|
Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| March, 2010 (8) |
| February, 2010 (20) |
| January, 2010 (15) |
| December, 2009 (16) |
| November, 2009 (13) |
| October, 2009 (18) |
| September, 2009 (22) |
| August, 2009 (15) |
| July, 2009 (22) |
| June, 2009 (19) |
| May, 2009 (18) |
| April, 2009 (25) |
| March, 2009 (19) |
| February, 2009 (21) |
| January, 2009 (18) |
| December, 2008 (3) |
| November, 2008 (12) |
| October, 2008 (13) |
| September, 2008 (24) |
| August, 2008 (27) |
| July, 2008 (26) |
| June, 2008 (34) |
| May, 2008 (36) |
| April, 2008 (2) |
|
Search
Archives
Blogroll
Writing Resources
|
 Monday, February 08, 2010
Rejection: It's What You Do Next That Counts
Posted by Jane
I have a dear friend, Dave, who has devoted his life to writing. He's made every sacrifice imaginable, sacrifices that other people won't or can't make.
This year, he has been submitting to more agents and publications than ever—and getting rejected.
He wrote me recently to say that he felt more jaded every day and that his cynicism was growing so strong that he was channeling it into his writing.
I know Dave pretty well. And I've read his work. He does have an audience out there. But I'm not surprised he's getting rejected.
So I wrote him the following, which I hope is instructive for all writers feeling dejected after a string of rejections:
I do not doubt there is an audience for your work. However, that doesn't equate to an agent being able to sell it.
This analogy may not be fair, but think of it this way: Would you send your plays directly to Broadway for consideration? No, you use your connections first to gain traction, and do things locally/regionally first.
Writers think New York publishing is something that should be easier to break into, easier maybe than Broadway or Hollywood. Yet the Big Six have the same commercial standards as these other venues–now more than ever.
Consider the qualities of your work that make it a tough sell:
• literary
• crime (genre that is overpublished and overpitched)
• epistolary (a big drawback, doesn't fit any bestseller model that I know of)
• white-male protagonist, written by a white male (I'm sorry, this does make it more difficult; women dominate publishing as both readers and decision makers)
It's pretty much a given that no agent will see commercial potential in your work in the current market. That means you need someone to fall head over heels for your work, and work against trend to get it published. How frequently does this happen? Well, think how often it happens to you—both in your personal and professional life. How often do you find someone who you simply MUST evangelize to everyone you know and risk your reputation on?
Right now, you're in the same boat as most talented writers I meet: struggling to get noticed and not really suited to do anything but write. Don't think you deserve to be published easier or faster— everyone else has that sense of entitlement, too.
What are you going to do to set yourself apart? Be distinctive? More passionate? Only you can say.
But don't write another story about killing an editor.
I am happy to report that Dave is one of those writers who can quickly move through the land of Jaded; read about his experiences here.
(Also: Dave pleads that, far from being inspired to pen editor-killing-stories, any of his affected output veers ironic, not cynical, e.g., a football player who doesn't make it into the NFL shoots himself in the head.)
Now that Dave is on his best path, as he usually is, I turn my attention to other souls who I wish I could also counsel:
Getting rejected isn't special or personal. What matters is what you do after the rejection. You can become bitter and cynical, and it might feel good for a while, but eventually it will detract from your efforts. After the bitterness, what constructive or proactive steps can you take? And you have to decide what those steps are, in the context of your work and overall career path.
Agents | General | Getting Published
Monday, February 08, 2010 1:15:35 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  Trackback
|
|
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Help Me Choose New Tweeps to Follow
Posted by Jane
This spring will mark the one-year anniversary for Best Tweets for Writers. From the start, I have used a combination of serendipity and RSS feeds/searches (viewed in Google Reader) to curate each week's list.
While I think I follow some of the most helpful folks on Twitter, I know I see only a small part of the writing universe.
So, I'm looking for your help:
- Who most consistently offers the best writing advice on Twitter?
- Who is most likely to share links that are helpful in your writing life?
- Who creates meaning in your Twitterstream instead of noise?
I'm looking to add at least 5 new people to my Best Tweets for Writers List.
How to nominate:
- Comment on this blog post—be sure to include Twitter handle of person you are nominating and an example of a recent Tweet
OR
- Give me a shout-out on Twitter with the Twitter handle of the person you'd like to nominate
I'll announce the additions in my next installment of Best Tweets.
Best of Twitter
Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:21:55 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Best Tweets for Writers (week ending 2/5/10)
Posted by Jane
I watch Twitter, so you don't have to. Visit each Sunday
for the week's best Tweets. If I missed a great Tweet, leave it in the Comments. Always
welcome your suggestions on improving this weekly feature.
Best of Best
Why I say "no" to great work
@Kid_Lit
Hooks that snag great book deals
@BubbleCow
Are you ready to query? Here's a checklist.
@Janet_Reid
Agent explains how to trim your query to 250 words
@elizabethscraig
Stand Alone
It amazes me how many people need to cut the first paragraph of their query. If your query makes sense without it, it needs to go
@MandyHubbard
If you're a debut author, be aware it's virtually impossible to break in with a novel over 120,000 words.
@RachelleGardner
Why do some queries include how many chapters are in the mss? Why would that matter? What does that tell me? Just tell me word count.
@StaciaDecker
Reason for rejections: Internal & external conflict don't work together.
@DocumentDriven
It's a MYTH that getting published is a catch-22. You DON'T need to be published in order to get an agent.
@RachelleGardner
The protagonist should not be able to just walk away from the conflict
@DocumentDriven
Something that sets an experienced, professional author apart from one still cutting their writing teeth? How they handle a rejection
@KatelynnLacopo
Best of Twitter
Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:10:51 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Friday, February 05, 2010
A Wordsmith Among Kingfish
Posted by Jane
Today's guest post is by the lovely Darrelyn Saloom. Follow her on Twitter, or read one of her most popular posts on the memoir she's writing with Deirdre Gogarty. Pictured above: Rick Bragg
On the third weekend of October 2009, writers and book lovers gathered at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge to celebrate books. It seemed fitting for the festival to take place on the grounds of the 34-story limestone-clad building, the vision (and final resting place) of former governor Huey P. Long, a natural born storyteller.
As part of the festival, I attended an event called Writing in Color, a full-day workshop presented by author and Pulitzer-Prize winner Rick Bragg. I’ve been a fan of Bragg’s writing since his bestselling memoir All Over But the Shoutin’. But what astounded me was the author’s verbal storytelling ability. Not only did he capture my attention, he held it for seven hours. Not once did I drift into my grocery list or plan my escape.
Every word he uttered rose and stretched and then bloomed into the Southern syrup of his Alabama accent. He evoked every emotion with remarkable talent. Remarkable because not every storyteller can write, and not every writer can tell a good story. Rick Bragg can do both. And while I can’t share his voice or the stories he told that day (they are his tales to tell), you can glimpse his skill in the following excerpt from the prologue of his latest publication, The Most They Ever Had:
In our boyhood, my big brother, Sam, dug pieces of coal and scrap lumber from the red mud so my mother could heat a borrowed house. In the 1970s, he quit school to load boxcars with one hundred-pound sacks of clay and lime. He shoveled gravel and sand into the backs of flatbed trucks, cut pulpwood, and broke down truck tires with a chisel and a five-pound sledge. Then, he gave me a running start away from all of it.
Bragg’s prose is a fine example of the first rule of writing: show, don’t tell. He doesn’t tell the reader his family is poor, he shows his brother at work to heat his mother’s “borrowed” house. And he doesn’t go on and on to describe how much he admires his older brother’s work ethic. He allows the details to tell the story. Because if the devil’s in the details, then so are the angels, the music, and the choir:
A hundred times, it seemed, I slouched at the shoulder of some trash-strewn highway in northeastern Alabama, the hood up on a wore-out car, waiting for him to come and get me going again. I was always on my way to some writing job, some frivolous work, something you could do all day and not even get any grease under your nails.
He would pull up in his old Chevrolet pickup, hand me a flashlight—it always seemed I broke down in the dark—and go to work. He would pull wrenches and yank on alternators and water pumps till he peeled the skin off his knuckles, blood mixing with grime until I flipped my clip-on tie over one shoulder and reached in with my free hand, to help. “Quit,” he would hiss. “You’ll get dirty.”
Rick Bragg never told his audience how to write in color, he painted a picture with stories. A verbal wordsmith, he stood tall in faded jeans and a white long-sleeved shirt, shirtsleeves rolled up. The author wore Western boots and an antique watch. If he were a country music star, he’d be a combination of Hank Williams and Johnny Cash. He was generous with his anecdotes but also his advice, “Be humble,” he said. “Just tell the damn story; don’t try to impress.”
As I drove away from the Louisiana State Capital, Governor Long’s manifested dream loomed in my rearview mirror. And then Rick Bragg’s Southern twang echoed in my brain, “Train your mind to think in color,” he sang. “Be the illustrator of your own words.” Fine advice delivered by a man whose knack for oral narrative matched the former governor’s. Words even The Kingfish would have approved.
Below: Louisiana Book Festival poster (artist Lorraine Gendron)
Guest Post
Friday, February 05, 2010 9:43:34 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Thursday, February 04, 2010
My Exciting News at Writer's Digest
Posted by Jane
You've probably noticed I've been making liberal use of guest bloggers during the new year. That's because I'm busy cooking up new content at Writer's Digest, but I'll soon return to more tough-love posts for writers!
For now, I do want to share some exciting news & cool stuff that I think you'll enjoy.
How to Get a Book Deal While Avoiding the Slush Pile
This is my guest post over at Writer Unboxed, discussing the so-called "death of the slush pile" as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
The Future of Agents & Book Contracts
While attending Digital Book World, I covered the three panels featuring literary agents and publishers. Check out these recaps—essential reading for both aspiring writers and already-published authors.
Free Webinars on Publishing Industry
Speaking of Digital Book World, every week Guy Gonzalez hosts a roundtable discussion on industry news. Go and educate yourself—for free!
For those who need a little bit of lower level advice, mark your calendars for the next free Q&A webinar with Writer's Digest editors: May 13 at 1p EST. The event fills up within hours of opening registration; subscribe to our e-newsletter to be among the first to know when you can sign up.
Paid Services on WritersMarket.com
For the first time ever, we've created a section of WritersMarket.com that is absolutely free for everyone to use: Paid Services. This section includes our editorially vetted listings on competitions/contests, events, and organizations, plus we're also now gathering new listings on self-publishing services, professional editorial services, educational programs, and software. This area is still new and growing, but go check it out and let us know what you think.
2010 Writer's Digest Editors' Intensives
If you're looking for professional feedback on your work, we've now set the dates for our intensives this year: March 13-14 and September 11-12. Find out more here. Or read Darrelyn Saloom's post on the event here.
VIP Program
You might recall my excitement about the launch of this program in fall 2009. Now I'm proud to announce it's available internationally. VIP is by far one of the best deals Writer's Digest has ever offered. Go check it out.
Agents | Conferences/Events | Digitization & New Technology | Fun | General | Getting Published | Industry News & Trends
Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:38:13 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
A Plot-Defining Disturbance
Posted by Jane
Today's guest post is by Jim Adam. It is part of a series on
storytelling and The Strengths of the Potter Series. Check out Jim's
book, Motherless.
Each
of the Potter books includes a major disturbance in Harry’s world.
These disturbances typically involve a threat to Harry’s life, which is
the sort of disturbance readers take seriously without needing
additional motivation. Just as, in the last few books, we automatically
take seriously the escalating situation, which threatens the entire
wizard way of life—and perhaps the Muggle way of life as well.
While
the exact nature of these threats is sometimes hidden from the reader,
the books reveal the existence of the threat early on. In Book 1, for
example, Harry’s scar flares during that first meal in the Great Hall,
but he blames Snape, not realizing that Voldemort (hidden under
Quirrell’s turban) is the one responsible. A bit further on, Book 1
gives us a more overt clue that something is amiss when Harry is nearly
thrown from his broom during a Quidditch match. Even then, though, the
exact nature of the threat isn’t revealed. In fact, the book goes out
of its way to direct our attention to Snape and away from Quirrell.
All
the Potter books have a major disturbance, one that readers can relate
to.
Those disturbances get introduced early, and they form the backbone
of each book. Nearly every event in a Potter book either reveals new
information about the disturbance, moves Harry closer to resolving the
disturbance, or else exacerbates the disturbance. This is the
definition of tight plotting, and the Potter series is a poster child
for the cause.
Next in series: Details and Immersion
Photo credit: gullevek
--
Looking for more help on the craft of fiction? Check out our Elements of Fiction series:
Also—get your work critiqued by a Writer's Digest instructor over at WritersOnlineWorkshops.com. Voice and Viewpoint starts this month! Save 15% with the code FEB10.
Craft & Technique | Guest Post
Thursday, February 04, 2010 12:24:39 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Point of View: Stories Are About PEOPLE
Posted by Jane
Today's guest post is by Jim Adam. It is part of a series on
storytelling and The Strengths of the Potter Series. Check out Jim's
book, Motherless.
The
number of point of view characters in a story affects the reader’s view
of how focused that story is. POV also influences the reader’s
emotional connection to characters in the story.
Stories are about
people, and the Potter series makes clear through its use of POV that
it is about Harry. Other characters, settings, hobbies, and events are
important to the story only when they are important to Harry.
Some
stories require multiple POVs, but slush-pile fiction often switches
POV inappropriately.
Consider the following synopsis, where one
sentence represents a scene or chapter in a book, and the POV character
is the subject of the sentence:
- Lisa discovers a dead body in the trunk of her car.
- Lt. Manning takes over the investigation into the mysterious corpse.
- George, Lisa’s estranged husband, has an argument with Lisa about letting strangers place dead bodies in her automobile.
- A nameless individual sits in a dark room, planning a gruesome crime.
- Dr. Trace performs an autopsy on the previously-mentioned corpse.
- Chief of Police Henries gives Lt. Manning a dressing down over poorly prepared paperwork.
- Timmy, who works at Squeaky-Clean Car Detailing, experiences emotional trauma as he cleans out the trunk of Lisa’s car.
- Alexander is jogging at night when he is attacked, kidnapped, tortured, and finally killed.
The
synopsis above is make-believe, as well as incomplete, but it fairly
represents the outline of many novels sitting in slush piles around the
world. The switching POVs aren’t the problem, but they are a symptom of
the problem. The real problem is a failure to decide what story the
novel wants to tell.
If asked to boil the above synopsis down to a
single sentence, the best we could do would be, “It’s a story about
some murders that occur within a community.”
Unfortunately, that isn’t
a story summary, it’s a premise. Stories are about people.
The above
synopsis describes a story that’s about “everybody affected by the
murders.” Unfortunately, a story about “everybody” is most likely going
to wind up feeling either scattered and unfocused, or else abstract and
experimental.
Nothing’s impossible, of course, and certainly writers
like Stephen King have achieved success with novels that feature a
large number of POV characters.
For most beginning writers, though,
trying to build a story around our synopsis would be disastrous.
The
result would lack focus, would lack literary purpose, would wear
readers out with all those POV changes, and would fail to make readers
care about key characters. As the villain from The Incredibles says,
“When everyone’s special, no one will be.”
Rowling wrote seven
books using Harry’s POV almost exclusively, and the few exceptions were
a result of necessity. The opening of Book 1, Philosopher’s Stone,
can’t be from Harry’s POV because he’s a year old. The opening of Book
4, Goblet of Fire, sets the stage for the rest of the book, and Frank
Bryce’s experiences in that first chapter directly affect Harry via his
mental connection with Voldemort. The opening of Book 6, Half-Blood
Prince, again sets the stage for the main plot line of that story. In
every case, these instances of POV switching serve a real purpose.
Using
a single, dedicated POV character brings with it many benefits, and it
is certainly one of the strengths of the Potter series.
Once
readers identify with a POV character, they’re liable to take his word
for things. If he feels he’s made a mistake, the reader will likely
agree (though they may decide that he’s being a bit hard on himself, if
he takes the mistake too personally). If he feels that he has acted
appropriately, few readers will question this, unless the POV character
has torched a puppy, or done something equally shocking and
reprehensible.
In the movie The Matrix, for example, Neo is the
primary POV character. He and his associates are set up as the good
guys, and viewers come to identify with these characters. As a result,
when the good guys go into a building and murder a bunch of police
officers, we nod our heads and agree that this is the only possible
course of action.
According to Morpheus, anyone who disagrees with
the good guys is “so hopelessly inured” to a satanic, immoral way of
life that they don’t count, and we quietly accept his description of
the situation. Killing ordinary citizens is sometimes an unfortunate
necessity, but soon the good guys will overthrow the lawful government
and replace it with one more appealing to them. Then they can instruct
people in the Right Way, eliminate any who fail to get the message, and
the one true religion will prevail.
Because we identify with Neo and
his buddies, we see in them freedom fighters rather than terrorists.
This is the (rather frightening) power that POV has.
The Potter
series uses POV and reader identification masterfully. First, readers
learn to trust Harry. While he might at times be hard on himself, and
at times might be mistaken in his judgments, in his heart he values
honesty—including self-honesty. As a result, not only do we give him
the benefit of the doubt in everything he does, but his opinion of
others greatly influences our response to those people.
Harry
reveres Dumbledore and so readers revere him—even though we don’t
really see all that much of the headmaster. Harry dislikes Snape and
Malfoy, so we dislike them as well. (Their actions reinforce our
dislike, but also reinforce our trust in Harry’s judgment.) Harry
respects Hagrid but views Dobby and Moaning Myrtle as too odd to be
taken seriously, and this shapes our opinion of those characters.
Surely Dobby isn’t any weirder than Hagrid, but is merely weird in a
different way, yet we view Hagrid as an odd fellow worthy of respect,
while we see Dobby as a silly little blighter who happens to prove
useful now and then.
By carefully controlling POV, the Potter
series gains an almost hypnotic power over its readers, and it uses
this power gleefully to keep readers in its thrall. Luckily, the
series’ goal is to entertain, and most people get their soul back as
they exit the tent.
Next in series: Plot-Defining Disturbance
Photo credit: Krynowek Eine [el Eine]
--
Looking for more help on the craft of fiction? Check out our Elements of Fiction series:
Also—get your work critiqued by a Writer's Digest instructor over at WritersOnlineWorkshops.com. Voice and Viewpoint starts this month! Save 15% with the code FEB10.
Craft & Technique | Guest Post
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:06:41 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Tight Focus: Resist Telling Nonessential Details
Posted by Jane
Today's guest post is by Jim Adam. It is part of a series on
storytelling and The Strengths of the Potter Series. Check out Jim's
book, Motherless.
Each
book in the Potter series stays focused on the issues relevant to that
book. A few forward references appear now and then, but such ancillary
bits are generally slipped in amid scenes that directly connect to the
current story.
Most events, objects, and characters in Book 1
tie directly back to the conundrum of the philosopher’s stone. The
mysterious object that Hagrid picks up during the trip to Gringotts
Bank, Fluffy the three-headed dog, the troll encounter, Norbert the
dragon, the Mirror of Erised: these all connect directly to Voldemort’s
presence at the school. Even Harry’s flying ability and Ron’s skill at
chess become significant during the climactic buildup at the end of the
book.
Ms. Rowling may have created working notes for every character in the story, all the way down to their favorite color, but she resisted the urge to belabor readers with nonessential details.
Think
about Dumbeldore’s backstory, which is left all but untouched until the
last book of the series. Similarly, Voldemort’s backstory receives
major attention only in Book 6, Half-Blood Prince.
Though Ms.
Rowling had those backstories worked out much earlier, she resisted the
urge to dump them on the reader until such time as they were germane to
the flow of the story.
Consider also Durmstrang and Beauxbatons,
two wizard schools that get no mention at all for the first three books
of the Potter series. Even after their introduction, those two schools
receive little attention except in Book 4, Goblet of Fire, where their
presence is essential to the plot.
Throughout, the Potter series
stays focused on Harry and the problems facing him. The last two books
of the series, especially, could easily have gotten sidetracked into
global political intrigue, but Ms. Rowling studiously avoids that trap.
Azkaban, The Forbidden Forest, Hagrid’s ambassadorial trip to
the giants, the first war against Voldemort, Snape’s running of
Hogwarts during Book 7, Deathly Hallows: these are all things that
could easily have become sidetracks, but didn’t.
The books of the Potter series set out to tell a story, and they remain focused on that goal, to the delight of readers.
Next in series: POV
Photo credit: Dave Pearson
--
Looking for more help on the craft of fiction? Check out our Elements of Fiction series:
Craft & Technique | Guest Post
Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:11:19 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Monday, February 01, 2010
There Are More Bad Titles Than Good Ones
Posted by Jane
The February Glimmer Train bulletin is now available, and I found this delightful gem on titling by Eric Puchner:
Still, the fact remains that there are many more bad titles than good ones. I've seen some jaw-droppingly awful titles, often from very gifted writers. And I'm not just talking about my students: The Great Gatsby is an inspired title, one for the ages, but keep in mind it wasn't Fitzergerald's idea. He wanted to call the novel Trimalchio in West Egg, which sounds like something Dr. Seuss might have dreamed up for the Playboy channel. An early version of Portnoy's Complaint was called A Jewish Patient Begins His Analysis. At various times, Catch-22 was called Catch-18, Catch-11, Catch-14, and Catch-17. And some classic novels have stood the test of time, despite having terrible titles. (The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, for example, never fails to make me giggle.
Now, also go read:
Craft & Technique
Monday, February 01, 2010 2:37:14 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
Reader Identification: Believable & Not Perfect
Posted by Jane
Today's guest post is by Jim Adam. It is part of a series on
storytelling and The Strengths of the Potter Series. Check out Jim's
book, Motherless.
The Potter series does an excellent job of getting readers to identify with Harry and the other key characters in the story.
Consider
the Big Three. They are all basically decent and admirable in a moral
sense, valuing honesty, loyalty, friendship, and fairness. At the same
time, they aren’t saccharine, but are capable of stepping around
arbitrary rules in order to achieve a lofty goal—including the pursuit
of happiness by sneaking off to Honeyduke’s Sweet Shop.
In
addition, none of the Big Three are exactly perfect. They each have
their flaws (Ron’s insensitivity, Harry’s laziness, Hermione’s
perfectionism), and these imperfections make them more accessible, more
believable as human beings.
The Big Three are also capable of
making mistakes, sometimes rather large ones. They solve the mystery of
Book 1, for example, but do so erroneously, blaming Snape right up to
the moment when Harry pulls the cards out of the little folder, and
discovers it wasn’t Mr. Mustard after all.
Anti-heroes have
their place, as do pure heroes like Superman, but the Potter series
demonstrates the powerful draw of heroic-but-flawed characters. We
identify with the Big Three because being like them (spell-casting
aside) seems both possible and desirable.
Next in series: Tight Focus
Photo credit: HChalkley
--
Looking for more help on the craft of fiction? Check out our Elements of Fiction series:
Craft & Technique | Guest Post
Monday, February 01, 2010 9:52:36 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Trackback
|
|
|
|