We get a lot of negative feedback in the writing biz.
Our critique partners point out all the flaws in our work. Our query letters and first pages get rejected. Our books get bad reviews.
Negative, negative, negative. Bad, bad, bad.
But hold on. "Negative" doesn't have to mean "bad." It can also mean "the opposite of what is." Like film negatives.
Critique feedback is an opportunity to see our manuscripts in a new light, and to see them for what they could be after a revision. Rejections from editors and agents aren't saying "no"; they're saying, "not yet." Bad reviews are just saying, "your next book can be better."
So next time you hear something that sounds "negative," think of it as showing you something new about your work that you couldn't see before.
Have you looked at any "negatives" recently?
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
M is for Mork and Mindy
Remember this?
Na-noo na-noo. Hee-hee.
What was your favorite show from the late seventies and early eighties?
Na-noo na-noo. Hee-hee.
What was your favorite show from the late seventies and early eighties?
Friday, April 13, 2012
L is for Language
Last week, I mentioned that I was reading DUST, by Arthur Slade. This book was amazing for all kinds of reasons, but the thing I want to talk about today is the language.
The language you use to tell your story is as much a character as the actual characters and the setting are. In the opening paragraph of DUST, set in farm country in Depression-era Saskatchewan, Slade uses words like yearning and phrases like "The sky was cloudless." We aren't transported to another era because we're told that this is happening during the Depression; we are transported because the language immerses us in that time and place.
So many books for teens today, set in all kinds of different places - dystopian future Americas, war-ravaged future Americas, plague-ridden future Americas - all sound the same. They're written sounding like today - even if the vocabulary is different with some new jargon specific to the story thrown in, everything else: the phrasing; the way people talk; the way things are explained; sounds like teenagers talking today. But the best books, the ones that stand out to me as five star books, don't.
Language is as much a part of what makes up your book as characters, scenes, and plot. Use it well.
What books have you read in which the language stood out to you as being especially well-crafted?
The language you use to tell your story is as much a character as the actual characters and the setting are. In the opening paragraph of DUST, set in farm country in Depression-era Saskatchewan, Slade uses words like yearning and phrases like "The sky was cloudless." We aren't transported to another era because we're told that this is happening during the Depression; we are transported because the language immerses us in that time and place.
So many books for teens today, set in all kinds of different places - dystopian future Americas, war-ravaged future Americas, plague-ridden future Americas - all sound the same. They're written sounding like today - even if the vocabulary is different with some new jargon specific to the story thrown in, everything else: the phrasing; the way people talk; the way things are explained; sounds like teenagers talking today. But the best books, the ones that stand out to me as five star books, don't.
Language is as much a part of what makes up your book as characters, scenes, and plot. Use it well.
What books have you read in which the language stood out to you as being especially well-crafted?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
K is for Kerfuffle Over Agency Pricing
I knew I'd manage to fit in a writerly news item somehow. :-)
So, basically, the Department of Justice is suing Apple and a bunch of book publishers over the Agency E-book Pricing Model, saying that they "engaged in a 'substantial' conspiracy as they set up the agency model for eBook pricing." Some of the publishers have agreed to settle out of court and Apple and the rest will be fighting it - more on that in this article from GalleyCat.
The particulars of this case are interesting because, as a writer, I was really excited about the agency model. I saw it as a way to prevent one major company - namely Amazon - from setting prices so low that they not only run bookstores out of business, but run publishers out of business by creating unrealistic and unsustainably low pricing expectations amongst the book-buying public. In a sense, this supposedly non-competitive behaviour on the part of publishers was actually helping to keep competition alive in the publishing and bookselling industries. Steven Pearlstein writing for The Washington Post explained it much more eloquently than I can in this article.
Which means that in my opinion, this whole anti-competitive business with the Department of Justice is a load of cow poop. Writers need to be able to earn a living, and editors and art directors and everybody else need to be able to earn a living. If it costs X amount of money to make a book, then they should be allowed to charge a fair price based on X without being afraid that some huge megolith like Amazon is going to undercut them out of business. It's based on the extremely flawed premise that the only price that's good for the consumer is a lower price, which, if it leads to less diversity and lower quality, is obviously a load of you-know-what.
Which, incidentally, is what we'll all eventually be buying if book prices continue to fall and publishers continue to go out of business because they can't afford to pay for editors anymore. No more editors = not such great books. Well, you know what they say: you get what you pay for.
What do you think? Feel free to disagree. Let's discuss it in the comments.
So, basically, the Department of Justice is suing Apple and a bunch of book publishers over the Agency E-book Pricing Model, saying that they "engaged in a 'substantial' conspiracy as they set up the agency model for eBook pricing." Some of the publishers have agreed to settle out of court and Apple and the rest will be fighting it - more on that in this article from GalleyCat.
The particulars of this case are interesting because, as a writer, I was really excited about the agency model. I saw it as a way to prevent one major company - namely Amazon - from setting prices so low that they not only run bookstores out of business, but run publishers out of business by creating unrealistic and unsustainably low pricing expectations amongst the book-buying public. In a sense, this supposedly non-competitive behaviour on the part of publishers was actually helping to keep competition alive in the publishing and bookselling industries. Steven Pearlstein writing for The Washington Post explained it much more eloquently than I can in this article.
Which means that in my opinion, this whole anti-competitive business with the Department of Justice is a load of cow poop. Writers need to be able to earn a living, and editors and art directors and everybody else need to be able to earn a living. If it costs X amount of money to make a book, then they should be allowed to charge a fair price based on X without being afraid that some huge megolith like Amazon is going to undercut them out of business. It's based on the extremely flawed premise that the only price that's good for the consumer is a lower price, which, if it leads to less diversity and lower quality, is obviously a load of you-know-what.
Which, incidentally, is what we'll all eventually be buying if book prices continue to fall and publishers continue to go out of business because they can't afford to pay for editors anymore. No more editors = not such great books. Well, you know what they say: you get what you pay for.
What do you think? Feel free to disagree. Let's discuss it in the comments.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
J is for Jargon
jargon: a barbarous, rude, or debased variety of speech; lingo
Despite the Oxford English Dictionary's insistence that jargon is barbarous, a lot of writing uses it - particularly novels for teens. In fact, a number of acclaimed novels for teens have used it: M.T. Anderson's FEED and Paolo Bacigalupi's SHIP BREAKER are just two examples. You might have used jargon in your novel. Quite often, the jargon is invented, as a part of the new world that the novel is set in.
HOWEVER, this is something you want to keep out of your query letter. Jargon is specific to a generation, a geographical area, sometimes even a gender. The jargon in your book is probably specific to your book. Taken out of the context of your novel, it could be confusing and need too much explaining, and you don't have time for wasted words in a query letter.
So, even though you want the voice in your query letter to match the voice in your manuscript, try to do it without using jargon.
Do you use jargon in your novel?
Despite the Oxford English Dictionary's insistence that jargon is barbarous, a lot of writing uses it - particularly novels for teens. In fact, a number of acclaimed novels for teens have used it: M.T. Anderson's FEED and Paolo Bacigalupi's SHIP BREAKER are just two examples. You might have used jargon in your novel. Quite often, the jargon is invented, as a part of the new world that the novel is set in.
HOWEVER, this is something you want to keep out of your query letter. Jargon is specific to a generation, a geographical area, sometimes even a gender. The jargon in your book is probably specific to your book. Taken out of the context of your novel, it could be confusing and need too much explaining, and you don't have time for wasted words in a query letter.
So, even though you want the voice in your query letter to match the voice in your manuscript, try to do it without using jargon.
Do you use jargon in your novel?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
I is for Inform
inform: to give evident substance, character, or distinction to; pervade or permeate with manifest effect
When we write out scenes, we know what each character's objective is in that scene; we know what their "want" or "need" is. Additionally, we know each character's backstory: their hobbies, upbringing, family, and all the other things that have brought them to this moment in time.
Therefore, all that stuff must inform their dialogue and actions throughout the rest of the book. For example, if Sally-Ann was molested by her stepfather as a pre-teen, then all of her interactions with boys are going to be colored by that past. If Jose's parents illegally crossed the border right before he was born on American soil, then this will influence how he interacts with other kids whose parents have never set foot in Mexico, even ten or twelve or fifteen years later. If Bethany's Daddy has always given her whatever she wanted and now her daddy has disappeared, then she will react differently to his disappearance than if he had never really been around to begin with. All that stuff that happened long ago in your character's history, while it shouldn't necessarily be stated outright, should still be "there" somehow. It needs to inform everything that you put on the page.
I'm not saying that you need to create caricatures, or that you should make everything spelled out and predictable. But I am saying that when you write, you need to always think about whether this is your character talking, or you talking; whether this is a curve ball that is there as a plot device, or as a genuine reaction from your character.
Let his or her past and needs inform what they do in the present moment. This keeps the reader grounded, and keeps your characters consistent.
How have your characters' intentions informed their actions?
When we write out scenes, we know what each character's objective is in that scene; we know what their "want" or "need" is. Additionally, we know each character's backstory: their hobbies, upbringing, family, and all the other things that have brought them to this moment in time.
Therefore, all that stuff must inform their dialogue and actions throughout the rest of the book. For example, if Sally-Ann was molested by her stepfather as a pre-teen, then all of her interactions with boys are going to be colored by that past. If Jose's parents illegally crossed the border right before he was born on American soil, then this will influence how he interacts with other kids whose parents have never set foot in Mexico, even ten or twelve or fifteen years later. If Bethany's Daddy has always given her whatever she wanted and now her daddy has disappeared, then she will react differently to his disappearance than if he had never really been around to begin with. All that stuff that happened long ago in your character's history, while it shouldn't necessarily be stated outright, should still be "there" somehow. It needs to inform everything that you put on the page.
I'm not saying that you need to create caricatures, or that you should make everything spelled out and predictable. But I am saying that when you write, you need to always think about whether this is your character talking, or you talking; whether this is a curve ball that is there as a plot device, or as a genuine reaction from your character.
Let his or her past and needs inform what they do in the present moment. This keeps the reader grounded, and keeps your characters consistent.
How have your characters' intentions informed their actions?
Monday, April 9, 2012
H is for Margaret Hamilton
It's Easter Monday, and since I grew up in Ohio where "the country" consists mostly of cornfields, that can only mean one thing: it's tornado season. And tornadoes have been synonymous with The Wizard of Oz ever since the spectacular film was released in 1939.
Of all the characters in the film, my favorites are the Scarecrow and the Tin Man. But of the performers in the film, my favorite has to be Margaret Hamilton, who was cast as the Wicked Witch of the West. Here's the story behind that genius piece of casting. Make sure you watch to the end - she gets in some real zingers:
After that interview, I checked out some of her other work, and it turns out she was quite the comedienne. Here she is in an episode of "Car 54, Where Are You?" along with a couple of familiar faces from another great show, "The Munsters." See if you can spot them:
Super stuff.
Who was your favorite actor in The Wizard of Oz?
For more #AtoZChallenge posts, go here.
Of all the characters in the film, my favorites are the Scarecrow and the Tin Man. But of the performers in the film, my favorite has to be Margaret Hamilton, who was cast as the Wicked Witch of the West. Here's the story behind that genius piece of casting. Make sure you watch to the end - she gets in some real zingers:
After that interview, I checked out some of her other work, and it turns out she was quite the comedienne. Here she is in an episode of "Car 54, Where Are You?" along with a couple of familiar faces from another great show, "The Munsters." See if you can spot them:
Super stuff.
Who was your favorite actor in The Wizard of Oz?
For more #AtoZChallenge posts, go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)