My Writing Schedule (Method Mondays)

    There are so many resources one will find on "how to become a writer", but one of the most common (and unfortunately hardest to follow) is to just sit down and WRITE. If you're like me and get distracted super easily (phone, Internet, TV, whatever that sound just was what did the cats break this time?), sometimes that can be a bit difficult. What I find helps is setting out specific times throughout the day that you make a concentrated effort to sit down and work, whether that means research, planning/outlining, or actually writing. Having a dedicated task and a dedicated time to complete it, I find, is really beneficial to me and helps me be more productive. Everyone has different times they can work and different amounts of time at their disposal. I'd say, however, if you're really serious about writing, do your best to have an average of an hour of writing time a day. It doesn't have to be all at once; two half-hour blocks, a handful of 15- or 10-minute blocks. As long as you're getting your butt in the chair and putting some words down, that's what counts. This is just an example, but here's a simple calendar I'd use.

    This calendar, for the most part, doesn't really change from week to week besides the details of what I need to do, although I'm not afraid to admit I don't stick to it nearly as often as I probably should. You might notice that I don't have any time blocked in for Mondays, or that I only have a half hour planned on Saturday. Does that mean I absolutely won't do any writing on Mondays, or absolutely only a half hour on Saturday? Of course not. If I have spare time and I get the writing bug, I'll absolutely write in timeslots that aren't listed here. Sometimes I'm busy and miss a timeslot that is listed here. It happens.
    One of the most important things to do is not let yourself succumb to pressure. Push yourself to make a schedule that works for you and stick to it, yes, but don't neglect other areas of your life either. Work, family, friends, and self-care are all important as well. You're not a "bad writer" because you missed a day or two, or had to cut a writing session short because of another commitment. The point is that you tried, and whether you put down 20 words or 2000 in the time you wrote, that's still 20 or 2000 words that didn't exist before, that ONLY YOU could have written.
    Not everyone has the luxury of writing full-time. Not everyone wants to. The idea of being a novelist and dreaming of quitting your day-job is pushed hard and romanticized, but that's not what makes you a writer. Some people can't quit their day-jobs, either because of finance or family or other reasons, and some just don't want to. You can have a passion for your day-job and a passion for writing and do both. You may have to get up a little earlier, or give up a bit of free time in the evening, or find some other way to make writing fit into your life, but it can be done. If you dream of quitting your day-job, well, here's hoping someday you're able to. If you don't, don't let anyone tell you you should. If you're willing to make the time, you can still be a writer.
    "Writing" doesn't involve just writing, either. It also involves planning and research. Planning might just be thinking up a plot while you shower, or mulling over a character while you lay in bed waiting to fall asleep. Research could be online, or reading books or magazines, or talking to someone who has some expertise to share. If you have a long commute, download some writing podcasts to listen to, or if you take public transport rather than driving, maybe read something, either a book in your target genre, a magazine on writing or publishing, or some online resources.
    Here's a link to the blank calendar I used above, in case anyone would like a copy. Fill it in on the computer, or print it to fill out by hand. Maybe post it above your desk, or just keep it somewhere where you can check it easily before you start writing for the day.
   Here, also, are some good articles on writing without being a full-time writer. Disclaimer, though: I'm in no way saying any of these articles are perfect. All have good and bad points, but it's just some extra information from other sources to help you develop your own opinions on this idea. I'm also not affiliated with any of these blogs/sites, so I can't testify to the quality of their other content. I just liked these articles in particular.
http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/debut-author-lessons-should-you-be-a-full-time-writer/
https://www.thecreativepenn.com/2017/01/11/full-time-writer-tips/
http://positivewriter.com/prolific-writer-day-job/
    Thanks for reading!

Characterization - Why I Love Dolores Umbridge (Method Mondays)

Yes, you read that right... THE Dolores Umbridge...

    I never thought "I love Dolores Umbridge" would EVER be something I would say, type, or be forced to write in my own blood. Too soon?
    In all seriousness, though, I really do love Umbridge. Well, I hate her, but that's why I love her. It's complicated, I'll admit it. While I do acknowledge that this type of post with Harry Potter characters is just about the most overdone concept ever, bare with me.
    The reason I chose to use Umbridge, and Harry Potter in general, is because I can use it to compare three "types", so to speak, of antagonists.

Type One: Hate to Love Them

    Many of you can probably guess who this example is going to be. (Hint: if you guessed Severus Snape, you're right.) BUT there's another character I want to use as a second example of this: good old Wormtail, Peter Pettigrew. I know I'm opening a literally massive can of worms by even mentioning either of these characters, and I'm sure many of you want to reach through your screens and yell "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING" at me right now. (Side note: please don't, that slideshow scene from It scarred me enough without it happening with my laptop).
    Let me start with this: Yes, both of these characters are flawed. Deeply flawed, in fact. But most people are in real life, and most of the best fictional characters are as well. That's what elevates them from a stock character to the memorable sort that sticks with you long after you put the book down.
    Lets start with Snape. Regardless of you feelings for him as a person, I think there are very few people who haven't felt some sort of pity or affection for Severus Snape, even if it was quickly squashed down. Was his obsession with Lily unhealthy? Yes. Did he bully Harry, Neville, and others for years? Yes. But I think that he honestly thought that was the best thing he could do to keep his status as a double agent.
    Motivation is what really makes a villain, and it's something I'll talk about a lot in this post. For Snape, his motivation was his belief that his actions were the only way to keep his double-agent status and protect those he needed to protect. For Pettigrew, his motivation was fear.
   Both motivations are in their own ways entirely valid. Does this mean that either of them are good people? No. Snape killed Dumbledore, and even before that tormented schoolchildren. Pettigrew betrayed his best friends and let two be killed, one be driven nearly insane in Azkaban, and one live a lonely existence thinking the people he cared most about were either dead or insane (I really feel bad for Lupin, can you tell?) Maybe I'm not making sense; I don't really know. But I do know that it's the motivation these characters had for their villainy that makes them complex and at times sympathetic characters, and not just mustache-twirling cardboard cut-outs.

Type Two: Love to Hate Them

    The second type of villain I want to talk about is the sort of villain that you despise, but also love because of how good a villain they are. I'm going to be using Voldemort for my example here.
   Obviously, no one looks at Voldemort and thinks, "WOW what a great guy! I'd love to hang out with him!" And if you do, well... Maybe you should rethink that one.
   Voldemort is a good villain because he is of course evil, but he's also somewhat sympathetic. He chases eternal life to fill the void left in him due to his inability to love. Like I said above, it's his motivation that makes him an interesting character. Voldemort is an extremely dislikeable character, but he isn't just evil for the sake of being evil, and that's what makes him a terrifying villain. A villain who is evil just for the fun of it may stop eventually due to boredom or because someone tried to stop them. But villains with a goal work toward it despite obstacles, and that's what makes them scarier and harder to defeat than a villain who's evil for the sake of being evil.
   In short, the second type of villain (ie. Voldemort) is a villain who made the conscious choice to become a villain, not out of fear or supposed necessity, but to accomplish a goal. They don't wake up one morning and think "let's go out and kick some puppies for fun", they think "let's kick some puppies because that will get me closer to my goal".

Type Three: HATE. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE.

    Villain type three is the villain who DOES think "let's go kick puppies for fun". This type of villain is one of the rarest, because they're so entirely unsympathetic that readers will feel nothing but hatred for them.
    Now you may be thinking, but isn't the object of a villain to be hated? Why would I want my readers to be sympathetic toward them? I may end up doing another post more in-depth on this later, but let me sum it up here: if there's someone you can't stand in real life - they're a terrible person, and you feel they have no redeeming qualities or reasons to act why they do - how long would you hang around them? Only if you're forced to, right? So why would a reader want to read a book if they absolutely can't stand the villain?
    One of the few exceptions to this rule is, of course, Dolores Umbridge. Now, one could argue that she does have a motivation: her obsession with propriety and rules. But as the books go on, we see that that isn't really an excuse for her behaviour. Perhaps it started that way, yes, but it quickly spirals into, frankly, pure evil. The movies actually have a very interesting, subtle way of portraying this; if you pay attention, as the movies go on Umbridge's clothes become darker shades of pink, portraying her descent into madness.
   Umbridge is a rare type of villain, but it works. Any Harry Potter fan knows hatred of Umbridge is even more universal than hatred of Voldemort, so JK Rowling clearly did something (okay, many things. Pretty much all the things) right! She's so hateable and so unique in a slew of fictional villains that, as much as I despise her, I also love her just because she's able to inspire that kind of hatred in readers.


    So those are just three rather broad categories of villain. There's a lot more to talk about in terms of writing villains, but this is just a nice little introduction post I can refer back to later. Think there's one I missed, or want a more detailed post on something I mentioned here? Let me know on Twitter @victoriacbooks or here, in the comments! Thanks for reading!

How I Create Characters - Who Are You and Where Did You Come From? (Method Mondays)

    Sitting down to talk about creating characters, it was a lot harder than I realized to start. Like many writers would probably say, I've no real idea where my characters actually come from. Many of them waltzed into my headspace one day, kicked their feet up on the kitchen table and asked for a cup of coffee. To which the usual response is "okay, but first I need your name, approximate age, and your life story and the most intimate details of your personality." Some characters lean back in the chair and spew (why do I use that word?) detail after detail of everything I ask them and even some things I don't. Others give me the basics, smile enigmatically, and refuse to say another word until they've had their cup of coffee. After that, it takes anywhere between a cup of coffee and a few minutes to get them to tell me their stories, but some clam up entirely and it can take a 5-course dinner and days, months, or even years to get the full stories out of them. As much as I would love for this post to be, essentially, "You need a character? Great! Here's how you make one!", I'm afraid it will be more "You need a character? Great! I don't know how to help you." I am not an expert; I never claim to be one. All I am is a writer, sharing some thoughts and hoping they help some other people along the way.
    Some of my characters I've had for so long I don't even remember where or how they came about. Others I can trace back to one definite decision to create the character, or in some cases one conversation that brought the character about.
    The easiest examples to use are characters for my as-yet untitled WIP trilogy. One character in particular, Antonio, has been rattling around my head since the fourth grade. Over the years, he's spawned his own parents, an uncle, two older brothers, and a host of information both plot-relevant and completely random information. One thing I will say though, and this is one of my personal golden rules of writing:

No characterization is wasted.

    This rule will definitely be visited more in-depth in a future post, but let me clarify further: no matter how useless you think a bit of information you have about a character is, put it somewhere. If you can remember it, tuck it away in your mental files. If you can't, write it down. I try to keep files on each character I have (either in a word document or in my writing program WriteItNow4, which is the topic of another upcoming post), and I write down any tidbit I can. Will most of them be used in the novel? No. It's probably never going to be relevant to the plot that, for example, Miguel (Antonio's older brother) is allergic to strawberries? Probably not. But it will change how he interacts with the environment around him, and how other characters, especially his family, interact with him. It may be mentioned in the actual story sometime - who knows what he'll decide to talk about - but even if it isn't, I know it, and the characters know it, and that adds another layer to the never-ending onion that is a good story and good characters.

    Characters can come from anywhere. I remember creating an antagonist for my current WIP, and at the time I was on the phone with a former friend. I was struggling to name the character, to which she responded, "It should start with a D. Villain names start with D's." Her words, not mine. Her reasoning behind this was, at the time, she was reading the Gone series by Michael Grant, where one antagonist is named Drake. She also suggested the name Damien, which was at the time the name of a teacher at my school who I doubted would appreciate having an antagonist named after him. I, eventually, settled on the name Dmitri. What started out as the quintessential "school bully" antagonist with a twist, evolved into a (if I may say so myself) very complex and multi-faceted character. He actually was more of the catalyst for Miguel's appearance than Antonio was; somehow, he decided he didn't want to be a jerk on his own; he needed a "posse" for that. Somehow, Miguel grew from that, latched onto Antonio as his brother, and then produced a twin for himself. Eventually, an entire cast of characters found their way into the story, and Bob's your uncle, as they say (I don't know if anyone even really says that, I just like it).  

    I can't find the exact place where I read this anymore (if someone can, please feel free to Tweet it to me), but JK Rowling once said (paraphrasing of course) that Harry Potter "waltzed into (her) head one day, fully formed". For many characters of mine, something very similar has happened. But, like I mentioned earlier, sometimes it's a lot of work. I'm not sure I'd call it building a character, because I think oftentimes characters come fully built; it's just a matter of putting the pieces in the right places. The analogy I'd like to use, because it sounds cool and science-y, is unearthing a fossil. You start by hacking away the big bits with a pickaxe or something similar, but eventually it comes down to being on your hands and knees with a little brush, dusting away the tiniest, most insignificant bits. That analogy doesn't really work, though, nor is it very relatable. In terms of starting with large pieces and moving to little ones, it does, but I think a better one would be that creating a character is like putting together one of those complex Lego sets. You start off with the big base pieces, and then your put together smaller pieces, and stick those onto the bigger pieces in the right spots. Then, if you've done it right, you'll end up with something you never would've guessed would come from those little plastic bricks and fiddly little bits that go all over the floor and thank God they give you extra because how do I keep track of all of these and - I'm rambling again.

    I think this is a good place to finish off - with that image. Character building starts off with the big pieces - What's their name? Why are they in the story? What's their goal? and goes to the small - the little things that make a character seem human, rather than just words on a page. Those little pieces, those details, like Legos, turn a boring piece of plastic into something cool and fun to play with, and turn a flat, forgettable character into one who will worm their way into your readers' hearts and make them come back to your books time and again.