Genres of the Future

As promised, I am continuing my discussion on different genres, what makes them special and how they are driven. Since today is Friday, I am looking forward to all the wonders the future holds for me - the future being the coming weekend. However, this did make me think about genres set in the future (or alt-future), so that's what we will be discussing. And often, the future isn't all that wonderful - which of course has its own genre. But let's start simple.

Sci-fi: Science fiction is the easiest future genre to explore, particularly since this is a pretty broad church. What makes something science fiction is that the advancement of science has fundamentally impacted people's lives and altered the way they typically engage with the world. This could be a few years from now, a generational leap, or a whole Star Trek-leap into the unknown. Sci-fi is the home of space travel, cyberpunk, and all the fascinating tech-studies. The point here is that science has changed the world - for better or worse - and it is a contending part of the narrative. If the story is about a farming family in Kansas facing the world in the year 2110, the story better have a main obstacle be science-driven, otherwise it's just future-fantasy.

Future-fantasy: Naturally, this is a story that takes place in the future, but the characters are motivated and driven by the same things that we in the early 21st century understand. Science may be different, but the main issue is that it's the future, and change abounds. Perhaps global warming has made life difficult, melting ice caps kind of ruined Miami, or overpopulation abounds. These aren't exactly science-driven issues, but challenges brought on by time itself. This is also known as speculative sci-fi, exploring how the world looks after things have changed, which doesn't have to be negative. What about a future where most of the population lives in space and Earth is quite open and free? That's workable as well. There's a lot to work with here, as long as the world is different for a good reason (or a bad reason, as follows).

Dystopian: This is the future, but something went wrong. Maybe society turned on itself and went to totalitarianism, maybe Mother Nature had one too many and unleashed something horrible, maybe scientific cataclysm, nuclear war, over polluting, or something horrible really damaged society. Social change is to dystopian stories what technological change is to sci-fi. Now, dystopian worlds can have their fancy tech - 1984, Fahrenheit 451, these are classic dystopian stories where tech has improved, but the big change is what society has become. Tech can also be a non-issue - The Road has a world in its death throes, with food more important than an iPhone (imagine that).

Alt-future: Similar to speculative fiction, this looks at a future world if something in history went different. If Napoleon won at Waterloo, if Columbus didn't stumble upon the western hemisphere, if Pepsi came before Coke - the point is, it explores a future under a different set of ground rules. Imagine if the first country to develop interstellar space travel was the Confederate States of America - start writing. Any tweak of the past, extrapolated into the future, makes for alt-future writing (if the writing is present-day, the is just speculative fiction and leave it at that).

The important part to note about any futuristic writing is why it takes place in the future. Tech changes important to the plot? Perfect. A new political entity in charge? Great. An imagination of the world in the year 3000 during the interstellar era? Awesome. The important part is that some change of the world will impact how the story unfolds. Someone hiking through the outback for two weeks might not be a rich topic for future fiction unless somehow that future finds its way into the plot. Otherwise, the door is open for as much exploration as you can fit on the page.

The next post, in case you hadn't guessed, will be backward-looking genres, and all the fun they can be.        

Let's Talk Genre

Happy New Year one and all, I hope those of you who made writing resolutions are keeping them and the rest of you are writing anyway. I thought a nice way to kick off this year would be to discuss different writing genres, what makes them unique, and how we can blend them into other styles to make our own preferred style of writing. Of course I won't discuss all genres in one post, so this one will start with the category of scary stuff and how there are differences.

On a tangent, one of my favorite horror movies is the original Halloween with Jamie Lee Curtis. This movie takes on legendary status when it comes to the horror movie, but too often people jumble it up with Jason from the Friday the 13th franchise, Freddy from Nightmare on Elm Street fame, and other blood-soaked movie that dominate the slasher era. And while yes, the Halloween franchise did give in to more blood in the sequels, what makes the original so good was that it was suspenseful rather than gory. Its minimal amount of blood and focus on mood and situation made for a classic movie.

So, now that we are talking about writing, what are the scary genres? In general, we have the horror, suspense, and thriller categories. Don't worry about whether zombies, vampires, werewolves, and so forth should be in one category or the other - that all depends on the story you want to tell. The important part is what each one brings to the table.

Horror: This genre is sure to offer up a pile of bodies who died before their time and in terrible ways. Things like character deaths and dramatic turns are always accompanied by events the reader would not like to experience in the real world, usually explained or demonstrated in graphic detail. To write horror, one must bring out either some of the things that terrify or shock the author, then they get spilled onto the page. The author doesn't need to have experienced these things, just know that they could happen in some dark nightmare. 

Suspense: As mentioned before, suspense novels carry the thread of something horrible approaching the main characters. There should be a looming threat, perhaps with unknown motive, but a force nevertheless that means harm to our focal characters and will bring it by any means necessary. In a true suspense novel, the protagonist(s) are unaware of the threat or do not know if it is real, but the reader knows without question that trouble is approaching. This is the secret of suspense writing - showing the reader the threat but keeping the characters in the dark until some big reveal leads to a dramatic confrontation or two.

Thriller: As opposed to suspense, the thriller places the protagonist in danger from square one, and they know it. Whether the threat is a vengeful killer or an approaching hurricane, the stakes start off high and keep rising. The protagonist may not know why the killer is pursuing them or understand how they can escape the hurricane, but now they need to survive. Close calls, quick escapes, and surprising turns all mark the thriller, and leaving the reader a moment to breathe is not recommended.

Blending these now just becomes the practice of finding the right temperature. Typically, the zombie apocalypse stories are horror-thrillers as the survivors flee for safety and occasionally get eaten, whereas a zombie horror-suspense blend might focus on the first hours of the outbreak where people don't even believe such a thing could happen (then they get eaten). Of course, the suspense-thriller simply means the protagonist is in danger from the first page but does not know why they are being victimized. This is a great genre to work with because everyone loves suspense and a good thriller, but if it doesn't have a high body count, it reaches a bigger audience.

In future posts I will discuss other genres, how to mix them, and what makes them special. Until Friday, keep on enjoying the New Year, and watch out for zombies (you never know).     

Nobody Likes Happy People

As we prepare to close out 2025, I am sure that more than a few of my readers will be doing so at some sort of gathering - public or private - with a bunch of people, most of whom they don't really know and probably will not see again in the New Year. There will be a wide variety of people in attendance, all there to have a good time, celebrate the New Year, maybe have an adult beverage or two, and just let go for a little bit. This is a great opportunity as a writer to gather information, to people-watch, to note curious little habits they might have. However, chances are these people will not make very interesting characters. Why? At least during this event, they're just too happy.

Intuitively, happiness would seem like a good thing to pursue, and that's not in question. Given the choice, I would prefer happiness over non-happiness 10 times out of 10. Furthermore, I would wish such happiness upon anyone I ever met or will meet, because it is generally a good state of existence. However, I would let all those people be happy on their own, and instead I would pay attention to the people dealing with issues or trying to manage dilemmas. They are usually not happy; all the better, because now they are interesting.

Here are the main reasons we should avoid happy people as our main characters. First and foremost, the main elements of writing any story - from short story to epic series - are conflict, tension, and suspense, and those ideas just don't fit too well with very happy people. A person who is well-adjusted and balanced in their mood so they can happily manage their life is difficult to place into a state of internal conflict. A character who is conflicted doesn't necessarily know what is best for them, or thinks they do but cannot understand why this doesn't fit in with how their world is shaking out. People who are unhappy have minds full of unanswered question, lingering doubts, and conflicting values, all of which make them ripe for conflict. 

The other problem is that readers can't exactly relate to the very-happy-always-smiling person. People like that trigger suspicions, doubts, and that nagging sensation that Mr. Happy-go-Lucky must be hiding something. When you reader doesn't buy in to your character as presented, you immediately have a problem. Self-help books discovered this early on. When people who are now genuinely happy want to show others how to achieve that life, do they offer a bunch of examples of being happy? Never! Instead, they put a bunch of stories of dysfunction out there, then resolve them one-by-one. They draw a crowd by showing an unhappy person that the audience can connect with.

Now, my advice in life is to always try to be happier than you were yesterday. However, as a writer, my advice is to keep an eye out for massive dysfunction, and study it like a textbook. Look at all the ways problems fester, examine how simple activities become complicated. Study their problems, because these things are what we all carry inside, and they are when readers can relate to. I know I sure can.

Happy New Year, and my next post will be January 5th, 2026.     

Feeling Like A Writer

"There is no better feeling than walking down the stairs after having done a couple of hours of writing. And there is no worse feeling than going up those stairs to do a couple hours of writing."

Normally I don't do a blog entry immediately after Christmas, instead choosing to rest and relax a little extra before jumping back into my writing shoes. However, I heard that quote above in an interview and it just got the wheels turning, so I had to at least post a little entry about it and how I feel about the physical process of going forth and writing.

I think a lot of people outside the writer's circle just assume we are these eternally creative creatures who can just sit down and generate written-word brilliance, and often do so just for the sake of doing. I also think that same category of people thinks bankers spend every waking hour counting money and scientists constantly pour stuff into test tubes. You and I, however, know a large part of writing is not about writing but about being creative in our existence, and the time we spend in front of a keyboard is limited. (Note: There are a subset of writers who can spend eight hours a day typing away, and I respect that - it's just not the baseline.) 

Rather, I like to remind writers that any task we do in life may, at times, feel like drudgery. Enjoying a nice walk outside can be wonderful, but sometimes we just aren't in a place to put on both shoes and head to the park. It's even more so with vigorous endeavors like writing. When we create, we do a lot of mental gymnastic that take up energy and bring us a certain amount of exhaustion. The end result is often worth it, an no complaints about the endorphins, but let's just acknowledge that it's hard to get excited about that rush of accomplishment when we are stuck on the front end of a big task.

As I head into my next calendar year, I plan on a few things. I want to get my next book, "Easier Than the Truth," out there - I am hoping the workshopping will done by spring. I am also hoping to get my next work, "Gods of the Gaps," into the rough draft stage. However, those tasks will both require several occasions where I have to face the drudgery of going up those steps to do my writing (metaphorically - my house is a ranch-style). I just remind myself that if I want to reach those goals of publication and completion, there will be that difficult part in between. And for now , that's okay.

I will be putting up a post on December 29th, but I will definitely not be posting on January 2nd because hangovers take time to get rid of. Until then, prepare for the drudgery of a new day, because it's worth it.     

High-Stakes Writing

With the Powerball lottery now up to like a bajillion dollars (half a bajillion after taxes), most people who don't have that kind of money have occasionally entertained the thought, "What would I do with that kind of cash?" This is always a fun flight of fancy, and we go over the usual things - big house, give to charities, pay off friends' debts, etc. This is something everyone can relate to, but would it make an interesting story? Chances are it would not - at least not in this form. The reason is pretty simple, but perhaps not obvious.

When me and my friends were teenagers, some of us would write stories involving someone who was given great powers - money, strength, whatever - and they would go and right the wrongs of the world. They'd face a lot of adversities, and ultimately triumph. It was excellent writing practice, and even provided a challenge to new writers. However, these stories, at their core, were weak (or at least mine were). They had the hero, the obstacle, the conflict, the conclusion - what more could you want in a story, right? Well, if you haven't figured it out, there was one thing missing - the stakes at hand.

In our story of someone winning the lottery, following their madcap adventures as they spend all that cash might be fun but it's kind of empty at the end. Where a story takes flight is when the writer shows what's at stake for the main character. The character should have to make choices and face consequences for those decisions. Win the lottery? Interesting premise - but now highlight the challenges that bajillionaire must face: Do they go public? If so, what complications arise from their newfound public persona? If they want to keep it on the DL, how do they do the things they really want? Do they trust an inner circle to know this secret? How many friends hit him up for cash, or assume they'll be taken care of? What strains are placed on those friendships now that money is flooding the scene?

It might sound like raising the stakes in these stories makes things unnecessarily complicated. Why can't a person just get a big pile of money and be happy? Well, they can, but it doesn't make very gripping reading. A reader will get involved with the character when they see them making decisions - perhaps even forced to do so - that have severe consequences regardless of whether they choose the right thing. The reader might ask themselves what they would do in that situation, or what anyone would do, and compare the character's choices and outcomes to how they feel life works. There should be a constant sense of engagement between character and reader through this decision process, and it gets better the more the writer raises the stakes. 

Now sometimes, we just like to play around with an idea and write it down for fun. That's fine - go at it. But when a writer approaches an audience with an idea, make sure the reader gets invested in its progress and outcome. Raise the stakes as the reader works through the piece, and they'll stay in the game until the last page.

Now I am off to buy a Powerball ticket. I do not yet have a bajillion dollars, so this would be a great way to get it (half a bajillion after taxes).     

What I Need From an Editor (and why)

As I go through my daily routine of examining writer pages and writing community chats, I often come across a discussion about whether it's really important to have an editor. I have heard people claim they're good enough to be their own editor, that editors are too expensive for what they do, and that editors are just writers who never got published. Now I shouldn't be surprised that somewhere on the internet, people have strong opinions. However, it seems like a lot of these people are launching their tirade from a position of either a big ego, a bad experience, or general frustration. Therefore, I thought I would offer a little input into the editor discussion. Most importantly, I want to offer up what your expectations should be.

Let's start with what kind of editor you should look into. The main categories are: development, content, and line editing. A development editor works from the broadest view, helping with story arc, character presentation, dramatic build, etc. A content editor narrows this perspective, looking at the presentation of the material, making sure it flows okay, and offering advice from an objective reader point of view. And of course, the line editor (copy editor) gets your spelling and grammar polished, undangles your participles, puts your split infinitives back together, and is consistent with the Oxford comma. Development and content editing sometimes overlap, and line editing can overlap with content. However, know which one you want or need before you go editor shopping - this will come in handy later.

If you want to work with a development editor, then have a completed draft and be prepared to hear about how your world sounds to the outsider. Your storyland might seem great to you, but that development editor is seeing it with fresh eyes, and the two of you should have some long talks on how the world reads. It is not the job of the development editor to tell you where your world is wrong (because it's not wrong - it's yours), but if they do not understand what you are saying in your story and you need to explain a lot of things, it's a sure sign that your manuscript is not communicating what you thought you created. A development editor should be able to tell you about how they see the characters, setting, themes that resonated, and plot progression. If they can't tell you these things, or what they say doesn't match what you intended, you need to engage in a dialogue that sounds something like, "Well, I was trying to make the character more sympathetic - how would I remedy this?" The development editor should be able to help you bring out the story elements you are looking to showcase, but it can be taxing and at times discouraging. However, it is worth it.

A content editor's job is a little more clean and straightforward - narrowing their observations to make sure it reads cleanly, to offer some consistency, and communicate how well it flows in general. If your content editor suggests how you could make it better through changing the plot or characters, smile and tell them to write their own damn book (but politely). Their job is to take the content as presented and streamline it. Any observations they have should be framed as personal observations, not editorial truths.

And then comes the poor line editor. This editor is actually the most important yet the most overlooked. Everyone who has written a major product often thinks they know it well enough to have caught all the spelling errors and fixed all the stupid things. For the most part, they are wrong. And the critical part of this process is that spelling errors (which are often not caught by a spellchecker) make you look bad as an author. Your story is your brainchild, but a spelling error or bad grammar in the first few pages will turn off a reader faster than any other error and nobody will read your story. Line editors might cost a bit (a 100,000-word manuscript should run about $500 for line editing), but they are the protector of your brand. Choose them wisely.

Lastly, one thing all editors should all have is references. Ask for references from anyone you are considering hiring, and follow up on those to find out how things worked out. Plenty of people say they can edit things, but the proof is looking over their work, or as a proxy, finding out from others what the experience was like working with them. And if there are no references available, well, step forward at your own risk.

If you want to march forth without an editor, well, that's your call. However, take this word from an insider. When I talk with my writer friends about publishing and so forth, a part of the conversation always involves sharing the horror stories we have encountered from people selling their product and proudly boasting, "I edited it myself." Most of the time, these are nothing to boast about. 

           

Origin Stories

Did you ever sit back and think about how much can be explained by an engaging origin story? Even though it covers the events of a distant and heretofore unknown past, the origin story seems to have the ability to define the present in sharp, vivid contrast. A set of events happen a number of years ago, and they seem to change the entire story. Sometimes, the most important part of any story is to first have a good, deep understanding of the origin story, and let that be a guiding light for the continuing process.

Actually, I should acknowledge this - I mean the origin story of the author.

Yes, the author. No matter how much you might have been thinking about Peter Parker becoming Spiderman or the mysterious origin of the Man in Black in... well, a lot of stories, though I was thinking of The Stand, there is something very important about the author knowing a few secrets about their own background, and what driving forces brought them to create their story.

Now, I am sure there are writers out there who feel very good about knowing their personal background and what makes them comfortable about their past. To them I would say, "But... do you?" I had a very enjoyable conversation with a bunch of others the other day, and we discussed story, character - the usual author stuff - and it eventually led to what drove us to write our first novels (or the first major work of our writing era). To nobody's surprise, the thing that usually kicked in with the author is when they had some sort of personal awakening or catharsis, and realized something about themselves that had been holding them back. Whether it was childhood trauma, some random event in college, or finally accepting some larger truth about themselves, they all had a moment where they came face-to-face with the part of their origin story that was important.

Here's an experiment: Let's look at our aforementioned Peter Parker, aka Spiderman. We know the part of his origin story - bitten by a radioactive spider - that made him Spiderman, but we learn other truths about how he came to realize that with power came responsibility. We learn his origin story, and see how it shaped him.

Now here's the other part of the experiment. Imagine you know Peter in high school, but not all the spider crap. You might actually think about him more along the lines of, "Hey, didn't his parents both die? Why are his aunt and uncle so very, very old?" Those might seen like the factors most likely to be the plot-shapers for the teenage Peter Parker, and you would interpret him that way - and it wouldn't entirely add up. Peter would seem like a very confusing kid to you, and you might not get to know or understand him very well. If you learn the whole origin story, however, like MJ did, then he magically makes sense.

Your job as an author is, first and foremost, to write. However, now and then take a little time to ask yourself what is inspiring these stories you want to create. Look inside yourself and search for those weird little things that might trigger such inspiration. If you find those things, inspect them - they are, in the long run, your friends because they are the things that inspire your writing. And, in the end, you might have a better origin story than being bitten by a radioactive spider (even though I would take Spiderman's powers any day).