05/18/2010 • 3:51 PM 0
It’s fascinating to look at the breakdown. I’m attending another writer’s conference next month and, according to the survey, that’s one thing that helps.
If you’re a writer, don’t be discouraged in any case. If you’re a writer, you’ll write your book despite the odds.
Filed under: publishing, first novels, publishing, publishing stats
05/18/2010 • 12:09 PM 0
If it plays, it plays.
Recently I read yet another agent banging on about how offensive writers were when they made the wrong word choices. Eh, well…her black and white thinking struck me as too narrow.
Often what brings writing alive is an unexpected word choice that may challenge its general use. For instance, today I wrote about a “tangent of sopranos taking off from the wider chorus.”It sounds like she’d reject my work based on my choice to use “tangent.” It’s not the right word. I know it’s not the right word. But I think it’s the perfect word.
Fitzgerald often threw in clichés. Then he would slip in a phrase like “deprecating palms” (the trees bending, not hands bending.) It worked.
Filed under: agents, rules of writing, good writing, queries, rules of writing
05/17/2010 • 11:43 PM 0
I ran across an agent’s site proclaiming what they wanted and what they didn’t. They emphatically did not want any more novels about middle-aged white man angst.* Really? Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like all those declarations that the world can’t possibly stand one more book on vampires (declared variously in 1975, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009)?
No more male midlife crisis novels, huh? Goodbye to the next Updike! Hey, Roth! Apparently, you SUCK!
Uh-huh.
I know. The response would be that it’s not Updike or Roth writing this flood of manuscripts that they want to damn and dam up.
My answer? Updike and Roth weren’t always Updike and Roth. Once upon a time, they languished in slush piles, too.
At least when you do your research you can figure out which agents have silly prejudices and avoid them.
*No, you guessed wrong. My novel is about a sixteen-year-old (with angst.)
Filed under: agents, publishing, Rant, agents, publishing, queries
05/17/2010 • 8:45 PM 0
My local newspaper fired its copy editors as a cost-saving measure. Now typos and grammatical errors abound. It’s a detail that particularly bothers older readers and fired copy editors. It’s happened in publishing as well. Fewer bodies mean fewer lines of defence against the dark arts errors in manuscripts.
When I was a proofreader for a publisher, the manuscripts had already gone through the author-editor-copy editor-first proofreader stages. I’d put the books together on computer and probably find up to thirty-five errors on average. The last proofer might find two to eight formatting errors or problems that I missed if it was an especially long book. By the end of all that, the text would be pretty clean. (I’m not counting the errors readers think are errors but aren’t. Usually this rears up when people misunderstand the differences between affect, effect, comprise and American vs. English english.)
If you catch a lot of problems in a published book, that may mean the book is self-published and an editor didn’t look at it at all. It may also indicate the publisher cut back on the expense of multiple lines of defence (proofers and editors.) Another possibility is that the manuscript was packed with errors to begin with and lots of errors were caught, but the sheer number of typos overwhelmed the worker drones.
When next you notice a short guy has turned into a tall guy or someone’s eye color has changed or you see a flock of geese instead of a gaggle, you’ll know why. I’ve just finished reading a Writer’s Digest book and noticed ten or so errors. I don’t get too self-righteous about it, but I’d be lying if I said it didn’t irk me, especially when you think of all those people who are now out of work. With the idiosyncrasies of text messaging, the new generation of readership are much more tolerant of textual errors than their parents and grandparents.
Curmudeonly grammarians are a pain, but too many errors are distracting and can detract from reader’s confidence in the work.
Filed under: Books, publishing, editing, proofreading, publishing
05/17/2010 • 4:51 PM 0
“Great work! Go ahead and send the invoice.”
(I wrote a speech. Now the client shall ring forth…and conquer the world.)
Seven sweetest words: They want to buy the movie rights.
Six: You were right. I was wrong.
Five: The lotto finally came through.
Four: You have lost weight.
Three sweetest words? I love you.
Two sweetest? It’s benign.
One? Published …Peace
Filed under: publishing, Speeches, speeches, Sweetest words
05/17/2010 • 3:11 PM 0
I have several tics that show up in my writing first draft.
TICS THAT MUST BE DESTROYED:
1. In Nova Scotia we say, “I’m going right across the street right now.”
This becomes “I’ll walk across the street now.” Eliminate right and use a better verb.
2. Use active verbs. Not “The kid was sucking his thumb.” Write “The kid sucked his thumb.” (And you know not to use adverbs right? If you use an adverb, it means the verb you’re using is a weak sissy.)
3. Eliminate the unnecessary wherever you find it. Sometimes I fall into explaining explain too much or go for the too clever (i.e. obscure) joke.
My wife is my first reader. She went over a story I edited last night and noticed how my writing is now a faster read.
“Yes,” I said. “It’s improved immensely recently. A quantum leap, I think…which by the way used to mean a very small leap but somehow the meaning of quantum got converted to its antonym so, a very big leap. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of bullshit-who-cares tangent I no longer include in my writing.”
Cut that out right now.
Filed under: rules of writing, Writing exercise, better writing, editing. writing exercise
05/16/2010 • 9:27 PM 1
Margaret Atwood recently turned 70. Don’t think about how many books she’s published while you’ve been thinking about writing your first book. Focus on all her unknown poetry books (not because her poetry sucks but because no one buys poetry books.)
Do not compare yourself to Margaret Atwood (especially not in a query letter but not in your head, either.)
That way madness lies.
Concentrate. Head down. Claws on keyboard. Teeth gritted. Weiner untouched.
Filed under: publishing, Writers, Margaret Atwood, writer envy
05/15/2010 • 6:47 PM 0
The brilliant Scott Adams of Dilbert fame says he learned something from a TV executive. Crazy, I know! He was trying to make Dilbert a TV hit. The exec told him that in his experience with focus groups, when everybody likes your work, you’ve got a dud on your hands.
It’s counterintuitive, sure, but I think he’s right. Merely competent work can make everybody nod and say, “It’s okay. That’s nice.” What you want is for a reasonable number of people to love it. Some can hate it. That’s okay. They aren’t the ones buying your books, T-shirts, CDs, subscribing on your website to bid on your belly button lint and making you a cult leader.
There have been several metric tons of TV shows about doctors and lawyers. A bunch of them fade into a teeming mass until you actually confuse them. Think of the lawyer shows with compelling characters. Not everybody was likeable. LA Law comes to mind. Boston Legal stood out because they had the magic trifecta: they dealt with serious issues, the writing was hilarious and the characters were memorable. Law & Order is finally cancelled, but the grating DA Sam Waterston plays has typecast the actor as a moralizing Johnny One-Note with OCD.
Or look at House. The medicine is fancy, but that’s not why most people watch. When the medicine gets deep, many people who love the show pay no attention. It’s the same thing that happens to you when the nerd at Best Buy starts talking technical computer jargon and you’re nodding but you’re not paying attention. You’re really thinking, what will this cost me and am I gonna be able to hook this sucker up?
It’s the characters that make House work and allows it to stand out. Gideon’s Crossing was a good show, but the hero doctor was too much of a hero. Dr. Gregory House is a flawed, brilliant, misanthropic atheist (in today’s America in primetime! YAY!) sociopath. The scary flawed genius tortures people until he finally gets an epiphany at five minutes to the top of each hour. If I was his patient, I’d tell him I’m coming back to see what he comes up with in 55 minutes.
Or Family Guy. There’s a delight that engenders naked hatred in some. For others, it’s only reason to have a TV.
When somebody hates your words, smile. If no one does, you probably aren’t saying anything much. If everybody hates it, yes you must retool. And if everybody just likes it, maybe you need to rework it so it’s a little more challenging. There are many of manuscripts to like, but your agent and editor want something that sets people on fire. Perhaps literally.
Filed under: rules of writing, TV Shows, writing to hate, writing to love
Winner of Writer's Digest's 2014 Honorable Mention in Self-published Ebook Awards in Genre
The first 81 lessons to get your Buffy on
More lessons to help you survive Armageddon
"You will laugh your ass off!" ~ Maxwell Cynn, author of Cybergrrl
Fast-paced terror, new threats, more twists.
An autistic boy versus our world in free fall
Suspense to melt your face and play with your brain.
Action like a Guy Ritchie film. Funny like Woody Allen when he was funny.
Jesus: Sexier and even more addicted to love.
You can pick this ebook up for free today at this link: http://bit.ly/TheNightMan
See my books, blogs, links and podcasts.
C h a z z W r i t e s . c o m 