You are browsing the archive for 2009 April.

Next Entries →

The Haunting in Connecticut – Fact or Fiction?

April 10, 2009 in Best Of, Movie Reviews, Paranormal

haunting_in_connecticut_ver22

Just how much of it is true?

Yesterday I watched the ‘based on the true story’ film The Haunting in Connecticut.

First, a short review

To be honest, despite the poor reviews the film was received, it wasn’t all that bad.  It was just average, and for a supernatural horror film, ‘average’ is pretty good these days.  In my opinion, it was one of those rare horror films that actually got better as it progressed.  In the first half or so, the attempted scares were your stock standard ‘boo’ moments and the bloody, visceral shocks you’d expect to see in any regular PG-13 horror.  I don’t know why, but for some reason I found myself actually frightened a few times in the second half, and that’s a rarity for me nowadays.  I even forgot how insanely and ridiculously stupid and non-sensical (even within the confines of the film’s own logic) everything was.  And for that,  3 out of 5 stars!

Fact or Fiction?

After I got home, I started wondering just how much of the film was really ‘based’ on the true story?  Was it even a true story to begin with?  Which characters existed and what parts of the film actually happened in real life?

And so I turned to the trusty old Internets for some answers.  The results were…interesting.

The film is ‘based’ on supposedly true events that happened to the Snedeker family in 1986 when they moved into a house that turned out to be a former funeral home.  Naturally, spooky stuff started happening.  Their oldest son, who was 13 at the time and being treated for Hodgkin’s disease (the ’Matt Campbell’ character from the movie) started behaving strangely and their 17-year old niece said she was fondled by unseen hands.  The mother, Carmen Snedeker (the ‘Sarah Campbell’ character from the movie), also claimed to be the victim of demonic sexual assaults.  There were many other alleged disturbances (such as water to blood, putrid odours, crucifixes going haywire or disappearing etc) but these were the most serious.

Eventually, Carmen Snedeker brought in Ed and Lorraine Warren, the infamous old ghostbusting couple that covered the ‘Amityville Horror’ haunting.  The Warren’s nephew, John Zaffis, also joined in for observations.  They became convinced that the house was haunted by demons.  A Catholic priest was brought in and the spirits were exorcised, and things went back to normal after that.  The Snedekers left two and a half years after they moved in.

With help from the Warrens, the Snedekers’ story was first brought to light by the book In a Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting by Ray Garton, a horror fiction writer, and was also the subject of an episode of the TV show A Haunting titled A Haunting in Connecticut.  From what I’ve read about the book and the TV show, both were incredibly frightening.

Fact?

I wanted to know how credible the true story behind the movie was, so I dug a little further.

What John Zaffis said

John Zaffis is the nephew of the Warrens that were brought in by the Snedeker’s for help. Here is the full article he wrote about the Snedekers and their funeral home house.

In short, he discusses some of the background and events detailed in In a Dark Place and talks about his own experiences in the house.  Here’s an extract:

This is the case where I had my first encounter with a full formed demon and it is something to this day that I will never forget. I was sitting at the dining room table when it started to get ice cold in the room, at this point I knew something was getting ready to happen. I tried to get the other researchers or family members to respond to me by calling out to them but they did not. I knew at this point this was meant for me to experience alone. I had gotten up and walked into the hallway and looked up at the top of the stairs, I began to smell something like rotting meat which was all over this area and it was unbearable. As I continued to look up the grand staircase, I started to see something begin to form, as it slowly descended down the staircase. It was the ugliest thing I had ever seen, it had come to the last step on the staircase and it said to me “do you know what they did to us, do you know”? That was enough for me, I left the home and did not return for three days. I do not think I’ve ever encountered anything that has scared me as bad as that, I would not speak to anyone for days after the encounter, but I did go back to work on the case, the family needed our help.

Sounds pretty scary, right?

What Chip Coffey said

Chip Coffey is a self-proclaimed ‘psychic, medium, spiritual counselor and paranormal investigator’ who became involved with the Snedekers when the TV show was made. Here’s his blogger site.

Coffey also wrote an article about the haunting in Connecticut titled ‘Demons from the dark’ which mirrored a lot of the things said in Zaffis’s article. Here it is anyway.

Carmen Snedeker’s website

Carmen Snedeker is still around and she has her own website, which was surprisingly difficult to find. Follow this link to visit the page.

I must say, had I only seen Zaffis’s and Coffey’s articles, I would have found it all pretty convincing (maybe not convinced, but it would have been convincing).  But Carmen’s website smells funny – from the smiling ‘star-shot’ portrait to the shameless promotion of herself, advertising for supernatural investigators (including Zaffis), her touring lectures about the hauntings and (here’s the clincher) the brand new book on the haunting she is working on with Zaffis and Coffey!  Now they don’t sound so convincing anymore.

Carmen also mentions the feature film, which she believes “will bring a new understanding of what went on in the house”.  Clearly she had no idea of what the Hollywood producers had in mind.

Fiction?

From Carmen’s website, the Snedekers’ story began to completely fall apart.

What Garton said about his own book

From first publication of In a Dark Place, author Ray Garton has been savaging his own ‘non-fiction’ book and the Warrens.  I’ve found numerous examples of him condeming what he wrote as, effectively, made up.  By him.  Fiction.

Probably the most complete account comes from his interview at Horror Bound Magazine (see entire interview here - worth a read because it’s quite funny and interesting – and has some good advice for aspiring writers at the end):

Q: You’ve written both fiction and non-fiction. In one case in particular, a book that was labeled “non-fiction” should have been labeled “fiction” (through no fault of your own). For those Horror Bound readers who have a huge interest in the paranormal and who have followed the careers of Ed and Lorraine, what would you say?

 

A: Ah, the Warrens. Ed, of course, has gone to that great haunted house in the sky, but Lorraine is still around. Back in the early ‘90s, I was offered a chance to write a book for Ed and Lorraine. As a kid, I used to follow their ghost-hunting exploits in the National Enquirer. I thought it sounded like a fun job, so I took it. I went to Connecticut and spent time with the Snedeker family. They’d moved into a house with their sick son and learned the place used to be a funeral home. They claimed all kinds of spooky things had happened in the house. They’d called in Ed and Lorraine, and after investigating, the Warrens announced that the house was infested with demons. Some of these demons had anally raped members of the family.

A little aside here. Back when I was reading about the Warrens, they were ghost hunters. Every house they investigated had at least one ghost, and there was always a spooky story behind it. But after The Exorcist was so wildly popular, first as a novel and then as a movie, Ed and Lorraine stopped encountering ghosts and began to uncover demon infestations. And it seems that wherever they went, people were being sexually molested by demons. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Carmen Snedeker was an unemployed wife and mother who was running an illegal interstate lottery business, about which she asked me numerous times to tell no one. I never met the son, who was said to be ill, although I was allowed to talk to him on the phone once, supervised by Carmen. When the boy began to talk about drugs and told me that he didn’t hear and see strange things in the house once he began taking medication, Carmen ended the conversation. As I gathered all the necessary information for the book, I found that the accounts of the individual Snedekers didn’t quite mesh. They just couldn’t keep their stories straight. I went to Ed with this problem. “Oh, they’re crazy,” he said. “Everybody who comes to us is crazy. Otherwise why would they come to us? You’ve got some of the story – just use what works and make the rest up. And make it scary. You write scary books, right? That’s why we hired you. So just make it up and make it scary.” I didn’t like that one bit. But by then, I’d signed the contract and there was no going back. I did as Ed instructed – I used what I could, made up the rest, and tried to make it as scary as I could. The book was called In A Dark Place: The Story of a True Haunting.

As soon as it was published, I started telling my story, knowing full well that it would not be too popular with the Snedekers or the Warrens. I was right. Carmen Snedeker, now Carmen Reed, has denounced the book. She claims they had little involvement in it, which is a lie. Since the release of that book, the Discovery Channel has aired a “re-enactment” of the story called A Haunting in Connecticut, which, of course, presents the Snedekers’ story as hard cold fact. Now a feature film based on the story is going to be released soon called The Haunting in Connecticut. I suspect the movie will begin with the words “Based on a true story.” Be warned: Just about anything that begins with any variation of this phrase is trying a little too hard to convince you of something that probably isn’t true. Last I heard, Carmen is working on a new book, to tell the real story – apparently they’ve settled on one. I don’t know if Carmen runs her little interstate lottery operation anymore, but now she’s claiming to be some kind of psychic healer. She says she’s always been a psychic healer, although I didn’t hear anything about it in Connecticut back in the early ‘90s.

These days, John Zaffis is the “investigator” being used to make this cockamamie tale look like something remotely resembling legitimate. Zaffis is the nephew of Ed and Lorraine Warren. He was around back when I was working on the book. He didn’t do much, just stood around. Lorraine told me he was learning the business. He told me a story about something he saw in the former funeral home – some kind of “fully formed demon,” or some such nonsense.

During my stay in Connecticut, Ed, Lorraine, and Zaffis repeatedly told me they had videotape of supernatural activity they’d shot in the demon-infested former funeral home (which I never visited because the current owners claimed the Snedekers were full of it and wanted nothing to do with the Warrens’ little dog and pony show). They assured me I would see that footage. Throughout my visit, they kept telling me the videotape was coming, that they were having trouble finding it, but they’d show it to me. By the end of my visit, there had been no sign of any videotape. After my experience with the Warrens, I talked to a couple of other writers who’d written books for Ed and Lorraine – and their stories were nearly identical to mine.

I found another message board thread on dejanews where Garton posted, and he had the following things to say about the Warrens:

I spent several days with the Warrens during that time.  I spent time with them in their home and ate with them and went on long drives with them.  Of the two, Lorraine is the sanest.  She’s an “enabler”.  Years ago, before their career in the “supernatural” began, Ed suffered from mental illness.  It was bad enough to keep him from working, and the only way he could make money was to hand paint haunted houses on dinnerplates and sell them door to door.  Once Ed decided that Lorraine was “psychic”, selling the haunted house plates eventually led to “investigating” haunted houses.  At first, they found “ghosts”.  But after the tremendous success of THE EXORCIST — both the novel and the movie — ghosts suddenly became demons.  If you go back and trace their career, you can see the sudden change.  Almost overnight, all ghosts were really demons trying to possess residents, and sooner or later, the demons anally raped someone. It never fails, every damned time, the Warrens’ demons bend somebody over a bed or a sink and beat down the back door, if you know what I mean.  From my time spent with the Warrens, I learned from Ed that their job is not really to “investigate” so much as it is to take the stories told by these families — most of whom are dealing with REAL problems like alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, and/or domestic abuse, problems that are buried by their supernatural fantasies, which are supported and made tangible by the very eager Warrens — and arrange them into a saleable package that will make a good book, and hopefully a movie.

Not only are the Warrens frauds, not only do they give a bad name to people who are SERIOUSLY investigating paranormal phenomena, I think they’re EVIL because of the way they exploit families already deep in despair and ready to shatter. I can ignore a simple con job … but the Warrens are actually damaging people who are already damaged, who are desperate and vulnerable, using them for the sake of a book, maybe a lucrative movie sale, or another story to add to their traveling dog and pony show.  Before I worked on that book, I’d followed the adventures of Ed and Lorraine Warren faithfully since I was a little boy.  I was excited to work with them.  Boy, was that a big disappointment.  It’s nice to believe there’s a smiling, grandparently couple out there chasing demons … but not when you know they’re hurting people for the sake of publicity and the almighty dollar.
What investigative journalist Joe Nickell found
Skeptical paranormal investigator Joe Nickell wrote a very insightful article entitled ‘Demons in Connecticut’. The article can be found here.
In it, Nickell discusses the background of the Snedeker family and why he thinks it was all made up for media exploitation.  It’s particularly interesting because Nickell was actively involved in trying to debunk the story when it first came to light and was being discussed on talk shows.  There are plenty of quotes from people who lived around the Snedekers who claim it’s all fake, and suggestions of how some of the paranormal activities could be rationally explained.

Concluding thoughts – so what actually happened?

After reading Garton and Nickell, I was ready to write the whole Snedeker haunting off as shameless attention-seeking and media exploitation.  But then I came across this message board, where two posters (brothers) claimed to have lived in the house after the Snedekers. Well, the problem is that their identities can’t be verified, but what they’ve written seems genuine enough.  And according to them, the house was definitely haunted, just not to the extent grossly exaggerated by the Snedekers.  There were voices, loud footsteps, swinging doors – but that was about it.

As someone who believes in ghosts, a former funeral home would be a prime candidate for a haunting.  And as someone who has done a fair bit of reading on ghosts, I understand that different people have different sensitivities to these types of things.  Further, people who are fit and healthy are less likely to experience things than people who are ill.  So it is possible that the house was haunted, and perhaps the Snedekers, with their sick son and multitude of problems, experienced more of it than other people.  But just about everything else points to shameless exploitation for a bit of money.

My guess is that there were probably a few spooky things that happened at the house (paranormal or not), but nothing as dramatic as they claim (and certainly none of the crap in the movie).  But when the Warrens got involved, things just spiralled out of control and it became nothing more than a money-making venture.  Assume you believe in ghosts for a minute – okay, it’s a funeral home, lots of dead bodies, so maybe a lost soul here or there - but why all these raging demons who like to molest people?  In real life (unlike in the film) there were no explanations offered, no dark history of torture or mutilation uncovered, no ancient burial ground or corpses in the cellar.

And come on, if you had something as terrifying as demons trying to anally rape you, would you stay in the house for another second?  I don’t care if you don’t have another dime in the bank – you wouldn’t just keep the lights on and go back to bed!

(SPOILERS!) FACT VS FILM (SPOILERS!)

Read on if you have seen the film or don’t plan on seeing it.

After looking into the facts behind the story, it seems there were only a few similarities between the film and the true story on which it was based.  We know that a family did move into a house that was formerly a funeral home, and they did it to be closer to the treatment facility for their son, who was suffering from cancer (Hodgkin’s disease).  We also know that the son did undergo some drastic changes in personality, and he would eventually recover, but he was probably nowhere near death as suggested in the film.  There were probably some alcohol and financial problems too.

Apart from that, just about everything else was different.  The Snedekers had 3 sons (aged 13, 11 and 3) and a 6-year old daughter.  2 nieces would move in with them later.  There was another tenant living upstairs.  Most significantly, there was no elaborate back story about a young medium boy who conducted seances, no stolen graves, no dead bodies stashed away in the basement, no dying reverend who happens to know everything, no carvings on the body, no box of human eyelids hidden under the floorboards, and certainly no burning down of the house.

As for the ghosts and paranormal events that happened in the house, only a few people know the truth, but the one thing we know for sure is that they were nothing like what was depicted in the movie.  ‘Based on the true story’?  Hardly.  Maybe more appropriate would be: ’Inspired by events that may or may not have happened’ – but I guess that doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
15 Comments »

Stephen King’s “On Writing” – A Comprehensive Review and Summary

April 7, 2009 in Best Of, Book Reviews, On Writing

stephen_king_on_writing

There are plenty of books on writing out there, mostly by writers you have never heard of and probably never will.  Stephen King’s On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is an exception.  I had read many rave reviews about this book, so I went and got myself the audio book version for the long train rides on my latest European vacation (but ended up listening to it everywhere I went and finished it in the first couple of days).

The verdict? Extraordinary.  One of the best books about writing I’ve ever come across.  5 out of 5 stars!

Nevertheless, what started off as a short post about the book has turned into the full-blown thesis below, so I apologize in advance.  The lengthy middle section on Part II though is useful for those who want an idea of what King’s views are in relation to the craft of writing.

Overview

The book is not a mechanical guide on how to be a better writer from a technical standpoint, though in the middle section King does discuss the fundamentals of the craft.  Stylistically, it is similar to Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird, in that it is a very personal book that discusses writing through the author’s personal stories, experiences and anecdotes, all told with good grace and humor.  You don’t just learn about writing techniques in On Writing – you also get to learn a great deal about Stephen King, his family, the struggles he has endured, both pre-fame and post-fame, and what makes him tick as a popular horror novelist that has sold hundreds of millions of books worldwide.

There are essentially 3 parts to this book.  Part I is all about King’s life, and is autobiographical in a sense.  Part II is all about the craft of writing from King’s personal perspective.  Part III talks about King’s life after his tragic car accident that almost ended his life and writing career.  All 3 parts are equally instructive and compelling.

Parts I & III– All About Stephen King

The book begins like an autobiography on Stephen King, the writer.  It starts off from his childhood and goes all the way to that first big success and then on to superstardom.  It’s filled with lots of little humorous tales about the outrageous things he got up to.  After all, it is a memoir.

At first, I was concerned – where was he leading with this?  Is the book called On Writing or On Stephen King?  I got the book with the hope of learning more about how to be a better writer, not to learn everything about the author!  That being said, King does tell his story with a lot of skill, keeping it interesting, intriguing, funny and inspiring.

Then you start to realize that it isn’t just a self-indulgent story of King’s life.  There is a common theme running through his life, and that theme is writing.  He loves to write and he writes for the love of writing.  Like most other successful writers, King went through years and years of rejections (starting when he was just a kid).  He held ordinary jobs because he had to support himself and his family.  He struggled.

But he never stopped writing and honing his craft, largely thanks to the encouragement of his wife Tabitha, who happens to also be his most loyal supporter.

King tells one of the most inspirational and uplifting stories I’ve ever heard – how his breakthrough novel Carrie earned him an initial $2,500 for the hardcover rights (not much even for those times), and then how he scored a life-changing $400,000 for the paperback rights (split equally with hardcover publisher) when the most he expected was $60,000 (half of which would be his).  Not bad for a guy who would have earned $30,000 over 4 years as a teacher.

However, success manifested itself in strange ways, and the next section dealt with King’s fall into alcoholism and drug abuse.  Amazingly, some of his most famous novels were written during the darkest phase of his life.

Anyway, don’t be put off by the long start – King does eventually get to the craft of writing in Part II.  However, this first part is also very instructive.  If nothing, you learn that the path of a writer is a long, difficult, and eternal road.

Part III is significantly shorter.  It tells of King’s horrific car accident at the hands of a loony driver – one that not only nearly ended his writing career but just about killed him.  I thought King showed a lot of restraint in this section – he doesn’t hurl abuse at the driver who turned his life upside down and made even simple tasks such as sitting incredibly painful for him.  He merely describes what happened like a good narrator (including the agonizing pain he endured) and leaves it at that.

Part II – The Craft of Writing

The second part is what most people buy the book for – King’s guide to the craft of writing.  It contains a lot of the same advice you might find in other writing books, but King adds his own personal touch and insight from his years of experience.

Here’s a summary of some of the most salient points I got out of this section and what I thought of them.  Please note that I cannot guarantee that it is an accurate or complete reflection what is actually in the book because they are merely from scribbles I took down when listening to the audio book.  Of course, you will get much much more out of it by reading (or listening) to the book, which provides a lot of in-depth discussion and useful examples.  This is really just a personal reminder of things I need to look out for in my own writing and a critique of King’s advice.

The Elements of Style

First of all, get yourself a copy of Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style. King raves about this book and mentions it more than a couple of times. In his view, all writers should read this short but essential book.

I need to get myself a copy.

Characters

King’s writing style is based on characters.  In his view, stories and characters are not really created, but are waiting to be uncovered like archaeological artifacts.  He usually starts his novels with just a premise and goes from there, meaning his characters and plot tend to form over the course of the novel rather than get planned out from the beginning.

It may be a viable method but I find such an approach to likely lead to dead ends (and I feel King might have the same problem with some of his horror novels, which have a tendency to crash to a crappy finish with unsatisfactory solutions).

Good Writing

When King talks about good writing, he is not talking about writing masterpieces or literary award winners. He’s simply talking about writing that is above competent and readable, and perhaps, publishable.  In his view, there are two key criteria to ‘good writing’: (1) a good grasp of the fundamentals; and (2) having the right instruments.  These criteria will not make good writers great or bad writers competent, but it can make good writers out of merely competent writers.

So what are these fundamentals and tools?  See below.  I should say in advance that these are things you would expect to find in most other books on writing and shouldn’t come as a big surprise.

Adverbs

King hates adverbs (you know, words that mostly end in ‘-ly’).  Loathes them.  Not that they shouldn’t be used at all, but they should only be used when strictly necessary.  On the same point, King brings up the issue of using adverbs for dialogue attribution – for instance, ‘she said slowly’.  Again, the rule is to use it only when necessary.  If the dialogue itself already tells the way in which it is expressed, then there is no need for the adverb.  King’s preference is to just use ‘said’.  However, that being said, he also admits to using adverbs more often than he should.

Personally, I admit I have a tendency to resort to adverbs.  Because it’s easy.  It tempts you to use it so you don’t have to think of a better word or come up with better dialogue (in the case of dialogue attribution).  However, cutting out adverbs is something I’ve reserved for the second draft.

Passive Voice

Another thing King frowns upon is using passive voice.  For example, instead of ‘he rode the horse’, using ‘the horse was ridden by the man’.  King attributes the use of passive voice to fear.  People that usually write for business purposes (like me) have a tendency to overuse passive voice.  I think I recall reading somewhere that it comes across as more professional and more objective.  Anyway, it’s another thing I need to cut out come second draft time, but I think I’ve already started to avoid it instinctively as I’ve progressed with my novel.

Grammar

It’s obvious, but grammar is crucial for good writing.  It’s something writers need to get right.  As simple as that.  There are some small exceptions which a lot of writers employ, such as the short fragments typically found in writing these days (see previous sentence), but for the most part, it’s advisable to stick to correct grammar.

Don’t apply incorrect grammar and punctuation on purpose, even when you know it’s wrong, just to be different and creative and stylish.  That is, of course, unless you are a famous writer already that people consider to be genius so you can do whatever you want (eg Cormac McCarthy).

Cut Useless Words

King believes most writers, especially inexperienced writers, have a tendency to put in too many useless words.  Good writing involves cutting them out and getting to the point.

This is something I’ve struggled with all my life, even with high school and university assignments. I just can’t help myself, and I think it shows, even from this post!  Oh well, better keep moving…

Vocabulary

King has a simple tip with vocabulary – use the most appropriate word, and usually, that is the first word that comes to mind.  The only way to improve your vocabulary is to read more.  When writing, don’t stop so you can think of a better word, and don’t put in words that you don’t really know.  If you don’t know it then there is a good chance that other readers won’t know either.  The aim is to allow readers to read smoothly, and making them wonder what a word means (or having to check up what it means) runs against that objective.

I’ll be the first to admit that my vocabulary is not all that crash hot.  It stems from a lack of reading good books throughout my childhood and adolescence.  Consequently, I do find myself struggling to find the right word at times, even if it’s for the first word that comes to mind.  As King says, however, the only way to improve is to read more!

Plot

For King, the 3 elements to a story are narration, description and dialogue – meaning plot is not one of them.  As noted above, King’s stories usually start off with not much more than a premise and the characters, which he allows to let loose to see where they take him.

I still have a bit of trouble fully appreciating that approach, but it’s obviously one that works for him. I do allow my characters to roam free a little, but it’s usually within the confines of a single scene as opposed to the entire story.

Descriptions

Descriptions make the reader a sensory participant in the story.  The key is to visualize what you want the reader to experience.  However, there is a fine line when it comes to descriptions, as there is a danger of describing too much, which slows down the pace, kills the imagination and bores the reader.  I have to say I have sometimes found this to be the case with some of King’s writings.

King’s advice is to use your descriptions but not do too much – simply say what you see and get on with the story.  It is important to pick the right details that stand for everything else. Particularly useful is the advice to avoid too much description on individual attributes of characters.  There is no need to go into depth on the precise height, weight and hair and eye colour of every character you come across.  It’s boring.  King advises writers to put down the first visualized details that come into your mind – the priority is to keep the ball rolling.

Dialogue

Dialogue is difficult to get right, and King’s advice is to let the dialogue be honest to the characters and to allow each speaker to speak honestly.

I’m also struggling with dialogue for my characters (I’m struggling with a lot of things).  It’s easy to make the mistake of making every piece of dialogue look like it comes from the same character.  I’m really going to have to put in a lot of work on dialogue in my second draft to allow the characters to distinguish themselves and stand out from each other.

Showing and Telling

Another tenet of good writing is to show, not tell.  This was the subject of one of my earlier posts on writing.  Of course, it’s not always possible to do that, but King believes ‘show’ should always be preferred to ‘tell’ whenever possible.

Personally, I’m glad to say I am starting to get the hang of this, but sometimes I wonder whether it is better to just tell it using a simple sentence rather than showing it through pages of conversation and action?

Paragraphs

King calls paragraphs the beat in your head when you read, the fragments in the prose. It’s easy to overlook it, but how you structure the length of your paragraphs can be very important. King’s recommendation is to learn the beat and let nature take its course.

It’s not something I ever gave much thought to, so I found this particular part rather instructive.

Back Stories, Info Dumps and Flashbacks

King says back stories and info dumps should be kept in the back of the mind.  Also, try and avoid flashbacks wherever possible.  Of course, there are exceptions – there are plenty of great books with lots of flashbacks and back stories.  But the key is questioning whether it is really necessary and whether there are other more effective ways of getting the information across.  King notes that JK Rowling is particularly good at the info dump and back story retelling in the Harry Potter books, so take a look at them if you want to see how it is done well.

My own novel has its fair share of flashbacks, but I’ve tried my best to control the back stories and info dumps.  It’s probably something best to come back to once the first draft has been completed.

Close the Door

King believes it is very important for writers to have their own private space when writing, a place with no distractions.  He recommends a regular place to write, and to close the door when writing.  It shuts out the rest of the world and the distractions, and lets people know you are working and you are serious.

I don’t always close the door when I write, but I admit I write best when I am totally focused and not being distracted by what’s outside the window or in the next room.

Reading and Writing

Stephen King says that reading and writing is the only way to improve as a writer.  Writing is a craft that is best learned through doing.  King puts a great deal of emphasis on reading. Writers need to read in order to improve, and it’s not only through reading good literature – you can learn just as much from reading a good book (teaching you what to do) as a bad book (teaching you what NOT to do).

What to do after the First Draft

King’s advice is to complete that first draft within 3 months.  It’s probably not a realistic deadline for those that have day jobs and other unavoidable things that consume their time.

Anyway, after completion of the first draft, however long it might take, King advises you to let go of it for 6 weeks before going back to it so you would have forgotten it.  Reading your own work with a pair of fresh eyes is extremely important.  Start writing something else in the meantime.  This I agree with, but 6 weeks can be a painfully long wait!  I’ve read elsewhere that a week or two might be sufficient, but I suppose it’s up to the individual.

When revising the first draft, King suggests you concentrate on both big things such as inconsistencies, plot holes and character motivation and development problems, as well as small things, such as misspellings.  Make notes about where problems are, mark up the manuscript and check your notes when revising.  Get rid of adverbs and add in clarifications where necessary.  Ask yourself whether it is coherent, whether there are any recurring elements or themes, and what to do to make those things clear.  You may need to add or delete scenes.  The key is to make the story and characters resonate with readers.

Symbolism and Theme

For King, symbolism and themes in your novel are things that come in at the second draft stage.  They should not be things you purposely go out and put into your story.  Rather, you should focus on the story itself and when only explore symbolism and themes if they become apparent when reading the first draft.

King’s Rule for Second Drafts

King’s personal approach to second drafts of novels is to tighten the first draft by 10%.  So if you have a first draft of a story that is 100,000 words, try and tighten it to 90,000 words for the second draft.

In my opinion it’s just his personal approach and a loose guide at best because everyone will have their own preference.  King does 2 drafts and a polish, whereas some writers need 4 or 5 drafts and dramatic changes every time.  Besides, not everyone can churn out first drafts that are good enough to be published just after one additional draft and a polish.

What to do after the Second Draft

King does not show anyone his work until he has completed the second draft.  This I wholeheartedly agree with, because (especially for writing novices) it can be daunting to ask others to read your work.  King shows his completed second drafts to 4 or 5 people.  Some say that readers should not be your friends, or else you won’t get honest feedback.  King disagrees – he says you should be smart enough to gauge the reactions, even if they are your friends.

I must say I agree.  It is scary enough showing your work to your friends, let alone people you don’t know.  And if a friend tells me it’s ‘not bad’, I’ll have a pretty good idea that they thought it sucked.

Agents and Publishers

On agents and publishers, King says that it is not impossible to get an agent/publisher with an unsolicited manuscript these days, and there are ways to get into the industry.  He recommends building a portfolio, submit to magazines relating to your genre and to try and get publishing credits to your name.  He encourages writers to research the market – look through Writer’s Market to find an agent that might be interested in your type of book.  He says that it is important to go into it looking like a professional, in that you need to make sure your manuscript and query letter are done right. As he says, you cannot make agents/publishers like your manuscript, but you can make it easier for them to like your story.

Writing Courses

King generally does not find writing courses to be very helpful on the whole as the creative flow tends to get stopped.  In fact, he’s rather critical of them, despite understanding how they may appeal to aspiring writers.
Again, I find this to be a generalization and not much more than a subjective view.  There are many different types of writing courses and writers – some people might need a course to get them started or give them more confidence.  I suppose what he is trying to say is not to rely on them too much or expect them to change your life.  That I agree with.

Writing For the Right Reasons

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, King tells you to write for the right reasons – for the joy and rush and excitement of writing – not for the money, not for success or fame, not to impress anyone.  Can’t disagree with that.  Does impressing yourself count?

Concluding Thoughts

Before I read On Writing, I considered myself a slight to moderate King fan.  For me, most of what I knew about the author came from the horror movies and mini-series adapted from his novels.  There are too many to count.  The ones that have been stamped deepest into my memory are It (thanks to which I am still not a fan of clowns), The Stand, Pet Cemetery, Sleepwalkers, Misery, Carrie and The Shining, but there are at least a dozen more.

I had only read one of his full length novels – The Dark Half – which I found to be okay.  A bit long and a bit slow.  But I did read it when I was much younger and had a shorter attention span, and the book was probably beyond my comprehension level at that age.

On the other hand, I had read some collections of King’s short stories and novellas. I found Nightmares and Dreamscapes to be reasonable, littered with some good and some bad stories.  However, my favourite King book has to be his non-horror work, Different Seasons, which includes two novellas that were made (pretty faithfully) into two of my favourite movies of all time, Stand By Me (adapted from The Body) and The Shawshank Redemption (adapted from Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption).  I found both novellas (and films) to be incredibly powerful and moving, and was amazed at what a terrific storyteller Stephen King can be, and it doesn’t even have to involve anything supernatural.

As a popular novelist, King has obviously had his critics throughout the years, but there is no denying that he can write.  Maybe not awe-inspiring literature, but he definitely has a firm grasp of the fundamentals of writing, and he can certainly tell a good story.  On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is an instructive and insightful book, one that is filled with useful information for the aspiring writer and immensely enjoyable to read (or in my case, listen to).  I would recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about the craft of writing or just wants a good read.

[PS: I finally got this review out of the way.  I had been working on it on my numerous long train rides throughout Europe but never came close to completing it.  Now I can finally move on with my life.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
24 Comments »

My European Adventure Round-up

April 6, 2009 in Best Of, Travel

Venice truly is a beautiful city

Venice truly is a beautiful city

[Note I have posted a new European Adventure Round-Up after my trips to Greece, Sweden and Denmark - see here]

Well, I’m finally back.  20 days, 5 countries, 12 cities.  It was pretty hectic, but also one of the best vacations of all time!  I’ve also finally brought the Travel Diary up to date, and I’m glad I did because it’s an experience I don’t ever want to forget.  On the other hand, we’ve taken well over a thousand photos, so it’s going to take a while to sort through them all…

Just to recap, the places visited (in order) were: Pisa, Florence, Venice and Rome (Italy); Basel and Lucerne (Switzerland); Freiburg, Munich, Fussen, Berlin (Germany); Prague (Czech Republic) and Vienna (Austria).  Yes, if you think about it the order was kind of weird, but there were a few unexpected things that happened with the original plans and we had to fudge it a little.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on the trip:

Best City

Looking at everything from an overall perspective, the best city I visited would have to be Rome.  There’s just no other place like it.  The amazing history, the plethora of attractions and sights, the pizzas and gelato – and you’d be surprised how close everything is and how you can walk from one place to another in just minutes.  Oh, and who can forget Vatican City?  You don’t have to be religious to enjoy one of the most amazing places on Earth, even if it’s just for the paintings and the architecture.  We spent roughly four days in Rome but we were gunning it all the way.  If we had the time and money we would have spent at least a week there.

The Colosseum was pretty awesome

The Colosseum was pretty awesome

Most Beautiful

We got to witness some amazing views throughout the trip, but the most beautiful city must be Venice, with its clean, turqoise waters and canals, bridges, pretty buildings and narrow alleys.  There is something relaxing and soothing about the place, and of course it is very romantic.  St Mark’s Square is also a delight.

Most Disappointing/Overrated

No surprises here because I just posted a rant about Prague (which has turned out to be one of my all-time most popular posts!).  It’s probably the only place out of all the places we went to that I found disappointing.  Maybe it was because my expectations were not met in the short time we were there, or perhaps the unfriendly people we encountered.  Or perhaps it just wasn’t my type of place.  I wouldn’t go as far as advising people against going, but expectations need to be kept in check and awareness needs to be high.

Most Surprising/Underrated

Without a doubt it has to be Munich. It’s a place with a lot of history, some interesting attractions, and if you are a beer lover (I’m not), it can be heavenly.  But there’s also plenty of shops for those who are less into history.  We only took the local city tour but there are other ones such as the Third Reich Tour which seemed quite interesting.  Another great thing about Munich is its proximity to other places.  Neuschwanstein Castle is only a 2 hour train ride away (an easy day trip) and the former concentration camp site of Dachau can be reached by subway (then short bus ride).  A lot of people also take day trips to Nuremberg and Salzburg (in Austria).  One place I would have liked to visit but didn’t have enough time was the Olympic site.  Maybe next time.

neuschwanstein_castle

Neuschwanstein Castle is a must-visit

Most Informative

That title would have to go to Berlin, simply because of all the free information available along the sidewalks (especially near Checkpoint Charlie).  In other places you may have to do your own research beforehand, or buy a guide book, or join a tour, or pay to enter a museum – you can still do all these things in Berlin but you don’t have to spend a dime to learn a great deal about the city.

Most Depressing

Hands down the prize goes to Dachau (near Munich).  The former concentration camp site has turned into a giant memorial and museum.  It’s hard to keep the eyes dry and you won’t be doing any star jumps there but it’s such an important place to visit.  Be sure to catch the 22 minute documentary film that shows throughout the day (remember to check what time the screening is for your preferred language).

Most Expensive

Be warned: Switzerland costs money.  One of the dumbest things we did the entire trip was only allocating 100 Swiss Francs for our 2-day stay in Basel/Lucerne.  We ended up putting at least double that on the credit card, and that was just for food and transport.  When a medium McDonald’s value meal costs in the vicinity of 12 Swiss Francs (to put that in perspective, that’s roughly 10.50 US Dollars, 7.15 Pounds, 7.85 Euros and 14.80 Australian Dollars) you know your wallet is in for a rough time.  Note we found Italy and Germany and Austria to be quite even in terms of prices and the Czech Republic to be slightly cheaper.

Top 5 Attractions

This is a tough one, but off the top of my head right now, the 5 attractions I liked the most were:

5. The Munich Royal Residence (Residenz) (Munich, Germany) - the former royal palace of the Bavarian monarchs, and naturally, full of amazing treasures, artworks and countless rooms to explore.  Free audio guide too.

4. Dachau Concentration Camp (Dachau, near Munich, Germany)- depressing as hell but plenty to see and absorb, and ultimately a tremendously insightful and rewarding experience.

3. Vatican City (Rome, Italy)- regardless of what you think about religion and/or Catholics, just go and have a look.  It’s worth it.  Just make sure you buy tickets in advance for the Vatican Museum if you don’t want to wait forever like we did.

2. Neuschwanstein Castle (near Fussen, Germany) - I didn’t expect it to be so awesome but it was.  The Castle was beautiful, and the tour inside was funny (because of the robot tour guides), and the hike up the hill to get there was simply magical.  We went when there was still snow lying around, and I think that made it even more spectacular.  Weather is pretty important – I heard that it can be quite miserable when it rains and when the visibility is low.

1. Palatine Hill (Rome, Italy) - just go and see it.

Final Thoughts

  • We were pretty blessed the entire trip.  It was tiring and we got ill a couple of times, but it came and went quickly, usually overnight.  The weather was also super.  Even when it was forecasted to rain we still got sunny skies.  The only time we were bothered by the rain was in Dachau, but as I said it suited the gloomy atmosphere there anyway.
  • Join local tour groups only if you like to listen to a lot of stuff, like history and explanations on how things became the way they are.  Or if you just don’t like the hassle of organising and figuring things out for yourself.  Otherwise you can save heaps of money doing things on your own, and there’s a lot more freedom too.
  • Expensive food does not always mean the most tasty.  Some of the best pizzas we had in Italy were from small vendors wedged in a corner somewhere and the same could be said for the ham and sausages we had in Germany.  That said, we did enjoy some spectacular meals that were pretty pricey too.

Now, I probably should start studying…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
19 Comments »

Travel Update: Prague is Overrated!

April 5, 2009 in Best Of, Travel

prague-bridges1

Prague can look incredible from afar, but...

[Note: Travel Diary has been updated to include Munich (including Neuschwanstein Castle and Dachau Concentration Camp) and Berlin!]

I never thought I would say this, and undoubtledly it will be heavily disputed, but in my opinion it’s true: Prague is overrated!

When I first arrived in the UK, Prague was near the top of my list of travel destinations.  Not because I knew very much about the place myself, but because every tourism book I read raved about the place and every person I spoke to kept telling me: ‘you have to go to Prague!’

Hence when we planned our big anniversary vacation and an opportunity came up where we had a couple of extra days on our hands, I insisted that we go to Prague (even though my wife had been and said it was nothing special, a view that 2 of her sisters concurred with).  ‘But it’s Prague‘, I would say, ‘we have to go to Prague!’  And so we did.

However, out of all 12 cities we went to on this giant trip, Prague was by far the most disappointing.  If asked, I would say it’s ‘okay’ because the place is not without merit, but given its glittering reputation (or at least the reputation I thought it had), I had expected a lot more.  It’s one of those places that look good in postcards and photos and from afar, but when you are there and everything is up close it doesn’t live up to the hype.

Perhaps I don’t really know the city well enough to be making such comments – after all, I did only spend roughly a day and a half there, so it’s really not much more than a generalised first impression; or maybe my expectations were too lofty or unreasonable – either way, these were my main gripes:

1. Appearance – I was very surprised when we stepped off the train at Praha Holesovice station, one of the main stations for international trains.  It was old, dirty and looked incredibly runned down.  Not just on the platforms but even inside the small, no-frills terminal.  I expected that to change when we caught the subway to the central station, Praha Hlavni Nadrazi, but it didn’t.  It was bigger, but still old, dirty and runned down.  When we walked outside, more of the same – the roads, the buildings, the walls.  It wasn’t even in a kind of charming or romantic sort of way.  For some reason, it just felt dull and gloomy.

2. Tourist-unfriendly – the appearance of the city was unexpected but was something you could put down as a different experience.  However, Prague also turned out to be relatively tourist-unfriendly compared to all of the other European cities I’ve visited.  There are very few English signs around and the public transport system, though not dissimilar (to say Germany), was the most confusing.  But that’s not the main problem.  The main problem is the lack of help you can expect to get from locals.  If it were just one or two people I would have put it off as bad luck or coincidence, but pretty much every single person behind a counter we sought assistance from (with the exception of the hotel receptionist) had ‘I’m not going to help you’ written all over their face – and this includes the people from the Information office!

For instance, when we couldn’t figure out how to purchase subway tickets at the machine (no ticket office), the one guy working there in uniform quickly turned his back on us when he saw us approaching and had to be prompted by his friends to help us.  All he told us was that we had to break our notes as the machines only take coins, then ran off.  Funnily we saw the same guy on the subway asking to check our ticket.  Fortunately we did our research and bought a half-ticket for our luggage, or else we would have been fined!  Strangely, he only targeted touristy-looking people and the locals simply ignored him and the little badge he kept flashing.

Another example was when we tried to purchase train tickets to Vienna – though the woman behind the window spoke perfect English and we were perfectly polite, she acted as though she was doing us the world’s biggest favour.  If we didn’t keep prodding her with multiple questions, we would have never: (1) purchased 2 tickets instead of 1 despite there being obviously 2 people in front of her; (2) found out what time the trains departed; (3) gotten seat reservations (apparently compulsory for international travel); and (4) found out that the train actually departed from a different station to the one we purchased the tickets from!

3. Attractions – there are a few good attractions in Prague; after all, it does have a tremendous amount of history.  I suppose that’s what attracts the tourists.  However, there was nothing overly exciting about what I saw in Prague.  The number 1 attraction, Prague Castle, was just average in my opinion, but it was probably because I had seen much more spectacular places elsewhere.  The view over the city from outside the Castle walls was worthwhile though.  The next best attraction would be Charles Bridge, with its many sculptures along the sides.  Apart from those 2 I would struggle to find anything else worth recommending, maybe except a quick peek at the Astronominal Clock and Tyn Church.

4. Rip-offs – probably the most irritating thing about Prague is how the locals try to rip off foreigners.  This was something I had read before, but I didn’t expect it to be so prevalent.  All I will say is that when in Prague, you need to be extra careful.  Read every receipt, every bill, and don’t be afraid to ask questions.  Check prices beforehand and make sure there are no hidden costs or charges.  Ensure, even in what may look like a respectable restaurant, that the waiter has not tampered with the bill, ‘miscalculated’ or added things that aren’t supposed to be there.  Be very wary of ‘service charges’ that magically appear out of nowhere.  We were caught off-guard by that one at this recommended restaurant called Sherwood on Opletalova (food was very salty), where the waiter added a 15% ‘service charge’ to our bill as though it was restaurant policy (even though the amount didn’t even appear on the bill).

We were almost ripped off at Prague Castle too, where we were strongly recommended to purchase the audio guide (which actually cost more than the entry tickets!) because there were no English explanations anywhere (which turned out to be untrue) and because otherwise we would have to wait in line for up to an hour to enter St Vitus Cathedral (we waited for about 1 minute to get in).

I also read elsewhere that train conductors have a tendency to try and intimidate foreigners by pretending there is something wrong with their ticket and insisting further payment or a fine.  I thought it was an exaggeration before but now I don’t find it hard to believe.

On the plus side though the prices were relatively cheap compared to most other European cities I’ve visited, and the food was pretty good in general.

Anyway, that was my first experience of Prague.  Unfair?  Perhaps.  I’m sure there are many out there who absolutely adore the place and with good reason too, but I found the city rather unappealing.  Much of it probably has to do with the local attitude towards the tourists that keep invading their city!  Can’t say I blame them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
65 Comments »

Next Entries →

Bad Behavior has blocked 283 access attempts in the last 7 days.