The Bitter Barista - What Not to Do If You're Writing True Story

I was pretty shocked by the BitterBarista debacle. Some guy blows off steam on Twitter. Some other blog exposes him and links to the company he works for. The guy gets fired.

Here were my first thoughts: The posts are satire, and people think he's funny. What's the big deal? Wow the blog that exposed him must be creeps! 

Based on the feedback they got, a lot of other folks thought that as well.

But I'm a writer, so I immediately looked at it from a writer's perspective.

There are plenty of funny books out there about people's exploits on the job. And many of them deal with wacky customers and many of them get written about. I recently read and loved, Pets in a Pickle (also available as an ebook)

Except it's not quite that easy. I went to Sprudge.com, the site that allegedly outed him. I say allegedly, because according to their site he had already outed himself and that his real name is available on his twitter profile and that he says where he works in some of his tweets.

Further, they state: "Rough days at work? Of course. Upsetting interactions? Absolutely. Need to vent sometimes? That’s universal. But rape jokes? References to violence and animal abuse? Endangering customers with food allergies and dietary restrictions?" They also say that the posts were not posed as satirical until after the whole debacle occurred. Here's the post on Sprudge.

I haven't independently verified their claims, so please don't send me hate mail. ;) Whether or not their claim is true isn't the point of my article here. Nor is whether or not Matt Watson should be fired.

Instead I had two questions:

In books that tell all about the author's present or past profession how is this case different?

What lessons does this case teach me as a writer? Besides not to blog about my day job.

Say What Happened...

In most of the books in the True Story genre that I've ever read, and if the author has a story that might reflect unflatteringly on the people involved, The writer is generally careful to state the facts and leave it there. Sure the writer might mention that they laughed, were sad, felt hurt, were confused and such.

...Let the Actions Speak for Themselves...

These authors also don't resort to name calling. They don't say or imply that the folks involved were rude, stupid or anything else. The facts of the story are enough for the reader to make up their own mind.

Now I'm not saying that the Bitter Barista did or did not resort to name calling. I don't subscribe to his tweets and I really don't have the time or energy to do so. So I have zero idea. However it seems likely that he may have according to what I've read elsewhere.

...Don't Indulge in Fantasy...

Obviously if your intent is satire, ignore this one. However if you're writing true stories about your life, then it's unwise to go on about how you wanted to spit in their coffee. Or suggest that you actually did spit in their coffee. (Disclaimer once again: I don't have any reason to suspect that Watson spit in anyone's coffee or even said he did, this is JUST an example. However I did know one waitress long in the past who actually did spit in someone's food, and I was horrified.) Unless you're also willing to chastise yourself in the story for being a horrible person.

...Leave Out Suggestions of Rape, Violence and Cruelty to Animals

This one should be a no brainer. (Here's that disclaimer again. I don't know what the Bitter Barista said, I only know what Sprudge said he said.) Some things are just beyond the pale. Fantasizing about giving someone the wrong coffee order is one thing. Fantasizing about rape, violence and animal cruelty are just straight out! If you do, and you say you do, then expect that you're going to lose readers, tick people off and quite possibly lose your job. Unless you're a sociopath and the purpose of your book is to write about being a sociopath. These things are not funny. At least not to me.

I may or may not ever write a book about the true story of my life. For now I'll stick to fiction. But if I ever do, I've learned how to write it without getting myself in trouble or upsetting people whose worst crime was to be human.

Other Writers Aren't Your Rivals

 Nothing like an excuse to rant! Today I found An Open Letter AboutAuthor Behavior

In short, one particular author has been going around using pseudonyms to 1) give himself glowing reviews and 2) give his "rivals" bad reviews.

While giving your own writing glorious reviews under a false name is clearly unethical, I was really surprised with the second half of that equation, and that's what I want to address:

Say it with me folks..."other writers aren't your rivals."

Like a snowflake, your book is unique and special, something that you, and only you with your singular past, perspective on life and style could write. (Oh they SAY that a few million monkeys typing for a few million years could eventually churn out the Bible or the works of Shakespeare, but I personally don't buy it.)

That other writer couldn't have written your book and you couldn't have written theirs.

Now granted it's possible that a particular reader might not, on a particular given day be able to afford both your book and your "rival's" book.

Funny thing, though, books are consumable. Even though there are plenty of books that we've read more than once, sooner or later you're going to want to read something new. And even the most prolific writer is probably not going to crank out enough novels where the reader won't eventually run out of published works to read.

Now how would you even imagine that a particular author was a rival? Well they probably write a similar type of book to yours, and maybe have a similar style to yours. Which means the people who read your books might read theirs, and vice versa.

That doesn't make that author your rival - it makes them your POTENTIAL MARKETING PARTNER.

Rather than focus on negativity and a sense of lack, focus on positive possibilities. Their happy customers might be your happy customers as well.

So:

• Give them an honest and positive (assuming you actually like their work) review. Then consider saying something like "and if you loved their book, you might also like (insert your own title). Is it legit to do this on Amazon.com? I don't know, but I can't imagine it's not.
  
  
• Again, assuming you liked their book, write a nice review on your own blog or other website. Let the author know. They'll probably be so happy that they'll link to your site. And what does that do? It sends their readers to you as well as to them.
  
  
• Contact the other author and suggest you do some mutual blogging/reviews of each others work. They might say no, but they might be flattered and say yes.

My hypnosis teacher used to say, "What you focus on is what you create." 

If you believe in a world of lack (not enough sales, not enough customers, not enough good reviews, too many "rivals") you'll create that. In fact consider the author who originally wrote all those negative reviews and how many potential readers he may have lost because of that.

However if you believe in a world where there's plenty for all, you create that instead.

Make Your Words Work - Indispensable Books For Writers

If I had to choose just one book that would help improve my writing, Make Your Words Work: Proven Techniques for Effective Writing for Fiction and Nonfiction by Gary Provost would probably be it.

What does Provost mean by his title?

"By writing that works, I mean writing that does the job it's supposed to do, whether that job is to inform, entertain, anger or instruct. Writing does not work if it only entertains when it is supposed to instruct. It does not work if it only angers when it is supposed to educate. Whether a piece of writing has been put together to convey factual information or to create images in a story, it should be judged not on good grammar or adherence to the rules of composition, (both of which are tools, not goals),  but on how well it does its job. Does it  work? Does this word reveal my character's feeling? Does this sentence convey the popularity of stock car racing? Does this paragraph communicate the feeling of despair these refugees have?"

 Make Your Words Work is down to earth from page 1. "Can Writing Be Taught?" he asks. "No," he says, "throw this book away." Provost's writing is conversational, easy to understand and witty. His examples are clearly illustrated and  entertaining as well as instructional. The book is broken up into workable chunks with exercises to solidify the concepts in your brain.

Not only does he cover the "usual suspects" of dialogue, description, viewpoint, pace and characterization, he talks about some of the unsung heroes of writing--things like music, unity, credibility, subtlety, tension, proportion and form.

Some of my favorite sections include, "Putting Description in Motion," "Use Strong Verbs," the entire chapter on Tension and...oh heck, the whole darn book. I like to use this book as a checklist when I edit my work, "am I varying the construction of my sentences? Can I milk the dialogue some more? Do I need to reorganize for better unity? Are my verbs pulling their weight?"

Provost teaches you how to turn your words into willing employees who make your writing clearer, more precise, more fun to read--and publishable! This book will make your words not just grip your readers, but pull them into an embrace and lead them on a tango across your pages.

Adverb Abuse - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

An adverb as you probably know, is a word that describes a noun.  Mark Twain once said that, "Adverbs are the tool of the lazy writer." The problem is that in general adverbs are a sign of weak verbs. Well, it may come as no surprise that the Nancy Drew books are chock full of adverbs.

Now using the occasional adverb isn't a crime. However in the course of The Mystery at Lilac Inn:

• Maud walks away rapidly.
• Nancy greets someone pleasantly.
• The police chief quizzes salesclerks briefly.
• Nancy's car leans precariously.
• "Hi Dad! How good to hear you!" Nancy says happily when her father calls on the phone.
• She thinks indignantly that the driver who forced her off the road should have his license revoked.
• The girls finish dressing quickly (even though there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to hurry).
• She greets the gardner pleasantly.
• The new waitress at the Inn smiles shyly.
• "We'll have to douse it," John said tensely. "The whole row [of buildings] will burn down if we wait for the fire department."
• She kisses her father affectionately.
• A policeman rubs his chin thoughtfully.
• She climbs out of a car quickly to inspect some damage.

These aren't even a good half of the adverbs I found. I've left out those which seemed to work and least somewhat, and I didn't bother paging all the way through the entire book to create this list. The sentence which caused me to begin this rant was this one:

She described vividly her encounter with her double. John listened intently.

Two adverbs in two sentences? Eeek! Run away screaming!

So if we were the writer how could we fix all this to clean up the writing?

Does Nancy need to describe it "vividly"? Could she just describe it? Could she "detail" it, implying that she gave him all the details? Does John need to listen "intently"? Could he merely "listen"? Or if we need to show that he seems interested in the exchange, can we say that he questioned her. Maybe something like:

 She described her encounter with her double. John listened, questioning her on the details.

Now lets go over the rest of the list.

When Nancy greets folks "pleasantly" couldn't we just say, "Nancy greeted them," or just have dialogue do the work and have her say, "Hi!" Or perhaps, "I'm Nancy Drew, she said with a smile."

With Nancy saying, "Hi, Dad! How good to hear from you!" do we really need to be told that she's happy to hear from him? Once again the dialogue does all the work. In a similar vein, when she kisses her Dad affectionately, most kisses between a daughter and father would be assumed to be affectionate. If the kiss is sarcastic, tepid, passionate (eww) only THEN do we need to know that the kiss is something other than it might seem.

On the subject of no brainers, John saying something  "tensely" when the buildings are afire is a complete joke. Having recently (omigosh an adverb) lived through a fire, I can darn well tell you that someone is going to be tense when then a fire may be ready to spread. Why not use a stronger verb, however. "He snapped." would do a great job of showing that he's tense. Or once again, just leave it to the reader and trust the dialogue.  "We'll have to douse it," John said. "The whole row will burn down if we wait for the fire department."

In other situations we have to ask ourselves how important the timeline is as it regards the plot. If Nancy douses the flashlight quickly (as she does at one point) this adverb can help us to understand that she's nervous and doesn't wish to be seen. However is there any decent reason to tell us how long it takes the police chief to quizz the salesclerks? Do we care how long it takes the girls to dress for dinner? No, on both accounts. Both sentences read better with the adverb struck out.

Regarding the cop and his thoughtful stroking of his chin, this mannerism is a cliche all on its own. How about, "a thoughtful look came into his eyes" or "he stroked his chin, taking a moment to think."

When Nancy gets out of the car to inspect damange, why "climbed quickly" when a stronger verb such as "leapt" or "jumped" would give us the same picture in fewer words. And since she's driving her signature blue roadster, "climbed" would really only be appropriate if she were stepping from a tall wheelbase truck or van.

I'd be indignant if someone forced me off the road as well. Why not just "Nancy was indignant. 'They should take away his driver's licence," she muttered.

The  few times that the adverbs are necessary for the plot, could also be done with more polish:

As Maud walks away rapidly, we are expected to understand from the dialogue that she is angry. Why not, "she swished away in a huff" or "her heels clicked against the floor as she made her retreat," or just, "she stomped off toward her room,"?

Again, with her attitude being somewhat of a plot point, rather than having her "remark pointedly," let her gestures and actions speak.  "She raised her brows," "she smirked," "she pursed her lips" or any of a few dozen gestures might have worked.

When Nancy's car leans into the ditch, its obvious that this is a tactic to inject some drama. After all, Nancy is being forced off the road. But try something more graphic, like, "The car teetered on the edge of the ditch. Nancy's stomach clenched and she braced herself for the vehicle to topple into the roadside mud."

The new waitress is also a plot point, as is the fact that she has a shy manner, but why can't she, say something, "with a shy smile." Or if the writer wants to push the point, perhaps something like, "she seemed self conscious of her bottle-thich glasses and Nancy wondered if the girl had the energy and gusto to work out as a waitress."

As a last note, sometimes adverbs are useful and necessary. Whenever possible, prune them from your writing. There's often a better verb or a better way to phrase what you want to say. If you use them, use them sparsely and with care.

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games

Too Many Characters At Once - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

Of the books I'm discussing, The Mystery at Lilac Inn is the only real offender. But what a doozy! In Chapter One we're introduced to Doris Drake, who mentions to Nancy and Nancy's friend Helen Corning that her friend Phyl had talked to Nancy at the drug store earlier today, which Nancy denies. This sets up the Nancy-impersonator part of the plotline.

Nancy and Helen continue upriver in their canoe  where the canoe capsizes and we see a suspicious man with a crew cut.

Following this, we meet Emily Willoughby, are told of her fiance Dick Farnham, and meet John McBride, Dick's friend, Hazel Willoughby, Emily's aunt, and Maud Potter, the Inn's social director.

But wait, there's more! Hank the gardener, falls into a hole and hurts his leg. Another gardener, Gil Gary drives Hank home.

Including Nancy, we meet or are told of twelve characters in the space of only 9 pages.

As if that wasn't enough, the next chapter introduces us to Mr. Daly, the former owner of the Inn (why he's even in the book is beyond me, since he contributes almost nothing to the plot) and Hannah, the Drews' housekeeper

Those familiar with the series already know Nancy, Helen and Hannah, but by the time in Chapter 2, where Nancy brings up the subject of running into Doris, my head is swimming with names. "Who the heck is Doris?" I mutter, paging backwards, and having totally forgotten the earlier meeting, which was so brief that it took up less than a page.

What's the most characters you should introduce per chapter or per page? It's different for every story. The most important focus however, should be on making the characters memorable enough that you don't confuse the reader. If you've read my last installment in this series, you'll realize that each of these characters are just a collection of names and sometimes hair colors, making it nearly impossible to keep the names straight.


Just for fun, I'll check my shelves and see how many characters we meet in the first chapter of the books I've got handy.
 

The Darkness Under the Water a young adult novel about an Abenaki girl growing up in Vermont during the Depression by Beth Kanell starts with all of four characters. Molly is the protagonist, Gratia is her sister who died at the age of 5 and continues to haunt her, and Mama and Papa get mentioned. 

In B is for Burglar by Sue Grafton, we meet the protagonist in a one page prologue, then in Chapter 1 we meet Beverly Danzinger and are told of her sister Elaine Boyd, who seems to be missing. An attorney, Mr. Wender is mentioned, and last we meet Tillie Ahlberg, who manages the condo where Elaine was living. Two names that were on bills sent to Elaine are also mentioned, but thus far these names seem peripheral to the story and I didn't feel the need to recall the names.

Since I have The Burglar on the Prowl by Lawrence Block to read next (just coincidental that I'm reading two books with Burglar titles) I opened it and skimmed the first chapter. Only four names were mentioned besides the protagonist, though Bernie, a bookseller by day and burglar by night, and his friend did discuss the names of a couple authors and artists as part of their banter.

Two of the books on my shelf start with a much larger cast of characters in the initial chapter:

Darkwood by M.E. Breen's first chapter features our heroine Annie Trewitt, Aunt Prim and Uncle Jock, Annie's guardians. Page, Annie's sister, and Helen (their mother) and their father (unnamed yet in this chapter) and her friend Gregor, all four of whom are now dead, are mentioned. We also meet Izzy and Prudence, Annie's cats, and the villain, Gibbet, who comes to purchase Annie from her aunt and uncle. We also meet a few peripheral names: the Woefort family, who have lost a cow, Jane who reported this fact to Aunt Prim, and the names of several children eaten by the kinderstalk. Not counting the peripheral names, that gives us 10 characters. Eleven if you count the kinderstalk, a seemingly vicious race of intelligent wolf-like creatures who prey on humans. That's near (or even more than) the number of characters introduced in The Mystery at Lilac Inn. The difference? In Darkwood, Chapter One is 21 pages long (twice the length of TMLI's first chapter) and each important character is introduced with vivid description, dialogue and action to cement them in our mind.

Forbidden Land by William Sarabande starts with Zhoonali a midwife, Wallah a kindly older woman, Iana, the other wife of Lonnit's husband, and Kimm and Xhan, the wives of Zhoonali's son, helping Lonit, one of the main characters, to give birth. We meet Torka, Lonnit's husband, Summer Moon and Demmi, Lonnit's two daughters, Karana, the tribe's medicine man. Umak, and Manaravak (both dead) Torka's grandfather and father are mentioned, as are Grek, Wallah's husband, Ekoh, a tribesman and Cheanah, who is Zhoonali's son and seems to be the main villain of the novel, Mahnie, Karana's woman, Aar the dog, and Sondahr, a medicine woman and Navahk, a magician ( both of the last two also deceased) are also introduced. Okay, that's a lot. Nineteen characters! Again this chapter is 21 pages long. Also, this book is the third in The First Americans Series, so if you're reading the series, you already know the majority of the characters.

Can you introduce more characters at one time and make it work? Certainly. Just be certain to make each character vivid enough for the reader to recall. Who's more memorable?

...a dainty young woman, had chestnut hair, set off to advantage by her white linen dress. (Emily Willoughby from The Mystery at Lilac Inn)

or

She could see the pores in the creases at the sides of her wide, flat nose, and the painted patterns around her smoke-reddened, rheumy eyes had smudged and run together. (Zhoonali from Forbidden Land)

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games

Undescribed Characters - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

Believe it or not, hair color isn't much of a character attribute! Shocking isn't it? Unless of course the hair color tells us something about the character, such as the fact that they don't bother to dye the gray out of their hair (which could mean that they're comfortable with aging, might or might not be attractive on them, or could just be slovenly) or if they dye their hair in oddball colors, such as bright pink or green.

However in Nancy Drew mysteries, all we usually get in the way of description of characters other than the villains is hair color and cut, possibly eye color, and a vague idea of their relative comeliness and body shape. Sometimes, we also get a clue on how they dress.

In The Secret of Red Gate Farm, Nancy's friend George is described perhaps better than most of the characters:

...dark-haired George Fayne. Her boyish name fitted her build and straightforward, breezy manner.

Bess, George's cousin is described as "blonde, pretty" and "pleasantly-plump." Joanne Byrd, whom Nancy rescues in the story is described as "sweet-faced" and "frail."

In The Mystery at Lilac Inn Nancy herself is described as an "attractive titian blonde" and we're told that her blue eyes twinkle. Helen Corning is "slender, pretty." When they meet the folks at the Lilac Inn we're introduced to Emily Willoughby:

...a dainty young woman, had chestnut hair, set off to advantage by her white linen dress.

While John McBride, Nancy's potential love-interest in the story is "a handsome, well-built man with wavy black hair."

Finally we get to meet Aunt Hazel:

White hair framed her face in soft waves, and she was impeccably groomed.

and Maud:

...a younger woman who had an angry look on her rather pretty but petulant face.

The fact that Aunt Hazel is impeccably groomed, may actually say something about her character, as might Maud's "petulant face." Whew! Finally we get some actual character description rather than just outward details.

Do we really care however, that Emily's hair is "set off to advantage" by her dress? All that tells us is either that she's pretty or that she's got a bit of style. Neither of these suggestions contribute to the plot or to what is essentially a flat character, designed only to offer Nancy a mystery and a setting for it.

Nancy's father, Carson Drew is invariably described in the series as "handsome" and sometimes "tall." Just as the villains' are telegraphed in the stories, the people who are not the villians are apparent by their lack of description.

However the crowning achievement of non-description in the Nancy Drew series has got to be Nancy's housekeeper and surrogate mother, Hannah Gruen, who is usually described as "pleasant-faced" or some facimile thereof.

That one I want to take a special look at. "Pleasant" along with "nice," "good," and "agreeable" to mention a few others, are some of the most namby-pamby words in the English language. Interestingly enough, one of the synonyms for "pleasant" is "bland." Pretty much the last thing I'd want my characters to be.

In the Nancy Drew stories, it's almost as if we're told people's hair colors just so that the author can write, "the blonde girl said" rather than "Bess said."

To contrast, here is a character from B is for Burglar, a Kinsey Millhone Mystery by Sue Grafton:

The man appeared to be in his seventies, corpulent and benign. Old age had given him back his babyfat and the same look of grave curiosity.

And another one (conincidentally an overweight person as well) from The Burglar on the Prowl by Lawrence Block:

One look at him, the way he held himself, the way he moved, and you somehow knew he'd been fat all his life, a fat baby who'd blossomed into a fat little boy, gone through the awkward years as a fat teenager, and emerged at last as a fat grownup.

and

No, he was fat all over, and I got the feeling it was fine with him.

Both of these descriptions not only give us a view of the outer person, but of the inner person as well.
I haven't yet finished reading B is for Burglar, so I don't know if Mr. Snyder is the murderer or not. I'm going to guess that he's not, but you never know. From that first glimpse of him, however he seems innocent as a child, telling us something about his inner nature, as well as his outer self.

The Burgular on the Prowl is on my shelf to read next. So I don't have the slightest idea who Block's character is or how he fits into the plot. The rest of the description goes on to say that he looks natty and prosperous, and that his teeth are:

...perfectly white and perfectly even, so much so that one could hardly avoid the suspicion that they were not perfectly real. But then you could have said much the same thing about his smile.

From this, I'm going to guess that this gentleman is someone who's going to give Bernie, Block's protagonist some trouble, whether he turns out to be the villain or not. The fact that the character is fine with being fat also tells us about a measure of his confidence. I wouldn't expect that this is someone easily disuaded from his plans.

So I'll hope that the moral of this article is apparent: When describing characters, give them actual CHARACTER, not mere labels. I'll probably write more in depth on this subject at a latter point.

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games