Falling Skies vs. The Walking Dead

Falling Skies vs. The Walking Dead

Why The Walking Dead is so much better than Falling Skies? I have 3 words for you: The Hero's Journey. I watch both of these shows but until I rewatched The Walking Dead Season 1 I couldn't figure out what was wrong with Falling Skies. Looking over my craft of writing books, I discovered it. There is an excellent book for writers, The Hero's Journey by Joseph Campbell. It uses the 12 stages of the hero's journey. The first stage when using the Hero's Journey for writing a novel is The Ordinary World.

This stage is vivid in The Walking Dead. We see Rick Grimes as a deputy sheriff, doing his job. Talking to his buddy, we can see his love for his wife, his child, and his duty. When he is shot pursuing a bad guy his first action is to tell his buddy to not tell his wife about his injury. His first thought is to not worry her. This tells us all we need to know about Rick Grimes and his relationships around him.

The loss of this stage in Falling Skies is glaringly clear. The action opens with an older man and a young man on the run. We learn later that one is the dad. They are running from aliens. The aliens kill grown-ups and capture and enslave young kids. All this is great action but we don't know these people. We don't care they are in danger.

Later we learn Noah Wylie's character was a college professor before the aliens arrived and now he is with the army. The show missed an opportunity to show me this character as a professor. What was the character arc of the nerdy, bookish professor becoming a rebel, resistance fighter? Show me the loss of his middle son to show me his love for his youngest and his oldest. Show me losing his wife. What did that do to him? Was that the moment that drove him to the army to fight the invaders? We don't know. There has been no flashbacks, no dreams of what was, how life used to be.

Falling Skies dropped the ball. The Walking Dead grabbed it and scored a touchdown.

Jill James

Plotter, Pantser, or Puzzler?

The question applies to your writing style. Mainly, how you get the story onto the page.

Plotter – (that’s me) Very linear thinking. Start with “Once upon a time” and continue on to “…and they lived happily ever after.” Love flowcharts, Excel files, spreadsheets, and plotting boards.

Pantser – The story is all in your head, you just have to put it down on the paper. Sometimes new ideas will hit your brain and you just go for it – literally write by the seat of your pants.

Puzzler – Write the story in pieces, whichever one hits you at the moment, piece together later, like a puzzle. Also called islands and bridges, which I like a lot.

Each way is the right way – for someone. That is the joy of writing. There is no right way, no wrong way, just your way. You can use one of these methods or a combination of the above, or make up your own methods of getting the story out of your head onto the page.

One thing I have learned: each method can’t understand how someone uses the other method. Plotters go nuts listening to puzzlers say they just write whichever scene is ‘hot’ in their brain and they will figure out later where it goes. Pantsers don’t want to plot because they feel the story is already done if they write it all out in detail.

There are grammar rules and submission rules and probably some other rules too that I missed, but isn’t it nice to know there are no rules for how you write your story?

Are you a plotter, pantser, or puzzler?

Starting with the Setting

Last week my crit partners were discussing which comes first, the plot or the characters? Everyone seemed to have a process, which they were capable of explaining in great detail. Except for me. The character-or-plotter-first question left me completely befuddled.


For the record, I am a total pantser. I see scenes play out in my head and I write what I see. Any other method leaves me confused. I can only fill out character interviews and plot points after I’ve finished writing the book. I’ve always been a little embarrassed when other writers talk about process because I didn’t have one.

Until last weekend, when we vacationed in the mountains of Idaho. I was watching kayakers fly over the whitewater on the Payette River when the wheels began turning in my head.

Who was the first guy to try to navigate that stretch of the river? What horrible thing was chasing after him to make him decide he’d rather chance the rapids than stick around and get caught? What if he wasn’t a man but a woman? And what kind of woman would voluntarily jump into that freezing river?

As the pictures began to form in my head, I realized I do have a process, and it begins with the setting. Once I know where and when my characters lived, everything else falls into place.

From characterization to plot and dialogue, every element of the story is influenced by its place in space and time. While it’s true that some goals, like the pursuit of love or money, are universal, the obstacles and conflicts will vary based on setting. The same character, dropped into a different locale, will behave differently.

Setting doesn’t just decorate the story. It is the story.

If you are stuck writing a sagging middle, try changing the setting. It will instantly liven things up.

If you are staring at a blank page and have no idea where to start, try this: Pick a setting. Any setting. Choose the character who is the least adapted to live in that setting. Now you have instant conflict, instant story. That’s why the fish out of water story never gets old.

I would love to hear your process stories. What comes first? The characters, plot, or setting? Do you like to mix it up, or do you always set your stories in the same time and place?

Craft: Polysyndeton and Asyndeton

A craft discussion from Dawn Marie Hamilton

So what are they? Diseases?

No. Rhetorical devices.

I probably should have learned about these writing techniques at some point during my education. But if I did, I don't remember. (Granted, it was a long time ago.)

Recently, I had fun taking Margie Lawson's Deep Editing workshop presented by WriterU, where polysyndeton and asyndeton were discussed along with other wonderful writing techniques. If you have a chance, do yourself a favor and take the Deep Editing workshop. And be prepared to work hard.

Rhetorical devises use language to create literary effect. Polysyndeton is the use of several conjunctions (And, Or) in close succession. Asyndeton is the opposite, where conjunctions are deliberately omitted. I like the rhythm the use of these techniques create.

Though I wouldn't use them in technical writing, they make quite an impact in fiction. Not something to use in abundance but to sprinkle throughout like a flavorful spice. Since taking the workshop, I've noticed the devices used in many of the books I read. And I've tried to use them in my stories.

An example of polysyndeton from my manuscript, Sea Panther:

The dank smells of stale beer and perspiration and moldy wood, mixed with a hint of urine, assaulted Kimberly as she entered the decrepit bar.

And an example of asyndeton from my manuscript, Just Beyond the Garden Gate:

He took in everything, missing naught, including the plaide wrapped around her shoulders clasped by a familiar brooch, the fabric clutched in a death grip by a delicate hand with elegant fingers, beautiful, unusual, enticing, each nail the color of oyster shells. He clearly imagined the sensual sensation of those fingernails grazing across his bare chest and more sensitive skin.

Both devices used in this excerpt from Just Beyond the Garden Gate, asyndeton in the first sentence and polysyndeton in the second:

The vaporous mist wrapped around him, pressed against him, suffocated him. He inhaled deeply then recoiled, recognizing the exotic oriental scent, the fragrance of peony and freesia and sandalwood. That infuriating sithiche must have come out of hiding. That must be who spun the magic.

What rhetorical devices do you use in your writing? Share a sample with us.