I know I'm coming into this post late, but I wanted to (since this thread is relevant to what I'm currently working on myself as a writer) put in my two cents as it were. First off, it's true that if you're a male author and you're story's main protagonist is a woman that you have to think like your subject. How do you do that? I believe it's simple (and it's already been said). You think of a woman you know from real life or from, say the movies--you follow that. But, really we're all people regardless of sex. So, for me, since my main character in my latest endeavor is a woman (and I'm a man)... I have an example in mind and go from there. But, I also go by what I want the character to say--or, rather, what they're trying to coax me into saying about them. Most of what I've learned is that you have to forget about the sex of your character when you're first writing them... then ask yourself questions later, and get opinions from others. That's what I've done for my latest project.

Me actually being of French heritage...I personally like Loup-Garou. If I were to have werewolves in my stories, I'd go with it. lol

Well, the ghouls I've got in mind act like them to a point. They're almost more like bodysnatchers in truth. However, with that said, they have the characteristics as far as they require flesh to survive (they just don't eat it). Also, they have violent tendacies--go figure. So, I think that should fit within the realm of ghoulish activity

As far as exposition...I've been writing for, oh about, eight years now. And when I say that...I mean, seriously writing. Within that time I've learned a lot. Most of it by trial and error and by reading--seeing what other authors have done under different circumstances. Like Stephen King has pointed out...if you don't read, you won't be able to write well. I believe that. Practice makes perfect--or if not that, as close to it as any of us mortals will ever get. There are numerous tricks I've seen done when it comes to releasing backstory to the reader just enough at a time to maintain their interest without giving them the farm. In fact, a lot of times I've found it just happens. You have to tune your brain into the "voice." I know that sounds strange, but it's true. Listen to what your brain is receiving from the subconcious. It'll help

There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)

Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.

But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)

Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.

I completely understand what you're saying. In fact, I had planned on doing tricks, for example, similar to how Bob sometimes has to educate Harry. I like how that's done. My character knows a few things about ghouls already, but not everything. And I agree with you that certain points need explaining during the first part of the story.

I wouldn't see any need to rename them, so long as you are good enough to make things work. I mean, an awful lot of the current cultural notions of how vampires work was defined by Bram Stoker and a goodly subset defined by Anne Rice, so you can redefine them as well as anyone else.

Good point. You can set down your own rules and change things up, I guess. And if it's good...people will popularize it. Or, I should say, it can help influence thoughts on that particular subject.

I wouldn't really say that most people have as much of a preconceived notion of ghouls as they do for werewolves and vampires.  Ghouls aren't used very often.  And like neuro said, there's really no need to rename them.  SMeyer didn't rename her vampires as something else, though about the only thing they have in common with mythological vampires is the need to drink blood.

I guess that's probably true about ghouls. They aren't used as much as other paranormal beings. For some reason I had always had "flesh-eating" in my mind about them--probably that's from the very first Anita Blake novel and few movies I've seen. Smart zombies lol  I felt good when I'd come up with what my ghouls are--just didn't want to confuse people between what I'm doing and any notions that might already be out there. They're not mutants, but more like automatons. A construct of magic. Besides, like you're pointing out: you can go in whatever direction you want. I guess so long as you're consistent is what matters

Wow! I totally missed that. Thanks Priscellie for the tip. And thanks for everybody else's input as well. I just turned on the "return to post" option and I now return to the topic I had just replied to

Not sure if this has been previously discussed...But, when I post a reply to a thread I get taken back to the main forum page instead of the replied-to post. I keep having to find my way back to the post, because, I guess it's the writer in me, I like to check for any crazy spelling or grammatical errors I might've made. It's a small annoyance, and, yes, I can live with it. Just wondering if this small technical glitch happens to everyone, or if it's just me.