As Molly mentioned, I am taking a break from paranormals, which after reading too many in a row, have now all started to blend together, and become boring.
So, I'm reading historicals and putting a list of contemps together to buy. The latest historical I've read is the Elizabeth Hoyt, To Seduce a Sinner.. and while this isn't the best of her books, I practically devoured it, read it in two days, front to back and really enjoyed it.
So much I'm buying the next one, which just came out and looks amazing.
But what struck me about the book was how effortlessly it read. Smooth, scenes flowing well into each other and there seemed to be a real sense of confidence on the page, as if she knew she could take her time with the small scenes, because they'd be fascinating regardless.
A different experience from the paranormals I've read recently, which have felt anything but effortless, where I could almost see the author behind the scenes, working on their plot points, trying to add suspense and surprise, and adding new elements to make their books different from the other paranormals on the market. Molly covered this in her post.
And I know that the effortless book takes a stupid amount of work, polishing, removing repetition, ensuring the characters are always moving forward, and when it works, it really works. And right now, I'm seeing the effortless most in historicals, where the authors have had to step up to be noticed in what has been a declining, but just mostly overcrowded, field.
I still don't know where the effortless happens. Is it in author confidence, the fifth edit, the first draft, I just know when I read it. It's the next puzzle I'm trying to figure out.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
To Market, to market, to sell a fat book
This week, I asked both Molly and Sinead: "If you were me, what would you write next?"
They both know me. They both know the industry. They both read a lot. They've both seen virtually everything I've ever written. Who better (other than my agent) to have an opinion on such a topic?
And I got two different answers, but together those answers melded into something profound and clear and useful. Exactly what I wanted/needed to hear.
My conclusion: I have to stop thinking so much about the market and just write the shit out of whatever idea feels shiniest to me right now. If it's the shiniest one -- to me -- I'll be able to write more shit in. Wait. That's not what I meant!!! ;-)
That said, I think some of the best advice I've heard about writing popular fiction (particularly genre fiction) is to write with one eye on the market. To figure out what elements of popular books/movies/TV/culture you can incorporate into your work, etc. etc. and still make it fresh. And nothing makes me more crazy than wanna-be-writers who complain that the industry is too close-minded, when said writer doesn't get requests on the query for her novel about her elderly aunt's adventures in needlepoint, written from her cat's point of view.
But all that "keep an eye on the market" advice aside: I think I had a small epiphany a couple of days ago, (that I shall probably reverse in another couple of days--cause that's what I do.) And it has to do with my personality type more than anything.
Confession: I'm highly analytical. My strongest traits on the Myers Briggs thingy are N and P. I almost always see two sides (sometimes four) to any particular problem or issue, I don't always come to conclusions in a linear fashion, and unless pressed by some kind of urgency, I hate making decisions. I can make them. But don't see the point if I can put it off for further analysis. ;-)
But what this means is: worrying about the market, about what's selling now, about what might be the next big thing, about what would be the smartest genre or sub-genre to aim for, about which genre best fits my particular strengths and weaknesses as a writer, is not necessarily a smart thing. For me.
My endless analyzing leads to nothing but frustration and second guessing. Which then leads to depression and anxiety inviting crazy over for tea.
(My apologies to Molly for plagiarizing that last bit. It's an homage to this post, where she talked about professional jealousy inviting crazy over for a BBQ.)
Ultimately, so much about this business ends up being about luck, and trying to control luck can lead to insanity.
The magic get published equation: Talent, Persistence, Luck
We can only hope to control two of those, at best.* And while, when we start a new novel, we can make an educated guess, about what's likely to happen in the market in 9-months to a year, (first date when we can realistically hope to be on submission, assuming we need to write the whole damn book -- add a year to that if you need to find an agent), or 2 - 3 years from now, (first date we can realistically hope to hit bookstores) -- the best we can do is guess. Whether our guess, an arrow shot high and hard into the stratosphere, hits the two-or-three-or-more-years-out bulls eye is highly dependent on luck.
*Caveats to above statements:
I suppose you can't strictly control talent, either... but you can learn how to make the most of your talent. Really, that magic equation should substitute skill for talent...
Also, you can influence luck by taking opportunities and putting lots of great work out there, but I think that's as much related to persistence as luck...
Did I mention I tend to be overly analytical?
They both know me. They both know the industry. They both read a lot. They've both seen virtually everything I've ever written. Who better (other than my agent) to have an opinion on such a topic?
And I got two different answers, but together those answers melded into something profound and clear and useful. Exactly what I wanted/needed to hear.
My conclusion: I have to stop thinking so much about the market and just write the shit out of whatever idea feels shiniest to me right now. If it's the shiniest one -- to me -- I'll be able to write more shit in. Wait. That's not what I meant!!! ;-)
That said, I think some of the best advice I've heard about writing popular fiction (particularly genre fiction) is to write with one eye on the market. To figure out what elements of popular books/movies/TV/culture you can incorporate into your work, etc. etc. and still make it fresh. And nothing makes me more crazy than wanna-be-writers who complain that the industry is too close-minded, when said writer doesn't get requests on the query for her novel about her elderly aunt's adventures in needlepoint, written from her cat's point of view.
But all that "keep an eye on the market" advice aside: I think I had a small epiphany a couple of days ago, (that I shall probably reverse in another couple of days--cause that's what I do.) And it has to do with my personality type more than anything.
Confession: I'm highly analytical. My strongest traits on the Myers Briggs thingy are N and P. I almost always see two sides (sometimes four) to any particular problem or issue, I don't always come to conclusions in a linear fashion, and unless pressed by some kind of urgency, I hate making decisions. I can make them. But don't see the point if I can put it off for further analysis. ;-)
But what this means is: worrying about the market, about what's selling now, about what might be the next big thing, about what would be the smartest genre or sub-genre to aim for, about which genre best fits my particular strengths and weaknesses as a writer, is not necessarily a smart thing. For me.
My endless analyzing leads to nothing but frustration and second guessing. Which then leads to depression and anxiety inviting crazy over for tea.
(My apologies to Molly for plagiarizing that last bit. It's an homage to this post, where she talked about professional jealousy inviting crazy over for a BBQ.)
Ultimately, so much about this business ends up being about luck, and trying to control luck can lead to insanity.
The magic get published equation: Talent, Persistence, Luck
We can only hope to control two of those, at best.* And while, when we start a new novel, we can make an educated guess, about what's likely to happen in the market in 9-months to a year, (first date when we can realistically hope to be on submission, assuming we need to write the whole damn book -- add a year to that if you need to find an agent), or 2 - 3 years from now, (first date we can realistically hope to hit bookstores) -- the best we can do is guess. Whether our guess, an arrow shot high and hard into the stratosphere, hits the two-or-three-or-more-years-out bulls eye is highly dependent on luck.
*Caveats to above statements:
I suppose you can't strictly control talent, either... but you can learn how to make the most of your talent. Really, that magic equation should substitute skill for talent...
Also, you can influence luck by taking opportunities and putting lots of great work out there, but I think that's as much related to persistence as luck...
Did I mention I tend to be overly analytical?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Paranormal Beef
We've read a lot of great paranormal romance around here and even though Sinead is on paranormal romance hiatus and Maureen is loving urban fantasy - I'm still reading paranormal. But, I'm beginning to not love it. I think the subgenre is jumping the shark for me because recently, every paranormal romance I pick up - messes up the romance.
All these subgenres - paranormal, romantic suspense, romantic comedy, historical etc...etc... work for me and millions of other avid romance fans because the machinations of the subgenre make the romance better. More poignant, more exciting.
The alpha males and danger of paranormal romance, make the romance taste better. The internal conflict that the characters have to get over to be in love is made worse by the fact that they are a demon, or a demon hunter or whatever...
But suddenly it seems like not only are there too many of these kinds of details muddying up the world, but what the characters have to do to truly be in love comes as a huge surprise in the third act. Instead of just overcoming all the internal stuff - which is what we all love romance for- they also have to kill the demon and embrace their vampire side and mate in a pool of fire - but we didn't know that from the outset. It's like the writer changes the rules of the world, or didn't tell us all the rules, or becuse of all the external plot drama they've put in the book - a simple I love you doesn't work anymore -- and I hate that. I really hate that.
If the big premise of the book requires a huge suspension of disbelief - then the romance needs to be simple. Ward, Liu, Cole - simple romances. Really simple. And I think that's why it works - that, of course, and the characters. But when everyone starts jumping on the sub genre bandwagon, they get so distracted by the shiny elements - the things they can do with plot and external conflict and world building, forgetting that in the end, it's still always about characters and it's still always about romance.
All these subgenres - paranormal, romantic suspense, romantic comedy, historical etc...etc... work for me and millions of other avid romance fans because the machinations of the subgenre make the romance better. More poignant, more exciting.
The alpha males and danger of paranormal romance, make the romance taste better. The internal conflict that the characters have to get over to be in love is made worse by the fact that they are a demon, or a demon hunter or whatever...
But suddenly it seems like not only are there too many of these kinds of details muddying up the world, but what the characters have to do to truly be in love comes as a huge surprise in the third act. Instead of just overcoming all the internal stuff - which is what we all love romance for- they also have to kill the demon and embrace their vampire side and mate in a pool of fire - but we didn't know that from the outset. It's like the writer changes the rules of the world, or didn't tell us all the rules, or becuse of all the external plot drama they've put in the book - a simple I love you doesn't work anymore -- and I hate that. I really hate that.
If the big premise of the book requires a huge suspension of disbelief - then the romance needs to be simple. Ward, Liu, Cole - simple romances. Really simple. And I think that's why it works - that, of course, and the characters. But when everyone starts jumping on the sub genre bandwagon, they get so distracted by the shiny elements - the things they can do with plot and external conflict and world building, forgetting that in the end, it's still always about characters and it's still always about romance.
Friday, April 17, 2009
And the Winner is......
Alison Heittman!!!!
Based on my random number generator, you are the winner of a copy of BEYOND HEAVING BOSOMS: THE SMART BITCHES' GUIDE TO ROMANCE NOVELS generously donated by the Smart Bitches themselves.
Congratulations!!!
E-mail me at maureen @ maureenmcgowan.com and we'll make sure you get your book!
Thanks to everyone for stopping by the blog this week. And thanks to the Smart Bitches for giving such great interview. Way better than Billy Bob Thorton who ran from Canada mid tour with his tail between his legs after giving really bad interview. Just saying.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Smart Bitches stop in for a chat
Today, we are pleased as punch, tickled pink, squeeing with delight, (pick the cliché of your choice), to welcome Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan, of the popular romance review blog, Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, to Drunk Writer Talk. They're here to celebrate the release of their book BEYOND HEAVING BOSOMS: THE SMART BITCHES' GUIDE TO ROMANCE NOVELS that hits the shelves tomorrow -- April 14, 2009.
DWT: Candy and Sarah, thanks for stopping by. Before we get started, what can we get you to drink?
Candy: I'm allergic to alcohol, sadly enough, so a tall glass of cold water is awesome for me.
Sarah: Wine. Love wine. Not so much a fan of hard liquor but red, white, rose and even green? Bring it on.
DWT: Hey, we don't discriminate against non-drinkers (green wine drinkers, maybe). A water and wine coming up.
What sparked you to start a romance review site?
Candy: Honestly? There weren't enough romance review sites out there that were uncensored. I'm not just talking honest, because sites like The Romance Reader and All About Romance existed, and they were fair and honest, but there was this air of constraint and politeness. I wanted a site where I was free to talk the way I normally do, which includes creative profanity (usually for the sake of comedy), and where I could air my unvarnished opinions without fear of offending an editor or website owner. And it turned out that Sarah was in favor of the same thing, too, so lo, Smart Bitches was born.
Sarah: See above re: cussing, and unvarnished opinion. Plus, the two of us approach romances from very different perspectives, and our writing styles are very different. On top of that, we crack each other up like holy cow. It ended up being a kind of perfect storm of fun.
DWT: It's a perfect storm of fun reading, too. Did you anticipate the popularity of your site? The book deal?
Candy: Hell, no. And HELL, NO. It always astounds me that we became as popular as we did, as fast as we did, because neither Sarah nor I advertised. Behold the power of word-of-mouth! We figured we'd be a two-bit blog with a small audience consisting of a couple of friends and family members, but six months after we'd started, we were smack dab in the middle of this insanely active, smart, funny community.
Sarah: NEVER did I think it would be as big as it is. Never. Not a chance. I remember it was me, Candy, her friend in Singapore and my husband reading in the first month. Then, word spread – mostly from the cover snark and the reviews using creative cussing a la Candy.
DWT: We're not averse to creative cussing, here, either. ;-) At times, your site has been a lightning rod for controversy. Do you ever find you need to rein in the comments or get people back on track?
Candy: I'm really hesitant to rein in comments unless people really start to go over the line, because I really think that fostering healthy debate means people should be allowed the space to be assholes. Mostly, however, I think our commenters do a great job of self-policing. For a site known for being bitchy, our commenters are some of the most polite and reasonable around.
Sarah: Our commenters value the community as much as we do, and often they shut down the more obnoxious and awful attacks before I even get to the keyboard to say a word about it. We definitely have contentious debates but most of the time, there are two major points of which I am most proud. One: saying “I disagree with you” very rarely means “I don’t like you,” nor does it mean “You’re wrong and I’m right.” “I disagree” are not words upon which to detonate massive bombs and shit. Two: “I didn’t enjoy your book” does not mean “I deplore the fact that you’re breathing.” There are plenty of people who do the exact opposite of what I recommend – they love what I don’t like, and they don’t like what I adore. I’m as full of shit as anybody. I stick up for my opinion but unless it’s truly, awfully egregiously shitful, I don’t discount your right to your own opinion.
DWT: So, speaking of opinions, here's a more in-depth topic. Clinch covers: for or against?
Candy: By and large, I'm against them, because they're so hard to do well, and they send entirely the wrong message about the genre. They scream: "HEY LOOK AT THE OILED TITTY ISN'T IT GREAT GET YOUR BODICES RIPPED AND PRESSED UP AGAINST THE OILED TITTY RIGHT HERE FOLKS." I do have a sneaking personal fondness for them, though—they're so bad, they're kind of good. I love them the way I love bad reality TV, or schlocky horror movies.
Sarah: Depends. Sometimes, they’re creative and evocative and visually stunning. But that doesn’t change the fact that, as Candy said, it’s shorthand for ROMANCE AHOY AND SEXXING INSIDE, MATEYS. It’s become a conundrum: do the clinch covers sell because they represent romance, or is romance so often represented by the clinch that it can’t help but sell?
DWT: Ah! The chicken and egg question--only with arched backs, bosoms and man-titty. What are your favorite romances of all time?
Candy: The Windflower by Laura London (a.k.a. Sharon and Tom Curtis), because it's a very traditional romance done really, really well—it's a coming-of-age story for the heroine, and she's kidnapped by pirates, oh noes, but never fear, she charms every damn thing she comes in contact with, up to and including the pet pig on the ship. But the authors never let you lose sight that Merry, despite being a bit Mary Sue-ish, is also this awkward, dorky girl in a difficult situation. A few other notable titles are Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase, To Love and to Cherish by Patricia Gaffney (I have a bit of a Thing about forbidden sex with the hot young pastor, and Anne is an agnostic, which makes it all even more fun) and The Shadow and the Star by Laura Kinsale. As for contemporaries, Jennifer Crusie's solo work reigns supreme in my heart and on my bookshelf—I've read everything she's published so far, and only a couple of titles aren't on my keeper shelves.
Sarah: Bitten by Kelley Armstrong is absorbing and I can’t go near it without reading six or seven chapters. The Duke and I by Julia Quinn. I love Daphne because she’s smart and used to men and aware of their foibles having more male siblings than Celine Dion, and I love that the courtship is both angsty and funny, lighthearted and serious – and has some hilariously funny scenes. Born in Ice by Nora Roberts. I love that the heroine is good at making a home welcoming – a skill and art not nearly as appreciated as it should be, and that the hero doesn’t like people and is a curmudgeon. And since I started reading Kresley Cole’s Immortals After Dark series, I’ve found myself yearning to kick more ass than I ought to. The heroines are strong and carry sharp wits and even sharper weapons, and Cole’s narratives explore evil and power and aggression and strength in new and terribly subversive ways. And I’m unable to touch Instant Attraction by Jill Shalvis without reading more of it. It’s like Crazy Glue, that book.
DWT: Fabulous choices. I have a feeling your choices will spark some comment discussion. Also Kelley Armstrong is a friend here at DWT. (Although whether or not she'd admit in public to knowing us isn't clear.) What are your favorite movies and TV shows?
Candy: I love Pushing Daisies. Love love love. Love the premise, love the characters (I just about died when they revealed Emerson Cod loves to knit), love the storylines, love the camerawork and the gorgeous color saturation, love Chuck's wardrobe. Also: I want to hug Lee Pace, then lick him all over. I mean, damn. As for movies: Wes Anderson before he became kind of a parody of himself has a special place in my heart, because his movies focus on these incredibly brilliant, awkward, quirky characters.
Sarah: Movies: All incarnations of Pride & Prejudice. TV: Bones. Love the sexually unambiguous heroine and the smoldering attraction between the protagonists. I love the shifting definition of “intelligent” and “smart” and the manner in which the characters all care for one another. And this might make me a 60 year old on my Barcalounger, but I absolutely love NCIS. There’s a colleague of mine at my office with whom I have very, very little in common except a rabid crush on Mark Harmon. He brings all the girls to the yard.
DWT: I love, love, loved Pushing Daisies, too. (Not to mention P&P, and Mark Harmon...) What changes—good or bad—have you seen in the romance genre recently? What, if anything, are you hoping to see more of? Less of?
Candy: Y'know, in the past two years, I've had pretty much zero time left for leisure reading. I mean this quite literally. Between law school, the book and trying to maintain a healthy social life so I don't become too much of a hermit, my reading rate has plummeted. So I can't really speak about new trends. Although that's an incredibly boring answer, so let's see if I can make something up that's kind of convincing…. less demon tentacle rape, and more romance novels featuring gay, bisexual and generally queer characters. DOH, wait, that was only partially made-up.
Sarah: Jane from DearAuthor.com and I spoke about this in one of our early podcasts, but the lack of secure economy and profit in publishing means that we seem to be seeing more of the same repeated tropes and plots, with very little risk – which is why it’s so amazing when I see heroines doing it differently, like Maya Banks’ heroine in her May ’09 Silhouette The Tycoons Rebel Bride. She’s the sexual aggressor? RWOR. I love subversive heroines like Claudia Dain’s anchor character in the Courtesan Chronicles. I love explorations of what it really meant to be female in English history, like in Carolyn Jewel’s Scandal. I love, as I mentioned, Kresley Cole’s heroines who can and will be evil when the situation calls for it. That said, my cup of awesome is not nearly that of everyone else, so I fear the awesome subversion of expectations of female archetypes will be fewer and farther between. But I can still hope.
DWT: We love heroines who aren't so "perfect", too. What romance device(s) would you like to see die a painful death?
Candy: There's this tendency in genre fiction to use certain characteristics that serve as shorthand for how incredibly evil or virtuous or sexy a character must be. Some of the more popular uses in romance include homosexuality or a love of kinky sex in villains, or virginity in a heroine, or hypertrophied, shouty masculinity in a hero. I think over-reliance on this sort of shorthand is lazy, and it creates facile, uninteresting fiction. I'm much more interested in fiction that dares to take well-known tropes and forms, then inverts them or does something unexpected with them—or, if it uses the familiar forms, then does it really, really well.
Sarah: Shorthand blows. I would also like to see less reliance on the “I’m the hero; that’s why” and “I’m the heroine, that’s why” complacency. It’s related to shorthand but not quite the same, and shows up when motivation isn’t quite as clear as one might think, and the reader has to navigate nebulous plotslines by resting on the idea that the individual is the hero and therefore must have a shining glowy moral core of sternest golden strength. SHOW me the strength. Don’t just presume I know it because he’s the hero, that’s why.
DWT: Thanks so much for stopping by to chat! I'm hoping my copy of BEYOND HEAVING BOSOMS arrives today. Or tomorrow. It better.
Finally, some great news! Sarah and Candy are giving away a copy of their book to one random commenter! Let us know your answer to any of the above questions to enter the contest!
Thanks again to Candy and Sarah and here's hoping your book will bring some new smart-bitch readers to the romance genre!
**Update** D'oh! I just realized I failed to put a deadline for the contest... Leave a comment before midnight Wednesday April 15, 2009 to be eligible to win! Winner will be announced round about Friday. Drunk writers and smart bitches ineligible. Okay, you can still win if you're drunk... But Molly, Sinead and I can't win :-(
DWT: Candy and Sarah, thanks for stopping by. Before we get started, what can we get you to drink?Candy: I'm allergic to alcohol, sadly enough, so a tall glass of cold water is awesome for me.
Sarah: Wine. Love wine. Not so much a fan of hard liquor but red, white, rose and even green? Bring it on.
DWT: Hey, we don't discriminate against non-drinkers (green wine drinkers, maybe). A water and wine coming up.
What sparked you to start a romance review site?
Candy: Honestly? There weren't enough romance review sites out there that were uncensored. I'm not just talking honest, because sites like The Romance Reader and All About Romance existed, and they were fair and honest, but there was this air of constraint and politeness. I wanted a site where I was free to talk the way I normally do, which includes creative profanity (usually for the sake of comedy), and where I could air my unvarnished opinions without fear of offending an editor or website owner. And it turned out that Sarah was in favor of the same thing, too, so lo, Smart Bitches was born.
Sarah: See above re: cussing, and unvarnished opinion. Plus, the two of us approach romances from very different perspectives, and our writing styles are very different. On top of that, we crack each other up like holy cow. It ended up being a kind of perfect storm of fun.
DWT: It's a perfect storm of fun reading, too. Did you anticipate the popularity of your site? The book deal?
Candy: Hell, no. And HELL, NO. It always astounds me that we became as popular as we did, as fast as we did, because neither Sarah nor I advertised. Behold the power of word-of-mouth! We figured we'd be a two-bit blog with a small audience consisting of a couple of friends and family members, but six months after we'd started, we were smack dab in the middle of this insanely active, smart, funny community.
Sarah: NEVER did I think it would be as big as it is. Never. Not a chance. I remember it was me, Candy, her friend in Singapore and my husband reading in the first month. Then, word spread – mostly from the cover snark and the reviews using creative cussing a la Candy.
DWT: We're not averse to creative cussing, here, either. ;-) At times, your site has been a lightning rod for controversy. Do you ever find you need to rein in the comments or get people back on track?
Candy: I'm really hesitant to rein in comments unless people really start to go over the line, because I really think that fostering healthy debate means people should be allowed the space to be assholes. Mostly, however, I think our commenters do a great job of self-policing. For a site known for being bitchy, our commenters are some of the most polite and reasonable around.
Sarah: Our commenters value the community as much as we do, and often they shut down the more obnoxious and awful attacks before I even get to the keyboard to say a word about it. We definitely have contentious debates but most of the time, there are two major points of which I am most proud. One: saying “I disagree with you” very rarely means “I don’t like you,” nor does it mean “You’re wrong and I’m right.” “I disagree” are not words upon which to detonate massive bombs and shit. Two: “I didn’t enjoy your book” does not mean “I deplore the fact that you’re breathing.” There are plenty of people who do the exact opposite of what I recommend – they love what I don’t like, and they don’t like what I adore. I’m as full of shit as anybody. I stick up for my opinion but unless it’s truly, awfully egregiously shitful, I don’t discount your right to your own opinion.
DWT: So, speaking of opinions, here's a more in-depth topic. Clinch covers: for or against?
Candy: By and large, I'm against them, because they're so hard to do well, and they send entirely the wrong message about the genre. They scream: "HEY LOOK AT THE OILED TITTY ISN'T IT GREAT GET YOUR BODICES RIPPED AND PRESSED UP AGAINST THE OILED TITTY RIGHT HERE FOLKS." I do have a sneaking personal fondness for them, though—they're so bad, they're kind of good. I love them the way I love bad reality TV, or schlocky horror movies.
Sarah: Depends. Sometimes, they’re creative and evocative and visually stunning. But that doesn’t change the fact that, as Candy said, it’s shorthand for ROMANCE AHOY AND SEXXING INSIDE, MATEYS. It’s become a conundrum: do the clinch covers sell because they represent romance, or is romance so often represented by the clinch that it can’t help but sell?
DWT: Ah! The chicken and egg question--only with arched backs, bosoms and man-titty. What are your favorite romances of all time?
Candy: The Windflower by Laura London (a.k.a. Sharon and Tom Curtis), because it's a very traditional romance done really, really well—it's a coming-of-age story for the heroine, and she's kidnapped by pirates, oh noes, but never fear, she charms every damn thing she comes in contact with, up to and including the pet pig on the ship. But the authors never let you lose sight that Merry, despite being a bit Mary Sue-ish, is also this awkward, dorky girl in a difficult situation. A few other notable titles are Lord of Scoundrels by Loretta Chase, To Love and to Cherish by Patricia Gaffney (I have a bit of a Thing about forbidden sex with the hot young pastor, and Anne is an agnostic, which makes it all even more fun) and The Shadow and the Star by Laura Kinsale. As for contemporaries, Jennifer Crusie's solo work reigns supreme in my heart and on my bookshelf—I've read everything she's published so far, and only a couple of titles aren't on my keeper shelves.
Sarah: Bitten by Kelley Armstrong is absorbing and I can’t go near it without reading six or seven chapters. The Duke and I by Julia Quinn. I love Daphne because she’s smart and used to men and aware of their foibles having more male siblings than Celine Dion, and I love that the courtship is both angsty and funny, lighthearted and serious – and has some hilariously funny scenes. Born in Ice by Nora Roberts. I love that the heroine is good at making a home welcoming – a skill and art not nearly as appreciated as it should be, and that the hero doesn’t like people and is a curmudgeon. And since I started reading Kresley Cole’s Immortals After Dark series, I’ve found myself yearning to kick more ass than I ought to. The heroines are strong and carry sharp wits and even sharper weapons, and Cole’s narratives explore evil and power and aggression and strength in new and terribly subversive ways. And I’m unable to touch Instant Attraction by Jill Shalvis without reading more of it. It’s like Crazy Glue, that book.
DWT: Fabulous choices. I have a feeling your choices will spark some comment discussion. Also Kelley Armstrong is a friend here at DWT. (Although whether or not she'd admit in public to knowing us isn't clear.) What are your favorite movies and TV shows?
Candy: I love Pushing Daisies. Love love love. Love the premise, love the characters (I just about died when they revealed Emerson Cod loves to knit), love the storylines, love the camerawork and the gorgeous color saturation, love Chuck's wardrobe. Also: I want to hug Lee Pace, then lick him all over. I mean, damn. As for movies: Wes Anderson before he became kind of a parody of himself has a special place in my heart, because his movies focus on these incredibly brilliant, awkward, quirky characters.
Sarah: Movies: All incarnations of Pride & Prejudice. TV: Bones. Love the sexually unambiguous heroine and the smoldering attraction between the protagonists. I love the shifting definition of “intelligent” and “smart” and the manner in which the characters all care for one another. And this might make me a 60 year old on my Barcalounger, but I absolutely love NCIS. There’s a colleague of mine at my office with whom I have very, very little in common except a rabid crush on Mark Harmon. He brings all the girls to the yard.
DWT: I love, love, loved Pushing Daisies, too. (Not to mention P&P, and Mark Harmon...) What changes—good or bad—have you seen in the romance genre recently? What, if anything, are you hoping to see more of? Less of?
Candy: Y'know, in the past two years, I've had pretty much zero time left for leisure reading. I mean this quite literally. Between law school, the book and trying to maintain a healthy social life so I don't become too much of a hermit, my reading rate has plummeted. So I can't really speak about new trends. Although that's an incredibly boring answer, so let's see if I can make something up that's kind of convincing…. less demon tentacle rape, and more romance novels featuring gay, bisexual and generally queer characters. DOH, wait, that was only partially made-up.
Sarah: Jane from DearAuthor.com and I spoke about this in one of our early podcasts, but the lack of secure economy and profit in publishing means that we seem to be seeing more of the same repeated tropes and plots, with very little risk – which is why it’s so amazing when I see heroines doing it differently, like Maya Banks’ heroine in her May ’09 Silhouette The Tycoons Rebel Bride. She’s the sexual aggressor? RWOR. I love subversive heroines like Claudia Dain’s anchor character in the Courtesan Chronicles. I love explorations of what it really meant to be female in English history, like in Carolyn Jewel’s Scandal. I love, as I mentioned, Kresley Cole’s heroines who can and will be evil when the situation calls for it. That said, my cup of awesome is not nearly that of everyone else, so I fear the awesome subversion of expectations of female archetypes will be fewer and farther between. But I can still hope.
DWT: We love heroines who aren't so "perfect", too. What romance device(s) would you like to see die a painful death?
Candy: There's this tendency in genre fiction to use certain characteristics that serve as shorthand for how incredibly evil or virtuous or sexy a character must be. Some of the more popular uses in romance include homosexuality or a love of kinky sex in villains, or virginity in a heroine, or hypertrophied, shouty masculinity in a hero. I think over-reliance on this sort of shorthand is lazy, and it creates facile, uninteresting fiction. I'm much more interested in fiction that dares to take well-known tropes and forms, then inverts them or does something unexpected with them—or, if it uses the familiar forms, then does it really, really well.
Sarah: Shorthand blows. I would also like to see less reliance on the “I’m the hero; that’s why” and “I’m the heroine, that’s why” complacency. It’s related to shorthand but not quite the same, and shows up when motivation isn’t quite as clear as one might think, and the reader has to navigate nebulous plotslines by resting on the idea that the individual is the hero and therefore must have a shining glowy moral core of sternest golden strength. SHOW me the strength. Don’t just presume I know it because he’s the hero, that’s why.
DWT: Thanks so much for stopping by to chat! I'm hoping my copy of BEYOND HEAVING BOSOMS arrives today. Or tomorrow. It better.
Finally, some great news! Sarah and Candy are giving away a copy of their book to one random commenter! Let us know your answer to any of the above questions to enter the contest!
Thanks again to Candy and Sarah and here's hoping your book will bring some new smart-bitch readers to the romance genre!
**Update** D'oh! I just realized I failed to put a deadline for the contest... Leave a comment before midnight Wednesday April 15, 2009 to be eligible to win! Winner will be announced round about Friday. Drunk writers and smart bitches ineligible. Okay, you can still win if you're drunk... But Molly, Sinead and I can't win :-(
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Rant on #queryfail and #agentfail brouhaha
This is all kind of old news by now. I mean, The Guardian has even done a story, but somehow I can’t keep myself from wanting to comment.
If you twitter, or if you read writer blogs, you’ve probably heard about #queryfail and #agentfail.
For those of you who aren’t twits, (and really, seriously, the moniker is fitting -- twitter is a huge time suck--fun--but a time suck), twitter is basically micro-blogging. Posts of 140 characters or less. If you add a tag, like #queryfail within your 140 chars, then people can search on that tag and see all the posts using that tag in one long list.
So, in early March, an agent, Colleen Lindsay, had the brainstorm to do a #queryfail day, where she invited other agents to make short posts about things they’ve seen in query letters that made them an obvious rejection.
And the examples were pretty bad. Almost without exception they were things that anyone who’s done ten minutes of research about query letters would know not to do.
Some random examples:
And then the backlash started. Crazy backlash. Some writers went berserk. “Agents are so mean.” “They don’t realize how hard we work on our novels.” “How can they publicly deride people like this.” “How come they have time to twitter but they don't have time to respond to my query/read my submission?”
Crazy. Ca-ra-zee.
First, it was all anonymous. Where was the public derision? Second, it was meant to be educational, not mean.* Don’t aspiring writers realize info like this, straight from the agents’ mouths is gold? Third, agents are human, not machines. And they have more things on their plates than just you. The world does not revolve around you. Do you get angry that they take time out of their days to eat and pee, too?
*Okay, it was a little bit about venting and agent bonding/networking, too, but where’s the harm in that?
I glanced at #queryfail a few times the day it was happening, kind of shrugged, ‘cause it was all stuff I’d heard before and I'm not currently seeking an agent… But then I could not believe when I started to see blog posts and tweets about backlash. Apparently, the agents who participated got hate mail and horrible things said about them not so anonymously** such that they felt the need to defend themselves against a barrage of negativity calling them things like insensitive, unprofessional and cruel.
** by not-so-anonymous, I mean one-sided anonymous. The opposite to how the agents handled it. Hateful, personal jabs posted anonymously, but naming the agents.
I was kind of appalled. Okay, I was a lot appalled. ;-)
Then, a few weeks later, agent Jessica Faust decided: why not give the writers a voice? But instead of doing it on twitter, where posts are limited to 140 characters, she invited writers to post comments on her blog venting their pet peeves about agents.
And that’s where things started to get ugly. Oh, the vitriol. And I only read the first 30 comments or so. Last time I looked, it was up to 304.
A few comments were from authors who have or have had agents and wanted to complain about things that they'd experienced, but the vast majority were from aspiring authors who'd been unable to land representation.
I get that it’s frustrating to find an agent. Been there, done that. Have watched friends do it multiple times. It’s a tough, ego-destroying process.
But I also firmly, *firmly* believe that if you have a great idea for a book that’s timely and fits into a recognizable genre, if you do your research about who to query and how to write a great query letter… You’ll get requests for pages. At least from a sampling of the queries you send out.
That said, I do believe the query process is a bit of a roulette wheel. Writing/reading/publishing is subjective, agents are human, plus they all have their own pet peeves. I’ve seen lots of examples on panels or on blogs of one agent citing one thing as a reason for rejecting that was the exact thing that caught another agent’s eye… Sub-ject-ive. But it’s not *that* hard to get requests if you've done your homework. Trust me.
Then, after you get requests, your work speaks for itself. Either it’s great or it isn’t. Either it’s that particular agent’s taste, or it isn’t. Either the agent thinks he/she knows editors who might love it, or he/she doesn’t. It’s that freaking simple. There’s no conspiracy. There’s no purposeful desire to be cruel. There’s no master plan to keep the best, most interesting work away from readers. Yes it’s subjective. Yes the system's not perfect. But it’s the way it works and if you want to play in the game, you need to know and accept the rules.
And if your writing is strong and polished. If your idea has commercial appeal (publishing is a business!!!), then I can virtually guarantee you’ll get some positive responses to your pages--even if it's only a personalized rejection the agent took time out of her day to write.
If one agent rejects your work? Don’t despair. Sub-ject-ive. If ten reject? Same thing. But if 50+ reject? Then it’s time to take another look at your work.
Ask yourself:
So here's my message to the angry commenters on the #agentfail blog:
Dear angry writer:
You wrote a book. Congratulations. Seriously. It’s a big accomplishment. Huge. But it doesn’t mean what you’ve written is publishable.
Just because you’ve poured all your hopes, dreams, money, time into writing and submitting your opus, doesn’t mean enough people will want to read it to justify an agent or publisher putting *their* hopes, dreams, money and time into trying to get it into booksellers’ and ultimately readers’ hands.
If agents are consistently ignoring you, ask yourself the above questions. Then no matter what your answers, continue to work on your craft. Get better. Don’t rant and rage and spit venom.
Get a grip.
And read this essay I stumbled upon today, or a gazillion other great essays and articles easily available (google, anyone?) about what it takes to be a published writer. And then if you still want to have a career in mainstream publishing, put on your big-girl pants and grow up.
If you twitter, or if you read writer blogs, you’ve probably heard about #queryfail and #agentfail.
For those of you who aren’t twits, (and really, seriously, the moniker is fitting -- twitter is a huge time suck--fun--but a time suck), twitter is basically micro-blogging. Posts of 140 characters or less. If you add a tag, like #queryfail within your 140 chars, then people can search on that tag and see all the posts using that tag in one long list.
So, in early March, an agent, Colleen Lindsay, had the brainstorm to do a #queryfail day, where she invited other agents to make short posts about things they’ve seen in query letters that made them an obvious rejection.
And the examples were pretty bad. Almost without exception they were things that anyone who’s done ten minutes of research about query letters would know not to do.
Some random examples:
Do not start your query by saying, "I suspect you're inundated with (certain genre), so forgive me for sending you another one.." #queryfail
Why send us a proposal for a television series when we clearly don't represent that sort of thing? #queryfail
“I have designed a unique cover for my book.” Unrealistic expectations #queryfail
Asks me to be patient with their 300,000 word novel because it really picks up steam after the first 50k words? #queryfail
Insists on calling me to tell me about their book because it's too difficult to describe in writing. Uh.... #queryfail
Tell me that God told you I would be the perfect agent for you? #queryfail
Tell me you have an idea for a novel and want to get my opinion of it before you start writing it? #queryfail
And then the backlash started. Crazy backlash. Some writers went berserk. “Agents are so mean.” “They don’t realize how hard we work on our novels.” “How can they publicly deride people like this.” “How come they have time to twitter but they don't have time to respond to my query/read my submission?”
Crazy. Ca-ra-zee.
First, it was all anonymous. Where was the public derision? Second, it was meant to be educational, not mean.* Don’t aspiring writers realize info like this, straight from the agents’ mouths is gold? Third, agents are human, not machines. And they have more things on their plates than just you. The world does not revolve around you. Do you get angry that they take time out of their days to eat and pee, too?
*Okay, it was a little bit about venting and agent bonding/networking, too, but where’s the harm in that?
I glanced at #queryfail a few times the day it was happening, kind of shrugged, ‘cause it was all stuff I’d heard before and I'm not currently seeking an agent… But then I could not believe when I started to see blog posts and tweets about backlash. Apparently, the agents who participated got hate mail and horrible things said about them not so anonymously** such that they felt the need to defend themselves against a barrage of negativity calling them things like insensitive, unprofessional and cruel.
** by not-so-anonymous, I mean one-sided anonymous. The opposite to how the agents handled it. Hateful, personal jabs posted anonymously, but naming the agents.
I was kind of appalled. Okay, I was a lot appalled. ;-)
Then, a few weeks later, agent Jessica Faust decided: why not give the writers a voice? But instead of doing it on twitter, where posts are limited to 140 characters, she invited writers to post comments on her blog venting their pet peeves about agents.
And that’s where things started to get ugly. Oh, the vitriol. And I only read the first 30 comments or so. Last time I looked, it was up to 304.
A few comments were from authors who have or have had agents and wanted to complain about things that they'd experienced, but the vast majority were from aspiring authors who'd been unable to land representation.
I get that it’s frustrating to find an agent. Been there, done that. Have watched friends do it multiple times. It’s a tough, ego-destroying process.
But I also firmly, *firmly* believe that if you have a great idea for a book that’s timely and fits into a recognizable genre, if you do your research about who to query and how to write a great query letter… You’ll get requests for pages. At least from a sampling of the queries you send out.
That said, I do believe the query process is a bit of a roulette wheel. Writing/reading/publishing is subjective, agents are human, plus they all have their own pet peeves. I’ve seen lots of examples on panels or on blogs of one agent citing one thing as a reason for rejecting that was the exact thing that caught another agent’s eye… Sub-ject-ive. But it’s not *that* hard to get requests if you've done your homework. Trust me.
Then, after you get requests, your work speaks for itself. Either it’s great or it isn’t. Either it’s that particular agent’s taste, or it isn’t. Either the agent thinks he/she knows editors who might love it, or he/she doesn’t. It’s that freaking simple. There’s no conspiracy. There’s no purposeful desire to be cruel. There’s no master plan to keep the best, most interesting work away from readers. Yes it’s subjective. Yes the system's not perfect. But it’s the way it works and if you want to play in the game, you need to know and accept the rules.
And if your writing is strong and polished. If your idea has commercial appeal (publishing is a business!!!), then I can virtually guarantee you’ll get some positive responses to your pages--even if it's only a personalized rejection the agent took time out of her day to write.
If one agent rejects your work? Don’t despair. Sub-ject-ive. If ten reject? Same thing. But if 50+ reject? Then it’s time to take another look at your work.
Ask yourself:
- Is it really well-written? Polished. Sparkling.
- Have you studied your craft or did you just expect to know everything about writing a novel by osmosis? (I know how to be a novelist, I’ve read books and wrote some short-stories and essays in school. Oh, yeah? Well, I know how to be a doctor, I watch House and took biology.)
- Is your storytelling tight, well-paced, exciting, different?
- Have you read enough in your genre (and outside your genre) to know your work isn’t cliché or derivative?
- Do you have a strong voice?
So here's my message to the angry commenters on the #agentfail blog:
Dear angry writer:
You wrote a book. Congratulations. Seriously. It’s a big accomplishment. Huge. But it doesn’t mean what you’ve written is publishable.
Just because you’ve poured all your hopes, dreams, money, time into writing and submitting your opus, doesn’t mean enough people will want to read it to justify an agent or publisher putting *their* hopes, dreams, money and time into trying to get it into booksellers’ and ultimately readers’ hands.
If agents are consistently ignoring you, ask yourself the above questions. Then no matter what your answers, continue to work on your craft. Get better. Don’t rant and rage and spit venom.
Get a grip.
And read this essay I stumbled upon today, or a gazillion other great essays and articles easily available (google, anyone?) about what it takes to be a published writer. And then if you still want to have a career in mainstream publishing, put on your big-girl pants and grow up.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Plot and Character Happy Together....So Happy Together
I wish. Oh! How I wish I could just make my plot and character walk through a movie musical montage - holding hands, skipping through the surf, enjoying candlelight and other delights. Instead, I have two toddlers in the back seat of a car - strapped in, tired, bored with one toy between them.
Mine! No mine! I'm not going to be your friend! I'm not going to be YOUR friend!
Not working together, barely speaking all the way to the end.
I totally get that your characters drive your plot -- plot with characters along for a ride is bad for business -- look at Season Three of Lost, Season Two of Friday Night Lights. But sometimes, isn't that just the way things work? And work best?
I really hope that I've put enough time in up front, showing the reader that yes, these are the kinds of characters who get into these kinds of problems. And no, sometimes they don't make the best decisions. And now that I'm in the home stretch all the birds are coming home to roost and these two people have some explaining to do?
I've revealed all this character, shown all this growth but the only thing that can really put this stuff to the test is plot. Big upheaval. Wreck the ant hill and watch them run around like crazy?
That works. Right?
Mine! No mine! I'm not going to be your friend! I'm not going to be YOUR friend!
Not working together, barely speaking all the way to the end.
I totally get that your characters drive your plot -- plot with characters along for a ride is bad for business -- look at Season Three of Lost, Season Two of Friday Night Lights. But sometimes, isn't that just the way things work? And work best?
I really hope that I've put enough time in up front, showing the reader that yes, these are the kinds of characters who get into these kinds of problems. And no, sometimes they don't make the best decisions. And now that I'm in the home stretch all the birds are coming home to roost and these two people have some explaining to do?
I've revealed all this character, shown all this growth but the only thing that can really put this stuff to the test is plot. Big upheaval. Wreck the ant hill and watch them run around like crazy?
That works. Right?
Friday, April 03, 2009
What to write?
Maureen and I are both in the same boat. We’re both trying to figure out what to write next.
And again, the question that seems to plague both of us is, write a book without really thinking about the market, or write a book tailored to the market.
This, for so many reasons, is not a simple question. If I were thinking of writing for a Harlequin series line, I wouldn’t stray too far outside the lines, instead I’d focus on making sure I understood the line and worked to make the writing as sharp as possible.
But for single title it’s less clear. Publishers are asking for stories that are different, with a great hook. There are factors that definitely contribute to a sale. I’d say in historical, and paranormal, having a high level of sensuality is important. A happy ending is a given, and from there, it’s really tough to pin down.
I think as a writer trying to break into single title, it means I need to take risks with my characters and plotting. A couple of new authors have recently blogged that they sold their first book once they put aside their internal editor, and the comments of contest judges/critique partners and wrote complex people that weren’t necessarily immediately likeable, or the standard we have seen in previous romances.
They broke a rule of some kind and it worked for them. But, it’s a risk and as someone who would like to sell, I wish the answer were more straightforward.
But, and we Drunk writers, have talked about this a few times, there are no guarantees of a sale regardless, so no choice is ever easy. So what do I write next? No clue still, but I know I’ll be happiest writing a book that grips my imagination, and makes me sweat while I work out all the plot points and try and make the characters multi-dimensional.
I’ll write the book and worry about the market later. Like I have with my previous five books..
And again, the question that seems to plague both of us is, write a book without really thinking about the market, or write a book tailored to the market.
This, for so many reasons, is not a simple question. If I were thinking of writing for a Harlequin series line, I wouldn’t stray too far outside the lines, instead I’d focus on making sure I understood the line and worked to make the writing as sharp as possible.
But for single title it’s less clear. Publishers are asking for stories that are different, with a great hook. There are factors that definitely contribute to a sale. I’d say in historical, and paranormal, having a high level of sensuality is important. A happy ending is a given, and from there, it’s really tough to pin down.
I think as a writer trying to break into single title, it means I need to take risks with my characters and plotting. A couple of new authors have recently blogged that they sold their first book once they put aside their internal editor, and the comments of contest judges/critique partners and wrote complex people that weren’t necessarily immediately likeable, or the standard we have seen in previous romances.
They broke a rule of some kind and it worked for them. But, it’s a risk and as someone who would like to sell, I wish the answer were more straightforward.
But, and we Drunk writers, have talked about this a few times, there are no guarantees of a sale regardless, so no choice is ever easy. So what do I write next? No clue still, but I know I’ll be happiest writing a book that grips my imagination, and makes me sweat while I work out all the plot points and try and make the characters multi-dimensional.
I’ll write the book and worry about the market later. Like I have with my previous five books..
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
April Fool's Day
Are there some things you simply can't joke about?
I like a good practical joke as much as the next guy (gal) and so realizing that my day to post on DWT was April 1st, I was rubbing my hands together, trying to figure out a great fake post.
Problem was, when I really started to think about things I could post that were even vaguely writing related, the only topics I came up with were things I couldn't bring myself to joke about...
For example, announcing that Sinead or I had finally landed our first freaking contracts with big NY publishers! Or that Molly had landed a huge single title contract!
Or, to go the other direction, that one or all of us had decided to throw in the towel and never write again. :-(
Joking about these things aren't funny to me right now.
So then I started thinking about new genres we might have decided to write in... and couldn't come up with a joke there, either, because for me right now, nothing is off limits. Yes, I'm a genre whore. I'll try anything.
Am I so sensitive about this publishing process right now that I've lost my sense of humor? Or are there some things you just shouldn't make practical jokes about?
In other news, we've all decided to give up booze.
April Fool!
Have a great April Fools Day. Hope you don't get sucked in to too many scams. ;-)
I like a good practical joke as much as the next guy (gal) and so realizing that my day to post on DWT was April 1st, I was rubbing my hands together, trying to figure out a great fake post.
Problem was, when I really started to think about things I could post that were even vaguely writing related, the only topics I came up with were things I couldn't bring myself to joke about...
For example, announcing that Sinead or I had finally landed our first freaking contracts with big NY publishers! Or that Molly had landed a huge single title contract!
Or, to go the other direction, that one or all of us had decided to throw in the towel and never write again. :-(
Joking about these things aren't funny to me right now.
So then I started thinking about new genres we might have decided to write in... and couldn't come up with a joke there, either, because for me right now, nothing is off limits. Yes, I'm a genre whore. I'll try anything.
Am I so sensitive about this publishing process right now that I've lost my sense of humor? Or are there some things you just shouldn't make practical jokes about?
In other news, we've all decided to give up booze.
April Fool!
Have a great April Fools Day. Hope you don't get sucked in to too many scams. ;-)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
My never-ending struggle to understand and use conflict in all it's proper forms OR it's about discomfort.
Let me start this blog by saying - Maureen is very smart. My whole critique group is very smart. Much smarter than me this week. I was going to talk about how writing is bad for my health, but what I realized tonight is that trying to figure out conflict (AGAIN) is bad for my health.
I'm all revved up. My heart rate's accelerated. I can't sleep. I drink too much. And it's because once again conflict - the slippery devil is wiggling out of my grasp. But anyway -- we talked about it tonight and I had a lighting store's worth of lightbulb moments.
Conflict isn't good conflict unless the characters are uncomfortable. They can't sit down and chat and have tea if there's conflict between them. Unless it's the most uncomfortable tea ever. You can keep piling on more and more conflict but unless it actually shows up between them - in those crackly tense moments we all love -- it's not working. That's Maureen's genius.
Now, I keep saying and thinking (quite smugly) that what good romantic fiction needs is drama. And it does, but drama isn't interchangeable with conflict (which is what I'd been thinking.)Drama is how YOU the writer convey your conflict. Drama is how you end your chapters, and all you have your characters say and not say - it's how you layer your conflict and how you weave in your subplots.
So, again your book need conflict (duh)- but your conflict needs drama. And I need a nap.
I'm all revved up. My heart rate's accelerated. I can't sleep. I drink too much. And it's because once again conflict - the slippery devil is wiggling out of my grasp. But anyway -- we talked about it tonight and I had a lighting store's worth of lightbulb moments.
Conflict isn't good conflict unless the characters are uncomfortable. They can't sit down and chat and have tea if there's conflict between them. Unless it's the most uncomfortable tea ever. You can keep piling on more and more conflict but unless it actually shows up between them - in those crackly tense moments we all love -- it's not working. That's Maureen's genius.
Now, I keep saying and thinking (quite smugly) that what good romantic fiction needs is drama. And it does, but drama isn't interchangeable with conflict (which is what I'd been thinking.)Drama is how YOU the writer convey your conflict. Drama is how you end your chapters, and all you have your characters say and not say - it's how you layer your conflict and how you weave in your subplots.
So, again your book need conflict (duh)- but your conflict needs drama. And I need a nap.
Friday, March 27, 2009
What I didn’t know about writing before I started
Well, tons actually. I knew almost nothing, which in retrospect, was a good thing. And I know a lot of the readers of this blog are writers as well, so you all know this, but some things along the way really surprised me.
Everyone who writes says it’s hard work, and it is. It requires looking at your own work critically. Not since school ended have I looked at anything else in my life or professional life and really taken it apart, analyzed it for flaws, thought for hours on how I can make it better. I do hope some of that thinking has leaked into my regular life.
I thought I’d write 100,000 words. Well the truth is, by the time I finish a book, triple that, what with re-written scenes, chapters, entire hunks of the bloody book.
So yep, writing is hard and requires a certain abandonment of ego.
But what I really didn’t realize about writing was how it would seep into every part of my life. I don’t read books, watch TV, or see movies in the same way. I see a great episode of Battlestar, I now need to talk about it, dissect how it worked or what the writers were thinking, or the new episode of Dollhouse that I unreservedly loved, and my husband is tired of hearing about.
The people I work with think I’m nuts every time I try and convince them of the brilliance of Friday Night Lights, because I think I get a strange gleam in my eyes. And forget talking about JR Ward with anyone who isn’t a writer. They aren’t interested in really talking about those books for longer than three minutes, and three minutes doesn’t even scratch the surface of the first chapter of the first book.
Which is why Drunk Writer Talk was invented. Because no one else wanted to discuss the unbelievable brilliance of the Wire for three hours.
I guess when I started writing, I had no idea how storytelling would invade so much of my life, and my thoughts and how passionate I would become about it.
Everyone who writes says it’s hard work, and it is. It requires looking at your own work critically. Not since school ended have I looked at anything else in my life or professional life and really taken it apart, analyzed it for flaws, thought for hours on how I can make it better. I do hope some of that thinking has leaked into my regular life.
I thought I’d write 100,000 words. Well the truth is, by the time I finish a book, triple that, what with re-written scenes, chapters, entire hunks of the bloody book.
So yep, writing is hard and requires a certain abandonment of ego.
But what I really didn’t realize about writing was how it would seep into every part of my life. I don’t read books, watch TV, or see movies in the same way. I see a great episode of Battlestar, I now need to talk about it, dissect how it worked or what the writers were thinking, or the new episode of Dollhouse that I unreservedly loved, and my husband is tired of hearing about.
The people I work with think I’m nuts every time I try and convince them of the brilliance of Friday Night Lights, because I think I get a strange gleam in my eyes. And forget talking about JR Ward with anyone who isn’t a writer. They aren’t interested in really talking about those books for longer than three minutes, and three minutes doesn’t even scratch the surface of the first chapter of the first book.
Which is why Drunk Writer Talk was invented. Because no one else wanted to discuss the unbelievable brilliance of the Wire for three hours.
I guess when I started writing, I had no idea how storytelling would invade so much of my life, and my thoughts and how passionate I would become about it.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
What are you willing to give up?
I find myself at yet another cross-roads in this "journey" towards becoming an author, and one question I've been asking lately is what am I willing to give up?
This is in part because, up to this point, I haven't had to give up a whole lot (other than my pride). Yes, I've worked very hard. Yes, I've spent way too much money on courses, and conferences and books... But I had the time and money so it wasn't a huge sacrifice. Not in hindsight, anyway.
I watch my good friends give up time with kids and husbands, I watch them squeeze writing time into lunch hours at work, I watch them sacrifice bits of their social lives, or, gasp, TV -- and I think: boy, I'm not sure I want it that badly.
But now, I've reached a point where I have to make some hard choices. And it's actually turned out to be a good thing.
To explain, or put this in context, here's a transcript of some drunk writer talk from about a year ago, when I was shedding blood to produce the first draft of the manuscript that's on submission right now...
Maureen: Boy, if this one doesn't sell, I think I might be done. I just don't know what other direction I can take. I don't know if I have another one of these in me without getting a contract.
Molly and Sinead: Shut up and drink your beer. You won't quit. You love it too much.
Maureen: Do I? I mean, sure, I always had vague dreams of being a writer, but in many ways I kind of fell into this. If I hadn't been lucky enough to meet you two I doubt I would've finished my first book.
Molly: Have a french fry. And another beer.
Sinead: You won't quit. You say you will, but you won't.
Yes, DWT is full of gripping conversations like this one. Jealous? ;-)
But looking back at my angst, I'm seeing the silver lining in the hard decisions I'm facing about my lifestyle right now. Said silver lining is that I've realized Molly and Sinead were right. (They're always right--almost always, except about movies sometimes--but I'm a little slow so it takes a while for me to believe them.)
Yes, it's true. In order to become an author, I'm willing to give up more than just my pride. :-)
Maybe even TV. No, not TV. Get serious.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Battlestar Finale
Careful Spoilers...and I'm serious. Don't read this unless you've seen the finale. My Battlestar experience has been fraught with reading things I shouldn't have.
I, for one, LOVED the finale. Loved it. And I'll get to why in a second. The one giant black fly obscuring my total joy is of course the last two minutes and the social commentary by the creators of the show. That two minutes of social commentary is why I HATE sci-fi. It seems to me that most sci-fi writers can not resist the allure of the blatant and bald social commentary. The whole fracking show was social commentary and then they spit in all the work they had done with those last two minutes.
However, I am not dwelling.
The last ten episodes or whatever it was - had some serious serious problems. I did not buy the Caprica/Tigh affair. At all. What a huge waste of time - and where did it go? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. Bad writers. Bad. Giaus - way too much Giaus garbage - I actually felt that way through the whole series. The finale and his role in it would have still worked without all the yammering on about whatever it was he was yammering on about.
But the great moments of the finale - finding our Earth at whatever point that was supposed to be post dinosaurs pre bronze age or whatever -- I, like Maureen was having a little nerd fest with myself. Starbuck with the music and the numbers jumping the Galactica into range of our Earth - fabulous.
But what the writers did right - and have always done right were the little character moments. The wrap ups of little plot lines that end up being such a big deal.
I loved, and could not have loved more the Starbuck story. Everything about it - so good. And that the flashback revealed what it did about her nearly cheating on Apollo's brother with Apollo - it just sort of showed that they really didn't deserve a happy ending. They'd been too wrong too many times. I loved it. She was redeemed utterly for her mistakes, but she just couldn't have it all. A bittersweet character with a perfect bittersweet ending.
Chief - oh sweet chief. Finding out about Kallie and nearly getting them all killed. Amazing. And then choosing to go to an Island in the Highlands were there weren't any people. You know he's Scottish.
The President and The Admiral - perfect. For me that's got to be the longest running successful romance in tv history. They played every card just right between those two.
So? How did you guys feel?
I, for one, LOVED the finale. Loved it. And I'll get to why in a second. The one giant black fly obscuring my total joy is of course the last two minutes and the social commentary by the creators of the show. That two minutes of social commentary is why I HATE sci-fi. It seems to me that most sci-fi writers can not resist the allure of the blatant and bald social commentary. The whole fracking show was social commentary and then they spit in all the work they had done with those last two minutes.
However, I am not dwelling.
The last ten episodes or whatever it was - had some serious serious problems. I did not buy the Caprica/Tigh affair. At all. What a huge waste of time - and where did it go? Nowhere. Nowhere at all. Bad writers. Bad. Giaus - way too much Giaus garbage - I actually felt that way through the whole series. The finale and his role in it would have still worked without all the yammering on about whatever it was he was yammering on about.
But the great moments of the finale - finding our Earth at whatever point that was supposed to be post dinosaurs pre bronze age or whatever -- I, like Maureen was having a little nerd fest with myself. Starbuck with the music and the numbers jumping the Galactica into range of our Earth - fabulous.
But what the writers did right - and have always done right were the little character moments. The wrap ups of little plot lines that end up being such a big deal.
I loved, and could not have loved more the Starbuck story. Everything about it - so good. And that the flashback revealed what it did about her nearly cheating on Apollo's brother with Apollo - it just sort of showed that they really didn't deserve a happy ending. They'd been too wrong too many times. I loved it. She was redeemed utterly for her mistakes, but she just couldn't have it all. A bittersweet character with a perfect bittersweet ending.
Chief - oh sweet chief. Finding out about Kallie and nearly getting them all killed. Amazing. And then choosing to go to an Island in the Highlands were there weren't any people. You know he's Scottish.
The President and The Admiral - perfect. For me that's got to be the longest running successful romance in tv history. They played every card just right between those two.
So? How did you guys feel?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
All About the Attitude
I received the nicest e-mail today. Made my day, my week, my whole year.
Thank you, again, to the fabulous Marilyn Brant, whose debut ACCORDING TO JANE is coming out in October 2009, published by Kensington.
And Marilyn got me thinking about two things: keeping a positive attitude and professional jealousy.
On the first topic... keeping positive in this business is always tough. And for me these past couple of years, I'd venture to say extremely tough. (The post Molly made about surviving the submission process was at least in part directed at the insanity she's been seeing in me lately. (Although me reading secret messages into Molly's blog post may just be a symptom of my insanity.)
Anyone who knows me well, knows I'm no Pollyanna, but I think I can be balanced. While I admit I've been imagining the worst case scenario a lot lately and second guessing many things, I just as often concoct elaborate best case scenario fantasies and find the silver lining in my defeats. Keeping your chin up is hard in this business, unless you're totally naive or deluded.
But on to professional jealousy. That's one place where I hope Molly's fab line about crazy inviting professional jealousy over for a BBQ wasn't directly aimed at me. Because I think my brand of crazy tends to invite insecurity over more often than professional jealousy. In fact, these past months, I think my crazy has invited insecurity over for more than a BBQ. They've been shacking up. I'm hoping they get into a monster fight and break it off soon. (Sadly, crazy and insecurity seem made for each other.)
And as Sinead said in her great post a couple of weeks ago, (that I also read secret messages directed to me in), a little insecurity can be a good thing. It can make us try harder to continually get better.
But back to the topic at hand. While I can't claim never to have felt professional jealousy, I also don't think it's one I dwell on. I really can't see the point. If author X sells a book, or does really well, I really don't see how that affects me, except that if I know them, I enjoy sharing in their joy. Love, love, love seeing books written by people I know, or know of, on the shelves or on bestseller lists.
And when people on writers loops get their collective noses all out of joint when a celebrity sells a book for huge bucks. Do I wish I had a big book deal? Sure. But a celebrity getting one doesn't have anything to do with me, so why be jealous or angry? I can't offer a publisher a huge platform or built in readership like a celebrity, or even an already well-established author can.
And even if the publishing world worked in such a way that there were a finite number of publishing contracts available, such that if someone I know scored one, that was one less chance for me, I think that 99% of the time I'd still be genuinely pleased for the person who got one. But publishing doesn't really work like that and I am always glad to hear about other writers getting contracts or their books selling well or hitting lists.
The only times I felt some serious professional jealousy, leading me to say spiteful things to my friends about another writer, it's related to very specific situations where I felt either like I'd been used, or said person became condescending after selling, as if they suddenly knew some secret, or possessed more talent, just because they got a contract before me. Especially if said contract is with a publisher I wouldn't want to be published by. That bugs me. But 99.9% of writers I know aren't like that at all.
99.9% of the writers I know are the most supportive people I've come across in my entire life.
Thanks again for your kind words, Marilyn. You rock!
Thank you, again, to the fabulous Marilyn Brant, whose debut ACCORDING TO JANE is coming out in October 2009, published by Kensington.
And Marilyn got me thinking about two things: keeping a positive attitude and professional jealousy.
On the first topic... keeping positive in this business is always tough. And for me these past couple of years, I'd venture to say extremely tough. (The post Molly made about surviving the submission process was at least in part directed at the insanity she's been seeing in me lately. (Although me reading secret messages into Molly's blog post may just be a symptom of my insanity.)
Anyone who knows me well, knows I'm no Pollyanna, but I think I can be balanced. While I admit I've been imagining the worst case scenario a lot lately and second guessing many things, I just as often concoct elaborate best case scenario fantasies and find the silver lining in my defeats. Keeping your chin up is hard in this business, unless you're totally naive or deluded.
But on to professional jealousy. That's one place where I hope Molly's fab line about crazy inviting professional jealousy over for a BBQ wasn't directly aimed at me. Because I think my brand of crazy tends to invite insecurity over more often than professional jealousy. In fact, these past months, I think my crazy has invited insecurity over for more than a BBQ. They've been shacking up. I'm hoping they get into a monster fight and break it off soon. (Sadly, crazy and insecurity seem made for each other.)
And as Sinead said in her great post a couple of weeks ago, (that I also read secret messages directed to me in), a little insecurity can be a good thing. It can make us try harder to continually get better.
But back to the topic at hand. While I can't claim never to have felt professional jealousy, I also don't think it's one I dwell on. I really can't see the point. If author X sells a book, or does really well, I really don't see how that affects me, except that if I know them, I enjoy sharing in their joy. Love, love, love seeing books written by people I know, or know of, on the shelves or on bestseller lists.
And when people on writers loops get their collective noses all out of joint when a celebrity sells a book for huge bucks. Do I wish I had a big book deal? Sure. But a celebrity getting one doesn't have anything to do with me, so why be jealous or angry? I can't offer a publisher a huge platform or built in readership like a celebrity, or even an already well-established author can.
And even if the publishing world worked in such a way that there were a finite number of publishing contracts available, such that if someone I know scored one, that was one less chance for me, I think that 99% of the time I'd still be genuinely pleased for the person who got one. But publishing doesn't really work like that and I am always glad to hear about other writers getting contracts or their books selling well or hitting lists.
The only times I felt some serious professional jealousy, leading me to say spiteful things to my friends about another writer, it's related to very specific situations where I felt either like I'd been used, or said person became condescending after selling, as if they suddenly knew some secret, or possessed more talent, just because they got a contract before me. Especially if said contract is with a publisher I wouldn't want to be published by. That bugs me. But 99.9% of writers I know aren't like that at all.
99.9% of the writers I know are the most supportive people I've come across in my entire life.
Thanks again for your kind words, Marilyn. You rock!
Monday, March 16, 2009
It's not a business...it's politics.
Okay, Kimber this is an open invitation for you to school me -- but here goes.
My take on the reality of the publisher/author relationship -- it's not business. Not at all. Despite a contract with very clear terms regarding deadlines and timelines and the ramifications of meeting or failing to meet those deadlines - this is not a business arrangement.
Oh, don't get me wrong - the author better meet those deadlines - in fact without plenty of advance warning that the deadline won't be met - woe! upon the author who does not meet those deadlines.
But the publisher might not get back to us on proposals within three months. Or maybe they will. You just don't know. And sure, you can nudge and email and passively aggressively inquire as to what the hell is going on, but there is a line you - the author - just can't cross. Not without pissing off the editor.
And seriously -- this is the politics part - don't piss off the editor. Don't do it. It's like your editor is the Mayor and you are trying to get some funding, some face time, some serious work done. The mayor wants to help you get that work done, in fact the better you do, the better the mayor looks. But there are twenty of us wanting the same thing - or sixty - or hundreds - we want time and money and attention. Let's say, I'm education and another writer is the police force (yes, The Wire rears it's head yet again) if I do what I can to totally serve the mayor, working my tail off and not cause any problems - I might get what I want. But I'm almost assured to get what I want if the police force is acting like a jerk. Or demanding more than can be given. Or not holding up it's end of a contract.
Part of my job is to eat a little crap from the Mayor. Missed meetings, missed deadlines etc... you get my point. I'm not saying just roll over. Or, obviously do things you're not comfortable with -- but realize getting ahead in this business depends A LOT on your editor fighting for you in various meetings. Your editor has to like and respect you and that is something that is earned. Editors are human after all. You want to like and respect your editor right? And once the shine of being published wears off - you realize it's something they have to earn, too.
On various loops as soon as an author starts wondering why we don't stick up for ourselves - reminding everyone on the loop that it's a business not a friendship and if we as authors are required to do our parts, shouldn't the editors? And why the hell can't we just call the editor and ask why it's taking so long? Well, all I can think is that The Mayor is going to be getting behind education even more in the years to come.
It's also why you need an agent - no matter what.
My take on the reality of the publisher/author relationship -- it's not business. Not at all. Despite a contract with very clear terms regarding deadlines and timelines and the ramifications of meeting or failing to meet those deadlines - this is not a business arrangement.
Oh, don't get me wrong - the author better meet those deadlines - in fact without plenty of advance warning that the deadline won't be met - woe! upon the author who does not meet those deadlines.
But the publisher might not get back to us on proposals within three months. Or maybe they will. You just don't know. And sure, you can nudge and email and passively aggressively inquire as to what the hell is going on, but there is a line you - the author - just can't cross. Not without pissing off the editor.
And seriously -- this is the politics part - don't piss off the editor. Don't do it. It's like your editor is the Mayor and you are trying to get some funding, some face time, some serious work done. The mayor wants to help you get that work done, in fact the better you do, the better the mayor looks. But there are twenty of us wanting the same thing - or sixty - or hundreds - we want time and money and attention. Let's say, I'm education and another writer is the police force (yes, The Wire rears it's head yet again) if I do what I can to totally serve the mayor, working my tail off and not cause any problems - I might get what I want. But I'm almost assured to get what I want if the police force is acting like a jerk. Or demanding more than can be given. Or not holding up it's end of a contract.
Part of my job is to eat a little crap from the Mayor. Missed meetings, missed deadlines etc... you get my point. I'm not saying just roll over. Or, obviously do things you're not comfortable with -- but realize getting ahead in this business depends A LOT on your editor fighting for you in various meetings. Your editor has to like and respect you and that is something that is earned. Editors are human after all. You want to like and respect your editor right? And once the shine of being published wears off - you realize it's something they have to earn, too.
On various loops as soon as an author starts wondering why we don't stick up for ourselves - reminding everyone on the loop that it's a business not a friendship and if we as authors are required to do our parts, shouldn't the editors? And why the hell can't we just call the editor and ask why it's taking so long? Well, all I can think is that The Mayor is going to be getting behind education even more in the years to come.
It's also why you need an agent - no matter what.
Friday, March 13, 2009
My writing fantasy
I have to preface this post with a reality check. I’m a mother of two young children, with a full time job and a husband who, surprisingly and quite nicely, likes to spend quality time with me.
I eek out writing time when I have energy in the evenings, after the wee ones go to bed, and during my increasingly rare lunch hours at work, but these are short timeframes.
And, (this is not a sympathy bid,) I’m cool with this. I like my job, and love my kids and husband and while I’d love to write faster, I’m writing, so all is good.
But on Friday mornings, when I’m feeling lazy, I fantasize about my ideal writing life.
So here it is.
A sunny, bright office, all to myself, with floor to ceiling bookshelves on three of the walls. A comfy couch for reading breaks and a computer not attached to the internet. (because even in fantasy, I know my limitations. The internet is writing kryptonite)
A full day to write. The nanny would be taking care of the kids. Eight solid hours to think about nothing but story and craft. The mornings would be for writing new scenes, the afternoons for editing.
A state of the art, two hundred pages per minute, printer. A fresh cup of perfect coffee that magically appears, and the knowledge that someone else is taking care of the mountain of laundry piled up in all the bedrooms.
And every four months a research trip, or conference, with my writing buddies. I’d like to go to France first. I’ll set a book there eventually, so it would be useful.
I’d take an hour every day to work out with a personal trainer, because when my body’s tired, my brain sometimes works better. And because it seems really decadent to me to work out during work hours.
Ok, that sums up my perfect writing day. I’m sure the reality is that with eight hours, I’d still only accomplish what I do in two hours, but it sounds so relaxed and nice and my laundry would be done.
And really, can you ask for anything better than someone else doing your laundry.
I eek out writing time when I have energy in the evenings, after the wee ones go to bed, and during my increasingly rare lunch hours at work, but these are short timeframes.
And, (this is not a sympathy bid,) I’m cool with this. I like my job, and love my kids and husband and while I’d love to write faster, I’m writing, so all is good.
But on Friday mornings, when I’m feeling lazy, I fantasize about my ideal writing life.
So here it is.
A sunny, bright office, all to myself, with floor to ceiling bookshelves on three of the walls. A comfy couch for reading breaks and a computer not attached to the internet. (because even in fantasy, I know my limitations. The internet is writing kryptonite)
A full day to write. The nanny would be taking care of the kids. Eight solid hours to think about nothing but story and craft. The mornings would be for writing new scenes, the afternoons for editing.
A state of the art, two hundred pages per minute, printer. A fresh cup of perfect coffee that magically appears, and the knowledge that someone else is taking care of the mountain of laundry piled up in all the bedrooms.
And every four months a research trip, or conference, with my writing buddies. I’d like to go to France first. I’ll set a book there eventually, so it would be useful.
I’d take an hour every day to work out with a personal trainer, because when my body’s tired, my brain sometimes works better. And because it seems really decadent to me to work out during work hours.
Ok, that sums up my perfect writing day. I’m sure the reality is that with eight hours, I’d still only accomplish what I do in two hours, but it sounds so relaxed and nice and my laundry would be done.
And really, can you ask for anything better than someone else doing your laundry.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Surviving the Submission Process
Writer Molly had some wine last night and like a bad split personality - Righteous Molly came out to play. Sometimes it's fun, most of the time I wake up the next morning feeling like I need to apologize to a bunch of people. This morning not withstanding. Maureen - Sorry.
Sinead's post on Wednesday about how crazy we are as writers is all too true and frankly there is no worse breeding ground for the writer insanity than those long desolate weeks of the submission process. The waiting for the phone calls, waiting for the emails, waiting for your life to start again, waiting to feel like writing, waiting to feel like doing anything - it's the worst kind of limbo.
I know we're supposed to just keep writing. Start a new project, get your head in the game - but is anybody really able to do this whole-heartedly? Really? Isn't just an exercise to exercise?
My worst submission hell was after two Harlequin lines had collapsed from under me (and Stephanie Doyle, but again - let's not blame her) . I got a new agent and she's a great agent (but tell that to a person waiting in submission hell - because what you do after doubting yourself is doubt your agent, no matter how good.)
But this process was taking upwards of TWO YEARS.
Two years of submitting to the same editor (who had said she wasn't sure I could write Supers) at the same house I had already written five books for. Two years. I had two supers out on submission and a single title that was going nowhere. So it was silence at one end and a steady stream of rejections from the other. I was hysterical.
I was at a party one night (a fundraiser for a camp for kids with Cancer - which you would think would put things into perspective for me - but no. Nope. Crazy and shallow and self-absorbed, that is the writer out on submission.) I picked a fight with my husband, left the party, walked home crying. The low low point of my writer life thus far.
So, what can you do when waiting? Well, what you really need is a kid with pink eye, or a flu epidemic in your house - something so time consuming that you don't have time to obsess. Barring that - I think you've got to get out of your house. Waiting for the phone or the emails is a long slow death. Exercise, walk, shop, drink coffee, drink booze. Anything to get you away from the computer and the phone.
Read. Read all those books outside your genre that have been piling up around you. But don't read your genre - please. That's the crazy inviting professional jealousy over for a barbecue.
Organize your sock drawer, make dentist appointments, clean out your front hall closet -- all those chores we neglect because we're too busy writing - now is the time to get it done.
And finally, yes, keep writing. Because that's what we are and what we do and the crazy just can't take that away.
Sinead's post on Wednesday about how crazy we are as writers is all too true and frankly there is no worse breeding ground for the writer insanity than those long desolate weeks of the submission process. The waiting for the phone calls, waiting for the emails, waiting for your life to start again, waiting to feel like writing, waiting to feel like doing anything - it's the worst kind of limbo.
I know we're supposed to just keep writing. Start a new project, get your head in the game - but is anybody really able to do this whole-heartedly? Really? Isn't just an exercise to exercise?
My worst submission hell was after two Harlequin lines had collapsed from under me (and Stephanie Doyle, but again - let's not blame her) . I got a new agent and she's a great agent (but tell that to a person waiting in submission hell - because what you do after doubting yourself is doubt your agent, no matter how good.)
But this process was taking upwards of TWO YEARS.
Two years of submitting to the same editor (who had said she wasn't sure I could write Supers) at the same house I had already written five books for. Two years. I had two supers out on submission and a single title that was going nowhere. So it was silence at one end and a steady stream of rejections from the other. I was hysterical.
I was at a party one night (a fundraiser for a camp for kids with Cancer - which you would think would put things into perspective for me - but no. Nope. Crazy and shallow and self-absorbed, that is the writer out on submission.) I picked a fight with my husband, left the party, walked home crying. The low low point of my writer life thus far.
So, what can you do when waiting? Well, what you really need is a kid with pink eye, or a flu epidemic in your house - something so time consuming that you don't have time to obsess. Barring that - I think you've got to get out of your house. Waiting for the phone or the emails is a long slow death. Exercise, walk, shop, drink coffee, drink booze. Anything to get you away from the computer and the phone.
Read. Read all those books outside your genre that have been piling up around you. But don't read your genre - please. That's the crazy inviting professional jealousy over for a barbecue.
Organize your sock drawer, make dentist appointments, clean out your front hall closet -- all those chores we neglect because we're too busy writing - now is the time to get it done.
And finally, yes, keep writing. Because that's what we are and what we do and the crazy just can't take that away.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Writers are nuts
I know I am. Completely certifiable on my good days. Because so often this whole writing thing seems like an exercise in masochism.
I’m unpublished, which means on a regular basis I’m sending personal work out into the world. The vibe being, ‘Please sir, or M’am, please validate this work that took me a year to create and polish, by liking it’.
Then, even if they like it, I might sell it for, when worked out on a hourly basis, mere cents per hour… and I will be thrilled, believe me.
Even published authors regularly deal with rejections, or revisions, and bad reviews. And let’s face it, most writers I know, myself included, have disgustingly fragile egos when it comes to the writing.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to convince myself to be confident in my writing, in the story I produce and then see that confidence crumple to nothing at the first rejection, or the first less than glowing contest critique.
I’ve even tried to convince writer friends to be more confident, which is pretty laughable, and I seethe with jealousy when I hear of writers who had the confidence to change agents, or turn down publishing deals when they weren’t published, as they fully expected better agents, or better deals to come along. And better agents and deals did come along.
I wonder where they got their confidence and how I can steal some.
But I’m starting to believe that my insecurity might have a bright side. I’m a lazy person by nature, and I usually try and get by doing the least possible. But with the writing, the more I write, the less confident I get, which makes me edit more, question more of my story, re-think more, in essence, be less lazy and work harder towards getting the book right.
So what I need. A lack of confidence when writing the book, and then complete confidence when marketing it… I guess I’ll try and fake it when this book is finally finished..
I’m unpublished, which means on a regular basis I’m sending personal work out into the world. The vibe being, ‘Please sir, or M’am, please validate this work that took me a year to create and polish, by liking it’.
Then, even if they like it, I might sell it for, when worked out on a hourly basis, mere cents per hour… and I will be thrilled, believe me.
Even published authors regularly deal with rejections, or revisions, and bad reviews. And let’s face it, most writers I know, myself included, have disgustingly fragile egos when it comes to the writing.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to convince myself to be confident in my writing, in the story I produce and then see that confidence crumple to nothing at the first rejection, or the first less than glowing contest critique.
I’ve even tried to convince writer friends to be more confident, which is pretty laughable, and I seethe with jealousy when I hear of writers who had the confidence to change agents, or turn down publishing deals when they weren’t published, as they fully expected better agents, or better deals to come along. And better agents and deals did come along.
I wonder where they got their confidence and how I can steal some.
But I’m starting to believe that my insecurity might have a bright side. I’m a lazy person by nature, and I usually try and get by doing the least possible. But with the writing, the more I write, the less confident I get, which makes me edit more, question more of my story, re-think more, in essence, be less lazy and work harder towards getting the book right.
So what I need. A lack of confidence when writing the book, and then complete confidence when marketing it… I guess I’ll try and fake it when this book is finally finished..
Monday, March 02, 2009
Switch-Hitter
Great treat today, everyone! The lovely and talented Eileen Carr has stopped by for a glass of wine and a guest blog about switch hitting! (Ooo... sounds kinda dirty... Unless it's about sports.) **Maureen pulls her mind out of the gutter.**
Actually, it's about switching between genres, something of particular interest to me right now, so I was thrilled when Eileen suggested the topic.
Eileen Carr is the alter ego of the equally fabulous Eileen Rendahl, whose DO ME, DO MY ROOTS, is one of my favorite books of recent memory. I cannot wait to see what she's done in her "Carr" incarnation (cool pun). (At least I held back from typing inCARRnation...) This book sounds fabulous and it's at the very top of my TBR pile. **Maureen hangs head in shame for not having read it before Eileen stopped by for a drink...**
Take it away, Eileen!
Switch-Hitter
by Eileen Carr
I am not known for my long attention span. Nor am I known for my ability to stay focused on one thing for any length of time. I tend to get caught up in something, become completely absorbed and then get distracted by something shiny outside the window. I don’t have a favorite color because I like ALL of them. Preferably all together all at once. I can’t quite grasp the concept of clashing.
Reading has been one of the few things I have been dedicated to since I can remember. That said, I rarely stick to reading just one genre. I love romance, mystery, spy stories, thrillers, literary fiction, science fiction and fantasy, to name a few. I even enjoy the occasional non-fiction title. There’s an old John Denver (don’t judge me!) song where he says he’d no sooner love just one kind of woman than drink just one kind of wine. I feel just like that about books.
Now, lucky me, I get to indulge in writing more than one kind of book, too. After writing four chick lit novels as Eileen Rendahl, my debut romantic suspense,
HOLD BACK THE DARK, was released by Pocket Books on February 24 under the pen name Eileen Carr and my debut urban fantasy, DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER will be released by The Berkley Publishing Group in April of 2010.
Writing in different genres has definitely made me stretch some new writing muscles. For instance, that plotting muscle got quite the work out writing HOLD BACK THE DARK. It was sore for days. It hadn’t been completely unused, but it certainly didn’t have to work quite so hard when I was writing chick lit books. I’m working on DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER right now and my world building muscle hurts so much I can barely walk sometimes. Setting is always important to me and I used it extensively in my chick lit novels to strengthen the message I was trying to convey, but nothing like the burn I got writing about Chinese vampires living under the streets of Old Sacramento.
It’s always exciting for me to try new things and to get to new places in my writing. The part of this that really rocks, however, is the cross-pollination. I can see how what I learned about pacing and plotting while writing HOLD BACK THE DARK is making DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER a better book and the world-building I’ve done working on DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER is definitely having an impact on the richness of the setting in the romantic suspense proposal I’m working on now as well.
I may never be the kind of person who can focus on one thing long enough to be an expert, but I think there might well be an advantage to my dilletante-ish ways, too. Have you tried genre jumping? Do you think it helped your writing?
Actually, it's about switching between genres, something of particular interest to me right now, so I was thrilled when Eileen suggested the topic.
Eileen Carr is the alter ego of the equally fabulous Eileen Rendahl, whose DO ME, DO MY ROOTS, is one of my favorite books of recent memory. I cannot wait to see what she's done in her "Carr" incarnation (cool pun). (At least I held back from typing inCARRnation...) This book sounds fabulous and it's at the very top of my TBR pile. **Maureen hangs head in shame for not having read it before Eileen stopped by for a drink...**
Take it away, Eileen!
Switch-Hitter
by Eileen Carr
I am not known for my long attention span. Nor am I known for my ability to stay focused on one thing for any length of time. I tend to get caught up in something, become completely absorbed and then get distracted by something shiny outside the window. I don’t have a favorite color because I like ALL of them. Preferably all together all at once. I can’t quite grasp the concept of clashing.
Reading has been one of the few things I have been dedicated to since I can remember. That said, I rarely stick to reading just one genre. I love romance, mystery, spy stories, thrillers, literary fiction, science fiction and fantasy, to name a few. I even enjoy the occasional non-fiction title. There’s an old John Denver (don’t judge me!) song where he says he’d no sooner love just one kind of woman than drink just one kind of wine. I feel just like that about books.
Now, lucky me, I get to indulge in writing more than one kind of book, too. After writing four chick lit novels as Eileen Rendahl, my debut romantic suspense,
HOLD BACK THE DARK, was released by Pocket Books on February 24 under the pen name Eileen Carr and my debut urban fantasy, DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER will be released by The Berkley Publishing Group in April of 2010.Writing in different genres has definitely made me stretch some new writing muscles. For instance, that plotting muscle got quite the work out writing HOLD BACK THE DARK. It was sore for days. It hadn’t been completely unused, but it certainly didn’t have to work quite so hard when I was writing chick lit books. I’m working on DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER right now and my world building muscle hurts so much I can barely walk sometimes. Setting is always important to me and I used it extensively in my chick lit novels to strengthen the message I was trying to convey, but nothing like the burn I got writing about Chinese vampires living under the streets of Old Sacramento.
It’s always exciting for me to try new things and to get to new places in my writing. The part of this that really rocks, however, is the cross-pollination. I can see how what I learned about pacing and plotting while writing HOLD BACK THE DARK is making DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER a better book and the world-building I’ve done working on DON’T KILL THE MESSENGER is definitely having an impact on the richness of the setting in the romantic suspense proposal I’m working on now as well.
I may never be the kind of person who can focus on one thing long enough to be an expert, but I think there might well be an advantage to my dilletante-ish ways, too. Have you tried genre jumping? Do you think it helped your writing?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Why Johnny Depp makes a great standard for a hero
Let’s start with how insanely handsome he is, which is always nice to have in a hero. I like that he’s very private, hates interviews, and avoids photographers so much, he moved to France to get away from the paparazzi.
He’s rarely photographed with his wife, and almost never with his children.
He didn’t sell baby pictures of his children.
He is vocal in his adoration of his children and his wife. He is ridiculously talented, Maureen would know how many oscar nom’s he’s gotten, and I like that he chooses roles that interest and challenge him, rather than always for the money.
Not that I’m against money..
So we have a talented actor who is also a devoted family man.
What really makes him hero fare is that he is the reformed bad boy. He used to smoke, drink lots, trash hotel rooms and date models. He was known, at one point, for his bad behavior, then he moved to France, met the right woman and became the man above.
Oversimplified, I know, but the reformed bad boy is incredibly rare as most women will attest. It’s almost impossible to change a man, which is why so many smart women marry nice guys, who were always nice.
But the appeal of reforming the bad boy is delicious.
And while the good guy is great husband material in real life, where’s the conflict? It will be bad boys for me, at least in my stories.
He’s rarely photographed with his wife, and almost never with his children.
He didn’t sell baby pictures of his children.
He is vocal in his adoration of his children and his wife. He is ridiculously talented, Maureen would know how many oscar nom’s he’s gotten, and I like that he chooses roles that interest and challenge him, rather than always for the money.
Not that I’m against money..
So we have a talented actor who is also a devoted family man.
What really makes him hero fare is that he is the reformed bad boy. He used to smoke, drink lots, trash hotel rooms and date models. He was known, at one point, for his bad behavior, then he moved to France, met the right woman and became the man above.
Oversimplified, I know, but the reformed bad boy is incredibly rare as most women will attest. It’s almost impossible to change a man, which is why so many smart women marry nice guys, who were always nice.
But the appeal of reforming the bad boy is delicious.
And while the good guy is great husband material in real life, where’s the conflict? It will be bad boys for me, at least in my stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
