Emily asked:
I’m struggling with secondary/side characters at the moment – of necessity I have seven of them trucking around with the main characters. Most of them, while they have a backstory and a life (I wrote short stories for each of them, trying to get myself in their heads) there’s not much that appears on the page because it moves things away from my main story. How do you know when you’ve got the balance of that right? There’s two in particular that I keep trying to give a little more story to, but every time I try it drags things away from the main action.

Jenny:
What’s your main story, the narrative that has all the juice that draws your reader into the story?

That’s your spine, the thing that everything else relates to. So one of your supporting characters spent years in the circus; unless those talents are crucial to the main story, you don’t mention it because otherwise readers will say, “Wait a minute, what about the circus?” There’s this idea of the authority in the text (that’s you), the idea that this story differs from reality in that it is not chaotic, there’s somebody in control, so that each move in the story, each bit of information, is essential to that narrative. If you start putting things in that don’t connect, that don’t mean anything in the context of the story, the reader will try to make it mean something. If you have a character who’s always late, but that never has an impact on the story, the reader will slot it in anyway without you: “This is an annoying person.” “This person doesn’t like the protagonist.” “This person is losing her mind.” As the authority in the text, you have to make it all mean something, so adding back ground for supporting characters that doesn’t support anything in the story is just adding grit to the machine. Example: In Nita, Button is career-focused because her family has centuries of law enforcement experience. Career-focused is fine because she’s partners with the protagonist in that career, but what about the history? I had a lot of that and cut it because it didn’t mean anything to this story beyond the fact that killing demons is in her DNA, and then she falls in love with a demon. The fact of the history is important, the details are not.
In the same way, Button’s demon boyfriend has a long history of opposing the male protagonist, and that’s set up in the interactions between them without any details of exactly how he opposed him. The fact of the opposition makes the demon’s arc to the hero’s side important; the details of that are irrelevant. Or short answer: Play the important back story elements out in the interactions in the now and ignore any detail that isn’t directly relevant.

Bob:
There are only so many characters you can have on stage. And only so many readers can follow. Any time I get more than three or four on stage, it gets awkward. You end having characters disappear into the background, then suddenly reappear when they speak. Think of TV shows and film. How many key characters are in each scene? In real life, I can only focus on one thing at a time. I get easily distracted if there is a TV in the background. We were watching What Lies Beneath and there are scenes where the protagonist is in a psychologist’s office which is slightly below ground level and there’s windows near the ceiling with people walking by. Just flitting images. But I knew I would never be able to sit in that office and talk because that would distract me.

Jenny:
Also, hello, Bob.
That’s a good way to describe it. If the detail on the supporting character is distracting, cut it.

Bob:
If you need that many characters, give each one a significant personality or action tag that readers can put on them. Ask yourself if you can combine characters? On the flip side I often have characters who are minor and don’t seem to be relevant but I put them there. And I leave them there in the first draft. Because I must have put them there for a reason. In Shane I have the Field Marshal who didn’t even have dialogue up to a certain point where I realized he seemed to window dressing that served one point in the early part but not again. But I thought more about it and finally realized who he really was and what his role was. So in rewrite I’m layering him slightly, but not too much. Enough that when he plays that role, the reader won’t be completely shocked; but hopefully surprised.

And hello. Yeah– realized we decided on Thursdays, but this works because heading to mountains tomorrow anyway.

Jenny:
Oh, crap, we decided on Thursday? My mind is a sieve right now.

Bob:
I had thought I put alerts on my calendar. But this is good because just before you emailed I had been getting ready to email and postpone Thursday. So it works out cosmically.

Jenny:
I think that’s a good point about combining characters.

Bob:
But when the alert goes off on Thursday, I’ll panic.

Jenny: I’m sorry.

Bob:
There is no sorry in baseball.
Or Slack.

Jenny:
There’s no sorry in Slack? Sure there is.
I’m feeling regret right now.

Bob:
We’re too old for regret. Vengeance is better.
What were we talking about? My brain is a sieve too.

Jenny:
Supporting characters. I put one in Nita who was only in the first act. I loved him, but he had to go. They have to have a function all the way through the text.

Bob:
They key is named characters are important. Not named characters can flit by. But once you name a character, the reader assumed they’re important.

[We started to talk politics here. You don’t want to know.]

Lakshmi asked:
Do you read Urban fantasy? Would you consider writing one as a play project this year?
Or an anti hero story? Or a heist like Oceans Eleven? It’s an old favourite.
I’d love to know how you would approach and tweak these.
What would you change about Harry Potter?

Bob:
Lots to unpack there but the answers are pretty simple. Never read an urban fantasy so I wouldn’t write one. I’ve got a full plate of writing now. All my heroes are anti-heroes. Because I’m a contrarian. But not really. Will Kane in my latest books is the reluctant hero who really doesn’t like it. A heist is really hard to write because it would be like what we did in Special Forces when planning a direct action mission. They’d give us a mission packet with the target and parameters, put us in secure isolation and the A-Team would plan the mission, for at least five days. Twelve guys, each planning their specific part of the plan from infiltration to actions on the objective to exfiltration. And then all the contingencies and E&E (escape and evasion) plans. Some of my Green Beret books are like that– the early ones. Now, my heroes are like me these days– they tend to wing it. I read the first Harry Potter book years ago. I thought it was truly a child’s book. Not like LOTR, which is all ages. I heard the books mature, but it didn’t do much for me. I’m glad it got lots of kids into reading, though. I’m more a My Side of the Mountain reader; which if written these days would be considered child abuse. So.

Jenny:
Urban fantasy: I love the Rivers of London series. Would I write one? Nope, I am not urban. I have lived in small towns all my life and that’s where the fun is for me.
Antihero story: Faking It: love story of a con man and an art forger.
What would I change about Harry Potter? Well, it’s been a while since I read them. Probably have Harry and Hermione end up together. Otherwise, as I remember, I thought the books were pretty great as they were. (Okay there was that one with the Quiddich match that went on forever . . . )
The thing about changing a story that’s already been done well is that the bar is set pretty high. I did my Turn of the Screw novel because the female protagonist was the one who got screwed in the narrative, and I wanted to give her another shot. But of course, that turned out to be a completely different story. I think the thing about “inspired by” stories that works is when the new version does something different and becomes a thing on its own. Like The Taming of the Shrew, reconfigured as a high school romance (Ten Things I Hate About You) or as a political satire (the Shakespeare ReTold version). I like both of those better than the original.Or Emma as Clueless.
So I’d have to (a) want to write that kind of story and (b) find a new way into that narrative. Nope, not interested.
Until tomorrow when I will suddenly get the idea for a new Taming of the Shrew . . .

Lakshmi asked:
The best writing advice? Which part of the writing process do you enjoy most? Which part do you avoid?

Bob:
Best writing advice: write a lot. Then read a lot. I enjoy it when I’m in a flow and I know the purpose of the scene. I hate it when I have to write my way into the purpose of the scene. I’ve learned in the latter case to get the bones down and figure out the heart. But its easier starting with the heart. I watched Pretend It’s A City with Fran Leibowitz and Scorcese– binged all the episodes and really enjoyed it, especially as she talks about living in NYC, a lot when I grew up there. But she has lots of good insights into the arts, including writing. She said she only knew one author who loved the actual writing and that was Toni Morrison. She said the rest had a hard time doing the actual writing.

Jenny:
Best advice: Write the book you want to read and can’t find. That means it’ll be original and you’ll want to keep writing so you can see what happens.
Most enjoy: Making things up, people talking and revealing themselves.
Avoid: Description, plot, endings. No animal or child ever dies. Infodump, prologues, epilogues, smirking, intrusive speech tags, one-dimensional villians, broccoli.

Bob:
I don’t like brussel sprouts. Always called them Martian brains

Jenny:
I have big problems with endings. I like the start of things. Finishing, not so much.

Bob:
I like endings because the action moves faster.

Jenny:
This is true. But they’re ENDINGS. The ride is over. Actually, I lie, I don’t have trouble with endings, I have trouble with middles. I wander off.

Bob:
Except in New York Minute I had to rewrite that climactic scene so many times. It was just hero vs antagonist but it was technically incredibly difficult to pull off.
Wandering off is common.

Jenny:
I was reading a novel last night, and thought, “You know, novels are LONG.” They really are marathons.

Bob:
But a good novel you want to be long.

Jenny:
I need to write the first and last acts to start with, then tackle the middle. Eat dessert first.
Readers want novels to be long. Writers . . .

Bob:
Yeah but the middles sets up the ending. So. Yeah, the middle is always the toughest.

Jenny:
Writers want to finish the damn tihngs.

Bob:
Then shoot it with a gun.
Kill it.

Jenny:
Really. GET OUT OF MY HOUSE, DAMN IT.
Or at least off my computer.

This next question is right down your alley.

K. M. asked:
Can you speak to the pros/cons of using the same pen name for different subgenres?
I wrote a 3 book Sci-fi romance series as K.M. Fawcett. Next fall I will be publishing a contemporary romance series and am toying with using Kathy Moran Fawcett to distinguish between the two subgenres. Let me be clear, I in no way want to hide my identity from my readers (as some authors need/ want to). I received the advice that using two pen names will help to not muddy my Amazon “also boughts” and Amazon ads. Also 2 pen names gives you more chances to get more book bub deals. Do you believe this to be true? Thank you! I love reading your HWSW answers

Bob:
I wrote under five pen names for contractual reasons when traditionally published. I was writing at least 3, if not 4, books a year. And, hard to believe, back in days of yore, when they published using chisel and stone, they only wanted one book a year. Since then I’ve consolidated all my books under my name. I could see where you wouldn’t want to cross the streams of genre and confuse readers. I think Amazon has pretty much killed the also boughts. Replaced it with “books you might like” which also takes in your browsing history. As far as Bookbub– I ran tons of deals when Bookbub was but a swaddling baby and served indie authors. Many thousands of dollars to them. But once traditional publishers have gotten on board? Haven’t run one in years. The other reason is the long tail has disappeared for a BB deal. You’d spike and then have a long, sloping sales tail. Now you spike and kind of back to normal the next day. Unless its first in series; maybe. The true problem, and this is blashphemy, is that BB is part of what’s killing us authors. We’re pricing ourselves into oblivion. I say that but there’s nothing I can do about it. Just a reality. But a reader who can get discounted ebooks every single day from NYT bestselling authors cheaper than your latest title? It’s a tough road. I know some people are still having great luck with them. I’m contemplating applying for one later this year just before the fifth book in my Will Kane book comes out in June.

I guess I didn’t answer the pen name thing, but it’s specific to each author’s situation.

Jenny:
I don’t write enough to use a second name.
But it’s hurt me, I think, because people pick up a Crusie and think it’s going to be a romantic comedy, and when it isn’t, instead of treating the book for what it is, they think it’s a bad romcom.
People used to talk a lot about brands, and my brand is, much to my dismay, contemporary romantic comedy.

Bob:
Readers do have expectations. Honestly, brand is something I screwed up around 25 years ago, so I’m the wrong person to ask.

Jenny:
So when I don’t do that, people (editors, agents, readers, etc.) see it as a violation. “Write another Bet Me.” No. Using pen names might solve that, but I doubt it.

Bob:
Also, I’ve been so far out of the publishing mainstream for so long, I kind of don’t a lot of what is really happening.

Jenny:
How did you screw up your brand? You write different flavors of action adventure. It’s not like you wrote a book about a Green Beret who inherits a bakery in a small coastal town where he discovers letters from his grandfather and falls in love.

Bob:
Plus I tend to be smidge cynical.

Jenny:
I mean, you could write that, but there’s be guns and spies and betrayal and the love interest would die.

Bob:
For career purposes, I’d have made a lot more money sticking with straight military thrillers where the good guys always win and the bad guys are always really bad guys. Except I don’t believe that.

Jenny:
It’d be like me writing a romance where the heroine shoots the hero at the end. Narrative cognitive dissonance.

Bob:
That would be fun.

Jenny:
That is the problem with branding early in your career. Writers grow and change and evolve and mature.

Bob:
Yeah. I spoke with Sue Grafton one time about it at a conference and she was a bit unhappy to really be stuck with Kinsey Milhone, who barely aged. Her readers went nuts if she changed anything about the character.

Jenny:
We change, so our writing changes, too.
Can you image writing over twenty books about the same protagonist in the same time period? The alphabet thing was brilliant in a lot of ways–recognition in bookstores, always knowing the order of the sequels–but setting yourself up for that many books is insane.

Bob:
Yeah. One reason I’m writing Shane is because in my Will Kane books I started finding my snark again. I realized in one book, Kane didn’t kill most of the bad guys. The various female characters did.

Jenny:
Well, we have a lot of anger.

Bob:
Side note on Sue Grafton. Her agent gave a talk and said she’d be with Sue all the way through Y, when she meant to say Z. Gives a chill in retrospect.

Yeah– when the aspiring actress who introduces herself as “Truvey, my name rhymes with groovy” killed a really bad guy with her purse, I knew I’d hit my stride. But Truvey is pre-Madonna in 1977, so she had that going for her.

Jenny:
This is a character in a Will Kane book?

Bob:
Yeah. She appears to be an empty-headed wannabee actress, but turned out to have surprising depth.

Jenny:
And a heavy purse.
I love that when a supporting character suddenly develops layers.

Bob:
Well she hit the guy into the third rail, so technically that’s what did it. But he shouldn’t have called her a whore.

Jenny:
It’s always good when the dead guy deserved it.

Bob:
That was a lot of tangents.

Jenny:
So, to get back to the question, I don’t know.

Bob:
Ditto.

Jenny:
It would have been a bad idea for me, but I’m not prolific.
I would have thought it was a good idea for Bob, but evidently not.
As a reader, I find it annoying as hell.

You know, we’re both so tired (and so is everybody at this point in this country) we could just be negative from that. But it takes so long to establish a name, that I’m really thinking it’s a bad idea. Every author is a new product launch until their name becomes known to their readership. So taking a new name is walking away from all that work and starting over.
I think that’s a bad idea.

Bob:
Exactly. The brand should be the author.

Jenny:
Look at Naomi Novik: she’s doing fairy tales, military fantasy, high school fantasy, all under her name. I would never have read the first Temeraire book if I hadn’t read A Deadly Education and followed her name to the rest of her work.

I have a question for you. Why did you want to write a novel?

Bob:
I had a story in my head and needed to get it out.

Jenny:
I mean you had a military career there that was going just fine.
I’m not sure I can answer that for me, but it wasn’t for the money or to be famous.

Bob:
I didn’t even think about getting published until after my 2nd mss. And I meant it didn’t even occur to me to try. I just wrote.

Jenny:
I just remember one day saying, “I’m going to write a novel,” and then sitting down and doing it.

Bob:
Exactly.

Jenny:
Yes, but why? I have no idea why I decided that.

Bob:
I guess lots of reading can lead to writing.

Jenny:
It’s not like I had a political intent, or a message I desperately needed to get across.
Maybe that was it. Maybe it was writing the romance I wanted to read but couldn’t find.

Bob:
I think that’s a lot of writers. We write what we would like to read but can’t find.

Jenny:
84% of Americans want to write a book some day. Or at least they did about ten years ago when that poll was taken. Most of them will never do it. There must be some mutant gene that says, “You must make stuff up so other people can read it.”

Bob:
I always say we’re not in the bell curve and don’t assume we’re the positive side of it.

Jenny:
Look at all the fan fiction out there, and so much of it is fixing the stories they love.
That’s a kind of “writing the book you want to read.”

Bob:
Yeah, but lazy. Start from scratch.

Jenny:
I think their inspiration comes from the original work. They’re not trying to publish, they just want to write their versions down and share it with other fan fiction writers. I don’t think they’re lazy, I think they’re just coming from a different place.

Bob:
True– tons of fan fiction that is really good out there

Jenny:
Really, it’s a very pure form of fiction. They’re writing for love of the characters and that world, not for fame or financial gain.
I know there’s fan fiction out there for my stuff, but I never read it, too afraid I’ll absorb something that’s not mine and use it.

Bob:
Yeah– and Amazon killed its “world’s program” with two weeks notice. There were people made a good living doing it. Especially after Amazon marketed it to them.

Jenny:
World’s program?

Bob:
I had several authors ask me about doing it and I told them not a good idea because of right’s issues. Amazon ran a fan fiction program where bigger authors authorized people to publish their fan fiction and the royalty was split.

Jenny:
Oh. I missed that entirely.
Why did Amazon kill it?

Bob:
Yeah– several years ago. They ran into the problem I foresaw: rights. Who owns the characters, the setting? It got complicated.

Jenny:
I could see not agreeing because they’d take the characters where they wanted them to go, not where I wanted.

Bob:
That’s the creative side. But it was the practical that killed it.

Jenny:
There’s Faking It fan fiction out there where Nadine and Ethan get together. Nope, they don’t. I don’t mind about the fan fiction, I take that as a compliment, but I wouldn’t want to authorize that version.

I’m surprised Amazon didn’t see those problems coming.

Bob:
Amazon tries a lot of things. They pull the plug fast when it doesn’t work.

Jenny:
So anyway, I have no idea why I write.

Bob:
We have to.

Jenny:
Well, the voices in my head won’t shut up unless I do, but still.

Bob:
That’s why we have to.

Jenny:
And on that note, I will set you free. Unless there was something you wanted to talk about?

Bob:
Dinner time. I actually had to feed Gus while we were chatting. Because he will no be denied.

Jenny:
Gus forever.

Have a good night.

Bob:
Hopefully

Good night