging characters) it must have its own relationship to the real world outside the book. In stories of the fantastic, that relationship is probably going to be metaphorical.

Technically speaking, a metaphor is (according to the Oxford Dictionary) “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable”. More loosely a metaphor uses one thing to stand for or represent something else. The metaphorical qualities of fiction are about using the tropes and images available within the genre to open channels for its themes to engage with the audience.

Used in this sense, the connection between the two sides of the metaphorical binary system are likely be vague and multi-layered – but when created well will carry a truth that readers instinctively recognize, even if only on a sub-conscious level. For example, the nuclear monster Gojira/Godzilla as created by Honda in the 1954 film, allowed the director to touch on a subject that had been proscribed by the governing occupation forces. He visualized the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima on film for his audience – and questioned the socio-ethical issues of such power at some length – but in the context of a monster movie, thus getting away with it despite the fact that such “discussion” was forbidden.

What I’m talking about, however, is not about forging a tight comparison between the two extremes of the metaphor. To do that it is to write allegory, as in, for example, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, where everything in the story is given a concrete meaning in terms of the story’s fixed moral message. That’s all very well, but down that road lies propaganda. Some fantasy veers very close to this – or has in the past. The allegorical Christian components of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books, for example, often cross the line, though are saved by the imaginative conviction that the author brings to his characters and the situations they find themselves in. He (mostly) manages to universalize the propaganda.

The sort of metaphorical correspondence I’m talking about necessarily casts a wide net. But it’s a net that is very porous in nature. In hindsight, I’d argue that my recently published novel, Fragments of a Broken Land: Valarl Undead, explores issues relating to the relationship between the objective world and our subjective interaction with it – and what that means in terms of what we do. I say, “in hindsight”, because I didn’t “map” out the correspondences as rationally as I did the novel’s plot or its background. It was there, though, tied into everything I wrote. The events of the novel, and the physical/metaphysical structures in which they take place, are intuitive in the way they convey this theme. It gives the novel its form – but loosely, ambiguously.

Much of it was inspired by the work I did for my postgraduate thesis on the writings of 18th Century British poet and artist William Blake. Blake’s artistic approach to reality, which was mystical in nature, very much underlies the philosophical and metaphorical elements of the novel. I don’t think these ideas dominate the novel. On a base level Fragments is a fantasy epic about a looming apocalypse, and that is what carries the reader along. However, I believe it is the underlying theme that helps give the novel its uniqueness and depth – and, I hope, will make it memorable beyond the reasonably generic nature of its basic plot elements.

What’s my point?

Just this: as you arm-wrestle with your characters to bring them alive and struggle with the squirming intricacies of your plot, as you beat your language into shape and work on the multitude of details that make the setting of your story compelling and believable, don’t neglect your theme. Trust me, it’s the really hard bit, finding the balance between telling and showing, and conveying the theme without ever talking about it too much. But it’s also the bit that comes straight from your gut as a writer. It’s the thing that really matters, the element what will make your story matter to readers.

In short, it’s what the story is all about.

ROBERT HOOD has had a long career in the fantasy/horror/SF/crime genres. With over 150 stories published, many re-printed in his three collections to date (most recently Creeping in Reptile Flesh), he has been called “Australia’s master of dark fantasy” as well as “Aussie horror’s wicked godfather. His novels include Backstreets and the Shades series. A dark fantasy novel, Fragments of a Broken Land: Valarl Undead, has just been released from Wildside Press (US). He was also co-editor of the popular Daikaiju! Series of anthologies (Agog Press/Wildside Press). Hood’s website can be found at www.roberthood.net and www.roberthoodwriter.com. For more information on Fragments of a Broken Land, go to http://fragmentsnovel.undeadbackbrain.com/

image002

Some Quick Updates from Up North

Updates have been few and far between as I am currently in the middle of of some interstate travel for work. Yesterday I flew into Alice Spirngs and had 24 hours to get about 36 hours of work done, before flying out at lunchtime today for Darwin (I am writing this in the plane).

I didn’t have time for any socialising in Alice Springs, though I managed to find a steakhouse and have a truly magnificent meal, but my sister is in Darwin so I will get a chance to spend some time with her.

I’m very grateful to have a job where I get the opportunity to travel, though sometimes it can get a little hectic. I’ve already been to Tasmania this year, and next week I will be in Perth.  One of the lovely things about the Aussie Spec Fic Community is how I have been made to feel so welcome every city I go to. In Hobart I caught up with friends, and I have no doubt Perth with be the same.

Some quick little updates and news:

  • The Hugo ballot has been released and it’s great to see some Aussie representation. Coode St and Galactic Suburbia are on there again, and hopefully one of them is the winner (or a tie!), Also, Jonathan Strahan is up for Editor, Short Form.  Surely, it’s long past due for him to walk away with a rocket? I hope this is his year.
  • But, the one I am most excited about is Tansy’s nomination as Best Fan Writer. It’s been a privilege working with her on the Doctor Who reviews. Tansy has that rare mix of passion and knowledge and perception, and you hardly ever get all three. You can tell Tansy loves the things she is writing about, and cares deeply about examining them – and not pretending that problematic elements sometimes exist. She really is one of the best commentators on the genre going around – as her nomination attests.
  • I have guest blog up at Crazy 8 Press talking about my story in the ReDeus: Beyond Borders anthology. Check it out if you dare, it has a photo of me that isn’t for the faint hearted
  • For the last few months I have been in talks with a production company about writing a science fiction web series. Things are going well and we are looking at filming in January. I am extremely excited about the potential I can see, and learning how to write screenplays has been a lot of fun. I will, of course, keep you posted!

Hopefully I will have time for a longer post from Darwin, but stay tuned as tomorrow’s Wednesday Writer is well worth the read!

Addendum – I am here and it is HOT. Wow.

Wednesday Writers: S.G. Larner

I am often amazed by my good fortune. Not only did I gain a great mentor through the AHWA mentor program, I also ended up with an excellent fellow mentee (is that the right word?)! Stacey Larner is an exciting new voice in speculative fiction who is starting to garner some well deserved attention, as her recent Ditmar nomination for Best New Talent attests. I’m really excited to have her on board this week, as I found this post about Suburban Gothic and some of the darker aspects of motherhood fascinating and it’s made me want to go and find out more.

When David asked me to fill in at short notice I thought “Yes of course!” And then I realised I had to write something original, about writing… and I immediately cast about, floundering for something that might be interesting.

Then I was introduced on twitter to a writer who calls her stuff “Suburban Gothic”. And my mind went ding. My good friend Jodi Cleghorn said to me once that what I was writing wasn’t so much urban fantasy as it was suburban fantasy (that was actually horror). I said yes, then lamented that it’s a hard sell.

I went for a bit of a Google and found that Wikipedia has an entry: Suburban Gothic is a sub-genre of Gothic fiction, film and television, focused on anxieties associated with the creation of suburban communities, particularly in the United States, from the 1950s and 60s onwards. It often, but not exclusively, relies on the supernatural or elements of science fiction that have been in wider Gothic literature, but manifested in a suburban setting.

The appeal of traditional Suburban Gothic horror seems to have waned somewhat. Horror reflects the anxieties of society, and for the many writers who grew up in suburbia (like myself), it’s not something we feel particularly anxious about. However a new kind of character-driven, intensely personal Suburban Gothic is surfacing, often centred around parenthood and the uneasy reconciliation of modern lives with traditional parenting roles.

The way I see it, I’m writing a particular kind of horror that finds its roots in domesticity. Parenting (an in particular, mothering, the perspective I know most intimately) is filled with mundane, repetitive tasks that are often thankless, invisible, and devalued. Birth is an abject state: your boundaries dissolve—physical and mental—as a being that was part of your body for 9 months is ejected out into the world, and becomes a being separate from you, yet still intimately and desperately attached. There are all kinds of bodily fluids, there is the threat of death. And for a period of time afterwards you lose yourself, part of you dies, and you are slave to a tiny dependent being, whose very survival is your responsibility.

It’s pretty fucking full on. You don’t go through that and come out unscathed. But no one wants to know. Everyone sells you this picture of motherhood that is blissful, amazing, hard work, yes, but worth it. Mothers are self-sacrificing, saintly, kinda boring—or they are bad. The Suburban Gothic vibe in my work explores the intersection of the expectation of motherhood, and the reality. Or perhaps it delves deep into what it means to be a mother: including the hard decisions you have to make for the sake of your children, or your sanity. Instead of taking you out of the home, it traps you inside it, inside the claustrophobic confines of suburban life.

I think also more men are writing about parent-centred themes as they become more involved in parenting. Modern fathers are finding themselves impacted by having children in a way that 1950s fathers never were. Obviously the way men and women enter parenthood is different, but Suburban Gothic is particularly suited for both women and men to express their fears about parenthood. For women, it lends itself well to explore the feminist tension between autonomy, independence, and work-as-worth on the one hand, and isolation, dependency, and domestic drudgery on the other. The desire to do what is right for the child, sometimes at odds with what the mother as a person desires for herself.

In my repertoire there’s the story about the new mother with post natal depression who is trying to figure out if what is happening to her is real, or a function of her mental illness. There is the story about a young single mother who sells herself into demonic slavery in order to save her child. There is the story about the couple who lose their baby in utero after struggling with infertility, and how the parasitic nature of pregnancy affects them.

There are some fantastic writers out there, like Margo Lanagan, Kaaron Warren, and Angela Slatter who are not afraid to write diverse mothers, who don’t shy away from parent-centred dark themes. For other examples of this modern Suburban Gothic, check out Michelle Jager’s “Jar Baby” in issue #8 of Midnight Echo, or Simon Dewar’s “The Kettle” in the upcoming Bloody Parchment anthology.

I know many parents who relate to feeling ambivalent about their roles, but there is a definite taboo against talking about it. Horror writers break taboos, though—that’s our job! I gleefully break this one, and hope that, in telling these stories, we can help normalise and destigmatise the very real anxieties felt by modern parents.

S. G. Larner lives in Brisbane, where it’s way too sunny and humid for her liking. Her three children keep her occupied most of the time, but she sneaks off to write whenever she can. She tends to write stuff that is dark and weird to balance her mundane existence. She blogs at foregoreality.wordpress.com and erratically tweets as @StaceySarasvati.

stacey1

 

ReDeus: Beyond Borders

Very excited to announce the upcoming release of ReDeus: Beyond Borders from Crazy 8 Press. This is my first time working in a shared world environment of this type, and it has been a great experience. There is a great line up of writers, and the editors have been amazing – not surprising given their backgrounds and experience in the industry!

On their website, Bob Greenberger says:

When Aaron Rosenberg, Paul Kupperberg, and I conceived ReDeus–our world if all of the gods from all of the pantheons suddenly returned and demanded worship once more–some years back, we initially thought it would be a fun playground for the three of us to explore, telling stories that we’d hope would find an audience. Last year, we decided to invite our friends to come play with us, resulting in ReDeus: Divine Tales, an anthology of eleven stories that debuted at Shore Leave, marking Crazy 8 Press’ first anniversary.

We had so much fun with that, and got such excellent response from readers in person and online, we decided to do more. In fact, coming this year there will be two more collections. First up is ReDeus: Beyond Borders, a collection of tales exploring how the gods settle back in around the world.. We’ll see some returning characters from the first book and some very familiar gods, but our writers have also chosen to explore some nooks and crannies about life within the first two decades after the gods of myth have all returned. Everything has not necessarily turned out for the best, especially in some lands, nor is it all bad as we will discover. And with so many gods vying for worship, there’s some interesting jockeying going on, for lands and for people. It’s a vastly different world the gods have discovered and while some embrace the new technologies, others find it abhorrent. That in itself makes life among the mortals complicated, an ever-changing struggle to live and provide for the families.

The anthology will be launched at Balticon in late May, and I will be posting more information soon.

beyondboarders_lorraineSchleter

A Conversational Journey through New Who – S04E05E06 – The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky

David is coming to New Who for the first time, having loved Classic Who as a kid. Tehani is a recent convert, and ploughed through Seasons 1 to 6 (so far) in just a few weeks after becoming addicted thanks to Matt Smith – she’s rewatching to keep up with David! Tansy is the expert in the team, with a history in Doctor Who fandom that goes WAY back, and a passion for Doctor Who that inspires us all.

We are working our way through New Who, using season openers and closers, and Hugo shortlisted episodes, and sometimes a couple of extra episodes we love as our blogging points. Just for fun!

We would like to thank everyone who nominated our “New Who in Conversation” series for the William Atheling Jr Award again this year – it’s a great honour to be on the ballot! Voting for the annual Ditmar Awards (which the Atheling is included in) is open to all members of  Craftinomicon (2012 Natcon – Melbourne) and Conflux 9 (2013 Natcon – Canberra), and can be done online.

“The Sontaran Stratagem/The Poison Sky” – S04E0506
The Doctor – David Tennant
Donna Noble – Catherine Tate

TEHANI:

Righto, so we’ve skipped over “The Fires of Pompeii” and “Planet of the Ood”, moving along to “The Sontaran Strategem/Poison Sky” double episode (not Hugo nominated, but Tansy felt they were important to talk about – we agreed!). I would like to mention a couple of things about the preceding two episodes though. In “The Fires of Pompeii”, we saw Donna make the Doctor to rescue just one family from the eruption, effectively forcing him to remember that EVERYONE MATTERS, and clearly setting her up as his conscience and moral compass. This is interesting when followed by “Planet of the Ood”, when his compassion is demonstrated in his fight to save the Ood despite their apparently murderous tendencies. Donna’s impact is swift and cannot be overstated, as it becomes so important later on!

DAVID:

“Planet of the Ood” is an excellent episode, because it highlights the idea of the Doctor as an outsider who challenges the status quo of the times and places that he and his companions arrive in. The episode manages to ask some important moral questions and has some genuinely creepy and shocking moments, like when we find out what their translation sphere has actually replaced.

And, I always enjoy a good historical episode, especially one where we know exactly what *has* to happen to fit into history as we know it, and wonder how the Doctor is going to save the day (or the people in the episode that we care about) given that catastrophe is going to strike, no matter what.

ood

TANSY:
“The Fires of Pompeii” is one of my favourites. Not only did they use some of the very authentic sets from HBO’s Rome, but they also used some really delicious snippets of real Roman social history. And Donna is wonderful in it. He needs her so much … and it’s wonderful to see how much she blossoms and grows in confidence as she realises that.

TEHANI:

Two good episodes to set us on the right path for the Donna/Doctor relationship. And then we come to “The Sontaran Strategem/Poison Sky” duo!

DAVID:

Given the title, it is hardly a spoiler to talk about how excited I was to see the return of one of my favourite alien races from Classic Who. I always loved the concept of the Sontarans and their endless war with the Rutans, so this was a bit of a fanboy moment. We’ve noted how there has been a concerted effort to show the New Who is a continuation of what has gone before, and it always thrills me to see one of the familiar foes of the Doctor. They may not be the Daleks, but the Sontarans have certainly given the Doctor some trouble. In fact, they are one of the few races to successfully attack Gallifrey itself, IIRC.

image.php

TANSY:
Oh, Sontarans. I love them. I may love them more that Cybermen and Daleks, even if mostly when I think of them it’s of the first appearance of one Sontaran in “The Time Warrior”, a wonderful Pertwee story which was also Sarah Jane Smith’s debut.

I really like what the new series has done with this classic monster, and this story by Helen Rayner (the only female writer of the new series!) is a really good reintroduction to them. The premise of the Sontarans as a ruthless clone race eternally at war, and their motives for what they are doing to the Earth in this particular strategem of theirs, all comes together really nicely. The clone aspect was not overly significant in the old series, so I like the way that is emphasised here along with the military obsessions.

They’re short but feisty! I know some fans winced a bit at the Sontar haka, but I loved it as a pointed, effective way to show what the Sontarans are like to a modern audience. It’s also great to see Christopher Ryan back in Doctor Who playing the leader, and oh I did spot Dan Starkey and the gap between his teeth as one (or many?) of the less high ranked Sontarans. I WONDER IF HE’LL BE IMPORTANT TO US IN THE FUTURE.

TEHANI:

There’s a lot to like about these episodes. I hadn’t encountered Sontarans before, from memory, and it was good to revisit this double episode in light of more recent ones! I got a bit annoyed with the American genius this time around (hello, X-Men riff, anyone?) but the tie-back of the work of the genius school to the ending was well done.

TANSY:
I don’t think you’re supposed to like him! I think the idea is that if you had a super SUPER genius kid (which is a common SF trope) who also happened to be a millionaire then realistically they would be more likely to end up a supervillain than a hero. Also, he had been less annoying his sacrifice would have been far more tragic. I really love the scene where his fellow students use to join him on his quest because it’s just not a good idea. His grand plans come to nothing because they’re not sociopaths. It’s a very effective moment.

TEHANI:

I thoroughly enjoyed Wilf again – he’s just fabulous! And I liked the little nods to continuity: in particular, “Are you my mummy?” made me giggle out loud!

DAVID:

Of course, Wilf and the Sontarans aren’t the only familiar faces to pop up in this episode! There is another moment for the old school fans with the return of UNIT, but I think everyone would have been delighted to see the return of Martha. I like this version of Martha, I thought she showed that she had grown as a person since she had left the Doctor and was a bit more mature and more sure of herself that she had been previously.

The_Sontaran_Stratagem_064

TANSY:

Oh Martha, I do love her really. So glad to have her over that whole crush thing and she can get on with being awesome. I feel like she gets a bad rap as a companion because the crush on the Doctor gets more and more annoying in hindsight and it’s hard for many fans to see past that. I worry I might be one of those fans.

But she’s so good here – she’s found her own life and the fact that it’s one the Doctor disapproves of it’s actually quite satisfying. I am not keen on the whole ‘UNIT pushed my degree through’ aspect, though, would prefer it if she had qualified properly and this was a few years later.

Martha and Donna together are one of the great joyful aspects of new series Doctor Who, and it’s sad that it didn’t last long. Even less time than Jack-Rose-Nine, sob! The scene in which the Doctor expects them to fight and instead they hug and start gossiping and refuse to be jealous of each other is GLORIOUS and THE BEST THING EVER.

DAVID:

It’s definitely refreshing to see two woman NOT fighting over a man in a TV series, rather than the usual trope. There was an element of that in “School Reunion”, for example, that I didn’t really enjoy. It makes sense to me that Martha and Donna would bond over the shared frustrations of travelling with the Doctor. After all, how many people are you ever going to get to talk to who understand what it is like? So, I am glad that they went that way with their encounter.

As I’ve said before, Martha is one of my favourite aspects of New Who, and it is great to see that she hasn’t simply stopped living her life because of the Doctor, but is getting on with things and being who she wants to be. Just like we know Sarah Jane did, whatever “School Reunion” might have implied!

8MWCD

TEHANI:

It’s definitely nice to see more of Martha, and find out that yes, she’s doing pretty well actually. It makes me even more sad for what happens to certain other companions when they leave the TARDIS…

TANSY:

Having UNIT back is also important to me, and while they’ve flirted with it in the past this is the first one that feels like a real UNIT story. It does however make me miss Nicholas Courtney quite fiercely. The Doctor gets to use military resources while grumbling about guns, which is a nice Doctorish thing to do. His misappropriation of Ross into a kind of alternative companion was really sweet and I like that Ross had a snarky sense of humour that came out after an hour or two in the Doctor’s company. We like Ross! Don’t kill off Ross!

(I do think that the Doctor went a bit far with chiding the general at the end for not treating Ross like a real person after his death – DUDE, think about how many letters home this man has had to write in his career, put your judgy hat back on the judgy hatstand…)

One aspect of this story that I think could easily get lost in all the awesomesauce is the great use of Sylvia, Donna’s mum. Sylvia is a hard character to like, because her role is to show us all the reasons Donna doesn’t think she’s worth anything, and to balance out the supportiveness of Wilf. But I think they realised their mistake with Francine in the previous season, who was written as so unrelentingly horrible (all her scenes have her complaining about Martha or someone else in her family, and then she betrays Martha and then she hates the Master – she never gets to crack a smile).

Sylvia then gets some nice positive moments amongst all the negative ones, and it’s good because we really need to sympathise with her later in the season, and this is the story that sets us up to do that. The cliffhanger in the middle of this one is one of my favourites – Wilf is trapped in the car choking to death, the Doctor’s sonic screwdriver can’t get him out of the car, and the same thing is happening to everyone around the world. the Doctor is in total despair … and when the second episode starts, Sylvia (last seen cowering in her doorway) turns up with an AXE because she’s not an IDIOT, and does the obvious but still valiant thing of smashing the window in to save her dad.

TEHANI:

The mum/daughter relationships of New Who are interesting. Rose and Martha do still clearly love their mums, despite the flaws we are shown, but Donna, being a bit older, is less obviously a loving daughter. Part of that could also be she gets to have a much more supportive relationship with Wilf, but I agree Tansy, it’s good to see Sylvia get to be a bit of a hero in that scene. And perhaps the companions’ families are something to chat more about when we get to Amy and Rory, eh… Interesting to see what effects a different show runner has!

TANSY:

I know that Jackie has had a massive re-evaluation by fans retrospectively (and some of us loved her all along) and she’s still the cuddliest of the mums, but I do appreciate Sylvia more and more. She’s every bit as trapped in mundanity as Donna was – where was the Doctor thirty years ago, eh? A trip in the TARDIS back then could have done her the world of good.

DAVID:

By the end, I had grown to appreciate Jackie a whole lot more, but Francine really grated on me. I think it is a mistake to write completely unsympathetic characters because, really, it’s very hard to keep them believable. Francine sometimes seemed more like a plot device, acting in certain ways to ensure the story went in a certain direction, rather than a real person. I’m looking forward to seeing where they go with Sylvia, and the whole dynamic of Donna’s family, because already it is very interesting.

wilf20ep201

TEHANI:

I never really minded Francine – I felt like she’d had a pretty rough trot with Martha’s dad, and her bitterness was quite understandable! And in all, she really was just trying to look out for Martha, only she had no clue what was going on.

To bring us back to these episodes, I was pleased with the ending – I thought boy genius Rattigan’s sacrifice to save the Earth was logical and nicely redeeming.

And I’m interested to know what David thought of the cameo appearance of Rose again?

DAVID:

Didn’t she do something similar in “Partners in Crime”? It’s intriguing, I assume it is setting up for something in future episodes. I never really believed that Rose was completely cut off from the main universe, I had a feeling that she’d be back at some point. But, I hope we find out she has moved on from the Doctor, except for fond memories, and has built a fulfilling new life for herself. But, I think I might be setting myself up for disappointment!

TEHANI:

Well, we should just get a hurry on through the episodes so YOU CAN FIND OUT! Onwards!

Previous Episodes
“Rose”, S01E01
“Dalek”, S01E06
“Father’s Day”, S01E08
“The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances”, S01E09/10
“Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways”, S01E12/13
Season One Report Card – DavidTansyTehani
“The Christmas Invasion”, 2005 Christmas Special
“New Earth”, S02E01
“School Reunion”, S02E03
“The Girl in the Fireplace”, S02E04
“Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel”, S02E05/06
“Army of Ghosts/Doomsday”, S02E12/13
Season Two Report Card – David, Tansy, Tehani
“Smith and Jones”, S03E01
“The Shakespeare Code/Gridlock”, S03E02/03″
“Human Nature/Family of Blood”. S03E08/09″
“Blink”. S03E10″
“Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Timelords”, S03E12/13/14
Classic Who Conversation podcast – Spearhead from Space (1970)
Season Three Report CardDavid, Tansy, Tehani
Classic Who Conversation podcast – Genesis of the Daleks (1975)
“Partners in Crime”, S04E01

2013 Ditmar Award ballot released

The 2013 Ditmar Award ballot has been released, and I am surprised and delighted to see that I have been nominated for a couple of things!

In the Best New Talent I am up against my good friend Steve Cameron and my mentor sister Stacey Larner, as well as the talented Faith Mudge. Needless to say, I am not really expecting to win given such competition, but it really is an honour to be listed alongside them.

In other categories, I have been nominated along with some of my favourite people which is a real thrill. Thanks to everyone who nominated!

As with the other awards lists released recently, there are lots of friends on there so whatever happens it is going to be a great night in Canberra.

Voting has now opened, and will remain open until one minute before midnight AEST (ie. 11.59pm, GMT+11), Thursday, 25th of April, 2013.

You can vote online here, or visit here for more information.

Good luck to all the nominees!

Best Novel

* Sea Hearts, Margo Lanagan (Allen & Unwin)
* Bitter Greens, Kate Forsyth (Random House Australia)
* Suited (The Veiled Worlds 2), Jo Anderton (Angry Robot)
* Salvage, Jason Nahrung (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Perfections, Kirstyn McDermott (Xoum)
* The Corpse-Rat King, Lee Battersby (Angry Robot)

Best Novella or Novelette

* “Flight 404”, Simon Petrie, in Flight 404/The Hunt for Red Leicester (Peggy Bright Books)
* “Significant Dust”, Margo Lanagan, in Cracklescape (Twelfth Planet Press)
* “Sky”, Kaaron Warren, in Through Splintered Walls (Twelfth Planet Press)

Best Short Story

* “Sanaa’s Army”, Joanne Anderton, in Bloodstones (Ticonderoga Publications)
* “The Wisdom of Ants”, Thoraiya Dyer, in Clarkesworld 75
* “The Bone Chime Song”, Joanne Anderton, in Light Touch Paper Stand Clear (Peggy Bright Books)
* “Oracle’s Tower”, Faith Mudge, in To Spin a Darker Stair (FableCroft Publishing)

Best Collected Work

* Cracklescape by Margo Lanagan, edited by Alisa Krasnostein (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Epilogue, edited by Tehani Wessely (FableCroft Publishing)
* Through Splintered Walls by Kaaron Warren, edited by Alisa Krasnostein (Twelfth Planet Press)
* Light Touch Paper Stand Clear, edited by Edwina Harvey and Simon Petrie (Peggy Bright Books)
* Midnight and Moonshine by Lisa L. Hannett and Angela Slatter, edited by Russell B. Farr (Ticonderoga Publications)
* The Year’s Best Australian Fantasy and Horror 2011, edited by Liz Grzyb and Talie Helene (Ticonderoga Publications)

Best Artwork

* Cover art, Nick Stathopoulos, for Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine 56 (ASIM Collective)
* Cover art, Kathleen Jennings, for Midnight and Moonshine (Ticonderoga Publications)
* Illustrations, Adam Browne, for Pyrotechnicon (Coeur de Lion Publishing)
* Cover art and illustrations, Kathleen Jennings, for To Spin a Darker Stair (FableCroft Publishing)
* Cover art, Les Petersen, for Light Touch Paper Stand Clear (Peggy Bright Books)

Best Fan Writer

* Alex Pierce, for body of work including reviews in Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus
* Tansy Rayner Roberts, for body of work including reviews in Not If You Were The Last Short Story On Earth
* Grant Watson, for body of work including the “Who50” series in The Angriest
* Sean Wright, for body of work including reviews in Adventures of a Bookonaut

Best Fan Artist

* Kathleen Jennings, for body of work including “The Dalek Game” and “The Tamsyn Webb Sketchbook”

Best Fan Publication in Any Medium

* The Writer and the Critic, Kirstyn McDermott and Ian Mond
* Galactic Suburbia, Alisa Krasnostein, Tansy Rayner Roberts, and Alex Pierce
* Antipodean SF, Ion Newcombe
* The Coode Street Podcast, Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
* Snapshot 2012, Alisa Krasnostein, Kathryn Linge, David McDonald, Helen Merrick, Ian Mond, Jason Nahrung et. al.
* Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, Alisa Krasnostein, Tehani Wessely, et. al.
* Galactic Chat, Alisa Krasnostein, Tansy Rayner Roberts, and Sean Wright

Best New Talent

* David McDonald
* Faith Mudge
* Steve Cameron
* Stacey Larner

William Atheling Jr Award for Criticism or Review

* Alisa Krasnostein, Kathryn Linge, David McDonald, and Tehani Wessely, for review of Mira Grant’s Newsflesh, in ASIF
* Tansy Rayner Roberts, for “Historically Authentic Sexism in Fantasy. Let’s Unpack That.”, in tor.com
* David McDonald, Tansy Rayner Roberts, and Tehani Wessely, for the “New Who in Conversation” series
* Liz Grzyb and Talie Helene, for “The Year in Review”, in The Year’s Best Australian Fantasy and Horror 2011
* Rjurik Davidson, for “An Illusion in the Game for Survival”, a review of Reamde by Neal Stephenson, in The Age

Wednesday Writers: Russell B. Farr

One of the exciting things about being a spec fic author and fan here in Australia is the vibrant local publishing scene. We are blessed with a number of high quality independent publishers who continue to put out book after book every year, the quality of which compares more than favourably to anything internationally – dare I say often exceeding it.

When you talk about the Australian scene you cannot go past Ticonderoga Publications. At some point, almost every Australian author of note has had a story or book come out under their label, and they have not only played a part in helping raise awareness of some of this country’s best new talent, they have also made sure that many classic stories continue to be in print. Their books have been recognised internationally for their quality, garnering nominations for some of the big awards.

Given their impact on writing in Australia, it seemed obvious to me that I simply had to ask the founder of Ticonderoga, Russell B. Farr, to come and feature in Wednesday Writers. Knowing he was a busy guy, I expected that it might be hard to pin him down, but instead I was pleasantly surprised by how willing he was to write something for this blog. It’s obvious that, even after all these years, he remains as excited and passionate about publishing as he was in the beginning and was delighted to have a chance to share that passion. So, I am really happy to hand it over to Russell and I know that everyone will get a lot of this great post.

In very kindly asking me to contribute to his excellent Wednesday Writers series, David asked me the following

Given that a large chunk of my audience are writers, and that you operate one of the main presses in Australia, they might be interested to read about what it is that you look for as opposed to what overseas markets look for – because you answer to yourself are you going out on a limb more, taking different kinds of risks? What excites you about anthologies versus collections? What’s your master plan?

It got me thinking.

When I first started this gig, way, way back in the 1990s (kids born the year our first book was published will be finishing high school this year), there was no plan. I had a whole bunch of ideas, a list of fantastic writers I wanted to work with, and it was a case that as one book went off to the printer, I’d hit up my list to see who said yes first. There was a wonderful sense of innocence, naivety, about it all (in between lamenting how much cash it was eating).

Now it’s not like that at all. We have a Master Plan(tm) *cough cough*. To me, a Master Plan(tm) has a goal, an end point, a finite achievement (even if it is World Domination(tm)). While we have a bunch of minor plans and projects, and some goals, we have no end point. There’s no achievement on the radar, or in my imagination, that would mark the ultimate pinnacle.

I guess our Plan That Is Not Quite A Master Plan(tm)(patent pending) runs along the following lines

  1. Produce the best books we possibly can.
  2. Make each book at least as good, if not better than the one before.
  3. Pay all the writers and artists as fairly and as much as we can.
  4. Foster new talent.
  5. Make a positive contribution to the genre in Australia.
  6. Make enough of a surplus to pay ourselves something.
  7. Keep doing this as long as it’s still enjoyable, worthwhile, and able to fulfil at least items 1-5 without being overly concerned by the shortfall in meeting #6.

If we were going to dream up some sort of business slogan it would be along the lines of “Quality Over Profit”, in that we’re more driven by the desire to produce quality books, the type of books we love and love to read. Beautiful looking books, filled with fabulous stories, amazing novels, incredible new lands, wonderful characters. If we publish a book, it’s because we love it, inside and out, not because we expect it to make piles of filthy lucre.

matilda-told-such-dreadful-lies-web

Though we do hope that, for every title, the world also shares our love for the book and buys lots of copies. I know that this way lies madness, but we’re a little too far down the road to turn back now.

“Anthologies vs Collections” would make a great smackdown panel. In the red corner we have anthologies: cumbersome beasts made up of many writers, involving lots of work, the occasional herding of cats and large amounts of contributor copies. In the blue corner we have collections, a single writer on the cover (unless you’re Lisa L. Hannett and Angela Slatter), a single person to work with, and only one lot of contributor copies and associated postage.

Collections have a lot going for them in the short term: the incidental costs are less, they provide the opportunity to work closely with a single writer so a single clear vision is shared, and the final product has the writer’s name on the cover, giving them a sense of ownership of the book. This in turn gives the writer more motivation to actively promote the work, and also discerning buyers familiar with the writer are drawn to the title.

Anthologies are quite the opposite: it’s a case of dealing with 12 or 18 or 30 writers, not as closely, and requiring more organisation and time. The final book has the editor’s name in big letters, and few editors have the kind of name that will sell by the box. At the same time, each writer only feels 1/12, 1/15 or 1/30 of the ownership, individual promotion is harder, and unless the anthology has a “name” contributor like Gaiman or Harris, it’s a harder sell all round.

That said, without original anthologies it’s pretty hard to have collections.

bread-and-circuses-web

There’s a bit of a current trend for to fill collections with as much original material as possible, and most of the time I disagree with this. It can work for the occasional tightly-themed book, where each story benefits closely from its shared context. I don’t think it should become the norm, as mostly reprint collections allow the writer to be paid twice for the one story, and anything that pays the writer is a good thing.

Anthologies (and magazines) provide the first home for the story. They are a place where the writer gets to flex their finger muscles, are challenged by themes, and is where they often do their real work. Many writers rise to prominence through these markets, they provide opportunities to hone skills, experiment, work with different editors. Few, if any, short story writers are born with a collection ready to go.

As an editor (with open submissions), anthologies present the great unknown, the opportunity to find fresh new voices, to work with tomorrow’s stars. They have a sense of great potential, the lure of undiscovered treasure. There is the opportunity to read incredible tales from writers you’re not familiar with. Sometimes there’s also the opportunity to work with writers you really admire, as established Australian SF writers are generally a generous bunch.

dead-red-heart-web

If I’m building a themed anthology, it’s always great to see how writers have interpreted the theme. See where the spark of inspiration has taken them. To be confronted by multiple points of view, all creatively expressed.

Every book is a risk. Any time we put out a new title, a title that we are heavily emotionally invested in (if not also financially), there is the potential for bad things to happen. Emotions and money become tied together, dozens of review copies go out, some never to be heard of again. The frustration of knowing that a book is truly awesome, so why isn’t it selling by the thousands? Why aren’t more people buying and loving and sharing and talking about this incredible work?

Each book is putting passion on the line. Not only ours, but our writers. When you’ve worked closely with a writer to produce something everyone agrees is pretty special, when the process has involved sharing hopes and dreams, we really want the work to do well. We want to be able to give lots of good news and positive reviews back to the creator. We feel honoured that these writers want to share their work with us, to allow us to be part of the journey in sharing their art, and we really do want the best for all.

magic-dirt-web

It’s a wonderful thing when it all goes to plan. Great reviews coming in, solid regular sales, hearing the stories from people who’ve bought and read and loved the book. This is what makes it worthwhile.

What do we look for? Character-driven first and foremost. We want to love and hate and feel and fear and smile and experience what’s going on. We want to experience the world through the protagonist’s eyes (though if doesn’t have to be first person narrative). Good story-telling is also important, we want to be put in the situation where we can’t not turn the page. Genre isn’t overly important, anything speculative is good. We’re not too keen on gratuitous violence, or gratuitous anything (though the occasional gratuitous explosion, car chase, or kitten is okay). Tell the story, show us a new world.

Russell B. Farr is the founding editor of Ticonderoga Publications and has published more than a thirty titles. His recent anthology, Belong, explores the concepts of home and migration, and he edited the award-winning Australian vampire anthology Dead Red Heart. In 1999 he established ticon4, now Australia’s longest running semi-professional science fiction webzine. Previous works as editor include the award-winning anthology Fantastic Wonder Stories, award-winning collection Magic Dirt: the Best of Sean Williams, and Australia’s first work-themed anthology The Workers’ Paradise.

As editor of Ticonderoga Publications, Russell has overseen the publication of landmark story collections by Simon Brown, Stephen Dedman, Terry Dowling, Lisa L. Hannett, Angela Slatter, Lucy Sussex, Steven Utley and Kaaron Warren.

Russell was born in Perth, Western Australia in 1973, where he lives in the northern suburbs with his wonderful partner and a sociopathic cat.

tn_DSCF4197

Australian Shadows Awards 2012 Finalists Announced

The Australian Horror Writers Association has announced the finalists for the 2012 Australian Shadow Awards, and what a great list it is! Lots of friends on there, and I am particularly delighted to see my mentor, Jason Fischer, listed. And, The Corpse Rat King is a book whose success I have followed with interest as I was one of the beta readers.

Good luck to all the finalists! You can find the full list below:

Edited Publication


The Year’s Best Australian Fantasy and Horror 2011 – Liz Grzyb & Talie Helene
Surviving the End – Craig Bezant
Cthulhu Unbound 3 – David Conyers

Collected Work


Living with the Dead – Martin Livings
Through Splintered Walls – Kaaron Warren

Bread and Circuses – Felicity Dowker

Short Fiction


To Wish on a Clockwork Heart – Felicity Dowker
A Monstrous Touch – Marty Young
Birthday Suit – Martin Livings
Mountain – Kaaron Warren
Creek – Kaaron Warren
Road – Kaaron Warren
They Don’t Know That We Know What They Know – Andrew J McKiernan
Pigroot Flat – Jason Fischer

Long Fiction

Sky – Kaaron Warren
Critique – Daniel I Russell
Escana De Un Asesinato – Robert Hood

Novel


Perfections – Kirstyn McDermott
Blood and Dust – Jason Nahrung
The Corpse Rat King – Lee Battersby