A friend asked me this morning how to write a book.  He has some ideas and has been jotting them down and is now at the point where he’s thinking about creating. After a long phone conversation that left me excited for him, I started thinking about competition.

Writing seems to be one of the few jobs where competition exists in the higher echelons, in the marketing realms, in that thin ozone layer populated by big names and big dollars.  Down here on the ground level, competition isn’t as apparent.  I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but rather that it’s not as common.

Almost every writer I come across is excited to help other writers. It’s like we get just as enthusiastic to support another as we get when we start one of our own stories.  There’s something about seeing the magic we feel bloom in another.

It’s one of the reasons I love editing and talking writing, and sitting in on writer’s groups, and attending conventions and classes and…you get the idea.  Just being around writers, no matter what level, is inspiring.  Maybe that’s a type of competition because the inspiration makes me want to jump into my own writing.  But if so it’s not a negative competition.

I like the idea of being immersed in something I love, in something that I see in others, and in something I can support another in.  Not once have I paused and thought, ‘damn, that’s a better idea than mine’ or ‘crap, they’re a better writer’.  Instead when I come across writing that shines, I’m inspired to write better, to learn, and to work.  Confess; don’t you get a thrill when you realize the person you’re talking to writes?

Maybe I’m bordering on being naive here, but my friend’s excitement about beginning makes me only want to support him and see him soar.

How about you?  Do you feel a sense of competition when it comes to being around other writers?  Can you tell me what that competition feels like?  Do you want to support beginning writers, or make sure they don’t pass you up?  Does competition inspire you to work harder, or threaten you?   Any other thoughts?

Creating antagonists can be challenging and fun for writers.  The challenge of course, is creating villains that are believable.  Gone are the days when you immediately recognized the villain because of the black  hat.  Last week I picked up a book I had read as a child.  The cover had a storm-shrouded house on a cliff edge, with the young governess running from it, lit by moonlight, and looking back over her shoulder in horror.  I got so much enjoyment out of re-reading that book.  Took me about five minutes.  These days, though, the villain must be realistic, believable, and with recognizable reasons for doing what he/she does, even if the reasons are insane.  Jessica Page Morrell has a great book called Bullies, Bastards, and Bitches, about creating believable antagonists; it’s well worth reading. 

One odd question I’ve received lately, is for suggestions on ‘evil’ names.  It appears some beginning writers think that a villain’s name must be evil, although I’m not sure what an ‘evil’ name sounds like.  I usually respond that the character makes the name evil, not the other way around.  ‘Ted’ wasn’t an evil name until associated with Ted Bundy.  Most writers already know this, and know that a truly horrific and terrifying antagonist is one that could live next door and not be recognized as the wearer of the black hat. 

Personally, the antagonist is, for me, my favorite character.  I think it goes back to highschool days and secret crushes on the bad boys.  Plus, that character can be the most challenging to write.  A story I wrote had a character based loosely on a relative.  As my own private retaliation, the character died in the first draft.  Oh, the outcry in the writer’s group!  Turns out that character was their favorite and many recognized aspects of the character from people they knew.  I took their advice, resurrected the character and ended up with a much stronger story. 

A character who creates strong reactions in the readers is one to hang on to and not kill off, which sounds obvious to writers until we have a character we really want to do away with.  Antagonists can be the character who holds the whole story together, keeps the reader turning the pages, and can be more important than the protagonist.  Which can actually be something to watch out for if you don’t want that antagonist taking over. 

So what antagonists remain with you after finishing a book, and why?  Do you prefer developing the protagonist or the antagonist and why?  Have you learned more about the craft of writing through the protagonist or the antagonist?  How do you develop an antagonist that is believable?

I love mysteries.  Well, any story where I have to figure out who did what by the end.  Last night I finished a novel by a very prolific author that my husband and I like.  I’ve read all of his books, and this one last night was written about mid-way through his career so he wasn’t a beginner by any means.  And yet, the antagonist at the end turned out to be a character that was never introduced until that final moment.  I say that’s cheating the reader.  How can a reader know what subplots are relevant, which threads to try to unravel, which embedded clues should be remembered, if none of that points to a known character?  And why should I spend the time it takes to read a whole novel, if I don’t have a chance of figuring out what’s going on?  That’s like playing poker when you know the hands everyone has.  Why play and where’s the fun? 

Two favorite authors of mine, Karen Slaughter and Cornelia Read, are masters of the mystery.  They are able to insert clues, misdirect the reader, and suck you into caring about even villains, with such a subtle pen that many times I have to reread the book in order to see what I missed.  A recent book of Karen Slaughter’s opened with the point of view of a police officer.  I inherently trust the police.  I wanted to like this guy as the main point of view, but little things in his dialog, tiny ways he responded to people, made me not like him a whole lot.  As the book moved along, more characters and more points of view were introduced, and eventually I found out Slaughter had done a fantastic job of tricking me, while at the same time giving me enough information that I should have been able to figure it out.  Unlike the previous author who cheated me. 

I love that subtle, very experienced way of drawing me into a story, into a character’s mind, and most importantly, into having to think and pay attention.  The other style of writing just makes me question whether or not to pick up another book by that author.  He’s lost my trust because now I won’t know if I’m being cheated again.  I do like the way he draws characters though so maybe I’ll just have to read the ending first.

So what are your thoughts on building trust with a reader?  Have you ever felt cheated by techniques an author employed?  What are the personal ways you  balance giving just enough information to the reader without giving away the ending?