One would hope that the recent LOTR sweep at the Oscars would be a real breakthrough for genre films, particularly science fiction/fantasy, but that is more than likely a vain hope. LOTR swept because it was a particularly exceptional film and an incredible achievement. And the sweep was, more than likely, a way of honoring all three films of the trilogy, a rather bogus way of going about it if you ask me. If they really wanted to honor all three films, then the previous two films would have done better in their Oscar years. The Academy is no more enlightened when it comes to genre films than it has been in the past. Be prepared to go back to the "particular type" of film for Movie of the Year from this moment forward.

What does this have to do with writing?

The Academy reminds me of the literary community which looks down it's long nose at genre. So far, I have found only one M.A. writing program that focuses specifically on genre, and none among the M.F.A. programs. Granted, a writer doesn't need a higher degree to write, but you do need one to teach at college and university level. In a world where genre makes most the money, literary is what we're taught in the universities. Considering a university education is "supposed" to prepare a student for working in the real world, something is wrong with this picture. Preparing students to write literary work in a genre world is not preparing students for working in the real world.

Now, I don't have anything against literary writing. I don't particularly enjoy reading most of it, but I don?t really have anything against it. I do have a problem with a writing community that touts the literary style as the pinnacle of writing while snubbing all other genres.

Yes, I just called literary a genre. Genre, by definition, is a style of art, writing, or other creative endeavor. Literary is one style, fantasy another, mainstream still another. To perceive literary as above or outside genre is to deny the essential meaning of the word. Literary is a genre, and it is no better or worse than any other genre.

Literary snobbery denies the foundations of writing. The first piece I had to read for my English Lit. classes was "Beowulf." "Beowulf" is fantasy. It has monsters, magic, and beings with great powers; all markers of fantasy. The genre "features supernatural, magical, or otherworldly elements" (The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus 1997; 277). Call "Beowulf" anything else you like, but it is fantasy, as are many other older works that end up in the literary cannon, that ever changing, body of work considered the "best" ever written. Myth and legend, with a healthy dose of religion and generally with "supernatural, magical, or otherworldly elements," tend to make up quite a fair number of the earliest writings. But, really, all writing has a touch of fantasy since all writing comes from the "the free play of creative imagination" (Merriam-Webster Unabridged Online) to some degree. Writing, even nonfiction writing, is creative.

While I have focused primarily on fantasy, both because it is my preferred genre and because it tends to be among the most reviled, every genre has its place in the history of writing. Some genres seem to be past their "prime," relegated to a place in history when they were quite popular and now with only a small market if any market at all, but they've all made their own impact on writing. Most even manage to make an appearance in the anthologies used in English Lit classes. I've seen romance, westerns, drama, historical, mystery, and a number of others in the anthologies used in my classes. The literaries can deny it all they want, but genre has been, and always will be, a part of the writing and reading experience. I have been told by some of my professors that it is the "bad" writing in genre that has given genre its poor reputation in literary circles. This is nothing more than a blind justification of their snobbery as many "bad" literary works have also been published.

When it comes down to it, good writing is good writing regardless of genre, and it is long past time to celebrate good writing (and film) regardless of what category it fits into.

One of the things I learned very early in my overloaded college years (never less than 20 units a semester or 16 units a quarter) was that there was no time to wait for inspiration. Waiting meant rushing to get the assignment done and turning in sloppy work or, worse, a late turn-in and being docked a grade. Neither were acceptable to me because I believe in doing one's best in all things. And the impact on any assignments after a rushed or late project was always detrimental. So I learned not to wait for inspiration and to get the work done as soon as possible. And I believe it was one of the best lessons college ever gave me.

Too many writers complain they "can't" write, they are uninspired and have to wait for their muse to give them the creativity they need to get the words on the page. A lot of professional writers perpetuate this "myth of the muse" as well, making it seem as if some outside force is responsible for the ideas that became their novels. New writers seem particularly susceptible to this personification of their creative energy. Time and time again I have watched the myth of the muse become a roadblock to writers who won't write until inspired to do so. Most of them will be waiting a long time.

Creativity comes from within. Inspiration comes from the pure enjoyment of using that creativity to develop an idea you like or from doing an activity you love. Are we always inspired when we write? No. But the writers who "make it" are the ones who write anyway. When they have ideas overflowing, they write them down even if they don't have the time to work on them right then and there. That way, when they run out of inspiration and all their other projects are done, they have a list to go to and use. They pick an idea and they work with it, inspired or no. The writers who "make it" make writing a daily habit, muse or no muse. They don't complain, they don't wait, they write.

It's time writers shed the "myth of the muse." It's time to stop saddling new writers with a concept that often does more harm than good. It's time to teach them that waiting has nothing to do with writing, that the work of writing is just that: work. It is a daily habit, carved out of our busy lives, where the pen meets the page, inspired or not. It's the habit that sustains you, that stirs the creativity within you, not some imagined muse. It's the habit that gets us past waiting and makes us writers.

Some time back when I was struggling with the whole idea of fan fiction and its legalities, a writer I knew commented that she didn't write fan fiction because she didn't do "wasted writing." Everything she wrote had one goal: paid publication. While a bit taken back at the concept of wasted writing -- any writing that is not or cannot be for publication, I told her then, and firmly believe now, that no writing is ever wasted. Not all writing should be done purely with the goal of being published. Writing is one of the few careers that can be done just for the joy of it, without worrying about what the "boss" (editor or agent) will say. We need these moments to refresh ourselves and to remember our love for it, or it becomes just another job.

But writing without publication in mind does more than renew our creativity. Freewriting allows us to explore our ideas and find new ones. Since freewriting is personal and not intended for any eyes but our own, we are free to release our deepest thoughts and feelings on the page, no matter how silly or how horrific. While something in our freewrites might eventually lead to a publishable short story, publication is not the goal. The goal is to release ourselves, to let the word flow however they may, without censure or pressure. Freewriting is for release and discovery. Like freewriting, other forms of non-publication writing have their purposes: letters communicate; lists and notes jar our memories; journals records our success, our failures, our lives, and allow us to explore our feelings. None of these are wasted. They have purpose; they have their own power.

Beyond expression, release, and creativity, writing also teaches. Not only so we discover ourselves, but we learn about our craft. I have stories I would never dream of attempting to publish that have taught me about form, genre, style, and voice, and that I've used in classes to teach others about writing. My first 3 failed attempts at my first novel taught me about how I write and how I need to write, and how to take criticism. Critiquing teaches me how to read, teaches me different ways of writing, gives me an appreciation for different voices, shows me new ways of seeing and doing, and helps me to reinforce what I already know. Even fan fiction, which I do not write, has its lessons. Writing in someone else's world, using someone else's characters, isn't easy. From it a writer can learn about all those basics of writing: plot, character, setting, and so on. Those who write fan fiction are learning, in a roundabout way, the skills they need to be published (if they wish) from authors who already are published.

Writing cannot be wasted, no matter its form. Whatever its purpose, from the personal to the professional, writing always gives back to us. Words have power. While they may not always reach out to others, they always reach into ourselves.

I'd be the first to admit that a good writer's library is invaluable. Like most writers who have been at this craft for more than 6 months, I've sunk quite a bit of money into writing books, at least $350 right after I graduated with my degree alone. And that was 4 years ago, you can imagine the writing library has grown since then. We are told to read to be better writers; read fiction to see how other authors write, read on writing to get insight to the writing process, read other nonfiction to keep in touch with our world. However, books on writing have their own special dangers, particularly for new writers.

It is far too easy to see these books as the absolute authorities on how we should write. Being in print lends the book a sense of absolute truth, and books from well known, well published authors are given even more power by the mere fact that their authors have used the advice given again and again quite successfully. We take the advice to heart, start to follow it as unerringly as we are capable of, and then find ourselves confronted with one of two problems (or both): another authors, equally well known and well published, puts out a book that contradicts the advice we're following; or we find ourselves unable to work in the way the author demands. For years, my first novel never made it to a completed rough draft because I kept hearing that the way "real" authors write is to begin with the first word and end with the last word. But I can't write a novel straight through like that. I finally found my way, but I wonder if it would have been found sooner if I had realized earlier that "Real" authors write in the way they need to write, not to some specific technique or style.

Writing is very personal. Every writer will approach it differently, from how they write to what they write. We're told to limit adverbs, but J. K. Rowling does just fine with hers. We're told less is more when it comes to description, but that hasn't kept Mercedes Lackey from publishing new work. Writing books are helpful, but they are not the absolute authorities on writing. As with any other advice we receive, we need to read widely and take what makes sense to us and make it our own. Reading on how to write is enriching to us as writers, we learn and grow from such reading, but none of it is absolute. Writing is an art, and art has very few absolutes. Every artist must find his or her own path, his or her own voice.

Writing is also very much tied to culture and time. What is seen as excellent writing in England in the 1500's certainly isn't the kind of writing that will sell today. And what readers enjoy today, they will not enjoy in a few years. Just as the popularity of certain genres come and go, so do writing styles and rules. And books about writing are just as tied to the culture and time they are written in as the short stories and novels that are published. They are static, a picture of what works at that particular time.

Some writers become so caught up in the learning, in getting all the information they can on how to write, that they forget the rest of the equation. Reading about writing is a good thing, but we only become better writers when we actually write. It's easy to get caught up in the reading, to realize there is so much more we need to learn, and to not pick up a pen. But reading about writing and not putting pen to paper is the same as reading about painting and not applying paint and brush to canvass: the reading isn't going to teach you the control you need to make the picture you want. You must practice. It's the only way to improve your own work.

Read to learn about writing, but balance it with the actual writing practice you need. There's always something new out there for us to learn, something more that can help us improve our writing. It never ends. To try to fill up on what you need to know before you get started will only keep you from doing the one thing you're trying to learn to do: write.

We're starting to see the TV and movie generation hit the writers and readers of today. They've been raised on big explosions, blood and gore, and near non-stop action. The idea of tiny actions building up to a big consequence is a foreign idea to them because they rarely, if ever have seen it on the big screen. For them, horror and suspense without death and mayhem is neither horrific nor suspenseful. A story no longer has a rhythm in its tension, but one extraordinary event after another at breakneck speed. The impact on writing is a skewing of perceptions on what goes into the conflict of a story and what makes a character an active participant in the plot, and, perhaps, what it means for a sequence of events to actually BE a story.

This does not mean that movies and TV shows are bad, or that the techniques used to make them good for their target audiences are bad. I may be particular about my movies, but I do enjoy them. However, many of the techniques used in movies and TV are meant for visual story telling alone. They don't work well when used in the written word. Unfortunately, much of today's population is raised on TV and movies, and less are reading. This has been a gradual but definite change over the years, and it is influencing the way future writers perceive what a story is.

Like Ursela LeGuin, I believe a story is "a narrative of events (external or psychological) which moves through time or implies the passage of time, and which involves change." That change can be an actual change in the character or his situation, or a character's attempt at change. Characters must grapple with some kind of conflict, but the way they do so doesn't need to huge or dramatic -- they just need to try to get what they want. Sometimes this requires little actions -- pretending to drink from the poisoned cup instead of throwing the cup to the floor. Both are ways of avoiding the poison, one is just a less dramatic way of doing so. Less dramatic action does not equal passive. Passiveness is allowing the events to happen and making no effort to avoid them.

Action is a window into the character's soul, the circumstances surrounding the conflict, and the plot itself. The struggle to overcome the obstacles in our lives don't usually require dramatic overtures or flashy explosions. If TV and movies are to be believed, we see cars blow up every day. Most of us, however, probably have yet to see just one go up in a fireball. I know I haven't and I'm in my 40s. Even the most extra-ordinary of circumstances often only need the smallest of actions to be dealt with. Fiction is supposed to be grounded in this reality, even when based in the unreal. Making your fiction larger than life doesn’t mean taking life out of it entirely. Fiction, in all its forms -- even the least literary genre, is supposed to be a reflection of life, not an overdose of Hollywood flash. We as writers must keep the distinction in mind and avoid confusing good fiction with a Hollywood movie. Flashy special effects are for the big screen, not the printed page.