Stumble It!

Good article by TERRENCE RAFFERTY from the always excellent, NY Times.

Enjoy!

ThatActionGuy.com

***

When the strange, arresting, thoroughly frightening novel called “Frankenstein” was published in London on New Year’s Day, 1818, there was no author named on the title page, and readers and reviewers, almost to a person, assumed the book had been written by a man. They were mistaken. The creator of “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus” was Mary Shelley, who was the daughter of the radical political thinker William Godwin (to whom it was dedicated) and the feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, and the wife of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley — and who, when she finished the novel, a few months shy of her 20th birthday, became the mother of horror.

TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN FULL CLICK HERE

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

Stumble It!

Now here’s a fantastic idea that all indie filmmakers should check out!  It’s from the creative boffins over at FiveSprokets.

Enjoy!

ThatActionGuy.com

***

FiveSprockets offers the resources of a Hollywood studio at your fingertips. It’s Your Virtual Production Studio enabling you to make better media by providing critical resources and on-demand software across the five phases of media production.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE 

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

  Stumble It!

Article by Edward O. Uthman MD on what a real autopsy is like. Very handy for any writer working in the horror or crime genres.

Enjoy!

ThatActionGuy.com

***

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to make available to screenwriters, novelists, and other interested individuals an authentic detailed narrative account of a routine postmortem examination (autopsy) as performed by a pathologist on a patient who has died in hospital. I have based this on my experiences as a practicing pathologist in both academic and community practice settings in several U.S. cities. I have deviated from the dispassionate, unbiased language of my profession to present a more subjective, sensorial view, which I think should be of greater benefit to those using this information for the purposes of entertainment.

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

 

 

I was writing my first episode for M*A*S*H in a hotel room in Los Angeles, with French furniture from the Wilshire Boulevard period, and I noticed I had begun dancing around the room.

I was staying in a hotel because the architect who was doing renovations on our house had promised me the work would be finished by the time I came back to town for the second season of M*A*S*H, whose first season had paid for the house in the first place.

Renovations, like rewrites, take longer than expected, and I had made things worse by insisting that the house resemble the plan we had agreed on before I left town. “I don’t want that big excrescence in my living room,” I had said, using the biggest word I could think of for a modernist hump on the wall the architect was proposing. It had nothing to do with the rest of the house; it was just an indulgence on his part. I hated it. Sure enough, when I got back to L.A., the house wasn’t finished, but there was the hump on the wall — big as life, and just as excrescent. I picked up a sledgehammer and demolished it. This made my point, but set back construction another three weeks.

So, here I was, working on my first serious try at a television script in the cool, contemplative solitude that can only be found in a cheesy, fake-elegant hotel. More and more, I found myself taking a sledgehammer to my own scenes and dialogue — and before long I was dancing.

I was dancing because, after hours of rewriting one of the scenes, I had finally solved it and had crashed through to something I knew would work. “I can do it…! I can do it!” I chanted, as I jumped around the room, until the thought intruded that there were still a few dozen other problems to solve before I’d be finished. This was the first time since I had decided I wanted to be a writer at the age of eight that I was actually working on something that might be seen by millions of people. So, every little writing victory was charged with emotion.

Since then, I’ve written five movies, many episodes of television and two books, but that moment in the hotel room always comes back to me. It was the first time since I was a child and had set my sights on being a writer that I had the feeling I could actually do it.

But, I realize now how lucky I was that this script was one in which so many problems had already been solved for me. The show had been on the air for a year: I wasn’t creating characters from scratch; I wasn’t imagining a whole new world. As an actor, I had already researched the time and place. I’d read that the Korean winters were bitter and, in a series of two handed scenes, I let a humble pair of longjohns go from one shivering body to another through a string of deals, love offerings and extortions. It was, of course, similar to a device used by Schnitzler in the film La Ronde, so even some of the plot was borrowed. In this way, I was able to concentrate on the pleasures of putting words together, discovering the voices of the characters, tracking the subsurface tectonics of their emotions. This made my victory dances a whole lot easier to come by than I realized at the time. Even after I had written a number of episodes and was exploring new paths, I was still making use of the work of people who had first explored the territory. It was something of a shock when I began working on the first feature-length script I’d try after writing for M*A*S*H. It was called “The Seduction of Joe Tynan” and, since it would be three times longer than an episode, I assumed it would be three times harder. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be about 27 times harder. Suddenly, I had to create, through research and imagination, a new world, populated by characters I had to build from their heads to their toes. I had to find out how they would act on one another in a way that would plunge them into Act Two and let them climb out through Act Three. I was all by myself on a huge construction site.

Hemingway said that writing is architecture, not interior decoration. I was learning that it wasn’t renovations, either.

Now I was taking a sledgehammer to the foundation itself; redesigning it time after time from scratch, lopping off clever little inventions that caught your eye but gave you nothing of substance to build on.

After all that, when I would finally crash through to something that worked, I would feel – and every writer must feel something like this – a thrill, a rush of joy, a desire to dance around the room.

I still feel it. And, once in a while, I still dance.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ARTICLE CLICK HERE

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

There are three professions as old as the human race. With us before writing, before the wheel, and perhaps before fire, they are with us still; and one of them is magician (we will not, at this time, discuss the other two). Over the centuries conjurors have devised many ways to enthrall their audiences, and, despite the sophistication of modern audiences, they are still doing so today.

I would like to reveal some of these esoteric secrets to you, but I have sworn the Mantic Oath with my right hand raised, palm outward, to show that there is nothing in it and my left resting on a miniature replica of Houdini’s Water Torture Cell. I am, however, free to discuss one technique beloved of magicians which fiction writers may use to their advantage: the Ancient Art of Misdirection. It’s of particular benefit to writers of mystery or suspense fiction, as it’s so useful for planning murders and planting clues; but all who must create plots or reveal information in a measured manner will find it an invaluable skill to acquire.

The conjurer cascades a shower of silver coins from his closed fist—that he opened and showed empty only seconds before—and intones, “The hand is quicker than the eye!”

Well, usually it isn’t.

By subtle misdirection the magician causes you to look in the wrong place while he is doing something-or-other in the right place. Misdirection comes in three flavors: time (the magician has the silk artfully placed in his hand before he begins the trick); place (your attention is drawn to the magician’s right hand, while the move is done by his left hand, or his foot, or his assistant); and intent (the magician leads you to the decision he wants in such a subtle manner that you will swear afterwards that you had a free choice).

What is the value to the writer—or, better yet, the story — of these techniques? We writers can use these methods to smooth the pacing of a story, to slide information past the reader without waving it in her face, to change the direction of a story in mid-page, and to plant clues that will lie dormant until they’re ready to sprout.

Please note, before I continue, that we’re speaking of misdirection, not misinformation. The writer should never lie to the reader, but, if necessary, should allow the reader to lie to herself.

In fiction misdirection can be either external or internal. That is, the author can be using the story as a frame to misdirect the reader, or a character in the story may be misdirecting one or more of the other characters. Or, of course, both. Let’s look at a few examples from literature:

In many novels, particularly in the suspense or mystery genres, an element of misdirection is an important part of the plot. In Daphne du Maurier’s classic Rebecca it just about is the plot. Maxim de Winter’s second wife, the narrator of the story (we never learn her name), feels herself in an unwinnable competition with the ghost of Rebecca, Maxim’s first wife, who died in a boating accident some years before. Maxim speaks little of the departed Rebecca, but he seems to be brooding about her constantly. And the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers, tells the new wife frequently how the beautiful, charming, talented, Rebecca was her superior in every way.

Then, three-quarters of the way through the book, when the narrator sadly tells her husband that she knows he can never love her the way he loved Rebecca—and that’s okay as long as he can bring himself to love her a little— comes the shocking revelation that turns the story, the narrator, and the reader arse-over-teakettle, as the British so wonderfully describe it.

“You think I loved Rebecca?” de Winter cries, “I hated her!”

And suddenly all that came before must be seen in a different light. And that, boys and girls, is what I call misdirection.

Remember the scene at the Wizard’s palace in The Wizard of Oz? The Great and Mighty Oz, his head the size of Chicago, surrounded by smoke and fire, bellowing at Dorothy from his throne: “I am Oz, the Great and Terrible… Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.” (With a bunch of stuff left out for brevity.)

Well the Wizard turns out to actually be the little bald man behind the curtain. A master of misdirection, he has been keeping the hoax up for years until Dorothy’s dog Toto pulls the curtain aside and blows the gaff. This is Misdirection in Place, used by the Wizard to fool, gull, dupe, and otherwise bamboozle his subjects.

There are two rules to keep in mind when employing this device: first, it has to be something that the character using it would—and could—do. We the readers (or viewers if it’s the movie) believe the Wizard of Oz was able to pull off his illusion because he actually was a magician—not a wizard, but an old-fashioned stage magician—before he got to Oz.

Second, it has to be put in to further the plot, and not merely to annoy the reader. The Wizard’s ploy was necessary for him to keep his position as head of government and chief of state of Oz. The Munchkins and Quadlings didn’t want to be ruled by a plump, bald, seedy carnival magician. They wanted a wizard—and they got a wizard.

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “The Red Headed League,” pawnbroker Jabez Wilson has had a stroke of luck. His fine head of red hair has made him eligible for a sinecure in the office of the Red Headed League, an organization founded by a redheaded American millionaire to benefit men of similar hair color. While Wilson’s assistant Vincent Spaulding takes care of what little business there is at the pawnbroker’s shop, Wilson sits in the League’s office four hours a day copying out pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s a dull, seemingly pointless job, but it pays four pounds a week, important money in 1891, and Wilson is annoyed when it is suddenly terminated. He goes to Sherlock Holmes for advice, and Holmes soon perceives a deeper meaning to the antics of the League. There was no American millionaire. It was a sham, devised by Spaulding to get Wilson out of the shop for four hours a day. Spaulding, who is really the notorious John Clay, murderer, thief, and all-around no-goodnik, needed the time so that he and his associates could dig a tunnel through to a nearby bank.

The problem: get Wilson out of the shop without him suspecting anything. The solution: an artful bit of misdirection, to make Wilson want to leave. The job was obviously a bit of make-work, which might have gotten even the slow-witted Wilson to thinking, if the conspirators hadn’t disguised their intention under a fine head of red hair.

It fooled Wilson, it fooled Watson, it fooled the reader, but Holmes pierced the veil of misdirection and, penultimately, foiled the bank robbers.

Nero Wolfe, Rex Stout’s plump genius of a detective (an aside: as I wrote those words I could hear Wolfe snorting, “Plump indeed! I am fat or I am nothing.” This is a tribute to Stout’s powerful and believable characterization.)—I’ll start again. Nero Wolfe, Rex Stout’s fat genius of a detective, was a master of misdirection. In a novel called Might as Well Be Dead, Wolfe has sent an operative named Johnny Keems to gather information, giving him $200 in expense money to use if he thinks it will loosen someone’s tongue. Keems is killed by a hit-and-run driver, and Inspector Cramer drops by Wolfe’s office to ask the usual questions. Wolfe is his usual uncooperative self, and asks Cramer if Keems had any money on him when he was killed.

“Yes, a hundred and fifty dollars,” Cramer replies. “Why?”

“Because it’s my money,” Wolfe tells him, “and I want it back. I gave Keems two hundred for expenses.”

Now Cramer— and the reader— think that Wolfe is just being his usual nasty unfeeling self, caring only about getting his money back when one of his operatives has been killed.

Misdirection—but surely you’d guessed that.

Wolfe now knows that Keems paid someone for information. And it’s a reasonable inference that getting that information is what got Keems killed. But Cramer, although he now has the same data that Wolfe has, has been directed away from the conclusion. He has the facts but has no idea of their worth.

How, and where, can this magical technique be used in your own work?

Turn the Plot Around with Misdirection

As in Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca, a story can seem to be headed in one direction and then, wham-snap!, change course and go somewhere else. It can be a very dramatic moment, but why would you want to do this? Perhaps, as in Rebecca, you want to create a mood and explore a character in adverse circumstances. Certainly the first three-quarters of Rebecca showed the narrator’s inner strength and depth of love for her husband in a way that would have been impossible if everything had been a perfect romantic dream for her from the beginning.

Or perhaps you need to supply a lot of information to the reader, but you don’t want her to know why she’s learning all this stuff—at least, not just yet. Perhaps one of your characters is, oh I don’t know, let’s say a spy. As the story moves along you want to get all the facts out there, about how the spying is being done and why and against whom and such, because that is the story. But you need to direct attention away from the actual agent, let’s call him George, so you can reveal his identity at the moment of your choosing.

So you focus on Tom, and make it appear that all that’s bad in the world originated with Tom (sorry, Tom). But the sophisticated reader will know that you’re attempting to lead her astray. Gradually she will realize that all the information, all the subtle hints and shadowy clues, that pointed to Tom were manufactured by Sam to make Tom look guilty. Aha! That dirty spy Sam!

But wait—you have another trick up your sleeve. Sam wasn’t the spy at all. He put the blame on Tom because Sam always hated Tom for stealing his girl, Myrtle, in the fourth grade. The real spy, hovering in the background all this time, is George. Remember George? You have successfully misdirected the reader, congratulations.

Conceal a Character’s True Persona With Misdirection

Here’s one the Gothic and Romance novelists have been using for decades. It’s a sort of reprise on Rebecca, with a few twists. A great example is the 1963 film Charade, which starred Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant and Walter Matthau. A quick synopsis:

Regina (Hepburn) returns to Paris to learn that her husband has been murdered and his fortune is missing. Several strange, scary men begin harassing her, convinced that she must know where the money is. Peter Joshua (Grant) defends her and offers his help. Mr. Bartholomew (Matthau), the CIA station chief, tells her that Joshua and the men are in cahoots, and that her husband stole the money from the U.S. Government. Events seem to prove Bartholomew right, as Joshua has been lying to her about everything, including his name. After many a merry chase we find that Bartholomew is actually the crook, and Joshua is the CIA agent, and romance ensues.

We have here a triple misdirection extravaganza; the husband turns out to be a crook, the crook turns out to be the good guy, and the CIA agent turns out to be really nasty. All handled deftly and all necessary to keep the plot moving. The trick here is the light, deft touch. We believe what has been presented to us, because it’s what we expect. If you present things to your reader according to formula, she’ll be lulled into belief. And then when you twist the characters and the plot, she’ll be surprised and pleased at the freshness and originality.

Submerge That Small Detail in a Pool of Misdirection

So here’s the problem: there’s this little, unimportant fact that you need to insert in your story right here that will assume monstrous importance later in the story, but you don’t want your reader to notice it, not just yet. It’s a clue, so it has to be out there, but if its real meaning is understood too quickly it will give too much of the plot away. John Dickson Carr, a master of the mystery story form, said that you don’t have to hide clues, you can run them up a flagpole and set them to waving and the readers won’t notice. And he was right—the way he did it. They were out there waving and it was hard for the reader to miss them—but they looked (metaphorically) like flags, not clues.

The way to do that is to take the clues out of context and present them as something else. Let’s say the clue is a half-drunk glass of milk on the bedside table. Don’t ask me why that’s a clue—it just is. One way is to hide it among a clutter of the ordinary:

Hemlock Shomes cast his cold gaze around the bedroom, his eyes taking in the smallest details. There was the pipe organ with the missing f-stop in the corner. There was the old Hepwhait bedside table, its marble top holding the leather-bound copy of the Necronomicon with its pages turned down at all the interesting spells, a cardboard box of Mrs. Peachem’s Pink Pills for the Prevention of Pleurisy, a half-drunk glass of milk, and a stuffed frog.

Or, to give the reader no excuse for having missed it when it turns up on page 412 as the clue that gives the game away:

Shomes pointed an outraged finger at the table. “There,” he shrilled, “right there in front of you!”

“What is it, Shomes?” bleated Inspector Kegson.

“A half-drunk glass of milk on the bedside table. Surely you see it!”

“What of it, Shomes?

“That table’s an original Hepwhait. Unmistakably. And that glass will leave a ring on the marble. It’s disgraceful!”

“There, there, Shomes,” soothed the inspector. “That’s all right.

The fiction writer, like the stage magician, can use a candy coating of misdirection to disguise the pill of truth (how’s that for a lousy metaphor?) to keep the story healthy and alive. (Didn’t improve it much—oh well!) As we’ve seen, misdirection can be used either strategically or tactically. Strategically to change the whole direction of a story, to send it off into a new and different world, and have the reader realize that it’s been headed that way all along. Tactically to conceal, obscure, obfuscate, and camouflage one important fact, to save it for later revelation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ARTICLE CLICK HERE

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

Burning up the bestseller charts                         

Debut author Andrew Davidson talks to Alison Flood about medieval mystics and the million-dollar publishing deal he won for The Gargoyle

Some people might be overwhelmed by a $1.25m (£700,000) advance for their first novel, but for the Canadian author Andrew Davidson his startling success feels like a gradual journey.

“It’s sort of a case of being an overnight success,” he explains, “but I’ve been writing for 20 years, started this book in 2000, got an agent in 2006, and have been dealing with the publishing industry for the last 18 months.”

Published in the US and Canada on August 5, The Gargoyle is number one in Canada and riding high on the New York Times bestseller list – just the kind of spectacular performance which will reassure Davidson’s British publisher, Canongate, that their record six-figure advance was a safe bet.

It’s a rip-roaringly original piece of writing which centres on the relationship between a drug-addled pornographer who has been severely burned, and a beautiful former nun who believes their romance began 700 years ago. Comparisons range from The Secret History and The Name of the Rose to Life of Pi and Possession – it’s clearly hard to categorise. The book opens with the unnamed narrator undergoing a gruesomely explicit car crash, during the course of which his toes are severed, his leg broken and most of his body suffers severe burns. “My flesh began to singe as if I were a scrap of meat newly thrown onto the barbecue, and then I could hear the bubbling of my skin as the flames kissed it… My penis was like a candle sticking out of my body and burned accordingly, leaving me with a seared wick where the shaft had once been.”

It’s astonishingly visceral, a graphic launch into the novel which quickly introduces us to Marianne Engel, a bewitchingly beautiful sculptress of gargoyles who over the course of the book, Scheherazade-like, tells the narrator that they were first lovers in medieval Germany, when he was a badly burned mercenary and she a nun and scribe.

“It’s the only time in history that I’ve had a character appear and prompt me to write a book,” Davidson says, speaking on the phone from Canada where he has been taking part in a whirlwind of publicity. “Marianne Engel arrived looking pretty much like she does now (with “riotously entangled” dark curls and “unsolvable eyes”) with her full name, saying things.” Whatever else he was working on she would sneak her way into it, until on May 1 2000 he decided to give her his full attention. “I said I can’t take this any more, it’s too much, you’re bugging me too much, I’m ready to give you the attention you need.”

Davidson says he knew early on in the process that she wasn’t going to narrate the book herself “because of the nature of her personality”; Marianne Engel is – or isn’t – insane, and we like the narrator are to make up our own minds about the truth of her story.

“Unlike Marianne who was there at the beginning, and every time I asked her a question – what do you do for a living? Her first answer was I’m a sculptor; what do you sculpt? She said gargoyles – with her there was very much everything there in place. With the narrator it took a lot more time to figure out who he was. He didn’t come in a pre-formed package. I would ask a question to myself, it was not to a character prodding me. So how did he get burned? I would run through a number of different options. Car crash? Was it his fault? Why? He was driving drunk and stoned. Interesting – what kind of person drives drunk and stoned? What is it about his life that causes him to approach driving with such disregard? Ah. It’s because he is a drug-addicted porn star.”

The decision to make the narrator a burn victim was a combination of two things: Davidson’s fascination with burn treatment, about which he had been reading a lot: “It was so engaging and compelling,” he says, somewhat gruesomely. And his idea that “at the end of a relationship you have a feeling of being burned. I thought it was interesting to start with being burned – I put those together and took them to a literal level.”

The Gargoyle required a phenomenal amount of research, from burn treatments to medieval Germany to sculpting. “One of the things of writing about a burn treatment was that I didn’t have to use my imagination because what actually exists is more interesting and bizarre and wonderful and gruesome than anything I could imagine,” Davidson says. “For me I never got squeamish or uneasy writing it because it was just so fascinating. I was so engaged in learning about it.”

Davidson, 39, has written every day since he was 16 but prior to The Gargoyle had only had three poems published “in extremely obscure magazines”. He ran the gamut of various office jobs until when he was approaching 30 he decided to go to Japan because he had never lived abroad: “The world is too big to spend all of it in Canada.”

He spent five years there teaching English, initially as a substitute teacher travelling the length and breadth of the country, and then in Tokyo, which is where Marianne Engel started intruding into his life. He’d work from ten until seven creating English content for teachers, walk home (“I used that time to get some exercise and throw away the day”), and then work until two or three in the morning on his book.

“It wasn’t until I was well into the book that I thought this is better than anything I’d done,” he admits. But then along came his “big shot hotshot” agent Eric Simonoff, who secured him his megabucks deal.

“I sit here today and look back at everything that has happened and it’s phenomenal,” says Davidson, who has already started work on his next book. He has “literally hundreds” of pages of research done, and is now engrossed in pinning down his two main characters. “It’s coming to me piece by piece, little by little as I put it together,” he says. “They’ve still not consented to be the main characters. I’m still waiting for their approval, but I’ve got my fingers crossed, I’m hoping.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ARTICLE CLICK HERE

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE