Critiquedit

I enjoyed a very good critique session today that could have only been made better if the folks currently at Worldcon were present.  I'm ready to put the short story in question into something approximating final form.  

The thick stack of paper I end up with after a critique session used to daunt me.  I'd begin the process of procrastination by setting it somewhere not-my-desk, where it would fester for a while.  Every time I looked at it I'd think I should get to sorting through that, but first I have to scrub around the kitchen faucet with a toothbrush.  Right now.  Just like a cat that has to interrupt crossing a room right now to lick itself, I'd feel a compulsion to get busy doing something unrelated to going over the written critiques as soon as possible.  

But, no more.  A lot doesn't get said during a fiction critique.  No one wants to point out every single little grammatical error or the fact that when the character teased out a nosehair you laughed so hard you blew milk out your nose, and you weren't even drinking milk at the time.  So going over the written comments is important, as is going over the notes you write during a critique.  Don't give me that look.  No, you aren't supposed to file those with the copies of manuscript into your to-do pile.  Your sex partner goes in the to-do pile.  The manuscripts go on the desk, so that when you next sit down to write (not blog or surf the net) you have to move them in order to get to work.  I'm a firm believer in not letting manuscripts that have been critiqued stew.  They've stewed already.  They've stewed while you waited to hear back.  The longer I wait, the more good ideas I lose as the short term memory is taken up by details of daily life that isn't going to be important five minutes later.  I don't need to utilize the fact that I had pizza for dinner.  I need to utilize the expression on a critiquer's face as she detailed the impression my work had left on her.  I need to remember what "Yes to Sara and C.S., go with the bastard" means.  

With that, I'm off to edit.  Cue music!

Daily Writing Course available, free!

Ever have trouble with plots and subplots? Characterization keeping you up at night? Having issues with suspense and tension?

You can read a ton of books, take writing courses, get critiques like you always have, or you can spend a couple of hours a day for a few days or even a week watching the work of writers who have mastered all these skills.  Infamous for their ability to suck in a new viewer, sneered upon even more than romance writers, you gotta hand it to them.  Soap opera script writers know what they're doing.

Their plots and subplots are written very well and are extremely well-balanced.  They have to be.  Remember, they have to keep an audience interested enough that they'll wait through some of the most obnoxious commercials aired on tv, second only to late night infomercials, to continue watching.  During the dread commercial break a viewer can easily switch to a different soap or plug in a non-commercial-laden DVD. 

 

Their characterization is strong.  The viewers may know who the bad guys are, but not all the characters do know who the bad guys are and that makes for a lot of fun.  (Take a lesson from that right there.)  They write bitches like no one else and put honey in their mouths when those bitches are a wooing.  If you have trouble writing good guys that aren't boring, look no farther.  Each character has a distinct voice, goals, agenda--they're well-rounded and unique.

Suspense and tension?  They've taken it to extremes that have become laughable in the tv screenwriting industry, turning the cliff-hanger into a cliche' and drama into new heights (or lows, if you prefer) of melodrama.  What's beautiful about it as far as learning how to do it from a writing perspective is that the snippets of plot are broken down into very short frames and you can examine the tension arch in bold relief.  

The writing has to be good or there would be no audience.  In matter of fact they have a huge audience, one any writer would envy.  They have to be able to pull in a new viewer in just a few seconds in the middle of the story, with no recap because they never know when a new viewer will come in.  That alone I find fascinating, that the writing can bring in a viewer into the story even though that viewer has no idea (initially) what's going on.

I bet you think I'm joking but I'm not.  Give it a try.  Just remember, they are addicting.  Whole magazines and forums are devoted to them.  There was even a paranormal one I came very close to becoming addicted to when I last had the flu.  It's worth the risk for a quick, dirty and efficient lesson in effective writing techniques.  

Book in a Week?

Who needs a kick start to get themselves writing again?

I was reading about writing a book in a week on Broad Universe and something clicked.  No, absolutely I'm not going to write a book in a week.  I've got too many books I've written in a month that need my tender loving editing care to write yet another, especially since I'll probably do Nanowrimo again.  But when I got to the part about heroines of straw I thought aha!  That's something valuable to observe.  The author focused on lack of preparation leading to her failures but I thought her mention of her characterization was a bigger clue to her underlying issues.  Or not.  She was writing about her process, not mine.  

I wondered, can you prepare a character?  Technically, I guess.  You can decide their hair color and eye color, if they were molested as a child and how that makes them act out, if they drive a Cadillac or take the bus, and so on.  You can even 'motivate' them.  "My character wants, more than anything in the world, to travel to outer space."  Is that going to be your climax, then?  She finally gets to go to outer space?  Or is that just the beginning?  With the first choice, you've got a whole lot of empty to get her there.  With the second, you've got the deadly 'now what?'

So I thought about characters and what happens when I've got a good one.  And I realized that my favorite characters are strangers that I connect with and learn about as they grow in the story.  They're people when, as our eyes meet for the first time, I get this tingle.  I want to get to know them.  Maybe it's a shallow impression.  Man, is he hunky, and yet he's so shy!  Or maybe it's that moment of we're all in deep doo doo and she looks like she knows what she's doing.  I may be wrong, but my instincts say she's going to get me out of this mess alive where no one else can.  

Hopefully you're getting that idea.  I think this is yet another situation where 'write what you know' gets a lot of writers, including myself, into a little trouble.  I can think of a novel in particular where I put so many of my own insecurities and philosophies and everything else into the character that she didn't have much going for her.  Well, she had about as much going for her as I do.  I can be pretty entertaining and I have a lot of friends, but for a character to carry a novel I think she needs to be surprising, uncomfortable, edgy--something (even if it's just one thing but hopefully several things) that's not me.  I don't want her to be predictable and always react the same way I'd react if I were in the same situation.  

I'm not saying characters have to be larger than life--not at all.  But think about the first time you met your best friend, the love of your life, the teacher that changed your life, someone who impressed you even when you didn't know that much about them.  I propose that a character needs to pop for you the same as real people pop out of society's swarm and instantly become individuals.  Great actors can make even the most mundane secondary character interesting.  You want to get to know them, even if they're bad guys (or maybe especially, if you think that way.)  

The strongest short story I've recently written had this fun voice.  I didn't know much about that character's history, but I immediately wanted to get to know her.  She was a pistol.  I think I'm going to try to write something like that again, about someone I'd want to really get to know.  I think she's going to make a fabulous first impression on me.  I'll combine it with the garden challenge, I think.  Doesn't really matter, as long as I get to write about her.  I can't wait!

Yammering About Writer's Groups

After Lucky Labs a few of us discussed how writer's groups are not for everyone. We came up with two categories of people for whom writer's groups are bad. One is the sort of writer whose soul is sucked out by critiques. These writers come out of critiques wanting to set fire to their story and never speak of it again or, worse, with a writer's block that even Hercules couldn't lift. If a writer's group meeting doesn't make you want to dash home and write lots, it's not doing you any good. The other kind of writer is one who is uncertain about the hearts of his/her stories. If the writer is willing to make any kind of modification suggested, or all of them at once, because they have no commitment or passion or inspiration they're willing to trust, a writer's group will destroy the integrity of their voice. The fiction they produce may be serviceable, and readable, but it will be missing that spark that makes editors want to buy a story at best, and turn to ashes at worst. Ashes are really bad. Well, except when C.S. writes about them.

Anyway, the plight of the uncertain author seems like a conundrum. If you go to a critique group for expert, or at least respectable, opinions, shouldn't you listen to them? Of course, but you have to own the story, love it, believe in it. Sometimes a story you love isn't salvageable and you need to let it go, but you have to realize that, believe it, and trust that. Never take apart a story based on someone else's say-so if you're not absolutely sure they're right, even if they're All That. By absolutely sure, I mean you have an aha moment, a realization, a heart-felt feeling of oops when you see your story in a new light. You're not absolutely sure if your gut says, "Gee, Jim said he wouldn't wipe his ass with it, so I guess it's no good," or even, "Everyone had such valid things to say about the weaknesses of the story, it must not be worth fixing." You wrote the story for a reason. It's not like marriage at all, except in this: If you loved the story enough to write it, do what you can to keep that story alive. If it's time for divorce, so be it, but make sure you believe that in your heart, not because your mother told you he's no good for you.

Stop Kami, Stop!

I keep getting directed to good articles on writing and I can't seem to stop linking to them.  Here's one on the craft of short story (with thanks to James D. Macdonald to pointing it out.)  Also thanks to Uncle Jim's pointy finger, a short list directed at beginning writers that even advanced and/or published writers can benefit from.  The comments are just as fun as the list itself, although I nodded so hard at the list contents I think I sprained my neck, whereas the comments tended to meander as comments do.

Here's a new SF market, with emphasis on near-future.  So, would the moon be considered off-world?  I find it interesting that with the emphasis being so often on short and tight stories, stories under 2000 words are a hard sell to this market.  I don't think the implication is to necessarily meander, but some readers do like to linger in an environment. 

With resources like this on the web, why in the world would someone like me offer up writing advice?  Oh yeah, because I can't seem to shut up.  I think that may be a common flaw, or maybe it's an advantage, or both, of people who are writers.

The synopsis as a haiku

Since we've been discussing synopses so much lately, my eyes bloinked out of my head when I was at the Absolute Write Water Cooler today.  (Yes, I know, I should be writing ...)  The post that caught my attention had a link to a Miss Snark post about synopses.  Miss Snark's post is short and snarky, as always.  The brilliant quote in the middle that I wanted to call everyone's attention to was this:

A synopsis is just a totally weird form. It's like haiku on steroids. Everything that makes you a good writer works against you for writing a good synopsis.

Read the entire post here.  There are lots of great comments that go with it.

Curse you, synopsis, you mock me with your artificial constructions and the disproportionate value that is placed upon you!

The Toolbox

I've begun the linking process to retrofit all of our informative blogposts to the INK FAQ site. Click the link to the left to see what I'm doing. In the next few weeks, I'll add the older links too, and then I'll add them as they appear here. Our very own Writers Toolbox!

The Back of Characters

Since the INK meeting, I've been thinking a great deal about character backstory. And I've finally realized what's been missing in my own character conceptualization.

Most of the 'how to write a novel' books on the market include handy lists for conceptualizing a character's backstory. Carole has the epitome of character concept worksheets, and while many writers find this sort of things useful, I've always balked at it. Yes, I, the lover of All Things List, balked. And now I understand why.

These lists encourage the consideration of things like dress code, political alignment, funky quirks, level of education, pet peeves, that sort of thing. But where, in all of these helpful lists, is it said how to use this information in your novel. How do you condense pages of character concept into a walking, talking character partaking of your plot? They don't, because they aren't really a character's back Story. They lack the very definition of story: Conflict, Resolution, Outcome.

For me, everything about a character's backstory should be setting up the hows and whys a character is involved in the plot of the novel. Why do they make the choices they make? (Because such and such happened when they were seven) Why do they trust the people they do? (Because so and so is like that kindly aunt who helped raise them)

Knowing all that other information is just character dressing. It isn't actually in depth character analysis. Even running a character through a personality test, like Myers-Briggs, will only get you so far. Those are too general. A good place to start, but not where to end.

The backstory needs to be the character's mold, or the long garden path full of sunshine and rain, bramble and roses, they followed to reach the events in the novel. It's a building of the character to be in the right place and in the right frame of mind (even if it all goes horribly wrong--as good plots often do) to be THE character of the story.

Realizing this lack has made me realize what I've been missing in Jamesina's character (from the Reven book Kami and I are co-writing). I have a few sketchy events from her past (her mother's death, her father and brother's falling out, her taking up her brother's place in the hospital), but I have nothing that has had a real effect and impact on the formation of her character, and so she hasn't built a strong enough character, based on past conflicts and resolutions (good and bad) that have made her who she is when the story takes place. The entire point of backstory is missing, and so her character is shallow and thinly motivated.

This week, I'm going to be writing some of those missing conflicts out. Give her a real past that has teeth and has both bitten her and bitten others around her. Who knows what she'll be like on the other side of those small stories that will never see the light of day, but I do know she'll have far more depth than the pale, tepid thing that's trying to keep up with the story now.

And that's another point about backstory. It's backstory. It may never come out in the course of the Real Story (and often it shouldn't), but it is necessary foundation. It has to be there, just like the setting and plot have to be there. Like Ragu: It'sa in there!

Trusting the Story

We had a stellar INK meeting last night.  I got home a little after one a.m. and had a long work day today, so if I'm less than coherent, blame the woodstove.

One of the many things that came up at the meeting was trusting the story.  This has been discussed everywhere and in-depth, but it bears repeating and repeating and repeating.

There's a common syndrome that bugs the bejeezus out of everyone so much that they tend to focus on it to the exclusion of other writing issues.  It's the writer who won't listen, won't take critiques, who will tell readers and editors and agents and book critics that they're wrong, and won't change a single word of their precious baby to suit anyone.  Some of them are brilliant writers and can get away with it, but most don't learn how to write well in the first place (since they're convinced that they're perfect and don't need to, you know, learn and change) and simply exist to annoy editors and agents with hate mail telling them how stupid they are and how sorry they'll be when this, the next great American novel, will sell billions of copies and become an intergalactic best seller.

There's another, more quiet syndrome that plagues writers and that's the one I want to focus on.  This quiet syndrome befalls the writer who tries to edit and adapt their story to please others.  Some will even go further and listen to the vicious voices in their heads that tell them their story is crud and only changes will make it barely serviceable.   Sometimes the changes suggested are valid, but they don't always work together.  Unfortunately it seems that the people who suffer from the first writing syndrome I mentioned above use this syndrome as an unshakeable reason to never listen to reader response.

This is where a wise author will become as Buddha.  No, not with the big belly thing and the creepy smile.  The middle road thing is overused and cheapens the concept in some ways because it's so familiar it can be dismissed.  Pair it with 'the truth lies somewhere between' and the concept of story integrity and hopefully the story won't fall victim as easily to either problem.  

Both syndromes have similar medications that help relieve the discomfort and sometimes even inspire a partial cure.  None of us are free from disease, though, not when it comes to writing.  I'm afraid we all have to live with being riddled with chronic writerly illnesses.  

Ask yourself why you're writing the story.  What is the inspiration, the thing you're trying to express?  It could revolve around a theme, a character, an event, or something as abstract as a sensation you felt when you saw a dog sharing an ice cream cone with a three year old.

Break it down to the scene.  Why this scene, this way?  Does each element serve a purpose?

Look at the characters.  If you were in their shoes, would you respond in a similar way?  Or do you know someone who responds that way?  Can you get inside the character's head and understand why?  

Are there ins and outs?  Can you see yourself or someone else getting into this situation and finding the events you pen out inevitable even if they're surprising?  On the other hand, is there a way out?  It doesn't have to be a pleasant way out, but there are always, always options.  If there aren't other options, it's not going to read in a realistic fashion.  And if there are better options that the character doesn't follow, the reader will wonder why this poor, helpless puppet is being forced to do something stupid/illogical/pointless instead of doing this other thing that fixes the problem.

Finally, is there reason?  Almighty Reason is our guide and light, and it has many colors.  Characters need reasons to do things, and they need to be strong motivational reasons if things get tough, or a real person would give up.  There should be a reason why you're describing this time and place, and no other.  There should be a reason why the readers ought to bother reading your story, and you should give them that reason.  "Because I love this idea and it won't let me go," is a start.  The first syndrome writer has no issue with this, but the quiet syndrome writer may in fact be missing this.  The quiet, insecure writer may find that their personal enjoyment (*cough* obsession) of the story is insufficient reason to write it, so they must alter it in the hopes that the changes will make it matter to others, or worse, alter it so that it will reflect a literary ideal rather than their own hearts and minds or hopes of reaching a real, flesh and blood reader.    

What's the harm in trying to adopt most or even all the changes that readers suggest?

Well, aside from the fact that readers can be wrong (no! really?) and could contradict each other (you mean people might like or hate things that other people hate or like? Dang!) making changes in line editing, working in partial conceptual revisions, altering character motivations and other such rewriting always runs the risk of inserting discontinuities and tone changes, as well as outright contradictions.  Artifacts appear in the writing from previous versions that didn't get eliminated.  This happens all the time in revisions.  It's part of the process.  But the more changes an author makes the more opportunities there are for continuity, logic and voice/style issues to arise.  Too much line editing, like overworking a painting, will turn the words to gray, lifeless mud.  Working in conceptual revisions is like overworking a collage--you'll end up with a gaudy thing that makes no sense.  Altering too many character motivations is like changing all the expressions in a family portrait--suddenly they don't look like family anymore because they aren't natural and themselves around each other.  They become artificial and disconnected.

What's a poor writer to do?

Outline writers will disagree with chronological/character-driven writers, but both styles of writer will agree that the truth will come out when you return to the heart of the story.  You can start writing from scratch--blue screen writing.  Write it like you remember it.  Anything you leave out probably wasn't that important, and new things might come in that bring the story back to life.  You can return to the outline, a homecoming of sorts.  You can never go back home again, they always say, but returning to an outline after wandering the wilderness can help ground you for a beginning-to-end rewrite.  You can Snowflake the work and see if you can find missing elements and build character motivations.  You might even find a subplot or two.  You can edit one aspect at a time from beginning to end.  It's tiring, but worth it to go through and look only at one character's part in the story, then start again from the beginning looking at passive voice, and then again looking at setting and sensory detail, and so on.  Lastly, you can go to the masters for advice.  Revising Fiction by David Madden.  Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King.  Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting by Robert McKee.  Read writers who write better than you.  Rudyard Kipling.  Mark Twain.  Miyamoto Musashi.  William Shakespeare.  Ernest Hemmingway.  Homer.  James Herriot.  Khalil Gibran.  They've lasted and their names are known throughout the world for a reason.  Read them for pleasure, or if you can't enjoy their work, try to figure out what it is that's made them last.  Was it a message?  The flow of their words?  An amazing idea?  Characterization?  Sensory detail?  Listen to their voices.  What are they talking about?

Then think hard about what you're talking about.  If you had only one story you could tell the world before you died, what story would you choose?  Would it be a fantasy, or a story from your childhood?  Would it be long?  Or would it be short and punchy, something you could tell aloud by a campfire before wandering off into the darkness?  Do yourself a favor and tell that story when you sit down and write next time.  If you're still having trouble figuring out what it means when people say trust the story (what is it that you're trusting really if everything is so malleable?) think about the crucial images and scenes that you want to transmit and the feelings you want to inspire in the telling.  If you find a special reader or three that you trust, listen to what they have to say.  Let their impressions guide you deeper, kind of like therapy with a really good counselor, but own your story like you own your life.  The story is part of your life, even if it's fiction.  Once you've found the critical elements that must be there, they become like history, and then it's your job to make history come to life for the reader.

When you're done, if you survive, there's always the next great story waiting to be written inside you.  If you're like me, there's a whole lot of them excited and ready to be told. 

Start Now!

A long while back I mentioned that writing a synopsis will help focus a novel.  It will do nothing but good, even if you abandon said synopsis in the course of revising the novel.  

Another good reason to write a synopsis early on in your project is that writing a synopsis is hard.  A good synopsis will take a long time to write unless you get lucky or you think in terms of synopses and can write a 'take me, take me now, take me hard!' synopsis in an hour or less, in which case I hate you and you don't need to come back here ever again.    The synopsis has to go through the same review process as any other writing you plan to submit, so waiting until you're all done with writing your work will only delay your submission.  You have to write it, get it critiqued, rewrite it, get it past your best readers, give it a final polish, and don't forget to kiss it goodbye when you send it off, or at least give it a good spank on its tight little butt on its way out.

Here's some help I found recently thanks to a link of a link of a link.

The Reveal

While watching the special features for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" yesterday one of the threads they followed was how JK Rowling (super writer complete with cape) employed a wonderful device with her characterization.  What impresses me is that she used the same device with a huge number of important characters in her books and still kept it fresh.

The device is:  No one is as they seem.

Lupine turns out to be a werewolf.  James Potter was an ass.  Sirius Black is not only a loving godfather rather than a mass murderer, it turns out that's he's part of a notoriously nasty family.  Professor Moody in book four turns out to be a disguised bad guy (and we liked him so much!)  The list is huge.  Even Voldemort isn't what he seems to be.  In fact with each book Voldy has bigger and bigger reveals that rewrite what we know or what we think we know about him.  Even Harry Potter himself goes through transformations, the biggest at the end.  My favorite is Snape, because I have this thing for anti-heroes.  Another beautiful reveal came with Draco Malfoy.  Say what you like about Rowling's flaws--with this device, she's a genius.  Bravo.

It goes to show you that just because it's a mechanical device that anyone can use, that doesn't mean it's a cheat or cheap.  None of the tools for the writing craft are cheats unless you mishandle them.  Even writing tools that many consider bad, like 'it was all just a dream' are skillfully employed in hundreds, probably thousands of stories without going wrong.  If you handle a tool in a way that's meant to bring enjoyment to the reader by deepening a world and making it unexpected and exciting, any tool, no matter how transparent, can be made to work wonders.  If, however, you take a hammer and smash on the screw head because you can't seem to tighten it down to the wood and you're too lazy to pull it back out and drill a pilot hole, you're no longer employing craft.  You're employing brute force, and I doubt anyone will want to buy your creation if you build it that way.

Lots of people employ writing devices without being consciously aware of them.  If their subconscious is particularly clever, they might stumble on a reveal while writing the first draft and dance a little happy writer joy dance as their novel opens up to new possibilities.  For the rest of us, writing devices are things we employ consciously, and usually on a second draft while we're going through and trying to figure out how to fix up the drab little house we've built.  So if you've taken a look at this and have decided that you want to employ a character reveal or plot twist or an action causes the opposite of the expected effect, don't be in a big rush to start a new project.  Take a look at what's collecting dust in your drawer first.  It may be collecting dust because you haven't gotten out your tools to work on the raw material.  Bring out the shovels, grab that router, and don't forget your level.  Writing is work, and your overworked, underpaid creativity can't do it all with stone knives and bear skins. 

It's a Taxing Time

Tax laws change all the time so check online, or your tax software, or your accountant before making use of any tax advice.  Mine is, hold on to your writing-related receipts even if they're years old.  Yes, especially the typewriter, ink/ribbon, paper, spare parts, mailing receipts, stamp purchases, and so forth.  If you have a designated office then you can write off part of your utilities based on the square footage (including garbage service.)  I have a designated phone line for the internet and that comes off my taxes too.

For 'normal' businesses you have to turn a profit after X number of years or Uncle Sam will basically say this business isn't viable and you can't write it off no more no more no more no more, however, freelance writing, art, etc. are in their own little category (as are some other volatile businesses.)  Dear ol' unc recognizes that it takes years to build a freelance biz into a profit, if ever, and so it's okay to keep writing off your expenses.  If you didn't write off your typewriter the same year you bought it, never fear.  You're allowed three years before you declare it as a write off.  For more tax advice, see your gov pages.  They're free, as opposed to my tax accountant, who I adore but cringe every time I have to write a check for he fee.  Ouchie.  Oh well--I get to write off her fee from last year for this year 'cause--yep--it's a business expense.

One Important Thing and Trivia

One of the most important bits of advice I got during Radcon 5 was during a barcon session with David Levine.  He said, in essence, to leave my opening alone and send it out.  If I overthink it, overwork it, it'll be a mess and it won't fit the rest of the novel.  To which I agreed.  But then I told him about my opening and he said, again in essence, don't touch a thing, leave it alone, but rewrite it (heh) so that the protagonist is protagging.

I've been hearing about starting in the middle, during action, etc. for almost my entire writing career.  As is common during said career, I had to hear the right permutation of advice at the right time with just the right word before I could blow up a hidden weakness.  Ah, those hidden weaknesses, how they plague us!

So thanks, David!  Now I know.  It's not about starting with action, really, not per se.  It's not even really about conflict, which a lot of really great openings don't have.  It's about the pov character in that opening friggin' doing something more interesting and challenging than picking nose hairs out, something that stands out in his/her/its day that's hard work or emotionally challenging.

Writing-Helpful Trivia/Word definition of the day:

Climacteric:  Pertaining to or constituting a climacter or critical period in human life; critical, fatal.

2. A critical stage in human life; a period supposed to be specially liable to change in health or fortune.  Some held all the years denoted by multiples of 7, others only the odd multiples of 7 to be climacterics; some included the multiples of 9.

Do Not Let This Discourage You

Received my notification of not winning from WotF yesterday. I actually grinned, because it's the first rejection letter I've gotten in a while. Which means I sent something out! Whee! I submitted!

I have no intention of being discouraged, either. I'm very oddly not even close to discouraged. I have no doubts, none whatsoever, that this little story will be published. It is just a question of finding an editor who likes it. That's it. It's a well written story, with a strong protagonist, a theme, a plot, a conflict, a little bit of action, and lots of fish.

Okay, the fish part isn't so important overall, but you get the idea.

I'm not being immodest, I'm being honest. I'm a decent writer. At times, I'm a very good writer. So it isn't a question of being a good writer. It's just a matter of finding that fit with an editor.

It's the crap shoot everyone talks about, only I don't think it's just luck. I think it's closer to serendipity. You got to be looking to begin with.

Or maybe it's a fox hunt. And I'm on this wonderful hunter, where my best riding habit, and the hounds are my stories, baying as they run ahead of me, trying to flush out that foxy editor . . .

I've taken that analogy as far as I think I should.

The point is, I've been reading all these contests lately online, the ones where you post your first 100 or 500 words, and the stories I like aren't the ones being picked by the judges. Doesn't mean the ones I like aren't good. They have been awesome! They just aren't the ones the judge thought were awesome.

Somewhere out there, though, is a judge, or editor, who would find those entries awesome. And who will find my story awesome as well. I just have to send the story out until it finds that person.

I'm liking this mindset. I got nothing but time and during that time, I'll keep improving my writing skills and sending more stories out and within that time, I'll publish. End of story.

Or rather, beginning of story.

Advice

Jim Van Pelt has a great blog entry on writing advice, and several folks (including our friend Jay) have chimed in with a few lines of advice they've collected. I highly recommend it.

Openers

I've spent a huge number of hours reading openings, and critiquing some of them, at the now infamous Nathan Bransford's Surprisingly Essential First Page Challenge.  (The contest is closed to submissions and they're sorting through the entries now.)  I've read various rules and suggestions for how to open a novel, but I have to say at this point that reading about it and/or thinking about it is no substitute for reading about a gizillion openings and picking apart as many as you can stand to critique.  

Go forth and read the entries.  Find the flaws in the best ones.  May your eyes be opened.  And then read Shock and Awe.   Although we always hear that a novel should open with a hook, in the middle of it all, preferably with action, that doesn't mean that the action has to be physical.  Suddenly I'm okay with how Masks opens again.  Yay!

Hard Reality? More Like Hard Realities

I've read a lot of submission guidelines lately. They contradict each other, of course. The default is always to follow the preferences and guidelines of the exact publisher or agent you submit to. Deviate at your peril. Second default position is to follow the guidelines for the genre for which you specifically write, especially if they're guidelines posted on a major organization for that genre such as RRA or SFWA. Seeing the variations can be instructive. Or it may send you screaming to the bedroom to hide under the covers where you can sob over the hopelessness of it all in that black space where the boogeyman editor can't get to you. Here are some gems:

Brutal but true: Kent Brewster confirms our worst nightmares. You're wonderful Kent please don't hurt my ms! Sweeping Back the Slushpile by Kent Brewster

I love you, Murderati. In my fantasy life, INK becomes similar to Murderati. Anyway, this is both a demonstration of individual genres having their own set of 'absolute' or macro-rules that you can generally follow and be safe and also that no matter what you do, you'll be hitting someone's pet peeve so just try not to make yourself too crazy and make your ms as professional as you can before you send it out. I think it also helps to be cool, like the murderati:
Things Your Creative Writing Instructor Never Told You by Gordon Aalborg

For our entertainment: Because we need a break from the insanity to laugh at the stupidity of others. Please, muse, don't let me get this messed up about my rejections. Let me continue celebrating their collection and to view a hand-written note as a priceless artifact painstakingly dug out from the ruins of my manuscript! Slushkiller by Teresa Nielson Hayden

Not only do we have to worry about how to publish, but of course where. Sad to say, I would be enthused to get a short published on toilet paper as long as it counted as a real publication. I hope that someday toilet paper won't seem nearly as appealing. Trying to Get Published on Toilet Paper by the Fine Folks at Slushpile.net

The last word, though, is always this. The story has to be good, or the formatting doesn't matter. Reversely, if the story is really good, the small details (what font, how many spaces after a period) won't matter. Rachel Funari in her article Escaping the Slushpile put it well:

The stories that were sent to my office were mainly about the same one-dimensional characters: the abused wife obsessed with cleaning, the husband who kills his wife because she’s gone to fat, the stereotypical mobster, and let’s not forget the drunk, fat, ex-policeman, snidely-comic private detective who has to figure out the illegal mess the husband of a beautiful, blond, buxom woman has gotten into. All of these characters are boring because they aren’t real people. Successful stories are about the same types of characters, but they are people with compulsions and neuroses and subtleties and contradictions. They are caught in worlds they don’t understand, forced into situations they have no answers for, made desperate by people they love, made obsessive by people that have no room for them. No matter whether your story is about an ordinary person or an extraordinary one, your voice needs to be unique, your character whole and full, your storytelling revelatory and involved, your reason for telling this story clear and revealed. Otherwise, why should I read it? When you sit down to write, you should ask yourself, Why must I tell this story? Why must my character be the hero or anti-hero of this story? What do I have to say about this story, or this life, or this world that needs me to write it? What is my point? If you can’t answer these questions, then you shouldn’t be writing the story. And if this is the case, then all above advice is moot.

Another Copyright Issue

Patty on the OryCon listserv shared the link to this new controversy. A popular romance writer has been including passages from other works, most non-fiction and part of her research, in her books.

There is an excellent article in Newsweek by one of the authors used in the romance book. And the ladies at the Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books blog, who made the discovery, have a whole running series on their blog. They have posted a response by one of the researchers of the article quoted, which is a different take on the controversy, very classy and upbeat. Kudos to him and the author of the article. But the publisher response to the controversy is still a bit disturbing to me. And here's why.

One of the first discussions we have in a college English class is on plagiarism. And the main point of that discussion is if it isn't your words and your thoughts, quote and cite. The idea of not having to cite source material in a historical novel is ludicrous to me. Not that I'd expect footnotes, but at least a nod toward the source material that served research material is polite to those authors and gives them their due credit. But lifting whole passages from source material--that, to me, and by the very definition we used in college (and that would get you an immediate expulsion from the class and placed on probation) is plagiarism.

Maybe I'm too sensitive about it. It has been drilled into my head by seven years of repetition in each class at the beginning of a semester and then repeating it myself when I was teaching. And now, as a writer focusing more and more on historical stories, I have learned how to integrate research into my prose in my own words and language.

What this author has done is a bad forming of paraphrasing, and under the definition I've worked with on plagiarism, paraphrasing without citing source material is still plagiarism. Paraphrasing, just like quoted passages, must be acknowledged. It isn't the author's original idea. It is another author's. Serving as inspiration is one thing. Serving as parts of a new text is something else entirely.

I guess I'll always flinch when it comes to the concept of plagiarism. Too many years held under a severe punishment if it ever happened. And to me, it's a question of ethics. I want my stories to be all my words, not another author's. As for citing my resources, gladly, happily, and enthusiastically. I love to share my inspiration and the brilliance of others. One of my favorite things about writing historical fiction is the chance to read non-fiction sources and share them with others.

BTW, just got an awesome book on Victorian home life called Inside the Victorian Home by Judith Flanders. I love researching!

PS, Kami, you've read one of the author's books. Does Savage Moon ring any bells?

UPDATE: Looks like the publisher is taking this more seriously than they first acknowledged. But what I find even more amazing is the amount of discussion this is generating between blogs with readers and writers. And I love how the black-footed ferret is getting some well-deserved help because of it all. I didn't realize you could adopt a wild ferret. Guess what TC is getting for St. Valentine's Day.

Copied, Right?

If you are all like me, then copyright is a murky swamp full of legalese and snakes. And mosquitoes. And possibly leeches.

So anytime I see an article about copyright, I jump. Typically, the articles are all about the poor author and how someone tried to run off with the original content. Last week, however, I found this article on J.K. Rowling and how she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon's intent on publishing their version of an encyclopedia of the Potterverse.

I think I agree with the logic behind the argument of creation versus content. The folks at the Lexicon aren't creating new material; they are organizing the material trawled from Rowling's books. The argument on consumerism is a viable one, too.

However, as an author, I can't help but cringe a little at the thought of someone Not Me going through one of my 'verses and building a book out of it. What if they get it wrong? What if they misinterpret what is there?

Then again, the thought of someone else keeping detailed records of my 'verses has a happy feeling to it. I know many authors (MZB, Elizabeth Peters) who have kept assistance, and I can't help but think part of their job was indexing.

Don't get me wrong, I love indexing. I was made for indexing. But that is as much of a job as the actual writing and one that would get me into trouble if I succumbed to it.

But an encyclopedia made by someone else after the fact? Online content versus hard copy (i.e. paid for) content? This is interesting copyright territory, and I'm not surprised to find Rowling's the one at the helm of the debate. And it isn't the same as the silly fanfic author who self-published a fanfic piece and put it on Amazon to sell (how many kinds of stupid is that?).

So where does creation end and organizing begin? How do I reckon consumerism versus the ownership of working my own material myself? Do I side with Rowling or the Lexicon or both?

The are so many scary issues going on with online content and copyright. This one, at least, I could wrap my brain around.

Creation: writing new material
Organizing: working existing material into indexed form
Consumerism: necessary evil
Ownership: write one myself to add to the competition
Side with: Rowling in spirit, Lexicon in law

First Agent Rejection

I got my first rejection from agent Bob Mecoy.  Looks like he's not taking on any SF/Fantasy writers at this time.  Part of me is glad just to get a response so I have closure.  Some agents don't have time to email or write you back.  Moving on!  I still have to send out my query of the week.  This next one is going by snail mail, so I've been beating around the bush.  Hopefully I'll get an envelope put together today.  There's not a lot of week left.

I printed the rejection out.  I've decided to see how many of these I can collect before I either give up (never!) or get an agent.

I had a Captain Obvious thought today.  If you don't have a good enough submission package to get an agent, how can you hope to sell a book directly to a publisher, especially with a year or more turnaround?  I'm so glad I'm looking for an agent rather than shopping publishers.