Faking Human Interactions

I promised to blog more about the Paul Haggis talk and while this post isn't about a light bulb storytelling secret, it was one of the things I liked about his talk.

Turns out Mr. Haggis likes to work in public--just like me. (Oh, I have something in common with a really successful writer!) Sounds like he has several coffee shop haunts and hotel lobbies he uses as his "offices", setting up for the day with a laptop and madly writing. (Aside: Hotel lobbies! What a great idea. I'll bet I could find some great ones to work at in downtown Toronto...)

Anyway, he said that he likes to work in public so he can pretend he's part of humanity, fake that he actually interacts with other people while he's writing, feel as if he's part of the real world. And that actually did set off a little moment of self-realization for me. I think that's exactly why I like it, too.

Writing is such an isolating profession and when I'm in full-on writing-cave mode, even if I'm out in public during the day, I start to forget how to talk to other people--that is, how to use my mouth instead of my keyboard to communicate. I forget how to form sentences without editing them.

That's one of many reasons I'm really starting to love the little routine Molly and I have started of meeting once a week for a few hours and sitting across from each other in a coffee shop. Sometimes we talk. Sometimes we don't. But I feel like I've actually interacted with another human being on those days.

Maybe this isolation thing is a bigger problem for someone like me who lives alone, but I think I'd feel this way even if I didn't. I find it hard to write around people I know who don't "get" what I'm doing. For me, anyway, I get self conscious or annoyed if they want to know how it's going, or even if they're trying too hard to be quiet (clearly I'm easily annoyed)... But writing in the midst of strangers? Or with a trusted writer-friend? Magic.

And even if I spend six hours in a Starbucks (like I did today) without saying a word to another living soul (which I also did)... I can still pretend I'm a member of society. And really, as fiction writers, isn't what we do largely about faking it?

Chevy Stevens Guest Blog

Hi. Maureen here. :)

A month or so ago, one of my writer friends, debut author Chevy Stevens, was in Toronto on a pre-release promotional tour (yes! cool, right?), for her July 2010 release STILL MISSING, and we managed to grab dinner together. Among other things, we got talking about all the weird misconceptions that people have about writing and publishing. (And all the helpful suggestions they offer like, "You should go on Oprah!")

Now that I'm thinking about it, people assuming that authors always get sent on book tours, never mind pre-release tours, is a misconception I've dealt with. ;) But at least now I personally know someone whose publisher has done that! I also had the privilege of reading Chevy's ARC and let me tell you, this one's worth all the buzz and is sure to hit the lists. She just got starred reviews in Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, too!

But one of the misconceptions Chevy's come up against is: if you know how to write, you don't need anyone else's input. To which everyone who is in the business would say, whaaat??? This came up when the Globe & Mail did a lovely feature on her and she mentioned using a freelance editor before seeking an agent. There were a few random bloggers and commenters on the Globe's site who clearly had no idea how publishing works (and/or were jealous writers.) Anyway, I thought it might be fun to have Chevy stop by for a drink to talk about it.


Hey, Maureen! Thanks for having me. This is so cool—I’ve been reading you guys for years! Ah, yes, misconceptions. I think the one that gets me the most is that if you work with a critique group, hired a freelance editor, or revised for your agent then it’s no longer YOUR book and you didn’t actually write it yourself, which makes me scratch my head. Okay, it makes me do a lot more than that, but I’m on my first drink. Wait until I get warmed up!

They’re aren’t many trades that don’t require learning from someone or getting feedback. Carpenters apprentice before they start building houses, plumbers too. They may have a natural aptitude for construction, but they still have to learn the skills. Great artists and magicians apprentice. My accountant's firm has a system where everything is checked over by another pair of eyes—twice. Olympic athletes have trainers, coaches, managers, nutritionist, and physical therapists. No one asks them if they really deserved to win the gold. Even sports teams have coaches. They run plays, study tapes, practice over and over again. On the occasions I’ve hired a personal fitness trainer I work harder and see better results. There’s something about having someone standing over you yelling, “One more time!” that really fires me up. In movies there’s the writer, the director, and then even an actor may bring something to the table. Chefs give people a taste of their creation, then adjust their ingredient accordingly.

Even when your final draft is bought by a publisher, your editor has feedback. Then there’s a copy-editor and after that, a proofreader. And you know what? Stuff still gets missed. I had to make two corrections last week because of errors readers found in my ARCs. One of them was a medical mistake that no one caught. You can’t see everything that’s wrong with your work. Sometimes you’ve been living with it for too long and other times it’s because you only see things from your own life experiences. Until someone points out that your character sounds like a real bitch when she says X, Y, Z and people are going to want to stab her with a fork, you might have no clue. Getting feedback can teach you a lot about yourself and your way of viewing the world.

I don’t work with a critique group because I live in a small town and don’t know many people working on novels. I also like one on one attention. I can be demanding and impatient. That doesn’t always work out well with writing partners! If I was to use an analogy, I’d say for me writing a book is like having an idea for a house, then building it and decorating it. When it’s as perfect as I can get it, I invite a couple of people in to tell me if I missed a spot, if my ceiling is sagging, or if the front door is crooked. I’m careful whom I invite as the wrong person can make me feel like shit about my house, and I don’t want someone who suggests I knock it down and build a condo because that’s what they secretly want to build. I also like having someone who can explain why it’s a bad idea to hook the toilet up to the sink and how I can get it to flush faster!

Once my beta readers have given me their feedback, I step back and think everything over. My natural reaction is always to want to slam the door in their face, so I take a moment, grab a tea, and when I’m ready, I go to work. A good freelance editor, beta reader, or critique partner might make comments like, “The kitchen seems too dark,” or they might brainstorm with me and say “orange” would look good. Then I might think, “No, I hate orange, but I agree it needs to be brighter so I’m going to go with yellow.” Then when I’m finally satisfied I’ll invite guests in. But I’ll still run around trying to straighten pillows and open curtains. I’m crazy like that. :)

Feedback is just that, feedback. You still have to find your own voice and figure out what works best for YOUR story. But getting feedback can sometimes help you figure out what the true essence of your story is, what is really, really important to you. It can be agonizing in the process. I once had someone suggest I get rid off all my shrink intros and just tell my story in real time. I considered it, because the intros weren’t working. I talked it over with a few people, tried to rewrite the book a few different ways, cried, ate too much food, and ultimately took six months, or so, to rewrite the intros so they were stronger.

There is no wrong or right way to write a book. If you want to use a critique group, go for it. If you want to hire a freelance editor, that’s cool too. But if you hire a freelance editor, do your homework. Ask for a sample and testimonials, check them out on Predators and Editors— be smart about it. I would recommend finding someone who doesn’t just point out flaws but teaches you why something isn’t working. Then learn from them. It’s also important they give you positive feedback or there’s no light at the end of the tunnel! Not all editors, critique partners, or beta readers are created equally, so be clear what you’re looking for and what works best for you. They’re a relationship like any other. You still have to know yourself, know what you need and want, and be willing to do your part.

Okay, I’m thirsty now. Is it time for another drink?

Great observations, Chevy. And to answer your last question, it's always time for another drink. Especially when talking about writing and publishing. ;)

For the Love of Crit Groups

I'm thinking about Molly's post on Monday and wanted to explain what she quoted me as saying... But first a word about critique groups. I know some writers hate them, and I think there are bad situations. Situations where critique partners are biased or want to rewrite books the way they would have written them, or when writers are too timid to stand up for themselves and end up trying to please everyone and by listening to all the advice, end up with either a hodge-podged mess, or a something so tamed down and homogeneous it's boring.

But crit groups can also be fabulous. And I think all writers are smart to get feedback on their writing. I've been talking about this with writer friend Chevy Stevens a lot lately, and she'll be doing a guest blog very soon on the topic. (Next week, if I can get my act together.) Basically, she had a lovely article written about her in the Globe & Mail and then was attacked by a few crazy bloggers, (whom I won't link to, because they're crazy and don't deserve any more attention), who seemed to think her book had been written by committee, because she talked about her editorial process in the Globe article and they seemed to think that getting editorial input or critiques or even input from your agent meant the author wasn't doing their job. But more on that topic of craziness when Chevy comes over for a drink and some writerly talk...

But that's all lead in to what I meant to post about today. I wanted to set the record straight about my blurting out that I love everything I write until people tell me it's crap. I'm not that arrogant. Honest. :)

I think anyone who's read my posts on this blog over the years knows I'm a bundle of insecurities 90% of the time, but when I find my confidence about something -- well, I can be really confident about it -- at least until someone rips that confidence away from me. (Not that hard.)

The exact context in which I said, "I think everything I write is great until someone tells me it isn't," is kind of personal to what's going on with my career right now, and I don't want to get into it publicly, but in general, what I really meant was that I'm never shooting for mediocre or "good enough".

Once I finish a book, or proposal and send it out to my agent, I never think it's mediocre. I never think, "Oh, I'll be so happy if this is just published. " I never think, "Oh, I'll be happy, even if I get a tiny advance for this one." I never think, "I'll be happy if it's in print, no matter how it's published." I never think, "Oh, I'll be so happy if this sells a thousand copies." No! I always think, "I've done my part and done it well. Now, if the stars line up the right way, this book could be huge."

I know this might be delusional, and having those kinds of expectations means I get slapped down pretty hard when things don't work out how I'd hoped, and I know every publishing deal must be evaluated on its own merit.... and the more stuff I put out there, the harder it is to believe it's all awesome... but I still haven't given up. Not on any of my manuscripts except the very first one. (Which wasn't the kind of book I should be writing, but I learned a lot writing it.)

But this faith that what I'm writing is good, is the reason I haven't tried to self-publish or to submit to the digital-first or other really small publishers with my projects that haven't sold. I still think they mostly rock, but just haven't landed on the right desk on the right day, yet. Or if I now see (based on the rejections and with the benefit of hindsight) that there are issues with them, I think I know how to fix them to make them rock.

So, ya... I still get horribly nervous (and sometimes defensive) when I get critiques from my CP's, with whom I've been working for over seven years now, so you'd think I'd be over that. I'm not. I'm still genuinely self-deprecating and think my stuff sucks until someone is kind enough to tell me it doesn't suck. I still hear the bad crits louder than the good ones and beat myself up a lot...

But once I'm through the hell that writing and revising a book can be... I'm typically pretty damned confident about it. At least I try to be. At least until the first rejections come in.

Ten Laws of Random Observations About Writing Contests

Having just completed coordinating the preliminary round of the Original Golden Opportunity contest, run by my local RWA chapter, I thought I'd try to come up with a list of ten commandments, no, laws no... more like random observations about writing contests.

Ahem....

1. The entrants with the most elaborate pseudonyms, or who go to the greatest lengths to use only their pseudonyms, are invariably the least experienced and will not do well in the contest. Clearly there are exceptions to this. And I really don't mean to mock. I think back to how choosing a pseudonym was pretty dang high on my priority list when I started writing, cough, seven years ago. Ah, what a naive fool I was. (Okay, now I am mocking, but I'm mocking myself, too, so that makes it okay. Right?)
   


2. The category that produces the most erratic scores and the most violent reactions from both entrants and judges is paranormal. I think it's partly because some of the premises are "out there" and not to everyone's taste. One person's "cool" or "dark" is another person's "ick" or "gross". But I also think there are a lot of moderately crazy people writing in that genre. (Me included.)


3. The judges who were the most keen to judge and were the most insistent that they'd be done on time, when you politely reminded them of the deadline, are the ones who disappear from the face of the planet the second the deadline arrives, never to be heard from again. A curse on you all!!!!
   


4. Some judges will clearly not have read a word of the judges' training. Some will have read it, but clearly not have understood much. (hopefully just a few of each)


5. Entrants (or judges) who don't know how to convert a file to .rtf, or put in a header, or save a file under a different filename, or attach a file to an e-mail, or use paypal, etc... Are likely not to be very experienced writers (or judges). Not that being technically adept and writing necessarily go hand in hand... but if you've had any experience as a writer, if you've ever submitted anything, if you've even exchanged pages with another writer for critique, you've already had to figure this shit out.
   


6. The finalists are, by in large, the most experienced, the most polite, the most thoughtful, and the most organized entrants in terms of dealing with the coordinator -- but some finalists turn into Diva Monsters expecting you to be at their beck and call 24/7 once they final, as if you don't have 25 other finalists revising their entries to deal with, too. Not to mention your own life to live. (No Diva Monsters yet this year! Knock on wood. That one was an observation from last year.)


7. Some people should think before they press send. Each year, I get a few e-mails from contestants who did not do well, who would've been so much better off if they'd taken a day to cool off before telling me how stupid our judges are...


8. Some people cannot follow instructions no matter how you word them. (Entrants and judges.)
   


9. Every year, some great entries fail to final... but, in general, most entries that final are worthy. (But invariably a one or two finalists receive terrible scores from the judge you personally think is the "most competent" of the three judges they were assigned.)
   
   And now for my potentially controversial Observation #10...


10. Judges closest to publication, either who've just sold or are on the cusp of getting that first contract, tend to be the harshest critics.
    I haven't done a scientific analysis of this. But when I started coordinating contests, and therefore reading a lot of score sheets, I started to take a harder look at my own scoring and how tough I was being at times. Here's my rough categorization of judges (totally, TOTALLY generalizing -- and if you judged a contest I coordinated, and think I mean you? I don't. Really.**)
    
    
    • The least experienced writers (on balance) give the highest scores. "Hey, this is as good as my stuff, or better, so it must be great!" Either that, or they mark everyone down for the same things--typically whatever lesson they've just mastered in their own writing--whether it's a problem in the entry or not. Frankly, I prefer these judges to the next type of judge.
    • Some writers, possibly new, possibly who've been at it for a while, but who either haven't worked very hard at their craft, or simply just don't get it, but THINK they know a lot... make a total mess of scoring. They call someone out for "telling" when the examples given sound like "showing" to me. They "correct" correct grammar. They mark entrants down for not describing how something smells on every page. They don't recognize when an entry's cool, or different, because it breaks some "rule" they think needs to be followed. They simply, IMHO, frak it all up.
      
    • Seasoned, multi-published authors tend to (usually) be the most fair and realistic. "This is such a cool idea, or such a strong voice, I need to encourage this writer, and give it a really high score," or "This was clean, well-written, and showed skill, but had no spark. I'll give it a good score, but not a top score", or "this poor writer is so clearly a beginner, I cannot crush them. I'll find something nice to say, give it a lowish but not mean score, and move on. Maybe give a few examples of problems and offer a few tips or good craft books, if I have time."
      
    • Then there are the judges right on the cusp of selling, the ones who are talented and skilled themselves and know enough to separate the great from the good from the ugly. But they might be frustrated they haven't sold yet, and/or are still stinging from bad critiques of their own work in contests. These judges, in my experience, can sometimes be kinda cruel.
      Observing this in other judges gave me pause. Made me realize I'd been guilty of that in the past. Made me work to be kinder, while still telling the truth, on the really weak entries. Made me decide that giving a score below 50% isn't necessary. Below 90% they aren't going to final in most contests, so why rub their nose in the dirt? (But I admit I still have trouble finding nice things to say about weak entries...)

Finally, while I know contests are imperfect and a bit of a crap shoot in terms of which judges you get assigned (and they'd only be completely fair if all entries in a category got the exact same judges, and that's simply not possible, and even then, entrants would be hostage to those judges' likes and dislikes)... Phew. Even, given all that, I have come to believe that contests mirror the publishing business better than most people think.

Generally, skilled writing and storytelling triumphs over the weak, but, just as in "real life", not always. It's all so subjective, and luck is involved. Again, just like subjectivity and luck affect "real life" publishing.

Ultimately, it all comes down to: did the judge (or editor) love what you wrote. And love is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.


** I especially don't mean you, Bitch. Ignore this if you haven't seen 500 Days of Summer. If you have -- wasn't it great???

Speed

No, not the movie.

No, not the drug.

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

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

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

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

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

There's no clear answer here, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multitasking vs One thing at a time

I read somewhere recently that few of us actually multitask very well, in spite of the fact most of us think we do. I also heard that what little ability we have to multitask gets worse as we age, and that scares me.

Why have I been thinking about this? Actually, it was Sinead's last post about writing faster (and my recent snails pace of finished product production). My snail's pace is due to the frustrating time I've been having doing final revisions on my latest opus.

I've always been a multi-tasking kind of person. At least that's how I think of myself. But I'm realizing (either because of age or wisdom or both) that maybe I'd be more effective if I forced my ADD underground and focused on one thing at a time.

And I don't mean doing multiple books at once. I've stopped projects mid-way to start others... but I've never been a write-two-books-at-once kind of gal. I wish. I mean, dealing with one stage of revisions/editing at a time.

Once a book is sold to a publisher, it goes through a few very distinct kinds of edits. Here's how I understand it:

The first is revisions. Which, for popular fiction at least, is mostly about changes to the story. Making sure it's as tight and strong as possible. Depending on the book and the editor, this may go through a few rounds. (Have you ever heard Lisa Garner talk about her revisions for The Perfect Husband?)

Then there are line edits. This is where the words become the issue. The prose. Are there repeating words or phrases, overuse of adverbs or adjectives, repetitive sentence structures. That kind of thing. (I understand depending on the editor, and the extent of revisions needed, these two stages are sometimes combined. I also understand that with more "literary" novels this stage is more rigorous. Fine. I heard one story about an authors and her editor arguing over the choice of one particular word for a few weeks. Lucky publishers have popular fiction to help pay for that kind of anal-retentiveness.)

Then, only then, does it go to the copy editor who worries about continuity and fact checking and punctuation and grammar and do the heroine's eyes change color on page 243.

This is how I understand the process to work, anyway.

So, I'm thinking. Why the hell do I make myself crazy trying to combine all those different kinds of edits into one set of revisions myself? Why do I worry about all of these things on each pass through my manuscript? Why am I fussing over the exact wording of a paragraph until I'm absolutely positive the overall story is working? Do I like wasting time? Making extra work for myself? Subsequently cutting huge swaths of prose I'd tinkered with until I loved it? Am I that worried about my CP's opinion of me that I can only show them stuff I think's nearly finished?

I'm not sure why I never tried to apply this multi-step approach to revisions to my writing process.

And even if I hadn't made the connection earlier, I could have taken a lesson from my CP, friend and fellow drunk writer, Molly, who never cares about line edit things when she's just trying to get the story right.

I've learned to (mostly) ignore grammar and repeated words and poor punctuation in Molly's early drafts, but I'm seriously just realizing now how friggin smart she is. (I knew she was smart about lots of things, just not this.)
What I now realize is how much time I waste trying to polish my work before I show it to my CP's for that initial "does this story work" critique. Or even before I make my own assessment of my story.

Damn, damn, damn.

Can you edit your work for just one thing? Can you ignore the wording and just worry about the story? Or do you multi-task-edit, too?

Writing time.

I met with a friend for coffee one evening this past week. This is a rare occurrence for both of us, as we both have young kids to get fed, bathed and put to bed and by the time this is done, it’s usually 7:30 or eight.

But we carved out the time, which was really nice. Not only to spend some time talking about adult things, but also to discuss the time constraints involved with our lifestyles.

This woman has a full time, busy job, comes home, takes care of her kids and if she’s lucky, the work/mothering portion of her day ends around 9pm. Then she’s back up in the morning at 5:30am.

And she was berating herself for not writing as much as she would like to. My response was ‘when’. By the time her kids are in bed, she’s exhausted and has zero mental energy.
I have a slightly easier schedule than this woman, lunch hours, a couple more hours in the evening, which I waste watching of all things, American Idol. But I’ve sort of rearranged my life to free up these hours. Taken less challenging jobs, I don’t work overtime, and I have a really helpful husband. But not everyone has this luxury.

I know there are tons and tons of working women out there trying to find time to write, some successfully, usually at the expense of sleep, or relaxation time. Others less so, and maybe like this friend of mine, feel guilty at how little they get done. Her wording was ‘fraud’ to think of herself as a writer and to go to our local chapter meetings.

What makes it worse are the stories out there. Women with five kids and a full time job writing five books in two years, full time mothers writing four books a year. I bow to these woman, but man are they setting the bar high for the rest of us.
Hell, all I have to do is look at Molly. Who has written three books in the past year, as well as take care of her infant son full time.
These are amazing examples and while inspirational, can also make the rest of us mortals feel guilty.

That’s a lot of pressure on top of what is already a full day for so many women. Screw guilt. Do what you can, for the love of it, but ignore the stories of what everyone else accomplishes. I’m trying to, not always successfully.

This isn’t a free ride for everyone out there to surf the internet and not write(I’m lecturing myself at this point…must stop surfing the web…), but let’s cut ourselves some slack. We can’t be superwomen, it’s exhausting, mentally draining and how can we be creative when all we can think of is getting another hour of sleep?

Some excuses are valid.

The Secret

A few weeks ago I finally used up a gift certificate I'd been given to a swanky downtown spa. I got a sitter, a fancy coffee and settled in for a manicure, pedicure and a facial. About ten minutes into my relaxing day all about me -- in fact just after I had said the words "how are you?" to the woman providing me with all this relaxation and I'm Not A Waitress toenails - she opened her mouth and spent the next three and a half hours burying me in her horrible life story. Horrible. Little girl dying. Husband leaving. Boyfriend lying. No money. etc.... great -- very relaxing. And then at the end she asks me if I've read The Secret. I haven't -- but I've seen it's cover on Amazon and I thought it looked like a fantastic historical romance and was waiting for Sinead to read it and tell me if I should. So, this lovely woman who has spent three hours talking non-stop about terrible things to me, a stranger, tells me that this book is about putting positive things out in the universe so positive things will come back to her.

She told me in a very honest way that that's what she was doing. She was putting positive energy out there to get positive things in return. I stared at her dumbfounded and told her I had to leave before she finished the facial. I did, however, give her a good tip - but I will NEVER go back.

Anyway - what does this have to do with writing? I think as a profession writing breeds in writers a black hole of negativity. The rejection, the wait time, the constant publication of books you don't think are as good as yours, the dealing with people and personalities that are constantly rude, combative or over-sensitive. This is a tough job and it can wear on us and make the kindest of us turn into !$%holes. And lately, I've been a big one. I've felt miserly and mean-spirited and closeminded - which let me tell you is no state of mind for writing romance novels or novels of any kind. As corny as this is going to sound and I can't beleive I'm writing it but writing is really at it's foundation about sharing. Points of view, entertainment, thoughts on the world, a good laugh, a voracious thrill -- you get the point. And trying to get all that done from a dark little corner of self-obsession and disappointment does not work.

However, I didn't really realize I was in that place until this weekend. Toronto Romance Writers had it's annual critique group meeting -- writers bring in five pages of thier work to be critiqued by a published member of the group and a selection of their peers. I don't need to tell you that this can be awful -- the peers can be cruel, the writer can be combative or obtuse or overly sensitive and I can say the wrong thing and watch the writer crumple a little bit. It's always a crap shoot -- but not this year. NEVER have I had such a group of kind professionals. And watching these people be kind and generous to each other reminded me that I want to be kind and generous, too. In general. In my career.

So last night I met a college student writing a paper on romance novels for a coffee. I was a journalism student once too - and I remember how grateful I was when someone would actually talk to me. And she was grateful and I tried a Vanilla Creme at Starbucks -- win win.

So, this long point to this rambling post is -- I'm shaking it off. The crappy attitude. The overly-critical outlook. And I'm working towards kind and generous. I feel better already.

But really? That picture of Hugh Laurie as the Prince Regent -- yikes!!!

Process – And where does it fit in

You can tell where all of the drunk writers are in their books by our blog posts this week.

Molly has just finished a book(minor revisions aside), Maureen is nearing the end of hers and I’m waist deep in the first draft of mine.

Usually in the first draft I try and shut out everything except writing the story. I don’t edit as I go along, I have an outline I use, but I veer from it often.
Before I write a word, I tend to mull over my ideas. I liken it to coffee percolating. It takes a couple of months before I really have a handle on story arc, who the characters are, and very roughly, what happens. I usually know the beginning and the ending pretty well, but the rest gets sorted out as I write that first draft.

But the truth is, as much as I think I have worked out before I sit down to write, it’s never enough. I’ve tried expanding the planning stage, detailed, scene by scene outlines, but that failed me, and left me scrambling to put a book back together.

But I have learned a ton in the past year. McKee, conferences, story structure, character arc, it’s all there in my head and while I think I apply some of it as I write that first draft, I know I don’t apply all of it.

So what I’m going to do this time is finish the draft, sit back and analyze it. Scene by scene. Does each scene move the story along, subplots, are they well spaced throughout the book and do they relate back to the main plot? Do my characters show multiple facets of their personalities?

I’ve actually never done this before and I’m excited to try it. Sit down and write a brief description of each scene, does it serve the main plot, a subplot, or both? Does it move the story forward, or just repeat information the reader already knows? Are the character’s expectations shifted, or reversed? Is there a gradual, logical buildup to each turning point, but done so in an unexpected way?

I might end up bashing my head into a wall, but I know asking these questions before I had a rough draft would have left me shaking and quivering with fear before I sat down to write anything.

This way, I have something to start with. But it also may horribly backfire and I may have a ton of that rough draft to completely re-write.

It’s a gamble.

How does it work for everyone else? Do you plan before you write anything, after a certain draft, or at all? Would love to hear about other people’s process and what works for them.

Taking A Break

That's right -- I'm taking a break. I'm not doing any writing. In fact, everytime I sit down to read over my mms on hard copy I actually fall asleep (which is sort of disconcerting but I'm ignoring that). My son and I are going to very pretentious and rowdy play groups, we're even going swimming. I had planned on taking a break right after Mick was born, but it didn't work out that way and since I am so ridiculously ahead of schedule and so ridiculously burnt out -- I'm taking a break now. For my sanity. For my writing.

Of course what I feared would happen if I took a break is actually happening -- inertia. But right now, that's okay. It's nice to have a quiet brain for a while instead of constantly rehashing plot points. It's nice not to be reading and rereading what I've written and feeling that terrible roller coaster of "this is great!" "this is the worst thing ever written, ever." It's nice to not be writing.

Because, actually all that craft stuff I learned this year -- all the McKee gems and various other pearls of wisom I've gleaned from Virginia Kantra and Jenny Cruise and Diana Peterfruend, they are actually sinking in.

I have this terrible tendency to go to workshops sick and tired of my current mss. And when the very smart person giving the workshop actually makes my brain flicker in a sudden lightbulb moment I sit there and think "oh god. If I actually do this really smart thing that will make my book better it means I will have to do some work. Some real work. I'll have to rewrite the entire first scene/chapter/kiss/act/black moment/ending." And then, of course, being me. I don't do it. I think -- I'll do it next time and because I'm working so fast and not being smart at all I don't even remember it by the time next time rolls around.

So, right now I'm reading some old notes and the brain is still flickering and I'm taking the time to really figure out what some of these craft gems have to do with my writing. I am taking the time to internalize the stuff I think will make me better. I'm using a little forthought and planning in the hopes that this burn out and frantic chasing my own tail will stop.

I'm sure in two weeks I'll be here saying -- oh my lord! WHy did I stop writing -- I've fallen and I can't get up. But I'll deal with that in two weeks.

Pre-Writing…

Like Molly, I love to hear about each writer’s process. Especially the pre-writing stage, because I think here is where you can see the most variations.

Personally, I’ve played around with stage lately. The one thing that does not vary is what I call the percolation stage… where I mull the idea around in my head, play with the characters, and figure out some key scenes. All without writing a word down.

I create images in my head, conversations, some of which will make it into the book, some won’t. I usually do this while I’m finishing the previous book. This makes me a little schizophrenic, but I can’t help myself.

Once this is done, I’ll sketch out a rough outline of the characters, the plot, the major turning points, and the ending. I have to know the ending.

I’ve even tried detailing the book out scene by scene, with mixed results. A lot of the scenes changed during the first draft, so I’m not sure this helped me at all.

As I figure out my overall process, I know pre-planning is one of my favourite parts of the writing process. I also know it’s something I need to get better at. I keep thinking if I prefect this part, I can soften the pain of editing, or at least cut back on a draft or two.

I’d love to hear about other people’s pre-writing process and what they use that helps them write a better, cleaner first draft of a book.

How Do We Do What We Do?

I love talking about 'process.' Plotter, Pantser, Synopsis, Outline, Character Interviews, Music, No Music, Candles, Goat sacrifice...that one might just be me? How writers get words on paper and day by day get the work done - fascinates me.

And mine has undergone two major changes since I started writing.

I used to be a total write by the seat of my pants kind of writer. No outline, no synopsis, no real idea past happily ever after how things were going to end. I would just write all week and then on Sunday I would head down to whatever bagel shop was close to where ever I was living at the time and I'd edit. With, like most beginning writers, no clue how I was doing everything wrong.

Ah...to be so ignorant and happy with my writing. Those were the days.

During this time I also had a serious Free Cell addiction so I would allow myself one game before getting to work. I'd write most of the day on those days that I could - liberal amounts of Free Cell mixed in - my story blown this way and that by whatever whim took me that day.

Then I sold a book and everything changed. The first book that sold was the first in a series of three books. I had written most of the second by the time the first sold so I finished it and sent that in. Unbelievably my editor called and asked me for a synopsis of the third book so she could put together a two book contract.

A syn-what??
I overhauled my process and turned from a pantser to a devote plotter.
After that my process included a long synopsis - usually 10 -15 pages and then I'd write three chapters and revise the synopsis and then, of course, revise the first three chapters.

I edited as I went - getting to the point that I would have been through a second rewrite before I'd send scenes on to my critique group. I would begin each day of writing going over what I'd written the day before and doing some fairly extensive changes and then I'd do the same thing at the end of the day. I had a lot of time to write in those days.

Then I had a baby. And that changed EVERYTHING.
Now, I can't sit down to the computer without knowing exactly what I'm going to write. I can't go back and reread anything because it takes too much time. I work on a computer not hooked up to the internet and I've stopped listening to music.

So every day I sit down to the computer and vomit onto the screen and never every look back. I have no clue what I'm writing - if any of it is holding together or making sense. I'm told this is how a first draft usually goes by those that write this way (Sinead).

Am I liking this? Not yet. I certainly see the pluses - things are going FAST and the story feels incredibly immediate. But I feel so unplugged from my work and I look forward to reading it for myself.

So - tell me how you guys do what you do? Keep the goat's a secret if you want to.

Discipline…. One simple word.. hard freakin’ concept

I’ve been hearing the word a lot lately. How to get books written - Discipline of course. Sit your butt in the chair and write the damn book.

Makes sense. I agree. But it’s too simple a concept. Too straightforward.

It’s come to mind a lot, because I know, I could be writing more and faster. Hell, I should be writing more. I sit at the computer and spend time surfing the net, emailing friends, when I could be writing my next masterpiece.

I excuse my lack of productivity as a lack of discipline and it is. But, there are other factors at work here. As an unpubb’d writer, I write hoping this book will be the one. Every step of the way, I wonder if this is good enough? Am I mining every last ounce of tension and emotion out of the scene, while still staying true to my voice. Am I writing something different enough, but not too different? Am I getting better with each book, or stagnating?
I sit at the computer with all these thoughts and angst on my shoulders, whispering in my ear. This I guess is where the discipline comes in. Do I ignore them and plow ahead, or do I listen. More times than I’d like to admit, I listen. I let them distract me, convince me my time would be better spent doing anything else.

When I was a new writer, I didn’t have that constant second guessing of my work. I wrote(badly) but enjoyed every moment. Now, I write(better I hope) and fight the self doubt and the worry every step of the way. Where I need discipline is in overcoming this and continuing to put words on the page.

I know I’m not alone in this. A lot of other writers, most even- pubb’d and unpubb’d - sit down with their self doubts as their writing companions.

But some writers don’t have these same doubts. Or at least don’t seem to. Maybe I don’t know them well enough, and I’m sure not naming names here. I’m jealous of these people, deep down hard core green with envy. Not of the bestsellers, or the award winners, but the writers who can sit at the computer and not agonize over whether each scene will be good enough. Writers who can talk glowing of their own work with confidence and enthusiasm, who know they write really well.

Someday, someone will have to tell me their secret. Until then, I’ll struggle along.

I Don't Believe in Writer's Block

I don't.... (in spite of my comment on Molly's post earlier this week claiming to have it... ;-)

Okay, I'm not saying that writers don't have bad days--very bad days. And I'm certainly not saying that Molly's Wile E. Coyote nightmare isn't valid (not to mention freakin' hilarious) or that similar things haven't happened to me--often.

I just think, if you want to be a successful fiction writer, you can't buy into the whole writers' block concept. I'd rather think of it as a bad day, 'cause everyone, in every walk of life, has bad days. Writers ain't so special in that regard.

What writers need are tools to prevent bad days or at least help us get past them. Tools like the myriad of plotting helpers such as outlines, file cards, white boards; like creative excercises; like the books by writers who've analyzed storytelling and distilled it down to hero's journeys, or goal/motivation/conflict or three act plotting. Tools like critique groups, support groups, on-line writers loops, friends. Drunk writer talk. Books on the craft of writing so great they can be visited again and again. Inspirational books on the writer's life, such as "Bird by Bird" or "On Writing".

Mike Myers referred to his craft books as the bridges spanning the gulfs between his creative-day islands. But he doesn't need to produce as much material, as often, as a working, publishing fiction writer needs to. We don't have the luxury of letting oceans, or even large ponds, create gaps between our islands.

To keep the water down, we need our tools. It's these tools, not some mysterious, uncontrollable idea of a muse, that helps us push past the bad days and enables us to start putting coherent-stories-told-well onto pages again. Not that it isn't nice to blame something nebulous like an absent muse, now and again... Maybe, used sparingly, blame transference is simply another tool?

By this time, those of you who know me well, are probably laughing or rolling your eyes. Lord knows I've been guilty of being an angsty writer and have had huge chunks of time when nothing was working, when I was sure I was a talentless hack, or when books dripped from me painfully slowly.

So, maintaining my assertion that writer's block is an illusion, let me tell you what I do believe in...

I believe in procrastination. I believe in self-doubt. I believe in rejection and disappointment and criticism and jealousy, among other self-doubt catalysts like the words of well-meaning friends and family whose ideas of writing and publishing come from the movies. I believe in days when my brain is just fuzzy. I believe in days when I don't feel like writing.

But I don't believe in labeling all those things with a word as solid and immovable as "block". Unless of course I can label my tools "sledgehammers"... Hmmm... Maybe I need to rethink this post.

What it boils down to? Don't wimp out or blame your problems on writer's block. Pick up your tools and smash down whatever's standing in your way. If I know Molly, she has already.

Writer's Block, Mike Myers and the FBI

Now that's a good title. You have no idea where I'm going with this...

I wouldn't say I have writer's block. I have...the 5th Chapter What the ?@*! am I writing about melt down. It always takes me about a week of surfing the net and doing laundry instead of writing to diagnose this problem - you'd think at this point I'd catch on to my own neurotic writing behavior. But no - and yesterday I just figured it out. I'm in the middle of Chapter 5 and I have NO CLUE where I am going. I've been selling on proposal for awhile now, so the first three chapters I've got figured out, but the end of chapter three is a serious cliff. Working on Chapter 4 I'm like Wile E. Coyote - unaware the ground is no longer beneath my feet. But by the middle of chapter five - I've pulled out my sign that says "Yikes" and I'm basically free-falling into crap.

My current WIP is about an undercover FBI agent - I have no idea why I decided to do this. 1. I no nothing about the FBI except from what I learned from Donnie Brasco and 2. I HATE research.

So, I've been puttering around on this WIP thinking that a few episodes of CSI or NYPD Blue might just be all I need. I know the lies we tell ourselves...

But as I figured out that I'm stuck in my Chapter 5 nightmare - I also remembered something I heard Mike Myers say on Inside the Actor's Studio. Now, I used to love Inside The Actor's Studio - every once in a while I would get some real gold on storytelling from the guests. Kevin Costner's was great for that (another reason why I'm always so compelled to defend him). Another great place to get storytelling gold, I have found, is on the commentaries of my favorite movies. Especially, Fight Club, Good Will Hunting and seriously - Field of Dreams - what the Director says about the scenes he cut out of the film is a master class in good editing. I digress...

Anyway Mike Myers said that he does all of his prewriting work - plotting of the movies etc... in the bathtub. And that those days when he is able to sit there and get things figured out are islands. Islands in a general sea of creative dispair. I KNOW we can all releate to that. And then he said he reads a lot of books. For research, for craft, for ideas etc. And those books are bridges to the islands.

Smart.

So...today I ordered some books on the FBI. And a couple more on subjects that interest me but I know nothing about. Because, I never know when I might want to write a romance novel with para-military dolphin trainer hero.

M. Night - Why I worship at the Alter.

With all the hullabaloo about Lady in the Water, which I haven’t seen because I’m too busy, damn it, I thought I’d blog about Signs.

Why? Cause it’s a freakin’ brilliant movie. M. Night at his best. The key sign (heh, sign, get it) for me that this was a great movie was when I watched it the second time and enjoyed it even more. I picked up on the details I’d missed the first time, when I’d been swept up in the story and kept in a state of breathless anticipation.

What about it worked for me? The absolute sparseness of the story. No detail is unimportant. Yet, there are few details that have a screaming hey look at me element to them that so many other movies do.

The tension slowly increases, the acting is great, and it all builds to a climax that’s actually worthy of the story. (unlike The Village, but that’s another blog).

For me the brilliance of this movie is in the details. What seem like character details at the beginning actually become elements of the plot, and vice versa. I try and incorporate this in my own books. The sense that every detail, no matter how small, must have a purpose.

It requires ruthless editing and an ego kept in check. Which judging by Maureen’s and Molly’s posts, the ego has run rampant for Lady.

Which is too bad. Cause when M. Night is in form, there is no finer story teller out there.

Lady in the Water -- In which Maureen disagrees with Molly and rants…

Let the cage match begin....

As I commented on Molly’s post, I too walked out of the theatre thinking… And since I normally love movies that make me think, I suppose that’s something positive. Problem is, I was thinking, “M. Night! Why have you forsaken me? Why have you let your ego get the better of you? Why have you presented your loyal fans with this self-indulgent drivel?”

Like Molly, I’m a huge fan of M. Night. I even loved THE VILLAGE, though many didn’t. I thought UNBREAKABLE was fabulous—not to mention his movies that most people loved—SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS.

What bothered me most about LADY IN THE WATER is how self-indulgent it seemed. He makes all these wink-wink-nod-nods about writing and storytelling, but then does all those things he’s making fun of (i.e. clunky foreshadowing). I think SCREAM was better as storytelling satire than this, and ADAPTATION much smarter. M. Night, it’s been done before and done better.

At first, I thought Bob Balaban's film critic character was a funny, clever idea. Have someone tell Paul Giamatti’s character how stories normally turn out. Even though I didn’t buy that Giamatti’s character would think of asking the critic for help—I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point. Truth? I was actually really smiling through that part. “Oh, M. Night. You are so clever. You’re not going to let me down. All those critics who hated this movie were wrong. Disney was stupid to fire you over this movie. It's cool and smart. Everyone else was too dense to get it.”

But I soon changed my mind… Perhaps I was expecting more from the film critic device? Maybe some unexpected twists? Maybe some misdirection that worked? Maybe something that made me question reality and who was sane or not sane? Something….
While the critic’s predictions were wrong, it was so freakin’ obvious which character was the correct choice in each case. In fact, I’d picked the right one in each case from the start. Huh? It’s not the sisters? Huh? It’s not the kid? Huh? It’s not Giamatti? (He’d already healed her.) And why was that freaky character played by Freddy Rodriguez there if he wasn’t the Guardian? For me, the film critic device made the plot too predictable and took all the magic out of it. (SPOILER: Although I did laugh when he got killed.) If he chose to give two viable choices for each “helper” just to create another plot point (Oh, no, we chose the wrong people!) then shame on him. It was a weak climax for the movie because it was so predictible.

And why did M. Night cast himself in an important role???? He can’t act. He’s not very interesting to look at, and in the hands of a better actor, that role might have added some depth to the film. His character was given a huge burden (changing the world) and then found out about his own death, yet had the same deadpan expression on his face the entire film.
No reaction?
Seriously?
M. Night, cast an ACTOR next time! (And I mean, come on… casting yourself in the role of a writer whose words are going to change civilization for the better???? How self-indulgent and egomaniacal can you get!)

I think that’s where he lost me… After we found out who his character was, I just couldn’t stop rolling my eyes.

One more rant… I think the way Giamatti learned about the story was as contrived as you can get and I thought several characters were stereotypes beyond belief (particularly the Korean woman and her mother). I get that even the “real world” of the movie was supposed to be fairytale-esque, (i.e. freak-show-character who works out one side of his body) but, like I said… M. Night had already lost me.

Maybe his next film will win me back. (If someone lets him make one.) I hope so.

Oh! M. Night...

Husband and I called in the grandmas and went out Friday night for dinner and a movie like real people. Real exhausted people who only talked about why doesn't our kid poop?

But we had been anxiously awaiting this little date night because the annual M. Night summer movie is here - and I am a fan. And despite the terrible reviews and the backstage drama and what seems like some strange ego maniacal posturing by the writer/director/producer -- I am still a fan.

Night has gotten more and more difficult over the years - he requires more and more from his viewing audience. The pace of recent movies is downright glacial. Characters say sometimes ridiculous things just so they can be referenced later. And while we've always had to suspend a reasonable amount of disbelief to invest in the stories (kid's who see dead people, men who are superheros etc...) now we're doing some serious heavy-lifting just to get involved and with Lady In The Water if you can't get past the fact that an eastern fairy tale has erupted from Paul Giamatti's pool and odder still that Giamatti's character doesn't seem to doubt it for a SECOND...well, as the guy ahead of us said... "That might just be the worst movie ever."

But I love it more and more. The more work he requires of me - the more I like him. I love that in the first ten minutes of Signs - no one said anything and yet, we knew everything we needed to know about Mel Gibson's character. I loved the first half of Unbreakable as Bruce Willis SLOOOOOOOWLY figured out his powers. Lady In the Water had a long and sort of clumsy introduction to every character that would play a part in the movie. It was (I thought) very well handled by the greatest shlub actor ever and by a few lovely little moments of humor - which I think Night has gotten more and more skilled with every movie.

I feel like I learn something about writing after every movie of his (the best being Signs - I think Sinead said it - I was drunk but I'm pretty sure she said Signs is a movie that can be watched one Sunday a month and never get old.) Character in particular is something I think he does so well -- with what seems like zero effort. All of his leading men are complex and secretive and trying their hardest and I love who they all unfold in small moments of action. The lesson being - stop trying to explain everything. Show us textured real characters and we'll go with it all the way to village of people hiding out in the middle of the forest. Of course he gets some of the best actors we've got around these days - which helps. And better still his movies just get better the more you watch them. I look forward to a Sunday on the couch with Lady In The Water.

The dialogue in Lady is pretty taxed. And I am not sure why Night is giving himself bigger and bigger roles. Hitchcock never did and he avoided pissing off his fans. But those flaws aside - I was scared. I laughed. I might have cried - but that's easy these days. I walked away thinking -- which is rare during summer blockbuster season.