BOOK CLUB FRIDAY - GUEST AUTHOR PAUL D. MARKS

Our guest today is Paul D. Marks, author of over thirty published short stories in a variety of genres, ranging from noir to straight mystery, satire to serious fiction, including several award winners. In a previous life, he was a script doctor and is also the last person to have shot on the fabled MGM backlot before it bit the dust to make way for housing. Read more about Paul at his website. -- AP

Did Ya Hear the one About the Two Navy Seals?
A Different Take on Dialogue

So, one Navy SEAL says to the other as they're free falling, hurtling toward earth, "Well, Joe, that's your ripcord and it's what you pull to open your chute, and if you screw up the ARR kicks in– "

"ARR?"

"Automatic Ripcord Release–"

"What's that do?"

"It opens your chute if you don't do it at the preset altitude."

"Altitude? What's that?" (And with the state of today's schools that could be a serious question.)

Much has been written about expository dialogue, in which two or more people pour out gallons of info and back-story because the author needs to get that info to the reader. But one of my pet peeves is when you have two characters who explain things to one another that shouldn't need explaining. Like one SEAL telling another how to open a parachute, a silly example maybe, but I've seen it happen frequently. These two people should both know this stuff from the get-go. But because the writer, for the screen or book, needs to get some info out, they have these two people telling each other what they should already know. And believe me, if you don't know how your chute works when you're screaming toward Earth, you're in deep $#*@&#$.

Another example of this might be where you have two supposedly experienced bomb squad disposal techs and one explains to the other how to disarm a bomb. I hope by the time they're out in the field they both know what the hell they're doing. Still, another example of this is when one character says to another "Remember when you _____" (fill in the blank), simply so the writer can get info out to the audience in an "infodump".

We can see examples of this in both the recent mega hit Avatar and the classic sci-fi noir Blade Runner. And though the examples I cite below are from films (as that is my primary background,) it happens in novels all the time as well.

Selfridge, the project administrator in Avatar, explains to Dr. Grace Augustine things she would already know: "This is why we’re here. Unobtanium. Because this little gray rock sells for twenty million a kilo. No other reason. This is what pays for the party. And it’s what pays for your science. Comprendo?" Well, duh, at least from her point of view.

In Blade Runner, Captain Bryant gives Rick Deckard, a replicant hunter, a lecture about replicants, something the experienced Deckard would easily already know. Isn't he like the best replicant hunter around?

There are ways to avoid doing these things. For example, have a trainee or novice along and the character(s) can explain to the newbie what's going on as in my example below from my novel White Heat. Determine if it is really necessary to explain all the details or does the writer just want to show off all that research and esoteric knowledge?

Or go inside the characters' heads as they talk themselves through the steps or remember back to their first time doing it. There are also other ways to get things across, for example, a news story on television, an unslept-in bed, a picture frame turned upside down, an open suitcase. A gun in a drawer. Why is it there? Will it be used later? But the bottom line to remember is to dole things out in small doses. Also, while you as the author may need to know everything there is to know about your characters and their back-stories, your reader doesn't. They only need to know what is pertinent to the story.

In my new thriller, White Heat, Duke and Jack, the two detectives, are ex-Navy SEALs. And though one might have more expertise in one area and the other in another, they both went through the same training. Have a similar understanding of weapons, explosives, tactics and the like. (Diving and parachuting as well, though those skills aren't needed in the story.)

Since guns and weapons are second nature to both Duke and Jack, it wouldn't make sense for them to discuss what kind of gun is best for self-defense with each other. So instead, I had Duke take his client Laurie to a gun range and teach her how to shoot. Here is an excerpt from White Heat that gets across info to a character who needs to know it so she can protect herself.

She had planned to buy a short barreled .38 Colt revolver. Not a bad choice for someone unfamiliar with guns. A revolver is good since it's easier to use and clean than a semi-auto. .38's not a bad size bullet, especially if you go with a Plus-P. If she'd asked me, I would have recommended a .357 and maybe a little longer barrel. Short barrel's good for concealability, which she wanted. But less accurate. Everything's a tradeoff.

I want to get the above info out. But if Duke or Jack were to explain this to each other it would be silly. So Duke explains it to someone who doesn't know much about guns or self-defense. Yes, it's still exposition – and you do have to have exposition – but it's not as forced as it would be if Duke and Jack were saying it to each other. Also notice that I didn't use direct dialog, instead the narrator, Duke, who is also the main character, summarizes the things he told Laurie so we avoid a boring question and answer session between them.

Yes, there is information that needs to be imparted to the reader. But out and out exposition can be deadly, whether in dialogue or description. So it needs to be doled out in small doses and only what's necessary. The reader doesn't need to know that on Friday at 5:15pm the character bought a mocha Frappuccino^® with a soupcon of caramel, a dollop of whipped cream and a light dusting of nutmeg, unless of course that character is Niles Crane, or the time they bought the Frappuccino^® is relevant to the plot – maybe it's their alibi?

There is, of course, so much more to say about dialogue, good and bad. What are some of your pet peeves?

Thanks for joining us today, Paul! -- AP

THIS WEEK'S BOOK WINNERS

Thanks to all who stopped by this week at Killer Crafts & Crafty Killers. We hope you'll come back often and also tell your friends about us. We have lots of exciting posts and guests planned for the months ahead. I’d also like to thank Paul D. Marks for being our Book Club Friday guest and offering copies of both of his anthologies to two of our readers who posted comments this week. The winner of Murder in La-La Land is Julie Compton, and the winner of the Deadly Ink 2010 Short Story Collection is Marilyn Meredith. If you would both please email your mailing addresses to me at anastasiapollack@gmail.com, I’ll forward the information to Paul, and he’ll mail the books to you. 

BOOK CLUB FRIDAY -- GUEST AUTHOR PAUL D. MARKS

Today we have something a little bit different for you on Book Club Friday. Paul D. Marks is the award-winning author of over thirty published short stories, but his day job was as a "script doctor," and he’s going to share a bit of that with us today. 

Paul is currently finishing a novel featuring a recurring character from his short stories.  Bobby Saxon is the only white musician in an otherwise all-black swing band at the famous Club Alabam in Los Angeles during World War II. Bobby has appeared in three published stories: The Good Old Days, in the anthology Murder Across the Map, Sleepy Lagoon Nocturne, which appeared in the LAndmarked for Murder anthology, and Santa Claus Blues, published in Futures Magazine.  

Paul has won several awards.  His novel White Heat took second place in the Mystery-Suspense-Thriller-Adventure category of the SouthWest Writers Annual Writing Contest and his story Netiquette won First Place in the Futures Short Story Contest.  Endless Vacation received Honorable Mentions in two prestigious literary contests: the Glimmer Train Very Short Fiction Competition and the Lorian Hemingway International Short Story Competition.  Visit Paul at his blog or website.

Paul has generously offered a copy of the Murder in La-La Land anthology, which opens with his story Continental Tilt and a copy of the Deadly Ink 2010 Short Story Collection with his story Poison Heart to two lucky readers who post a comment this week. -- AP

Thank you for having me, Anastasia.

Though my background is as a writer, I come to short story and novel writing from a different perspective. After you meet someone, sooner or later – usually sooner – the conversation turns to, "What do you do?"  I'm never quite sure how to respond to that.  Not because I don't know what I do (though some people may find that arguable) but because they probably won't know what it is and then I have to explain.  Which is not the end of the world, but you know what they say, if you have to explain something to your reader (or listener), most likely you've already lost him. 

What I do – or did – is script doctoring or rewriting screenplays.  When you see a movie there are usually one or two, sometimes three, writers' credits.  But there are often several other people who've worked on the script who don't get screen credit.  I guess I'm one of those unsung heroes, though I'm not sure everyone would consider us heroes. There are script doctors who specialize in one thing or another, such as dialogue or adding humor or action.  Others are generalists.  Some are in the Writers Guild; some aren't.  I've been both.

No one likes being rewritten.  And sometimes rewriting betters a script.  But, to be honest, sometimes it makes it worse, depending on what the producer wants.  On top of that, you can work on a script, whether as a rewrite or having written and optioned a spec script, and it ends up in "development hell," never to see the light of day or at least the light of a projector.

And even rewriters get rewritten.  Once I was hired to do a major rewrite on a comedy script.  Several writers pitched their ideas on how to go about it to the producer.  I said I thought it should be an updated, sophisticated screwball (not slapstick) comedy, like those of the 1930s. And I outlined several of the changes I would make to various characters and situations.  They loved the idea.  And I gave them exactly what I said I would.  They hated it!  So they hired someone else after me to do another draft and the first joke on the first page was a girl peeing in her pants – it went downhill from there.  Now that's sophisticated.  That's Hollywood.  That's why I'm turning to fiction, though I'm not sure I can compete with Snooki: Novelist.

As I say, the problem with being an uncredited writer on a film is that no one knows what you do.  My father still can't figure out what I do all day since he never sees my credit on the silver screen (of course, considering some of the masterpieces I've worked on, that might be a good thing).  Which is one of the reasons I decided to start writing more short stories and novels.  Both so he and my mother could see my name on something, and, well, for me, too.  But, even being unsung, being a script doctor has helped me in terms of being a better fiction writer.

Some of the tricks I use as a script doctor are also useful on stories and novels.  One of the most useful is knowing when to get into and out of a scene, a sequence or even the entire project, whether it's a screenplay, story or novel.  You've heard the expression "cut to the chase" and this is what it's all about.  Most people start scenes too early and end them too late.  I've found that often by cutting the first and last thirds of a scene you really get to the meat of the scene, (unless you're a vegetarian, but I digress).  Sometimes, of course, you need some piece of information in one of those lost thirds and it can be worked into what's left of the scene or another scene.

On one occasion, I deleted the entire first act (the first quarter to third, give or take) of a screenplay, starting it on the second act. There was some information in the deleted scenes that had to be inserted, but overall the first part of the script was back-story, exposition, etc.  And not missed.

Granted, it's harder to take a butcher knife or even a scalpel to your own work.  And I do believe that in novels one should have a bit more luxury of back-story, exposition and, of course, internal dialogue and introspection.  Still, this is a good tactic to consider if you want to make your writing tighter. 

I've used this, as well as other script doctoring techniques, on most of my stories, though the transition from writing screenplays to short stories and now a novel hasn't necessarily been easy.  In screenplays, less is more – there's very little character or scene description.  And to some extent that's true in modern novels.  But in novels you can have more of some things.  The hardest part for me is writing description, as that is so bare in a screenplay.  When I first started writing fiction, people said my writing read too much like a screenplay.  It was too abrupt.  Too much shorthand.  I think I've improved in that department. 

The techniques I learned doing screenplays help me write better, tighter stories.  Though sometimes it's nice and necessary to indulge in back-story, atmosphere and description.

So next time you sit down to write, think "cut to the chase."  Now get out that scalpel and start trimming the fat.

Thanks, Paul! What an interesting post! What did you think, readers? Let’s hear from you, and you’ll be entered into the drawing for the anthologies Murder in La-La Land and Deadly Ink 2010 Short Story Collection. And be sure to check back Sunday to see if you’re one of the winners. -- AP