This is one of the reasons I am such a huge fan of the Pomodoro Technique. If you’re not familiar with it, this is a method designed to help you eliminate distractions and get your work done. It originated in Italy in the 1980’s, where a young college student, Francesco Cirillo, was struggling to get through his studies. Using a tomato-shaped kitchen timer (hence the “pomodoro” in the name) he broke his study sessions down into short sprints where he would focus on the subject at hand until the timer went off. After experimenting for several years, he eventually found that the optimal length of time for each “pomodoro” (i.e. sprint) was 25 minutes with five-minute breaks in between.

The idea behind the Pomodoro Technique is that you set a timer and then focus on one thing until the timer goes off. After this focus session, you take a break, then come back for another one. You can keep doing this for as long as you like or until you have finished the task at hand. Every four or five sprints, you can also give yourself a longer break.

Why the Pomodoro Technique Works

There are two primary reasons why the Pomodoro Technique is so effective. First and foremost, it enables focus and helps you avoid multitasking. It also forces you to take much-needed breaks, which can have major health benefits.

(1) It Helps Avoid Multitasking.

The main reason the Pomodoro Technique works is because it eliminates multi-tasking, since you have to focus on one thing at a time. Multitasking may seem productive, like you are knocking out multiple tasks at once, but that is actually not the case. When you multitask, your brain can’t focus on multiple things at once so it’s constantly toggling between the various tasks. This leads to context switching.

Context switching is the phenomenon where, when you alternate between multiple tasks, your brain has to “reboot” every time it makes the switch. This might only take a split second but if you switch tasks enough times, those seconds will add up. You lose time whenever your brain has to switch tasks, which means multitasking is actually less productive than focusing on one thing at a time.

In addition, multitasking can lead to errors and can affect your brain health. When you multitask, it requires using more of your brain, which means that multitasking is less efficient than doing focused work. Multitasking can also create other health problems, like increased blood pressure or stress. Even if these problems are short-term, they can still have significant effects.

When you use the Pomodoro Technique, it forces you to focus on one thing at a time. Each pomodoro sprint is only 25 minutes long, meaning that if any distraction comes up—phone message or email ping, you can easily postpone attending to it until the 25-minute sprint is over. After all, it’s only 25 minutes. Then, when you have finished the sprint, you can catch up on anything else that may have happened while you were working.

(2) It Forces You to Take Breaks.

Another reason why the Pomodoro Technique is effective is because it forces you to take breaks. Many writers (myself included) love to immerse themselves in their writing, working for long stretches of time. But if you work for too long, you can end up injuring yourself. I speak from experience.

When I was in grad school for my MFA, I spent so much time writing that I eventually gave myself “golfer’s elbow” and ended up with my right (dominant) arm in a brace for several weeks. That definitely put a damper on my writing. If I had been more careful and taken more breaks during my sprints, I would not have injured myself and wouldn’t have had to postpone my writing for quite so long.

With the Pomodoro Technique, you take breaks every 25 minutes. This gives you time to stretch and move around, as well as rest your eyes, wrists, and hands. It may feel like you are wasting five precious minutes of writing time, but prolonged typing or staring at the computer screen can have adverse health effects. If you take care of your body, you will be better able to keep writing for the long term.

Not only that, but sometimes a break is just the ticket to help you get unstuck when you’ve written yourself into a corner. A short change of scene or activity can help your mind recharge and when you come back to your writing, you’ll be refreshed and more creative.

How to Use the Pomodoro Technique

Here’s a quick step-by-step on how to use the Pomodoro Technique.

1. Choose a timer. This should preferably be a dedicated timer that you only use for Pomodoro sessions. There are several Pomodoro apps out there (I like an iOS app called Focus Keeper) but you can also use a good, old-fashioned kitchen timer.
2. Set the timer for 25 minutes. During that pomodoro session focus on nothing else except your writing.
3. Take a 5-minute break. When the timer buzzes, stop and take a 5-minute break.
4. Rinse and repeat. Every four pomodoro sprints, extend your break to 15 minutes. 

Just remember that while you are in a pomodoro session, you should not do anything but write. No checking your email, no sending a text message, no logging into social media. All of these things can wait until the pomodoro session is done and you are on your break. If something comes up that is truly important—for example, you have a brilliant idea for another story—jot down a quick note to yourself, then get back to your focused work.

The Pomodoro Technique works best when the task at hand is big and overwhelming. If you choose a task that’s too short, you run the risk of completing the task before the pomodoro session is done. Doing pomodoro sessions is especially helpful when you need to break down a big, scary task (like writing a novel) into smaller, more manageable chunks.

For example, let’s say you are working on a novel or a memoir. It can feel daunting to crank out those 80,000 words, but with the Pomodoro technique, you can break that project down into smaller parts. Let’s do a little back-of-the-envelope math and see how you might map out those incremental steps.

Suppose that in a 25-minute Pomodoro sprint, you can crank out 500 words.That means you’ll need 160 Pomodoros to reach your 80,000-word goal. This may seem like a lot, but if you can do two or three Pomodoros in one day, that brings the number of writing days down to around 64. If you can work on your writing three times per week, you could have your first draft reach “the end” in around five months! Suddenly, that 80,000-word goal might feel a lot more doable.

I would also recommend, when applying the Pomodoro Technique to your writing, that you keep a log so you can track your progress. At DIY MFA, we are big fans of iteration and the best way to tweak and improve your writing process is to log your writing sprints. After all, you can’t modify what you can’t measure.

Make Adjustments to the Technique

As we wrap up this discussion of the Pomodoro Technique, I want to encourage you to give it a try, but also make adjustments as necessary. I find, for example, that for my own writing process, a 25-minute sprint is far too short, but 45 or 60 minutes gives me more time to immerse myself fully in my writing. If I was writing for longer stretches, though, I would also give myself slightly longer breaks, anywhere from 7-10 minutes.

In other contexts, 25 minutes might be too long. For example, in the past I used the technique with my children while helping them practice their instruments. (Little Man plays the piano, Lady Bug the violin.) What I found, though, was that 25 minutes was far too long for them to sustain their focus, so we dropped the length of the sprints to 10 or 15 minutes instead of the typical pomodoro sprint. We took shorter breaks between sessions (sometimes just 2-3 minutes) but they were able to sustain their focus for longer.

This is why I encourage you to experiment with the method and find the format that works best for you. There are no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to the Pomodoro Technique, so try some things out and see which combination of sprint and break lengths are most effective for you. Track your writing sprints and use the data to help you identify which variations work best.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Why You Should Try the Pomodoro Technique appeared first on DIY MFA.

Character Backstory

This is perhaps the most common form of backstory and it relates to a character’s past. It includes things like childhood events, early traumas, successes and failures, or even secrets that the character might carry. Taken together, these all comprise the character’s history, giving us a sense for who they are and what their motivations might be.

In addition to lending context to motivations, character backstory also helps to shape character arcs. For example, a villain might have an event in their past that made them turn to evil (think Anakin Skywalker in The Revenge of the Sith). Or the hero might have experienced something that shaped their outlook on life and made them into the person they are now.

EXAMPLE: In The Hunger Games, Katniss’ father dies in a mine collapse. When that happens, her mother withdraws into herself, neglecting Katniss and her little sister Prim. From then on, Katniss is the one who has to support the family and keep them from starvation. This leads her to become especially protective of her sister and to take on a leadership role in her family.

World/Setting Backstory

Another common form of backstory shows the history of the world or setting in which the narrative takes place. This is where we learn about important world events like wars, political shifts, natural disasters, or other significant changes. Historical events, like technological revolutions, can also help shape the world. (Think of how the invention of the warp drive impacts the Earth in the Star Trek universe.) Through world/setting backstory we find out why the world is the way it is and what past events have influenced the present.

One reason why this form of backstory is so important is because it creates a sense of realism in the story world. By putting that world into historical context, it not only feels more realistic but also allows readers to understand various setting-related tensions and dynamics.

EXAMPLE: Military conflict is a subtle backdrop in Pride and Prejudice, with Colonel Forster hosting Elizabeth’s youngest sister, Lydia, in Brighton and Mr. Wickham joining the militia early in the book. While we never see any actual fighting, we are constantly reminded that the Napoleonic Wars are happening far off in the background.

Relationship Backstory

This includes past conflicts between characters, interpersonal drama, or romantic interludes. While this type of backstory is similar to character backstory, it is not specific to a single individual but rather involves the relationship between two or more.

This type of backstory adds emotional depth to relationships. When we know characters have a shared history, their present interactions take on more significance. It also opens the door for secrets and other unexpected tidbits to come to light, and it allows room for people both to have falling outs or perhaps to reconcile.

EXAMPLE: In The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan have had a romantic relationship in the past. This romance occurs before the action of the novel takes place and it is the primary motivation for why Gatsby pursues wealth in the attempt to win Daisy back (despite her now being married).

Incident Backstory

These are the events that have happened before the story takes place, like prophesies or past plot points. We see this type of backstory sometimes in mysteries and thrillers, where the crime might occur off the page, before chapter one. We also see incident backstory in speculative fiction, where a prophecy shared in the past reveals some aspect of the present storyline.

Incident backstory sets up the initial conditions for the plot. The story begins and it already has a certain set of “rules” or constraints attached to it. This type of backstory can also help to raise the stakes and create urgency because we know something has happened in the past that will affect the present timeline.

Be careful with prophesies, though. When done well, they can increase the sense of mystery, making the reader want to put the clues together and figure out how that prediction will come into play. But if it is too on-the-nose, that prophecy can squash the mystery out of the story altogether. Worse yet, it can feel unsatisfying to the reader when the prophecy gives us information we already know.

EXAMPLE: in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a prophecy is revealed linking Harry to Voldemort saying: “neither can live while the other survives.” This prediction foreshadows what must happen at the end of the seventh book in order for Harry to vanquish Voldemort once and for all.

The problem with this prophecy is that it is a little bit obvious and doesn’t reveal anything new that the reader didn’t anticipate. It is clear from the start that eventually, Harry or Voldemort will have to defeat the other, and the prophecy does not add much information beyond that. In the end, we don’t need a prophecy to tell us something we already know.

Object Backstory

This type includes any lore surrounding an object, telling us why it is significant. This context might include the object’s origin story, who owned it previously, what events have transpired surrounding it, and why it is valuable, important, or dangerous.

Significant objects can play an important role in a story, adding symbolism and thematic depth. In particular, if an object becomes a thematic element—used to underscore the book’s theme—it can add substantial weight and cohesiveness to the narrative.

EXAMPLE: In The Hunger Games, Katniss’ friend Madge (the mayor’s daughter) gives her a golden pin shaped like a bird: a mockingjay. These birds are a cross-breed between a genetically engineered weapon (the jabberjay) and a mockingbird. The very existence of the mockingjay is an insult to the oppressive Capitol, which once tried to eradicate that species but failed.

We find out that, when he was alive, Katniss’ father had a special fondness for mockingjays. Later, in the arena, Katniss and her ally Rue use mockingjays to send messages through song. In the subsequent books of the trilogy, the mockingjay becomes the symbol for the revolution.

Cultural Backstory

Social norms, festivals, mythology, and ancestral lore—all these have a history explaining where they come from and why they exist. This is cultural backstory and it includes things like traditions, taboos, and anything else that shapes a society’s culture.

As with world-building backstory, this type adds a sense of realism and immersion, making the reader feel like they are there, in that world, with those characters. Cultural differences can also lead to conflict between groups, so this type of backstory can help to explain why certain tensions exist.

EXAMPLE: When Obi-Wan Kenobi first tells Luke Skywalker about his father and the Force (in Star Wars IV: A New Hope) we learn that a lightsaber is “an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.” We also discover that there are two sides to the Force, and Darth Vader was seduced by the Dark Side. All of these details—sprinkled throughout the dialogue between Luke and Obi-Wan—help to paint a picture of the Jedi culture.

Institutional Backstory

Some places or institutions—like a school, workplace, etc.—are so significant to the story that they have their own history. Institutional backstory includes any past events that occurred within an institution or organization. This might include traditions, successes and failures, secret scandals, and doctrine.

Like world/setting or cultural backstory, this type adds a sense of realism to the institution by giving it a history and context. Plus, this backstory can also help explain organizational policies or reveal hidden agendas.

EXAMPLE: In the Hunger Games trilogy, the Games themselves have a longstanding history. We learn at the Reaping in book one why the Games came into existence in the first place. We also discover the rules of the Games, like how each district must offer up two tributes (one male, one female) between the ages of 12 and 17, and once you win the Games, you are exempt from participating again in the future.

This context is important because in book two, the Capitol breaks the rules and decides to take tributes from existing victors of the Games. Without the institutional backstory of the Games themselves, that change in the rules would have much less significance.

Personal Mythology

This type of backstory includes all of those stories that characters tell themselves. This includes memories that might be re-interpreted, self-justifying narratives, or beliefs that have become ingrained in the character. This is similar to character backstory, but it focuses not on the actual events that occurred in that character’s past, but on their interpretation of those events.

EXAMPLE: In the Myrtle Clover cozy mystery series, the main character (Myrtle) has very strong views about herself and the people around her. As a former English teacher turned amateur sleuth, she thinks highly of her own cognitive abilities and is not particularly impressed with local law enforcement (including her son, who happens to be the police chief for their town).

Myrtle also firmly believes she is an excellent cook (even though her culinary experiments often take a terrible turn). Her high opinion of her own abilities means she often cooks disgusting casseroles to take to families of the murder victims—both as a condolence gesture and as an excuse to visit these suspects and try to extract information from them. 

There you have it: eight different types of backstory, how they work, and why they are important. Keep in mind that a book does not need to have all eight types represented in it. In fact, if you do include them all, you risk overloading your story with too much information and you may bore your reader. Instead, I recommend focusing on the present timeline and sprinkling in backstory as it is relevant. As I often like to say: keep the reader on a “need to know” basis. Give them only the information that they need to know, when they need to know it.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: What Types of Backstory Do You Need? appeared first on DIY MFA.

Once I saw it, the obsession grew. I got the soundtrack (both Broadway and London Cast versions) and spent hours listening to my favorite songs over and over again, until the cassette tapes almost wore out. I would compare the different versions—who was the best Valjean? Which version was the best? Overall I preferred the London version (I mean, Patti LuPone as Fantine, who could beat that?), but I liked the Broadway Javert (Terrence Mann) better and his song, “Stars,” had a much better ending. The version in the London production was anticlimactic by comparison.

In honor of introducing my daughter to Les Miserables, I thought I would do a three-act analysis to see how the framework holds up with a musical. Note that I am basing this analysis on the original Broadway version, since that is the first one I ever saw. Note also that the three-act structure has three acts in it (obviously!) but the show only has two theatrical acts. I will refer to the acts of the musical as “parts” rather than “acts” so as to avoid confusion.

Spoiler Alert! If you haven’t seen Les Miserables, please be aware that there will be spoilers. You can probably figure this out just from the title, but things end badly for just about every character, with only a few minor exceptions. Unfortunately, the show is no longer on Broadway, but there will be a concert version coming to Radio City Music Hall later this year. You can also catch the film version, which is pretty close to the Broadway rendition in terms of songs and structure.That said, this musical is a hundred times better on stage than it is on screen.

Okay, let’s dive into our analysis of Les Miserables.

PROLOGUE: Part 1 of the show begins with Jean Valjean doing hard labor in prison, a sentence he received for stealing a loaf of bread. He has served time for 19 years as prisoner 24601. The first song (“Work Song”) is where he gets paroled and meets Inspector Javert (who is then a prison guard) for the first time.

As part of his parole, he gets a yellow ticket of leave, and everywhere he goes, no one will give him honest work. When he is about to despair, he is taken in by a Bishop, who gives him a place to stay. In the night, Valjean steals some silver and tries to run away but is caught. The constables bring him back to the Bishop, accusing him of theft. The Bishop tells them that he gave the silver as a present and even gives Valjean an additional two candlesticks, saying that he left so quickly, he had forgotten to take them.

Valjean has a conversion of spirit, realizing that the Bishop has given him his freedom. He decides he must turn his life around, so he abandons his identity and reinvents himself as a new person.

ACT 1: Here we flash forward several years, where Valjean—in his new identity—has become a factory owner and mayor of a city. We see the workers in his factory, who are poor and unhappy. Still, they consider themselves lucky to have any job at all.

In the factory, the foreman wants to seduce a young worker, Fantine, but she refuses him. The other factory workers think Fantine is stuck-up, so when she brings a letter with her to work, they steal it from her and read it aloud. It turns out, Fantine has a child who is living with an innkeeper and his wife in some country village. She sends money to help support the child. A fight breaks out between Fantine and the other women. As the factory owner, Valjean steps in and asks his foreman to sort the problem out. The foreman fires Fantine, and she laments the sorry turns her life has taken (“I Dreamed a Dream”).

To survive, Fantine sells her locket and her hair, but eventually must turn to prostitution (“Lovely Ladies”) to survive and send money to her child. When a customer tries to take advantage of her and she fights back, he accuses her of attacking him. Javert (now a Police Inspector) arrests Fantine but as mayor, Valjean intercedes and takes her to a hospital

In another scene, a man is pinned under a runaway wagon and Valjean is able to lift it singlehandedly, saving the man’s life. Javert sees this work of supreme strength and thinks he recognizes Valjean. But, then another man is captured and identified as Valjean, so Javert abandons his suspicions. The Prologue and Act 1 answer the five story promises as follows:

Character: Jean Valjean is our protagonist. He begins in the Prologue thinking only of his own survival, but after the Bishop gives him his freedom, his goal shifts to protecting his identity and keeping his past a secret. What he ultimately wants is his freedom and to stop running from the law.

Voice: While there is no voice because this is a musical, what makes this show so epic is the way the various different melodies weave in and out of each other. The music clues us in, showing us which parts of the story are connected.

World: The story takes place in France in the first part of the 19th century. It begins in a prison in 1815 when Valjean is released. Next, it jumps to 1823 in Montreuil-sur-Mer where Valjean is the mayor. Afterwards, the timeline skips forward yet again, this time to Paris in 1832.

Problem: Jean Valjean is a convicted felon who has skipped parole. In order to continue in his comfortable life, he must hide his identity. He must constantly be looking over his shoulder and running from his past.

Event: At first, Valjean is very hands-off in his dealings with his employees and the poor. Then he meets Fantine among the prostitutes and realizes the consequences of him being so passive.

PIVOT POINT 1:  When the innocent man is captured in his place, the real Jean Valjean is torn between two choices. He can let this man be accused instead of himself and finally have peace of mind that no one will come after him. On the other hand, he can reveal his true identity and be imprisoned all over again. Eventually, during the song “Who Am I?” Valjean decides to reveal his true self as prisoner 24601. The event at this pivot point is the innocent lookalike being captured. The choice is Valjean deciding to reveal his identity.

ACT 2:  Valjean goes to the hospital where Fantine lies dying. While there, he promises her that he will take care of her daughter, Cosette. Javert finds him in the hospital and after a confrontation, Valjean manages to escape. He goes to the countryside and finds Cosette living with the Thénardiers, an innkeeper and his wife. The Thénardiers are con artists, stealing from their customers (“Master of the House”). They treat Cosette like a servant while their own child, Eponine, is spoiled. Valjean pays them 1,500 francs to let him take Cosette away.

From here, we skip forward again, this time to Paris in 1832. The poor are barely scraping by and General Lamarque is the only source of hope the people have for a better life. Unfortunately his death is imminent and there is much public unrest. Students, including Enjorlas and Marius, are getting ready for an uprising.

The Thénardiers have moved to Paris, as have also Jean Valjean and Cosette. Marius and Cosette see each other for the first time and instantly fall in love. At the same time, Eponine, the Thénardiers’ daughter, also secretly loves Marius.

Here we get to a point in the story where multiple things are happening at once. In “Stars,” Javert vows that he will finally find and arrest Jean Valjean. In “Red and Black” and “Do You Hear the People Sing” we see Enjorlas and the other students planning for their revolution. Finally, we get to the midpoint of the story arc.

MIDPOINT: The midpoint of the show does not line up with the division between the two parts. In fact, it comes four songs before. After seeing each other for the first time, Marius and Cosette are in love. In “In My Life,” Cosette starts by singing about her love for Marius but eventually she shifts to asking her father about the past. This section of the song is the midpoint.

This is a Temporary Triumph in that it seems like Valjean has finally escaped his past and found something resembling peace. The moment of introspection is Valjean having to confront the questions Cosette has about his past. In the end he holds fast and does not reveal his secrets.

The song “In My Life” follows an ABA format, in that we have sections about love at the beginning and end, and the middle portion is where Cosette confronts Valjean. The song begins with Cosette singing about her love for Marius. Then she and Valjean sing the next part together until Valjean ends the conversation without revealing his secrets. The last portion of the song is where Marius and Eponine are singing together, him declaring his love for Cosette and her revealing her love for Marius.

ACT 2 (Cont’d): Eponine takes Marius to see Cosette, and they are finally able to meet (“A Heart Full of Love”). Then Thénardier and his gang attempt to rob Valjean’s home, but Eponine is there and sees him. She screams, warning the house of the robbers and Marius runs away. Valjean is terrified that they have been found. He makes plans to leave Paris with Cosette. She does not want to go because she has fallen in love with Marius, but she has no choice.

At this point, we come to the last song in the first part of the show, “One Day More.” This song brings all the characters to the stage and combines several musical themes from across the show, including: “Who Am I?,” “I Dreamed a Dream,” “On My Own,” and “Master of the House.”

Marius decides to fight alongside his friends at the barricade. The students are convinced that the people of Paris will rise up and help their revolution. After joining his friends, Marius sends a farewell letter to Cosette via Eponine (“On My Own”). Valjean intercepts the letter and realizes that Cosette is in love. He decides to stay and eventually makes his way to the barricade to fight. At the barricade, Enjorlas, the revolutionary leader, asks for a volunteer to spy on the military. Javert—who is disguised as a revolutionary—volunteers. When he returns, he tells the others that there will be no attack so they can drop their guard. Gavroche steps up and identifies Javert as an Inspector and they capture him. Valjean is given the opportunity to execute Javert but instead he lets him go.

At the first attack, Eponine is fatally wounded. She dies in Marius’ arms (“A Little Fall of Rain”). The men sing “Drink with Me” and Valjean realizes that Marius is the man Cosette loves.

PIVOT POINT 2: As the men go to sleep, Valjean sings “Bring Him Home,” asking for Marius to be spared. He is reconciled with the fact that he may die at the barricade, but for Cosette’s sake, he wants Marius to survive. The event at this pivot point is him discovering that Marius is the man Colette loves. The choice is Valjean deciding that he will do whatever is in his power to help Marius survive.

ACT 3: The third act of this story is surprisingly short. The second attack happens and the people of Paris do not rise up and fight. The students at the barricade are left to fight on their own and all (except Marius) die at the end of the battle. Valjean survives the attack and is able to rescue an injured Marius and take him down into the sewers to escape. He collapses and Thénardier (who is looting bodies) finds the two and takes a ring from Marius’ finger. When Valjean is finally awake again and is able to exit the sewer, he comes across Javert. 

CLIMAX: Valjean asks Javert to let him take Marius to a doctor. Though it is counter to everything he believes, Javert lets Valjean go. Javert is shaken both by Valjean’s act of mercy in sparing his life and his own act of letting Valjean go. He cannot live with himself and commits suicide.

It is significant to note that the melody we hear in Javert’s last song is the same melody from when Valjean decides to abandon his identity after the Bishop has given him his freedom. This makes sense because both are moments that give Valjean his freedom, though they do so in different ways. In the first instance, Valjean claims his freedom by rejecting his true identity. The second time, Valjean gets his freedom more permanently because Javert has killed himself so he won’t be coming after him any longer. The irony is, of course, that Valjean does not know this. He believes himself to be a fugitive still.

Ending Type: Ironically enough, even though just about everybody dies in this musical, this show actually has a Happy Ending. At DIY MFA we define a happy ending not by the emotion, but by whether the protagonist achieves their goal. A happy ending is one where the main character gets what they want and they still want that thing by the end of the story.

Jean Valjean wants his freedom and he wants to live in peace. At first, he thinks he will achieve this by changing his identity. Eventually, he realizes that freedom is not a matter of identity but of being true to his principles. He chooses to show mercy to Javert, even though that will mean Javert will never stop coming after him. He also chooses to save Marius over running away from Javert and securing his own freedom. In the end, Javert lets him go and eventually kills himself, leaving Valjean finally free. By this definition, the show has a Happy Ending.

DENOUEMENT: Marius recovers from his wounds and grieves his friends (“Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”). Valjean confesses his secrets to Marius, and says he must leave to protect Cosette. He still believes the law is after him.

Marius and Cosette get married. The Thénardiers crash the wedding and try to convince Marius that Valjean is a thief by showing him a ring Valjean supposedly stole from a body at the barricade. Marius recognizes the ring as his own and realizes that Valjean must have been the person who rescued him.

Marius takes Cosette to see Jean Valjean, who is on his deathbed. Valjean dies peacefully, finally getting the freedom he has craved for so long. Knowing that Cosette has Marius and will not be alone allows him to die in peace. As his soul slips from his body, Fantine and Eponine appear, and he goes with them to the afterlife.

CONCLUSION: One of the things that I most love about this show is how the various melodies weave together throughout, making us associate different parts of the show with each other. “One Day More” pulls themes from various different songs in the show (“Who Am I?”, “On My Own”, “I Dreamed a Dream,” and “Master of the House”) but it is by no means the only instance.

For example, the moment where the Bishop forgives Valjean for his theft uses the same musical theme as “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables.” This is significant because when Marius sings the latter song, he is effectively asking his friends for forgiveness because he survived and they did not. Both instances deal with the subject of forgiveness, though in different ways.

Similarly, Fantine and Eponine are linked by the theme of “On My Own.” While Eponine sings the famous song, Fantine sings the same melody with different words in “Come to Me.” Then, at the end, when Valjean dies, the two appear singing that same melody again as a duet. It’s significant that Fantine and Eponine would be thus linked. Both have unrequited loves and both suffered a great deal in their short lives. Most importantly, though, they both want things they cannot have. Fantine wants to be with her daughter, Cosette, and Eponine wants to be loved by Marius. In this way, the music of the show weaves various characters and significant moments together.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Three-Act Analysis of Les Miserables appeared first on DIY MFA.

The truth about time management is that it’s not actually about time; it’s about other skills like choosing priorities and setting goals. The majority of time management boils down to assessing which tasks need to happen when, and how those tasks fit into a broader project. Time management is also about understanding which blocks of time are most efficient for you, so you can use your time effectively. Time on the clock is only a tiny slice of time management as a whole. Ultimately, time management has little to do with time itself and more to do with making effective choices and being strategic with how you allocate your tasks.

For the next few weeks, I want to delve into different facets of time management. In particular, I see time management having four different areas:

• Choosing priorities (so you know what to tackle first)
• Setting goals (so you can see how small tasks fit the big picture)
• Assessing time quality (so you allocate your time effectively)
• Using the clock (so you can be more efficient with your time)

Today, I wanted to focus on the first topic—choosing priorities. I believe this is the most important element of time management, because it’s all about knowing which tasks to tackle and when to do them. If you get good at choosing priorities, your ability to manage your time will increase exponentially.

But, how do you choose those priorities in the first place? How do you know what tasks to tackle first, and which ones can wait until later? This decision comes down to a couple of different factors.

Task Urgency

Which task has the earliest deadline? What step needs to happen first, so other steps can come later? Which part of a project needs to be done right now? These are all questions relating to the urgency of a given task, and often this is our greatest motivator.

Most of us are driven by urgency. It’s hard to ignore a task when you have a big, glaring deadline hanging over your head. Yet, while urgency is an important factor to consider, we sometimes let it overshadow other factors, like a task’s importance or ease. In other words, we may sometimes get caught up working on unimportant tasks, simply because they are urgent and calling our attention.

Task Importance

Instead of focusing purely on task urgency, we must also consider task importance. This means looking not just at a task’s looming deadline, but also considering why the task matters. In particular, it’s important to think about how a given task contributes to your greater goals. For writers, for example, we might get caught up worrying about immediate deadlines (“Oh no! That newsletter has to go out tomorrow”) instead of giving priority to more important tasks (“I should spend some time writing my manuscript.”) This is where the Eisenhower Decision Matrix can come in handy.

Eisenhower Matrix

Developed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, this two-by-two matrix considers both task urgency and task importance together. To understand where a task falls on the matrix, all you need to do is ask two yes/no questions: (1) Is the task urgent? and (2) Is the task important? (See the diagram below.) You can use this matrix to figure out what course of action to take with a given task.

Depending on where the task lands on the matrix, you will handle it in a different way. If the task is urgent and important, you need to do it right away. If the task is important but not urgent, you need to decide on a time when you will work on it. Important-but-not-urgent tasks are most often the things that will move you closer to your long-term goals, but they are also the easiest tasks to fall by the wayside. If a task is urgent but not important, you should look for a way to delegate that task if at all possible. This will preserve your precious time for the things that really matter. Finally, if a task is neither important nor urgent, you can simply delete it from your to-do list and ignore it altogether.

There are two additional categories that I add to this model but do not appear on the matrix itself. You see, sometimes there’s just no way to delegate or delete a given task. You simply have to do it. In that case, see if you can delay or divide the task so you can buy yourself some extra time. For example, suppose you want to sit down and write but you also have to clean the house. You could hire a housekeeper to do the cleaning (delegate) or simply let the house get overrun with mess (delete), but for many, neither of those options is feasible or optimal. Instead, you could try to delay the cleaning for a few days, or divide the task so you do laundry on one day, clean the windows on another, and so forth.

If I were to recommend the one area of the matrix where you want to spend the most time, it would be the important-but-not-urgent or “decide” box, because those are the tasks that make the most long-term impact, but they are also the ones that are easiest to put off. Because they are not urgent, it’s easy for these tasks to fall to the bottom of the to-do list.

The area on the matrix where most people spend their time is the important-and-urgent or “do” box. This is because these tasks are important (so they can’t be easily delegated) but they are also urgent, so they require immediate attention. I call the “do” box the “swatting flies” box because when we spend too much time there, it often feels like we’re knocking out tasks as though we’re swatting flies. The problem with swatting flies, though, is that the minute we get rid of one, another one shows up.That’s why so many people who spend a lot of time in the “do” box tend to end up burnt out.

Task Ease

A third consideration which does not appear on the Eisenhower matrix is task ease. Sometimes the difficulty of a given task will affect the order in which we tackle it. For example, some people might prefer to knock out all the easy tasks first, to give themselves that fist-pump feeling of accomplishment and to help them build momentum. On the other hand, some folks might prefer to tackle a difficult task first, to get it out of the way and while their mind is still fresh. Regardless of which approach you take, it’s important at least to consider task ease when setting priorities.

This consideration is easily ignored, because it’s not as objective task urgency or importance. Yet I would argue that task ease might just be the most significant of all three components because it considers how you best handle your priorities. You see, priorities are highly personal and what might be nonnegotiable for one person might be less significant to someone else. This is why, when we choose our priorities, we have to allow for a little subjectivity and individuality. Task ease allows for some of that flexibility, as does task preference.

Task Preference

Let’s face it, some tasks are fun and don’t even feel like a burden. Other tasks are about as pleasant as getting a cavity filled. Just like task ease, task preference will vary wildly from one person to the next. Unlike task ease, however, I do think there is an optimal way to handle task preference.

While with task ease there are arguments for either doing easy or difficult tasks first, with task preference, I think the most effective way to do it is to tackle the most unpleasant task first. It’s easy to procrastinate on things we don’t like to do, but if we don’t get those unpleasant tasks done, they’ll just hang over our heads like a sword of Damocles. Instead, what I recommend is to knock out those unpleasant tasks and then reward yourself with the more pleasant ones.

What does this have to do with writing?

As writers, we often have to juggle competing tasks, both in the writing itself, and in the areas of our life that compete with writing. For many of us, life is continually at odds with our creative work and it’s filled with pragmatic responsibilities like going to a day job, cooking meals, cleaning the house, and taking care of kids or aging relatives. With all these things on our plates, we can’t magically make time appear out of nothing, but we can manage our priorities and find ways to put our writing higher up on that to-do list.

Ultimately, time management is not about creating more time—because that’s impossible. Rather, it’s about being more effective in how we use the time we have. This starts with choosing priorities and deciding which tasks you will do when.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: The Truth About Time Management appeared first on DIY MFA.

Spoiler Alert! If you have not read A Christmas Carol, hop to it! It’s a novella, so it’s super-short, plus, you can get a free ebook copy via Project Gutenberg, or read it via your browser. Personally, I recommend the browser version because then you can see the original full-color illustrations by John Leech, which are lovely. Even if you decide to read it via a device, check out those illustrations because they are lovely.

While there have been any number of versions of this story as films, I recommend reading the original. This is because no film version quite captures the nuance and depth of the original text. This is why I have based this entire analysis on the text. Let’s dive into our analysis of A Christmas Carol.

ACT 1: In Act 1, we meet our protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge. He is a miserly, stingy man, who doesn’t even let his clerk have coal to make a fire. He has a grumpy disposition and he doesn’t care for other people. He is a This excerpt best captures Scrooge’s character:

External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. Foul weather didn’t know where to have him. The heaviest rain, and snow, and hail, and sleet, could boast of the advantage over him in only one respect. They often “came down” handsomely, and Scrooge never did.

As Act 1 develops, we learn that Scrooge has a particular distaste for Christmas. When people (like his cheerful nephew) mention Christmas, his response is “Bah! Humbug!” Throughout Act 1 we also see examples of Scrooge’s miserly attitude. He refuses to give money to help the poor, absolutely will not dine for Christmas at his nephew’s house, and when his clerk asks for Christmas day off, he balks and says: “”A poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every twenty-fifth of December!” 

His stinginess is not just reserved for others, but for himself as well. He eats “his melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern” all alone, and even his home is not truly his, but belonged to his deceased business partner, Jacob Marley. After changing for bed, he sits down in front of the fire to eat his gruel. Clearly, while this man has much money, there is nothing about him tht is extravagant.

The five promises also get answered within the first stave (or chapter).

Character: Ebenezer Scrooge is our protagonist and we follow him throughout the story.

Voice: The novella is told entirely through Scrooge’s limited third person point of view so we have access to his thoughts, but no one else’s. Also, keep in mind that the third person narrator occasionally interjects and speaks directly to the reader. This gives us a sense of the story being told to us by someone who has seen the events unfold.

World: The story takes place at the time in which it was published, the mid-9th century. The setting is London.

Problem: Scrooge detests Christmas almost as much as he dislikes being in the company of others or spending money. Yet everyone around him is in the Christmas spirit. His nephew invites him to dine for Christmas. Two gentlemen call upon him at his office, asking for money for the poor. And even his own clerk has the audacity to ask for Christmas day off. Scrooge has jut about had it with all this Christmas nonsense. Bah! Humbug!

Event: The story begins with his partner, Jacob Marley, dead. Seven years later, on Christmas Eve, as Scrooge goes home and opens his front door, the knocker transforms to look like Jacob Marley’s ghostly face.

PIVOT POINT 1:  Scrooge locks the door and retires to his room. Suddenly the ghost of Jacob Marley walks in through the double-locked door, dragging chains and boxes of riches. When Scrooge asks about the chains, Marley says: “I wear the chain I forged in life… I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.”

Then he continues to tell Scrooge that his own chains will be even heavier and longer in the afterlife. He says: “the weight and length of the strong coil you bear yourself? It was full as heavy and as long as this, seven Christmas Eves ago. You have laboured on it, since.” Scrooge is afraid.

The ghost of Marley tells him that there is a chance for him yet. He will be haunted by three Spirits over the course of three nights. As he says to Scrooge: “”Without their visits… you cannot hope to shun the path I tread.” Scrooge immediately resists, first saying he would rather not, then trying to bargain with the ghost that maybe the Spirits could visit him all at once. While Scrooge does not openly acquiesce, at the end of the stave, when he tries to say “Humbug!” he stops himself.

As we’ve discussed in the past, every pivot point has two components: an external event and an internal choice. In this case, the external event is the appearance of Jacob Marley’s ghost. The internal choice, on the other hand, is Scrooge complying with the visit of the three Spirits.

ACT 2:  In Act 2, we have two of the three Spirit visits: Ghost of Christmas Past, and the Ghost of Christmas Present. (The Ghost of Christmas Future arrives in Act 3) All three of these Spirits take Scrooge around to different locations, where he can see both events of Christmas in the past, present, and future. As Scrooge makes these visits, his outlook begins to change.

Ghost of Christmas Past: This Spirit is small like a child, with a candle flame coming up out of its head and a cap shaped like a candle extinguisher.

The journey begins at the school where he had been a young boy. While all the other boys cheerfully went home for the holidays, Scrooge was left stranded at the school. While he sees himself alone and neglected, he feels pity for his past self and in feeling that pity he begins to empathize with others (in particular a boy who came caroling to his office the day before).

After visiting his former self at school, the Spirit takes him a little into the future, when Scrooge was a young apprentice for Mr. Fezziwig. On Christmas eve, Fezziwig and his wife had all their employees clear away the desks and furniture in the warehouse where they worked and they threw a dance to celebrate the holiday. Seeing the sort of employer that Fezziwig was and how kindly he treated his employees, Scrooge says to the Spirit:

He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil. Say that his power lies in words and looks; in things so slight and insignificant that it is impossible to add and count ’em up: what then? The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.

Scrooge begins to realize how unkind he has been to his clerk and when the Spirit asks if something is the matter, he says: “​​I should like to be able to say a word or two to my clerk just now. That’s all.”

The third visit Scrooge makes in the past is where he sees himself talking to a young woman. As the scene unfolds, it becomes clear that they have been engaged, but she is now releasing Scrooge of the commitment because she has been replaced with an idol of gold (i.e., money.)

Scrooge’s preoccupation with wealth and greed has supplanted the love he once felt for this young woman, and even if he were to force himself to stand by the engagement, she insists that he would eventually regret it. At this, Scrooge begs the Spirit to stop and show him no more, but the Spirit insists on one more vision. This time the Spirit shows a woman and her children waiting for her husband to get home. The family is loving and kind, a clear illustration of everything that Scrooge could have had but chose to give up.

At this point, Scrooge has had it with the Spirit. He takes its extinguisher cap and plops it on its head, putting out the candle flame and reducing the Spirit to nothing. While Scrooge does have a few moments throughout this journey to the past where he begins to show a change of heart, this final action reveals that he is not yet ready to make a change.

Ghost of Christmas Present: This Spirit is a giant and is dressed in a long robe with a holly wreath on its head. It holds a torch shaped cornucopia.

The first stop on their journey is the house of Bob Cratchit, Scrooge’s clerk. Interestingly, Bob is not mentioned by name until this point in the story. It is as if, until we see him in his home environment, that Bob’s very identity is defined by being Scrooge’s employee. It is only here that we see Bob as a fully-developed character, one with a loving family and a young, disabled son, Tiny Tim.

In this scene at the Cratchit house, Scrooge sees a family that has virtually nothing, but even so are grateful for what they do have. Bob even goes so far as to toast to Scrooge and calls him the “Founder of the Feast.” While his wife is not as enthusiastic about drinking to Scrooge’s health, she eventually does, as do the children. This scene shows Scrooge that true wealth comes from kindness and love, rather than money.

MIDPOINT: During the visit to the Cratchit home, Scrooge asks the Spirit what will become of Tiny Tim. The Spirit answers: “I see a vacant seat… in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved.” This is a false failure because it looks like the worst possible outcome will happen, but it turns out not to be the case. In fact, without Scrooge believing that Tiny Tim would die, he will never reach his change of heart.

When the Spirit tells him what is to come, Scrooge begs the Spirit to let Tiny Tim live and the Spirit quotes his own words back at him: “If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” These are the self-same words Scrooge said earlier when the gentlemen visited his office, asking him to give money to help the poor. In this moment, Scrooge starts to realize that his outlook is wrong. “Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.” This is the moment of self-reflection.

ACT 2 (cont’d): The Spirit takes Scrooge to various places where they see people of meager means celebrating the holiday. Eventually, they end up at the house of Scrooge’s nephew. Here the nephew, his wife, and their friends have a jolly celebration filled with food and games. Scrooge gets so wrapped up watching the games that he does not want to leave.

Eventually, Scrooge notices that the Spirit has grown quite old. He asks the Spirit if its life is very short and the Spirit replies that its life ends at midnight that same night.

PIVOT POINT 2: Before the spirit goes, Scrooge sees a claw-like hand emerge from beneath its robes and the Spirit unfolds its robe to reveal two children. The Spirit tells Scrooge:

This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.

Scrooge asks what can be done and again he hears his own words quoted back to him: “Are there no prisons?… Are there no workhouses?” This is the second pivot point. The external event is the appearance of Ignorance and Want, and the internal choice is Scrooge wanting there to be something that can be done..

Note that many modern adaptations (films, etc.) of A Christmas Carol omit this portion of the story, perhaps because it is the section that feels most on-the-nose and didactic. It is also, in some ways, the most visually disturbing part of the story and stands in direct contrast to the jolly, Christmas imagery in other parts of the novella. Interestingly enough, when adaptations omit this section, they are losing a crucial part of the story arc: the second pivot point.

ACT 3: As Scrooge looks around for the Ghost of Christmas Present, he sees that the Spirit has disappeared and in its place has appeared a silent, looming figure.

Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come: As with the other figures, this one takes Scrooge to various places where he sees shadows of the future. The first stop is a rundown shop where a few people are gathered. They are bringing in things to sell, items belonging to someone who has died. While we do not know the identity of the deceased (though, we can guess!), the purpose of this scene is to show how little these people seem to care about this man. They have even stolen his bedcurtains to sell!

At one point, Scrooge says to the Spirit: “Spirit!… I see, I see. The case of this unhappy man might be my own. My life tends that way, now. Merciful Heaven, what is this!” He has begun to realize that he needs to change his ways, though he has not yet made a full transformation. The scene changes and Scrooge and the Spirit are in a room where a dead man lies covered on a bed. This is the man whose belongings were being sold in the shop and he now lies alone in a room without friends or family to mourn him.

After these, the Spirit takes Scrooge to a home where a woman sits waiting anxiously for her husband by the fire. When he arrives, she asks him what the news is and he replies that the man to whom they owe a sizable sum is dead. (I wonder who that man might be…) While they do not necessarily celebrate the man’s death, they do go to sleep with peace of mind, knowing that their debt will likely be transferred to a more humane creditor.

Finally, the Spirit takes Scrooge back to the Cratchit home, where Tiny Tim has died and the family is in mourning. Unlike the mysterious deceased from the previous scenes who died with out anyone feeling sorry, this family is clearly grieving for its youngest member, in particular Bob Cratchit. This scene shows the immense impact that Tiny Time has made on his family and how much they love him and miss him. It is a stark contrast to the nameless deceased man from the earlier scene in the shop, where all people care about is how to dispose of his belongings.

CLIMAX: The Ghost of Christmas Yet to come takes Scrooge to one final location: a cemetery. The Spirit walks among the graves and points to one in particular. Scrooge approaches the gravestone and sees his own name carved into it. He is the deceased man whose belongings the people in the shop were selling. He is the man lying covered on the bed. He is the creditor whose death the young couple considers with relief. Scrooge finally understands what the Spirits have been trying to show him. He says:

“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!”

Ending Type: This is a “change of heart” ending. Scrooge starts out the story wanting to have nothing to do with Christmas. He despises other people and wants only to be left alone with his money. lBy the end of the story, he does not get what he wants, but he also no longer wants it. In the climax, he chooses to embrace Christmas and also to treat others with kindness and generosity.

DENOUEMENT: Scrooge finds himself in his room and runs to the window. He calls down to a boy in the street to ask what day it is and learns that it’s Christmas Day. The Spirits have done everything in one night and he has not missed Christmas. He asks the boy to run to the local poulterer and buy the biggest turkey, which he instructs should be sent to the Cratchit house.

Next, he dresses and heads out to his nephew’s home. On his way, he runs into the two gentlemen who had asked him to give money for the poor one day prior. He makes an apology and pledges a large sum of money for their cause. Finally, he arrives at his nephew’s house for Christmas dinner, where he enjoys all the games and joyfulness he had seen on his visit with the Spirit.

Finally, the next day, when Bob Cratchit arrives at work a few minutes late, he summons him to his room and announces that he will give him a raise. Then he tells Bob to get more coal for the fire. The story ends with the narrator telling us:

“…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!”

I hope this holiday season brings you much joy and happiness, and that the new year gives you renewed energy and excitement for your writing. Remember: the world needs your stories, and there are readers out there waiting with bated breath for a book just like yours. 

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Three-Act Analysis of A Christmas Carol appeared first on DIY MFA.

The Importance of Reading with Purpose

When I used to interview guest authors on DIY MFA Radio, I used to end each episode with the same question: “What’s your #1 tip for writers?” Hands down, the most common answer to that question was: “Read, read, read,” and it’s no wonder why. Reading is one of the most crucial parts of a literary life. If writers want to improve their craft, they need to read.

A writer who doesn’t read is like a chef who doesn’t eat. They have no idea if what they’re creating is any good because they can’t put their work into context. Reading with purpose allows us to see how our books fit in the greater literary landscape and understand how to make our writing better. It also allows us to see how other writers solve certain problems and we can borrow those solutions and apply them to our own work.

Note that this doesn’t mean we are copying someone else’s writing, not by a long shot. Instead, think of it as like being a mechanic, looking under the hood of a car to see how it works. When we read with purpose, we analyze another writer’s work to see how they do things, then we apply the concepts to our own writing to make it better. We’re not copying the author’s actual words or ideas, but we’re looking at the way they do things and then borrowing some of those strategies.

What Reading with Purpose Entails

Reading with purpose means reading with an eye toward your writing. It means having a core set of books on hand—what I call “the essentials”—so you have ready resources when you need them. It means being strategic when you select books, so your reading will help you with your current work-in-progress. Most importantly, it means reading with an analytical perspective, so you can understand more fully how a piece of literature works, and apply some of those concepts to your own writing. There are three important components of reading with purpose:

1. Having a select group of essential books on hand
2. Compiling a reading list that servers our goals
3. Reading with a writer’s eye

Essential Books to Have on Hand

There are three books that I recommend every writer have in their library. I know what you’re thinking—only three? Yes, you only need three, and these three will be different for each writer. If you’re like most writers, you probably have more than one book in each of these categories, but at the minimum I recommend having one of each. To remember the three books, just think of your ABCs.

• A = Anthology of Short Form Work
• B = Book of Prompts
• C = Craft Reference

Anthology of Short Form Work: It’s useful to have an anthology of short stories, preferably in your chosen genre. If you write memoir, then look for an anthology of essays, and if you write poetry, get your hands on an anthology of poems. Make sure that what you choose is a true anthology with stories by a variety of authors and not a collection by a single author. This is because you want a book that represents the broadest possible range of voices. My go-to short story anthology is The Art of the Short Story, edited by Dana Gioia and R.S. Gwynn. It’s not super-new but it has the classics.

Book of Prompts: A book of prompts is always good to have on hand. I’m especially a fan of prompt books that are organized according to topic (dialogue prompts in one chapter, description prompts in another, etc.). The two prompt books I recommend are: The 3 A.M. Epiphany (and its sequel, The Four A.M. Breakthrough) by Brian Kiteley and the Now Write! series edited by Sherry Ellis and Laurie Lamson. Both series group the prompts by category, only in the Kiteley books, the prompts are by only one author, while in the Now Write! series, the prompts are from various different authors.

Craft Reference: It’s helpful to have a craft reference handy in case you run into questions you don’t know how to answer. Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style is, of course, the classic for matters regarding style and grammar. For broader craft topics, I love books by Donald Maass, Lisa Cron, and Steven James. For “small craft” (i.e., sentence-level stuff) check out Barbara Baig’s Spellbinding Sentences. And, of course, the DIY MFA book also gives an overview of general craft topics.

Building a Reading List

One of the most important parts of reading with purpose is compiling a reading list that truly serves your writing. I remember in the MFA program, reading some books that were completely irrelevant to what I was writing. I kept wondering “what’s the point?” It felt a bit like an exercise in futility. That’s why, when I started DIY MFA, one of the first things I did was develop a rubric so that writers could come up with their own reading list, their own syllabus. This rubric consists of four types of books:

1. Comps: Comparable books (i.e., comps) are similar to your book and would sit on the bookstore shelf next to yours. If a librarian were to recommend a book similar to yours, they would choose one of these comps.
2. Contextual: These are books you read for research. They may not be similar to your book in all respects, but they may have certain aspects in common, like the same setting, or a similar use of point of view. These books lend context to yours.
3. Contemporary: You need to keep your finger on the pulse of your genre or category. This is why it’s important to read a few contemporary books, so you can be aware of trends and know what’s new in your niche.
4. Classics: Everyone should read a classic at least once in a while. Keep in mind, classics don’t necessarily need to be hundreds (or thousands) of years old. Depending on your genre or category, books considered classics might actually be fairly recent.

Reading Like a Writer

I often call reading like a writer “reading like a revolutionary.” This is because when we read with a writer’s eye, we aren’t just passively taking in the story. Instead, we are actively analysing it, not just to understand, but to apply the concepts to our own writing. The key to reading like a writer is examining how the author does what they do on the page, and then considering which of those techniques you can borrow.

How to Read with Purpose

Reading with purpose is like swimming in the ocean: the swimmer is the reader and the ocean is the story. Like the ocean, the story has different layers of depth and reader-swimmers can explore some or all of those layers, depending on their inclination.

Ocean Surface: The WHAT

Most readers/swimmers skim across the surface, because that’s where the air is. At this surface level, they focus on the WHAT of the story (i.e., the logistics). At this level, the reader is con What’s happening? Who are the characters? What is the setting?

These basic, logistical considerations are what we focus on, particularly when we’re first developing as readers. These are the types of questions my kids would have to answer for homework in elementary school. They don’t require deep analysis, just a basic understanding of the facts.

There is nothing wrong with hanging out at the surface. That’s how most people read much of the time. This is the layer where you simply get carried away by a good story, and that’s a perfectly respectable way to read. But, if you want to read like a writer, you have to go deeper.

Coral Reef: The WHY

The second layer of reading is that in-between space between the ocean surface and the ocean floor. Imagine this layer as being like a coral reef with hundreds of colorful fish, lush corals, and brightly patterned shells. This reef represents the WHY of the story (i.e., the interpretation).

This is the layer where we consider deeper, more analytical questions. What does this story mean? Why did the author write this story? How does this story fit into the greater literary context? This is how we were taught to read in high school or college literature classes. We learned to go deeper than pure logistics, but still not quite all the way to the ocean floor.

Keep in mind, reading at this layer can be hard to sustain and you can’t do it indefinitely, just as a swimmer can’t stay underwater for hours on end. Instead, when we analyze literature in this way, we usually do so for contained, specific passages, rather than for the entirety of a book-length work.

Ocean Floor: The HOW

Finally, we get to the third layer. For this one, imagine you’re bobbing along on the surface of the ocean and then you spot a sparkling gem on the ocean floor. Then, you take a deep, gulping breath and you dive all the way to the bottom to retrieve it.

This is what we do when we read for the HOW. We look deep at another author’s work and we spot the gems, and we analyze what that author is doing to understand how exactly they managed to pull it off. Then, we take that gem and we see how we might apply it to our own work.

As with the coral reef layer, this deep dive is difficult to sustain for long passages. We can analyze a writer’s work at this profound level only for short passages. If we try to read an entire book at the ocean floor level, it will be very challenging. This is why reading like a writer is a delicate, aquatic dance, where we continuously shift up and down, from the surface to the ocean floor.

Personalized Anthology Project

One activity I often recommend to writers is to compile a personalized anthology. Whenever you read something and you come across a passage that captures your attention, make a photocopy and put it in a binder. Annotate each excerpt using the WHAT/WHY/HOW framework and once you have ten or more of them in the binder, sort them according to topic (character development, story structure, world-building, description, dialogue, etc.)

The idea here is that over time, you will amass a collection of excerpts specifically from books that are relevant to your writing—because they’re books you selected, not someone else like a professor. The fact that the passages are sorted by topic will make it easier for you to find what you need. Stumped by setting? Look at some of the world-building excerpts in your binder. Not only will they help you figure out craft-related techniques, but they will be directly relevant to what you’re writing.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: What It Means to Read with Purpose appeared first on DIY MFA.

For today’s analysis, we’ll be looking specifically at episode 20 from season 1, titled “Murder Takes the Bus.”  In this episode, Jessica and her friend Sheriff Amos Tupper are on a bus to Portland, Maine when they get stranded at a diner because of a storm.

One thing I love about this episode is that it’s a closed circle mystery, where the characters are all stuck together in one place and the murderer is among them. Closed circle mysteries take place in locations where the suspects have no way to leave, like a country house in a snowstorm or a desert island. The key characteristic of a closed circle mystery is that there is a limited number of suspects, they are all stuck together, and they all have plausible motives for murder.

Another thing I love about “Murder Takes the Bus” is that it’s a nod to one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes: “Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?” The premise is the same: a bunch of people stranded together in a diner during a storm. The only difference is that the Twilight Zone version involves Martians.

Not familiar with the DIY MFA approach to story structure? No problem. Check out this article for a detailed rundown of the framework.

Spoiler Alert!  As with any cozy mystery, we all know that the sleuth is going to solve the case in the end. The key, of course, is figuring out who the murderer is. If you haven’t seen this particular episode and you don’t want the ending spoiled, look for it on a streaming service. (I recently caught it on Prime.) Otherwise, be forewarned, there will be spoilers in this essay.

Okay, let’s dive into our analysis of Murder, She Wrote — Season 1, Episode 20: “Murder Takes the Bus.”

ACT 1: Jessica Fletcher and her friend Sheriff Amos Tupper are going to Portland, Maine for a banquet. Amos is anxious to get to the banquet early because there’s a raffle and the grand prize is a big-screen TV. Before they can leave Cabot Cove, the car breaks down and they are forced to take the bus. They board the bus and we meet some of the supporting characters including fellow passengers and the bus driver.

As they drive, Jessica notices a car following them. The bus stops in front of a state penitentiary and a man gets on. When he boards the bus, he seems to recognize one of the passengers, but it’s unclear who.

The bus gets stopped by an emergency worker who says the power lines are down and there’s flooding up ahead. Nevertheless, the bus continues on. The car that was following the bus passes them, then breaks down and the driver also boards. As he is putting his bag on the overhead rack, Jessica notices he has a gun under his jacket.

In Act One of any story, we always have to fulfill five promises: the character, the voice, the world, the problem, and the event that kicks off the story. Here’s a breakdown of the five promises as they apply to this episode.

Character:  The main character in our story is Jessica Fletcher, a retired school teacher who is now a mystery author. She often stumbles across real life murders and uses her mystery-writing skills to solve them.

Voice:  As with movies, this show does not have a voice per se but a mood. The opening credits help to set that mood by showing a montage of scenes from different episodes of the show interspersed with clips of Jessica at her typewriter. The music is light and upbeat, starting with a tinkling piano and followed by a full orchestra, including bouncy tubas. This music and mood are perfectly fitting for a cosy mystery.

Note that once Jessica and Amos are on the bus and the storm begins, the music changes dramatically from the upbeat piano and tubas in the opening credits to strident strings, reminiscent of the music in the movie Psycho. This is typical of Murder, She Wrote, where the opening credits set the tone for the show as a whole, but each individual episode has a unique score that captures the mood and personality of that particular story.

World: The world of “Murder Takes the Bus” is fairly limited. We have two primary locations: the bus itself, and the diner where the passengers are stranded. 

Problem: The problem at the start of this episode is that the sheriff’s car has broken down and the only way Jessica and Amos can get to Portland is by bus.

Event: The bus has engine trouble and they are forced to stop at the diner.

PIVOT POINT 1: The bus driver needs to stop to check the engine. He pulls over at the Kozy Korner Kitchen and the passengers go inside to stretch their legs. Jessica forgets her book and goes back to the bus to get it. There she finds a passenger dead with a screwdriver plunged into his neck.

As I’ve mentioned in past analyses, the pivot points have two components: an external event and an internal choice. In this case, the external event is Jessica finding Stoner dead and her internal choice is to tell Amos, who is a sheriff after all (even though this is not his jurisdiction). Jessica thinks it’s obvious that one of the people on the bus must be the murderer and tells Amos as much.

ACT 2: This is the part of the mystery where we compile the clues and try to put the puzzle pieces together. We learn the identity of the victim (Gilbert Stoner) and that he had just been released from prison. Jessica says she remembers Stoner’s name from her research. He was part of a bank robbery where at least one of the three robbers was apprehended and an innocent bystander was killed.

SUPPORTING CAST:  At this point, we also meet our cast of supporting characters. Each of the characters introduces themselves and says where they were at the time of the murder.

Kent and Miriam Radford: Kent is a math professor who is fascinated by statistics. Miriam is a librarian. Kent claims to have been playing an arcade game when the murder happened and Miriam was in the diner the whole time.

Cyrus Sleffingwel: He is an older gentleman and a retired postal worker. Like Miriam, he has been in the main dining room of the diner the whole time.

Steve and Jane Pascal: Steve is a computer programmer traveling with his wife, Jane, who is expecting. He says he was outside on the payphone at the time of the crime, but Jessica says she saw him through the window, having an argument with Stoner on the bus.

Joe Downing: He says he is captain of a fishing boat and claims to have been at the bar having a drink during the murder.

Carey Drayson: This is the man who boarded the bus from the broken down car. He says he is a jewelry salesman and he carries a gun for protection because he has valuable jewels in his sample case.

Ben Gibbons: He is the bus driver and he says he was fixing the engine. He adds that he left his toolbox on the bus so anyone could have taken a screwdriver and used it to kill Stoner.

After the introductions, Jessica pulls out a photo that she found with the dead man and says Steve Pascal bears a striking resemblance to one of the men in the picture. Steve refuses to reply but Jane looks at the photo and says that one of the men in it is Steve’s father who died during the heist (along with the innocent bystander). Stoner was caught and the other robber got away. Police never recovered the money.

After this discovery, Jessica begins to explore the diner and figures out that several doors lead outside so anyone could have slipped out and committed the murder. She and Amos go back to the bus where Amos notices a light blinking on the dashboard. That light is for a damper switch. While Amos goes to the back of the bus to check the switch, Jessica looks around the diner to investigate the doors and finds Stoner’s open suitcase out in the rain.

MIDPOINT: Back inside the diner, Steve shares a newspaper clipping giving information about Stoner’s release. That clipping also reveals that the innocent bystander who was killed was named Julie Gibbons.

Amos makes a citizen’s arrest, saying that the driver threw the damper switch on purpose to stop the bus. It turns out that the driver is Julie Gibbons’ father. He confesses to stabbing Stoner with the screwdriver, but Jessica steps up and says that he is not the murderer. She gives proof that Stoner was already dead when Gibbons stabbed him and that he died of strangulation, not stabbing.

This midpoint is a temporary triumph because at first it appears like the murderer has been found, but soon thereafter we realize that there’s more to the case than we first expected.

ACT 2 (CONT’D): The phone lines are down but Ralph, the diner owner, says there is a CB radio in the back room. Carey goes to try to call for help, but he leaves his jewelry sample case behind. Jessica confronts him, asking why he would leave such a valuable case unattended. He reveals that he’s not a jewelry salesman, but that he works for the insurance company and his job is to recover the money that was stolen in the heist.

Jessica wonders why, if they found Stoner’s suitcase, they didn’t find his overcoat or the book he was carrying. She and Amos go back to the bus to look and find both items a few rows behind Stoner’s body. They go back into the diner.

PIVOT POINT 2: The power goes out. There’s a gunshot. When the lights come back on, Jessica rushes to the back room. Carey has been shot but is only slightly wounded. The CB radio, however, has been completely destroyed. Captain Downing helps to tie a bandage around Carey’s wounded arm.

Jessica conjectures that someone among the passengers wants to find something that Stoner had. She believes someone on the bus is the third man from the robbery. Somehow in those few minutes of darkness, Stoner’s book has disappeared.

The external event for this pivot point is the power going out and the possible killer taking Carey’s gun. The internal choice is that Jessica does not give up and continues trying to find the murderer, despite the heightened danger.

ACT 3: Amos starts to search everyone for the book and they eventually find it in Miriam’s knitting bag. Jessica examines the book and finds a key hidden in the binding. She turns and accuses Captain Downing, saying he’s not a real sailor because he used a granny knot to tie Carey’s bandage instead of a square knot.

CRISIS: Downing pulls the gun, but just as he is threatening everyone, the door blows open in the wind. Amos, Steve, and some of the others overpower Downing and take the gun. Downing admits that he had been looking for the key but insists that he did not kill Stoner.

CLIMAX: Jessica says she believes Downing. Amos was right all along when he first made a citizen’s arrest. Ben Gibbons was the killer from the very beginning. He strangled Stoner first, then stabbed him with the screwdriver later to hide his crime. Gibbons says that he didn’t mean to kill Stoner but got caught up in a rage when he confronted Stoner about his daughter’s death. He thought that by confessing to the screwdriver murder, he would draw suspicion away from himself when the coroner determined that it was death by strangulation. He reasoned that if he confessed to the stabbing, he would no longer be a suspect for the real murder.

Ending Type: This is a happy ending because Jessica wants to solve the crime, and she does indeed solve it.

DENOUEMENT: The storm clears and it’s the next morning. The police take Gibbons away and the passengers board the bus to continue on toward Portland. Jessica and Amos are getting ready to head back to Cabot Cove when Amos gets an update about the banquet. He says it was surely a shame that they missed that drawing. Jessica tries to console him but then he reveals that she’s the one who won the TV, not him.

This is a classic Murder, She Wrote ending, where we get a happy scene after the discovery of the killer, often ending with Jessica laughing at some sort of a joke.

ABOUT COZY MYSTERIES: These are among my favorite things to read. What fascinates me about this genre is that while they have to adhere to strict “rules” they are in no way formulaic. I’m always amazed at how authors manage to create variation and keep readers guessing, while still sticking to the format. Cozy mystery “rules” include:

No Death On the Page: While you can have other crimes in cozy mysteries (like robbery, blackmail, kidnapping, or fraud), murder is the most common. That said, we never see the actual murder on the page. The body is discovered after the fact and we never see any violence. (In addition to no violence, cozies also generally don’t have swearing or sex.) In the case of this episode, Jessica finds Stoner already stabbed. We don’t see the actual killing on screen.

Amateur Sleuth: The person doing the investigating is often not law enforcement, but an amateur sleuth. This person usually has some sort of special skill that makes them ideally suited to solving crimes. In the case of Murder, She Wrote, Jessica is a mystery writer so she knows how criminals think (because she has to write them).

Quirky Supporting Characters: While the amateur sleuth is usually a unique and interesting character, the supporting cast is no less fascinating. Often the supporting cast includes quirky personalities, particularly those of recurring characters (like the bumbling Amos Tupper, the witty Dr. Seth Hazlitt, and Jessica’s dopey nephew, Grady Fletcher).

Quaint Setting: Cozy mysteries typically take place in small towns or other quaint settings. You’re not going to find a cozy mystery set in a gritty city, though sometimes the sleuth might travel to other places and solve a crime on their trip.

Keep in mind, one of the challenges of cozy mysteries is what folks have lovingly come to call “Cabot Cove Syndrome.” This is the problem that when you have a small town and a lot of murders, you may eventually run out of possible murder victims (and suspects). Murder, She Wrote sidesteps this problem by alternating Cabot Cove episodes with ones where Jessica travels somewhere else for writing-related events or to visit friends and family. Yes, an inordinate number of murders still take place in that idyllic town, but they are interspersed with episodes that take place in a variety of other settings like a fancy vineyard, a luxurious cruise, or an archeological dig.

The key to cozy mysteries is that readers want some predictability while still being in suspense as to whodunnit. Readers love the quirky characters and the quaint setting, and they love following along with the sleuth, putting the pieces of the puzzle together. At the same time, they want variety. This is why cozy mysteries will play with different themes and sometimes branch out into new settings. “The same, but different” is the key to keeping cozy mysteries interesting.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Three-Act Analysis of Murder, She Wrote appeared first on DIY MFA.

Today I thought I’d share a few questions you can ask yourself in order to select the best POV for your story. This way, when you’re faced with choosing a point of view for your work, you can weigh the pros and cons and land on the best option. Here are five things to consider when selecting POV.

(1) Whose thoughts do you need to be able to access?

Ultimately, all POV considerations boil down to one thing: information access. Depending on which type of narration you choose, you will have access to different types of information.

For example, if you’re using a single first person POV, you will have access to all of the narrating character’s thoughts and emotions. Anything that goes through that character’s head is fair game and you can use all of it. The downside is that you won’t be able to do this with anybody else’s thoughts and feelings and your character will have to make inferences based on other characters’ body language, dialogue, and demeanor to deduce what they might be thinking or feeling.

The easy way around this limitation is to use a multiple first person POV, where you alternate between the first person perspectives of a handful of key characters. The advantage of this choice is that you have access to more than one person’s thoughts and emotions. The downside is that it can sprawl a little out of control and it can be hard for the reader to get a good sense of whose story this is.

The same considerations also come into play with the third person POV. On one hand, you  have a single limited third person, where the narration follows one character closely and gives you access only to that one character’s mind. You can also use the multiple third person, where the POV consists of a limited third person approach but alternates between different focal characters. We see the multiple third person a lot in epic stories with broad, sweeping worlds, where the reader needs to be able to follow what’s going on with different characters in different locations.

Both the first person and limited third person POVs have similar limitations in that you can only access one character’s thoughts and feelings at a time. The multiple POV options allow the author to be in multiple different characters’ heads, but it can present challenges. For example, the shifts from one character’s POV to another might be jarring if not executed well. Plus, you can’t “head hop” from one character’s mind to another in the same scene.

The place where multiple POV gets interesting is when we see the same scene from more than one character’s perspective. The TV show The Affair explored this contrast by showing the same segment in time from two different characters’ points of view. In one key scene, we see  the events unfold from the female lead’s perspective. She’s catering a party where the male lead is a guest. She is wearing a simple dress shirt and slacks and keeping a professional distance from her counterpart. When we’re in the male lead’s perspective, on the other hand, the female lead is wearing a short, slinky black dress and is acting very flirtatious. By showing the same scene from the different points of view, we get a sense for each character’s state of mind when they first meet.

(2) How sympathetic (or unsympathetic) is the main character?

Another consideration, when it comes to POV, is how sympathetic (or unsympathetic) the main character of the story might be. Often, when the protagonist is unsympathetic or hard to relate to, it helps to use another character as a go-between via the peripheral first person POV. We see this especially when the main character is larger-than-life, making it hard for the reader to relate to that character.

In DIY MFA terms, there are two types of main characters (not counting antiheroes, who are a special category all their own). These main characters can either be relatable (i.e. a regular person caught in extraordinary circumstances) or aspirational (i.e. a larger-than-life heroic character). Think of “relatable” and “aspirational” as opposite ends of the same spectrum and the author’s goal is to try and nudge that main character a little bit toward the opposite end of that spectrum. In other words, if a character is relatable, we need to show their heroic side, whereas if a character is aspirational, we need to show their softer side. This does not mean making your character go “out of character” but rather is about showing their potential for growth.

What does this have to do with POV? Sometimes when characters are so much larger-than-life, it’s hard for readers to connect to them. This is where the peripheral POV can be useful. For the peripheral first person POV, we have the story narrated through the first person perspective of a supporting character (not the main character). This supporting character is often more relatable than the protagonist, giving the reader a way in to connect with that main character. Examples of peripheral first person POV are The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and the Sherlock Holmes series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

(3) Does the reader need to follow multiple story threads at once?

This is perhaps the most important consideration when thinking about a single versus multiple point of view. If you have a broad, sweeping world with lots of different things happening at the same time in different places, then the only way to capture all of those scenes is to use a multiple POV. A great example of this is the Prydain Chronicles (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, etc.). The first four books of this series are in a limited (single) third person POV following the character of Taran. Then the author flips the script.

In the final book, The High King, we see the epic battles across the kingdom from various different characters’ perspectives. I remember when I first read it and I came to a passage told through the POV of a raven flying in the sky, high above a battlefield. At first, I thought the author had made a mistake. But as I read the rest of the story, I realized that the author could not have done it any other way. There are different battles scattered throughout the kingdom, with scenes following each of the characters in each battle. If we had stayed only in Taran’s POV, we would have missed out on a huge part of the story.

For this reason, it’s important to consider the pragmatics of the POV you choose. Do you need to be in different places at the same time? If so, a multiple POV might be your best bet. Also, do you need to access more than one character’s thoughts and emotions? Again, you might want to go with a multiple POV option. The two key things to consider with a multiple POV are: (1) connection to the protagonist, and (2) transitions between different POVs.

In terms of connection to the protagonist, remember that when you have multiple perspectives, it becomes trickier for the reader to identify one character as the protagonist. Sometimes, the author does this on purpose because they want the reader to “latch on” to the character of their choosing. Other times, the author has multiple perspectives, but one character still rises to the top as the protagonist. Just be aware that when you play with multiple POVs, the reader may not know exactly who they should root for. That can be a good thing if you’re going for ambiguity, but it can also create confusion for the reader.

When it comes to transitions between different POVs, it’s important that the reader knows exactly which character they’re following and when. Some authors solve this problem by putting the POV character’s name in the chapter heading. Other authors don’t use headers in this way and instead, simply make it clear from the text which character’s POV we’re in. Whatever option you choose, it’s important to include a section break or chapter break when the POV changes so the reader is prepared for the shift. It doesn’t have to whap the reader over the head, but it should be clear who the POV character is. Some authors might even get extra creative by using different icons at the start of a chapter to symbolize each POV character. Or they might add additional information in the chapter heading, like date and time or location coordinates. This way, what can feel a little heavy-handed in using chapter headings to signify POV shifts, can actually become an opportunity for extra creativity.

(4) How realistic do you want the story to feel?

Realism is relative and different POVs capture realism in different ways. I once sat in on a lecture by David Morrell (the author of First Blood, featuring the character Rambo) where he talked about how point of view and realism are intertwined. He gave a historical overview of different point of view options, explaining when and why they came into play. As it turns out, depending on the type of POV option you choose, you can create a sense of realism in different ways.

The earliest novels are written in traditional (single) first person, which gives the story a feeling of being “straight from the horse’s mouth,” like we are hearing an unvarnished account from someone who experienced the events of the story first hand. The first person also lends that feeling of it being confessional, like you’re being told about the events directly from the person who was there. Of course, the limitations of the traditional first person are what we have already discussed—that it does not allow for access into anyone else’s mind or perspective. It also means that in order for the reader to experience a given scene, the first person narrator must be in that scene.

A variation on the traditional first person is the epistolary form, which makes it feel like the reader is spying on someone’s private correspondence. It has a voyeuristic quality to it, making it feel like we’re reading actual letters. Another, similar form is the use of diary entries to tell the story. Diary form has the same voyeuristic essence to it, but instead of the correspondence being between two people, it is more of a one-sided conversation with only one person’s perspective appearing in the diary. The primary limitation of this form is that certain things (like dialogue) don’t make sense in a letter or a diary entry. It can also be tempting to fall into the “tell, don’t show” trap, because both letters and diary entries lend themselves to exposition more than scene.

While authors began experimenting with traditional first person and epistolary form, not long thereafter they also began using the omniscient third person. This is the “eye in the sky” narrator who knows all and sees all. It gives the story a sense of objectivity because it feels like it’s just the facts. We see a lot of nineteenth century authors—like Charles Dickens and Jane Austen—using the omniscient third person POV. The key to making the omniscient POV work is to have a firm grasp on who the protagonist is. Yes, you can hop from one character’s head to another in the same scene, but make sure the reader doesn’t lose sight of the main character.

(5) How reliable do you want your narrator to seem?

Finally, we get to the question of reliability (or unreliability, as the case may be). I once heard an author say that all first person narrators were by definition unreliable. This is because the character acts as a lens and we see the whole story through that narrator’s perspective. If the narrator is opinionated, or overly naïve, or insane, those factors will influence how the character perceives the events of the story.

A great example of an unreliable narrator is The Tell-Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe. This short story uses what we call a “deep first person” POV because we are so deeply inside that character’s mind that we are immersed in his interpretation of events. His attitude toward the old man and his “vulture eye,” his insistence that he is not mad and is being perfectly reasonable, we take all of these things for granted because we are so fully absorbed by his perspective. Of course, we know that the protagonist is not sane and that his opinions and actions are far from reasonable, but we can’t help but get swept away by the events of the story because of this deep first person point of view.

Conclusion

There you have it, five questions to ask about point of view to help you pick the right choice for your story. Of course, if you choose one option and it doesn’t seem to be working, you can always experiment with something different. Make sure if you switch POV you don’t just go in and do something like swap out the “I” pronoun for he/she/they. That’s the paint-by-numbers approach to point of view and it will squash your voice and make your writing feel stilted. Instead, choose a scene to try in a different POV, read it through, then rewrite the whole thing from memory. Trust that your brain will hang onto the good stuff and that whatever doesn’t make it into the rewritten version was not all that important anyway. I call this process rebooting a scene and the reason it works is because it allows you to capture that energy and drive you get from writing something fresh, but do it with the direction of knowing where the scene needs to go. When editing for voice and point of view, the reboot approach is hands-down your best bet.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Which Point of View Should You Choose? appeared first on DIY MFA.

Not familiar with the three-act structure? No worries. Read this article for a detailed discussion on this topic.

Spoiler Alert! If you’re not familiar with Animal Farm, it’s a satire and allegory for totalitarianism. Even though it was published in 1945, many elements of that story may feel eerily familiar in this day and age. The book itself is a novella and quite short, so if you haven’t read it, grab a copy and dive in. It’s a quick read. And, of course, as with all our three-act analyses, there will be spoilers… so, there you go.

Okay, let’s dive into our analysis of Animal Farm.

ACT 1: The story begins with a vivid opening image: “Mr. Jones, of the Manor Farm, had locked the henhouses for the night, but was too drunk to remember to shut the popholes. With the ring of light from his lantern dancing from side to side, he lurched across the yard, kicked off his boots at the back door, drew himself a last glass of beer from the barrel in the scullery, and made his way up to bed, where Mrs. Jones was already snoring.”

Right from the get-go, we get a sense for what the status quo looks like in this story. I often talk about Act 1 as being like a “before picture” in an infomercial: it shows us what things were like before the transformation so we have context and a basis of comparison. From this opening image, we get a sense of what life is like on the farm and we see that Mr. Jones is quite inadequate as a farmer and leader. This sets the scene for the animals to rebel against the humans and create Animal Farm.

Here’s how the five promises of Act One break down.

Character: Interestingly enough, there is no one character that we root for in this story. In fact, you could say that the true protagonist is not a single character at all, but the collective—every animal in Animal Farm, together as one. Still, there are a few characters who stand out and are worth noting:

• • • Old Major, the aged pig who convinces the other animals to rebel against the farmer.
    • Napoleon, the pig who eventually takes leadership of Animal Farm.
    • Squealer, a pig who becomes the spokes-pig for Napoleon’s regime.
    • The dogs, who become Napoleon’s private guard and secret police.
    • Snowball, a pig who at first collaborates (and also competes) with Napoleon, but is later exiled and scapegoated.
    • Boxer, the strong workhorse who is dedicated to the mission of Animal Farm.
    • Clover, the mare who begins as a true believer, but later begins to question.
    • Benjamin, the donkey philosopher who sees things for what they truly are.
    • Muriel, the goat who is one of the few animals on the farm who can read (besides the pigs, or course).
    • Mollie, the foolish mare who can’t let go of the old ways and eventually runs away.
    • Moses, the raven who represents religion and spirituality.

Note that we meet most of these animals right at the beginning of Chapter 1—with the exception of the pigs, who remain relatively anonymous until after the revolution. In fact, the spotlight at the beginning of the book is really on Old Major, and while Orwell name-drops many of the other characters (minus the pigs), it’s more to give us a sense for the vastness of the farm and the sheer number of animals represented in it. We don’t really get to know most of the animals until after the revolution. In this way, the collective (and not the individual) is the central character of the story.

Voice: Because this is satire, there’s a thread of irony—and sometimes even humor—throughout the story. There are certain things that are downright absurd (like when the pigs start walking on their hindlegs) and some things that are truly tragic (like when Boxer gets taken away).

World: The story centers on the farm—first called Manor Farm, then changed to Animal Farm (and then changed back). While we get hints of a world beyond the borders of the farm, we never see it on the page.

Problem: Mr. Jones is a terrible farmer and the animals are unhappy.

Event: That night, after Mr. Jones goes to bed drunk, Old Major calls all the animals together for a meeting. He teaches them a song called Beasts of England and gets them all riled up for revolution.

Overall, Act 1 of Animal Farm is relatively short (about a chapter), and soon thereafter we reach the first pivot point.

PIVOT POINT 1:  Old Major dies three days later in his sleep. The animals decide to rise up, start a revolution, and take the farm for themselves. (The revolution is the external event.)

Once they have won and taken the farm, the animals come together and make a set of rules, or Seven Commandments. (This is the internal choice.)

The making of these commandments is a pivotal moment. We’ll be reminded of these commandments again and again throughout the story, and at times, when it seems the commandments have been broken, it will turn out they have only been “misremembered.”

ACT 2:  At first, it seems like everything is going well. The animals are happy with their newfound freedom and the farm is productive and appearing to prosper. Slowly, the pigs begin to take on more and more power, with Snowball and Napoleon constantly at odds with each other and jockeying for leadership. As time passes, we start to see evidence of Napoleon’s power over the rest of the farm, as well as instances where the Seven Commandments are seemingly broken.

Napoleon’s Rise to Power

Early on after the Revolution, the dogs have nine puppies who mysteriously disappear into Napoleon’s care. (He claims to be taking charge of their education.) None of the animals give it a second thought until Snowball and Napoleon begin to argue over the windmill (Snowball in favor, Napoleon against).

In the midst of this argument, “there was a terrible baying sound outside, and nine enormous dogs wearing brass-studded collars came bounding into the barn. They dashed straight for Snowball, who only sprang from his place just in time to escape their snapping jaws.” These dogs are the puppies—now all grown up and acting as Napoleon’s secret police.

The dogs chase off Snowball, who runs away, never to be seen again. However, Napoleon continually blames anything that goes wrong on the farm as part of Snowball’s evildoing, claiming that Snowball is trying to infiltrate the farm from the outside.

A second, more dramatic instance of Napoleon showing his power is when he holds a series of public executions. Several animals are executed for admitting to treason and being in league with Snowball. These executions leave the surviving animals shaken and questioning. Yet, Napoleon’s power over the other animals has now been sealed. He has shown his ruthlessness by even executing a few pigs who had spoken out against him. (Not even fellow pigs are safe!)

The animals also fight two battles with the humans, one called the Battle of the Cowshed, in which the animals clearly win, and later a battle surrounding the windmill, where the animals are barely able to hold onto the farm. Napoleon (along with the rest of the pigs and the dogs) uses both battles as a way to maintain his power over the other animals. He claims the battles are examples of humans’ evildoings and creates an “us against them” mentality that distracts the animals from the truth: that Napoleon is slowly but surely making himself a totalitarian dictator.

RULE OF 3: The Seven Commandments are a fundamental part of the story, and with them we have an interesting Rule of 3 (with a twist). Throughout Act 2, we have three instances where the Seven Commandments are clearly broken by the pigs, yet when the other animals check, they find that the written Commandments have been edited. While some animals begin to entertain doubts, most of them chalk it up to misremembering the original Commandments.

Here are the Seven Commandments as originally stated:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes,
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

The first instance of breaking the Seven Commandments is when the pigs move into the Farmhouse and start sleeping in the beds. Clover and Muriel go to read the original Commandments and find that Commandment #4 says: “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.” Squealer, always the smooth-talker, manages to convince them that the objection was never to beds per se, but to the sheets.

The second example of breaking the Seven Commandments comes with the executions. The surviving animals are horrified and even Boxer (whose catchphrase is “Napoleon is always right”) begins to question how something so terrible could happen on their farm. When Clover asks Muriel to read her the Sixth Commandment, she discovers that it says: “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.” They admit that they must have misremembered the Commandment and recognize that clearly Napoleon did have cause to execute those traitors since they were in league with Snowball.

The third example of breaking the Commandments is when the pigs get drunk. The pigs find some whiskey and drink to the point where they are so hungover, they think Napoleon might die. After a few days, Napoleon and the rest of the pigs recover, and when Muriel goes to read the Commandments, she finds that the Fifth Commandment says: “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.”

What makes this third instance stand out from the other two is that it is the first time the pigs are breaking a Commandment not just to claim power, but without much good reason at all. The first two times they break the Commandments (and then edit them thereafter) it is clearly a strategic move from Napoleon to elevate his power. The third instance with the whiskey, however, is purely frivolous. He’s not breaking the Commandments as part of a strategy, he’s just doing it because he can and that is enough. This frivolity shows just how deeply entrenched his power is by this point in the story.

The twist with this Rule of 3 is that we actually have a fourth instance (which occurs in Act 3), and in this case the entire Seven Commandments get overwritten altogether. In other words, the Seven Commandments are not simply edited but completely replaced with one single Commandment: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

MIDPOINT: At around the midway point of the novella, we get a temporary triumph. The animals are working hard, but they are happy because they are free and not working for a “pack of idle, thieving human beings.” While they are working hard, things seem to be going reasonably well.

If they had no more food than they had in Jones’s day, at least they did not have less. The advantage of only having to feed themselves, and not having to support five extravagant human beings as well, was so great that it would have taken a lot of failures to outweigh it. And in many ways the animal method of doing things was more efficient and saved labor.

But then things start to change. Napoleon decides on a new policy: that Animal Farm will trade with neighboring farms. After all, if they are to build a windmill, they need materials and supplies that they can’t produce themselves on the farm. The other animals start having doubts. While nobody does anything about it, this is the first moment where the animals start to doubt and question Napoleon’s leadership.

PIVOT POINT 2: Boxer, the horse (and perhaps the most loyal of Napoleon’s followers) gets injured while building the windmill. He is close to the age of retirement and is looking forward to his days out in the peaceful pasture. Yet, one afternoon, a cart comes to take him away. It turns out that he is being taken to the horse slaughterer. This is the external event that marks the second pivot point.

The internal choice is how the animals choose to believe Squealer’s excuse that Boxer was not being taken to a horse slaughterer and was, in fact, being taken to the veterinary hospital. The animals choose to believe that Boxer died peacefully after receiving the best of care and all manner of expensive treatments (which, of course, Napoleon supposedly paid for without a second thought). This choice to believe the lie opens the door for Act 3, in which the pigs become so similar to humans that they are almost unrecognizable.

ACT 3: Like Act 1, Act 3 is also a single chapter in length. The beginning of Chapter 10 uses exposition to skip time, making the chapter seem longer than it is.

Years passed. The seasons came and went, the short animal lives fled by. A time came when there was no one who remembered the old days before the Rebellion, except Clover, Benjamin, Moses the raven, and a number of the pigs.

Regardless of how things are going, though, the animals of the farm never give up hope. They find it a point of honor that they are part of Animal Farm, the only animal-run farm in the country. This pride and belief in what they are doing seems to sustain them and keep them optimistic.

CRISIS: Squealer orders the sheep to follow him to a deserted part of the farm, supposedly to learn a new song. Up until that point, the sheep had a habit of breaking out into chants of “Four legs good, two legs bad!” whenever the animals started getting antsy or possibly questioning Napoleon’s leadership. This chant was a sort of shorthand for the Seven Commandments. For a whole week, Squealer stays sequestered with the sheep, teaching them that new song “for which privacy was needed.”

Then one evening Clover sees something terrifying. “It was a pig walking on his hind legs.” Up until that point, animals were forbidden to walk on hind legs like humans. This fact was included in two of the Seven Commandments.

CLIMAX: Then Napoleon appears.

And finally there was a tremendous baying of dogs and a shrill crowing from the black cockerel, and out came Napoleon himself, majestically upright, casting haughty glances from side to side, and with his dogs gambolling round him.

He carried a whip in his trotter.

At this moment, all the sheep break out into a new chant: “Four legs good, two legs better!” We have seen throughout the story how Napoleon has slowly imposed his power over the other animals, but it is this moment where we see that he is no better than the human farmer before him. Shortly thereafter, the Seven Commandments are replaced by the one: “some animals are more equal than others.” After that, the pigs start wearing clothes signaling the last of the Seven Commandments has now officially been broken. It’s as though the Commandments never even existed.

At this point in the story, we have come full circle, with a new oppressor standing over the oppressed. From here on out, Napoleon (along with the pigs) only continues to become more and more similar to his human predecessor. 

Ending Type: Our protagonist is the collective of animals on Animal Farm and the thing that they want is freedom. They want to be free of oppression and live happily together on the farm. The animals still want that at the end of the book (at least, the ones like Clover and Benjamin, who remember what it was like before the rebellion).

But they do not have freedom at the end of the story. In fact, they are no better off (and are perhaps even worse off) at the end than they were at the beginning. Since they do not get what they want and they still want it, this would be a tragic ending.

DENOUEMENT: After Napoleon (and other pigs) start walking on their hind legs, things devolve quickly. The pigs hold a meeting in the farmhouse with the humans—the very same ones who they had previously been in conflict with. During this meeting Napoleon announces that they are changing the name of Animal Farm back to “Manor Farm.”

The animals outside the farmhouse look in the window and are confused because they can’t tell the pigs apart from the humans. The story ends with this closing image: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Three-Act Analysis of Animal Farm appeared first on DIY MFA.

I think the thing that got me tied up in knots about dictation was the tech. I had this idea in my head that the only way to dictate my writing would be to use some fancy microphone or elaborate software. In actuality, right now I’m just using my phone—regular old smart phone—and a little app called Bear. (It’s a notetaking app that’s super bare-bones and doesn’t have all the bells and whistles other apps might have).

The other thing that had me hesitating about dictation was this idea that I had to get it right the first time. I’ll admit it, I am a major perfectionist. If I can’t do something right then I often give up and try something else. It’s uncomfortable to feel like you don’t know what you’re doing, but if you ever want to learn a new skill, you have to get past that hump.

Finally, this whole idea of dictating my work felt a little… weird. Not gonna lie. The idea of sitting around and talking out loud into my phone and then somehow ending up with a newsletter… that’s just bizarre. But now that I’m doing it—now that I’m on a roll—dictation’s actually pretty cool.

Let me share a few reasons why I’m enjoying dictation.

1) Anytime, anywhere.

The great thing about dictation is you can do it anywhere and you’re not stuck sitting at your computer. Right now I’m lying with my feet up, with office cat 2.0 curled up next to me, and I’m writing a newsletter all at the same time. How cool is that?

For a lot of writers this freedom can be game-changing. You can write while you’re walking . You can write while you’re doing dishes. You can write while you’re sitting with your feet up relaxing. This ability to write anywhere is especially important for writers who can’t sit at their desk for long periods of time.

By the time you read this newsletter I’ll be recovering from reconstructive surgery on my foot. At the time of this writing, I’m still a ways away from this surgery and I have no idea how I’ll be feeling when this newsletter goes out. Yet, now that I’m trying dictation, I have a hunch that I’ll be doing a lot more of it during those weeks when I can’t sit at my desk. Dictation may very well become my go-to during recovery.

2) It’s fast.

Dictating your work can go a lot faster than typing at a keyboard. For example, I’ve been at this dictation for about 10 minutes, and already I have almost 500 words on the page. This is mind-boggling. Keep in mind, I’m a reasonably quick writer at the keyboard. I can usually average about 1,000-1,500 words an hour, which I’ve been told is a respectable pace. But 500 words in 10 minutes? That’s almost twice as fast. I could never crank out this many words when I’m sitting at my computer.

I’ll admit, dictation does require some thinking. The words don’t just spill out on the page like magic. I have to pause from time to time to think about what I’m going to say next. Sometimes I lose my train of thought and have to backtrack. Even so, the writing still goes a lot faster when I dictate than it does when I type.

I’ve heard some pretty amazing stories of writers cranking out three, four, even five thousand words while dictating their work. But even if your word count doesn’t quite reach that level, there are some other big benefits of dictation. It’s easier on your wrists and your posture. It gives you flexibility to write whenever you want. Plus it exercises a different part of your brain, helping you to tap into other aspects of your creativity.

3) It’s easy.

Truth be told, dictation can be in some ways easier than writing on the computer. I don’t know about you, but I have a secret habit of talking to myself when I need to work out my thoughts. There’s something about hearing my thoughts out loud that gives me a different perspective and allows me to think more creatively than I would otherwise. Sitting at the computer is all silence. The thoughts stay isolated in my head, bouncing around kind of like they’re in an echo chamber.

Dictation is a way of tapping into that same creativity that comes from thinking out loud. You hear your ideas in a different way, and it helps you gain a new perspective on what you’re writing. So, here I am sitting with my phone, talking out this newsletter. Not only has it gone pretty smoothly and quickly, but I’ve also gotten ideas after the fact that I’ve been able to insert into this essay during revision. A lot of these insights have come from being able to hear my thoughts out loud.

4) It’s good practice at being a beginner.

Perhaps the best (and, in some ways, also the worst) part of dictation is that it forces me to sit with the discomfort of not doing things perfectly. Like I said before, I am a huge perfectionist, so this idea of being a beginner at something and having to learn a skill from scratch is really uncomfortable. And yet it’s only when we do uncomfortable things that we’re able to grow. If we stay perpetually in our comfort zone, we are never going to stretch ourselves and build new skills.

Here’s the funny thing about the comfort zone: it’s not a fixed space. When I think of the comfort zone, I think of a circle with me at the center. That circle represents everything that’s comfortable and familiar. If I want to stretch myself I have to move to the edge of the circle. That’s the edge of my comfort zone.

But here’s the weird thing about the comfort zone. If we stay by the edge of the circle long enough, that comfort zone expands and starts to look like a gigantic peanut. In other words, if we want to stay at the edge of our comfort zone, we can’t stay in the same place forever. We have to push ourselves constantly to the new edge, wherever that may be. We can’t stay complacent in the middle. We have to challenge ourselves to dance on that edge of discomfort.

One Caveat: It’s just the first draft.

As I’ve written this newsletter, I’ve gone back-and-forth between dictating portions of it, and then refining those segments on the computer thereafter. Sometimes I realize I’ve missed something, so I go back to my phone and I dictate a new segment. It’s been an organic process, moving from the computer to the phone and back again.

I share this because a lot of us have a misconception that when you dictate your work, it has to come out perfectly, with no revisions necessary. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. When we dictate, we stumble. We misspeak. We repeat ourselves. And that’s OK.

The whole point of dictation is to get the words down on the page so that we have raw material that we can come back to later. Dictation is where we crank out that messy first draft—Draft Zero. Then at the computer, we can go back and clean up what we have. It’s not supposed to be perfect. It’s just supposed to be. The whole point of a messy first draft is to exist. Nothing else. Every other refinement happens in revision.

Knowing that I could go back and revise my words took a lot of pressure off of trying this dictation experiment. Not only is it okay not to be perfect, but the whole point of trying dictation is just to get those words down as quickly as possible so that I can revise them later. That’s exactly how it has played out for me. 

I’m still getting used to this technique and it will likely be a while until I feel fully comfortable dictating my writing. Still I’m glad I tried it out this time. I might not use it in every circumstance, but having a new technique in my repertoire makes me a more versatile writer and that’s always a good thing.

Until next time, keep writing and keep being awesome!

P.S. For more info on Gabriela Pereira, the founder and instigator of DIY MFA, check out her profile page.

The post Writer Fuel: Trying Out a New Technique – Dictation appeared first on DIY MFA.