mbarker: (BrainUnderRepair)
[personal profile] mbarker
Writing Excuses 14.9: Showing Off
 
 
Key Points: Showing off awesome worldbuilding and podcasting skills? No, just how to make infodumps interesting. As you may recall... How do you let characters explain the world without it being a boring infodump? Let the character interact with the information, give it emotional weight. Beware of "As you know, Bob," but an argument let's you slip in lots of information about characters and whatever they are arguing about. Use "Bob, you idiot!" Giving directions also can help. Humor makes the moments of worldbuilding go down easier, too. Sex positions, mixing sex scenes and exposition, might work for you. Convincing someone who has given up lets you summarize everything that has happened, and what we need to do. Ephemera! Establishing shot, relationship shot, insets, pictures! Worldbuilding that is important impacts the story, so the impact gets mentioned in the story. Maps and grand poems. People in a bar talking about what they watched or did last night can tell you what's important in this culture. Newspaper clippings, broadcast transcripts, a character overhearing a snippet of a news clip... all good ways to let the reader know "Today, the ocean is boiling." Consider when to deploy ephemera and what effect you want it to have on the reader. Watch for the gorilla in the phone booth.
 
[Mary Robinette] Season 14, Episode Nine.
[Brandon] This is Writing Excuses, Showing Off.
[Mary Robinette] 15 minutes long.
[Dan] Because you're in a hurry.
[Howard] And we're not that smart.
[Brandon] I'm Brandon.
[Mary Robinette] I'm Mary Robinette.
[Dan] I'm Dan.
[Howard] I'm Howard.
 
[Brandon] We are going to show off our awesome worldbuilding skills for you…
[Chuckles]
[Brandon] And our awesome podcasting skills.
[Howard] That is not what you told me we were going to do. Now I'm nervous.
[Laughter]
[Brandon] Um…
[Mary Robinette] As you know, Brandon…
[Dan] He would've dressed totally differently. 
[Laughter]
[Brandon] As I know, we're going to talk about infodumps, but we're going to make the infodumps interesting. Basically, this whole podcast is 14 seasons of infodumps.
[Laughter]
[Howard] As you may recall, we've been talking about worldbuilding all year.
[Brandon] Yes, we have, Howard, and did you know…
[Laughter]
[Brandon] All right. So. My first question for you guys is how do you make characters who know a lot about the world talk about the world without it being an infodump, or without it being boring?
[Mary Robinette] So, I had to deal with this a lot in Calculating Stars because I have this mathematician pilot astronaut, and there's oh, the amount of information that you need to… No, I didn't really think about it when I'm like, "I'm going to write hard science fiction." Huh.
[Brandon] You're going to not just write hard science fiction. You're going to mix it with alternate history.
[Chuckles]
[Brandon] Which are the two most research heavy sub genres of sci-fi fantasy.
[Mary Robinette] It was a good choice there. Also, I'm going to make my main character a mathematician, and Jewish. None of which I am. So… But what I did was very much what I talked about last month, which was the interacting and having emotional weight to the information that the character is conveying. So, if I need you to know how to fly an airplane, when I… And I want you to know this airplane is a really cool airplane, then I have her walk in and go, "Oh, who has the T35 and how do I become their best friend?" That immediately tells you that this is interesting. Then, she can start to list all the things about it. What I'm doing for the reader is I am completely infodumping all of this information, and I'm tying it to emotion. So it is using POV…
[Brandon] Right.
[Mary Robinette] But it is very specifically about that interaction with the thing and masking it as an emotional state, rather than a "Please, here's my knowledge."
 
[Brandon] Well, and you say as an emotional state. A lot of the ways that this has been done historically, and it still works very well, but it's where the cliché "As you know, Bob," came from, is to have two characters have an argument or discussion about the thing. Saying, "I like this sort of gun," and the other character says, "Oh, those guns are crap. I like these sorts of guns." Suddenly, you've got an argument and you're getting information about both characters, their preferences, and the guns.
[Mary Robinette] Yeah.
[Brandon] It's a great way to go about it. How do you do it without it sounding like, "As you know, Bob," that sort of thing?
[Dan] Well, the reason that the argument works well is because it isn't "As you know, Bob," it's "Bob, you idiot."
[Mary Robinette] Yeah.
[Dan] Then they're not telling each other things they already know. That's when it really is awful.
[Howard] I did almost that exact… I mean, it wasn't guns, they were talking about the floating cities in the… One of the places. It ends with a joke. It's very much an introduction of characters. There's a ring of giant floating cities going all the way around the planet. "I grew up on Venus, I've seen floating cities before." "Okay, but the bartender… He makes these drinks inside other drinks." "Depth charges. I've had those before, too." Then they look out the window and everything is gone. "Where are all the cities?" "Where are we going to get drinks?" It's just a brief moment of insight. I now know that Jengisha is, one, from Venus, where there are floating cities, but I needed to introduce… This is the first time we've been to this place in the book, and I'm showing the reader what isn't there. So I have to describe what was there, in order to then have it be gone. [https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2018-07-29]
 
[Mary Robinette] Oh, giving directions is actually a great way to do that.
[Chuckles]
[Mary Robinette] It's like, "Oh, you drive down the road where the old school used to be…"
 
[Brandon] I just realized something. That is that we always joke that Howard cheats because he has pictures for his worldbuilding. But he cheats twice, because he also has jokes to make us laugh in between the moments of worldbuilding. You're just a cheaty cheater.
[Howard] I am a cheating cheater, and I could talk about how the humor lowers your defenses and allows me to slip information in there. But that's… That goes beyond cheating and into evil.
[Chuckles]
 
[Mary Robinette] I'm not going to say that the number of sex scenes in Calculating Stars are there because I have a ton of exposition that I needed to get across, but…
[Laughter]
[Brandon] Sex positions.
[Laughter]
[Dan] Call it what it is.
[Laughter]
[Mary Robinette] That's exactly what it is.
[Howard] I am so glad I didn't try to make that joke.
[Chuckles]
[Brandon] Oh, wow. All right.
[Mary Robinette] There's multiple layers of that joke. We're just going to move on there.
[Brandon] How do you make your worldbuilding interesting?
[Laughter]
[Mary Robinette] Sex position. So, here's an example of something that you should not do. I read… As research, I read Mars, a Technical Tale by Wernher von Braun, which is labeled as a novel, and it is von Braun… He's the father of modern rocketry. It was him saying, "Let me tell you how we could do a Mars mission." It was his idea to get the American public… Or just get the public excited about the idea of Mars. There is a chapter in there in which we literally have the professor says, "Let me tell you about Mars, the professor began his exposition." That's an actual sentence.
[Chuckles]
[Mary Robinette] Then, the next line is, "Mars is the fourth planet from the sun." It is a chapter of as-you-know fact dump. There is no… Oh, it's… There's charts and graphs. It is worth picking up just so you can go…
[Dan] To see how not to do it?
[Mary Robinette] It's really… Oh… It's very, very useful for reference, and it is really challenging as a novel.
 
[Brandon] One of the best plot recaps I've ever read is in A Night of Blacker Darkness.
[Laughter]
[Brandon] Which is a lengthy plot recap so that we can get caught up to remem… Getting it straightened out what the characters need to do, what they have already done, and what their goals are. It is the facts conversation. Tell us about this, Dan.
[Dan] The facts… Well, A Night of Blacker Darkness was me trying to write a farce, which I learned is so much easier to do on stage, which is why I eventually went back and did it on stage. But one of the problems with farce is that it is very information dense at a very fast pace. So I got halfway through the book and realized that a lot of the writing group had either missed important details or had forgotten them because 900 other important details had happened. So let's take a minute and get on the same page and make sure we know what's going on, all done as a conversation between the characters. One of them has decided it's not worth carrying on and wants to give up, and the other two are trying to convince him, no, we can still win. That gives them an excuse to run down all of the plot points that have happened.
[Brandon] Now, what makes this scene really work is the fact that I came out of it understanding, but the facts are all really complex and funny. So how did you not lose us in the thing that was supposed to reorient us as you were making jokes about how convoluted the plot was?
[Dan] Um. I numbered all of the facts, and that's why it's called the facts conversation. If you talk to people who've read the book, almost everyone this is their favorite chapter. What I did was I knew that there were three, maybe four, very important facts. They were really driving all the action. But numbering, I think at final count it was 17 or 18 total facts, made you think that there was a lot more going on than there really was. So you're kind of in the middle of this whirlwind and they always refer to the facts by number rather than what they are, except for the four important ones.
[Oooh!]
[Dan] So you know, "Oh, okay. Running away to Rome, so that we don't get murdered by a vampire…" That's fact whatever it was. That one they will say both the number and the title. The rest of them are all just numbers.
[Mary Robinette] That's very clever. I mean, that's a really common stage technique which you are transposing directly to the page.
[Brandon] And then back to the stage.
[Mary Robinette] Very nice.
[Dan] That's why it was so much better on stage.
[Brandon] It occurs to me that you probably repeated the four important facts a number of times?
[Dan] A lot of times.
[Brandon] Where the other ones were only one-offs.
[Dan] Yeah. There's a lot of times in the conversation where they'll say, "Which brings us back to fact four, blah blah blah. There is a vampire trying to kill us," whatever it is. So that hammers home the important stuff and lets you have the joy of being confused by the unimportant stuff.
 
[Brandon] Let's go ahead and stop for our book of the week.
[Howard] It's not a book. It is not a YouTube University, but he calls it Shadiversity, s_h_a_d_i_versity. This is a guy who, Shad is his name, vidcast… Deconstructs scenes, ideas, technologies, things from fantasy and science fiction pop culture, and talks about the historical underpinnings, why they're getting it wrong, why they're getting it right. I mean, one of them is this thing that we keep calling a tabard. It's actually a monastic scapular. Tabards didn't look anything like this. He's got an episode called Best Medieval Weapons to Use against Elves.
[Chuckles]
[Howard] Then a follow-up episode, An Even Better Way to Fight Elves. What he's doing is digging into actual historical combat, warfare, construction, whatever, and layering the pop culture we consume over that. It is fascinating and educational. You can find it on YouTube. Shadiversity, or you just Google Shadiversity and you'll be there.
[Brandon] Awesome.
 
[Brandon] So we're getting back to how to show off your worldbuilding in ways other than viewpoint. Because we covered viewpoint really well last month. For the last part of the podcast, let's dig into ephemera. Nonnarrative parts of the story. How do you use this, Howard? Let's talk about pictures.
[Howard] Um. Okay. The… There's several kinds of pictures categorically in Schlock Mercenary. One of them is the establishing shot, where I tell you… The narrator will tell you where we are. You know what the name of this spaceship is, but we will have… Often have an external shot that shows you what this spaceship looks like. Or it's a city. Or it's a landscape, whatever. There are then relationship shots where I'm showing you where the characters are standing in relationship to each other and what is in the room with them. Are there props? Are there things that are going to be important? Then there are the panels that I call insets where I'm just zooming in on faces and showing reactions. I've talked about comic syntax in other podcasts. Scott McCloud, Understanding Comics, that's going to give you more information than I can ever give you. When there is a critical story piece, I always make sure that it is showing up in an establishing shot, and then within the same page, within the same week of scripts, it's going to show up in one of the relationship pictures. It's going to be mentioned in the dialogue, so that we know that this is a thing that we are going to come back to.
[Brandon] Are there ever things that you rely exclusively on the pictures for with the worldbuilding? Or do you always use a footnote… Always is probably too strong a term, but…
[Howard] [sigh]
[Brandon] Is it a rule of thumb that you're going to… You said you mention it in dialogue?
[Howard] Mentioning it in dialogue… If it's a piece of worldbuilding that is important, it's probably impacting the story in some way. So what is going to get mentioned in story is the impact. There are places where I can do things with pictures that… Obviously, you can do this with prose. There's a scene in which… It is a scene between person A and person B, Kevin and Jengisha. Ellen, whose husband is the other Kevin, the time clone, who is dead, is in the very background. She is being pulled out of the room by two of her friends. She has an expression on her face that looks bewildered and sad. It is one shot. I knew when I was putting it in there that I needed it because I'm going to show her having a conversation with the cloning tank where her husband is going to be coming back. But I have to have people know that there's this relationship. I got mail from people who were like, "Oh, my gosh. That thing you did, that little tiny half a square inch of panel, I got the feels from that." These are the sorts of places where a comic, I can put things in. It's not explicitly worded, it's easy to miss. With prose, I feel like it's harder to hide those things because the words are all usually read in order. Does that make sense?
 
[Brandon] Yeah. This is kind of hard for me, because I know my books are going to end up in audio books, but I love ephemera, and worldbuilding through them.
[Howard] Sticking them in the middle of paragraphs?
[Brandon] Yeah. Well, usually it's on an opposite page. I'm talking like the maps.
[Howard] Oh, them. Okay.
[Brandon] The maps from [garbled lights].
[Dan] Like the grand poems.
[Brandon] Yeah, the poems. The poems will get read.
[Dan] Things like that.
[Brandon] But the maps, for instance. There's like seven, eight maps in Way of Kings. What we do is have a big, gorgeous painted map, and then we have the survey map that says at the bottom, created by His Majesty's Royal Surveyors. Then we have a map scrawled on the back of a turtle shell sort of thing that somebody has been using to get around the camp. We have like all of these different maps that I put into the book to kind of show different ways that people are orienting themselves.
[Howard] So the Planet Mercenary sourcebook is a 250,000 word ephemera.
[Laughter]
[Howard] With an unreliable narrator.
[Dan] Sold separately.
[Laughter]
[Howard] Exactly.
 
[Dan] In the Mirador series, I… One of the basic worldbuilding premises was this is a world where e-sports have replaced regular sports. I never wanted to, and never did in the series, come out and say, "E-sports have replaced regular sports." But instead, we just have… They fill the same role. People in a bar all talking about the videogame they all watched on TV last night. Things like that. When the second book came out, I had a chance to do a bunch of ephemera. I had logo drawn up for the main team, I had a bracket of the tournament of all the players that we posted online, and things like that. Which all helped everyone to get into this mindset of oh, this game is important, and everyone's excited about it.
[Mary Robinette] I used newspaper clippings at the head of the chapters in Calculating Stars. That is a… That's a very useful thing. Because…
[Howard] Chapter headings?
[Mary Robinette] Chapter headings, the ephemera that shows up at the top, which is a newspaper article or a transcript from a radio play. But I'm going to say that you can actually use that technique without having to go to that… Of the newspaper clipping or the television or something else. You can use that to get your worldbuilding across without actually having to have chapter headings. Because you can do that same thing by having it be something that a character overhears. Having a little bit of a news clip playing in the background can allow you to just have an announcer literally tell you, "And right now, the ocean is boiling." You can do that. It's effective. You don't want to… Like any technique, you don't want it to be one note and that's the only thing that you use, but it's really useful.
[Brandon] Can I say, I really like your news reporter voice?
[Laughter]
[Brandon] For when you read those books? There are different ones. But you got that sort of…
[Mary Robinette] Ladies and gentlemen…
[Brandon] Yes. It's that. You know… It's that.
[Dan] Yes. Ladies and gentlemen. These marshmallows…
[Laughter]
[Dan] Are delicious.
[Howard] Not actually her voice, but…
[Mary Robinette] But it does tell you things. That's… That is actually a thing that we do have to navigate when I'm doing audiobooks, is if I just do a straight read of that and have that in the same voice as Elma, as the rest of the narration. You have to come up with something that's going to distinguish the two.
[Brandon] Right. It just… It sounds like it's coming from the old radio broadcasts that people would do. It is very distinct. You know exactly what it is right away.
[Mary Robinette] March third, 1952.
[Laughter]
[Dan] Pertinent to this conversation, I just sold a historical thriller. A Cold War book that I talked about a couple of times. I just sold that to Audible. It's going to be an Audible Original. I had created essentially as ephemera a bunch of codes. It's about a photographer in 1961. So there are number codes and there are replacement codes and there are ciphers and there are all these things all over the book. After we sold it, the editor and I looked at it and realized most of these aren't even going to function properly in audio. So we had to really rethink. We're still figuring out exactly how we're going to convey all that stuff that was invented as ephemera and ended up being important to the plot, and now we're… Now we're in a hole.
[Mary Robinette] Yeah. The… We can… You and I can talk about that later, because there are in fact ways to handle that, because I've had to deal with that. I actually had that problem in Fated Sky, because there's big chunks of code.
[Brandon] Right. Yeah. I'm… This is off on a tangent, but I have, at the beginning of a chapter in one of my books, something that just looks nice on the page, that is just a bunch of… A random string of letters because it's… A character who went through a period of pseudo-madness, and this is their scrawlings, right? The reader just read all those letters, and the audiobook listeners came to me and said, "That chapter. It was just going on and on and on…"
[Chuckles]
[Brandon] "With the letters." So these are things to be aware of.
[Howard] Oh, man.
 
[Mary Robinette] Yeah. Often… This is actually getting into something that I… That is completely pertinent to the kind of infodumping that you do and the kind of ephemera that you create. That's when you deploy it and what effect are you trying to have on the reader? So with something like that, what you're trying to convey to the reader is that there was something not right going on with this character's head. That there were all of these things. So there are other ways to do that vocally, but you do have to shift when you go to the different medium. One of the things that I will see early career writers do, and sometimes in published work, is that the infodump just comes in the wrong place. They aren't thinking about the effect of the information on the reader.
[Brandon] Right.
[Mary Robinette] There only thinking about this is information.
[Brandon] Yeah. I often use the phrase gorilla in a phone booth… Which… There are times in your story where something's going to be really interesting to the character. You often in the podcast use the puppet metaphor. What the puppet is looking at, the character looks at. You have the puppet look at something cool, but then you start giving us an infodump on something else. We're going to say, "Nononono. You turned our attention toward something cool. You can't infodump me right then." But you could infodump me a little bit later on, once our mind can come back to this sort of thing.
[Mary Robinette] Yeah. Exactly.
[Howard] Years ago, David Kellett did… I think this was for the podcast that he did with Scott Kurtz… And impersonation of a New York taxi driver doing the audiobook version of Garfield. Saying, "Oh, you guys. This last panel, he's sitting in the pan of lasagna. Sitting in a pan of lasagna." I was rolling, because I know that the Schlock Mercenary audiobook is really just never going to get made, but that problem, bouncing off of that problem, at that level when you've got the ephemera which are… on one level, what you would call ephemera is 90% of my product. The translation into audio means it would have to be completely rewritten.
 
[Brandon] We're going to have to stop here. Mary Robinette, you have our homework.
[Mary Robinette] Yes. So for your homework, I actually want you to write some ephemera for your world. Write a transcript of a news program or a newspaper article… Some ephemera that fits into your world. Have it be about a fact that you've been struggling to get in there that you want people to know. Then try, because it's ephemera, see how concise you can make it. So you're only allowed one paragraph. No more than 75 words.
[Brandon] And, like, we are only allowed 15 minutes that became 22…
[Laughter]
[Brandon] You are out of excuses. Go write.
 
mbarker: (ISeeYou2)
[personal profile] mbarker
Writing Excuses 13.7: What Writers Get Wrong, with Lou Perry
 
 
Key points: What do writers get wrong about the law? Objection! Sustained! No basis? Actually, objection, leading the witness is okay, BUT you have to be leading the witness, on direct examination, not cross-examination. You are allowed to lead opposing witnesses, even be argumentative with them. Judges don't usually do off-the-cuff rulings. Note that sometimes you have to make a choice between the narrative and accuracy. But the middle ground might work, with the real thing between scenes or offscreen. Legal actions take time. Other pet peeves? Fiery closing arguments. Don't imitate Law & Order. Slow, boring, meticulous does the job. Small town lawyers are likely to be general practitioners, while big city firms are more likely to have specialists. Cross-examination of a dishonest witness might make a good piece of courtroom drama to put in a story. The best way to learn about courtrooms is to go to the courthouse and watch a trial. 
The prosecution rests... )
[Brandon] This is Writing Excuses, What Do Writers Get Wrong, with Lou Perry.
[Mary] 15 minutes long.
[Dan] Because you're in a hurry.
[Howard] And we're not that smart.
[Brandon] I'm Brandon.
[Mary] I'm Mary.
[Dan] I'm Dan.
[Howard] And I'm ready to learn something.
[Brandon] We have special guest star, Lou.
[Lou] Thanks for having me.
[Brandon] Our pleasure. Thank you for being on the podcast. We are again live at GenCon.
[Whoo! Cheering.]
[Mary] Right. So, Lou, in order to make our audience understand that you don't exist along a single axis, tell us a little bit about yourself.
[Lou] Sure. Well, I'm here because I'm a lawyer, but I'm also a father and a husband, a writer, a reader, and as of a few months ago, I got way too into [Eight mander?] girls softball.
[Laughter]
[Brandon] And became a rabid, rabid fan.
 
[Mary] So, what are we going to be focusing on today?
[Lou] Unfortunately, not the softball. We're going to be focusing on the law and what you folks get wrong with it.
[Laughter]
[Mary] So what writers get wrong with law.
[Brandon] This is probably a long, long, long list. We'd probably need an hour to get it all.
[Howard] And an attorney.
[Laughter]
[Howard] I mean, like representation.
[Lou] Yeah, it's gotten to the point for me where I don't watch legal shows. I try not to read anything that has anything to do with the law. I've closed books before when that comes up and I wasn't expecting it.
 
[Dan] Is there one particular cliché or pet peeve that stands out above the others? That you're just like, "That again!"
[Lou] Yeah. Objecting with no basis.
[Laughter]
[Lou] And then the judge making a ruling with no basis.
[Laughter]
[Lou] Objection!
[Brandon] Tell us more.
[Lou] Sustained.
[Dan] We're just idiots. What do you mean by that?
[Lou] So, often times in trials, somebody'll be making an argument, and the opposing counsel will object. There are bases for objection, there's rules of evidence. In the lazier pieces of fiction, what you find is people just randomly objecting and there randomly being rulings on those objections, not based on any reason.
[Mary] So, in the real world, what would an objection sound like?
[Lou] Objection. Leading the witness. Now, you actually have to be leading the witness to have that objection. It has to be on direct examination, not cross-examination. A lot of times, I see, especially in TV shows, prosecutors will be objecting to a defense counsel who is leading a witness, but the witness is the prosecutor's witness. So you're allowed to lead opposing witnesses. You're also allowed to be argumentative with opposing witnesses, because that's what cross-examination is.
[Mary] Got it.
[Brandon] Okay. Wow.
 
[Mary] So then when a judge does the sustained or doesn't… When you say that there's a ruling, I take it that that's more than just that one word, he would actually…
[Lou] He usually will make a more robust ruling. Sometimes there'll end up being a ruling in writing. Sometimes there'll be a recess. Sometimes there will be a conference outside of the jury, and they'll come to… Attorneys will come to some agreement. Sometimes there will just be an off-the-cuff ruling.
[Brandon] So there is never a time where there's like objection, overruled, objection, sustained, like over and over again. Does that just not happen, right?
[Lou] I have never seen that happen.
[Laughter]
[Dan] So what you're saying is that the law is really complicated?
[Lou] It's very complicated
[Whoa!]
[Howard] What you're also saying is that unless we've been in a courtroom, we've never seen anything remotely like a real trial.
[Lou] I think that's correct.
 
[Mary] Is there anything among lawyers that you're like, "Oh, this one. This one actually has it mostly right."
[Lou] You mean in terms of fiction that I've [garbled read.]
[Dan] Yeah.
[Mary] Fiction or film, media, any…
[Lou] John Grisham does an okay job. He was actually a lawyer. He knows what he's doing, but he's making choices to serve the narrative which sometimes annoys me.
[Laughter]
[Lou] But he gets it right more often than he gets it wrong.
[Mary] Okay.
[Lou] He does get it wrong, but I think it's on purpose.
 
[Dan] That's actually a good point to make, that sometimes, even as an expert, you do need to make choices in favor of the narrative over accuracy.
[Lou] Absolutely.
[Brandon] But you will lose some readers every time you do that. Often finding the middle ground is the best thing to do. Saying, "All right, let's indicate that the real thing happened, kind of between scenes or offscreen or hint at it," and things like this, so that the person who is an expert can look at it and be like, "All right. It's okay, they're covering their bases. I can go on and enjoy this."
 
[Mary] What are some of the things that signal to you… I mean, you've said that you will already just not read a book if there appears to be legal stuff in there. But are there early indicators that this one might be okay? I do the same thing, like I avoid puppet books for the same reason.
[Lou] An early indicator, I think, would be…
[Mary] The author's bio?
[Lou] Maybe the author's bio.
[Chuckles]
[Lou] But if I am in a book where legal things are happening, if they're getting just the general sense that these things take time, there's no big surprise thing happening in a legal action that's going to ultimately cause the case to speed up, things go very slow. If that's happening, I can generally be on board with it. But at this point, I have just kind of given up. So…
 
[Mary] So what are some other things… Because one of the things I have to admit that I really enjoy about this particular series is watching people rant about things.
[Chuckles]
[Mary] What are some other pet peeves that you have?
[Lou] Sure. Fiery closing arguments. Those tend to really annoy the judges, I think.
[Mary] Really? Why is that?
[Lou] Because they think you're imitating Law & Order.
[Laughter]
[Lou] They probably feel much like I do about Law & Order, they probably hate it. The trick there, though, is your client really likes it. Because they've also seen Law & Order.
[Laughter]
[Lou] So those fiery closing arguments do happen. It's just debatable…
[Howard] So television is why we can't have nice things.
[Lou] Television is why we can't have nice things. Correct.
[Dan] I remember I was on jury duty several years ago, and was surprised by how different it was from what I thought it was going to be. But that was one of the things that really stood out to me, was the really slow, boring, meticulous lawyer absolutely won that case. He didn't give the big fiery speech, he wasn't trying to be charismatic, he was just trying to present his case as thoroughly and relentlessly as possible.
[Lou] I think that's right. That's usually the way it should be done.
 
[Mary] Now is it different when you have… When you're talking to a judge versus talking to a jury?
[Lou] A bench trial would be very different. I think you would find both parties, both lawyers, doing exactly what Dan was talking about. Being very meticulous… Understanding that the judge has seen this all a thousand times, and you're not going to impress him with some turn of phrase or some fiery speech. Juries are just another factor that you have to put in. You have to understand who you have in your jury and whether or not they're going to respond to that sort of thing.
 
[Brandon] Let's go ahead and stop for our book of the week. You're going to pitch a book to us.
[Lou] I am going to pitch a book. The book I'm pitching is called Ghouljaw by an Indiana native named Clint Smith. It's out from Hippocampus Press. It's Midwestern, weird fiction, short stories. Very good stuff. Kind of literary. Also kind of schlocky and funny, in parts. I really enjoyed it, and I think everybody else would, too.
 
[Brandon] Awesome. Well, let me ask you a question on that. Can lawyer or law fiction or things like that get so schlocky that you can enjoy it again? Can it just be so far off?
[Lou] I think the Frank Castle scene in Daredevil was so far off and so goofy and just so wrong and so angering…
[Chuckles]
[Lou] That I came around to the other side and sort of enjoyed it.
[Laughter]
[Brandon] Okay.
[Howard] I don't know that that was what Brandon was hoping for.
[Laughter]
[Mary] I have to admit that I'm surprised that you watched Daredevil at all.
[Lou] Well, there's a fundamental tension when it's involving comic book…
[Laughter]
[Lou] Heroes from my childhood. So I will watch that. I mean, that also had ninjas and stuff.
[Mary] Fair. Fair.
 
[Dan] Now that's a question. Let me ask really quick because I remember years and years ago being in a WorldCon panel about fencing where people were just griping about how bad the fencing was in Princess Bride. But then, at the end of the panel, one of the people asked, "Okay, but be honest. How many of you got into fencing because of Princess Bride?" Every member of the panel raised their hand.
[Chuckles]
[Dan] So like, what are some of the… I mean, is that how you got into law, in some ways?
[Lou] No. I got into law… I was an English major in undergrad, and…
[Mary] Realized you wanted to make some money.
[Lou] I wasn't finding much in the way of a job market, and I went to law school, and it turned out to be the right fit. I think writing and the law kind of go hand-in-hand. I found I did pretty well in law school. Not because I was the smartest or the best student, but I think I was a better writer than some. That was due to the English degree, and due to the… Always reading.
[Howard] It's amazing how much good written communication can jumpstart your career in any field where people at work think for a living.
[Lou] That's right.
[Brandon] When I was in my degree program, the English major, one of the number one follow-ups to an English major was a law degree. Which I… It just shocked me, because I was just like, "Isn't everyone here to read Jane Austen and dance through the flowers?"
[Laughter]
[Brandon] That's why I was there. But apparently that's a really good preparation for a law degree, which should, alone, tell us a little bit more… A little bit about how different being an attorney is from how it's presented.
 
[Mary] Now, one of the things that I understand is that there are multiple different types of attorneys. So can you kind of break down some of the things? Because I think that a lot of people… One of the mistakes that I will see is that they think that all attorneys are the same thing. That if you do corporate law, it's the same thing as being trial law, it's the same thing as…
[Lou] Yeah. I mean, it really depends on where you're living. If you're in a smaller town, you're going to do a lot of stuff… You're going to be a general practitioner. If you're in a bigger city, there's a good chance you're going to be in a decent-sized firm and you're going to be specializing in one certain thing. Maybe it's corporate law. I do intellectual property litigation. It could be nonprofit law. But generally, everybody has kind of a niche practice. But then you go out into the smaller counties in Indiana, and those guys do everything. They do criminal law, they do corporate law, they do IP law. They do some of it better than other portions of it, but they just do it all.
 
[Mary] So, let's say, since you have admitted that you will avoid them like the plague. What would make you… If one of our writers did this… What would make you go, I would read it if you did this?
[Lou] See, that's a tough question, because if you got the law all right, it would be a very, very boring story.
[Laughter]
[Howard] I guess… To approach it differently, what if… You have a story which is overwhelmingly in a different area, and the story crosses through at some point a courtroom. What pieces of the courtroom, what pieces of that activity, can I show that will convince you that this is okay, without boring my readers to absolute tears?
[Lou] I think a cross-examination of a dishonest witness is a very fun thing to do, and to watch. But it's got to be done in a not terribly dramatic way. But I think there are a lot of ways to build tension and to get a lot of character across and also to tell a lot of story through what's being said and not said.
 
[Dan] So, given that we don't have much time here, and can't necessarily go into it all right now, what are some good resources that our listeners could look to to find out how to do something like that correctly?
[Lou] I think if you go to your local county courthouse and just sit around and watch a trial, I think that would be a very good thing to do. You can get deposition transcripts. You can read those. That's probably not the most scintillating reading.
[Chuckles]
[Lou] But it's… They're all out there. A lot of stuff's online. That's what I would do.
 
[Brandon] Excellent. We're out of time, but you did have some homework for us.
[Lou] I did. It's going to be very unpopular.
[Laughter. Good.]
[Lou] I was thinking about this. I'm going to suggest that everybody go out and pick a Supreme Court opinion, preferably where Justice Scalia is dissenting. Read it. Read the opinion, that's likely written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then read Justice Scalia's dissent. Try to keep an open mind about what he's saying and why he's saying it. Also pay attention to the law that's at issue. I think you'll find that you can see where he's coming from and you'll see where Ginsburg is coming from. And you can see the fundamental problem with the law as written.
[Brandon] Excellent. Wow.
[Mary] Cool.
[Brandon] Well, thank you so much, Lou, for being on the podcast with us. Thank you to our audience.
[Clapping]
[Brandon] This has been Writing Excuses. You're out of excuses, now go write.
 
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Writing Excuses Season Four Episode 26: Avoiding Stilted Dialogue

From http://www.writingexcuses.com/2010/07/05/writing-excuses-4-26-avoiding-stilted-dialog/

Key points: Stilted dialogue moves like stilts staggering down the street. It doesn't feel like a conversation, or it doesn't match the character. People don't talk in complete sentences. Fiction dialogue represents conversation, it doesn't portray it exactly (skip the ums, hums, haws, etc.). Give the illusion of reality. Write the dialogue you need, then prune it. Beware maid and butler dialogue, where characters talk about things to educate the reader, rather than because they would ordinarily talk about those things. Consider when they would have first talked about that, then let them reflect on those past conversations. Get your characters into arguments, and let them slip in the information you want as a side issue. Toss the characters into a scene and let them talk.
Yackity-yack and don't talk back... )
[Brandon] All right. Howard, you're waving your hand. Why don't you do the...
[Dan] Oo! You have a writing prompt!
[Howard] I've got a writing prompt. This is a two-parter. Start with maid and butler dialogue with a maid and a butler who are establishing important plot points. Write the worst maid and butler dialogue you know how to write. Okay? It's an info dump and it's awful. Now go back and rewrite it. Now the maid and the butler are having an argument, a very impassioned, brutal sort of argument. The same information comes out, only make it not feel like maid and butler dialogue.
[Brandon] All right. There you are. You're out of excuses, now go write.

Profile

Writing Excuses Transcripts

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 10th, 2025 06:18 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios