Recently, The Economist outlined How to Make a Good Biopic in light of the slew of biographical and semi-biographical films being released in the coming weeks. The article wrote, “Oscar voters love them because the ‘based on a true story’ tag gives them a veneer of seriousness…” The article goes on to discuss a number of critically-acclaimed films from the biopic and partial-biopic subgenre, all which certainly fit the “seriousness” that is applauded by The Academy year after year. But just last year, the Oscar-nabbing film The Social Networkstirred up controversy when its portrayal of its subjects was called “a complete work of fiction” by, well, its subjects. Since the people portrayed in the film were all public figures, it was technically fair game to not bother with changing character names despite a good chunk of the movie being largely fictionalized.
Of course, this particular case is a little more interesting since the people portrayed are not yet dead or even far removed enough from the news item that is now being packaged for the big screen. Moviegoers saw this happen yet again with Moneyball although Paul DePodesta did request that his name be changed (Peter Brand played by Jonah Hill) after finding the script to be more “Inspired by Real Events” than “Based on a True Story.” These labels are like the film industry equivalent of FDA regulations regarding our country’s love for Frankenfood (as demonstrated by Taco Bell’s beef vs. meat vs. meat product vs. not-meat-at-all fiasco earlier this year) and with technology allowing a quicker turnover between conception of an idea and its accessibility to an audience, it may not be too surprising if the litigious ultimately push for stricter terms of use for these labels.
Law and Order and its many spinoffs boast that their stories are “Ripped From the Headlines,” and rip they do. Their most popular spinoff, SVU, has covered pretty much any and every special victims news headline from the last three or four decades (and considering most of the series takes place in present-day Manhattan, those who don’t reside here are left to believe it’s easily the most dangerous place in the world). There are times they do little in changing the original news story with episodes parading characters like Billy Tripley, a shameless rip of Michael Jackson with the only differentiations being in name and career (Tripley is a toy company CEO). In their Domnique Strauss-Kahn episode (announced just two months after the incident), they pretty much ripped the headline when the headline was hot off the press and even had one of the detectives call it “another Dominique Strauss-Kahn situation” (like some sort of self-loving nod to the fortune of receiving this headline right before the new season).
So for lack of better exclamations, what’s up with that? It’s one thing to change names to protect the parties involved (or protect one’s own ass), but what’s the deal with being a clear rip of a story but also acknowledging the actual events within the storyline?
And how about the opposite of this occurrence of not changing characters/real people’s names and placing them in original/fictional/offbeat/obsessive situations? Once upon a time, FanFiction (or for those opposed to the extra syllable, “FanFic”) was contained within the science-fiction community in hopes of extending the lives of their favorite fictional characters. Eventually, this broke beyond sci-fi and into mainstream/more popular television shows and many took it upon themselves to create the storyline they wanted but were never given.
A visit to sites like WattPad and one will see that FanFic is no longer exclusive to fictional characters (preteen girls seem to find it cathartic to write and read about average suburban girls somehow ending up with Justin Bieber). Most are far from great literary works (hell, most can’t be called literary) but a surprising amount of these pieces have legitimately interesting plotlines and are well-written (take it from a person who knows not of Justin Bieber but somehow read a couple stories… in the name of research). The stories are free and available on the site with no need for download but the concept is reminiscent of the free-for-all self-publishing world that Amazon introduced with Kindle Direct Publishing years ago. Anyone can publish just about anything which means anyone who writes or blogs about anything remotely literary (as I occasionally do) now have inboxes/mailboxes full of ARCs and free books. One that recently crossed my path appeared particularly relevant to today’s discussion. If you thumb through the indie-published Hidden Gem books by India Lee, you’ll find it peppered with “articles” and “blog posts” by fictional entertainment magazines and bloggers. If you are well-versed in celebrity gossip, you’ll find these “fictional” bloggers are clear rips of the popular ONTD, Perez Hilton, JustJared, among others, using similar memes and vernacular as the individual bloggers do. But just as SVU did with the whole “referring to the thing we’re totally ripping from,” Lee refers to D-Listed and ONTD as competitors in searching for the Lady Gaga-esque protagonist’s true identity (the plotline, from what I gather, is pretty much Hannah Montana for the Gossip Girl crowd) and the tweeny, celebrity-laden story refers to real celebrities as well as what I believe are fictional ones (there’s just no way to tell anymore, I’m not hip and I’ve come to terms with that). And as Gaga has her Little Monsters and Justin Bieber has his Beliebers, a character by the name of Tyler Chase (undoubtedly based on Bieber) has his “Tyler Chasers.” The books are not free like the FanFic on WattPad (unless you’re on the Lit Drift staff, in which case you can find the ARCs on my desk) but considering it’s subject and publication method, is that pretty much the only thing that sets it apart?
So tell me – “Based On a True Story” vs. “Inspired By Real Events” vs. “Ripped From the Headlines” vs. “Fan Fiction” – where do you draw the line?
Plots are covered on page 1, characters on page 2, and lots of tips to fill the whitespace.
I created this just before NaNoWriMo 2011, to combine all my notes on writing and storytelling. It fits all on a double-sided A4 sheet, which you can keep in your back pocket. I hope you find it useful.
Hans Zimmer’s work space gives me serious office envy. More than riches, this is what I covet as part of my dream to be a successful writer/filmmaker/storyteller–a badass work space.
I write because I have to write. I write because I am in love with the world. I write because my tongue is too wet and sloppy a tool for the elegance of language and because I feel more comfortable speaking through two splayed hands, through the pianoing dance of my fingertips. I write because the world is created through language and story and because I have a role to play in weaving the future. I write because I believe in the human beings around me with a passion so intense and so vivid and so bright that I can’t help but want to reach them, and I want to reach not just them, but every future generation, and to tell them to keep trying and dreaming and striving, because it is worth it, and because the only way we can know each other is through these stories. I write to discover myself. I write because there is no other way. I write because I would go crazy otherwise. I write because I am crazy. I write because I need to make sense of the hideous intricacy of the universe. I write because I am happy. I write because I am in pain. I write because of the sheer joy of it. I write because sometimes it is the only thing that keeps me here. I write because, right now, I am breathing, and I can feel the beating of my heart within the rise and fall of my ribcage and I write because moths drink the tears of sleeping birds.
—Orhan Pamuk
My favorite quote about writing, and why we do it. Today is the third annual celebration of the National Day on Writing. In honor of the day, the National Writing Project is hosting the “Why I Write” project, which you can learn more about here.
The mind churns out a million thoughts a day –– most times without you even realizing. What am I going to do today? Why’d I wake up so late? I need to lose weight. That girl that walked by was cute. Why didn’t I smile? These things flow in and out of our heads at all times; most times too fast for us to analyze them –– hence therapists and psychiatrists. One of the perks of being a fiction writer is the ability to finally be able to control thoughts –– albeit fictional ones –– and channel them toward defining a character.
There are a couple ways to do this over the course of a story, and which way you choose depends a lot on what point of view your story’s set in. If first person, you can just shoot the thoughts out interspersed between narrative, which actually has a nice effect. Tom grabbed the bag of chips from the rack and stuck them under his shirt, we ran out of the store and down the block our lungs burning. What the hell am I doing?
If third person, you have to reveal thoughts in a slightly more indirect way. Instead of just blurting them out, you say something like Mike saw the kid who lives downstairs, the one with the Mohawk and hoop earrings. He hated the way he looked.
An important thing you must keep in mind while playing with thought is balancing it with action. Tweaking with that balance is what makes a good and memorable character. What someone thinks vs. what they actually do. Your characters are going to have desires. Do they act on them? Or do they just think about them? It’d be easy if thoughts and actions were in sync, but life doesn’t work like that –– humans don’t work like that. And the goal is to make your characters as human as possible. Read more »
In 2002, I was a high school student on a four-day retreat with my creative writing class where we took walks in the woods, did lakeside writing exercises and learned how to make handmade paper. Our teacher led us through the various steps, making a wet pulp of recycled materials, flattening it on a mesh screen and decorating with leaves and scraps. I thought it was so neat and quaint but eventually useless because the bumpy sheet was too thick to write on.
Almost a decade later, it turns out there’s a burgeoning movement of artists and writers making handmade and/or hand-bound books and paper as a response to the digital book world.
Evidence of the aforementioned: In the fall of this year, the University of Iowa will launch its new Master of Fine Arts in Book Arts. The first cohort will choose between emphases in Artist Bookwork, Bookbinding, Calligraphy, Digital Bookwork, Papermaking and Printing.
Along with U. of Iowa, there are seventeen members of the three-year old College Book Art Association. Ten years ago, most of these programs didn’t exist and people didn’t think of book making as art.
All this while people continue talking about how e-books may be hurting paperback sales. In fact, it seems they are also inspiring a growing number of small presses to treat book-making as an artistic medium.
There are hundreds of small presses cropping up all over the country, publishing in small volumes, often using handmade or letterpress technologies.
One notable example is Ugly Duckling Presse (UDP), a Brooklyn-based small press that makes chapbooks, broadsides and artist books in their one-room studio. They’ve published over 200 titles in the last ten years and many of the ones they put out have some handmade element, whether it be a letterpress cover or a hand-stitched or rubber band binding.
Co-founder and UDP collective member Matvei Yankelevich says that treating books as art objects is a natural reaction to the digitizing of texts: “Because of the ephemerality of blogs and the internet, people want a reminder of the tactile sensations of reading.”
Since 2000, the number of presses like UDP has been growing and there are resources that support this expanding network. One example is the Center for Book Arts in New York City (many similar centers exist across the country).
According to Sarah Nicholls, program manager at the Center, the rosters for their classes on book making are exploding these days. They get a range of students: from graphic designers tired of staring at a screen all day, to writers who want to learn to make their own books, to teachers who want to get their students more excited in reading by offering kids a chance to make stuff with their hands.
Nicholls sees the resurgence of interest in book arts as part of a larger cultural shift towards valuing things that are made locally and in a small scale (i.e. food, crafts).
Whatever it is, I’m happy to see it, even if it’s just plain ol’ nostalgia. Yankelevich adds, “the romance with efficiency has dwindled.” And he’s right: UDP books are well-made objects that encourage you to read more slowly, to really look at each page.
To look through the UDP digital archive, click here.
Here’s an interesting article on why creative people need to be eccentric. I’m always somewhat disheartened when I read these, because I’d like to think of myself as both a creative and a non-eccentric person. If crazy = creative and me = not crazy, then what does that mean for my creativity? But then I’m reminded of the fact that crazy people don’t think they’re crazy, and that gives me a weird kind of hope.
When you meet someone, before anything comes out of their mouth, appearance is what you judge them by. It’s the reason why Mom nags you to tuck in your shirt, to shave, to floss, to brush your teeth and attempt to smell nice –– it makes a difference. In fiction, appearance isn’t nearly as dire as in real life because often times you can introduce a character without having to describe him or her. You can just have them talk. But, there is always room to add some color to that person.
When used right, appearance is a subtle of way of revealing character in fiction. Everything someone wears presents some aspect of his or her inner selves. Body types, clothing and jewelry all lend hints to a character’s values and when molded correctly, allow readers to better understand a character, to see him or her clearly in their minds.
When constructing a character, you should consider how you want them to dress, what they would look like if you saw them walking down the street. Say your protagonist is a man. Does he wear a suit or jeans? If jeans, are they baggy or skintight? Are the rips in the jeans stylish or do they scream he needs a new pair. Are his eyes narrow or wide? Too big or too small? Scars? Tattoos? Piercings? Read more »
“I thought editors filled in missing commas and fixed misspelled words.” – Hazel, alt.punk
The recent release of my debut novel alt.punk was extraordinarily exciting; however, maturing the novel from first draft to publication was not without editing pains. Similar to the Kübler-Ross theory, I progressed through what I refer to as the “five stages of editing.”
Stage One: Ignorance
Yes, I was guilty of querying alt.punk to Casperian Books thinking, “I’ve revised and edited this to death. There is no way this could get any more perfect.”
Oh, how I was wrong. It’s embarrassing to admit just how wrong.
The Casperian Books team shot back a list of global revisions I needed to make, and after making those and resubmitting, they responded with something to the effect of, “better but it still needs a lot of work.” From there, I was paired up with an editor who, little did I know, would launch alt.punk into an extreme manuscript makeover, which to date, remains one of the most challenging ordeals of my life.
Dramatic? Yes. But it was a shock to learn just how wrong my visions of “perfect” were. Little did I know that I was progressing through the five stages of editing rather quickly.
Sooner or later, every writer comes face to face and does battle with the vicious monster known as perfectionism. Now, I know that you’re probably shaking your head at your messy apartment, your half-finished novel, and your stained coffee mug, thinking, “I’m anything but perfect.” Read on, my friend. Read on.
When I think of perfect, I think of a beautiful Hollywood actress or that kid we all hated in school that seemed to be in every single club photo. I absolutely don’t think of my writing, or what there actually is of it. Every New Year, tons of writers swear to anyone who is listening that they will Write More and Write Better, but our own desire to write amazing works can be what hampers our progress.
Let’s face it, not many people love to write. What we love is having written. When you look back at the beautifully typed, flawless sheet of prose that sprung out of the depths of your mind, you feel awesome. You don’t think about how it felt to stare at that blank screen, utterly convinced that everything you want to write about is boring or unoriginal. You just can’t believe what a bubbling well of genius you are, you sexy writer you.
In 2002, I was a high school student on a four-day retreat with my creative writing class where we took walks in the woods, did lakeside writing exercises and learned how to make handmade paper. Our teacher led us through the various steps, making a wet pulp of recycled materials, flattening it on a mesh screen and decorating with leaves and scraps. I thought it was so neat and quaint but eventually useless because the bumpy sheet was too thick to write on.
