But DO adjust your bookmarks. I'm moving my blog to wordpress due in part to the high level of annoyance inherent in your average blogspot blog. I may be importing some of these posts over there at a future time, right now I don't have time to do that, so old posts will remain here, and new posts will be:
HERE
Friday, July 6, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Writer Bullshit: The Muse:
The muse is bullshit. Yeah, I know, I just shot a sacred cow. And what a way for me to re-enter my blog after a bit of a hiatus (was busy...writing. Heh I know, shocking)
The muse is a nice idea. It's a romantic metaphor, but too many people start to believe in it as some kind of literal immutable reality. “My muse isn't here today.” “I can't write when I don't feel inspiration.” blah blah blah. Bullshit.
As long as you have two hands and eyeballs and a working brain, you can write. (And really a working brain is the only requirement, since there are other methods of writing which don't require working eyeballs and hands.)
I believe the muse idea can be damaging to a developing writer and I don't accept it. I know from personal experience that most inspiration comes while in the act of writing, not before. If you don't start, you'll never get there.
The muse is like Dumbo's magic feather. You believe you need the feather to fly, but you really don't. You've got those big floppy ears that make you fly. The feather is just a nice idea. Magical thinking, but not real. YOU are the magic.
When you believe that, you'll be free of this silly belief that you have to be properly inspired to write. No you don't. I write quite often without a hint of inspiration and often my words from days of inspiration are not perceptibly better than my days when I wasn't inspired.
I know you want that first draft to be genius, but it's probably not going to happen. I know some people write and edit as they go along and end up with a perfect draft at the end of the novel. And if that's your method, I'm not going to knock it.
But I'm a draft writer. And anyone who has a paralyzing fear of the blank page, might try this method. The first draft is the crap draft. Really, it's awful. But if you start writing by draft, instead of expecting to get it right the first time, or before you can move on to other parts of the story, that mysterious and dreaded ailment, writer's block, is unlikely to darken your door.
How does one write the crap draft? You just write it. Really. Use an outline or don't use an outline. Have character sketches or don't have them. Just make a word quota for the novel, and a deadline can help. Then just write. ANYTHING. Really, you're characters will do something, I promise.
If you need proof of this, read: “No Plot, No problem” By: Chris Baty. If it was just his word only, you might not have to believe it. But tens of thousands of people meet up online every year to write novels (the crap draft) in one month and many of them succeed at it, and most of them just put words on paper without needing the muse to show up.
The most important thing to remember when you sit down to write the crap draft is: The words don't have to be right, they just have to exist. You can put the feather in the drawer now. And forget your muse. The muse works for you, not the other way around. If he gets uppity, fire him and keep writing.
The muse is a nice idea. It's a romantic metaphor, but too many people start to believe in it as some kind of literal immutable reality. “My muse isn't here today.” “I can't write when I don't feel inspiration.” blah blah blah. Bullshit.
As long as you have two hands and eyeballs and a working brain, you can write. (And really a working brain is the only requirement, since there are other methods of writing which don't require working eyeballs and hands.)
I believe the muse idea can be damaging to a developing writer and I don't accept it. I know from personal experience that most inspiration comes while in the act of writing, not before. If you don't start, you'll never get there.
The muse is like Dumbo's magic feather. You believe you need the feather to fly, but you really don't. You've got those big floppy ears that make you fly. The feather is just a nice idea. Magical thinking, but not real. YOU are the magic.
When you believe that, you'll be free of this silly belief that you have to be properly inspired to write. No you don't. I write quite often without a hint of inspiration and often my words from days of inspiration are not perceptibly better than my days when I wasn't inspired.
I know you want that first draft to be genius, but it's probably not going to happen. I know some people write and edit as they go along and end up with a perfect draft at the end of the novel. And if that's your method, I'm not going to knock it.
But I'm a draft writer. And anyone who has a paralyzing fear of the blank page, might try this method. The first draft is the crap draft. Really, it's awful. But if you start writing by draft, instead of expecting to get it right the first time, or before you can move on to other parts of the story, that mysterious and dreaded ailment, writer's block, is unlikely to darken your door.
How does one write the crap draft? You just write it. Really. Use an outline or don't use an outline. Have character sketches or don't have them. Just make a word quota for the novel, and a deadline can help. Then just write. ANYTHING. Really, you're characters will do something, I promise.
If you need proof of this, read: “No Plot, No problem” By: Chris Baty. If it was just his word only, you might not have to believe it. But tens of thousands of people meet up online every year to write novels (the crap draft) in one month and many of them succeed at it, and most of them just put words on paper without needing the muse to show up.
The most important thing to remember when you sit down to write the crap draft is: The words don't have to be right, they just have to exist. You can put the feather in the drawer now. And forget your muse. The muse works for you, not the other way around. If he gets uppity, fire him and keep writing.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Are you a Method Writer?
This post is inspired from a discussion on a yahoo group I'm involved in right now. When speaking of things like "Voice" there can be some VERY big differences of opinion.
Some writers believe that when you write, you expose your soul. It's about naked vulnerability. You aren't just telling a story, you are attempting to create art, because you are expressing a view/message about the world through a well crafted story. For the purpose of this post so there is no confusion, ART is when you SAY SOMETHING through a medium, be it a story, a painting, whatever.
It's not about being preachy/pedantic. Nor is it about writing Mary Sues. But it's very honest, very real. You can bet that this writer got turned on writing the sex scenes, laughed during the funny scenes, and cried during the sad scenes, even though they wrote it.
Perhaps these writers are Method writers. On the group, we were discussing method actors. Some actors like Dustin Hoffman absolutely BECOME the character. Others, just turn it on and off like a switch. The method actor may feel what they are doing is more "real" and the other actor may feel "it's just acting." Likewise, a method writer might believe they are "baring their soul" and "being honest and real" while a non-method writer might believe all writing is "fake."
Neither one is necessarily empirically "right" it's just that actor's/writer's way of approaching their craft. It's also a matter of differing philosophies. But what works for one actor, may not work for another, and so it is with writing.
There are also writers who try to completely separate their ego from the act of writing. (non-method writers) They are telling a good story and that's it. They have no desire to express the deeper parts of themselves. They don't plan to bare their soul, so don't wait for them to. They write the story, and then they clock out. That's their way.
I am a method writer. My characters are not me, but there is a facet/piece of me in them. I can't conceive of drawing from a brain outside of my own for information. (seriously, seeing my characters as speaking to me and telling me what they want told about them is too schizo for me.) I can study other people and I can try to understand their motivations, but everything I experience or do will always happen through the filter of my own perception and how I see the world. So therefore it will all be "me" in some sense, but very hopefully not in the mary sue sense. (Although if we got right down to it, the major problem with the Mary Sue is lack of honesty. Because they are built up as perfect idealism, and that's not real.)
I try to express things as honestly as I see them. I don't hide. I don't shy away from the material, I tell it as honestly as I can and I'm not afraid to show you my soul in the process. Now this isn't meant to imply that I think a "non-method" writer is a hack or is lying. I don't think that.
I DO think that many writers expose parts of themselves without understanding they are doing it. I really don't think you can write from a place of passion and yet have that passion completely separated from who you are as a person unless you're operating under some type of schizophrenic episodes. But I understand that for that type of writer, the "height" of their craft is to stay as much out of it as possible. (and I agree that author intrusion is bad.)
I'm more responsive to a writer who I feel has bared their soul. Their books tend to be elevated in my mind to art, and they stay with me forever. They weren't just telling a stylistically good story, but something that moved me. (Now don't get me wrong, you can bare your soul and either have nothing interesting to say to the world, or have a lack of stylistic talent, but that's another post...probably Wednesday's.)
Likewise I'm more responsive to an actor who is a method actor. More of the actor's self was given. It's the same with writing, more of the writer's self was given.
Writers who come from the other side of the fence see the "baring of the soul" writers as "self-indulgent" and all about their own "ego." But for a method writer it's not about ego, it's about sharing and being brave enough to reveal something very intimate.
Are you a "method writer?" Why or why not? How much of yourself do you reveal through your themes/stories?
Some writers believe that when you write, you expose your soul. It's about naked vulnerability. You aren't just telling a story, you are attempting to create art, because you are expressing a view/message about the world through a well crafted story. For the purpose of this post so there is no confusion, ART is when you SAY SOMETHING through a medium, be it a story, a painting, whatever.
It's not about being preachy/pedantic. Nor is it about writing Mary Sues. But it's very honest, very real. You can bet that this writer got turned on writing the sex scenes, laughed during the funny scenes, and cried during the sad scenes, even though they wrote it.
Perhaps these writers are Method writers. On the group, we were discussing method actors. Some actors like Dustin Hoffman absolutely BECOME the character. Others, just turn it on and off like a switch. The method actor may feel what they are doing is more "real" and the other actor may feel "it's just acting." Likewise, a method writer might believe they are "baring their soul" and "being honest and real" while a non-method writer might believe all writing is "fake."
Neither one is necessarily empirically "right" it's just that actor's/writer's way of approaching their craft. It's also a matter of differing philosophies. But what works for one actor, may not work for another, and so it is with writing.
There are also writers who try to completely separate their ego from the act of writing. (non-method writers) They are telling a good story and that's it. They have no desire to express the deeper parts of themselves. They don't plan to bare their soul, so don't wait for them to. They write the story, and then they clock out. That's their way.
I am a method writer. My characters are not me, but there is a facet/piece of me in them. I can't conceive of drawing from a brain outside of my own for information. (seriously, seeing my characters as speaking to me and telling me what they want told about them is too schizo for me.) I can study other people and I can try to understand their motivations, but everything I experience or do will always happen through the filter of my own perception and how I see the world. So therefore it will all be "me" in some sense, but very hopefully not in the mary sue sense. (Although if we got right down to it, the major problem with the Mary Sue is lack of honesty. Because they are built up as perfect idealism, and that's not real.)
I try to express things as honestly as I see them. I don't hide. I don't shy away from the material, I tell it as honestly as I can and I'm not afraid to show you my soul in the process. Now this isn't meant to imply that I think a "non-method" writer is a hack or is lying. I don't think that.
I DO think that many writers expose parts of themselves without understanding they are doing it. I really don't think you can write from a place of passion and yet have that passion completely separated from who you are as a person unless you're operating under some type of schizophrenic episodes. But I understand that for that type of writer, the "height" of their craft is to stay as much out of it as possible. (and I agree that author intrusion is bad.)
I'm more responsive to a writer who I feel has bared their soul. Their books tend to be elevated in my mind to art, and they stay with me forever. They weren't just telling a stylistically good story, but something that moved me. (Now don't get me wrong, you can bare your soul and either have nothing interesting to say to the world, or have a lack of stylistic talent, but that's another post...probably Wednesday's.)
Likewise I'm more responsive to an actor who is a method actor. More of the actor's self was given. It's the same with writing, more of the writer's self was given.
Writers who come from the other side of the fence see the "baring of the soul" writers as "self-indulgent" and all about their own "ego." But for a method writer it's not about ego, it's about sharing and being brave enough to reveal something very intimate.
Are you a "method writer?" Why or why not? How much of yourself do you reveal through your themes/stories?
Friday, March 9, 2007
More thoughts on rejection:
I forgot to post on Wednesday, it was a crazy day. Anyway... Welcome to Friday...
When submitting fiction you have two things going on: 1. seeking the right fit. And 2. creating the strongest manuscript and query letter it's in your power to provide. Number 2 is the only thing you have total control over. Number 1 is like dating. You'll have to kiss a lot of frogs.
I've come across a few personal blogs and websites where the writer just took rejection way too personally. They listed rejection after rejection and then went on about how impossible it is to ever get published and why waste the time and energy blah blah blah. (Well, I think...if you've determined that you're a 'lifer' in this thing called writing, you may as well write on a schedule and submit it.)
But the point is, this individual was completely disillusioned with “them” (the publishing industry.) And yes, I've had my own personal private more anonymous rants on this type of thing. It seems getting published just opens more cans of drama. Wheee. But yeah...not going there here, and probably not ever on this blog. Suffice it to say I think it's really naïve to believe that the world is your oyster once you're published and let's leave it at that.
But anyway on some of these: “I was rejected a lot of times which proves this is a big ole lottery and no one appreciates my brilliance” websites, you can view the actual query letter sent. And honestly and truly, I would have rejected them too.
Many times the query starts and ends with cliches and every single thing agents say PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T PUT THIS IN YOUR QUERY, is in the query.
Such gems as:
“I'm an aspiring first time novelist.” (there is no need to shout this one from the rooftops)
“first book in a trilogy” (let them decide if they like this one first)
“my sister read this book and loved it.” (of course she does, she's your sister. I understand that everyone who likes me is going to like my work more than they would if I was a stranger because people WANT to like your stuff when they know you. A good friend of mine thought my rough draft of the paranormal was just brilliant and there was no reason someone wouldn't just snatch it up and publish it. I took that with a grain of salt because even I knew the book had a lot of problems. It definitely was NOT up to publishing standards.)
“I really think this book can be a bestseller.” (if the industry can't accurately predict a bestseller how can you? Most people do NOT hit the bestseller list with their first book. It indicates a bit of a “pipe dream” mentality if this is in your query letter.)
Instead of talking about how the publishing industry done you wrong and writing your own country song, go back to craft. Rework the novel, rework the query. Find someone who will be almost cruelly honest with you. People can tell you how wonderful you are after a book is published and it can't be changed. Work to change what you can actually change, rather than obsessing over what you can't.
When submitting fiction you have two things going on: 1. seeking the right fit. And 2. creating the strongest manuscript and query letter it's in your power to provide. Number 2 is the only thing you have total control over. Number 1 is like dating. You'll have to kiss a lot of frogs.
I've come across a few personal blogs and websites where the writer just took rejection way too personally. They listed rejection after rejection and then went on about how impossible it is to ever get published and why waste the time and energy blah blah blah. (Well, I think...if you've determined that you're a 'lifer' in this thing called writing, you may as well write on a schedule and submit it.)
But the point is, this individual was completely disillusioned with “them” (the publishing industry.) And yes, I've had my own personal private more anonymous rants on this type of thing. It seems getting published just opens more cans of drama. Wheee. But yeah...not going there here, and probably not ever on this blog. Suffice it to say I think it's really naïve to believe that the world is your oyster once you're published and let's leave it at that.
But anyway on some of these: “I was rejected a lot of times which proves this is a big ole lottery and no one appreciates my brilliance” websites, you can view the actual query letter sent. And honestly and truly, I would have rejected them too.
Many times the query starts and ends with cliches and every single thing agents say PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T PUT THIS IN YOUR QUERY, is in the query.
Such gems as:
“I'm an aspiring first time novelist.” (there is no need to shout this one from the rooftops)
“first book in a trilogy” (let them decide if they like this one first)
“my sister read this book and loved it.” (of course she does, she's your sister. I understand that everyone who likes me is going to like my work more than they would if I was a stranger because people WANT to like your stuff when they know you. A good friend of mine thought my rough draft of the paranormal was just brilliant and there was no reason someone wouldn't just snatch it up and publish it. I took that with a grain of salt because even I knew the book had a lot of problems. It definitely was NOT up to publishing standards.)
“I really think this book can be a bestseller.” (if the industry can't accurately predict a bestseller how can you? Most people do NOT hit the bestseller list with their first book. It indicates a bit of a “pipe dream” mentality if this is in your query letter.)
Instead of talking about how the publishing industry done you wrong and writing your own country song, go back to craft. Rework the novel, rework the query. Find someone who will be almost cruelly honest with you. People can tell you how wonderful you are after a book is published and it can't be changed. Work to change what you can actually change, rather than obsessing over what you can't.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Rejection and Validation:
Right now I'm in a yahoo group called Write_Workshop and a workshop is going on called “Rejection Hell” on how to cope with rejection. There is also a sister list for chatting called: Write_WorkshopChat.
We're up to day 3 of the workshop and it's about not losing your self-esteem due to rejection. (actually on Wed. 2/28 we're up to day 3 because I'm writing blogs ahead as the mood strikes me.)
I don't have "novel rejection" yet to go by. Because I just
haven't submitted any novels yet. If I know something isn't ready,
why send it out there? I've tried to determine if it's a "fear of
rejection" but I really honestly don't think that's it. It is a "I
know that one wasn't the one."
And while I could have worked to make it publishable...I was still
learning and finding my voice. I really think a lot of people rush
out the door too soon to try to get published. There shouldn't be all
this imagined pressure to publish while you're still learning how to
even say what you have to say.
But I have experienced rejection at the short story and article level.
And it rarely upset me for very long. I'd
be bummed maybe for an hour or so, but then I just went back to
whatever I was working on.
I mean I knew it wasn't personal. And I really believe that. Having
run my own business before, choosing someone else's work or not
choosing it really is just business.
I learned very early on, from a very different set of circumstances
outside of writing that you can't look to others to validate you. You
have to validate yourself. And not everybody will like you, period.
So you may as well stop trying to be anyone but yourself, because if
you change for acceptance, you might be accepted by one group, but
another group with shun you. That's just life.
Everybody won't like you. No matter how nice, smart, talented,
whatever you are. Someone will say you are a suck up. Someone will
say you're a smart ass, someone will say you're a know-it-all. And
from their perspective, it's probably true.
So it's more useful in the grand scheme to just look to form
connections with those, both in your personal and professional life
who DO get, like, and appreciate you or what you have to offer and for
whom you can return the same like and appreciation.
We're up to day 3 of the workshop and it's about not losing your self-esteem due to rejection. (actually on Wed. 2/28 we're up to day 3 because I'm writing blogs ahead as the mood strikes me.)
I don't have "novel rejection" yet to go by. Because I just
haven't submitted any novels yet. If I know something isn't ready,
why send it out there? I've tried to determine if it's a "fear of
rejection" but I really honestly don't think that's it. It is a "I
know that one wasn't the one."
And while I could have worked to make it publishable...I was still
learning and finding my voice. I really think a lot of people rush
out the door too soon to try to get published. There shouldn't be all
this imagined pressure to publish while you're still learning how to
even say what you have to say.
But I have experienced rejection at the short story and article level.
And it rarely upset me for very long. I'd
be bummed maybe for an hour or so, but then I just went back to
whatever I was working on.
I mean I knew it wasn't personal. And I really believe that. Having
run my own business before, choosing someone else's work or not
choosing it really is just business.
I learned very early on, from a very different set of circumstances
outside of writing that you can't look to others to validate you. You
have to validate yourself. And not everybody will like you, period.
So you may as well stop trying to be anyone but yourself, because if
you change for acceptance, you might be accepted by one group, but
another group with shun you. That's just life.
Everybody won't like you. No matter how nice, smart, talented,
whatever you are. Someone will say you are a suck up. Someone will
say you're a smart ass, someone will say you're a know-it-all. And
from their perspective, it's probably true.
So it's more useful in the grand scheme to just look to form
connections with those, both in your personal and professional life
who DO get, like, and appreciate you or what you have to offer and for
whom you can return the same like and appreciation.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Pink Elephant: Writer's Block
You know there are some things that you just don't talk about in polite society. Like sex. Well, yeah, I'm not a member of polite society, so I talk about sex. And anyway, Stephen King says if you want to write, your days as a member of polite society are numbered anyway. I'm glad I got it out of the way early.
No, what I don't talk about much is Writer's Block. I don't believe in it. I believe I've said before that I don't believe in writers block unless you lose a hand or something. I don't believe it even when I have the classic symptoms. You know...whining, moaning, feeling like I can't write, lying back all dramatic on one of those fainting couches...
That's perfectionist's block, procrastinator's block, refusing to just type out the words so I can continue to be a prima donna block. But none of that sounds as glamorous or sexy as writer's block. Sure, the words I write, they might be shit. But if it's the crap draft, who cares? I can fix it later.
If it's revisions...well revising a novel is a big ass and not necessarily linear project. You make a big ole list about what you're going to do and you fix what you can when you can and don't spend hours obsessing over what you can't yet fix. It'll all come about in time.
Now some days I believe I am just exhausted. If you write several days in a row and feel tired, take a break. But call it a break. Calling it writer's block only serves to set it up in your head that such a thing exists, that writing isn't a choice, but something that flows magically from the gods. It's not a very empowering way to go about.
Of course this could be a quirk of me. I don't believe I get colds. I mean I believe they exist but I refuse to acknowledge if I get one. If I get the sniffles, I call it allergies and move on. Now the flu is something quite different, that I can't ignore or deny. But writer's block is sort of like a cold, even when I have the “symptoms” I call it something else and move on.
No, what I don't talk about much is Writer's Block. I don't believe in it. I believe I've said before that I don't believe in writers block unless you lose a hand or something. I don't believe it even when I have the classic symptoms. You know...whining, moaning, feeling like I can't write, lying back all dramatic on one of those fainting couches...
That's perfectionist's block, procrastinator's block, refusing to just type out the words so I can continue to be a prima donna block. But none of that sounds as glamorous or sexy as writer's block. Sure, the words I write, they might be shit. But if it's the crap draft, who cares? I can fix it later.
If it's revisions...well revising a novel is a big ass and not necessarily linear project. You make a big ole list about what you're going to do and you fix what you can when you can and don't spend hours obsessing over what you can't yet fix. It'll all come about in time.
Now some days I believe I am just exhausted. If you write several days in a row and feel tired, take a break. But call it a break. Calling it writer's block only serves to set it up in your head that such a thing exists, that writing isn't a choice, but something that flows magically from the gods. It's not a very empowering way to go about.
Of course this could be a quirk of me. I don't believe I get colds. I mean I believe they exist but I refuse to acknowledge if I get one. If I get the sniffles, I call it allergies and move on. Now the flu is something quite different, that I can't ignore or deny. But writer's block is sort of like a cold, even when I have the “symptoms” I call it something else and move on.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Pet words and phrases:
Most authors seem to have them. Some people aren't bothered by them and think of them as the author's fingerprints. Some people are. I'm reading a novel right now in which the words: “spidery” and “spidered” are used way too much.
Don't get me wrong, the occasional use of these words in snippets of description is brilliant and wonderful and gives me images and feelings from the book that I couldn't have gotten any other way. But after awhile it becomes less brilliant and seems more lazy than anything else.
I LOVE this book though. It's wonderful. It's one of the best books I've ever read. (And yes, I realize now that almost EVERY book I read ends up being “One of the best books I've ever read.”) And yet, when she uses this pet word/variation over and over, it takes me out of the novel a bit.
It reminds me I'm just reading a story and the writer is just a mere mortal just like me. On the one hand such things make the author seem more human. But on the other hand sometimes I wonder, can the writer not see they are doing this?
Usually by the second or third read I can catch most of my pet words. I like to use the words: “Bizzarre” and “Clearly” a lot. Actually I'm way too in love with adverbs to begin with and once I murder those, the writing is much stronger. A lot of -ly words in a book just scream tentative.
Certain phrases that are pets of mine are: “Hurt like hell” (even though it's a total cliché to begin with). OH! And “slumped unconscious.” I found that a lot of characters had a habit of “slumping unconscious.” The poor souls.
So I go through and I edit and change etc. So that the ONE time someone “slumps unconscious” it's not totally stupid. And the one or very few times someone uses the word “bizarre” it actually carries some impact.
I also seem to like the words: “creepy” and “evil” a lot. And I'm having more trouble letting go of some instances of those because in some sense it's a “style/voice” thing. But in another sense I feel like if I don't take care of this stuff now, it will be my “spidered” and “spidery.” That thing that reminds readers I'm only mortal. A wonderful and endearing quality AFTER finishing a book. Maybe not so much during.
But maybe I'm being too hard on myself and others. It just seems to me that given all the millions of word combinations out there that to continue to use the same pet words and phrases over and over is a sign of laziness and I feel we owe readers more than that. And maybe the author doesn't even see it. Maybe they're too close to it. Perhaps I have other pet words and phrases that I don't even catch. But surely this is what critique readers are for. Yes?
At least it's not as bad as “pet metaphors.” Pet metaphors are much much worse. It's my opinion that you can use a truly descriptive metaphor ONE time, no matter how much you love it. To use it over and over makes it look like either, you can't come up with something else, or you're way too in love with your words in that instance.
Comments? What are your pet words and phrases? And how do you get rid of them?
Don't get me wrong, the occasional use of these words in snippets of description is brilliant and wonderful and gives me images and feelings from the book that I couldn't have gotten any other way. But after awhile it becomes less brilliant and seems more lazy than anything else.
I LOVE this book though. It's wonderful. It's one of the best books I've ever read. (And yes, I realize now that almost EVERY book I read ends up being “One of the best books I've ever read.”) And yet, when she uses this pet word/variation over and over, it takes me out of the novel a bit.
It reminds me I'm just reading a story and the writer is just a mere mortal just like me. On the one hand such things make the author seem more human. But on the other hand sometimes I wonder, can the writer not see they are doing this?
Usually by the second or third read I can catch most of my pet words. I like to use the words: “Bizzarre” and “Clearly” a lot. Actually I'm way too in love with adverbs to begin with and once I murder those, the writing is much stronger. A lot of -ly words in a book just scream tentative.
Certain phrases that are pets of mine are: “Hurt like hell” (even though it's a total cliché to begin with). OH! And “slumped unconscious.” I found that a lot of characters had a habit of “slumping unconscious.” The poor souls.
So I go through and I edit and change etc. So that the ONE time someone “slumps unconscious” it's not totally stupid. And the one or very few times someone uses the word “bizarre” it actually carries some impact.
I also seem to like the words: “creepy” and “evil” a lot. And I'm having more trouble letting go of some instances of those because in some sense it's a “style/voice” thing. But in another sense I feel like if I don't take care of this stuff now, it will be my “spidered” and “spidery.” That thing that reminds readers I'm only mortal. A wonderful and endearing quality AFTER finishing a book. Maybe not so much during.
But maybe I'm being too hard on myself and others. It just seems to me that given all the millions of word combinations out there that to continue to use the same pet words and phrases over and over is a sign of laziness and I feel we owe readers more than that. And maybe the author doesn't even see it. Maybe they're too close to it. Perhaps I have other pet words and phrases that I don't even catch. But surely this is what critique readers are for. Yes?
At least it's not as bad as “pet metaphors.” Pet metaphors are much much worse. It's my opinion that you can use a truly descriptive metaphor ONE time, no matter how much you love it. To use it over and over makes it look like either, you can't come up with something else, or you're way too in love with your words in that instance.
Comments? What are your pet words and phrases? And how do you get rid of them?
Monday, February 26, 2007
Pet Peeve #784: “Love too cheaply bought.”
Even though the last pet peeve number was entirely made up and pulled out of my ass, I thought I would stick with that numbering system, so for those curious, that's where I got the number.
I hate when characters fall in love too quickly in a romance. I mean I understand if the storyline has to happen on a time crunch, but if they've just met there better be some really good reasons they are falling in love so fast. You can fall in lust or infatuation pretty quickly but not love, because I've been in love and am currently in love. What you feel at the beginning is so shallow compared to what comes later.
I understand it's fiction and “fantasy,” but to me a part of why romance so often cannot rise above being “just romance” to being a good story for its own sake, is the high unreality of characters who fall in love too quickly.
In my opinion, Romeo and Juliet is the worst play Shakespeare ever wrote. I would never badmouth a living author on my blog because well, that could be bad for my future success, but Shakespeare is gone so I'll say it. These kids knew each other like three days. That's not enough for real love to grow. Killing yourself after knowing someone for three days isn't love, it's a sign that you need a padded cell and a lithium drip.
I want the characters to have something deeper. I also think it's okay in a romance for the characters not to love each other eternally by the end of the novel. As long as they are starting their HEA, it's cool with me. I'd rather have that than: “Oh, Eric, I love you, I love you. I cannot live without you.” When the heroine only met him less than a week ago. Give me a break. That's not real. I'm quite sure at that level of attachment she can live without him.
In the paranormal romance I'm editing right now, I have this problem. I do have a bit of a time crunch going on, and yes a crisis situation can bring people together. Constant togetherness can bring people together, but I needed to add another scene to help bond the characters to make their love more believable when it happens.
So from this, I guess you know I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe in lust at first sight. Pheromones and chemistry are lovely things. Raw lust is heady and exciting. But actual love is something that grows over time. It's deeper than that and I don't like when it's too cheaply bought. It just takes me out of the story.
I hate when characters fall in love too quickly in a romance. I mean I understand if the storyline has to happen on a time crunch, but if they've just met there better be some really good reasons they are falling in love so fast. You can fall in lust or infatuation pretty quickly but not love, because I've been in love and am currently in love. What you feel at the beginning is so shallow compared to what comes later.
I understand it's fiction and “fantasy,” but to me a part of why romance so often cannot rise above being “just romance” to being a good story for its own sake, is the high unreality of characters who fall in love too quickly.
In my opinion, Romeo and Juliet is the worst play Shakespeare ever wrote. I would never badmouth a living author on my blog because well, that could be bad for my future success, but Shakespeare is gone so I'll say it. These kids knew each other like three days. That's not enough for real love to grow. Killing yourself after knowing someone for three days isn't love, it's a sign that you need a padded cell and a lithium drip.
I want the characters to have something deeper. I also think it's okay in a romance for the characters not to love each other eternally by the end of the novel. As long as they are starting their HEA, it's cool with me. I'd rather have that than: “Oh, Eric, I love you, I love you. I cannot live without you.” When the heroine only met him less than a week ago. Give me a break. That's not real. I'm quite sure at that level of attachment she can live without him.
In the paranormal romance I'm editing right now, I have this problem. I do have a bit of a time crunch going on, and yes a crisis situation can bring people together. Constant togetherness can bring people together, but I needed to add another scene to help bond the characters to make their love more believable when it happens.
So from this, I guess you know I don't believe in love at first sight. I believe in lust at first sight. Pheromones and chemistry are lovely things. Raw lust is heady and exciting. But actual love is something that grows over time. It's deeper than that and I don't like when it's too cheaply bought. It just takes me out of the story.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Censorship?
Every now and then a novel comes along that causes a big stink and book burnings etc. However, in the end, the author tends to be better off and the banned book becomes more famous. Now, I'm against censorship and this isn't really about censorship pro/con. It's more about...comparatively speaking books are the most free things out there.
Think about it. Video games, movies and television shows all have rating systems. Even CDs now have parental advisory warnings on them. But at the current time there is no such rating system for books.
You have to be an adult to buy/rent/go see an R rated or NC-17 rated movie. You have to be an adult to buy a Playboy or Hustler or any of thousands of movies with charming titles like: “Debbie does Dallas.” I have a very hard time believing she did ALL of Dallas, but whatever. ;)
Books aren't like this. Even novels of erotica share the same shelf space with the other books. There is no red curtained off area. There are no parental advisory labels. There is no rating system. There is no law that you have to show your ID before purchasing it. An erotica novel can be purchased by anyone with money to buy it.
Now granted, any individual store clerk might say: “Now, honey does your mama know you're buying this” if some 14 year old were to approach the counter with 'Story of O' or the erotica of Anais Nin for example, and yet, there is no law saying that 14 year old couldn't purchase it.
I wonder why that is? It's definitely adult material. And judging from recent freakouts over the word 'scrotum' in a children's novel, surely words like 'cock' and 'pussy' are things conservative people who set themselves up as protectors of our morality and children should be in an uproar about. Not to mention BDSM fiction. Sometimes I wonder if our gatekeepers of morality are even aware of how inundated in our culture games of dominance and submission have become.
I think it's kind of a bizarre situation to tell the truth. Online erotica stories have stiff warnings of “you must be 18 to view this material” blah blah blah to cover their collective legal asses. And yet, a fifteen year old who manages to get a hold of mommy's credit card, or buys a visa gift card, or is savvy enough to exchange their spare change at a coinstar machine for an amazon gift certificate, can hop on over to Amazon.com and buy an erotica novel, no questions asked or hoops to jump through. Not even a button to clicky clicky saying you're 18.
Although I have no idea how/why anyone thinks this honor system works. I can only assume it's to protect the seller because they didn't knowingly sell to a minor. I can assure you, almost no kid feels guilty for lying on the internet about being 18.
To some degree I think we overprotect both minors and adults from sex and it shows in the sexual hang ups a lot of people grow up with. It's not healthy. Human beings might not be super emotionally mature before 18, but they are sexually maturing before then.
While I believe kids should be allowed to be kids as long as possible, and the sexual exploration of a minor should happen between minors and not between minors and adults, exploration will happen. They will explore, and figure out what they need to figure out. And they're going to masturbate. Get over it. Keeping them from reading a book with the word Scrotum in it, only makes you look like a ninny.
It also makes me wonder how many adults have forgotten their own sexual awakening. Have they just blocked out of their memory the first time they had a dirty thought, read something 'naughty' or masturbated? I really don't get it.
Think about it. Video games, movies and television shows all have rating systems. Even CDs now have parental advisory warnings on them. But at the current time there is no such rating system for books.
You have to be an adult to buy/rent/go see an R rated or NC-17 rated movie. You have to be an adult to buy a Playboy or Hustler or any of thousands of movies with charming titles like: “Debbie does Dallas.” I have a very hard time believing she did ALL of Dallas, but whatever. ;)
Books aren't like this. Even novels of erotica share the same shelf space with the other books. There is no red curtained off area. There are no parental advisory labels. There is no rating system. There is no law that you have to show your ID before purchasing it. An erotica novel can be purchased by anyone with money to buy it.
Now granted, any individual store clerk might say: “Now, honey does your mama know you're buying this” if some 14 year old were to approach the counter with 'Story of O' or the erotica of Anais Nin for example, and yet, there is no law saying that 14 year old couldn't purchase it.
I wonder why that is? It's definitely adult material. And judging from recent freakouts over the word 'scrotum' in a children's novel, surely words like 'cock' and 'pussy' are things conservative people who set themselves up as protectors of our morality and children should be in an uproar about. Not to mention BDSM fiction. Sometimes I wonder if our gatekeepers of morality are even aware of how inundated in our culture games of dominance and submission have become.
I think it's kind of a bizarre situation to tell the truth. Online erotica stories have stiff warnings of “you must be 18 to view this material” blah blah blah to cover their collective legal asses. And yet, a fifteen year old who manages to get a hold of mommy's credit card, or buys a visa gift card, or is savvy enough to exchange their spare change at a coinstar machine for an amazon gift certificate, can hop on over to Amazon.com and buy an erotica novel, no questions asked or hoops to jump through. Not even a button to clicky clicky saying you're 18.
Although I have no idea how/why anyone thinks this honor system works. I can only assume it's to protect the seller because they didn't knowingly sell to a minor. I can assure you, almost no kid feels guilty for lying on the internet about being 18.
To some degree I think we overprotect both minors and adults from sex and it shows in the sexual hang ups a lot of people grow up with. It's not healthy. Human beings might not be super emotionally mature before 18, but they are sexually maturing before then.
While I believe kids should be allowed to be kids as long as possible, and the sexual exploration of a minor should happen between minors and not between minors and adults, exploration will happen. They will explore, and figure out what they need to figure out. And they're going to masturbate. Get over it. Keeping them from reading a book with the word Scrotum in it, only makes you look like a ninny.
It also makes me wonder how many adults have forgotten their own sexual awakening. Have they just blocked out of their memory the first time they had a dirty thought, read something 'naughty' or masturbated? I really don't get it.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Emotional exhaustion etc.
So this is Wednesday, hence it's post-y day. So unless there is something dire going on, I'm posting on the days I said I'm posting. Today's post is writing related but more 'personal' I guess. Kind of more like a regular journal entry. I'm kind of just throwing this out here because it's on my mind a bit and so why the hell not? It's not like it's deep dark secrets which will later incriminate me. Well hopefully. Different people think different things are incriminating.
So anyway...some of you know I'm a fanfic girl. And yes, I only write fanfic where the author/creator has approved it. I don't try to profit...blah blah blah. I just feel like I have to specify that because otherwise someone's going to just think I'm the queen of evil or 'not a real writer' because I do something just for fun sometimes. shudder, gasp.
At any rate. I'm taking a fanfic writing break. Probably for about a month. Like fanfic is supposed to BE the break lol, but it's turning into "fake pressure." Like if I don't update WIPs in a timely fashion I lose reader interest and get less feedback blah blah blah.
On top of that though of course I'm working on two diff novels. The paranormal romance is getting into the final stages of revision and I'm about halfway through the rough draft of an erotica. The erotica will be under a diff pen name should it get published because I really want to keep those two identities separate. I know this makes it completely insane for me to blog about it here, but...yeah. I'm not super good at compartmentalizing my life into a bunch of different multiple personality bubbles.
It's enough that I keep the actual exact name I'm using under wraps for privacy's sake.
ANYWAY... so the erotica is very dark. I mean VERY emotionally dark. And it's hard to write for a lot of different reasons, that being only one of them. It's emotionally exhausting. Like I wrote this most recent paranormal romance for nanowrimo and I was churning out 3,000 and sometimes 6,000 words a day like nobody's business. The erotica however, Jeez, it's rough sometimes getting just under a thousand words done.
Good thing my daily word count goal to meet my personal deadline is just 750. Thank you gods and magical creatures for the shorter word count requirements of erotica. I'm going for 60,000 words here and that seems to be pretty standard for the genre, novel wise.
There are several challenges in this novel. One is of course the fact that it's just so dark emotionally. Another is, smut is always hard to write. And the third is that there isn't as much dialogue here as I normally write, so I'm having to develop a lot of other types of writing muscles.
I think the end result will be worth it though. I really believe I have something worth saying in the genre, blah blah blah. It's just...yeah. So hence fanfic break. Because I can't be sitting around going: "ZOMG imaginary looming fanfic chapter deadline" when I'm writing this novel.
I'm taking like a month break from the fanfic and then I think I'm going to just not post things unless I've finished them first. I just hate having unfinished things hanging out there. I mean I completely understand it's "only fanfic." And yet...real live human beings have taken time out of their lives to read it. The same amount of time it would cost them to read a "real book." So I feel like I owe it to people who have invested time in reading my words to finish what I start, even if it's "just fanfic."
So anyway...some of you know I'm a fanfic girl. And yes, I only write fanfic where the author/creator has approved it. I don't try to profit...blah blah blah. I just feel like I have to specify that because otherwise someone's going to just think I'm the queen of evil or 'not a real writer' because I do something just for fun sometimes. shudder, gasp.
At any rate. I'm taking a fanfic writing break. Probably for about a month. Like fanfic is supposed to BE the break lol, but it's turning into "fake pressure." Like if I don't update WIPs in a timely fashion I lose reader interest and get less feedback blah blah blah.
On top of that though of course I'm working on two diff novels. The paranormal romance is getting into the final stages of revision and I'm about halfway through the rough draft of an erotica. The erotica will be under a diff pen name should it get published because I really want to keep those two identities separate. I know this makes it completely insane for me to blog about it here, but...yeah. I'm not super good at compartmentalizing my life into a bunch of different multiple personality bubbles.
It's enough that I keep the actual exact name I'm using under wraps for privacy's sake.
ANYWAY... so the erotica is very dark. I mean VERY emotionally dark. And it's hard to write for a lot of different reasons, that being only one of them. It's emotionally exhausting. Like I wrote this most recent paranormal romance for nanowrimo and I was churning out 3,000 and sometimes 6,000 words a day like nobody's business. The erotica however, Jeez, it's rough sometimes getting just under a thousand words done.
Good thing my daily word count goal to meet my personal deadline is just 750. Thank you gods and magical creatures for the shorter word count requirements of erotica. I'm going for 60,000 words here and that seems to be pretty standard for the genre, novel wise.
There are several challenges in this novel. One is of course the fact that it's just so dark emotionally. Another is, smut is always hard to write. And the third is that there isn't as much dialogue here as I normally write, so I'm having to develop a lot of other types of writing muscles.
I think the end result will be worth it though. I really believe I have something worth saying in the genre, blah blah blah. It's just...yeah. So hence fanfic break. Because I can't be sitting around going: "ZOMG imaginary looming fanfic chapter deadline" when I'm writing this novel.
I'm taking like a month break from the fanfic and then I think I'm going to just not post things unless I've finished them first. I just hate having unfinished things hanging out there. I mean I completely understand it's "only fanfic." And yet...real live human beings have taken time out of their lives to read it. The same amount of time it would cost them to read a "real book." So I feel like I owe it to people who have invested time in reading my words to finish what I start, even if it's "just fanfic."
Monday, February 19, 2007
Pet Peeve # 783: Euphemisms
Welcome to Monday, and the new blog posting schedule. In personal news I finished the third draft of the paranormal romance today. An end to revisions are in sight and the revision process is getting less and less scary as I learn to trust it. So Yay! :)
On to today's blog topic:
Writing romance and reading it, I come across a lot of horrifying sexual euphemisms. I'm thrilled to find that a lot of current romance novels are getting less embarrassed about sex and are more willing to write about it honestly. But there are still those that make me cringe.
I've spent a lot of time trying to determine why people insist on writing sex with euphemisms. If you have a hard time saying "cock" or "pussy" or don't want your novel to be that graphic, fine. Say: "He thrust into her." or "He slid into her." There. Simple and not squicky. Cause when I read sex unless it's a case of a joke between lovers, I really shouldn't be laughing through it. The euphemisms kill it for me.
If sex is written out, why is it being written out? I understand that romance is not erotica. Erotica is meant to physically turn the reader on. And I write a little of that too. Still, if you choose to write sex, rather than just alluding to it, isn't arousal a natural response? Doesn't it reflect a culture that is still deeply ashamed of sex no matter how much they "act out" when arousal is separated from it? It's okay for it to happen as long as you don't like it too much? Let's keep that puritanical guilt rolling merrily along.
When a writer writes a sad scene, the highest reader response is crying. When a writer writes something funny, the highest reader response is laughter. When a scene is intense or scary, a bit of pulse racing is in order. So why then should so many writers shy away from writing sex that creates arousal, when they aren't afraid for the reader to feel everything else?
If you don't want to write the sex, fine. Let it happen off screen. And maybe the sex scene is meant to be romantic or convey something more emotional. Maybe it isn't meant to arouse. Fine again. But euphemisms still make no sense.
To me, flowery euphemisms for sexual acts are a way to shy away from the material. It says to the public: "I'm not really that comfortable writing this." So don't. Please for the love of God don't write it and kill it with euphemistic phrasing.
Perhaps also it's a case of various publishers/lines wanting different things, but I don't think I would ever write for a line that required me to write sex with silly names and phrases for anatomy. Because to me it's not a sign of sexual maturity, nor it is a sign of emotional honesty. When I write, that's the most honest thing you'll ever get from me.
I'm not going to hide from it to write about a throbbing pulsing member of love.
On to today's blog topic:
Writing romance and reading it, I come across a lot of horrifying sexual euphemisms. I'm thrilled to find that a lot of current romance novels are getting less embarrassed about sex and are more willing to write about it honestly. But there are still those that make me cringe.
I've spent a lot of time trying to determine why people insist on writing sex with euphemisms. If you have a hard time saying "cock" or "pussy" or don't want your novel to be that graphic, fine. Say: "He thrust into her." or "He slid into her." There. Simple and not squicky. Cause when I read sex unless it's a case of a joke between lovers, I really shouldn't be laughing through it. The euphemisms kill it for me.
If sex is written out, why is it being written out? I understand that romance is not erotica. Erotica is meant to physically turn the reader on. And I write a little of that too. Still, if you choose to write sex, rather than just alluding to it, isn't arousal a natural response? Doesn't it reflect a culture that is still deeply ashamed of sex no matter how much they "act out" when arousal is separated from it? It's okay for it to happen as long as you don't like it too much? Let's keep that puritanical guilt rolling merrily along.
When a writer writes a sad scene, the highest reader response is crying. When a writer writes something funny, the highest reader response is laughter. When a scene is intense or scary, a bit of pulse racing is in order. So why then should so many writers shy away from writing sex that creates arousal, when they aren't afraid for the reader to feel everything else?
If you don't want to write the sex, fine. Let it happen off screen. And maybe the sex scene is meant to be romantic or convey something more emotional. Maybe it isn't meant to arouse. Fine again. But euphemisms still make no sense.
To me, flowery euphemisms for sexual acts are a way to shy away from the material. It says to the public: "I'm not really that comfortable writing this." So don't. Please for the love of God don't write it and kill it with euphemistic phrasing.
Perhaps also it's a case of various publishers/lines wanting different things, but I don't think I would ever write for a line that required me to write sex with silly names and phrases for anatomy. Because to me it's not a sign of sexual maturity, nor it is a sign of emotional honesty. When I write, that's the most honest thing you'll ever get from me.
I'm not going to hide from it to write about a throbbing pulsing member of love.
Friday, February 16, 2007
My not a blog post:
Ok, this SO does not count as a blog post, but here it is. Some have noticed that I haven't been posting as often as usual. I don't want to lose readers due to my not posting regularly so I'm making a short little post to explain.
I'm dealing with some personal issues so the blog isn't exactly at the very top of my list of priorities right now. I'm still writing, I'm just not focusing a lot of energy on "extra writing" such as the blog.
Also a part of it is, I'm getting a little bit burned out on it. There are only so many different things one can say about writing. So I'm sort of at a cross roads. I may have defined the blog too narrowly to keep my interest as well as other peoples'. So...the blog may start to morph a bit and cover more ground besides just "writing stuff."
It might start to become a bit more personal but in the edited "what I don't mind sharing with the whole world" kind of way. I'm just going to have to play it by ear and see.
Also, I'm going to change the schedule I'm blogging on. For awhile there I was blogging every day or practically every day, but that's just too much. But I want to have some kind of schedule so that people who read it regularly don't drift away because I'm not here when I say I'm going to be here so to speak.
So...I'm going to try, starting next week to post blog posts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Some of it will be writing stuff, some of it might not be.
I'm dealing with some personal issues so the blog isn't exactly at the very top of my list of priorities right now. I'm still writing, I'm just not focusing a lot of energy on "extra writing" such as the blog.
Also a part of it is, I'm getting a little bit burned out on it. There are only so many different things one can say about writing. So I'm sort of at a cross roads. I may have defined the blog too narrowly to keep my interest as well as other peoples'. So...the blog may start to morph a bit and cover more ground besides just "writing stuff."
It might start to become a bit more personal but in the edited "what I don't mind sharing with the whole world" kind of way. I'm just going to have to play it by ear and see.
Also, I'm going to change the schedule I'm blogging on. For awhile there I was blogging every day or practically every day, but that's just too much. But I want to have some kind of schedule so that people who read it regularly don't drift away because I'm not here when I say I'm going to be here so to speak.
So...I'm going to try, starting next week to post blog posts on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Some of it will be writing stuff, some of it might not be.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Why I love Young Adult Novels...
Fewer flashbacks. Most Young Adult novels tend to be shorter and have fewer flashbacks, concentrating instead mostly on the front story.
There tends to be the view by many that if you stick closely with the front story and don't spend a lot of time in flashback that you're writing something "simplistic." Yet, at the same time, lots of flashbacks don't advance the story and cause readers to either skim, or just put the book down, never to pick it back up again.
The more I write and the more I read, the less patience I have for flashbacks. It's not always true, sometimes I'll read every single one and love it. But often I just skim through the flashback to get to the next scene so I can get back to the front story.
In the novels that I've skimmed in this way, I've never gotten to the end and thought: "Damn, this climactic scene makes no sense...I should have read that flashback."
Since I don't say this, I can only assume that many times a flashback, while interesting to those who want the backstory, tends to slow down the front story. We're told constantly as writers, "Show, don't tell." But sometimes I think that advice can be taken to an extreme.
For example...there are things you REALLY want to tell. If a character goes through the normal routine of getting ready and then goes and catches a cab and sits in the cab for twenty minutes, we don't need to be shown all that. The realism of a cab ride just isn't all that exciting. If I see all that I'm already at the skim point.
Back to flashbacks...
Many times, if a flashback doesn't advance a story, it's a case of it would have been better to just "tell it" All stories have exposition, stuff you're just telling. It's the job of the writer to know which parts are better to show and which are better to tell.
If you show something in a flashback, be VERY sure it's advancing the plot and not just advancing your need to show how much of your characters backstory you know as the writer. i.e. don't do it just to be clever.
I've got a few flashback scenes in the novel I'm revising now and I try to keep them really really short so I can get back to the front story. Sometimes you have to have flashbacks and if worked properly they can be great. Just don't write a flashback that all but the most fastidious readers will skim. And don't give people an excuse to put down your story.
There tends to be the view by many that if you stick closely with the front story and don't spend a lot of time in flashback that you're writing something "simplistic." Yet, at the same time, lots of flashbacks don't advance the story and cause readers to either skim, or just put the book down, never to pick it back up again.
The more I write and the more I read, the less patience I have for flashbacks. It's not always true, sometimes I'll read every single one and love it. But often I just skim through the flashback to get to the next scene so I can get back to the front story.
In the novels that I've skimmed in this way, I've never gotten to the end and thought: "Damn, this climactic scene makes no sense...I should have read that flashback."
Since I don't say this, I can only assume that many times a flashback, while interesting to those who want the backstory, tends to slow down the front story. We're told constantly as writers, "Show, don't tell." But sometimes I think that advice can be taken to an extreme.
For example...there are things you REALLY want to tell. If a character goes through the normal routine of getting ready and then goes and catches a cab and sits in the cab for twenty minutes, we don't need to be shown all that. The realism of a cab ride just isn't all that exciting. If I see all that I'm already at the skim point.
Back to flashbacks...
Many times, if a flashback doesn't advance a story, it's a case of it would have been better to just "tell it" All stories have exposition, stuff you're just telling. It's the job of the writer to know which parts are better to show and which are better to tell.
If you show something in a flashback, be VERY sure it's advancing the plot and not just advancing your need to show how much of your characters backstory you know as the writer. i.e. don't do it just to be clever.
I've got a few flashback scenes in the novel I'm revising now and I try to keep them really really short so I can get back to the front story. Sometimes you have to have flashbacks and if worked properly they can be great. Just don't write a flashback that all but the most fastidious readers will skim. And don't give people an excuse to put down your story.
Friday, February 9, 2007
2007 Reading log, book 5/50: "Blood and Chocolate" by: Annette Curtis Klause
OMG, what can I say about this book? It's amazing. It's classed as a Young Adult novel, but it's so richly textured and just plain wonderful that I can't see any adult turning their nose up at it. It's a coming of age novel about a werewolf named Vivian. This is my current favorite book, and probably in my top five all time ever.
It just deeply resonated with me. To say what it's about without giving the plot away besides just saying it's a "coming of age" novel... It's about the struggle between one's light and dark side. It's about family and about the relationship between mother and daughter. It's about love and finding it in places you don't really expect.
It's about werewolves, but there is such a deep realism to so much of it that you easily forget that. Normally I read a vampire or werewolf book and it's a book that's just 'fun' but I don't take it seriously as great literature. This book I feel differently about. It stands, IMO as something deeply wonderful and "breaks out" of genre barriers to be just a fantastic story.
A movie has been made about it, but honestly I would just skip that. The movie is completely different from the book, not the same story. They've cut out the mother entirely, aged Vivian to in her twenties, took the story to another country and made her a trendy club hopper. And made the hero of the book the villain. They've basically cheapened every layer and nuance of the book by turning it into an all werewolf "Underworld." Do yourself a favor and read the book instead.
However, if not for the movie I never would have heard of the it, and never would have found it. So I'm grudgingly grateful that the movie got made, but deeply disappointed that the novel was so desecrated.
It just deeply resonated with me. To say what it's about without giving the plot away besides just saying it's a "coming of age" novel... It's about the struggle between one's light and dark side. It's about family and about the relationship between mother and daughter. It's about love and finding it in places you don't really expect.
It's about werewolves, but there is such a deep realism to so much of it that you easily forget that. Normally I read a vampire or werewolf book and it's a book that's just 'fun' but I don't take it seriously as great literature. This book I feel differently about. It stands, IMO as something deeply wonderful and "breaks out" of genre barriers to be just a fantastic story.
A movie has been made about it, but honestly I would just skip that. The movie is completely different from the book, not the same story. They've cut out the mother entirely, aged Vivian to in her twenties, took the story to another country and made her a trendy club hopper. And made the hero of the book the villain. They've basically cheapened every layer and nuance of the book by turning it into an all werewolf "Underworld." Do yourself a favor and read the book instead.
However, if not for the movie I never would have heard of the it, and never would have found it. So I'm grudgingly grateful that the movie got made, but deeply disappointed that the novel was so desecrated.
| |
5 / 50 (10.0%) |
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Choosing your Pack:
Today my post is going to intersect in a lot of places. It's going to be part book review and part personal observation and by the end of it you may wonder what it has to do with writing, but I hope not. ;)
I'm reading a fantastic book right now called: "Blood and Chocolate" by: Annette Curtis Klause. I started reading it last night and if not for sheer exhaustion, probably wouldn't have put it down. A movie has been made about it and I was intrigued. It's a coming of age story, but that's not what makes it great. What makes it great is that it's about a werewolf named Vivian.
The last lines on the back of the cover sold me completely on this book: "What is she really - human or beast? Which tastes sweeter - blood or chocolate?"
I've always felt that vampire stories weren't really about "supernatural beings" but are about humans. What we long for: immortality, no sickness, power, youth. What we fear: those stronger than us, what lurks in the shadows, our darker selves. etc.
But until "Blood and Chocolate," I didn't really see werewolf stories as being "about people." Reading this though, I see that they are. Even the werewolf main character notes the pack mentality of human beings. And yet the central werewolf story in this novel...I read it and I get a sense of "otherness" but also a sense of "sameness."
It seems to be a giant mirror of what humanity is. Essentially, we are pack. We boast about our individuality while following trends set by others. We often "do what we want", but we deeply care what others think. Even those of us wearing the mask of "I don't care" cares what someone thinks. To not care what anyone thinks on any level is to separate yourself completely from society and not be a part anymore. And what is society? If not a large pack?
Human beings are incredibly complex in our social interactions. We have many units of social structure, ever widening circles that encompass different levels of human interaction. And yet this pack mentality exists and exists strongly. It goes by many names and has many philosophies attached but it is there. We don't long to be lone wolves. We long to connect but not lose the pieces of what makes us ourselves.
There are many packs. There are family, work, religious, and purely social units. And there are writers. Writers, while so solitary in our endeavors, seek very strongly to connect with others of our kind. We run in packs, be it critique groups or online groups.
I've noticed this pack mentality even more strongly in many online groups recently (both writing and nonwriting.) It seems usually small online groups that have known each other for awhile tend to see each other in terms of "family." And this word, family, it's comforting to us. Because we are so strongly social.
But "family" alone cannot be a selling point for the packs we choose to run with. There are many abusive families out there, many that will seek to tear you down rather than to build you up. Immature, emotionally stunted, and unhealthy families are a dime a dozen.
Like me, as a writer you probably feel almost compelled to interact with other writers, to have that connection and sense of community. But choose your pack wisely. So much of how you see yourself and others in this business will depend on it.
I'm reading a fantastic book right now called: "Blood and Chocolate" by: Annette Curtis Klause. I started reading it last night and if not for sheer exhaustion, probably wouldn't have put it down. A movie has been made about it and I was intrigued. It's a coming of age story, but that's not what makes it great. What makes it great is that it's about a werewolf named Vivian.
The last lines on the back of the cover sold me completely on this book: "What is she really - human or beast? Which tastes sweeter - blood or chocolate?"
I've always felt that vampire stories weren't really about "supernatural beings" but are about humans. What we long for: immortality, no sickness, power, youth. What we fear: those stronger than us, what lurks in the shadows, our darker selves. etc.
But until "Blood and Chocolate," I didn't really see werewolf stories as being "about people." Reading this though, I see that they are. Even the werewolf main character notes the pack mentality of human beings. And yet the central werewolf story in this novel...I read it and I get a sense of "otherness" but also a sense of "sameness."
It seems to be a giant mirror of what humanity is. Essentially, we are pack. We boast about our individuality while following trends set by others. We often "do what we want", but we deeply care what others think. Even those of us wearing the mask of "I don't care" cares what someone thinks. To not care what anyone thinks on any level is to separate yourself completely from society and not be a part anymore. And what is society? If not a large pack?
Human beings are incredibly complex in our social interactions. We have many units of social structure, ever widening circles that encompass different levels of human interaction. And yet this pack mentality exists and exists strongly. It goes by many names and has many philosophies attached but it is there. We don't long to be lone wolves. We long to connect but not lose the pieces of what makes us ourselves.
There are many packs. There are family, work, religious, and purely social units. And there are writers. Writers, while so solitary in our endeavors, seek very strongly to connect with others of our kind. We run in packs, be it critique groups or online groups.
I've noticed this pack mentality even more strongly in many online groups recently (both writing and nonwriting.) It seems usually small online groups that have known each other for awhile tend to see each other in terms of "family." And this word, family, it's comforting to us. Because we are so strongly social.
But "family" alone cannot be a selling point for the packs we choose to run with. There are many abusive families out there, many that will seek to tear you down rather than to build you up. Immature, emotionally stunted, and unhealthy families are a dime a dozen.
Like me, as a writer you probably feel almost compelled to interact with other writers, to have that connection and sense of community. But choose your pack wisely. So much of how you see yourself and others in this business will depend on it.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The price of freedom:
So on Magical Musings the blog today is about the freedom of being unpublished, how so many writers look back on this "pre-published" time with longing because it was before deadlines, back when writing was just "fun" before it became a job...etc.
So that post inspired my blogpost, and some of it I'm repeating directly from my comment cause I'm getting lazy with the blog. I'm going to have to develop some accountability factor for my blogging. ;)
The vast acres of time and freedom that prepublished writers have can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing, because it can be a wilderness that is hard to navigate. Without deadlines...sometimes shit doesn't happen.
I’m pre-published and deadline oriented. If I’m not, I don’t produce, if I don’t produce I can’t get published. The more I produce, and the better I get, the more I up my odds. So I don’t really see it as “vast acres of freedom.” I see it as Deadlines I’m not getting paid for lol. So when the day comes when my deadlines equal a check, I won’t be sad to see this “vast freedom” leave me. ;)
Because I can't produce in "freedom" I have to be chained to a deadline, either self imposed or imposed on me. At least once it's imposed on me there will be money attached to it. A pretty little carrot that I can chase.
I tend to get involved in online deadline oriented writer groups where you have to post your progress for accountability. Last November I was in a smaller LJ group for nanowrimo and we had to post wordcount progress every day. Now I’m doing something on LJ called “novel in 90″ and during this 90 days I’m revising one novel and completing the rough draft of another. I do about 2 hours of revisions and 1 hour of rough draft a day and I take maybe a day off a week.
If I don’t do this, I don’t feel like a writer. And the reality is...I'm not one. Writers write. And if I ever hope to be published I have to write a lot, and on a deadline.
So that post inspired my blogpost, and some of it I'm repeating directly from my comment cause I'm getting lazy with the blog. I'm going to have to develop some accountability factor for my blogging. ;)
The vast acres of time and freedom that prepublished writers have can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing, because it can be a wilderness that is hard to navigate. Without deadlines...sometimes shit doesn't happen.
I’m pre-published and deadline oriented. If I’m not, I don’t produce, if I don’t produce I can’t get published. The more I produce, and the better I get, the more I up my odds. So I don’t really see it as “vast acres of freedom.” I see it as Deadlines I’m not getting paid for lol. So when the day comes when my deadlines equal a check, I won’t be sad to see this “vast freedom” leave me. ;)
Because I can't produce in "freedom" I have to be chained to a deadline, either self imposed or imposed on me. At least once it's imposed on me there will be money attached to it. A pretty little carrot that I can chase.
I tend to get involved in online deadline oriented writer groups where you have to post your progress for accountability. Last November I was in a smaller LJ group for nanowrimo and we had to post wordcount progress every day. Now I’m doing something on LJ called “novel in 90″ and during this 90 days I’m revising one novel and completing the rough draft of another. I do about 2 hours of revisions and 1 hour of rough draft a day and I take maybe a day off a week.
If I don’t do this, I don’t feel like a writer. And the reality is...I'm not one. Writers write. And if I ever hope to be published I have to write a lot, and on a deadline.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Multi-tasking
So, I'm really getting into this whole "simultaneous" thing. There was a time when I wouldn't work on more than one project at once, for fear that I would drop the other. It really comes down to, being in two different phases of the work. Like I wouldn't write two rough drafts at once, because to me, that's a recipe for badness. (Although this isn't a judgment on someone else's process. If you write more than one rough draft at once and it works for you, more power to you!)
Now I'm starting to let this carry over into reading. Right now I'm reading a book that is kind of hard to get through. I like it, it's good, but it's just not something I can pick up and not want to put down. I know that sounds insane. How can I really be drawn in by the characters and story if I can so easily put it down? I'm not sure really. Maybe the author's style doesn't quite jibe with me. That happens sometimes. I'm not sure what it is, but I want to keep reading it.
At the same time though...I'm stalling out on it and it WILL take me forever to get through it. And I've committed myself to reading 50 novels this year because I think reading is so very important to being serious about writing. To make a commitment to write is also to make a commitment to read.
So I'm considering adding this multi-tasking attitude to reading and read more than one novel at once. Hell, I'm writing on more than one at once, if I can do that, I can read more than one at once. This way I can take my time and meander through this difficult, but still very worthwhile novel, while not slowing down my progress on my 50 novels in a year thing.
The other day I commented in the magical musings blog, that I tend to not read flashbacks in novels. Usually they slow down the story for me and at the end it's very rare for me to honestly say: "Gee, I really wish I'd read that flashback, because the story doesn't make sense." Usually it does make sense. Sometimes flashback enriches a story, but often it just slows it down and gives me a stopping place to put the book down.
As I've grown more serious about writing, my attitudes toward reading have changed. For example...I don't feel it necessary to plunge through a novel I don't like. I just cut my losses and stop reading. If I get to a flashback that doesn't just immediately drag me in, I skip it and go back to reading the front story. Now I'm considering reading two novels at once on those occasions that I get to a "difficult" novel that I still want to read but that is slowing me down.
Does anyone else read more than one novel at once? What are your attitudes toward reading, as a writer?
Now I'm starting to let this carry over into reading. Right now I'm reading a book that is kind of hard to get through. I like it, it's good, but it's just not something I can pick up and not want to put down. I know that sounds insane. How can I really be drawn in by the characters and story if I can so easily put it down? I'm not sure really. Maybe the author's style doesn't quite jibe with me. That happens sometimes. I'm not sure what it is, but I want to keep reading it.
At the same time though...I'm stalling out on it and it WILL take me forever to get through it. And I've committed myself to reading 50 novels this year because I think reading is so very important to being serious about writing. To make a commitment to write is also to make a commitment to read.
So I'm considering adding this multi-tasking attitude to reading and read more than one novel at once. Hell, I'm writing on more than one at once, if I can do that, I can read more than one at once. This way I can take my time and meander through this difficult, but still very worthwhile novel, while not slowing down my progress on my 50 novels in a year thing.
The other day I commented in the magical musings blog, that I tend to not read flashbacks in novels. Usually they slow down the story for me and at the end it's very rare for me to honestly say: "Gee, I really wish I'd read that flashback, because the story doesn't make sense." Usually it does make sense. Sometimes flashback enriches a story, but often it just slows it down and gives me a stopping place to put the book down.
As I've grown more serious about writing, my attitudes toward reading have changed. For example...I don't feel it necessary to plunge through a novel I don't like. I just cut my losses and stop reading. If I get to a flashback that doesn't just immediately drag me in, I skip it and go back to reading the front story. Now I'm considering reading two novels at once on those occasions that I get to a "difficult" novel that I still want to read but that is slowing me down.
Does anyone else read more than one novel at once? What are your attitudes toward reading, as a writer?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Epublishing
So there is always this ongoing war over epublishing. One faction says it's not "real publishing" and another faction says: "We're just as good as you...neener neener."
I would like to circumvent that entire argument. Because it's really really not the point. It's two totally different worlds. It's not necessarily a "one or the other" type of deal anyway. You can do both. For a long time I was very resistant to the idea of ebooks. Mostly because I personally am not a big fan of the format. When I read I like a print copy. A real live book in my hands.
Because of my deep and abiding love of print books, ebooks don't just thrill and excite me quite the same. But it's a different format. Audio books don't overly thrill me either, but some people prefer them, and I would never say: "Don't publish me in audio books, I'm not a big personal fan." That would be ludicrous, and probably ignored, and rightly so.
The fact is, some people love ebooks. I want to sell to New York, absolutely, that's my goal. And after that, my goal is to keep selling to New York, and after that...well...you know...up and up. I've thought also about smaller presses. But while I'm waiting to sell to New York, I may as well at least consider the possibility of ebook publishing (with one of the good houses. There are only a handful that I would submit to, because beyond that, I may as well self publish.)
I know one should keep trying and not give up, and that is my intention. But "this" book, might not sell to New York no matter how much time I keep it circulating. So if it's good (and I believe it is) then it should sell SOMEWHERE. To automatically just shut out the ebook possibility is shooting myself in the foot.
Ebooks, while not my eventual goal, still provide me with some things. For one, It starts to give me a fanbase, people who might follow me into print publication. For another, it's money. The royalties at some of the better ebook houses, aren't bad at all, and you get paid monthly. Money is money, and if I am to consider my writing as a business, then I have to be smart and be willing to do what is necessary to get my name out there.
So that's an attitude of mine that has shifted recently. What about you? What attitudes have you had change as you've gotten deeper into your goals and writing plans?
I would like to circumvent that entire argument. Because it's really really not the point. It's two totally different worlds. It's not necessarily a "one or the other" type of deal anyway. You can do both. For a long time I was very resistant to the idea of ebooks. Mostly because I personally am not a big fan of the format. When I read I like a print copy. A real live book in my hands.
Because of my deep and abiding love of print books, ebooks don't just thrill and excite me quite the same. But it's a different format. Audio books don't overly thrill me either, but some people prefer them, and I would never say: "Don't publish me in audio books, I'm not a big personal fan." That would be ludicrous, and probably ignored, and rightly so.
The fact is, some people love ebooks. I want to sell to New York, absolutely, that's my goal. And after that, my goal is to keep selling to New York, and after that...well...you know...up and up. I've thought also about smaller presses. But while I'm waiting to sell to New York, I may as well at least consider the possibility of ebook publishing (with one of the good houses. There are only a handful that I would submit to, because beyond that, I may as well self publish.)
I know one should keep trying and not give up, and that is my intention. But "this" book, might not sell to New York no matter how much time I keep it circulating. So if it's good (and I believe it is) then it should sell SOMEWHERE. To automatically just shut out the ebook possibility is shooting myself in the foot.
Ebooks, while not my eventual goal, still provide me with some things. For one, It starts to give me a fanbase, people who might follow me into print publication. For another, it's money. The royalties at some of the better ebook houses, aren't bad at all, and you get paid monthly. Money is money, and if I am to consider my writing as a business, then I have to be smart and be willing to do what is necessary to get my name out there.
So that's an attitude of mine that has shifted recently. What about you? What attitudes have you had change as you've gotten deeper into your goals and writing plans?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Goals:
I finally got a strong lock on my goals for this year. They're some pretty big goals. I'd like to complete 4 novels this year. Yes, I said 4. You heard me right. Why Four?
It's not a magic number, it's just I write pretty fast when I'm working like I'm supposed to. If I'm not twiddling my thumbs there's no real reason why I can't finish a novel in 6 months time. Now I realize there are only 12 months in a year, but I have a "simultaneous work" plan that's working out really great for me and allows me to complete twice the work without the burnout factor. (Each day I write I'm doing around 3-4 hours of actual writing work, and since I don't work outside the home, that's definitely not excessive.)
While editing one novel, I'm writing the rough draft for the next one. So, 4 novels. I may not get an agent this year, or even any kind of ebook contract (yes, I'm ready to consider the possibility of ebooks until I make it to New York, more about that tomorrow.), but I will up my odds considerably by working hard, and getting things completed on my deadlines and getting them out there in the world circulating.
Right now I'm 26 days into the novel in 90 challenge, and at the end of the 90 days, my goal is to have my paranormal romance completely done and ready to go out the door, and my query letters ready, and also to have the rough draft of the erotica novel I'm writing. Then as soon as I send my queries out, I can start work on the rough draft of the next paranormal while I edit the erotica.
My production goals are pretty big this year, but I believe I can do them, I've never written and completed four novels in a year, it seems insane on the surface of it. But I'm ready to commit to this full time and I'm practicing what I preach. My goals may be big, but you can't reach a goal you don't set. If I set lower goals, I'll only go that far. I want to set a goal that's impressive if I reach it.
I would love to get an agent this year, or a contract with someone, but even if I don't, completing four novels will move me down this road closer to that agent and contract.
What are your goals for this year?
It's not a magic number, it's just I write pretty fast when I'm working like I'm supposed to. If I'm not twiddling my thumbs there's no real reason why I can't finish a novel in 6 months time. Now I realize there are only 12 months in a year, but I have a "simultaneous work" plan that's working out really great for me and allows me to complete twice the work without the burnout factor. (Each day I write I'm doing around 3-4 hours of actual writing work, and since I don't work outside the home, that's definitely not excessive.)
While editing one novel, I'm writing the rough draft for the next one. So, 4 novels. I may not get an agent this year, or even any kind of ebook contract (yes, I'm ready to consider the possibility of ebooks until I make it to New York, more about that tomorrow.), but I will up my odds considerably by working hard, and getting things completed on my deadlines and getting them out there in the world circulating.
Right now I'm 26 days into the novel in 90 challenge, and at the end of the 90 days, my goal is to have my paranormal romance completely done and ready to go out the door, and my query letters ready, and also to have the rough draft of the erotica novel I'm writing. Then as soon as I send my queries out, I can start work on the rough draft of the next paranormal while I edit the erotica.
My production goals are pretty big this year, but I believe I can do them, I've never written and completed four novels in a year, it seems insane on the surface of it. But I'm ready to commit to this full time and I'm practicing what I preach. My goals may be big, but you can't reach a goal you don't set. If I set lower goals, I'll only go that far. I want to set a goal that's impressive if I reach it.
I would love to get an agent this year, or a contract with someone, but even if I don't, completing four novels will move me down this road closer to that agent and contract.
What are your goals for this year?
Monday, January 29, 2007
Method:
Let's talk method. I'm still fine tuning mine, but the more I do this novel writing thing, the more I figure out what method works best for me. And what alternate routes I can take. I'm much clearer on the beginning parts of my method cause I've done them longer. When I first started trying to write a novel, I tried to write a rough draft and made several different attempts before I actually got through a rough draft. Then I got to where I'd completed several rough drafts and that was no longer impressive. I'm still fine tuning some of what works for me on revisions, since I haven't been at that stage as long. So...to bore you...here is my method. (Don't worry, I'm going to ask for yours too, because I really am interested in how everybody else works.)
1. Idea and Outline. I'm an outliner not a pantser. I tried pantsing once, and still haven't gotten that mess cleaned up. It was truly scary. I admire those who can pants, but I'm not among them, I'm way too anal retentive. When I make up my outline I decide how long I want the book to be, how many chapters, and divide the chapters evenly for word count. Now every chapter isn't EXACT, some are over, some are under, but I really like fairly even chapter lengths because it helps me with my pacing, as does the outline. This part takes me maybe a few days.
2. Rough draft. I try to write this as quickly as possible. The faster the better. My personal best is this past november when I wrote a 93,000 word first draft in 29 days. (next I want to try to do "Fast Draft" A rough draft in 2 weeks. The idea of being able to do that thrills me! And I really think I can.) Also during the rough draft, I follow the outine as a general 'pit stop' guide on the way to my ending, cause I can't start if I don't know my ending. I always veer though, and so I revise my outline accordingly. (Yes, I know I'm freaking ANAL about this. It's my safety net. It keeps me from sitting in front of the computer and just staring at it. It's nice to know what I'm going to write about at least in general before I get there.)
3. Then I let it sit for a few weeks. During this "sitting" period, I start working on my query letter. This is when I do my research and character sketches. Which may sound counter intuitive but I basically bullshit through the first draft on most things. I do my fact checking and research during the cooling off period, because then I know what I actually need to know and I'm not just filling up 30 notebooks with research that may or may not help me. (clearly I don't write historicals, because then I would probably HAVE to have 30 notebooks of research.)
4. Then I revise. I'm finding that just jumping in and editing and cleaning it up helps a lot. Because this can be an overwhelming stage. It's kind of like the rough draft though. Before you start the rough draft it's incredibly intimidating, but the only way to do it is to just jump in and do it, and not try to be perfect. I think revisions are probably the same way. Best not to second guess yourself, just save all your drafts and keep working at it. I'm finding a chapter a day of edits is working well for me. (of course this isn't the only pass through.) Someone on one of the loops suggested keeping a list of problems to fix as I come to them and then marking them off as I fix them. (like plot holes, scenes that need to be moved, etc.)
Also I've started something new, that is working out so much better than I anticipated, which is...while I'm editing one novel, I'm writing the rough draft of another novel. It allows me to do more work this way and allows me to shift gears.
That's as far as I am in the steps. I'm assuming the revisions stage could go on through several passes, finally getting to a polish, and manuscript formatting etc. But yeah...that's my method at this point.
What's yours?
1. Idea and Outline. I'm an outliner not a pantser. I tried pantsing once, and still haven't gotten that mess cleaned up. It was truly scary. I admire those who can pants, but I'm not among them, I'm way too anal retentive. When I make up my outline I decide how long I want the book to be, how many chapters, and divide the chapters evenly for word count. Now every chapter isn't EXACT, some are over, some are under, but I really like fairly even chapter lengths because it helps me with my pacing, as does the outline. This part takes me maybe a few days.
2. Rough draft. I try to write this as quickly as possible. The faster the better. My personal best is this past november when I wrote a 93,000 word first draft in 29 days. (next I want to try to do "Fast Draft" A rough draft in 2 weeks. The idea of being able to do that thrills me! And I really think I can.) Also during the rough draft, I follow the outine as a general 'pit stop' guide on the way to my ending, cause I can't start if I don't know my ending. I always veer though, and so I revise my outline accordingly. (Yes, I know I'm freaking ANAL about this. It's my safety net. It keeps me from sitting in front of the computer and just staring at it. It's nice to know what I'm going to write about at least in general before I get there.)
3. Then I let it sit for a few weeks. During this "sitting" period, I start working on my query letter. This is when I do my research and character sketches. Which may sound counter intuitive but I basically bullshit through the first draft on most things. I do my fact checking and research during the cooling off period, because then I know what I actually need to know and I'm not just filling up 30 notebooks with research that may or may not help me. (clearly I don't write historicals, because then I would probably HAVE to have 30 notebooks of research.)
4. Then I revise. I'm finding that just jumping in and editing and cleaning it up helps a lot. Because this can be an overwhelming stage. It's kind of like the rough draft though. Before you start the rough draft it's incredibly intimidating, but the only way to do it is to just jump in and do it, and not try to be perfect. I think revisions are probably the same way. Best not to second guess yourself, just save all your drafts and keep working at it. I'm finding a chapter a day of edits is working well for me. (of course this isn't the only pass through.) Someone on one of the loops suggested keeping a list of problems to fix as I come to them and then marking them off as I fix them. (like plot holes, scenes that need to be moved, etc.)
Also I've started something new, that is working out so much better than I anticipated, which is...while I'm editing one novel, I'm writing the rough draft of another novel. It allows me to do more work this way and allows me to shift gears.
That's as far as I am in the steps. I'm assuming the revisions stage could go on through several passes, finally getting to a polish, and manuscript formatting etc. But yeah...that's my method at this point.
What's yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)