Thanks again for a great year in books. You really came through for us historical lovers with some really wonderful authors who are doing a fantastic job of rejuvenating the genre.
Please keep up the good work and add a couple of new authors, because it isn’t fair to ask Sherry Thomas, Elizabeth Hoyt and Joanna Bourne to write three amazing books a year.
One will do, if we have a couple more authors.
I’m going to second Molly’s wish for some great contemporary romances. Humour, no humour, I’ll take them any way I can get them.
And not to be too greedy, but a great last ten episodes to Battlestar would be fantastic and thanks for getting us a third season of Friday Night Lights. Is asking for a fourth being way too greedy?
More great movies would be also really nice. A third sequel to the Batman franchise that actually lives up the magic that is the Dark Knight would make my year. Another Wall E and Slumdog Millionaire perhaps?
And lastly, and this is me being really greedy. A burst of inspiration for the current WIP.. It can’t hurt to ask, and it would really help me out.
And that’s it. Hope you had a great Christmas and I know this letter is reaching you late but keep me in mind for Christmas 2009.
Drunk Writer Sinead
Friday, December 26, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Drunk Letters to Santa
Over at All About Romance they're writing Santa letters. And I thought this was such a good idea and the letters that I read were so totally in sync with how I feel about the genre right now - that I am going to start Drunk Letters To Santa.
Hey Santa! I've got a great idea - this year let's get some really good books sold and out into the bookstores. You did a great job in 2008 - you really did, but lets keep the good thing going. Let's see some different books, exciting books. Russian mobsters and hungarian princesses would be fun. Let's stop glutting the market with books from authors who are barely even phoning it in - they're text messaging it in. Let's reward authors pushing the envelopes with fantastic covers that will draw readers in across genres. Marjorie M. Liu has suffered enough with her covers. Let's give Elizabeth Hoyt more time to write really good books, instead of rushing her into these so-so ones. Let's make Madeline Hunter go back to her brilliant unusual historicals. Let's make Laura Kinsale write again. And please Dear Santa - could you light a fire under Susan Elizabeth Phillips?
Also, please get editors and agents excited about contemporary romance again. The straight stuff. No vampires, no dead bodies. Characters working their crap out...with a great cover.
Oh! And lead me to those great new books - across all genres. Across category and ebooks - all of it. Get Rudolph to light those puppies up so we can all see them and buy them and love them.
And lastly, but not leastly - a million dollars. Thanks. Drunk Writer Molly
Hey Santa! I've got a great idea - this year let's get some really good books sold and out into the bookstores. You did a great job in 2008 - you really did, but lets keep the good thing going. Let's see some different books, exciting books. Russian mobsters and hungarian princesses would be fun. Let's stop glutting the market with books from authors who are barely even phoning it in - they're text messaging it in. Let's reward authors pushing the envelopes with fantastic covers that will draw readers in across genres. Marjorie M. Liu has suffered enough with her covers. Let's give Elizabeth Hoyt more time to write really good books, instead of rushing her into these so-so ones. Let's make Madeline Hunter go back to her brilliant unusual historicals. Let's make Laura Kinsale write again. And please Dear Santa - could you light a fire under Susan Elizabeth Phillips?
Also, please get editors and agents excited about contemporary romance again. The straight stuff. No vampires, no dead bodies. Characters working their crap out...with a great cover.
Oh! And lead me to those great new books - across all genres. Across category and ebooks - all of it. Get Rudolph to light those puppies up so we can all see them and buy them and love them.
And lastly, but not leastly - a million dollars. Thanks. Drunk Writer Molly
Friday, December 19, 2008
Doom and Gloom
It’s Friday and close to Christmas and everything in the media is gloomy. Right now, the economic outlook is anything but rosy, so in response, people have radically cut back in their spending, which again, makes the outlook even gloomier.
Publishers are cutting back - people, lines, authors, salary freezes, bookstores will buy less for 2009. Sales forecasts will be reduced, which means bookstores will buy safe, bestselling authors, known commodities.
It’s how I’m reacting in a different retail field.
I read a report in the paper today that over the next two years, the effect on business will be Darwinian. The strong will survive.
Depressed yet?
What will come of it? Recessions are cyclical. They last a couple of years, and then we see growth again. Out of that growth come changes to the way things have happened. It may result in changes to the way publishers operate. Whether the returns system changes, or adapts, how they buy new authors might change.
But the people who love to read will always love to read. And they’ll want new, exciting things, especially as the economy starts to improve. Perhaps this obsession with celebrities that has been such a fixture in our lives will reduce, as people go back to basics over the next two years. We might see a reduction in the number of Joe the Plumper stupid advances.
I know my retail strategy over the next year is a combination of core basics, the comfort buy and the new, exciting items that the customer might not have. So even in the next two years, there still might be room for new authors who bring to the table something new and exciting, something different.
I hope so.
But in the end, it’s impossible to predict.
But for Christmas, my friends and family are getting books as gifts.
Publishers are cutting back - people, lines, authors, salary freezes, bookstores will buy less for 2009. Sales forecasts will be reduced, which means bookstores will buy safe, bestselling authors, known commodities.
It’s how I’m reacting in a different retail field.
I read a report in the paper today that over the next two years, the effect on business will be Darwinian. The strong will survive.
Depressed yet?
What will come of it? Recessions are cyclical. They last a couple of years, and then we see growth again. Out of that growth come changes to the way things have happened. It may result in changes to the way publishers operate. Whether the returns system changes, or adapts, how they buy new authors might change.
But the people who love to read will always love to read. And they’ll want new, exciting things, especially as the economy starts to improve. Perhaps this obsession with celebrities that has been such a fixture in our lives will reduce, as people go back to basics over the next two years. We might see a reduction in the number of Joe the Plumper stupid advances.
I know my retail strategy over the next year is a combination of core basics, the comfort buy and the new, exciting items that the customer might not have. So even in the next two years, there still might be room for new authors who bring to the table something new and exciting, something different.
I hope so.
But in the end, it’s impossible to predict.
But for Christmas, my friends and family are getting books as gifts.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
To Return or not To Return
There have been many recent calls for reform in the publishing industry and one currently popular suggestion is to eliminate the consignment system. (The system where booksellers can return any unsold books back to the publishers for credit.) In fact Borders has agreed to a deal with one imprint (Harper Studio) to accept books with no right of return, but they are buying the books at a deep, deep discount. (And I'm quite sure this discount will be pushed down to the writers and decrease their royalties. In fact, my quick google search reminded me this is the same imprint that announced it was no longer paying advances to authors...)
I'm not enough of an industry insider to pretend I can predict what will happen if the consignment system is eliminated in publishing... But I do know business, and I do think it might not be as great for authors and agents and editors as many seem to think it will be. So, I'd like to present the contrarian case. Ahem. **Maureen clears her throat and braces for rotten tomatoes.**
Yes, the consignment system is antiquated. It's true that these days very few products are still sold on consignment. But the ones that are (music, books, art, designer fashion) are in areas where the items are not only discretionary (luxuries) they're in areas where it's more difficult to predict what consumers will buy and therefore the seller (publisher in this case) agrees to accept a lot of the risk along with the retailer (book store). (It might interest people to know that many high end items in department stores, e.g. designer clothes and bags and shoes, are also often on consignment or even further, the designer is actually renting a small space in the store and giving the store a cut of the sales price when/if items are sold. Seamless to the consumer, but the retailer is NOT taking all the risk that Dolce and Gabanna will be a big hit with their new line, or that all those pairs of thousand dollar Manolos will sell.)
Yes, consignment hurts publishers and authors. (Because they're taking most of the risk.) From the publishers' stand point, the consignment system makes cash flow planning tough, if not impossible, because they never know when books are going to come sailing back in the door for credit. From what I've read, this hit a record in October with returns far exceeding new orders and caused a huge panic.
And trickling down, the consignment system sucks for authors, because the publishers have all the power in that relationship, and to guard against paying authors royalties on books that then get returned, they maximize reserves on returns and make royalty statements difficult to understand to hide what they're doing. And take as long, as they possibly can justify, to pay authors their royalties.
But... I fear that bookstores will change A LOT if this system goes. Will it be better for authors? I'm not so sure.
If I were a bookseller, and I couldn't return the books I ordered to sit on my shelves, I'd be WAY more conservative about how many and which books I carried. I'd buy fewer titles and fewer copies of those fewer titles. And I'd stick mostly to the already proven best-selling authors, and cook books, and celebrity tell-alls, and picture books with kittens and puppies.
Bookstores, where one can browse and discover new authors, might become a thing of the past. (But maybe few readers do this anyway? Maybe most readers only ever buy books they find on the front tables?)
This conservatism will trickle down. If consignment goes, publishers will get way more conservative about the choices they make. (As if they weren't conservative enough already!) If aspiring authors are finding it hard to get a publisher to take a risk on them now, imagine if the publishers aren't sure whether ANY bookstores will stock a debut author's book once they've spent money on an advance, artwork,design, editing, printing, etc.. Right now, the big houses can be fairly assured that the big chains (at least) will take a few copies of every new title.
But even though I've been arguing the contrarian case here, clearly the current system's broken. Cash flow aside, it's a horrible environmental problem, with tons of books being published and shipped that are subsequently trashed.
I think until print-on-demand (printed and bound at the book stores) and/or digital books are more viable and popular formats than they are now... authors (especially debut and mid-list authors) might have a rude awakening if the industry gets rid of the consignment system. (And I really do worry about copyright infringement in the digital world. I think it will be worse for authors than musicians. We can't make money writing (or even reading) our books live at big stadium concerts or in bars, now can we? Many otherwise-honest people I know don't balk at illegal downloads of music and movies and TV shows. Why would books be any different? But that's veering off into a whole other topic. So I'll save that for another day.)
I know I'm going against the grain here... What do you think? Should the return system in publishing be dumped?
I'm not enough of an industry insider to pretend I can predict what will happen if the consignment system is eliminated in publishing... But I do know business, and I do think it might not be as great for authors and agents and editors as many seem to think it will be. So, I'd like to present the contrarian case. Ahem. **Maureen clears her throat and braces for rotten tomatoes.**
Yes, the consignment system is antiquated. It's true that these days very few products are still sold on consignment. But the ones that are (music, books, art, designer fashion) are in areas where the items are not only discretionary (luxuries) they're in areas where it's more difficult to predict what consumers will buy and therefore the seller (publisher in this case) agrees to accept a lot of the risk along with the retailer (book store). (It might interest people to know that many high end items in department stores, e.g. designer clothes and bags and shoes, are also often on consignment or even further, the designer is actually renting a small space in the store and giving the store a cut of the sales price when/if items are sold. Seamless to the consumer, but the retailer is NOT taking all the risk that Dolce and Gabanna will be a big hit with their new line, or that all those pairs of thousand dollar Manolos will sell.)
Yes, consignment hurts publishers and authors. (Because they're taking most of the risk.) From the publishers' stand point, the consignment system makes cash flow planning tough, if not impossible, because they never know when books are going to come sailing back in the door for credit. From what I've read, this hit a record in October with returns far exceeding new orders and caused a huge panic.
And trickling down, the consignment system sucks for authors, because the publishers have all the power in that relationship, and to guard against paying authors royalties on books that then get returned, they maximize reserves on returns and make royalty statements difficult to understand to hide what they're doing. And take as long, as they possibly can justify, to pay authors their royalties.
But... I fear that bookstores will change A LOT if this system goes. Will it be better for authors? I'm not so sure.
If I were a bookseller, and I couldn't return the books I ordered to sit on my shelves, I'd be WAY more conservative about how many and which books I carried. I'd buy fewer titles and fewer copies of those fewer titles. And I'd stick mostly to the already proven best-selling authors, and cook books, and celebrity tell-alls, and picture books with kittens and puppies.
Bookstores, where one can browse and discover new authors, might become a thing of the past. (But maybe few readers do this anyway? Maybe most readers only ever buy books they find on the front tables?)
This conservatism will trickle down. If consignment goes, publishers will get way more conservative about the choices they make. (As if they weren't conservative enough already!) If aspiring authors are finding it hard to get a publisher to take a risk on them now, imagine if the publishers aren't sure whether ANY bookstores will stock a debut author's book once they've spent money on an advance, artwork,design, editing, printing, etc.. Right now, the big houses can be fairly assured that the big chains (at least) will take a few copies of every new title.
But even though I've been arguing the contrarian case here, clearly the current system's broken. Cash flow aside, it's a horrible environmental problem, with tons of books being published and shipped that are subsequently trashed.
I think until print-on-demand (printed and bound at the book stores) and/or digital books are more viable and popular formats than they are now... authors (especially debut and mid-list authors) might have a rude awakening if the industry gets rid of the consignment system. (And I really do worry about copyright infringement in the digital world. I think it will be worse for authors than musicians. We can't make money writing (or even reading) our books live at big stadium concerts or in bars, now can we? Many otherwise-honest people I know don't balk at illegal downloads of music and movies and TV shows. Why would books be any different? But that's veering off into a whole other topic. So I'll save that for another day.)
I know I'm going against the grain here... What do you think? Should the return system in publishing be dumped?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Everything Changes in Execution
So, we're trying this whole-work-stuff-out-ahead-of-time process. Sinead and Maureen have both had to do big rewrites and I'm sure I'm staring down a big rewrite in about three weeks time. Another member of our critique group is going to be starting her current WIP almost from scratch despite having already done a big synopsis. A synopsis we all read. A synopsis that sounded really good.
But this is what I realized - everything changes in execution. Conflict that fills up a synopsis, might not fill up a manuscript. Characters holding down plot in a synopsis aren't weighty enough in the pages. They need to change and grow and that starts to effect more than what was planned. Fantastic lightening bolts hit us in the shower and we tweak something while writing that has a gigantic butterfly effect in chapter 20 that we don't see until we get to chapter 20.
The problem with writing these big opus synopsis is that we think all the blood, sweat and tears we put into them are all the blood sweat and tears we're going to need. But writing is like my dog -- she never gets tired of pats and scratches and playing catch. The more I pat and scratch and throw a ball -- the more she needs. Which is why I hate my dog. And it's sort of why I hate writing - those days that I hate it -- it's so damn hard.
But I think what these big mighty synopsis do is they allow us to make changes that make the book not simply better - but bigger. Broader. It allows us to execute more fully our design for the book. It does a better job of matching what's on the page to the kind of book we want to write. So, this is my new change -- my new plan -- I'm going to gleefully accept these changes. I am going to expect them and then embrace them, like our critique group member did tonight -- because it makes the books better and it makes us better as writers.
But this is what I realized - everything changes in execution. Conflict that fills up a synopsis, might not fill up a manuscript. Characters holding down plot in a synopsis aren't weighty enough in the pages. They need to change and grow and that starts to effect more than what was planned. Fantastic lightening bolts hit us in the shower and we tweak something while writing that has a gigantic butterfly effect in chapter 20 that we don't see until we get to chapter 20.
The problem with writing these big opus synopsis is that we think all the blood, sweat and tears we put into them are all the blood sweat and tears we're going to need. But writing is like my dog -- she never gets tired of pats and scratches and playing catch. The more I pat and scratch and throw a ball -- the more she needs. Which is why I hate my dog. And it's sort of why I hate writing - those days that I hate it -- it's so damn hard.
But I think what these big mighty synopsis do is they allow us to make changes that make the book not simply better - but bigger. Broader. It allows us to execute more fully our design for the book. It does a better job of matching what's on the page to the kind of book we want to write. So, this is my new change -- my new plan -- I'm going to gleefully accept these changes. I am going to expect them and then embrace them, like our critique group member did tonight -- because it makes the books better and it makes us better as writers.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
No Clue
How do I keep missing Wednesday? The sad thing is that Wed is also garbage day for me, so there are worse implications than missing my DWT blog day -- well smellier implications, anyway.
The NYT opinion piece, "Typing Without a Clue", by Timothy Egan has generated a lot of discussion on writers' loops and forums this week.
I've been reading these discussions with interest, but have stayed out of them. Partly because I was trying to decide how I really felt about it, and partly because I'm finally learning to keep my mouth shut occasionally. But clearly I haven't really learned, since I've decided to blog about it here.
First, I loved, loved, loved Timothy Egan's rant. But that's what it was. A rant.
Mr. Egan's ire was directed at publishers giving huge advances to the likes of "Joe the Plumber", especially at a time when publishing houses are cutting back on acquisitions and/or advances to actual writers.
I feel Mr. Egan's pain. (And that of the many writers who've agreed with his piece.) But celebrity book deals have never really bothered me. To me, they don't have anything to do with what I'm doing, so why should I care? Yes, they are produced and distributed by the same companies as I'm targeting with my work, but they are such a different product I don't see what they have to do with what I do.
The line blurs when celebrities write fiction... but even then, those celebrities have something I simply can't offer a publisher -- fame and a ready-made audience. So I can't really blame a publisher for choosing a celebrity's book over mine, even if I think my book is better. (And I'm someone who got rejections citing a celebrity's wife's book with a similar premise to mine... One that's now a TV series... I could be bitter about that. But I'm not. It's just a bummer. Bad luck/timing on my part. And I'd have needed a crystal ball to know that this woman was writing her book at the same time I was.)
I also don't buy the argument that the money the publishers are throwing at these deals is necessarily eating into the available pot of money they have to offer fiction (or non-celebrity non-fiction) writers.
I don't buy this for a couple of reasons. First, publishing houses are businesses and aren't run by stupid people. Their motive is to make money, not ensure as many struggling writers as possible get published.
Any time they pay a big advance, or throw a lot of marketing dollars behind a book, they're taking a risk, making a bet that enough consumers will buy the book to more than cover the money they've laid down. Would I love them to make a big bet on me? You betcha. But clearly someone thought that the chance that they'd make money on a Joe the Plumber book was worth the risk of tossing a big advance at the guy. Yes, I find it a little hard to believe many people will buy such a book. But since I'm not a top decision maker at a publisher, it wasn't my call, and clearly someone else thinks this book has potential as a money maker.
The second reason I don't buy into (or like) the argument that the publishers should be holding back on celebrity contracts and allocating advances and marketing dollars to "worthy" books and "real writers"... is that I think it's a slippery slope from that kind of argument to saying that publishers shouldn't be paying advances or giving contracts to writers of genre or commercial fiction, but should be saving their money only for the "serious literature."
To that point, here's what Mr. Egan said:
Yes, it's like a slap in the face to hear that someone, who will undoubtedly require a ghost writer and is unlikely to have anything meaningful to say in any case, has received a multi-million dollar publishing contract, while so many of us are toiling away, working really hard to learn and perfect our craft, but I think griping about it is like complaining that apples are more popular than oranges. It just so happens that the same company produces both apples and oranges. And it's for the people running these companies to decide whether their resources are better spent promoting apples or oranges this year. (Even if it's clear to many of us that the apples are rotten.)
The NYT opinion piece, "Typing Without a Clue", by Timothy Egan has generated a lot of discussion on writers' loops and forums this week.
I've been reading these discussions with interest, but have stayed out of them. Partly because I was trying to decide how I really felt about it, and partly because I'm finally learning to keep my mouth shut occasionally. But clearly I haven't really learned, since I've decided to blog about it here.
First, I loved, loved, loved Timothy Egan's rant. But that's what it was. A rant.
Mr. Egan's ire was directed at publishers giving huge advances to the likes of "Joe the Plumber", especially at a time when publishing houses are cutting back on acquisitions and/or advances to actual writers.
I feel Mr. Egan's pain. (And that of the many writers who've agreed with his piece.) But celebrity book deals have never really bothered me. To me, they don't have anything to do with what I'm doing, so why should I care? Yes, they are produced and distributed by the same companies as I'm targeting with my work, but they are such a different product I don't see what they have to do with what I do.
The line blurs when celebrities write fiction... but even then, those celebrities have something I simply can't offer a publisher -- fame and a ready-made audience. So I can't really blame a publisher for choosing a celebrity's book over mine, even if I think my book is better. (And I'm someone who got rejections citing a celebrity's wife's book with a similar premise to mine... One that's now a TV series... I could be bitter about that. But I'm not. It's just a bummer. Bad luck/timing on my part. And I'd have needed a crystal ball to know that this woman was writing her book at the same time I was.)
I also don't buy the argument that the money the publishers are throwing at these deals is necessarily eating into the available pot of money they have to offer fiction (or non-celebrity non-fiction) writers.
I don't buy this for a couple of reasons. First, publishing houses are businesses and aren't run by stupid people. Their motive is to make money, not ensure as many struggling writers as possible get published.
Any time they pay a big advance, or throw a lot of marketing dollars behind a book, they're taking a risk, making a bet that enough consumers will buy the book to more than cover the money they've laid down. Would I love them to make a big bet on me? You betcha. But clearly someone thought that the chance that they'd make money on a Joe the Plumber book was worth the risk of tossing a big advance at the guy. Yes, I find it a little hard to believe many people will buy such a book. But since I'm not a top decision maker at a publisher, it wasn't my call, and clearly someone else thinks this book has potential as a money maker.
The second reason I don't buy into (or like) the argument that the publishers should be holding back on celebrity contracts and allocating advances and marketing dollars to "worthy" books and "real writers"... is that I think it's a slippery slope from that kind of argument to saying that publishers shouldn't be paying advances or giving contracts to writers of genre or commercial fiction, but should be saving their money only for the "serious literature."
To that point, here's what Mr. Egan said:
My issue is: who gets to define what's garbage? I have a sneaking feeling Mr. Egan would include romance and chick lit and thrillers and sci fi (etc.) in his garbage pail, too..."For the others — you friends of celebrities penning cookbooks, you train wrecks just out of rehab, you politicians with an agent but no talent — stop soaking up precious advance money.
"I know: publishers say they print garbage so that real literature, which seldom makes any money, can find its way into print. True, to a point. But some of them print garbage so they can buy more garbage."
Yes, it's like a slap in the face to hear that someone, who will undoubtedly require a ghost writer and is unlikely to have anything meaningful to say in any case, has received a multi-million dollar publishing contract, while so many of us are toiling away, working really hard to learn and perfect our craft, but I think griping about it is like complaining that apples are more popular than oranges. It just so happens that the same company produces both apples and oranges. And it's for the people running these companies to decide whether their resources are better spent promoting apples or oranges this year. (Even if it's clear to many of us that the apples are rotten.)
Monday, December 08, 2008
Kid Movies and Wall-E
My son is finally off Toopie and Binoo -- hooray! Not that it wasn't cute or charming, but I've watched more hours of that little rat and his whatever it is friend than anyone needs to.
And joy of joys - Mick has moved on to movies. (Not that we don't encourage playing and exercise but there is a time and a place for some chilling out in front of the television.)
I have been excited about these movie watching days since getting pregnant with him. I can not wait to sit down and watch ET with him, and Star Wars. I am as excited about this as I am about him learning to read and wanting to read.
I love kid movies. And they've gotten so sophisticated and smart recently with those brainiacs at Pixar upping the bar for everyone involved in the industry.
We just recently watched Wall-E.
Best movie of the year by far. No question. Not that I've seen any other ones, but you'd have to go a long way to get better than this movie. It's visually stunning. Artful. There is no dialogue for almost forty minutes or something crazy - and yet my ADHD kid is totally riveted by this little robots earnest squeaks. And they are earnest and funny and sincere - there's more character revealed in the mechanical noises than in anything on television these days.
The story is fabulous with great twists and reversals of expectation. Seriously, I loved this movie and since it's the end of the year and about time I start thinking about those kinds of things - I will say it - best movie, for me, of the year.
And joy of joys - Mick has moved on to movies. (Not that we don't encourage playing and exercise but there is a time and a place for some chilling out in front of the television.)
I have been excited about these movie watching days since getting pregnant with him. I can not wait to sit down and watch ET with him, and Star Wars. I am as excited about this as I am about him learning to read and wanting to read.
I love kid movies. And they've gotten so sophisticated and smart recently with those brainiacs at Pixar upping the bar for everyone involved in the industry.
We just recently watched Wall-E.
Best movie of the year by far. No question. Not that I've seen any other ones, but you'd have to go a long way to get better than this movie. It's visually stunning. Artful. There is no dialogue for almost forty minutes or something crazy - and yet my ADHD kid is totally riveted by this little robots earnest squeaks. And they are earnest and funny and sincere - there's more character revealed in the mechanical noises than in anything on television these days.
The story is fabulous with great twists and reversals of expectation. Seriously, I loved this movie and since it's the end of the year and about time I start thinking about those kinds of things - I will say it - best movie, for me, of the year.
Friday, December 05, 2008
The magic of mystery
It’s been a really good two weeks for inspiration for me. I’ve just finished the first season of Mad Men, which deserves all the acclaim. It’s so good, and in a really subtle way.
It introduces several characters in the first show and proceeds to show us them interacting with each other, but aside from the main character, tells us nothing about their back story throughout the entire season.
We know their actions, and can only guess at their motivations, which might annoy some people, but for me I found it fascinating and I cannot wait to learn more about these people. Had the writers told me everything about them in the first few episodes, the show would have lost its appeal for me. Instead they trusted in their plot and dialogue and how they showed the characters to do the work for them.
Same with the last couple of romances I’ve read. Another Marjorie M. Liu, that Molly loaned to me. She does mystery really well. She gives us very little backstory, and explanation, just feeds it into the story in little bits. She lets us see the characters for themselves, good and bad, form our opinions, basically shows us who they are while they are dealing with life and death crises.
Basically she is showing, not telling.
For me, the mystery is why I get pulled through a book. It can be character mystery, my need to know why a character acts the way they do. The mystery of when the hero and heroine get together, and how. Or the more obvious mystery of who is the villain.
The key to this is giving the reader the answer in a way they did not predict. Because if the reader predicts how things are going to happen, then where is the mystery?
The real challenge in writing a romance is not bringing the hero and heroine together, but doing it in a way that surprises and delights the reader.
Sounds so easy… doesn’t it?
It introduces several characters in the first show and proceeds to show us them interacting with each other, but aside from the main character, tells us nothing about their back story throughout the entire season.
We know their actions, and can only guess at their motivations, which might annoy some people, but for me I found it fascinating and I cannot wait to learn more about these people. Had the writers told me everything about them in the first few episodes, the show would have lost its appeal for me. Instead they trusted in their plot and dialogue and how they showed the characters to do the work for them.
Same with the last couple of romances I’ve read. Another Marjorie M. Liu, that Molly loaned to me. She does mystery really well. She gives us very little backstory, and explanation, just feeds it into the story in little bits. She lets us see the characters for themselves, good and bad, form our opinions, basically shows us who they are while they are dealing with life and death crises.
Basically she is showing, not telling.
For me, the mystery is why I get pulled through a book. It can be character mystery, my need to know why a character acts the way they do. The mystery of when the hero and heroine get together, and how. Or the more obvious mystery of who is the villain.
The key to this is giving the reader the answer in a way they did not predict. Because if the reader predicts how things are going to happen, then where is the mystery?
The real challenge in writing a romance is not bringing the hero and heroine together, but doing it in a way that surprises and delights the reader.
Sounds so easy… doesn’t it?
Monday, December 01, 2008
What I Think About While Writing
Food, mostly.
I am home from Thanksgiving and while this year we did not deep fat fry the bird, my cousin, the devious Alyssa made two desserts - a dump cake (as good as it sounds) and that Hello Dolly bar, but she made a whole pie of it. Damn her! oh Damn her!
But Sinead's post made me think - of all the stuff we are supposed to remember to do and all the incredible things we've learned - what is the one thing I've managed to keep front and center in my head?
This is me every day:
Did I just kill the conflict? I did, didn't I? Let me...yep. Killed it. STOP KILLING THE CONFLICT!
Sadly, the other thing I obsess about while writing is the number of sentences I start with pronouns. That's it. All the gems and gold and keys to the kingdom I've been given I think about how many sentences start with 'he.'
Sad. But the conflict thing - that's helped. It's taken me a lot of books to make that number one and I think it's made my writing and my process more interesting. Of course, some dump cake would do that too...
I am home from Thanksgiving and while this year we did not deep fat fry the bird, my cousin, the devious Alyssa made two desserts - a dump cake (as good as it sounds) and that Hello Dolly bar, but she made a whole pie of it. Damn her! oh Damn her!
But Sinead's post made me think - of all the stuff we are supposed to remember to do and all the incredible things we've learned - what is the one thing I've managed to keep front and center in my head?
This is me every day:
Did I just kill the conflict? I did, didn't I? Let me...yep. Killed it. STOP KILLING THE CONFLICT!
Sadly, the other thing I obsess about while writing is the number of sentences I start with pronouns. That's it. All the gems and gold and keys to the kingdom I've been given I think about how many sentences start with 'he.'
Sad. But the conflict thing - that's helped. It's taken me a lot of books to make that number one and I think it's made my writing and my process more interesting. Of course, some dump cake would do that too...
Friday, November 28, 2008
All my poor little brain can manage
There is so much information out there on writing and the best of it is gold. Solid gold. Molly calls it handing us the keys to the kingdom and in many ways it is.
The scene and sequel description Maureen blogged about on Wednesday, Story, by Robert McKee, On Writing by Stephen King and countless other guides to writing fiction out there.
They help us refine, cut, and edit, they guide us where to start the story, how to increase tension and make every word count.
And they are really useful.
But hard to incorporate while writing. I know, having read the above, attended workshops, talked about all of the above with my fellow Drunk Writers, I’m not thinking about them when I’m writing. Sometimes when I’m editing, usually when I run into problems, but otherwise, I hope they’ve seeped into my brain, because most of the time they just aren't top of mind.
There are two things I’ve been thinking in my head when writing this current draft. The first is my new favourite quote from JR Ward. Plots are like sharks, they keep moving forward, or they die.
Friggin’ great, because it does not allow me to repeat myself, or get lazy and rely on a stagnant plot.
The second and it’s a constant drumbeat in my head, is ‘up the drama’.
The up the drama is really important for me, because it doesn’t allow me to make choices that reduce tension, or conflict, and always reminds me to make the choice that creates the most drama. Maybe not the easiest choice and sometimes the choice that paints me into a corner, but 9 times out of 10, it doesn’t lead me astray.
And even with this in my head, as I look over scenes to send to my critique group I find scenarios where I could still up the drama, choices I’ve made that cop out in some way.
For a first and second draft these two mantras are all I can have in my head except for my characters and dialogue and action.
There just isn’t room for more right now.
The scene and sequel description Maureen blogged about on Wednesday, Story, by Robert McKee, On Writing by Stephen King and countless other guides to writing fiction out there.
They help us refine, cut, and edit, they guide us where to start the story, how to increase tension and make every word count.
And they are really useful.
But hard to incorporate while writing. I know, having read the above, attended workshops, talked about all of the above with my fellow Drunk Writers, I’m not thinking about them when I’m writing. Sometimes when I’m editing, usually when I run into problems, but otherwise, I hope they’ve seeped into my brain, because most of the time they just aren't top of mind.
There are two things I’ve been thinking in my head when writing this current draft. The first is my new favourite quote from JR Ward. Plots are like sharks, they keep moving forward, or they die.
Friggin’ great, because it does not allow me to repeat myself, or get lazy and rely on a stagnant plot.
The second and it’s a constant drumbeat in my head, is ‘up the drama’.
The up the drama is really important for me, because it doesn’t allow me to make choices that reduce tension, or conflict, and always reminds me to make the choice that creates the most drama. Maybe not the easiest choice and sometimes the choice that paints me into a corner, but 9 times out of 10, it doesn’t lead me astray.
And even with this in my head, as I look over scenes to send to my critique group I find scenarios where I could still up the drama, choices I’ve made that cop out in some way.
For a first and second draft these two mantras are all I can have in my head except for my characters and dialogue and action.
There just isn’t room for more right now.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Scene and Sequel
Molly's great post on Monday reminded me of a writing concept/technique I find really useful -- when I remember to think of it, that is. Scene and sequel.
The first few times I heard this concept explained at workshops, I didn't get it. (And frankly, I question whether the people presenting the topic got it, either.) The way they explained it, it sounded like: write a great scene, then write a boring scene.
In fact, I've heard writers use concept of scene and sequel to justify dull, narrative-reflection scenes that go nowhere -- claiming those reflection scenes are the sequels. But I think they're misinterpreting what scene/sequel means. It's usually plain lazy, and/or poor storytelling to write a scene where a character merely thinks about what happened in the previous scene.
But writers often do this. I know I have. In weaker romances -- certainly in many contest entries I've judged -- we often see a scene the hero's POV, followed by one in the heroine's POV, where all she does is think about what just happened (or vice versa). So basically, there's one scene where stuff happens, followed by one where nothing happens -- we just get to see it replayed from the other character's POV. "Wow, I couldn't believe when he did that. It made me feel this."
People. This is not what scene and sequel means. I don't think it's what a resting scene means either. You can vary the pacing and still have sh*t happen.
The (brilliant, I think) idea of scene and sequel was first introduced by Dwight Swain in his book Techniques of the Selling Writer. (Which, full disclosure, although I do own a copy, I still haven't read. But I like to rant about the ideas in this book as if I have read it. Deal with it.)
On the other hand, I have read this great article.
Crib notes from the article:
The basic scene and sequel structure:
To apply this structure to a crafting a scene, the writer needs to understand first, whether it's a scene or a sequel, and then:
- What does my character want / or what disaster/problem does my character have do deal with;
- What's keeping my character from getting what they want / or what choice (hopefully a lesser of two evils choice) does my character have to make; and then
- What happens to throw my character for a loop / or what does my character decide to do so that he/she can move on from the last disaster (and continue to head toward their overall main story goal.)
The problem in application, I think, is people getting lazy with the reaction, dilemma, decision part. Either they make it all reflective narrative, when it could be action and dialogue showing the character reacting, facing a choice, and making a decision. Or -- and I think this is may be a more common problem -- the "scene" scenes don't end in real disasters. So the we read through a scene that ends anti-climatically, or where a problem was already resolved, or the conflict defused, then we have to read through a scene where the character reacts to this not-dramatic-enough event, while gazing at his/her navel, (or worse, looking at the scenery or what secondary characters are up to), and it all gets very dull, very fast. There's not enough to pull the reader along.
I also think it's a slightly more complicated structure to use in books written with two main characters, as romances are... Sometimes one scene can be a scene for the hero and a sequel for the heroine simultaneously (or vice versa). But that's why romance writers have to work really hard to write great books.
I don't pretend to use this scene/sequel structure (or even think about it) all the time. But when I have thought about it before writing a scene, or when diagnosing problems in my work or that of my critique partners, I've found it to be extremely helpful.
In the end, it all comes down to understanding motivation and conflict... but the scene/sequel structure really helps keep you focused on motivation and conflict and to keep the pace moving.
The first few times I heard this concept explained at workshops, I didn't get it. (And frankly, I question whether the people presenting the topic got it, either.) The way they explained it, it sounded like: write a great scene, then write a boring scene.
In fact, I've heard writers use concept of scene and sequel to justify dull, narrative-reflection scenes that go nowhere -- claiming those reflection scenes are the sequels. But I think they're misinterpreting what scene/sequel means. It's usually plain lazy, and/or poor storytelling to write a scene where a character merely thinks about what happened in the previous scene.
But writers often do this. I know I have. In weaker romances -- certainly in many contest entries I've judged -- we often see a scene the hero's POV, followed by one in the heroine's POV, where all she does is think about what just happened (or vice versa). So basically, there's one scene where stuff happens, followed by one where nothing happens -- we just get to see it replayed from the other character's POV. "Wow, I couldn't believe when he did that. It made me feel this."
People. This is not what scene and sequel means. I don't think it's what a resting scene means either. You can vary the pacing and still have sh*t happen.
The (brilliant, I think) idea of scene and sequel was first introduced by Dwight Swain in his book Techniques of the Selling Writer. (Which, full disclosure, although I do own a copy, I still haven't read. But I like to rant about the ideas in this book as if I have read it. Deal with it.)
On the other hand, I have read this great article.
Crib notes from the article:
The basic scene and sequel structure:
- Scene: Goal, Conflict, Disaster
- Sequel: Reaction, Dilemma, Decision
To apply this structure to a crafting a scene, the writer needs to understand first, whether it's a scene or a sequel, and then:
- What does my character want / or what disaster/problem does my character have do deal with;
- What's keeping my character from getting what they want / or what choice (hopefully a lesser of two evils choice) does my character have to make; and then
- What happens to throw my character for a loop / or what does my character decide to do so that he/she can move on from the last disaster (and continue to head toward their overall main story goal.)
The problem in application, I think, is people getting lazy with the reaction, dilemma, decision part. Either they make it all reflective narrative, when it could be action and dialogue showing the character reacting, facing a choice, and making a decision. Or -- and I think this is may be a more common problem -- the "scene" scenes don't end in real disasters. So the we read through a scene that ends anti-climatically, or where a problem was already resolved, or the conflict defused, then we have to read through a scene where the character reacts to this not-dramatic-enough event, while gazing at his/her navel, (or worse, looking at the scenery or what secondary characters are up to), and it all gets very dull, very fast. There's not enough to pull the reader along.
I also think it's a slightly more complicated structure to use in books written with two main characters, as romances are... Sometimes one scene can be a scene for the hero and a sequel for the heroine simultaneously (or vice versa). But that's why romance writers have to work really hard to write great books.
I don't pretend to use this scene/sequel structure (or even think about it) all the time. But when I have thought about it before writing a scene, or when diagnosing problems in my work or that of my critique partners, I've found it to be extremely helpful.
In the end, it all comes down to understanding motivation and conflict... but the scene/sequel structure really helps keep you focused on motivation and conflict and to keep the pace moving.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Killing Romance Cliches
I think we all want to kill the romance cliches. The romance cliches give us a bad name. Sinead did a great post on killing cliched characters and while some of the tried and true plots will live on (my December book is a secret baby book and I tell you - it was a blast to write. Go figure.) what really needs to killed and killed dead is the cliched writing. The throbbing and heaving, if you know what I mean. But more than that - bigger than that - we need to look hard at those cliched scenes. And right now I'm looking hard at the NARRATIVE RATIONALIZATION scene. Lovin' all caps.
When Sinead gave us her plan to not write the transition scenes between big scenes it seemed to me to be an EXCELLENT exercise in killing the cliches - in particular that narrative scene where in the hero or heroine reflect on whatever happened in the scene before and make it all okay in thier heads to be attracted to a possible murderer/be attracted to his secretary/to have had crazy monkey sex with an ex/to have lied to a kid/to have lied to a mom/to have stolen the gems/ WHATEVER!
I hate writing those scenes and I think when we are uncomfortable or hate writing a particular scene - we don't write well. In fact, I would guess we start using a whole lot of cliches when we're writing scenes we don't like. To be honest, I think the whole romance genre can live without that narrative scene -- good strong POV and excellent characterization practically kill the need for that scene anyway. Of course, good strong POV and excellent characterization are the hard part and knowing when you've done it right is even harder. So, we write that narrative scene because all the romances we loved reading and the ones that inspired us to write have those scenes.
Obviously, we can't just have one big scene after another (or can we?) but there does need to be some resting scenes. Not boring, not cliched, just a tad slower than say - hero and heroine killing a bad guy, or whatever your big scenes are. And maybe that's the real point of subplots. I think Anne Stuart knows that. JR Ward TOTALLY knows that.
Sinead is clearly on to something.
When Sinead gave us her plan to not write the transition scenes between big scenes it seemed to me to be an EXCELLENT exercise in killing the cliches - in particular that narrative scene where in the hero or heroine reflect on whatever happened in the scene before and make it all okay in thier heads to be attracted to a possible murderer/be attracted to his secretary/to have had crazy monkey sex with an ex/to have lied to a kid/to have lied to a mom/to have stolen the gems/ WHATEVER!
I hate writing those scenes and I think when we are uncomfortable or hate writing a particular scene - we don't write well. In fact, I would guess we start using a whole lot of cliches when we're writing scenes we don't like. To be honest, I think the whole romance genre can live without that narrative scene -- good strong POV and excellent characterization practically kill the need for that scene anyway. Of course, good strong POV and excellent characterization are the hard part and knowing when you've done it right is even harder. So, we write that narrative scene because all the romances we loved reading and the ones that inspired us to write have those scenes.
Obviously, we can't just have one big scene after another (or can we?) but there does need to be some resting scenes. Not boring, not cliched, just a tad slower than say - hero and heroine killing a bad guy, or whatever your big scenes are. And maybe that's the real point of subplots. I think Anne Stuart knows that. JR Ward TOTALLY knows that.
Sinead is clearly on to something.
Friday, November 21, 2008
What comes easiest?
Had a great session of Drunk Writer Talk a few weeks back, and one of the things that came up was which scenes do we find the easiest to write?
For one of the Drunk writers it’s the conversation scenes between the hero and heroine, where they learn about each other and explore their feelings.
At which point, two, or possibly, three ciders into the evening, I grimaced and shouted to the entire bar, I hate writing those scenes.
For me, the easiest scenes, and the ones that in the end, need the least amount of work are the big action scenes, sometimes the big romance scenes between the hero and heroine. The scenes where they quietly explore their conflict and talk are hell for me. They take the most time, require the most editing and even in the end, I’m never happy with them.
Which is why I focus my plotting on big, dramatic events, where the hero and heroine have to learn about each other, while running for their lives, or fighting off villains. It’s why as a writer, I’m attracted to suspense. And knowing this helps me decide which books I want to write, and how I’m going to drive the story forward.
It also helps me move forward in my books. My current WIP has taken me FOREVER to write. I’ve had to re-write every scene pretty much, and I’m still only half way through. And too often I’ve spent a week on a scene, and thinking about which scenes stall me, they are always the quiet, introspective scenes.
So for the purposes of getting this draft finished, I’m not going to write the quiet scenes. I’m going to move forward by writing the big scenes, one after another, finish up and then decide how I’m going to connect the big scenes.
It’s a change in my process, as I’m normally a linear writer, but I’m getting desperate and perhaps a change in process is exactly what I need.
Anything to finish this draft.
For one of the Drunk writers it’s the conversation scenes between the hero and heroine, where they learn about each other and explore their feelings.
At which point, two, or possibly, three ciders into the evening, I grimaced and shouted to the entire bar, I hate writing those scenes.
For me, the easiest scenes, and the ones that in the end, need the least amount of work are the big action scenes, sometimes the big romance scenes between the hero and heroine. The scenes where they quietly explore their conflict and talk are hell for me. They take the most time, require the most editing and even in the end, I’m never happy with them.
Which is why I focus my plotting on big, dramatic events, where the hero and heroine have to learn about each other, while running for their lives, or fighting off villains. It’s why as a writer, I’m attracted to suspense. And knowing this helps me decide which books I want to write, and how I’m going to drive the story forward.
It also helps me move forward in my books. My current WIP has taken me FOREVER to write. I’ve had to re-write every scene pretty much, and I’m still only half way through. And too often I’ve spent a week on a scene, and thinking about which scenes stall me, they are always the quiet, introspective scenes.
So for the purposes of getting this draft finished, I’m not going to write the quiet scenes. I’m going to move forward by writing the big scenes, one after another, finish up and then decide how I’m going to connect the big scenes.
It’s a change in my process, as I’m normally a linear writer, but I’m getting desperate and perhaps a change in process is exactly what I need.
Anything to finish this draft.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
You Have To Listen To Your Characters...
For the record, I thought the idea of listening to your characters, and doing what they dictate - was total and utter crap. I am the writer, they are my creations, they are not voices in my head - I call the shots. Me. Writer. (How do you like the punctuation in that last sentence? Seriously, I need to get learn some basic rules.)
Anyway - characters not in control. I am. And then I started working on my new WIP.
I wrote a really, really, really detailed synopsis for my next series. Chapter by chapter. Putting my money where my mouth is in terms of trying to do more work up front, rather than editing (which I now believe is just a totally imperfect way to make your book better in a big, substantial way.) Anyway - detailed synopsis in which I had my characters doing the deed in chapter 5. It really really worked for me at that stage. I had the characters roughed out, their motivations were right there. Conflict accounted for. Sex, Chapter 5 was going to be awesome.
And then I started writing. And these characters didn't radically change - they just got better, more human, fully formed. Savannah was more guarded, more cautious about everything because of her past and Matt was less wounded and more conniving in the front half of the book. So, when I had them going at it in Chapter 5 - it did not work. No one believed it. Savannah, as I had written her, would not have gone so far. And Matt as I had written him came off like one big a-hole.
I knew it wasn't working, but the sex was in my synopsis. The synopsis I sweat over. The synopsis was king. So, I tweaked, I edited, I got angry with my critique partners when they suggested perhaps the synopsis was wrong.
But in the end I had to listen to the characters. And I realized, sex in the books I write and most of the books I read isn't about sex, but about being vulnerable in some way. And I had to figure out how to make them vulnerable without the sex. The result, because I listened to the characters (and my critique group) is much more effective.
Which, I think goes to show, all that work up front isn't perfect either. But it's better in terms of getting a head start on characters and plot. But the writing and our process has to be fluid and we have to be ready to adapt what's on the page to better fit what's in our head, even if that means sacrificing a scene we love, or a plot point that works in theory but not on paper.
Or, remarkably, after all these years, finally listening to our characters.
Anyway - characters not in control. I am. And then I started working on my new WIP.
I wrote a really, really, really detailed synopsis for my next series. Chapter by chapter. Putting my money where my mouth is in terms of trying to do more work up front, rather than editing (which I now believe is just a totally imperfect way to make your book better in a big, substantial way.) Anyway - detailed synopsis in which I had my characters doing the deed in chapter 5. It really really worked for me at that stage. I had the characters roughed out, their motivations were right there. Conflict accounted for. Sex, Chapter 5 was going to be awesome.
And then I started writing. And these characters didn't radically change - they just got better, more human, fully formed. Savannah was more guarded, more cautious about everything because of her past and Matt was less wounded and more conniving in the front half of the book. So, when I had them going at it in Chapter 5 - it did not work. No one believed it. Savannah, as I had written her, would not have gone so far. And Matt as I had written him came off like one big a-hole.
I knew it wasn't working, but the sex was in my synopsis. The synopsis I sweat over. The synopsis was king. So, I tweaked, I edited, I got angry with my critique partners when they suggested perhaps the synopsis was wrong.
But in the end I had to listen to the characters. And I realized, sex in the books I write and most of the books I read isn't about sex, but about being vulnerable in some way. And I had to figure out how to make them vulnerable without the sex. The result, because I listened to the characters (and my critique group) is much more effective.
Which, I think goes to show, all that work up front isn't perfect either. But it's better in terms of getting a head start on characters and plot. But the writing and our process has to be fluid and we have to be ready to adapt what's on the page to better fit what's in our head, even if that means sacrificing a scene we love, or a plot point that works in theory but not on paper.
Or, remarkably, after all these years, finally listening to our characters.
Friday, November 14, 2008
World Building
Lots of talk about this lately, what with the amount of paranormals, and sci fi romances out there. And (because I can be slow) it’s taken me a while to really understand what this means.
JR Ward said she cemented the rules of her world really early on in her Brotherhood series, knew what she could and couldn’t do, and you know, I really bought in to her world.
Her characters seemed to be true to her world, which made me believe it more.
I know that’s a cryptic statement, and the best way I can explain is using Historical romance. There is occasionally talk of world building in Historicals, but mostly it comes across as historical details and getting them right. And sure, don’t have your character flip a light switch in the regency period.
For me lately, it’s become less about the details and more about how the characters interact in their environment.
For example, a regency romance, where the focus is often on the heroine, a lovely young woman from a good family making a good match. And then in the course of the book, gives up her virginity without any real thought, for either herself, or her family.
This happens a lot and usually drives me nuts. For me, it’s often a case of the author setting the rules of their world, and then abandoning them to drive the story forward.
If the author started by creating a world of upper, upper class where money and position drove the marriage process and affairs were ignored, then I’d buy into the above scenario, which for the regency period isn’t historically inaccurate. (really awkward sentence, but can’t think of a better one, sorry)
Just something that’s been top of mind for me. My heroine is a young woman from an impoverished family, not hoping to make a good match and I’m trying to think how she feels about a pre-marital affair. And I’m setting rules for my world, that I’m hoping will take me through 5 books. I know if I screw it up now, I’ll end up paying down the road. (no pressure)
And on a completely side note: some amazing books out there. If we haven’t raved enough about Sherry Thomas, well here’s more. Read her second book, Delicious and it’s so good. And it’s a lesson in world building in a historical and characters staying true to their world.
JR Ward said she cemented the rules of her world really early on in her Brotherhood series, knew what she could and couldn’t do, and you know, I really bought in to her world.
Her characters seemed to be true to her world, which made me believe it more.
I know that’s a cryptic statement, and the best way I can explain is using Historical romance. There is occasionally talk of world building in Historicals, but mostly it comes across as historical details and getting them right. And sure, don’t have your character flip a light switch in the regency period.
For me lately, it’s become less about the details and more about how the characters interact in their environment.
For example, a regency romance, where the focus is often on the heroine, a lovely young woman from a good family making a good match. And then in the course of the book, gives up her virginity without any real thought, for either herself, or her family.
This happens a lot and usually drives me nuts. For me, it’s often a case of the author setting the rules of their world, and then abandoning them to drive the story forward.
If the author started by creating a world of upper, upper class where money and position drove the marriage process and affairs were ignored, then I’d buy into the above scenario, which for the regency period isn’t historically inaccurate. (really awkward sentence, but can’t think of a better one, sorry)
Just something that’s been top of mind for me. My heroine is a young woman from an impoverished family, not hoping to make a good match and I’m trying to think how she feels about a pre-marital affair. And I’m setting rules for my world, that I’m hoping will take me through 5 books. I know if I screw it up now, I’ll end up paying down the road. (no pressure)
And on a completely side note: some amazing books out there. If we haven’t raved enough about Sherry Thomas, well here’s more. Read her second book, Delicious and it’s so good. And it’s a lesson in world building in a historical and characters staying true to their world.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Good news: It's not all magic
Last time we had some DWT we were talking about how it makes each of us a little crazy when authors claim their stories simply come to them out of the ether, delivered by magic fairies to their keyboards.
While I'm willing to believe that there are some writers like that out there, I do question whether or not those same writers are getting better with each novel, or are able to build long careers by producing a consistently good product for readers each time. Particularly when they're on a 2-books-or-more-a-year schedule.
I'd also like to believe that most of these "it's all magic" authors are very hit or miss from book to book. Not that I'm suggesting everyone needs to write the same way, just suggesting that for most of us, it helps to have some idea of what we're doing and why some stories work better than others -- since not all of us have equal access to the keyboard fairies.
So this is all a lead in to more J.R. Ward admiration. In case no one's figured it out yet, I came back from the NJ conference, and the J.R. Ward/Jessica Andersen workshop in particular, all fired up and feeling better about the publishing industry than I have in a while.
Why? Because these two authors, who have very different processes, were both honest about it not all being magic. Sure, J.R. listens to her rice crispies, but she also made it clear how much work and thought and strategy (not to mention sweat, blood and tears) went into creating her highly successful series. Sure, she admits much of her best stuff, the stuff that knocks her readers off their chairs, came out of the ether (or the rice crispies) as she was writing, but the framework was already there. She had a plan. She knew why she thought these books would do well and where they'd fit in the market. She knew she was pushing the envelope of what romance readers were comfortable with reading, but she also thought about what themes and elements she needed to include to increase the chances romace readers would love her (quite violent and graphic for romance) books.
This got me fired up, because I love when the smart people achieve success. And by smart I mean the ones who don't get hung up on the rules and do oodles of things you're not supposed to do in romance, but do it with purpose and create great stories that are well plotted and have great characters and conflicts. ON PURPOSE. (Not by accident, or because the fairies came through.) I love it when those writers hit bestseller lists. LOVE it.
Because it gives me hope. Gives me hope that I can get there through hard work, and without full-time access to the fairies.
(The only thing that's terrified me, while reading her insiders' guide, was her saying that in 2005 she was worried the paranormal market was already peaking, so that even after she'd sold the first 3 books in her series, she wasn't confident she'd sell the seven more she had planned. That market peaking in 2005 doesn't bode well for me breaking into it now, but hey, I was already aware/worried about that. Just means I need to do even more to stand out. And I also think she revived that sub-genre. Took it in a new exciting direction opening up new doors for the rest of us. See? My optimism's back already.)
While I'm willing to believe that there are some writers like that out there, I do question whether or not those same writers are getting better with each novel, or are able to build long careers by producing a consistently good product for readers each time. Particularly when they're on a 2-books-or-more-a-year schedule.
I'd also like to believe that most of these "it's all magic" authors are very hit or miss from book to book. Not that I'm suggesting everyone needs to write the same way, just suggesting that for most of us, it helps to have some idea of what we're doing and why some stories work better than others -- since not all of us have equal access to the keyboard fairies.
So this is all a lead in to more J.R. Ward admiration. In case no one's figured it out yet, I came back from the NJ conference, and the J.R. Ward/Jessica Andersen workshop in particular, all fired up and feeling better about the publishing industry than I have in a while.
Why? Because these two authors, who have very different processes, were both honest about it not all being magic. Sure, J.R. listens to her rice crispies, but she also made it clear how much work and thought and strategy (not to mention sweat, blood and tears) went into creating her highly successful series. Sure, she admits much of her best stuff, the stuff that knocks her readers off their chairs, came out of the ether (or the rice crispies) as she was writing, but the framework was already there. She had a plan. She knew why she thought these books would do well and where they'd fit in the market. She knew she was pushing the envelope of what romance readers were comfortable with reading, but she also thought about what themes and elements she needed to include to increase the chances romace readers would love her (quite violent and graphic for romance) books.
This got me fired up, because I love when the smart people achieve success. And by smart I mean the ones who don't get hung up on the rules and do oodles of things you're not supposed to do in romance, but do it with purpose and create great stories that are well plotted and have great characters and conflicts. ON PURPOSE. (Not by accident, or because the fairies came through.) I love it when those writers hit bestseller lists. LOVE it.
Because it gives me hope. Gives me hope that I can get there through hard work, and without full-time access to the fairies.
(The only thing that's terrified me, while reading her insiders' guide, was her saying that in 2005 she was worried the paranormal market was already peaking, so that even after she'd sold the first 3 books in her series, she wasn't confident she'd sell the seven more she had planned. That market peaking in 2005 doesn't bode well for me breaking into it now, but hey, I was already aware/worried about that. Just means I need to do even more to stand out. And I also think she revived that sub-genre. Took it in a new exciting direction opening up new doors for the rest of us. See? My optimism's back already.)
Monday, November 03, 2008
Endings part 2 or Credible Surprise or JR Ward blows my mind...again.
I've never claimed to be very smart. In fact I'm usually the first to point out what an idiot I am. Let me do that now, I am a total idiot. I had one of those moments this week, when I truly realized what something I've been yammering on and on about really means. It's like when I say over and over again "I have two kids." And the millionth time I say it I have a panic attack because suddenly I realize - holy crap I have two kids!!
Maureen and Sinead brought back the JR Ward guide to the BlackDagger series and trust me, I don't want to be this kind of fan. But apparently I am because I am gobbling the thing up, even the ridiculous things, like when the brothers show up on her message boards...yikes. But, she also talks about her process writing each book -what she knew and didn't know and the happy miracles that happened along the way in terms of plot, world-building and character. And anyone who has been blown away by this series should read this book -- Stephanie Doyle, I am talking to you.
She also gives us her rules of writing. And her rules Conflict is King and Credible Surprise is Queen, blew my little mind.
Yes, of course I know conflict. Conflict conflict conflict conflict. More and more, different and bigger and better and high stakes and internal and external - I know conflict. But this is it -- the conflict we give our characters WE HAVE TO RESOLVE!!!
It's easy to give your lovers roadblocks, but you've got to clear that stuff out of the way at some point. All of them. All that conflict that seems so riveting in your first act and the stuff you add in the second act because you think you need more conflict and then the stuff you shove into the back story because -- heck, your hero just isn't wounded enough. You gotta deal with it.
Sinead had a little rant a few weeks ago about how bad some endings are in books - writer's seem to get the idea of hooky beginnings and lots of conflict but then around page 260 they go...oops. And throw this crazy hail mary in an effort to resolve that conflict. And it doesn't work. I know that I am totally guilty of yadda yadda-ing my endings. In fact in my outlines to my editor I usually say "he grovels and they live happily ever after." And writing my endings is like pushing a boulder up hill and I just don't care at that point -- I'm so tired of all that conflict. And I am missing the chance to send a reader to bed at three am with a huge smile on her face. Endings are important - really important. They are why readers read romance. No doubt about it.
But, not only doing have to deal with all that conflict. Ward goes and ups the bar again with credible surprise. End your book in a way that the reader doesn't see coming and make it more satisfying than anything they were imagining. Reversing reader expectations to the tenth power. So, you have to make it something they didn't see coming but at the same time you have to plant some clues along the way so it's credible. It's not just about groveling, or near death experiences making character realize what they've lost or could lose. Or, as I can admit to having written - the hero taking a walk and figuring it all out. We've got to work on our endings as much as we work on our beginnings. We can't just let our endings happen. She talks about that ghost ending for those of you thinking of that. And for those of you thinking about that and saying perhaps Ward does not practice what she preaches, I remind you of Zsadist's ending, which was easily for my money the best ending in romance. Ever.
But what I need to think about every time I add conflict is how am I going to resolve it. How am I going to surprise the reader with my happily ever after? Good God - that's a challenge. I need a drink.
Maureen and Sinead brought back the JR Ward guide to the BlackDagger series and trust me, I don't want to be this kind of fan. But apparently I am because I am gobbling the thing up, even the ridiculous things, like when the brothers show up on her message boards...yikes. But, she also talks about her process writing each book -what she knew and didn't know and the happy miracles that happened along the way in terms of plot, world-building and character. And anyone who has been blown away by this series should read this book -- Stephanie Doyle, I am talking to you.
She also gives us her rules of writing. And her rules Conflict is King and Credible Surprise is Queen, blew my little mind.
Yes, of course I know conflict. Conflict conflict conflict conflict. More and more, different and bigger and better and high stakes and internal and external - I know conflict. But this is it -- the conflict we give our characters WE HAVE TO RESOLVE!!!
It's easy to give your lovers roadblocks, but you've got to clear that stuff out of the way at some point. All of them. All that conflict that seems so riveting in your first act and the stuff you add in the second act because you think you need more conflict and then the stuff you shove into the back story because -- heck, your hero just isn't wounded enough. You gotta deal with it.
Sinead had a little rant a few weeks ago about how bad some endings are in books - writer's seem to get the idea of hooky beginnings and lots of conflict but then around page 260 they go...oops. And throw this crazy hail mary in an effort to resolve that conflict. And it doesn't work. I know that I am totally guilty of yadda yadda-ing my endings. In fact in my outlines to my editor I usually say "he grovels and they live happily ever after." And writing my endings is like pushing a boulder up hill and I just don't care at that point -- I'm so tired of all that conflict. And I am missing the chance to send a reader to bed at three am with a huge smile on her face. Endings are important - really important. They are why readers read romance. No doubt about it.
But, not only doing have to deal with all that conflict. Ward goes and ups the bar again with credible surprise. End your book in a way that the reader doesn't see coming and make it more satisfying than anything they were imagining. Reversing reader expectations to the tenth power. So, you have to make it something they didn't see coming but at the same time you have to plant some clues along the way so it's credible. It's not just about groveling, or near death experiences making character realize what they've lost or could lose. Or, as I can admit to having written - the hero taking a walk and figuring it all out. We've got to work on our endings as much as we work on our beginnings. We can't just let our endings happen. She talks about that ghost ending for those of you thinking of that. And for those of you thinking about that and saying perhaps Ward does not practice what she preaches, I remind you of Zsadist's ending, which was easily for my money the best ending in romance. Ever.
But what I need to think about every time I add conflict is how am I going to resolve it. How am I going to surprise the reader with my happily ever after? Good God - that's a challenge. I need a drink.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Pacing and my problems with Dexter this season
I’ve gone on record on this blog before talking about the genius of Dexter and the elements I love are still there this season.
Michael C. Hall is still brilliant, Dexter is still a wonderful, complex character, a seemingly perfect boyfriend, brother and employee hiding his need to kill. But this season I’ve approached each episode with a ho hum attitude.
And the amazing character references are still there, with Dexter stealing lines from a deluded murderer to convince his girlfriend to marry him, secretly wishing for a confidente, even the little touches of him pushing the barriers with his girlfriend. They are all masterfully handled.
But each episode has moved pretty slowly for me. It’s as if they are repeating scenes to convince of us the decisions the characters are going to make down the road. Dexter and Miguel’s relationship and his decision to trust Miguel. They’ve been building to it in a series of scenes that do nothing else. Where one great scene would have convinced us, they’ve used four. Same with him accepting Rita’s pregnancy.
And the previous structure where Dexter murdered someone every episode has been abandoned. And I understand the need for a show to evolve, but that structure drove the narrative of each episode in the 1st season. While the relationship elements were the secondary plot that intrigued me. Season 1 had the mystery of who was the Ice Truck killer, which is where the first show started. So between the over arching mystery, the murder per episode and Dexter trying to figure out how to balance his secret self with his public persona, there was lots to keep the pacing brisk in the 1st season.
This season, the overall mystery is really muted and not being driven forward much in each episode. The relationship elements have taken over, but they’re not enough to really move the story forward and keep the pacing in tact. And most episodes haven’t had the Dexter murder where he feeds his need.
In addition, the stakes for Dexter are pretty low this season. What does he have to lose? Rita? But even that’s not clear.
Going on record that I hope the show picks up and pulls the pieces together. Because I’ve loved it in the past and it’s just been renewed for another 2 seasons and I want to keep watching.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
J.R. Ward and Jessica Andersen Rock
I already knew their books rocked, and knew that Jessica rocked in person, but finding out that JR Ward is amazing in person renewed my faith in this business. Renewed my faith that the smart and talented people sometimes do get ahead. Renewed my faith enough (I hope) to get me motivated to push through the revisions I'm determined to finish this week.
The NJRW conference was great. If you've never gone to a regional RWA conference and are thinking about it--choose this one. It's big enough that there are lots of people (around 300?) and at least 5 choices of workshop in each time slot. It attracts tons of editors and agents (because of the proximity to NYC) so if you want to do pitch appointments, there are more opportunities than at Nationals. (And opportunities to meet editors in the bar, right Sinead?) Sinead and I lucked into having Alissa Davis from Dorchester sit down next to us the first afternoon when we were skipping a session to have a glass of wine. Loved her. Great taste in books and TV. She'd fit right in at DWT.
I went to the editor panel and have never seen so many editors on a panel together. (Note to the organizers: is it really necessary to have 3 editors from one small e-pub on a panel?) Part of me thinks they could have broken it into two panels.
Overall messages from the editors? They're still buying/looking for new authors in spite of the economic outlook. (At least they say they are.) Paranormal trend is still going strong and the darker the better. Most were now actively looking for historicals and contemporaries, too. Haven't heard that for a while on a panel and hopefully means that those sub-genres will be building up again, soon. A lot of the editors were also interested in steam punk. If you don't know what that is... google is your friend. ;-)
The NJRW conference was great. If you've never gone to a regional RWA conference and are thinking about it--choose this one. It's big enough that there are lots of people (around 300?) and at least 5 choices of workshop in each time slot. It attracts tons of editors and agents (because of the proximity to NYC) so if you want to do pitch appointments, there are more opportunities than at Nationals. (And opportunities to meet editors in the bar, right Sinead?) Sinead and I lucked into having Alissa Davis from Dorchester sit down next to us the first afternoon when we were skipping a session to have a glass of wine. Loved her. Great taste in books and TV. She'd fit right in at DWT.
I went to the editor panel and have never seen so many editors on a panel together. (Note to the organizers: is it really necessary to have 3 editors from one small e-pub on a panel?) Part of me thinks they could have broken it into two panels.
Overall messages from the editors? They're still buying/looking for new authors in spite of the economic outlook. (At least they say they are.) Paranormal trend is still going strong and the darker the better. Most were now actively looking for historicals and contemporaries, too. Haven't heard that for a while on a panel and hopefully means that those sub-genres will be building up again, soon. A lot of the editors were also interested in steam punk. If you don't know what that is... google is your friend. ;-)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Conference Bound
Is it Wednesday again? Wow.
Sinead and I are off to the NJRW conference this weekend. I'm sure Molly's a little jealous, but her daughter already went to one writers' conference when she was 3 weeks old, so she put her seven week old little foot down, refusing to join us at this one, JR Ward, or not. (Come on, Lucy. JR Ward!)
I used to go to conferences all fired up about pitches and getting requests, and now that I have an agent to do that job for me, I do wonder sometimes why I still fork out the money for conferences. I'm in that limbo place where I don't have book promo to do, but it doesn't make sense to do formal pitches, either. I should be trying to get speaking gigs (I actually love public speaking), but lately haven't been very motivated to get my act together there, either.
There's always lots to learn at conferences, but after going to so many, I feel lucky if I see at least one good talk at each one, now. Many talks give me a been-there-heard-that feeling.
So, it becomes about meeting up with friends and networking and maybe getting a chance to chat with some of the editors, even though I won't be formally pitching.
My time this weekend would be better spent finishing my revisions, but hey, it should be fun.
Plus, we're going on Porter Airlines, that flies out of the Island airport in downtown Toronto (okay, just a short ferry ride from downtown Toronto) and is supposed to be really cool. Rumor has it, they actually still give you a drink and snack without asking for money. How quaint. How nostalgic.
Sinead and I are off to the NJRW conference this weekend. I'm sure Molly's a little jealous, but her daughter already went to one writers' conference when she was 3 weeks old, so she put her seven week old little foot down, refusing to join us at this one, JR Ward, or not. (Come on, Lucy. JR Ward!)
I used to go to conferences all fired up about pitches and getting requests, and now that I have an agent to do that job for me, I do wonder sometimes why I still fork out the money for conferences. I'm in that limbo place where I don't have book promo to do, but it doesn't make sense to do formal pitches, either. I should be trying to get speaking gigs (I actually love public speaking), but lately haven't been very motivated to get my act together there, either.
There's always lots to learn at conferences, but after going to so many, I feel lucky if I see at least one good talk at each one, now. Many talks give me a been-there-heard-that feeling.
So, it becomes about meeting up with friends and networking and maybe getting a chance to chat with some of the editors, even though I won't be formally pitching.
My time this weekend would be better spent finishing my revisions, but hey, it should be fun.
Plus, we're going on Porter Airlines, that flies out of the Island airport in downtown Toronto (okay, just a short ferry ride from downtown Toronto) and is supposed to be really cool. Rumor has it, they actually still give you a drink and snack without asking for money. How quaint. How nostalgic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
