BookRix: First Attempt

Spent some time fiddling with the BookRix interface:
* Much more convenient to upload a .pdf file than have to redo the formatting of a copy-pasted text;
* The speed that the pages of the "book" load still leave a lot to be desired;
* Size 22 font seems to be the minimum for easy reading - I'm using size 24 in the example below;
* The embedding code works on blogger, but not on multiply or livejournal - they have another type of code that does, but that one doesn't show the cover page of the book;
* The embedded book is a lot bigger than I thought it'd be - I thought it'd just be the title page that, when clicked, would open the book in another window.
* EDIT: AAand, its so big it isn't completely seen. That's really bad @_@
* EDIT2: Changed the blog template so the whole book is visible - but that shouldn't have been necessary. BookRix needs a way to re-size the thing.

So I think BookRix still has a way to go before it becomes a viable marketing tool. Still, the idea of embedding "books" on sites appeals to me for some reason.

In any case, here's my first "BookRix" book: the script for my Animax 2007 entry:

Years ago Taryn Damour was a normal child, content to play games of make-believe with Andel, her best friend; now she is a Knight of the Twin Swords, sword to eradicate the scourge that is the Orkoi race. On the eve of her greatest mission, she finds herself suddenly reunited with Andel... but is he the same boy she once knew? Or will the secrets he carries bring her world crashing down upon them?

Up the (Main)stream Without A Paddle (Part 1)

Read a pair of interesting articles today, taking opposing positions on the question of whether or not Philippine Speculative Fiction is marginalized: For the affirmative we have Charles Tan of Bibliophile Stalker; for the negative, we have Bhex of the Philippine Speculative Fiction Blog.

My favorite (and only, but shh...) editor over at Philippine Genre Stories then posits that ol' Marvel Civil War question: Whose side are you on? (Well he doesn't really say it that way, but... @_@)

My answer: I got nothin'... Largely because from my (admittedly limited) experience, the issue isn't really framed the right way.

First off though I'd like to say thanks to both Charles and bhex for sharing their thoughts in such clear, succinct ways. Both essays are well written and peppered with illustrative examples, so I'll refrain from summarizing (and probably over-simplifying) the arguments of each, but while the keyword in both is "marginalization" that concept needed to be understood in relation to the word "mainstream."

Yet if "mainstream" refers to the prevailing attitudes/preferences of Philippine readers (as opposed to publishers/critics)... I just don't think that they care about whether a story is spec fic or not.

* I've never known anyone who would turn their nose up at a book because it was Philippine Spec Fic. Frankly, I know few Filipinos readers who would turn their nose up any story just because of fantasy or science fictional elements - the level of realism of the story just doesn't seem to be that big of a factor to Philippine readers.

* I do know that there are people who read Spec Fic but not Philippine Spec Fic. This seems to me to be because: (a) they only visit the SFF part of the bookstore, and never set foot in the Filipiniana/Philippine Publications section (or just can't distinguish the Spec Fic stuff from the rest because the book covers just don't scream "Genre!"); (b) what is available in local Spec Fic is either (i) not in the genre they want; or (ii) not of the length they want - i.e. novels.

* In relation to the above, I know people who simply do not read short fiction - an attitude I am intimately familiar with because I was of that persuasion until, oh, PGS :P It was not because of any inherent dislike of the form, but simply because my readership preferences were honed by not only novels but Big Fantasy Series': I think the sequence of my early reading chronology went like this - Guardians of the Flame Series (5 books at the time) - Belgariad/Mallorean Series (5 + 5 books) - Lord of the Rings/Hobbit (4 books) - Shannarra Series (6 books at the time) - Memory, Sorrow and Thorn Series (4 very loooong books) etc. Heck, I don't think I red a stand-alonee genre novel until I was well into high school, and had been reading voraciously for years.

* Philippine readers also seem to sharply diverge when it comes to language - most of the Philippine Spec Fic I've seen is in English, and a lot of our countrymen just aren't that comfortable with English to be reading stories in the language for fun.

I don't quite agree with bhex's definition of "marginalized" as exclusion to the point of "never having a shot" - with a definition that universal and categorical, it makes it difficult to see any form of literature as being "marginalized." I do agree with Charles that, while the situation has improved, genre fiction doesn't get the respect/encouragement it deserves - but this is a problem for genre in general (not just or even primarily locally), and chiefly in the literary/academe.

I do agree with bhex however that Phillipine Spec Fic doesn't need to be celebrated by the literary elite for it to be widely read - and I think the aim for all of us who read, write and love it should be precisely that: to make it more widely read.

I don't think that the fantastical element of the stories is an obstacle to that however: Putting aside the issue of the vernacular, I think it's just that locally we haven't yet produced the kind of spec fic that readers are accustomed to and look for: the sword and sorcery epics, the serial urban fantasies, the multi-arc space operas.

To use a movie analogy - we've got great animated shorts, insightful documentaries, biting political satires - but no hollywood blockbusters. Not yet.

(I've got some proposals to change that... but for reasons that'll become clear, I can't go into those reasons until Friday or beyond... But I hope you guys can help me brainstorm on those too ^_^)

Adequate Expertise and Emotional Impact

Some of the best essays and reflections are those which answer a question I've always asked but never knew I was asking: Case in point, this essay by L. Ron Hubbard: "Art, More About"

The question? "How good does a professional work of art have to be?"

More than simply asking a question that had been, unbeknown to me, begging to be answered somewhere in the back of my mind, he also provided a surprising answer. I had initially expected something catchy-but-vague, some warm and fuzzy non-answer to the question, as is the wont of successful professionals giving advice to younger aspirants.

Hubbard's answer was instead not-very-catchy (quite unwieldy in fact), practical, and in all likelihood true. What must a professional work of art have? "Technical expertise itself adequate to produce an emotional impact."

Not exactly something you'd put on a T-shirt or bumper sticker. Yet Hubbard makes a good case for it.

Without the technical expertise, you'll never be able to reach the audience with your message; if you can't convey anything to the audience, then it is not professional art - i.e. art for public consumption and not just for personal satisfaction.

Note that in Hubbard's opinion such expertise merely needs to be "adequate to produce an emotional impact" - it doesn't have to be exemplary, or sui generis. That's not to say that a writer shouldn't strive to better his craft - what it means I think is that there is always room for improvement, but once you reach the level where you can convey your message to the audience, it becomes time to buckle down and (a) think of that message; and (b) write down the damn story.

So in Hubbard's words:

A lot of artists are overstraining to obtain a quality far above that necessary to produce an emotional impact. And many more are trying to machine-gun messages at the world without any expertise at all to form the vital carrier wave.

So how good does a piece of art have to be?

Groundwork: Brainstorming the Concept (aka Yes, My Wife Can be Objective)

I think I'll take this opportunity, now that the outline is done, to commit to internet-memory a few of the other preparatory steps that went into laying the groundwork for the novel.

The original concept was one I'd been trying in vain to develop into a short story for the 3rd Philippine Graphic/Fiction Awards. The basic premise was that in a world where battles between superheroes and supervillains resulted inevitably in civilian casualties, a group was founded - composed mostly of individuals who lost their families in such calamities but who were themselves rescued - to watch over and protect the civilian/human families of the heroes. The members of this group were grateful to the heroes yet had nothing much else to live for, and as such could dedicate their lives to the task, and as such were equipped with some sort of weapon/technology that allowed them to turn themselves into human bombs to protect their wards - sort of like "good suicide bombers."

Sounded alright to me - until I broached it to my wife. (Paraphrased conversation folows):

---

Her: Uhm... its OK.

Me: You don't like it...

Her: I just don't get it.

Me: What do you mean?

Her: Well, who are they supposed to protect the families from?

Me: Ah, well, from supervillains mainly. I mean, ordinary police could handle ordinary threats.

Her: And they do this by... exploding?

Me: Yeah!

Her: That's dumb.

Me: (At a loss for words)

Her: What if the villain has a beam weapon or something? What if they have super speed? What if they can fly? What good is a bomb?

Me: Uhm, w-well... They could... I dunno... pile up on the villain? Or, um, throw themselves at him?

Her: ... Don't get it.

Me: (Crestfallen)

Her: ... and second - you're saying that the heroes know about this?

Me: Yeah, sure. They're very grateful.

Her: They wouldn't allow it.

Me: Huh?

Her: Superman wouldn't consent to people committing suicide.

Me: Well not every hero is as conservative as Superman... and it's not suicide!

Her: Close enough - I just don't see how any moral hero would go around hiring people to do that.

Me: It's just like hiring bodyguards!

Her: Bodyguards can do more than blow themselves up.

Me: ...

Her: Sorry. I just don't get it.

Me: (Breaks down, quits writing and becomes a monk)

---

So much for my brilliant concept @_@ My new premise is much better now that i've addressed the holes my wife poked in the old one... Or at least I think so.

I haven't run the new concept by her yet :P

Groundwork: Outline Done (And Man Do I Wish It Was Part of the Wordcount)

624 word key-word outline for the novel is done - and, yes, if this counted towards the 50k goal I would have used a paragraph outline and probably reached 5,000 words easily (not including the character profiles and mini-time-line).

I wish I could just jump straight into a novel; but after the experience of having to scrap 100,000+ words because I just could not make the ending work, I think I've developed a phobia to outline-less writing.

Groundwork: How to Describe a Face

Still no work on the actual prose sadly, what with the court hearing. Spent some time trying to flesh out the basic attributes of my two lead characters, when I realized that as a romance novel, I should probably be a bit more particular in my descriptions of the characters. This lead to some quick internet research on the general shapes and variances of the face and various facial features.

I'm surprised I didn't find a consolidated list/guide for writers - most of the ones I found were on pages related to beauty tips and/or plastic surgery. For reference, here's the breakdown of what I've gleaned so far"

Face Types: square, heart-shaped, triangle (inverted heart shaped), oblong, elongated, round, long, diamond and oval. (From this site)

Eye Types: (based on distance) wide-apart, close-set, evenly-spaced; (based on size) small eyes, prominent eyes, bulging eyes; (other types) almond eyes, oriental eyes, round eyes, deep-set eyes, hooded eyes, oval eyes; drooping eyes. (Used different classifications but the types came from here.)

Nose Types: [Classical definitions] Roman (aquiline/hooked), Jewish (hawk), Greek (straight), leptorrhine (Caucasian/long and narrow), platyrrhine (African/broad and flat), cogitative (wide-nostriled), snub, turn-up (celestial); [Other words which may describe a nose] pert, button-nose (note - not bottle nose, unless your character is a dolphin), angled, aquiline, arced, arched, bent, broad, concave, convex, crooked, curved, depressed, droopy, flared, full, hooked, humped, narrow, pointed, round, sharp, short, small, small-tipped, straight, thin, undulating, wide, wide-nostrilled. (Classical definitions from this little treasure; many of the additional words from here.)

Hope this helps other aspiring writers as well. Let me know if you have anything more to add ^_^