Aaron C. Bennett's Writing Journal

Writing the Breakout Novel w/FEAR!

Writing the Breakout Novel was actually a really good book. I loved the initial discussion about breakout books from Donald Maass's standpoint. It was nice to see the mid-list complacency debunked. I have seen it many times with writers in the horror genre. Many who were published regularly in the boom, now find themselves in small-press, or not in print at all. I applaud Clegg for what he did. He admits that he wasn't that great of a writer and fell into that midlist complacency. When he got dropped, and could find another publisher, he went back and focused on his craft. He is now one of the best writers in the genre. If he would have done that to begin with, where would he be now? I just tracked down Robert C. Wilson who wrote some great horror in the 80's. He had dropped out of writing to pursue his business interests, now he is finally coming back to writing. I hope the years have given him a better perspective about his craft. His old agent died, his house no longer does horror. This proves to me how long term breakouts can be done. Many times, people don't break out until their third book. Then people go back and look at those previous. If you do moderately well in the first book, but don't follow it up, you may lose that base you gained just when you should be growing it.
I hope to write a breakout novel this time out. I'm trying to toy with things in a way that hasn't been done before in a sub-genre that is as old as time. I know I need my writing skill to be up to par with the premise. I also know I need my logic worked out so there are no holes or gaps that will stop readers, those familiar with the genre and those coming to it for the first time. I think I might have to toy with Jack's character a bit to get him more likable. I want a tough Jon Wayne or Blade likable, not cuddly likable. There is a reason why Lestat changed into a character that is more moral when he became the lead in the Vampire Chronicles. You can have a rough bad-ass, be he still has to be likable. You want the readers to sympathize with the character on some level. I am working in Jack's emotions much more than I first envisioned. He love interest is coming into play much more. I have to watch out not to make him too melancholy though.
The stakes of the book are something I really am having trouble with. Maass brought up some really good points that got me thinking. The take over the world thing is overdone. I can do it to an extent, but readers are too used to it to care that much nowadays. I've been working on what Steve really will get out of being a werewolf. What is his deep-seated drive to do this? Why are these others guys helping them? Do they really want to take over the world? I've also started to re-examine Jack's stake in the whole matter. He is doing this to protect his culture, but he is kind of an outsider into that culture. I've started to think more about the psychology of my characters. I think I'm becoming more interested in Steve than Jack. I found a better link to the werewolfery. I need to write it in a way that doesn't look to contrived.
The time and place arguments are ones I've already looked at. I know flashbacks are hard on readers, but they are necessary in some scenes. The main storyline is present day, something some readers have been unclear about. I might have to make it more clear, but at the same time, I don't want it dated too much.
I love the idea of looking at a character through another character's eyes. I can see how this can really reveal a lot about both of those characters. It deepens the readers understanding about those characters, and their relationship. This is what I want to do in the scene where Steve's parents come to visit him. I've thought about doing something like this with Jack at the beginning of the book. That is hard because he is so much a recluse. I might work it in where the wolf-spirit is noticing Jack and the human entrapments of the trailer at some point. I see Maass's point about the dark characters. I understand the therapeutic qualities of writing out your demons. I've also read books like that and see how they fail. That opened my eyes a little to how I need to make dark characters enticing to the reader. I don't want them to wallow in a moody guys head, but I want to establish that mental anguish. I like the idea of contrasting Steve and Jack, but I also like to provide many similarities. I think that makes a better relationship. It is less B-movie good vs. bad guy that I hate.
Conflict and plot: these things are all important. Even poorly written books can break out if the conflict and plot are strong enough. The conflict ties into what I was saying before about their motives. While there are themes that run through my book that have been done before, I hope to present them in a unique manner. I also think that much of the plot is unique enough to set it apart from the other books in the sub-genre. While I love horror, this book also could be dark fantasy or supernatural thriller. That might help when I go to sell the book to publishers. I am worried on that, that if I go with a more mainstream publisher, I'll have to cut much of the gore. I know that is far down the road, but the thought still creeps in there.
I got The Thrill of Fear in the mail finally and am about halfway through. I liked the part of the cemetery poets. I've always loved that gothic poetry. I had forgotten much of them because it's been over a decade since I really read any. Looking back, many of them were pretty bad. I still liked that dark mood they set. For me, that is what I like about horror. I like the dark, spooky world that automatically tells you you are in a horror work. That is part of the reason I chose to set my book in Detroit. The decayed ruins of the city lend themselves very well to this kind of horror. I like the Detroit of The Crow. That dark descent into the maelstrom that even Virgil won't join you on. The river Styx ain't got nothin' on the Rouge.
I was put off by the long discussions about what is bad, and why. Do we really need a long discussion about the literary faults of Mary-Anne Radcliffe. I get it, she capitalized on how close her name was to the Upolpho author's. That doesn't mean we need to dwell on it. He talks more about the imitators than he does talking about Radcliffe, Lewis, or Maturin. I did like the discussion about Walpole. I did not know how involved with the movement he was. That could be why The Castle of Otranto is still regarded so highly. The novella itself does not hold up. I was wondering about Lewis. Kendrick talks about all these other writers, while only alluding to Lewis. I thought The Monk was the start of real horror, and not just gothic fiction. Then he hits the reader with this big piece on Lewis. It was as if he was teasing the reader.
Much of the history of the genre stuff is actually boring at this point. There is a reason why most writers skip sections of time when talking about the genre. I like that Kendrick did his research. He talks about Shakespeare, but not Webster? I would think he was an important part of that English horror/gore tradition. I also get the feeling that Kendrick's grasp of the French and other continental languages isn't that great. He gets very deep into the English stuff, but only relates the other countries stuff it was very well known, or related in some way to the English. No Lautreamont, Hoffmann only mentioned in passing? The French and German had some great horrific stuff coming out. He breezes over it as he figures much was stolen back and forth, so English would have incorporated much of it. While this may be true for Goethe, I don't see a Maldoror. I know from my studies of the werewolf genre, that French and German schools were looking into such subjects at the time. I have more than a few theses and papers from scholars on the continent during this time. For as much of a quack that Montague Summers was, he did at least know about these. I would not have found many of those studies, or forced myself to read French, if it hadn't been for Summers' scholarship.
This book is very good on background info for what he does get. I can see using this book in lectures if I ever get to teach my horror class. That doesn't mean it is all that interesting. Those pennydreadfuls were, well, dreadful. I've read the werewolf ones, and a few others. I can't say I was at all impressed. The depth of Kendrick's study is fairly exhaustive. I will give him credit for that. Although at times he seems to be proving to the reader how exhaustive his research was. I am used to this in English academic books, but I thought this was supposed to be aimed at the layperson? Oh well, more info for me.
I did like his discussion about the changing sensibilities. While the subject was handled much better in the Jung and Freud Archetypes in Horror book, Kendrick's knowledge of the subject matter did add a depth which wasn't in that book.
I made Erica watch El Mariachi and Desperado. El Mariachi has a great storyline. It shows what you can do on a limited budget. Desperado shows Rodriguez's growth as a director. It also shows what can be done with a much larger budget. I'm glad writers don't have to worry about the budget things that directors/producers worry about. I like being able to control my whole world.