Advice for newbie writers

The other day I received a ping on Facebook chat from one of my FB friends who wanted to ask me about how to go about getting published.

It is a common starting point question for those who have begun the process of writing a book. What do I do after I finish writing?

Well, before you finish your first draft, I recommend that you begin thinking of yourself as a writer.  Start using that term when you refer to yourself.  It is a psychological shift, but one you need to make in order to take yourself seriously as a writer.

You also need to work on your craft.  That means you must write all the time.  You must also read all the time.

Discover what you enjoy reading, and then write the kind of book that you would like to read.

Analyze your favorite books.  Tear them apart.  Dissect them.  Take copious notes. Discover the plot points, the subplots, the plot twists.  Think about the characterizations and settings.  Could the story be set in another place and time?  If so, how would it have changed the story?

Here are a few books on craft that will be thought provoking and help improve your storytelling ability:

Writing the Breakout Novel by Donald Maass
Fire in Fiction by Donald Maass
Make a Scene by Jordan Rosenfeld

Here is another book that I adore for understanding drama:

Audition:  Everything an Actor Needs to Know to Get the Part by Michael Shurtleff

Beyond working on your craft, you also need to start educating yourself about the business of publishing.  I recommend that you subscribe to two different daily electronic newsletters.

Publishers Lunch and Publishers Weekly Daily

You should also read industry blogs.  If you do not have a reader to help manage blog subscriptions, please remedy that today.  I use Google Reader and I have far too many blogs to comfortably follow, but I do scan them.  If you don't have a Google account, please get one.  It's free and easy to obtain.

Here is one agent's blog that I think is helpful:  Kristen Nelson.

Start there, check out her blogroll.  Try a few others, subscribe to ones you like.  Scour more blogrolls. Rinse, repeat.

You must also find a support network.  Try and find a writers club near you.  Check your Sunday newspaper to see if there are any listings for meetings in their author signings area.  Look in the advertisements in your papers for meetings.  Perhaps you have a writers club that meets that you've never heard of before.

Then again, maybe you'll have to dig a little deeper to find a writing community in your area.

You can also try and utilize a cyber community of writers.  Absolute Writer Water Cooler is a great place to start.

Getting feedback from fellow writers is essential.  Finding a good fit critique group is important in improving your writing skills.  It is helpful to not only hearing from others about what works and what doesn't work in your drafts, but by reviewing others' work you begin to develop stronger editing muscles by identifying strengths and flaws in someone else's writing.

I feel it is more important to find someone you have good chemistry with in your critique group than it is to find a group of same genre writers.

Now onto a word of caution: there are many who will try and take advantage of writers.  Please do not click on any links for "Publish your novel here" that you might see.  It is doubtful that you will be happy with the result.

You should check out a website called Preditors and Editors and familiarize yourself with the various scams that are done to unsuspecting writers.

A companion blog that is entitled:  Writer Beware Blogs!

Another tip is to find a good adhesive to secure your backside to your desk chair or as some of my friends call it:  Butt Glue.

Any other suggestions from my writing friends for those just starting out?



http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2012/05/advice-for-newbie-writers.html

My take on the Beowulf movie

I wanted to put forth my thoughts on the movie while others in the blogosphere are still interested. For those who haven't seen it yet and would like to remain unspoiled, please just go to my last post and avoid reading any further. Otherwise, if you are interested in someone's reaction to the movie to decide whether or not it is worth your time and money...stick around. I will offer a different type of analysis of the movie than other reviews I have read.

I do not disagree with any of their assessments, but I wish to analyze through a lens focusing on drama.

First off, I will admit that I have not read the classic epic poem of Beowulf. I bought the Seamus Heaney translation and it is on my bookshelf in the "to be read" pile, but as of yet its spine is still pristine.

So I went into the movie without the expectations that fans of the epic poem had. I simply wanted to be entertained. I shall read it in the near future and see how they deviated from the classic tale.

I love engaging in that kind of analysis. I have read and dissected screenplays as well as take copious notes of movies scene by scene. There are choices to be made by screenwriters in translating source material to a different medium that deal with timing and narrative flow. Sometimes I agree with their choices and other times I disagree.

I have been delighted when certain aspects of books that I thought were particularly boring were cut or streamlined. I have also been disappointed when vital plot points or complexities in a story are cut in order to maximize action/adventure sequences. I feel that kind of treatment diminishes the overall dramatic potential of the material and confuses the audience.

I prefer deeply moving emotional scenes between characters over ones where I'm gripping the seat watching someone hang by their fingernails from a ledge or dodging the teeth from a monster for the umpteenth time. After a short while, I find myself annoyed with action/adventure sequences that seem to go on ad infinitum.

I feel the same way with car chases, fight scenes, etc. Very few do I think warrant the amount of screen time that they now receive.

Beowulf's action sequences fit that description. They went on too long for my liking, but that is not what bothers me the most about the movie. It is the lack of a sympathetic main character.

Beowulf was a jerk.

Not a hero. He was an ass.

He was brave and strong, but also vain and arrogant. He craved glory, but lacked honor.

He showed no attempt at trying to live up to the ideals of the Chivalric Code. He was a powerful warrior and king, but not a hero.

It is fine for secondary characters to have those qualities, but it should not be the main character in a story.

That I think is the fatal flaw in the movie. The audience is never allowed to care what happens to the lead character.

There is one scene in particular that illustrates to the audience how vainglorious our "hero" is. It could have been done much differently and achieved a different effect.

Beowulf decided that he needed to match Grendel in regards to arms and armor. That meant he chose to put them all aside. That is an honorable act. Similar to setting aside your pistol if you find your dueling opponent is wielding a knife.

However, Beowulf announced his plan to the queen as he began undressing while standing directly in front of her.

I found that scene to be an attempt to intimidate the queen. A woman he had been making eyes at all evening long.

Beowulf could have said gracious remarks about her singing and suggest that she turn in for the night as the fight would start shortly and he needed to ready himself. At that point he could have mentioned his need to divest himself of arms, armor, and clothes. She would then have had the chance to blush, leave and possibly sneak a peak at him after she left the room if she was so bold.

Instead he stripped in front of her as if daring her to not look down and assess his manly prowess.

Arrogance. Not a particularly attractive attribute in heroes.

Could that movie have saved with a different script? Maybe.

I tend to think it might have been a better movie if a better actor had been cast for the role.

The only way would have been in they had not cast merely a good actor, but a brilliant actor to play the title role. So that even if the main character was vain and arrogant, the audience would still like him.

It would be tough, but still possible.

I recall what I learned from the late great Michael Shurtleff. In his book Audition: Everything an actor needs to know to get the part he gave examples from his time as a casting director on Broadway. One was during the casting of Jesus Christ Superstar and the field was narrowed down to two actors to play the role of Judas Iscariot.

There were two camps of supporters for the different actors. The votes were evenly split with the musical director as the one to cast the deciding vote. Michael was asked by him why he supported Ben Vereen for the part.

Michael said that his reasoning was that even though both actors were very talented, Candidate A was "remote and disdainful" and Vereen was "lovable."

Here is his explanation about that subject of likability in performers:

"You're always ahead if you cast a performer who is likable. Unlikable performers can sometimes have long, even important, careers, if they have talent, fascination, sexuality, and uniqueness, but some odd chemistry always happens in their relationship to an audience. Frequently the audience does not know they don't like a performer, but they are disturbed by him (or her), and the elements work in a strange, frequently unpredictable way. I have seen too many productions in which the actor comes off with great notices and the project fails -- because the actor is arrogant." page 170 in the trade paperback edition.

I have reflected on his pearls of wisdom for years now and I recognize that as being the difference between good actors and brilliant actors.

Think of the television series M*A*S*H. I prefer the episodes with Charles Emerson Winchester III as the third man in The Swamp over the ones with Frank Burns because while Winchester was a pompous bore, you realized that he really did not want to be there either. His character was sympathetic. Burns was just an ass. There is nothing sympathetic about him. I cheered as Ferret Face bore the brunt of practical jokes and did not miss him when he left the series.

I feel that David Ogden Stiers is a far better actor than Larry Linville.

Getting back to Beowulf, I feel that Ray Winstone did not deliver on what was needed for the role.

The success of the movie hinged on the main character being someone audiences liked.

Another example I would like to mention is a movie where the pivotal role was cast appropriately: Thank You for Smoking.

Aaron Eckhart played Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for big tobacco, whose character said outrageous things, and yet, I laughed as he said them. Why?

Because he was charming.

The movie would not have worked with someone less talented.

It was imperative that Nick Naylor be played by someone who could smile with a wicked glint in his eyes while delivering logic that defied rational thought. It was wicked satire and it walked a fine tightrope, but it worked.

Robert Zemekis's Beowulf did not work.

And it was not because of the artistic choice of using motion-captured animation rather than live action, it was because the main character was unsympathetic.

It is imperative that audiences feel comfortable with the main character. If they do not care what happens to them or feel that the character deserves a tragic Karmic Fate - it does not bode well for overall audience satisfaction.

I cannot say that I would recommend the movie. Nor would I say that I am all that interested in watching it a second time. I would probably rent it on Netflix simply to see the extras, to see deleted scenes, audio commentary, etc. because I am adore that kind of information.

I would much rather watch Pan's Labyrinth again than Beowulf.

Linda

On Criticism

I've been trying to think of what to write for my next post, and had felt particularly uninspired. I felt it best to be silent than to waste time by putting something frivolous on the blog.

Then I read an entry on one of the agent blogs that I follow. Jessica Faust wrote about giving honest critiques to writers at a recent conference.

BookEnds, LLC — A Literary Agency: Critiques

It was a negative experience for both parties involved. She was trying to convey her professional opinion to a writer who voluntarily chose to submit their work for critique.

Unfortunately the writer did not like hearing Jessica's criticism, and became hostile.

That is not the professional front that you should put forward with anyone in the publishing industry.

I understand the human reaction from both the writer's point of view as well as the person presenting the criticism. I've been on both sides of that equation. Well, except that I've never been an agent with fifteen years experience.

On the receiving end of criticism.

I remember vividly when I was a freshman in college and sat next to my professor's desk while he reviewed my paper. I stared at his red marker hovering over my words scratching them out repeatedly as he diagrammed all the failings he saw. Try as I might, I could not stop the tears from flowing at the sight of my paper being defaced in such a manner. After he finished his critique, he handed me the paper covered in crimson marks and declared that "he liked it." I was given an "A" on the paper, but was numbed by the ordeal. I staggered back to my chair with no idea what he said to me. I felt like a patient given a terminal diagnosis and couldn't focus on anything said past hearing the words "brain tumor." Even though I did well, I felt humiliated, and this was an Honors level class.

I tried reassuring myself that I couldn't have gotten into the class if I hadn't shown some talent. I could help others restructure and improve their papers, but his class made me feel inadequate when it came to my own.

The professor was an old man with a gray pallor who stood in front of the class hunched over like a vulture. He played with the keys on his belt while he lectured and I can't remember a single thing I learned from him. The only things I took away from his class were my fear of his red pen and the conviction that he was a human bird of prey.

Since I was a science major, I couldn't allow myself to become distracted from my core studies by obsessing over general education courses. The reason why this bothered me so much is that writing comes from your soul and your intellect. Writing is a permanent reminder of what your thoughts and how you articulate an argument or simply tell a story. It is not the same thing as learning to plug numbers into a mathematical equation and turn a crank to get a result. Writing is a reflection of the author, and when professors responded negatively to the product of my intellect, I decided to withdraw from submitting future work to their scrutiny. I took a test and "comped" out of my third term requirement for English. Those negative experiences in college class stifled my muse for close to five years of my life. I can't let that happen to me again.

I have developed a thicker skin since then, but I still understand how callous and careless criticism can wound rather than help.

Now, years later I seek out critique of my work in the hopes that errors that I cannot see will be spotted by a fresh pair of eyes. I also need perspective to know if I am achieving the emotional reactions from my readers that I am striving for in certain scenes. I want to know if the dialogue rings true, and if my pacing is too fast or too slow.

It is nice to receive accolades, but if there is something structurally wrong with my story, I need to hear it while I can still do something about it.

I've belonged to a critique group for several years now and it has for the most part worked well. However, you should never just take someone's opinion as a mandate to change things. You should always take people's suggestions as just that: suggestions.

A few months ago after a critique group meeting I found myself in a terrible funk. It was because one of the members gave me criticism that I not only found unhelpful, but damaging to my psyche. I started doubting my own ability to construct a sentence.

I was suffering from what my engineering friends would say is "analysis paralysis."

I felt as if everything I wrote or attempted to write was dreck. Now, I knew it wasn't true, but this was the level of the funk I found myself.

Anne Lamott in her book Bird by Bird refers to it as listening to KFKD radio. (Think of KF**KD).

As I read Anne Lamott's book looking for inspiration, I realized that she has some massively long sentences. Her style runs counter to Strunk and White's Elements of Style by a mile. One sentence was 94 words long. That can't possibly be thought of as concise. Yet, herbook is one of the most frequently cited favorite reference books by writers, even though she eschews concision in her writing. Why? Because she's funny.

A sentence is supposed to convey a thought, and sometimes thoughts are complex which then will need time and space to be developed adequately. Writers are also advised to have a variety in their sentence structure. Too many short sentences in a row are read as staccato and can be jarring to readers. Does this mean that from now on I will be emulating Lamott's use of humongously long sentences? No, but I'm not going to hang my head in shame if I write a sentence having more than X number of words.

One of my friends told me that he tries not to have sentences longer than 14 words. He literally counts the number of words in each sentence. I am not about to follow that practice. Instead, I shall gauge the effectiveness of my sentences by whether or not the meaning is lost by its end. If the logic train derails in the deep woods, the sentence needs revising. I shall also take into consideration the overall flow of the piece. If the narrative becomes snagged then I'll revise, but not because it went past an arbitrary word limit.

Giving out solicited criticism

I have offered my feedback to other writers and have thankfully not gotten such a visceral response as Jessica Faust received.

My critique group is structured so that we send our writing samples to the other members ahead of time. It allows us to print out and read the submission and make line edits. It also allows for us to have a broader view of the piece rather than a few sample pages being read aloud.

One of my strengths is in spotting continuity errors. That generally comes about when a writer has made some changes in a story, but forgot to incorporate those changes throughout the text or when the writer hasn't thought through all the implications of a plot choice. I questioned the age difference between two characters once because I didn't think that things added up correctly and my friend admitted that he had changed the little sister's age, but forgot to update it throughout his novel.

I've also given critiques to members of my writers club when they ask for my opinion on their writing. Recently I read the first attempt at short story writing by someone who has only written technical papers. He had become inspired by interacting with fiction writers and wanted to try his hand at it.

I had started reading his story and made some line edits before coming to the realization that structurally the whole thing simply didn't work. There was no conflict and therefore no drama. He had two talking heads in a room that were discussing a political issue. Neither character was defined, it was simply a way to have dialogue exchanged which allowed political beliefs to be espoused.

Nothing happened in the scene. It was only an excuse to dress up a position paper as fiction and use quotation marks in the hopes of informing people through entertaining them. It failed because it did not entertain.

I've written political essays in the past, so I know full well the urge to put forth my positions on issues that I am passionate. However, I also know and love drama. If you wish to mix drama and politics, the dramatic needs of the story must always come first.

I wound up explaining those differences to him and suggested he read Audition by Michael Shurtleff which I find indispensable when thinking of dramatic conflict. I also made a few suggestions of how could put his characters in peril. Then, he could slowly draw out the information in a police interrogation, should one of those characters choose to use methods other than peaceful, civil disobedience to further his political goals. By the end of our discussion, he thanked me for my time and my insight. I didn't give him any of my line edits, because I knew that very little of what he originally wrote would survive any second drafts he made on that story.

Sometimes it is the global problems in a piece of writing that is the biggest obstacle that must be dealt with before you get down to the sentence structure level of spelling, punctuation, grammar, pacing, and concision.

Offering Criticism to people you don't know

I became friends with John Granger because of my responding to his open invitation in his first book on the Harry Potter series, The Hidden Key to Harry Potter. He had included his email address in the back of the book and I wrote to him via email.

It wasn't a gushy note that laid the praise on thick. Nope. I wrote him a detailed message where I started out introducing myself and told him what I liked about his book, and then I mentioned errors that I spotted including page numbers for his reference. Some were spelling mistakes, whilst others were factual errors. I then shared my thoughts where I differed with him on areas of interpretation or speculation which could not be classified as errors but instead were differences of opinion. I backed up those reasons with citations from canon, but I was not dogmatic about it. I realize that my opinions on these matters might be proven in the future to be totally wrong. Therefore, I did not try to persuade him to the absolute correctness my theories, but rather to introduce him to other schools of thought on the matters under discussion.

I was trying to be as diplomatic as possible, because I felt that it was the polite thing to do. He appreciated how I comported myself and we have since then have corresponded via email for close to four years. There are many areas of speculation that we disagree on, but we are never disagreeable about it.

Not everyone who has read his books or online essays seems to share that same sense of propriety.

Prior to the Sonorus event, I met up with John and Mary Granger and had lunch with them. John bemoaned the fact that not everyone in the HP online fandom followed what he called the "Linda McCabe school of diplomacy" by contacting someone directly before critiquing their work in public.

That discussion came up due to several online fansites I read recently with topic threads discussing the concept of literary alchemy in the HP series. There were some people who had done a lot of researching and theorizing on the issue, and had been inspired to begin their inquiry into the subject by John Granger's work. However, the difference is that they never tried to engage him in a discussion and see if their underlying assumptions had any validity to them.

Some who posted mentioned his work in unflattering terms and dogmatically stated that he was incorrect in his interpretations, and that they knew how these things worked.

I've read enough on the subject to realize that alchemy is a complex subject that cannot be fully understood in an afternoon's worth of reading or even a month or year. It can and has been the lifelong pursuit of many people over the centuries. Alchemical symbolism is deliberately complicated and understanding it is not like simple mathematics where you place numbers in an equation and churn out a result. Nope, it is more like higher mathematics where there may not yet be a solution to given problem, but the trick is to try and focus your intellect on how to approach solving the problem.

Which means that when you are trying to predict future plot lines using the various characters in a series following a literary alchemy framework isn't as easy as it looks, and there are many, many ambiguities which can be resolved in multiple if not an infinite number of possibilities.

Only J.K. Rowling will truly know what influences she drew upon when she made her detailed plot of the series. Only JKR knows what details in her story such as the mention of the herb dittany is there for symbolic meaning or simply there to dress up the narrative.

She is like a magpie with mythology and takes things from a myriad of sources and then twists them to fit her own plot needs. She is not bound by any rules that force her to follow any predetermined formula. In fact, having unforeseen plot twists is exactly what her fans have come to expect from her. Expect the unexpected.

John decided against posting a rebuttal post in that forum to defend his scholarship in this area for he felt that the standards of polite discourse had not been followed. If they had tried to engage with him from the beginning in a discussion about Harry Potter and literary alchemy, he would have responded. Instead, they simply attacked him in a public forum and put forth their own interpretation as if it was the only credible possible explanation.

I enjoy having layered symbolic meaning to stories. It adds a richness and depth to its meaning. However, there can be more than one meaning derived from symbolism and it is wise to remember that.

Later, while reading my literary blog subscriptions, I came across a link to an article written about how best to approach people you don't know by email. There are a lot of good points in the article and I would hope that these precepts would soon become a standard part of netiquette.

Memorial Service for Michael Shurtleff

I saw this mention in the Los Angeles Times .

There will be a memorial service held at 3 p.m. March 11 at the Skylight Theater, 1816 1/2 N. Vermont Ave., Los Angeles.

More information is available by phone at (323) 469-8745 or through e-mail to cleobaby@sbcglobal.net.

I won't be able to attend, but thought for all my ranting in my last post regarding a lack of a memorial service for a fictional character that I certainly should mention one for a person who passed away.

I never met Mr. Shurtleff, but his words and ideas inspire me. I shall remember his wisdom for years to come.

Linda

P.S. Edited to add, for those who are scratching their head and going, "Who's he?" I wrote two other posts about my veneration of Michael Shurtleff. You can find those posts here and here.

Michael Shurtleff died at age 86

I am saddened to read in the New York Times that Michael Shurtleff died January 28th at his home in Los Angeles.

Shurtleff had been the casting director for such Broadway shows as Chicago, Pippin, Becket, Gypsy, The Odd Couple, Jesus Christ Superstar and for the movies The Sound of Music, Jesus Christ Superstar and The Graduate.

His eye for talent led to casting Barbara Streisand at age eighteen in her first Broadway musical.

He also wrote one of my favorite books of all time is Audition: Everything an Actor Needs to Know to Get the Part. It has been instrumental in my writing over the years as I look at his wisdom to remind me what I as a writer need to put into my story.

His 12 guideposts show a richness, complexity and variety of human emotion that should be a part of every character and every scene.

There are so many pearls of wisdom in his book including the reason why alcohol is used in plays (or novels or movies). Here are two snippets from his book:

"There is only one reason why anyone drinks in a play: to release inhibitions, to be able to say and do things he was normally afraid to do, too repressed to do, too considerate or cowardly to say, too polite or fearful to risk. Have a few drinks and all this can come pouring out, once the blocks are down and the dam has broken.

…

Actors tend to use drinking negatively. It’s important to find the positive: allow drinking to heighten the emotional needs, to free you to express deeply-buried feelings. Not to escape from relationship, but to pursue it. Not to become vague and fuzzy about the world and whoever is in it with you, but to seek confrontation, to fight for what you want in ways normally denied you. Not to withdraw from your scene partner, but to seek in a richer, more needful way, warmth, camaraderie, love."

Ahh, that's why I love his book and I turn to it as my reference book of choice. I wrote my second post on this blog about my veneration of Shurtleff. If anyone hasn't read it and is interested in reading more, you can check it out here.

If you haven't read his book, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy. Buy it from a store or check it out from your library.

I am sorry that Michael Shurtleff died, but I am happy that he lived because the world benefited from his talent.

Thank you for everything Michael. You will be missed.

Conflict is Drama

That is the mantra I use when I write. It is a quote from Michael Shurtleff. It serves to remind me the reason that people turn to fiction, movies, plays, literature is to live vicariously through others who are bolder, braver, or more desperate than we are. We want to see the turning points in people's lives and not their mundane day-to-day lives.

There are many books on the market about the craft of writing, but the one that I refer to the most was not written with authors in mind. It was written for actors. Michael Shurtleff's Audition: everything an actor needs to know to get the part is a book that I have purchased probably ten times over.

Because I keep recommending it, then lending it, then never getting it returned. Recently, I decided to break that habit and I now tell people to go to our local library borrow a copy, because I know they have many copies. This is so I won't have to buy this book for an eleventh time.

Why do I love it so much? Because I learn new insights with each reading.

Michael Shurtleff knows how drama works. His intended audience is actors and helping them bring words to life, from the page to the stage. Over the years, I realized that what he tells actors what they should look for in a good script is what every writer should be putting in their literary creation whether it be for the stage, screen or book.

His lessons taught me that you should always say "yes" to love. When you wonder if a character is in love with another, say "yes." And then see what dramatic possibilities open up.

Do they want revenge? "Yes."

Is she in love with another character as well? "Yes."

Is she torn between the two lovers? "Yes." Does she feel guilt? "Yes."

Just try it. See what happens. In a myriad of ways, try to say yes to love and to wanting things.

Another aspect of Shurtleff's wisdom is the realization that the relationship on stage of friendship is all about competition. It is not about people who simply enjoy one another's company. Nope, at the heart of all friendships is the need to compete with one another. He uses examples of friends competing over who is the better tennis player, who is the wittiest, who has the better job, sexier looking spouse, etc.

And that is what you should show on the stage, or on the page.

The best example I can think of to demonstrate how friendship is about competition is the movie, "Sideways." Jack and Miles are two friends who have known each other since college and go on a weeklong trip to the Santa Barbara wine country before Jack's wedding.

The movie starts out easy going, but soon, we see that Jack and Miles have tension between them. Jack wants to screw around before getting married, and Miles would rather they play golf and taste wine. They have different expectations, and they have tremendous conflict over these differences.

Then the movie goes into a pretty dark place. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen the movie, but suffice it to say that Jack begs Miles for his help. Miles complies, but only because the two of them have a long history together.

It is a relationship based on history, guilt, and manipulation. It is apparent that both Jack and Miles have the goods on one another. Like they know where the bodies are buried, metaphorical or literal. Those are things in the backstory that are never included in the text or on the screen, but they exist. The actors must embody this history in order for the story to work.

That is the heart of their relationship. It is not simply spending time with someone who makes you laugh.

Conflict is drama.

I love Greek Mythology and have loved it since I was a little girl. The stories are larger than life. They are filled with envy, lust, greed, betrayal, murder, matricide, patricide, fraticide, infanticide, infidelities, madness, revenge, tragedy and of course, heroism.

That is the essence and soul of drama. It is not enough to simply be attracted to someone, you must fall instantly and helplessly in love with them. It must be an all encompassing love. One that you will willingly risk your life, your fortune, your reputation, everything. You will experience love, or die trying.

People turn to drama because they want to live vicariously and make choices that would be too risky or painful to take. In Real Life people shy away from confrontations, whereas in Drama you must seek them out.

Literature and Drama requires characters who fight for what they want.

Dream big. Fight hard.

Fight to win.

Conflict is Drama.

Ohhhhhhhmmmmm.