Where in the world is Maureen San Diego?

It was either that or a Where's Waldo reference. Not sure either works. :/

Happy Halloween!!

I received these flowers yesterday from my fabulous author-relations team at Amazon Children's Publishing. Isn't that amazing!

Here are a few places where you can find me on the web this week--and discover lots of revealing secrets interesting facts about me and about DEVIANTS.

Get Lost in a Story -- interviewed by Donnell Ann Bell

Diana Peterfreund's Blog -- She asked really interesting questions! (not surprisingly, if you know Diana or have read her fabulous books)

Honestly YA -- Interviewed by Jennifer McAndrews -- more really interesting questions... and a discussion about eating rat meat...

The Reading Cafe -- A fun interview and a great review!

Inkygirl -- Great interview wherein I offer lots of tips about writing and publishing

And there are giveaway options at most of the places! And below!

BIG TIP!

If you're not a gambler, and don't want to risk the giveaways, DEVIANTS is only $3.99 for the kindle right now, if you live in the US! (A bit more in Canada and elsewhere--click on the link to find out how much is is, where you are.) And the hardcover is on sale most places too!


I'm also thrilled that DEVIANTS is listing in the top 50 on Amazon under "spine tingling horror' which is kind of awesome, especially on Halloween!

On Friday, I'm super excited to be blogging at Omnivoracious! Where today, they're discussing great YA Halloween reads and Friday, I'll be talking about why adults do (and should if they don't) read teen fiction.

Tomorrow, I'm on the panel "Romancing the Beast" at the World Fantasy Convention. Fellow panelists include #1 NYT Bestselling author, Patricia Briggs! I think I'll just sit and listen to her. :)

And on Saturday, I'll be a VIP Guest at the Ontario Blog Squad's Annual Meet Up! Very excited to meet everyone there!

(And somehow, at the same time, I need to do line edits for COMPLIANCE, The Dust Chronicles #2, before Sunday night... Sleep? I hear it's overrated.)


a Rafflecopter giveaway

Goodreads Book Giveaway

Deviants

by Maureen McGowan

Giveaway ends November 09, 2012.
See the giveaway details at Goodreads.

Enter to win

Sorry gentle readers for the blatant self promotion. :)

Dark Heroes and Mad Men

I've been thinking a lot about Sinead's post on Friday, and a dilemma I know she's having with one of her WIP's, and also thinking about some workshops I've attended, where the topic was making the protagonist sympathetic or emotionally identifiable in the opening scenes. While I usually think of that in terms of romance heroines, I'm starting to think this is the key to making readers accept dark heroes, too. That the "make your hero sympathetic or relatable rule" isn't just for the nice guys. It's for the bad guys, too. Let's face it, every well-rounded character's got two sides, but maybe the darker the hero the more important it is to show the positive traits early.

The thing is, it's hard to do this with a dark character, because you're trying to characterize him/her as dark at the same time. And I agree that it can be cowardly or a cop out for writers to soften the dark stuff too much. Also hard not to fall into a clichés like having them pet a puppy (or literally save a cat as in the title of Blake Snyder's screen writing book). But while challenging, it's not impossible and it doesn't mean you need to have the hero regret his/her bad choices right from the start, or otherwise soften whatever it is that makes them dark. Rather you can show something positive as well, or show him/her experiencing something the reader can relate to/empathize with. I'm going to have to pull out Susan Elizabeth Phillips' Ain't She Sweet again. Actually, I think I borrowed Sinead's copy. Need to get one of my own. But I'm quite sure SEP did this masterfully with her anti-heroine in Ain't She Sweet.

And another writer who's done it masterfully is Matthew Weiner, the writer/creator of Mad Men. AMC showed the first season of Mad Men back-to-back on Sunday, in anticipation of the second season starting next week. (Can't wait!) And I watched the opening scenes from the pilot episode about 5 times.


Okay, Don Draper might not be what many of us think of when we think "dark hero", but let's face it, he's a pretty dark guy, with some very dark secrets, who has done and does a lot of bad things. Yet, he is the protagonist of the series. (Peggy being the secondary protagonist and I'm going to have to go back and think about her introduction, too...)

So, how does the writer introduce Don Draper, dark hero...

First scene: Noisy, crowded bar. Everyone's drinking and smoking and chatting in groups. Having fun. But not Don. He's alone. Concentrating. Working. Writing ideas on a napkin.

In less than 5 seconds of the pilot episode we know Don is hard worker. Has a strong work ethic. Positive traits.

Then he asks a busboy (older black man) for a light and tries to engage him in conversation. The waiter (white) misinterprets the situation, tries to intercede and insults the busboy. Don brushes the waiter off, making it clear he wants to talk to the busboy. So, now we're maybe 15 seconds into this series and we know: Don is nice to people with low-paying jobs. Don is nice to a black person in 1960, when most white people weren't. Don respects the "little guy", cares about underdogs. More positive traits.

Then the conversation continues and he's asking the busboy about his brand of cigarettes and why he smokes them and what Don could say to convince him to switch brands. In a 20 or 30 second conversation we see more of Don respecting this man, valuing his opinion and Don being insightful and smart about his job. Look at that: Good at his job. Another positive trait. He respects others' opinions. Another one.

Oh, and the actor playing Don is very good looking, dresses well, has a great smile. Not trivial details. Good looking. Another positive trait.

Scene is over. Less than a minute. And we already like and respect Don, think he's a good guy. He's dedicated. A hard worker. Nice to underdogs. Good at his job. Good looking. At least five positive traits in maybe 40 seconds.

Second scene: Don goes to visit a woman in her apartment. It's late at night. He's not expected, but she's clearly glad to see him, but no push-over either, and she's attractive. And witty. Hmmmm. An attractive, witty woman likes Don. Wants to have sex with him. And she does the seducing/makes the first move. Another clue to him having positive traits. Others like him so he must be likable. And his lover is a bohemian, an independent woman. An artist. Plus, she has more than one lover. Interesting. His lover is a woman who is very rebellious given the time period. Earns her own living. She's interesting. That he's her lover makes him more interesting. And he talks with her about a problem he's having at work. Makes us think he respects women, respects her opinion. Because of this and the way he treats his new secretary in a later scene, we believe Don respects women more than most men of his time. We're proved wrong later in the episode. But the point is, we believe it now, as we're getting to know Don and it helps us become emotionally attached.

But back to the second scene. In addition to this scene cementing our impression that this guy is fairly liberal for his time--asking for opinions from a black man and now a woman!--it does something even more important. In discussing his work issues, we learn that he's vulnerable. Scared in fact. Scared that he won't come up with an idea for his cigarette manufacturer client, scared to go to work tomorrow, scared that one of the young execs will steal his job, scared that everyone at work will discover he's a fraud. Now, if you watch the series, you'll know that this last fear is a loaded one for Don. But we don't know that it's foreshadowing at this point. All we know is he has insecurities about his job and his biggest fear is that some day everyone will discover he's a fraud. These are fears and emotions almost everyone can relate to. The writer has made him emotionally identifiable, by putting him in this vulnerable situation we can relate to.

So, at this point, we're maybe 90 seconds into a series with an anti-hero and already the writer has given us five or six reasons to like and respect Don. To identify with him emotionally. Connect with him.

Next scene. Wakes up in bed with his lover. Says, "We should get married. ... You have your own business ... What size Cadillac do you take?" She replies: "You know the rules. I don't make plans and I don't make breakfast." Hands him his watch as a signal he should get up and get out.

Now we're wondering if Don might be a romantic. If she'd agree to it, he'd marry this woman. On top of that, he's fine with women in business. in 1960. Cool. All these assumptions turn out to be false, but Don wasn't lying in this scene, he was being ironic. Seeing it again, knowing all we know about Don after the first season, I think when he says "we should get married," to Midge, he isn't being romantic at all, but a making a wish for a different life because of the unhappiness and emptiness caused by living a lie. Midge is an escape. He doesn't have to feel badly that she knows nothing about him, because she doesn't want to know much about him. But -- big but -- at this point, we don't know any of this, so the writer is giving us more reasons to empathize with Don. Poor guy is in love with a woman who won't commit and has other lovers. And he's generous. He offered her a Cadillac, even if it was jokingly.

We're thinking Don's a pretty good guy. And we're maybe only 3 minutes into the series.

Then we start to meet the other characters and learn what pigs most of the men are and how badly they treat the women and Don starts to look even better by comparison. (Even the clearly closeted gay man does his best to sexually harass and insult the women. But Don mostly abstains and actually defends Peggy.)

After all this, by the time the negative stuff starts to come out about Don's character, we're already pretty invested in him and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he makes anti-semitic remarks we think, "Yes, but it's a sign of the times, plus he was nice to the black man and respects women." Two out of three ain't bad. ;-)
Then he insults a woman when she dares to question him, and says: "I'm not going to let a woman talk to me like this," before storming out on a female client. We're shocked, sure, but since we'd already decided he was a good guy in the first 2-3 minutes of the episode, we see these negative traits as complexities, not reasons to think he's a villain rather than a hero. When we learn he's a total cynic about love, we wonder, "Why does he feel that way? How was he hurt?" instead of hating him for it and thinking he's a jerk. When he's clearly sad when describing how advertising is all about happiness, we care and are curious about what's causing him pain.

And then, at the end of the episode... he goes home to his wife. Big reveal. He's married. A big-time cheater. But then even this blow is softened, because he loves his kids. And he loves his wife. And his wife loves him. And he's a good provider. We see all that in a tender 30 second scene when he gets home. (In future episodes, when we get to know his wife better, we realize everything wasn't as rosy as it seemed in that scene... but the writer is smart about that. Paints a pretty picture of his home life to start with.)

Do we hate him at the end of this first episode? Hard to say. Some people will. I didn't.
But I also think that, love him or hate him, most people by the end of this first episode are captivated by Don Draper. Fascinated. Drawn in to a complex character who just gets more and more complex as the series continues.

Stellar writing. Stellar acting. I see more in this opening episode each time I watch it. And I'm starting to think it's a master class in introducing dark heroes.

Is Don a dark hero, as in a murderer or rapist? Well no. (At least based on what we know in the first season.) But he is -- without giving any spoilers, for those of you who need to catch up and watch season one -- a bit of a scum bucket. Okay, maybe not a scum bucket. Just deeply wounded. See? I'm so invested I can't even call him a bad name.

I was totally drawn into his story. I think a good part of this is because of those masterful first scenes, those two minutes of screen time that made him emotionally identifiable to me and showed me his positive traits before revealing all the bad stuff.

(Now I want to go back and rewrite the first scene of my new book for the 60th time...)

Speed

No, not the movie.

No, not the drug.

I'm talking about writing speed. I mean, how fast we all write.

I feel sure we've broached this topic at least once before at DWT, but like with most writing topics, opinions change, lightbulbs go on (or off), bold statements made in the past are retracted, and therefore, some topics bear repeating.

I was talking about being a Nanoloser over on my other blog this week and some commenters wondered if speed might not make an interesting topic for broader discussion. So here goes my speed ramble.

To me, there are at least two sides to this speed question. First, how fast can a writer write without sacrificing quality for quantity (each writer is different) (possibly each story for each writer is different), and second, how fast MUST a writer write if they want a career in commercial fiction? Is it possible to have a career if you're one of the slow ones? Can a slow writer train themselves to be faster?

I guess another way to phrase the latter question is how fast do publishers expect you to write?

There's no clear answer here, either.

If one writes category romance for Harlequin, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that to build a readerwhip you want at least two books a year, preferably three. And the same (based on my observations) seems to be true at houses like Elora's Cave. Single title romance publishers never used to put out more than one book a year for most authors, (creating the reputed inventory backlog of Nora books), but this too is changing. Rapid, tightly packed release schedules, like Ballantine did for Allison's Brennan's debut series, have proven the old marketing mold of releasing a new book for each author every 9-12 months has been broken very successfully.

So, how fast? I've heard you need to write a book in 9 months or less several times (Madeline Hunter says this in her amazing "Surviving Almost There" talk, as does Cherry Adair. And that sounds about right to me. (Surely a book shouldn't take longer than a baby?)

Problem is, I can't seem to do it. Well, maybe if I added up the time I actually spend writing a book, it is less than 9 months, but for me it seems, all-too-often, to be maybe 6 months of actual writing spread over 18 months on the calendar.

On the other hand, I have a writer friend whose first novel will be released next year. (Because I'm mentioning some details, I'm going to keep in anonymous.) She wrote this book around the same time I wrote my April Hillson book. That is to say, in 2004-2005 (gosh, that seems like a long time ago). And she's working on her second now.

Her book's being published by an "accessible literary" imprint of a major NY house, and they don't seem to be that surprised that she doesn't have her second book ready for press yet. In fact, I don't think there was even talk of two book contract when she sold the first. And her agent doesn't think she can sell the second book on proposal, either. I've heard similar stories from other writer friends and acquaintances who write women's fiction -- even the more commercial kind -- and this is what seems to be typical in that little slice of the publishing world:
One book deals.
No second contract until the publisher sees how the first one sells.
Each book sold 100% complete and quite separately from the others.

I'm sure this changes at some point. I'm sure Jodi Picoult can sell her "next Jodi Picoult title" sight unseen or on a vague idea, but this career transition happens so much more slowly in mainstream fiction than it seems to in the romance genre where relatively new authors seem to routinely sell their second books on proposal, and many authors get multi-book deals right out of the gate.

So, the above-mentioned friend's agent recently rejected a book of another of my friends and told her she'd be happy to look at her next project when it's ready. This woman replied to the agent that it would be at least six to seven months. To which the agent replied. Take your time. It takes at least a year to write a book.

So, is there a right answer here that's based on what type of book you're writing? Is there a difference in mainstream women's fiction vs romance? I'm not so sure. To go back to my Jodi Picoult example, she seems to release a new book every year, and they're pretty complicated and original stories and at least 120,000 words. So obviously it's possible.

And while I guess some people might read between the lines of this post that I'm implying it's faster to write a romance, I don't think that's necessarily true. I do think, however, speed does vary somewhat on the complexity of the book. The structure, the themes, the relative subtlety.

I just deleted a whack of this post that was talking about whether it's faster to write romances than woman's fiction... I deleted it because I feel like I was going off topic and also because I feel like I was trying to give myself excuses for writing more slowly. But I feel like when I write too quickly. When I don't let my stories percolate. What I come up with is trite, boring, derivative, predictable crap.

But even as I get ready to post this... I feel like I'm just making excuses. That on those days when it's not working to push forward in the story, I don't try hard enough to get something onto paper, even if it's just ideas for upcoming scenes.

What do you think? Is my relative pokiness because of who I am as writer, pure laziness, or a function of what I'm trying to write?

How about you? Can you write fast? Do you wish you could? How fast do you think you NEED to write to reach your particular career goals? Do you feel pressure to write faster than you can?

J.K. Rowling is Entertainer of the Year

I think it's very interesting that Entertainment Weekly Magazine has named J.K. Rowling as entertainer of the year.

Now, it might be easy to say, "Duh!" Of course she's entertainer of the year, she should've been named entertainer of the year every year for the past seven or so years, but remember, this is Entertainment Weekly.

Ms. Rowling's companions on this year's list are all actors and/or pop singers. One possible exception to my actors and singers only assertion is Tina Fey... but really, would she be as famous for her brilliant writing if she didn't also act? Another listing was "The Apatow Gang". I thought, okay. Another writer. But when I looked at the listing, they had all the actors there, too. It is true that many of the actors frequently in Judd Apatow's projects also write... but like Tina Fey, would people make such a big deal if they didn't also act? Besides, with both Apatow and Fey we're talking TV and movies, not books.

So, I guess my point (I will get to it) is that I think it's cool that a novelist is entertainer of the year. At a time when books have so much competition for our interest with movies and television and video games and the internet etc. etc. etc. I think it's so great that she has made even the likes of EW sit up and notice.

Hey, books are entertaining, not just something teachers make you read in school.

Reading level and Harry Potter

First, I want to announce that we'll be having a guest blogger stopping by for a drink on Wednesday!

There will be a prize. Make sure you come by!

Now, back to what I've been thinking about the past few days.

I spent last week babysitting for my niece and nephew, and my nine year old niece is making her way through the fourth Harry Potter book, so I had a chance to revisit it, listening to her read aloud, and reading some aloud myself.

I read the first four HP books back to back very quickly round about 2000, I think. I can't remember the exact year, but I do know it was before I started writing novels. And, in spite of buying books 5-7 (preordering two of them...) I still haven't read 5-7. Thus, I haven't read any J.K. Rowling since I started seriously writing fiction myself. (Shame on me.)

Reading her again last week was a bit of an eye opener, and made me think about something I haven't really been thinking much about for a while, and that's sentence structure, particularly complex sentences.

I take some pride in the fact that my writing is easy to read. I do think I vary my structures to keep things interesting and get a rhythm going. At least I try to. I often have double meanings and, I hope, the occasional clever reference not every reader will get... but the sentences tend to be clean and simple, with the verb near the subject and that sort of thing. That said, I was a little disturbed, running the grammar feature in MS Word, to discover that, according to Bill Gate's staff, I'm writing at a grade 3 or 4 level.

Does that mean that a kid my niece's age should read my books? No way. Does that mean they'd understand everything in by books even if they did read one? I sure hope not. There are seriously adult themes in them thar books. Does it mean they'd understand the meaning of every word I use? Probably not. But, it does mean that my niece, if she got a hold of one of my books, could probably read it.

I'd be interested in running J.K. Rowling's books through that MS program... Her sentences are often long and complex with the verb separated from the subject by multiple clauses or phrases... Reading aloud, there were often times when I had to go back and reread a sentence realizing I'd misinterpreted what was being said at the beginning, by the time I got to the end. For my niece, this happened several times a page. But hey, she's only nine. (Reading silently, I don't find JK's stuff hard to read at all... but if you're trying to get the intonation right when reading aloud... I found I made mistakes every 3 or 4 pages. Maybe I was just tired?)

But what it really got me wondering about is whether I'm being lazy in my writing. Not trying hard enough. Or whether I should continue to be proud that my writing is easy to read.

I mean... if commercial fiction is about the storytelling, then why make it hard on the reader? On the other hand... complicated sentences haven't exactly held JK back, now have they?

Thoughts? Has anyone else checked out what grade level the folks at microsoft think you're writing at?

And make sure you come back on Wednesday for our guest blogger and PRIZES.

Wireless networks -- Work of the devil or heaven sent?

I saw the very funny link that Eileen Cook had on her blog recently asking the question, "What if 24 had debuted in 1994."

Yes, technology moves quickly. So quickly it's often hard to remember we didn't always have the things we use daily. (When I first started articling for a CA firm as a co-op student... most offices didn't have fax machines, so we had a teletype... And yes, all the admin staff had typewriters on their desks.)

When I first started trying to write full time, I very quickly realized that some days, in order to get anything done, I had to get out of the house. So, I go to Starbucks, or Timothy's or various other coffee-type establishments that let you sit all day for the price of a coffee.

Initially, I had an IBM laptop, that was not wireless enabled. In fact, I'm not even sure if many coffee shops were networked at the time. But I decided the weight of the laptop in my backpack was not proportional to the amount of battery life I got... So I bought a keyboard for my Palm and purposefully didn't even look into hooking it up to the web. (Involved bluetooth stuff...)

But last year I treated myself and bought my lovely MacBook, which I am still head over heels in love with. (Seriously, our relationship is a little creepy.)

My only complaint (and it's not really a complaint) is that whereas my old laptop required a special card, not to mention several minutes of struggling through various Windows menus that never worked the first time, in order to hook up to a wireless network.

My Mac, on the other hand, automatically checks for networks every time I turn it on. How handy.

But I'm starting to think it's the devil's work. The point of getting out of my office was to stop obsessively checking my e-mails and spending 45 minutes answering some stupid question (or even smart question) posted to one of my writers' loops. The point was no access to news sites, or entertainment sites, or movie listings, or blogs....

I sat down in a Starbucks just after 9:00 am yesterday morning. Guess what time I started to actually work on my manuscript??? 12:30 pm.

Damn that wireless networking.

Interesting characters

So, we've been talking a lot about TV lately. I guess it's the season. Although now with the writers' strike... We may be losing new TV episodes pretty soon.

Watching House last night, I realized that Molly's right. That show has totally redeemed itself as a series this year. I spent some time (15 seconds) trying to figure out why. Here's what I've come up with so far.

House is great because of the characters. Sure, there's an interesting medical question each week and structuring the episode like a mystery/crime show instead of more traditional medical shows is creative and unique, but the real thing that makes this show is the characters.

Gregory House on his own is an interesting enough character, and Laurie a good enough actor, to carry this show through the first season and maybe part way through the second. He's an edgy character. In fact, I read an interview with Laurie saying the show didn't have a title when he received the scenes for his audition tape. (He auditioned remotely while filming that plane lost in the desert movie... Flight of the Phoenix?) Anyway, after reading his character's scenes, he assumed the show was about the Wilson character and he was reading for the crusty friend part.

But the show's creators didn't stop at a great main character. Cuddy is an interesting contradictory complex character and so is Wilson.

But they didn't stop there. They parceled out information about these 3 main characters slowly over the 2 seasons. Okay, we learned most of the juicy stuff about House in the first season -- but it was very juicy and extremely well delivered -- and they mostly just posed questions about Cuddy and Wilson as well as Cameron and Chase and Foreman in the first season, so we were still interested in watching the second season even though we knew what happened to House's leg and his marriage and why Cuddy puts up with him (guilt) and other juicy tidbits that we'd been fed in the first season.

But House started to bore me last season. House's quips weren't enough to get me through and after watching the first several episodes of this year I think I know why it's working for me again. I was bored of the secondary characters last year. The mystery was all gone. There was no where new to take them without getting silly. We knew Cameron had "issues". We knew she loved House, but that the two would never get together. We knew Foreman was the smartest but had trust issues and issues with authority etc. And we knew Chase had great hair. (Sorry... but pretty as he is, he was always the boring one for me.) Even the Chase/Cameron thing, which was interesting for a while because of the gender reversal -- her using him for sex -- started to be dull for me by the end of last season. (And I know I'm not doing these 3 characters justice here. Tons of stuff was revealed about these characters over the first few seasons and that's what made them interesting.)

So, they've finished revealing all the backstory for Chase/Cameron/Foreman. What did they do? Do they have one abducted by aliens? Marry a criminal? Paralyzed in an accident? Lose an arm? (All typicial of plot twists in most medical dramas.) No, they take them (at least temporarily) out of the picture and introduced a bunch of new characters. And they didn't dump too much information about any one of these new characters, either. The result, we have new character mysteries to keep us tuning in from week to week. More questions we want answered, like: What's up with 13? Why is cut throat bitch such a cut throat bitch? How far can House really push the black mormon guy before he snaps, and where's his wife? Which ones will last? And even having the character I most wanted to see survive get fired this week after he (sob) poisoned a patient to fake polio so that he could get attention and money for medical studies? Pretty out there, but interesting. Even though I was hoping they'd grow that character. I know from Huff -- that actor can do interesting things... I'll miss him. (Now, watch... all the interns will be fired next week and I'll never get my burning questions answered... But my point is I have the questions, so I'm interested in the people.)

But the best thing about last week was the adding of the new Michael Michele character. A woman strong enough to stand up to House. And with a military background so she's used to order and rules... And the sexual chemistry between those two? Yowsa. And that she gave back as good as she took?
Her: "I can kill a man with my thumb."
Him: "I was still making sexual innuendos."
Her: "So was I."
Stellar.
And only House could deliver a line like "I have a position open on my penis" and have it be funny instead of revolting. Okay, it was a little revolting. But I was laughing so hard I didn't care.

I am optimistic about this show again. They finally seem to have remembered their show relies not on silly plot developments like a cop out for revenge after having a thermometer stuck up his butt, but on keeping us fascinated about learning more about complex characters and seeing them interact with each other.

Can we Tawk?

I'm inspired this week to talk about something that shouldn't be controversial, but with writers sometimes is -- honesty.

Writing is such a personal endeavor. As writers we pour bits of ourselves into our work and then shove it out into the world for little pieces to be hacked off or smashed by others. It's just the nature of the beast. I doubt there's been a piece of writing, ever, that was universally loved. On the same token, not everyone has the same career goals or will go about attaining those goals in the same manner. While those of us lucky enough to find companions on this journey have company on our writing paths, we aren't always going to agree with the choices made by our writer friends.

So, how do we cope?

I think with a combination of honesty and tact. And because everyone makes mistakes, also with forgiveness.

I often marvel at the miracle that is my main critique group. (I'm working with two groups right now... a bit overwhelming.) My first group has been together, more or less, for over five years now. That six women can meet once a week for five years to criticize each other and still survive is seriously a miracle. Not that we haven't had problems. To prevent the total collapse of the group we've had to prune a couple members and that was tough. Tough for the prunees, I'm sure, but tough for us, too. We've also recently added a member and that too was tough. New personalities, new ideas, change. All hard. But we're sticking it out because it works, because we make each other better, because we're all in it for the writing and not for the weekly social call, and because we keep each other honest -- I hope.

I've heard stories of hurt feelings and misunderstandings that have blown up in so many other writers faces. Old friends never talking to each other again. Offense taken where none was meant, escalating into all out wars.

We all want to avoid these blow ups. Is the solution to always be nice? To never say the hard things? To continue a relationship that clearly isn't working instead of cutting it off? Gee, I hope not.

I don't want my critique partners to lie to me -- ever. Sure some things they've said have hurt. And I'm *sure* I've said things that have hurt them. (I can be a bitch.) But I'm a big girl (and I'm not just talking bra size). I can take it and I hope they can too. The thickness of my skin has increased about 100x since I started seriously writing and I think I'm a better person for it.

And each day I thank whatever higher power there might be for sending me critique partners who can be brutally honest, with tact, and who can forgive each other for the occasional and inevitable lack of tact and hurt feelings.

Myths, Lies and the Publishing Industry

Okay, I know this is bad form. But I forgot to do a blog today and was reminded of one of my very first posts on my other blog, so I decided to repost it here.

Updates to this since I wrote it last year? Sadly very few. :-)

----------------------

A couple of recent posts on writer-lists I belong to have prompted me to do something I swore I’d never do with this blog (but already broke in the first week). I hadn’t planned to use this blog to foist my opinions about publishing on the world. Enough people already do that and do it well… But sometimes, it appears, I just can’t help myself…

So, at the risk of having cyber-tomatoes tossed my way, I find myself wanting to voice a few opinions about small pubs, e-pubs and (gasp) self-publishing.

I’m still very early in my—what I hope will be a—writing career… but, except for about ten minutes after one particularly disappointing bit of news, I haven’t even considered an option other than shooting for a contract with a major NY publisher.

Why? For me, it’s about knowing what you want. It’s about setting goals and sticking to them even if it requires a little harsh reflection and honesty—not to mention a lot of hard work on your craft and probably tossing a few early manuscripts into the trash bin.

Not that I think there’s any one right way to get published—or even a best way—I just know what I want and based on some things I read on the loops, some (emphasis on some) writers end up at e-pubs without much forethought or because they weren’t honest with themselves about their writing or about the industry.

In other words, if a writer decides to target a small press or e-pub, he/she should be very clear about why they've made that choice.

In my opinion, it comes down to goals. Writers (I hope) write because we love to write… So why do we want to be published? That’s a whole other question. Some writers may be happy just to see their name in print on a book cover. Maybe it’s being able to use that elusive title "author". Maybe they just hope a few people who don’t know them will actually read their stories. On the other hand, some writers have different goals. For example, seeing their book in major chains, reaching for or hitting bestseller lists, reviews in major publications, possible movie deals, having thousands of people read their books, earning a modest living…

If those latter goals sound like you… Then my advice is to stay focused on getting that contract with a major NY publishing house.

What saddens me most, I suppose, is when I see writers falling into the trap of believing certain myths about the industry that get perpetrated amongst we pre-published authors. Yes, it’s a tough business. Yes, the odds are against a new writer. Yes, it’s very subjective. Yes, there’s some luck and timing involved, but some things I hear out there just aren’t true. For example, I’ve heard people claiming that to get a major NY contract or even land a reputable agent:

• You have to know someone


• You have to be pretty


• Your book has to fit into some kind of cookie-cutter mold


• You have to learn a secret handshake no one’s willing to teach you

Yes, these little lies writers tell themselves can help take the sting out of the inevitable rejections that come in this business—but they are lies. Believing that you need an "in" to get published by a NY house, or that the major houses never take chances can lead writers into a world of delusion. Yes, small presses and e-pubs have launched certain fiction sub-genres -- they can take more chances because the costs are so much lower... But once those barriers have been broken and it’s proven a market exists (say with erotica or paranormal right now) NY starts clamoring for those types of books and if your writing is good enough, your storytelling gripping, your voice strong, you will find an agent and get a publishing deal with a NY house.

Eventually.

This is what I believe.

Am I the one who’s deluded?

I don't have a book contract yet. It took me 3 completed manuscripts to get a great agent and I recognize that it might take a few more manuscripts to get that contract... Don’t get me wrong… it will break my heart if the book my agent is shopping right now doesn't sell... But I'll recover. I also know each book I write gets better and for me (emphasis on for me) going with a small pub or e-pub is a compromise I'm not willing to make. It’s just not compatible with my goals. Your goals might be different. Just be honest with yourself and don't buy into the myths.

Books books books books books

Okay, I should be sleeping right now, so if this post is completely incoherent (or more incoherent than normal) please forgive me.

I spent most of Monday wandering around BookExpo Canada. What fun. My friend Danielle Younge-Ullman, whose debut novel FALLING UNDER, will be published next year by Plume, got some free exhibitor passes for us from some dude she met on Craig's List. Go, Danielle!

Anyway, I had to pretend I was a published author, because that was the closest I came to any of the boxes I had to check to actually redeem my pass for an entry badge, but luckily no one questioned it.

What is BookExpo you may ask? Well, the Canadian one is a small version of the US one, and it's basically a marketing venue/trade show for the publishers (and people in related industries targeting bookstores) to show off the best of their wares for the upcoming season. In addition to the publishers' booths, I was interested to see a very large booth sponsored by a book distributor I'd never heard of before. They had a huge list of the houses they represent in Canada, and basically it seemed to be all the US publishers who don't have Canadian offices/counterparts and some smaller presses, too. So, from what I could gather, instead of those houses having a sales force in Canada, this company basically acts as an agent for them. (I really should have found out more... Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to y'all. Sorry about the y'all. Warming up for Dallas, already.)

The most popular feature of the show seemed to universally be the author appearances. Basically authors show up for about an hour each and give away signed copies of their new or upcoming releases. Free books!

Fellow Toronto Romance Writer, Kelley Armstrong, had one of the longest lines for signings on Sunday, from what I heard, but sadly, I could only go on Monday. (Jean Chretien was there on Sunday, too... Not to mention Clive Barker and a few stars like that.)

The attendees of BookExpo are mostly booksellers and librarians. I'd say at least 2/3 of the name badges I spotted were people who worked at a Chapters or Indigo.

But some other business seems to get done, too. Danielle managed to meet the woman at Penguin Canada who'll be handling her Canadian publicity when her book comes out which was pretty exciting. And I pumped a few people I met to try to improve my understanding of the biz.

I got a HUGE bag-o-books I can't wait to read, including Tom Harpur's new one WATER INTO WINE which looks fascinating, and Jan Wong's RED CHINA BLUES. (Although, true confessions, with great non-fiction like that, I always love the idea of reading the books and buy quite a few that interest me... and then I never seem to get around to actually reading most of them. Most of the non-fiction reading I do these days is writing related and I admit I'm still in the second chapter of Harpur's book THE PAGAN CHRIST.)

The funniest thing I picked up? A little teaser booklet thingy (I'm sure that's the proper marketing term) for a new one of those Chicken Soup books. What's this one called? Chicken Soup for the American Idol Soul. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They are little stories written by past contestents on the show. And some bonus words of encouragement from Paula Abdul. Gah! What is the world coming to?

Another highlight for me was getting a signed copy of NYT Bestseller John Connolly's THE UNQUIET. I admit I'm not a big thriller reader, and have never read Mr. Connolly before, but I'll read this one. What a charmer. He was too good looking for it to be legal, and when he noticed my name he asked if I was Irish, and I started babbling like an idiot and basically told him my entire family tree. I think what came out was:

MM: "Actually, I'm only 5/8 Irish."
JC: "Well, that's pretty good."
MM: "I've got some Scots blood, too."
JC: "We can forgive that."
MM: "And some Welsh."
JC: "Oh, can't forgive that."
MM: "And some Flemish."
JC: "Now the Flemish is interesting."

Witty banter. We're opening in Vegas in 2 weeks. LOL. Anyway, while I was embarassing myself, he was busily signing my free book with what I assumed was his stock book signing "happy reading" or whatever. What I actually got was: "To Maureen, my fellow Irishman (5/8)
Peace and Happiness, John." and a big smiley face.

So sweet.

Also got to say a quick hello to Tish Cohen again, author of TOWN HOUSE, and got a copy of her upcoming middle-grade release THE INVISIBLE RULES OF THE ZOE LAMA which looks like a very fun read.

So, all in all, in terms of days I should have been writing but wasn't, I don't feel too guilty about this one. A day well spent.

Life in the Casino

The world of publishing is a confusing one. On the one hand, it's a business. Obviously it's a business. Publishers aren't there to lose money. Writers expect to get paid for their work and all the many other people involved (agents, editors, book designers, sales and marketing people) expect to get paid, too.

On the other hand, publishing falls clearly in the arts with one big foot in the entertainment industry. Many other discliplines in the arts require fundraising or grants (public or private) to exist (ballets, theatres, art galleries) but publishing does not.

Because of this one foot in the arts and one foot in business dichotomy, publishing, in many ways, doesn't (thank God, in my opinion) follow many of what would be called "best business practices" in other industries. If it did, then only the sure things would ever get published. And only the lowest common denominator of reader (in terms of taste, education, etc.) would be catered to.

Now, some may argue that's already true. But I think that's too cynical. (And this from a known cynic.) Lots of really different and exciting and challenging books get published. Books I'm sure are considered a HUGE gamble by everyone involved and that are published not because anyone can produce a spreadsheet or report predicting with any accuracy how well it will sell, but simply because those involved in the process LOVE the book and believe in it. Often it's those books that break through and sell well. Often it's not. Often it's the ones with more obvious mass appeal that do well... And nothing wrong with that either. Point is, there's still room for lots of different books to get published. (Just not room for as many as those of us hoping to join the ranks of published authors would like.)

I found the recent article in the New York Times very fun and interesting to read. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/business/yourmoney/13book.html?_r=2&h&oref=slogin

I'd read a similar (but much less accessible) essay on this topic written by a British statistician, a few years ago, but can't remember the man's name. One of the arguments I do remember him making in his essay stood out for me, though. He argued that if Yann Martel hadn't received so many rejections from all the big publishers for Life of Pi, it never would have become a bestseller. Why? Because a bigger house wouldn't have put him forward for the Booker prize (they would have nominated one of their bestsellers) and it was only after winning that prize that the book got so huge. So, if he'd sold sooner and to a bigger house, (even the publisher of his first two books which passed on Pi, it probably would have languished on the shelves and sold a few hundred copies. (Most people don't realize that of Life of Pi was first published by a small press and only picked up by the big boys after it won the prize.)

Moral is, Many different random stars need to align for even the best books to get noticed.

My favorite line of the whole NYT article comes at the end, where Sittenfeld states that an editor once told her, “People think publishing is a business, but it’s a casino.”

Yes, it's all a big gamble.

Every time a writer sits down at her computer, she's taking a huge risk. Spending hours, weeks, months, years working on something that may never earn a penny and that others may not like. Every time an agent takes on a book or a client he/she's taking a risk that he/she'll spend a lot of time/effort trying to sell a book to no end. Every time an editor decides he/she loves a book she's taking a risk on her credibility and her job by telling her bosses at the publisher she thinks they should spend money on acquiring the rights to publish it. The publisher is taking a risk that the editor is right. The publisher also takes a risk when they decide how much of an advance on royalties to pay an author, how much publicity to do, how much co-op advertising (usually zero) to engage in, etc. etc. etc.

And it's all a big crap shoot.

Just a few days before I saw that NYT article, I found these statistics in a Harpers magazine. (On the always fun and interesting Harpers List page.)

• Minimum number of different books sold in the US last year based on Nielson Bookscan: 1,446,000


• Number of these that sold fewer than 99 copies: 1,123,000


• Number that sold more than 100,000 copies: 483

A bit depressing? Sure. But it's just reality and further proof of the whole casino theory.

Better get back to rolling the dice.

Does reading fiction make you a better person?

According to an article in Psychology Today, "frequent readers of narrative fiction scored higher on tests of empathy and social acumen than did readers of expository nonfiction."

The article goes on to say that a follow up study showed that starting to read fiction could actually hone those skills... answering the chicken and egg question. (That is, do empathetic people read more fiction or does reading fiction help make you empathetic.)

This seemed pretty obvious to me -- at least after I'd read it. I know one of the main reasons I love reading fiction is to understand better how other people think, to walk in someone else's shoes for a while, to, through understanding and exploring the emotions and experiences of others -- even fictional others -- understand better how I feel/act/react to the world.

A doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto, Raymond Mar, was the lead researcher on both studies. Yay, Ray. My new hero. He is quoted in the article I read as saying, "Stories often force us to empathize with characters who are quite different from us, and this ability could help us better understand the many kinds of people we come across in the real world."

I think this really sums up what I most enjoy about reading or basically any kind of story. (Frequent readers of this blog and my own, will know I see the occasional movie and watch just a tiny bit of television, in addition to reading. LOL.) I think statement also explains why I enjoy character driven movies and stories the best. I was talking the other week to my fellow drunk writers about how even the most theoretically fast paced film (like 300) can totally bore me, (okay, I wasn't that bored looking at those buff naked men) while theoretically slower paced films like Short Cuts or The Station Agent (just two that came to mind at this instant) can hold my attention, such that the time flies by.

A sidebar article in Psychology Today compares the reading habits of men and women and what kinds of books they list as ones which helped to shape their lives. This was interesting, too...

It got me thinking about what books have helped shape my life. I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with a definitive list, but I know of two for sure.

Okay, slightly more than 2 because one is a trilogy.
First, The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies: Fifth Business, The Manticore and World of Wonders. Reading these 3 books as a young adult (many Canadians read Fifth Business in high school. I didn't) I made some decisions about how I felt about organized religion, about Jungian psychology, and I developed a deeper understanding of how events like the depression and WWII affected the world. I also think I got a stronger appreciation for being a Canadian, a stronger feeling of my identity as a Canadian through Robertson Davies' books.

The other book I instantly thought of was The Cider House Rules by John Irving, who, incidentally, was mentored and greatly influenced by Robertson Davies. This book helped me decide how I feel about many things, abortion in particular, but also about social disobedience and how sometimes it can be better and braver to follow your conscience regardless of "the rules". Or at least to question the rules.

Remembering how the Deptford Trilogy helped me make some conclusions about religion made me think of a movie that was pivotal for me... The Mission. Now Molly and I disagree about this movie. It's one of my absolute favorites and she think's it's flawed. But I was a different person after I saw that movie. It made me see how even with the best intentions, people can do so much harm to each other. (Plus it was the first time I ever set eyes on Liam Neeson and that changed my life, too. LOL)

What books have been pivotal in your life?

Concentrate on What You Can Control

This seems like such an obvious thing, but for me it's one of the hardest things to remember.

I attended the NEC conference last weekend and the breakfast keynote speaker was Lisa Gardner. I've heard Lisa speak a few times before and she's always amazing, but a few things she said this weekend really resonated for me.

The main thing that hit me in the gut was that publishing and writing are two different things, and as writers the only part we can control is the writing. (Okay, I guess if you self-publish you can control the publishing part, too... but you can't control whether or not anyone will buy, enjoy or review your books in that scenario either.)

The tricky part of this for me is that, well, I'm beginning to realize I'm a bit of a control freak. At my age you'd think I'd have discovered this about myself before now, but no -- a recent revelation. And second, while we can't control the publishing part, I do think it behooves us as writers to be knowledgeable about publishing and to be in control of our careers. Sure we entrust agents to sell our work and publicists to make sure readers find out about it. We hire web designers to create a face-to-the-public look. We sell our publishing rights to publishers entrusting editing, book design, cover art and a myriad of other things to them. But as much as we need to be educated about the industry, to know what we want for our careers and to stand up for it to increase the odds that the other players understand and buy into and support our career vision... Ultimately the only thing we can control is the writing. The stories we choose to tell and how we tell them.

We can't control market trends. We can't control exactly which editor(s) our agent chooses to send our projects to. We can't control what those editors saw immediately before our work or what biases they may bring to the table. We can't control if they offer a contract or how big an advance. We can't control the cover art chosen or the print runs or how many copies the booksellers will buy or how well (or even if) we'll be reviewed. We can't make Oprah choose our books for her bookclub.

So. We write.

No follow-through

The other day, I started thinking about great ideas with no follow through.

The Showcase channel in Canada has started screening Huff, which I already watched when it was on the The Movie Network, a couple of years ago. (At the same time it was on whichever US channel, Showtime?, US originally screened it.)

Watching this series again from the beginning, I was reminded of the homeless Hungarian character who was in most of the first season's episodes... at least the first half of the first season.

And it made me think... If you bring an element into a story that's cool or interesting or mystical or different, I think you need to follow through on it. If you just drop it, the audience/reader will be left feeling unsatisfied at best, annoyed at worst. The defection of fans from Lost comes to mind. (Me? I'm still hoping the Lost writers know what the hell is going on and what that black smoke is and why some people are on the list and why some aren't and why Locke can walk on the island. But I admit I'm very naive when it comes to Lost. Who thinks those burried alive people this week will live?)

With Huff, for me, the dropped thread was the Hungarian. I don't know if any of you watched or are watching this show, but I was originally so impressed with it, especially during the first season. Talk about your interesting characters.
A psychiastrist who's basically a really good guy but who's going through a bit of a mid-life and career crisis.
His mother, brilliantly played by Blythe Danner, who gives new meaning to controlling and manipulative.
His wife who tries to be supportive but is pushed the breaking point by Huff's crises, by Huff's mother and by her own problems.
His best friend, played by Oliver Platt, who's a drug-addicted-prostitute-using-brilliantly-successful attorney.
And the lawyer's very cool admin assistant. Love the relationship between Russell and Maggie.

And that's not even touching on Huff's patient characters.

But the Hungarian... In the first few episodes he showed up at some point during each show asking Huff for help and then disappearing in such a way that it was absolutely obvious to the viewer that the Hungarian wasn't real, that he was in Huff's mind, but somehow Huff, the psychiatrist, never seems to figure this out. The Hungarian was a device, I assume, to symbolize Huff's inner turmoil, to help show how Huff is questioning who he is and whether or not he's a good person and whether he's really actually helping any of his patients...

But then the Hungarian just disappears, or rather stops appearing in the episodes.

One must assume that the writers no longer found him a very interesting device or something, because I don't really remember any trigger for him not being there anymore. This made the Hungarian a very unsatisfying literary device, for me anyway. Speaking of unsatisfying... The final episode of Huff was pretty unsatisfying, too... but I have more trouble blaming the writers for that, because this series was cancelled prematurely not allowing the writers to wrap up all the characters' stories properly.

Anyone else watch Huff? Anyone have any different ideas about the Hungarian? Why he was there and why he disappeared??? Was there a trigger or change in Huff that I missed? Or did I miss the connection?

It's Write, not Right!

No, this isn't a post about spelling or diction... it's a post about the highly subjective nature of writing and storytelling.

I've been doing a fair bit of thinking about writing contests recently. Not because I'm entering any right now, but because I'm involved in my local RWA Chapter's contest, to a certain extent. And debating about how much detail the score sheet should have, how specific the questions should be, has got me all fired up.

Writing is an art, not a science. Sure, like any form of art, there are techniques. There are basics to be mastered, skills to be learned. But like art, writing and storytelling would not exist or be so popular, or stimulate so many people's minds and hearts, if everyone painted, drew, sculpted, constructed a chapter, told a story in the same way. Similarly there's no right answer to whether a piece of art or a particular story is "good". What one person loves, the next will hate. It's subjective.

In art schools, budding artists learn by first drawing and painting mundane things, all in the same manner using the same media. They start with cylinders, balls, cones and other shapes, first with pencil, then charcoal, then conte or ink, then paint (if they are painters) or clay (if they are sculptors). Then they move onto apples, oranges and pears (an art school favorite). Then onto more complex still life compositions and then the human form.

After this, in most art programs, the students learn to imitate. They copy the old masters, the impressionists, the great modern artists. They learn techniques by studying and imitating the artists who have gone before them.

But then? After those skills are mastered? Artists are expected to forget all that. No, not to forget, to put all those skills and techniques in a toolbox and start creating art in an entirely new way--their own original way. Being derivative isn't rewarded, even in more commercial areas of art. What everyone loves and rewards and gets excited about, is someone who does something different and interesting. Whether something is "good" or not is entirely up to the viewer of the art. In fact, whether or not it's original versus derivative is also up to the viewer. It's entirely subjective.

I believe that all these things hold true with writing. Even genre writing. Writers learn the basic building blocks of sentences, paragraphs, scenes, chapters, acts, novels. They learn about careful word choice, avoiding redundancy, clean writing, the advantages of using an active voice and when they might use a passive voice for effect. They study other writers and perhaps do some imitation at first. They learn other skills of storytelling like escalating conflict and point of view and managing the release of information to create the desired emotions and experiences for the reader. They study theories, developed by those who've analyzed storytelling, like "The Hero's Journey" and "Goal, Motivation, Conflict" and "Three Act Plotting".

But how to best use these skills once they are learned? Entirely subjective. If it weren't. If there were one way to do these things, then reading -- particularly reading more than one book within a given genre -- would be hopelessly boring for the reader. Readers don't notice the writer's technique, unless it's dreadfully poorly executed. (Occasionally, if the story's great, they don't even notice when it's poorly executed -- evidence that little religious thriller that did pretty well a few years ago.) Readers know when they are drawn into a story, when they are pulled along so they can't put the book down. When they are entertained.

Now I completely agree that genres have conventions and this is particularly true in the romance genre. Romance readers know what they like.

That said. Romance readers are the most voracious flavour of reader on the planet. Romance accounts for over 50% of all paperbacks sold and I've met countless readers, since I began my association with RWA, who read a book a day, minimum.

Now if all those books were executed in exactly the same way. If all the events unfolded exactly as expected and in the same order. If all the characters behaved predictably, the same way they behaved in every other book... Wouldn't readers get bored??? Of course they would. That's why the common claim that romances have a "formula" irks romance writers and readers alike. Sure there's technique involved. Great writers in the genre have developed ways to maximize the reader's enjoyment and there's much to be learned by studying those techniques. Sure there are conventions like happy endings. But there isn't a "formula" and there aren't "rules" and even for the most ingrained conventions like happy endings, there are highly successful exceptions.

I've been to a lot of writers conferences over the past 2-3 years. Too many, some may argue. But as a result, I've probably heard no less than 30 different editors and probably double as many agents discuss what they're looking for and the most common mistakes/problems they see in submissions.

What is it? It's that the writing is boring. That it lacks spark. That the story is too derivative of others already published. Too cliche. When writers ask editors, "What are you looking for?" The most common answer is, "A good story." When writers ask, "What's the next big trend coming along?" Most editors answer, "You tell us. You're the writers. You're the creative ones, the ones inventing the characters and unique story lines."

So, back to contests and score sheets... With all this inherent subjectivity, with editors wanting something "different", how is it even remotely possible to create a score sheet that can judge precisely, without bias, some one's storytelling and proclaim whether or not they did it "right"? One person's "right" is another person's "wrong".

One of the biggest challenges in running a contest is that, not only the entrants, but also the judges will be at different skill levels, different places along their journey to becoming great (or even good) writers. Some entrants will still be at the learning the mechanics stage. Some judges will still be learning to recognize whether or not the mechanics were properly applied. Some judges will be stuck at some point in the past, thinking the best practices when they were learning are still the best practices now.

But with any luck some entrants will be very close to publication. Some entrants may have moved beyond the mechanics stage and onto manipulating the tools in their toolbox in their own unique ways. To me, the most important goal of a contest is to maximize the chances that those entries which will be of most interest to the editors, the ones closest to publication, are the ones which final. Second to that, is for the judges to provide excellent and useful feedback for the entrants, so that, no matter which stage they're at, entrants learn something to help them move on to the next stage. That's where it becomes extra-difficult, because some judges will be less experienced than some entrants... but that's one of the foibles/realities of peer judged contests. You pay your entry fee and roll the dice hoping at least one judge who looks at your work knows more than you and/or will have something useful to tell you or will simply give you a great score. And lets face it. Even if all the judges were agents and editors, anyone who's submitted knows that even agents and editors can't agree on what's "good". But they can usually agree on which entries don't have the basics down.

So we can judge the basics. Does the writer understand "show don't tell", do they know how to use POV effectively. How's their use of grammar, their spelling? Is the storytelling gripping? If it isn't gripping, why? Is there no conflict? No emotion? No setting? Too much of any of the above? Is the dialogue stilted or artificial? Are the characters flat or stereotyped? There are lots of things that could be "wrong" if a story doesn't grip us. (Including personal bias...)

But if the story is gripping. If a judge picks up the pages and reads them straight through and wishes there were more to read... who the fuck cares whether the external or internal conflict is resolved first, or whether the heroine uses her sense of smell, or whether there's chemistry the first time the hero and heroine meet or whether, in the first chapter, the reader can fully understand all the reasons behind each characters' actions?

Bottom line. There is no one way to write a story, even a genre specific story. Because of this, it's impossible, and in my opinion wrong-headed, to try to create a scoring system to pretend differently.

Right and write may be homonyms, but they they have entirely different meanings.

Images and brands and websites, oh my!

I've been working with a designer on a website this past week and struggling with a bit of an identity crisis. The designer went way above and beyond the call of duty creating about 3 times as many preliminary designs for me to consider than we'd originally agreed on... And yet, none of them seem to be quite right. I'm torn between two choices and they're very different from each other.

And I know I picked a good designer. And I know she "gets" me. But we're both having a terrible time finding some kind of graphic image or photograph (at a reasonable cost) that really represents me. It's like every commercial graphic artist over the past ten years has drawn images of women in the same style, and to me that style's not only boring and overdone but also "too cute" or "too silly" for what I write.

I guess my identity crisis stems from the fact that if I know what I want and can't find an image to represent it... Is what I want too out there?

One issue is that I don't write in a super-distinct genre. Yes, I write commercial women's fiction, which is certainly a genre, but a pretty broad and loosely defined one. And what does "commercial women's fiction" mean, anyway? To me it means books for women that hopefully will have a wide appeal, because they're fun, easy to read and have happy endings. Hmmm... Is that the definition of commercial vs literary women's fiction? Might be. But obviously romance meets that description and so does chick lit... So it has to be refined to also say "where the main plot is not a romance". And maybe "where the heroine isn't a twenty-something woman trying to find herself". But that's where the definition becomes trickier... because I think the chick lit genre is really defined by voice more than plot and frankly has also been defined by the graphic images put on the authors' books and websites...

So where I have trouble with an exact definition of what I do write... I do know what I don't write. I don't write literary fiction. I don't write thrillers. I don't write romance. I don't write chick lit. Although what I write is much closer to chick lit than it is to romance... I've heard the term up-scale chick lit bandied about and I guess I wouldn't hate it if someone used that to describe my work. But all that said, I don't want my website to look like a stereotypical chick lit writer's website. I want something different. I want my website to say, hey! Here's someone coloring outside the lines a little. Someone who might make me think as well as laugh. But I also want to appeal to a wide audience...

What's a kind of artsy writer-chick to do?

How do I create an image that represents "me", "my writing", "my brand", when I still haven't sold a book and am miles away from having an actual book cover?

Some may ask, "Why bother trying?" Or at least, "Why stress about it so much?" But I disagree. I have a suspicion that this may be the only point in my entire writing career where I have any real control over my image. Once I do sell a book, people in the publishing house's marketing and art departments, who'll probably only read little snippets of my book, will start making these decisions for me. And I know I'm probably naive about this next bit... but if I've already created a strong image or brand, my eventual publisher may use that as a base or inspiration for my book covers. (Okay, maybe that's delusional... but possible? It's certainly not possible if I haven't done it.)

One way or another, I do think it my website is important even though I don't have any books yet.

Am I putting too much pressure on myself? Sometimes I wish all I had to do was write.

Comedy is to the Oscars as Genre Fiction is to Literary Awards

Watching that very funny musical/comedy number done by Will Farrell, John C. Reilly and Jack Black at the Oscars, it occurred to me that the way popular movies (not just comedies) get ignored at the Oscars, is similar to how genre fiction gets ignored by the literary so-called elite. Okay, there are exceptions some years at the Oscars, like Titanic, but generally most popular movies get ignored. Where were the nominations for Casino Royale this year?

The literary world holds even fewer exceptions. Stephen King winning Distinguished Contribution To American Letters at the National Book Awards is one. But the controvery caused by granting him that award proves my point. Genre fiction gets no respect. If you haven't read Stephen King's acceptance speech, you should.

Recognizing this parallel to the Oscars "comedies are excluded" number, I planned to do a tirade-type post complaining (once again) that genre fiction -- and the genres written by women for women in particular (e.g. romance, women's fiction, chick lit, cozy mysteries) -- "don't get no respect", but over the past 48 hours I mellowed and started to see things differently. In fact, I ended up changing my mind about the theme of this post all together. (And maybe growing a little in the process. Awwww. See? A character arc, even in my blog post. Am I a genre writer or what?)

So what caused my change of heart? I suppose what it boils down to is I'm glad we live in a world that still honors and supports creative pursuits not embraced by the mainstream. I'm glad that edgier, avante guard, experimental, controversial, slower paced, offensive to some, alternative art still gets produced/published/shown in galleries/recorded whatever. The world would be a very bland place if our only art and entertainment options were loved by all and hated by none.

And maybe mainstream entertainment doesn't need awards and critical praise. Work embraced by the mainstream gets other rewards -- public acclaim, money, fans. The creators of popular work get both the satisfaction of creating their art and of knowing that others enjoy it. I suppose we can let the non-mainstream folks take home the awards and glowing reviews.

Writers of literary fiction like to complain that genre fiction is taking up too many places in publication schedules, too much space on bookstore shelves, (ref. that ridiculous NYT column written by Maureen Dowd a few weeks go), but writers of literary fiction don't have much to complain about from where I sit. If publishers were only interested in money, they wouldn't publish any literary fiction. Hollywood, on the other hand, has all but stopped producing interesting/risky films such that an independent film industry had to step in to fill in the void. So far, the major publishing houses haven't followed suit. They haven't moved away from literary fiction just because Nora Roberts and Stephen King and Jennifer Weiner sell better, increasing the odds that debut writers writing in similar genres wil sell well, too.

And if it takes a somewhat snobbishly-biased reviewing and award system to support the "different" "riskier" books, the books less certain to sell well, maybe I'm all for it. I love literary fiction and would hate it if those reading choices were no longer readily available in my book store.

I only wish the system didn't have to turn its collective nose up, quite so obviously, at genre fiction.

But I don't think we writers of genre fiction should whine about this. (And this is coming from someone who has whined about it to her friends and family -- a lot.) Sure, the fiction I write is unlikely to ever get reviewed in the "best" places. My books will never be nominated for the Giller, or the Governor General's Award or the Booker. They won't be picked as Oprah books or be defended on Canada Reads. Even if my books become bestsellers (dare I dream?), I'm unlikely to get invited to speak at a PEN luncheon or do a reading at Harbourfront. If I join the Writers Union of Canada I'll probably get sneered at when I tell my fellow union members what I write. (This based on an author I know's experience at a union party at Margaret Atwood's house and another's experience at a Word on the Street event in Vancouver last year.)

But I'm starting to realize that the only problem with all this, is that I let it bother me.

Jack, Will, John. Take note. Your comedy work doesn't get much respect, but people love it. Love that.

Writing is Hard

Okay, I started thinking about this post at 10:00 pm Sunday night after having spent a week of 10 hour days editing/revising my latest opus. I’d been determined to get it out the door to my agent before I went to bed Sunday night—wouldn’t it be cool if it was the first e-mail she saw Monday morning?—but bleary-eyed, lightheaded, barely able to think at 10:00 p.m., and feeling a little sick after consuming nothing but snacks (most of them healthy, but snacks nonetheless) all day, I conceded I needed one more day to finish. Feeling somewhat defeated, the title of this blog post popped into my head.

That writing is hard shouldn’t really be a big surprise, yet I think to many people it is. I mean, everyone writes, right? We all had to do it in school. Many of us do it in our non-writing day jobs. We all tell stories to each other in one way or another, so how hard could it be to actually write them down? I mean, it’s just about discipline, right?

WRONG.

Sure, discipline plays a big part of it. You need to get your ass in a chair, your fingers on a keyboard and just plow through it to some extent. That’s certainly the first very important step—the step most people never get through. But will that result in a great, well-written novel that readers (who don’t know you) won’t be able to put down? Possible, but not likely.

I guess I believe (because I’ve heard the stories), there are writers whose books just pour out of them. And I’ve had days like that. Days when my fingers can barely keep up with the story unfolding in my head.

But given all I’ve learned about the craft of writing (and I still feel like I’m scratching the surface, there), I also believe it’s highly unlikely that whatever pours out of me (or any writer) in that way will be the best work they can produce. Sure, sometimes it’s good enough. But can we really produce consistently great stories that way… I don’t think so.

So, we edit. We fine tune.

We critique each scene—does it do enough? We consider our characters’ motivations—are they clear enough, or conversely so obvious they’re trite or cliché. We consider the conflict and tension on every page—can we make it stronger? We critique other aspects of our storytelling—do turning points happen when they should? Are we repeating ideas? Are we beating some aspect of characterization to death such that the reader wants to yell, “We get it!” at the book? How’s the pacing? Is it gripping? Are the characters real or flat?

We critique our prose—have we made careful word choices, varied our sentence structure, trimmed redundancies and otherwise unnecessary words? Or conversely, have we over-edited to the point of removing all sense of voice and/or style from our work. Have we over or underused purposeful repetition, alliteration, similes, metaphors?

And this is just a short list of what we as writers do to make sure our final product is quality work.

Easy? I think not.

Advice—Sifting the Good from the Bad

These days, there’s a lot of advice out there for aspiring authors. This is one of the best (and I’m going to argue, potentially the worst) things about the internet, on-line loops, list-serves, blogs, conferences, writers’ groups, workshops etc.

Molly’s great talk and blog on beginnings—particularly her point that if you believe all the advice you’ve heard about how NOT to start a book, it would be impossible to start one at all—combined with me extolling the virtues of reading industry blogs last week, spurred me to think about how hard it can be, for newbie writers in particular, to sift the good advice from the bad.

And newbie probably isn’t the right word. And it’s a totally subjective thing, anyway. I think some people who decide write educate themselves quickly (Sinead) and stop being newbie writers within the first year, even if it takes them another ten to get published (but it’s not going to take Sinead that long). Others are still newbies after publishing their tenth book. (No names mentioned here, but definitely NOT Molly.)

My point is, a newbie in the context I mean here, is anyone who gets confused/overwhelmed by conflicting advice. She/he hears advice and lacks the filters or experience to decide whether it ends up in the good advice or bad advice bin.

And there’s a LOT of bad advice out there. A LOT. And to complicate things, what I consider bad advice, others—at least the person offering it—considers good advice. So what’s a writer to do?

For me it goes back to what I’ve said on this blog before. You have to decide what kind of career you want. What kind of a writer you want to be. Then knowing that, you’ve already got your first filter. Does this make sense for the type of career I want. Does the person offering the advice have the kind of career I want? Write the type of books I write?

But even then, each successful author’s story is a little different. For example, some will say get a great agent first. That is, never submit to editors without an agent because then if you get rejected, agents won’t touch your project because it’s already been shopped. On the opposite side of the advice wall, others will insist it’s much easier to get a publishing contract than literary representation, so you should submit to editors and once you have a contract in hand, call your top five dream agents and choose one then.

I know people who’ve been successful both ways, but personally, in sifting through this particular instance of conflicting advice, I thought about what kind of career I wanted, what kind of publisher I wanted (did they even look at unagented submissions), how many years ago the authors offering the advice first sold and who they sold to. Also what other circumstances may have come into play—like what the market was doing at the time, how they met their editor if they did the editor-first route etc. After applying those filters it was clear for me. I took the get an agent advice.

Another thing it’s important to remember when reading advice is that there are no absolutes. Nothing in writing is black or white. (Except maybe paper and ink?) Diana Peterfreund has a great series of articles on “Good Advice Gone Bad” I wish I had written. They basically all make the point that if you take any piece of advice too literally, you’re probably making a mistake. The articles are indexed at the side of her blog. Check them out.

So when you hear/read some advice (including what I’m writing now, LOL) the first thing to consider is who’s giving the advice? Check out their books, their website, other things they’ve said. There are (in my not-always-as-humble-as-it-should-be opinion) some real idiots out there on the loops offering up their “wisdom” to the masses. And I’m sure there are people out there who think we drunk writers are idiots. (They’re wrong. At least about Sinead and Molly.)

It's also important to understand the reasons behind any particular piece of advice. Don't just accept it as a "rule". I think this is particularly true with advice on craft. I mean, of course you can have a flashback in a book. Lots of great books have flashbacks. But I think it’s important to understand why Jenny Crusie and many others think they are a very bad idea. She’s smart and her reasons make sense—but that doesn’t mean that, after knowing those reasons and thinking about your particular book, that a flashback won’t be the very best way to tell your particular story. Just be honest with yourself.

Another thing to remember with craft advice: there are many, many ways to say roughly the same things. Three act plotting, four act plotting, hero’s journey, heroine’s journey (all loosely the same thing); inciting incident, put your hero up a tree, first point of conflict (all loosely the same thing); turning points, plot points, reversals; black moment, climax; GMC, conflict, tension; outlining, storyboarding… And two great books on writing (McKee's Story and the Browne & King book on editing) both use the term "beats" and mean something completely different.

There are as many ways to think about writing as there are writers writing who enjoy writing about writing. (Phew!)

Don’t get bogged down in the vocabulary or conflicting advice. Learn what you can, figure out what works for you and then JUST DO IT. (Am I going to get sued by Nike now?)

Agents Who Blog

Any readers of this blog who know me at all, know I believe that, with very few exceptions, if you want a career in mainstream publishing, you need a good agent first. (The main exception in the non-vanity print publishing world is if you're targeting Harlequin -- but even there, while an agent won't necessarily get you more money or better terms on your first few contracts, a good agent who understands HQ can really help you grow your career with them.)

This in itself is another topic, but today I wanted to talk about one way to help you land an agent if you don't have one — reading agent blogs.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Reading and commenting on agent blogs isn't going to get you signed up with an agent, per se. And I think it's ridiculous to think that sucking up to agents on their blogs would in anyway increase your chances of getting signed. Let's all repeat together. It's about the writing. (AND It's about the agent’s personal tastes and preferences and what they're looking for.)

That said, one of the best ways, in my opinion, to increase your chances of signing with a good agent, is to improve your knowledge of the industry, and if you don’t have the bucks to attend a whack of conferences, agent blogs are a GREAT way to learn about the industry.

Whether it's Miss Snark ranting about nitwits (while swilling gin and lusting over George Clooney), Kristen Nelson picking apart contract clauses, The Knight Agency offering frequent chats with their authors, or Rachel Vater publicly culling her query pile and exposing the plot devices which have become most cliché, there’s a wealth of information on these blogs. Plus, they’re often entertaining. Who knew so many agents could write? (Well, I did… Deidre Knight is an author as well as an agent… So is Donald Maass (under a pseudonym), but I digress.)

As great as AgentBlogLand can be, it’s not all roses. Lately, there’s been a disturbing trend on one blog I read for some anonymous commenter to attack the agent, agents in general and some of the authors who frequently comment there. Crazy! What is the point of this? But knowing that such people exist, is in itself educational, if depressing.

Educate yourself. Go wild.

Here are some spots to do it.

Miss Snark
The Knight Agency
Deidre Knight (this is her author page, but she talks about the industry a lot)
Nephele Tempest
Kristen Nelson
Jennifer Jackson
Rachel Vater
Lori Perkins
Jessica Faust
Jenny Rappaport
Dystel & Goderich Literary Management
The Rejecter
Jet Reid Literary
Nadia Cornier
Nathan Bransford

Know of any other agents who blog? Let us know. We'll get a list going in our sidebar. I sure wish there'd been more agents blogging when I was looking, but even now that I have an agent, I find so much information on these blogs.

Oh, and it's not a blog. But just in case you don't know the #1 best place to go on the web if you're looking for an agent... Go to www.agentquery.com