Guest post for Anonymous 9...

Hi folks,

Just a heads-up that I'm over on Anonymous 9's blog where I was invited to weigh in with my opinion on MFA degrees. The discussion's heating up if you want to drive by for a looksee at the dead bodies...

At: https://ashedit.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/les-edgerton-tells-it-like-hes-lived-it-mfa-part-4/



Blue skies,
Les

ANTAGONISTS AND PROTAGONISTS

Hi folks,

I recently received an email from emerging writer Ashley Gaumond who asked a couple of really good questions and I thought I’d answer them here as I’m sure there are others who visit here who might have the same questions.

Ashley asks:

1. Does a short prologue have to follow the standard rule for a scene (goal, conflict, disaster)?

My answer: Well, first of all, as a general rule, I don’t believe most prologs are useful or necessary. In general, I find that at least from beginning writers, most are created because they’ve been told they shouldn’t begin a novel with backstory and setup, and they’ve found an all-consuming need to provide… backstory and setup. If they call it a “prolog” they feel they’ve dodged the rule… That doesn’t mean that all prologs are bad, and occasionally we’ll see one that works and works well. But… that’s only occasionally. At least, in my experience. I think if you’ll look at the ones that get published you’ll often find that if they were left out, it didn’t affect the book adversely at all.

In Hooked, I talk about prologs a bit, and use the example of Larry Watson’s wonderful novel, Montana, 1948. It’s an absolute terrific book and he has a well-written prolog. But, I don’t think it was needed at all. Mostly what it did was… provide backstory/setup. Which did nothing for the book, to be honest. I think a lot of writers—especially newer writers—think they make a novel look like… a novel. They just kind of look “official” or something. Most are written in kind of a melodramatic style—the tone being—“Here’s a person who has undergone something really heavy and emerged sadder, yet wiser.” That kind of thing. Well, if you just read the novel sans the prolog and it’s written well, you’ll probably emerge from the experience feeling, “This was a person who underwent something really heavy and emerged sadder, yet wiser.” Without the nudge of a prolog… It just seems to me that prologs written for that reason are pretty much saying the author doesn’t trust the reader’s intelligence to grasp that without the author pointing it out in the beginning.

As to your question, does it have to follow the standard rule for a scene, why would it? Most prologs aren’t scenes to begin with—they’re the internal monologue of the character or purportedly an outside judge of the events to come—and while some may contain a scene—which by necessity is a past event and therefore nearly tensionless—most are kind of a sermonette delivered to convince the reader that what they’re about to experience is… emotional and powerful. Personally, I kind of take offense to someone telling me how I’m supposed to react to the read. It feels like they're telling me I need to feel guilty if I don't experience what they told me I would after reading it.

And, some people love ‘em.

I’m just not one of those people. Convince me your novel is a big deal by the writing itself.

Ashley asks:

Regarding antagonists, can every character except for the POV character serve as an antagonist at some stage in a novel (even the "good" ones)? I see an antagonist simply as someone (not just a villain!) who challenges the protagonist at any given time.

My answer: First, I’d like to provide a definition for the protagonist and the antagonist. The protagonist is simply the person through whose viewpoint you experience the story. The antagonist is simply the individual whose goals conflict with those of the protagonist’s. In my view, it’s a really big mistake to view either of these people in moral terms, i.e., the protagonist as “hero” and the antagonist as “villain.” Same applies to that dumb term, the “M.C”. It’s not the “main character” boobies—it’s the protagonist. This is simple stuff, kids… What happens when you do that is you tend to create one-dimensional, cardboard characters. Cartoons. Snidely Whiplash vs Snidely Doright. Yuch. I see these kinds of terms used often in writer’s advice and I really have a jones against them. When you begin to think of your characters as heroes and villains, you’ve just dumbed down the story immensely, in my opinion. You’ve almost completely destroyed the possibility of complex characters with that kind of mindset. In the worst instance, you’ve created a morality tale and, as Samuel Goldwyn said to a screenwriter who brought him a screenplay with a moral “message”: “Don’t send a message. Write a story. If you want to send a message, use Western Union. They’re much better at it. Just write a good story.” Perfectly said.

This is the kind of thinking that led years ago to that term “anti-hero.” If you think of protagonists simply as the person through whose viewpoint you experience the story, all that morality goes out the window as utter nonsense. The term “anti-hero” comes about as a subset of thinking in terms of heroes and villains, good vs evil. So, if a writer creates a protagonist who is seen in terms of good vs bad and they’re “bad” then they’re an antihero. Fairly infantile and limited thinking in literary terms. Just my opinion, but it’s the only one I have…

And, you can’t write a good story if it’s simply “good guy vs bad guy.” That’s just junk writing. That’s Snidely tying Nell to the railroad tracks and Dudley rescuing her… Again… yuch… Cartoon stuff for Saturday morning on the floor in your jammies… Junk food for the mind. Nothing to see here folks--move along...

Before I completely answer your question, Ashley, here’s what a story consists of.

1. A protagonist who has an experience that profoundly changes his/her life and therefore creates a story problem. (And the only place for a contemporary, publishable story to begin with. Probably not with a prolog that provides an outline of what's to come, attendant with a drum roll warning you as to the coming emotion you'll experience...)

2. His/her struggle to resolve that problem against increasing obstacles and opposition.

3. His/her resolution to that problem, containing both a win and a loss in that resolution.

Okay. Notice I made protagonist singular. That’s because it has to be one person. If there is more than one, the reader’s interest is hopelessly diffused. We see clearly one person. We don’t see two or more, at least not clearly. A book about capitalism vs communism won’t work if it’s about the U.S. army vs the Chinese Communist army. If, however, it’s about the commanding general of the U.S. army vs his counterpart of the Chinese army, then, yes, it can work. Or a private in each army vs his counterpart in the other. Whatever. When I see work that tries to do that, I know instantly that this writer has put the cart before the horse. He or she is thinking in terms of “theme.” And, for writers, theme is something that should be thought of only after the first draft is done. It’s at that point that we figure out what the story is about in terms of loglines, which is what a theme actually is, and then apply that to the rewrite. Check any issue of TV Digest for themes... Anything that doesn’t fit the theme upon rewrite needs to be exorcised. But, it’s not something a writer should even consider when writing initially. Just write a story.

And, the antagonist should be a single person as well. Same reason. We can’t visualize multiple people nearly as well as we can an individual. Does that mean there can’t be others who oppose the protagonist? Not at all. There can be many, many people who provide opposition… and there probably should be. But… they’re not antagonists. They’re merely people who do antagonistic things.

Here’s the perfect example—the film Thelma & Louise. The protagonist is Thelma. Contrary to what some might think, she and Louise aren’t “co-protagonists.” It’s Thelma’s story. Louise is along for the ride and experiences many of the same things Thelma does, but it’s Thelma’s story, all the way. Louise, if you want to assign arch-types, is the “Older Mentor” type. She’s not really older—they’re the same age in the movie, but she’s the one with more experience. Her story is necessary but it’s subservient to Thelma’s.

Now. The antagonist. When I show this movie, I usually ask the audience who they think the antagonist is. Very few get this right and that’s because largely they haven’t learned to think of story with the writer’s eye. The usual answer I get is her husband Darryl. Well, Darryl ain’t the antagonist. He does antagonistic things, but he just plain ain’t the antagonist. The second-most-common answer is Harlan, the would-be rapist who Louise shoots and kills. Again, not. The antagonist is Hal the cop. Darryl is Snidely Whiplash. So is Harlan. As are most of the other men in the story. Just a bunch of guys who do antagonistic things but aren’t the antagonist.

Look at the definition of the antagonist. He’s the individual whose goals conflict with those of the protagonist. Which is exactly what Hal does. Thelma wants to escape—Hal wants to catch her. Nothing moral in this. In fact, Hal is the nicest guy in the entire story. He only wants to catch Thelma to save her—first, from being charged falsely in Harlan’s murder and next to save her life. If Callie Khouri (the screenwriter) had thought in terms of “heroes and villains” she probably would have come up with what my wife Mary calls a “chasey-fighty movie” and gone direct to video if it would have been made at all. It’s because Khouri doesn’t think in those terms, but with the correct definitions of protagonist and antagonists. Her protagonist has a problem and her antagonist wants to thwart her resolution of that problem. It’s that simple. And, yet, creating characters under that definition leads to incredibly complex characters and situations.

And, yes, there are all kinds of characters in the story who do bad things to Thelma. But, only one person is above and beyond all others as the antagonist. The other characters—Darryl, Harlan, the truck driver, the state cop, et al—all do things to thwart Thelma but they are all limited in their opposition. Hal is the one who remains steadfast during the entire story to thwart Thelma’s goal—escape. And, he also satisfies the dimensions of a great antagonist—he is very, very powerful. He's very smart, has years of experience in catching criminals, has almost unlimited resources—state police, FBI, helicopters, dozens if not hundreds of pursuit vehicles, many, many guns, communication abilities—it goes on and on. The strength of a novel depends on the strength of the antagonist. You should write that down. I’ll repeat it: The strength of a novel depends on the strength of the antagonist. There are lots of writing “rules” that aren’t always necessary, but that’s one that really always holds true. Think of classics like The Silence of the Lambs. One of the most powerful antagonists in literary history. Think of Cape Fear. Personally, I’d spend far more time on the antagonist than even the protagonist. And, I’d always make that an individual. And, supply lots of other characters who also do antagonistical things to the protagonist. They’re allowed to have helpers and should have many of those.

So, Ashley, the antagonist is not “someone (not just a villain!) who challenges the protagonist at any given time.” It’s the individual who provides a constant obstacle to the protagonist all of the time on an up close-and-personal level.

So, please don’t think of these folks as “heroes and villains.” That’s kind of a good path to self-publication as the only avenue to seeing your book in print…

Hope that helps!

Blue skies,

Les

Me and Anonymous 9 discussing prologs...

BAD... NO, TERRIBLE NEWS...

Hi folks,

I’m afraid I have some bad news. Let me take that back. I have some terrible news. Bad news is when your wife says she’s leaving you for the water softener man. This is far worse than that. This is on the level of news that she’s leaving you for the guy who lives down by the river in his refrigerator carton…

Okay. Ready? Sitting down? Here goes…

It’s official. Once again, I didn’t win the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. How many times must I taste the bitter truth that time is running out? Once a year, I guess, until I run out…

And, what beat me out this year? The Orphan Master's Son by Adam Johnson. You’re kidding, right? 

Here’s the description:

An exquisitely crafted novel that carries the reader on an adventuresome journey into the depths of totalitarian North Korea and into the most intimate spaces of the human heart.

It’s a book set in North Korea? Who the hell nominated this? Dennis Rodman? Who even reads books set in North Korea? Even North Koreans don’t read books set in North Korea. Well, that’s not exactly their fault—they aren’t allowed to by that sweet little cherub, Dear Leader. Speaking of cherubs, I woke up this morning with a sweet little cherub in my skivvies… Or was that a chub? Whatever. They both look the same.

I suspect it won because of the author’s name. He’s named after two American presidents. Jingoism at its worst.

I should have known I wouldn’t win once again after last year when they couldn’t find a single book to give the award to. There were only five million books published last year (even taking out the four million self-published autobiographies that really suck swamp water, that still leaves a million books, give or take a few hundred thousand.).

How can you not give one single book the award? Even the year the Miss America contestants were all dogs, they still gave the award to someone. Bert Parks. That was the year there weren’t any brunettes from Mississippi and Georgia. But, hey—they still awarded it to somebody.

I’ve had it. I’m taking serious action. I’ve just composed a strongly-worded letter to all the judges of next year’s Pulitzer committee, notifying them that I’m officially withdrawing any and all of my books from future consideration. I’m sending it via Overnight Delivery, Certified Mail. That means it won’t arrive in their mail boxes until August, 2015 on a rainy day when the mailman can't play golf and has to tend his route, but I have no control over that. They’ll at least be aware of my sentiments.

And, as it happens, I’m outlining a new novel that fits all of their crappy requirements. It’s set in (some obscure country which I haven’t decided yet, but one with lots of consonants and only one vowel) and it’s about the Mayor of Cracktown--or as it's dubbed in the tome, "Crktwn"). It’s about this guy who lives in a village with the Entering and Leaving signs on the same pole, and in this little tarpaper shack with a fridge on the porch and with a bunch of farm animals of various religious persuasions living inside with him. He has no money (always a requirement of these kinds of books and which immediately makes him a genius). He has a major fight with the garda (This is a hint as to what country it's set in...) who have discovered he’s far exceeded the legal quota of farm animals allowed in a domicile, one of which he claims shouldn’t count as it’s a very pretty Merino ewe to whom he’s pledged his troth. He’s not sure what a “troth” is but it’s in a lot of Dickens’ books he read as a kid so he knows it’s important to pledge his. Especially to a noble farm animal like his beautiful Sndrznsky who has stolen his heart.

In this book, I devote a lot of pages to his internalizing, which seems to be high on the list of stuff these Pulitzer folks look for. There’s one really dazzling scene where he ponders how clichés came about and fantasizes about their origins. Like that delightful phrase “blind alley” (which, I, for one can never hear too many times.). He ruminates and ponders and rumes some more and comes to the conclusion that it originally denoted a place where German shepherds congregated en masse, waiting to be hired by the seeing-challenged (PC term for blind people) and veterans with PTSD. This riveting scene takes up 26 pages, which is guaranteed to manipulate them even more than a teenaged boy’s chub during bathroom time. And, in much the same way.

There's another powerful scene in which he stares at clouds and figures out their shapes and how they affect his life. Don't start this scene if it's late at night and it's important to be at work early the next day!

One of the indoor farm animals will be a dog. His only function is to be in the book so I can use his picture on the cover and on the Intergnat. You and I know it’s just a frickin’ mutt, but people on the Intergnat have assigned a mystical aura to dogs and cats. You know, those critters that eat their own poop, cough up furballs and lick themselves all day long. We know that mostly they’re glorified door mats, but people get all weepy about them and giggly and attribute them with the same wisdom they do old Indian guys crying over some trash on Highway 10. THEY SELL BOOKS. And influence Pulitzer judges…

 Taking a break from his butt-licking and getting ready for his photo-op...

The protagonist will be a creepy loner with really bad breath, who, in real life, people would take a wide berth around when they see him with his sign begging for Ripple outside Target, but instantly make into a wise man simply because there’s a whole book centered around him and we see he thinks about pithy stuff like blind alleys. And clouds that look like jism... If he was so frickin’ wise why ain’t he a plumber’s assistant or a governor or something?

My protagonist is also an orphan. And a master (of Sndrznsky). And the son of a dog (not the one on the cover). This makes it a sure winner.

Yes, I could easily win next year, which makes my protest even more meaningful. I know what it takes after studying these things for hours days weeks. It’s important to know who’s handing out the hardware. The judges are elderly folks who braid the hair in their noses (the women) and meet at Golden Corral to discuss the nominated books. The men on the committee treat the books nominated the same way they do the fine wines they own. They don’t open them. That would destroy their value and besides, who has to actually read the nominated book? They can learn all they want to from the glorious Intergnat. The men also have lush bushes in their noses, but they use them differently than the women (most of the women…). They weave them cleverly around their noggins kind of like the comb-overs aging sportscasters do. Along with a few well-placed strands from the ear hairs.

This is the real secret as to why my book never gets nominated. I labored for years thinking they actually read the books. Don’t laugh—I bet you know at least one person in your own circle who thought the same thing. So maybe you knew, but are you willing to say that all of your friends wear those helmets and rode the short bus to h.s. and took all A.P. classes? So—cut me a break here.

The trick to getting on these judges’ radar is to effectively utilize the Intergnat. Most of us writers have been sold a bill of goods about what the ‘Gnat does. Social media doesn’t sell books. It doesn’t sell squat. It doesn’t sell books—it sells social media. No one cares about your stupid book on social media. They pretend to… so you’ll buy their book. Writers who can’t sell books have one problem—they write crappy books. Yakking about them all day long on social media sells three books total. That’s it. And that’s to trolls who are burning to write one-star reviews on it. When social media sells books, let me know. Otherwise, lay down by your dish with your butt-licking dog.

But, Pulitzer Prize judges do look at the Intergnat. All day long. It’s why they don’t have time to actually read the books themselves. Too busy Facebooking each other or Twittering about “that wonderful book about North Korea Dennis Rodman likes so well.” Think about this. 1. Dennis Rodman's picture with Dear Leader was on the “Gnat” one million, three hundred thousand and sixty-nine times last year. 2.  Dennis Rodman was the guest host, subbing for Chris Matthews 36 times, talking about stuff tingling down his leg. 3. A book set in North Korea won the Pulitzer. Make the connection, dummy! This ain’t nuclear physics!

So, if I weren’t about to withdraw from consideration, here’s what I’d do. Get me a babe to do my networking for me. As Lo Hai Qu so eloquently pointed out—“Blogbitches rule, blogdicks drool.” Okay. I accept that. If I was going to remain involved in the competition, I’d be on my knees beseeching my pal, Anonymous 9 (Blogbitch Supreme) if she’d please help this lowly Blogdick (me) out.

Anonymous 9 - Blog... Babe...

But I won’t. You can relax, 9. I’m out of all this. I just hope you nice folks “twit” and “face” my new book all over the Intergnat. I have but one goal for next year. That all the UPS drivers who deliver my books are forced to buy trusses.

(I hope you know this was all in fun, folks. Although, if I have to say this, it takes all the force away…) I do love the Intergnat and I truly do love the folks on here. True that. And they do sell books. Books on how to use the Intergnat to sell books…)

As John Goodman once (wisely) said, “See ya in the funny papers.”

Blue skies,

Les

P.S. Attention MacArthur Grant peeps. I'm still available for this, but time's running out. Please take note...

Brass Monkey Award!

Hi folks,

Well, it's official. I've finally arrived on the literary landscape. I've just won the prestigious literary award, the virtual Brass Monkey Award, given out after months, weeks, days, minutes seconds of serious some deliberation by the award-winning committee of a dozen, several one, namely, the ubiquitous Anonymous 9, who also goes by the street name of Elaine Ash down at her neighborhood Starbucks and the Bucket O Blood Yuppie Bar and Juice Emporium where she hangs out frequents when appearing in public for her adoring fans.

Author Elaine Ash, A.K.A. "Anonymous 9" 

(Caught smoking a lipstick... by a People Magazine photog...)

It seems Ms. Anonymous wrote a really cool book that I reviewed for Amazon and Goodreads and she liked (I think) the review and that’s the story of how I came to win this fantastic award from her.

Here’s my review:

HARD BITE by Anonymous 9

5 stars

Absolutely loved this book. I’m a sucker for vigilante tales and this is one of the best I’ve read in a long time. Plus, it had the bonus of the “crusader” employing a helper monkey to assist him. Unless there’s a genre featuring helper monkeys that everyone else knows about and I don’t, this is only the second novel I’ve ever read that featured one. The first was John Vernon’s magic realism novel, Peter Doyle in which the protagonist, on the hunt for Napoleon’s penis, owned a monkey he’d fashioned from body parts and when he was low on cash, would help fill the coffers by leaping on the backs of sailors, slash their throats and take their purses. Anonymous 9’s use of a helper monkey in Hard Bite, while different, was equally delightful and original. Just wondering how the folks at PETA liked it… Since I eat meat as often as I can, I’m without their prohibitions concerning critters and I give it a 5 out of 5 stars… Just a darned good read!

Here is what Anon 9 had to say in her blog post announcing my award:

Anonymous-9’s Brass Monkey Award goes to LES EDGERTON for publishing a review of HARD BITE on Amazon and getting in a lengthy reference to Napoleon’s penis. Is there any reference to Napoleon in HARD BITE? No! Is there anything about Napoleon’s penis in HARD BITE? No! No! So for sheer ingenuity and creativity in review writing which only the great LES EDGERTON could manage, the virtual Brass Monkey Award goes to him. (He really liked HARD BITE, by the way.)

Les is the respected and lauded author of THE BITCH, among other novels.

I’m presently sitting by my phone, awaiting the call from Stockholm… Eat your heart out, Stevie King!

And my virtual Brass Monkey Award is sitting proudly on my (virtual) mantel, surrounded on each side by my Fatboy posters of Cheryl Tiegs and Pee Wee Herman. (Don’t ask—it’s a long story…)

Blue skies,

Les

P.S. Check out her book! It’s really, really good!

Oh, and if you're interested in the other novel in the helper monkey genre, check out Peter Doyle...

Here's the actor who will play the monkey in the movie...

Word is, this guy's dad used to live with Michael Jackson... He's got show biz in his blood!