Cup of Story

Don't be a waiter

2012

Holy cow it's a new year! When did that happen?! The end of the year just flashed past and now it's January.

There's been a lot of talk about Amazon and now a rumor of Apple starting a self-publishing program has popped up on teh interwebs. I hope the rumor is true and that their program is comparable to Kindle. I also hope that B&N's self-pub'ing program gets a revision, or at least their search for interested readers is cleaned up. More retailers for independent writer-publishers is a good thing. No more waiting around. You can start making money.

1. You can sell your work as soon as you want.
2. You can price your work for as much as you want.
3. You can continue to sell your work for as long as you want.

 

I've heard a lot of excuses: lots of writers moan and groan and say, "But I don't wanna be a publisher, I wanna be a writer!" or "That's a lot of work and I'm already tied up with day job and family and Xbox and websurfing and lolcats and and and..."

The biggest whine I've heard is, "But I want to be a real published author. I want to be taken seriously!" translated to mean, "If I publish my own work, everyone will think I'm a loser because only loooooosers publish themselves."

This excuse always makes me scratch my head. Novelists want to get paid for their work. Why is getting paid directly (more or less) somehow less desirable than getting paid by a publisher? From everything I've heard (and been a part of), the publisher takes a really long time to pay out. And that's if you even get offered a contract. So you're either sitting around waiting to be paid, waiting for a contract, waiting for someone to respond (agent/editor).

You're a WAITER.

If your goal is to get paid for your writing, you are shooting yourself in the foot for not even considering the potential of Kindle/Smashwords/B&N, etc.. Your manuscript in the mail or in someone's In Box or sitting on a shelf or in your drawer is NOT making you any money.

No sale at $0 = $0

3 sales at $2.00 = $6.00

Don't you think your work is better than $6.00? Of course you do, that's why you sent it out to a list of literary agents you hoped might get you a contract from a publisher. If you didn't think it was worth something to someone else, why would you have bothered to send it out in the first place?

I'm not saying that you will become an overnight billionaire with one book on Amazon. But if you don't even try, then I guarantee you won't sell a single copy.

You believe in your writing (you must since you think an agent and publisher should find it saleable), so take control of reaching your own goal instead of waiting for someone else. You are not a WAITER.

You are a writer.

So get cracking and make 2012 your year to make money from all your hard work as a writer!

 

NaNoWriMo may not be for you

NaNoWriMo has begun! This is the month for all you reluctant would-be writers to get some words down.

I'm of two minds about NaNoWriMo, which stands for National Novel Writing Month. The goal is to start writing on Nov. 1st and get down 50,000 words by the end of the month. Participation in the national event doesn't win you a prize or publishing contract. But it might help someone who needs to focus and create a writing habit.

 What I don't like about NaNoWriMo is the focus on getting words, quantity of words, out. Writing 50k words of crap is just a waste of your time… unless you're doing it purely for the sake of seeing how many words you can spew in 30 days. Without editing. Without proofing or plotting or even doing much work beyond vomiting all over the page. Because tossing out 50k words in 30 days isn't difficult--I can bang out more than 2k in a couple of hours if I really focus--but if those 2k words are crap, I'm just wasting my time. I have to go back and rip them out, shred them, throw them away because I didn't think about my plot, didn't have my characters well developed, didn't know what my story was really about. Or I was just fooling around with my vocabulary lincoln logs.

 I suppose if you've done all your prep work--outlined your plot, developed your characters, done your research, figured out the ways and means of your society/world--then, yes, all you need to do is flesh it out. And getting out a first draft in a month should be doable if you've done your prep work to the best of your ability. Of course, best laid plans and all that--I know characters sabotage stories and a tiny plot point suddenly decides to get all up in your face, which might be a better thing than the limp idea you'd thought was so shiny.

 What I do like about NaNoWriMo is the ability to get people talking about writing, to get them to try it and really knuckle down. I'm talking about those wannabes who blab about how much they want to write, how much they admire or dislike the current fad/trend, or how much they've always dreamed of being a writer. And what better time than now to be a writer? Anyone can throw their novel up on any number of digital distributors' sites and get stories into fans' hands for a couple of bucks. It's a win-win situation.

 Do I recommend you leap into NaNoWriMo? I suppose if you want to test yourself and see how much you can churn out, sure. If you have trouble with writing everyday and need some kind of deadline or focus, then NaNoWriMo might be for you (a goal of 50k by end of the month can be broken down into manageable chunks for easy tracking).

But, if you already have a steady work habit, can finish regularly and get out your 1st draft with reasonable ease, don't need to find a community to bolster your ego and a cheer squad on the sidelines (this helps many timid writers, which I think is great, since writing is a solitary effort, but too many writers start to get distracted and begin writing for the cheerleaders rather than to their own ideas), then I'm not sure you need bother.

 Still, lots of people I know--established and new writers--leap into this every year. So, happy trails to all participants! I just think you should be focusing on QUALITY rather than quantity, but I'm an editor, so I'm ALWAYS looking for Better Writing even when I'm not doing it (do as I say, not as I do *winkwink*).

 

 

 

It's about the ending.

If you don't know the end of your book, what are you writing towards?

Everything in your plot should be pushing your reader towards the ending. That might mean you have to set up a bunch of things to be revealed at the end. Or reactions have to occur at the end. But they need to be prepped at the beginning and throughout the middle or else, it feels like a deus ex machina… or worse.

You know the endings I mean, the ones that seem to come out of left field, that wrap the story up in a very unsatisfying way. Stephen King slays me with how abrupt some of his endings feel. I like his writing, I like his stories, I'm invested in his characters. I got to the end of Under the Dome and went, "WTF?! It's all just an alien kid playing a game?" Because none of that was hinted at or alluded to or even remotely identified in any way throughout the rest of the novel, the sudden appearance of alien tech in the middle of the woods just seemed completely out of place. As if King tacked it on at the end in a fit of "inspiration".

I don't know if that's what happened; maybe he had that idea all along. The problem is that the entire plot hinged upon a mysterious "something" trapping the townspeople under an impenetrable dome. By reducing that "something" to a little kid alien playing a game, it cheapened all the terrible things that happened to the townspeople. Of course, the whole idea was to show us how these characters reacted under pressure, and the stress brought out the worst in them (and maybe for some, the best).

But I was unsatisfied with the ending because it felt unsupported. It hadn't been set up, and therefore was unexpected.

So you must think about offering your readers all the information and clues they need to expect the ending, and then happily surprise them by giving it to them in a way they hadn't expected. Boy Saves the World from Evil Overlord but not in a flashy showdown. Instead, he stops fighting and forgives. I expected him to win, but not by shutting off his lightsaber. I got the ending I wanted (and expected) but also a little something else.

 

Tips for character creation

"Stereotypical", "flat", "two-dimensional". You might have heard these words about your characters, or you might have thought them of characters you've read. What makes a character feel real? They're not real people, you're reading fiction, after all. I hate hearing, "Well, in reality…" or "In real life…" You're not writing about reality or real people.

But, you can use real-life traits in your characters that real people--you and I--can recognize and relate to in some way.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Flaws

Your characters shouldn't be perfect. They shouldn't look, act, or respond "perfectly" unless they're robots or some other simulacrum, and even then, they'd be pretty boring. Flaws are what make characters feel "real". They are also the details that make them sympathetic and believable. If you make your hero's love interest "perfect" with "flawless skin" and "perfect hair", your reader will yawn and move on. But if her eyes are a little too wide and her hair is a little too frizzy and she has a crooked but bright smile, your hero will think she's perfect, which is the whole point of that love-connection. He has eyes only for her, crooked smile and all.

 2) Depth

Dig down deep into your characters' psyche. Why do they want what they want, and what are they willing to do to get it? What aren't they willing to do? What is the one thing that would make them cross their personal line, and why? You're the creator, so go down into the psychiatric depths to plunder their deepest secrets. There has to be more to a coming-of-age story than just "boy has magic powers he has to develop in order to save the world from the evil demon lord". What traits make this boy special--it's not just his magic. It's much more than that, and the boy, himself, can have doubts and fears (all your characters should have doubts and fears--it's what makes them relatable). Harry Potter has doubts about his fate and his affect on others. Neo has doubts that he is "the one" to save humanity. Luke has doubts that he can repel the dark side of the force (*waves geekflag wildly*).

Of course, not all characters need to have a full set of knock-off Louis Vuitton baggage--those kids in the Magic Treehouse books have very linear wants and needs. They want to help someone, they need to act within a certain time frame, and they have to get home through the treehouse. The boy is often more hesitant to jump into action because he's a little older and more circumspect while his younger sister is all about aiding those in need. It's a pretty good balance that offers just enough tension to keep the story from devolving into pure saccharin history-lesson-as-story.

 3) Voice

What do your characters sound like when they think? When they have their internal monologue? When they're having a conversation? Give them a distinctive voice so that your readers create an audio track in their minds. It's the same as creating each character's individual physical looks--give them a voice, too.

Voice also applies to the narrative. If you're writing in tight 3rd person Point of View, your narrative can have the "voice" of your main PoV character. I'm not saying leap into cockney or some mangled form of southern drawl, I'm talking about the cadence, rhythm, and tempo of the narrative exposition. In Neil Gaiman's Graveyard Book, the narrative has a storyteller tone, an almost "Once upon a time…" melody. George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series switches PoV every chapter, and while the author's voice is firmly planted, you definitely know which character's Point of View is revealing (or hiding) the story. That's voice.

You see it most obviously in 1st person PoV narratives--Holly Black's Curseworker books, Ilona Andrews' Kate Daniels series. Those voices are strong and very individual. They also have to be unique to carry an entire novel or series. Individual outlooks that are sometimes unreliable (which means that the reader only knows as much as the narrator; sometimes, that ignorance is what gets that character into trouble and keeps the reader glued to the pages) can make for a really great mystery (it also can show off all those neat flaws that make a character so individual).

So when you're creating your characters, move beyond the simplistic physical traits, go deeper into their psyche, and give your exposition a unique feel all your own. Use these things to propel you further into creating magnetic characters that move through your world and act out your plot.

 

 

 

To Stand or Sit?

There's been a lot of talk about how standing at your desk is better for you. That NYTimes opinion piece brings up some interesting things to think about. We writers and editors sit on our tookuses for hours at a time. We're either writing, reading, or "doing research" (aka playing Angry Birds or looking at Icanhazcheezburger cats).

And we snack. And drink coffee. And eat lunch at our desks (which is also supposed to be a big no-no--crumbs in your keyboard begone!).

Because I have adjustable legs on my desk (I have to because I'm really short), I thought, "Why not make it a standup desk and see if there's any noticable difference?"

I sit and stand and sit and stand rotating throughout the day. I think if I had a flat surface to stand on instead of living room carpet, I might like it more. But my legs and ankles strain in funny ways. I tried standing on a piece of wood, but then I'm lifted higher than my desk, which causes awkward keyboarding and mousing (I'm at the maximum height for my legs). It's about a 3/4" difference with the board, so it makes a huge difference when typing.

All in all, I like standing. When I feel fatigue, I sit on a barstool-height chair. When I feel like I'm slouching or when my ass gets numb, I stand up. I can stretch, stand on one leg, rotate my stiff ankle and still surf the web.

It also makes it a lot easier to go for more coffee.

Here are some other links to standup desk setups: Standing Desk Jockey, DiY platform for desktop

Machine writes story

A trade publisher and sports journalism site are using software to write stories so they can save money on writers.

Here's an excerpt generated from an article:

“Wisconsin jumped out to an early lead and never looked back in a 51-17 win over UNLV on Thursday at Camp Randall Stadium. The Badgers scored 20 points in the first quarter on a Russell Wilson touchdown pass, a Montee Ball touchdown run and a James White touchdown run. Wisconsin’s offense dominated the Rebels’ defense. The Badgers racked up 499 total yards in the game including 258 yards passing and 251 yards on the ground.”

It's seems to have all the facts most people want to know--scores, runs, yardage gained, and players. What's lacking is the human element--the voice. 

I'm not a journalist; I work with fiction writers. But in all the news stories and non-fic articles I've read over my lifetime, there's always a point of view, a human voice relaying information. It's not a listing of facts and figures--there's always a reason behind why that data is relevant to the story (STORY!).

If you want a piece of software to gather data and blurt it out in a more user-friendly way (rather than a spreadsheet or graph), than I can see how this might be useful. But as a means to tell the story of the event or process or historical moment? Not even close to the human element.

 

World Building tips

You've got a big epic fantasy with lots of cultures and nationalities from Midnight Elves to Sandbox Snifters. But the feedback you've gotten sounds like this: "Your world's a little thin." "I'm not convinced." "I'd like to see your characters inhabit your world more."

What does it mean and how can you fix it (or avoid responses like that)?

You could break your world down into components:

Culture: fashion, food, language, superstitions, traditions, music/art/literature/dance

History: past and present, ancient, who controls it (did the conquerers rewrite history)

Religion: strong, weak, evolved, many systems, none at all, rites, taboos, rituals

When you consider your cultures, be sure to flavor your entire world with your choices--link them to your characters' backgrounds, the choices they make, the food they eat, the clothes they wear. If all of your characters come from the same nation and that nation is at war with a border country, how do they feel about the war? Are they pacifists, nationalists, extremists? Why do they make these choices? Their language should reflect their beliefs, morals, and ethics (there's a great chance at creating conflict and a plot thread if people within your group disagree).

History can also heavily flavor your characters' background. If the borders have flowed back and forth over the centuries with each nation falling to the other at one point in time, there might be a prejudice against those with mixed heritages. Or maybe they are the stronger ethnicity and the "pure" bloodlines are thought to be weak and closed-minded. Perhaps there have never been wars between armies, but wars of religion with holy leaders waging a social morals war within the city. Maybe there's an ancient tradition or rite that has always been feared, but no one will call for its abolishment because it has become the social norm (and your society does not tolerate anyone who rocks the boat).

Religion can play a huge role in mythic fantasies--gods, demons, spirits, a power source. Not all of your characters should feel exactly the same about your belief system. And your system can be a background color rather than a focal plot point.

Language, superstitions, taboos can be shown in dialog, clothing (what's acceptable or not), actions (i.e. Touching palms to palms is a social flub, shows how unsophisticated you are--greetings between strangers is a light touch on the right shoulder, only; a single man between the ages of 16-30 must be escorted at all times or else be considered a predator; aristocrats of a certain pedigree must always carry a fan and a coin purse to distribute small coins to peasants or else be considered miserly and socially unsophisticated). Create anything and then have your characters act accordingly. You may think of a million things to fill your world, but only show what's relevant to your scene, your characters' point of view, and your plot.

Your novel should not be a history of your nations, but a story with a plot and characters overcoming challenges. World building just swallows the reader and thrusts them into your vision so they can smell, taste, hear, feel, and experience your worlds alongside your characters. It has to be immersive and details will help your readers envision it the way you want.

 

A meaning behind editor rejections

So you send out your manuscript and you get back a few rejections.

 "It just didn't grab me."

 "Thanks, but not for us at this time."

 "Lovely, but no thanks." 

What could this mean?! Does it have anything to do with your writing? Skill level? Plot, concept? Writers writhe in agony and seethe with the fire-of-unknowing. If editors want writers to be better, why don't editors tell the writers how to make it better so that they'll accept the manuscript and offer a deal?

There are lots of reasons why the acquisitions editor isn't saying anything beyond a noncommittal rebuff.

1. The manuscript was unacceptable for all the reasons writers need to put in their hours.

2. Editors don't have the time to give you a detailed rejection. Their job is to work on books under contract.

3. Editors aren't going to give away expert advice only to see that manuscript walk over to a competitor.  

"It just didn't grab me."  This could mean any number of things. You plot sagged in the middle; laborious pacing; lack of tension; weak concept; weak characters; not the kind of book editor enjoys (fiction is subjective). How do you know which of these things needs improvement?

 a. If your book lacks tension/sags in the middle/has a slow pace, people will stop reading it. They'll skim, they'll put it down. You want them to groan about staying up too late because they couldn't stop reading! Maybe your book needs some work.

 b. If the book is just not in the editor's taste field, there's nothing you can do about it except to fire your agent, who should have known better. That's what the agent is for, which is why having an agent isn't necessarily going to land your book on the right desk. I expressed widely that I was not interested in talking-cat-fantasies. And yet, I still got submissions where a cat was the lead character. Or the heroine had a cat companion who was her "spirit guide" or whathaveyou. See, not for me.

 

"Thanks but not for us at this time."

 a. Could mean the house already has a lot of similar types of stories in the pipeline. A monthly list of the same kind of titles isn't good for a mass market publisher trying to net a wide audience.

 b. Could mean the house already has too many First Time novels. It's very risky to take on too many unknowns.

 c. Could mean the money is tight and no one is taking any risk at all--they're only renewing current contracts with current authors. But they don't want to look like penny-pinchers.

 d. The always wonderful excuse that the editor is overbooked and overworked and just doesn't have the time to spend on stroking another fragile author ego. Editor might just want a low-drama professional to whom she doesn't have to explain every nuance of the business, someone who already knows the process.

 

"Lovely, but no thanks."

 This could be the generic No Thanks. It could include all of the above. Either way, it didn't grab the editor enough to make her go to bat for it. Wowing the editor, grabbing the editor, thrilling the editor--it all means the same thing: the editor doesn't feel strongly enough about it to start the internal process of convincing the rest of her company that it'll make money.

 And let's be honest, sometimes, your manuscript might not be up to standard. You might need a lot more work despite what your agent thinks (again, fiction is subjective). In the end, if you keep getting rejections, you haven't come to a screeching halt. Put your book out in digital format and see how readers feel about it. If it doesn't sell, then maybe it means you need a lot more practice (either in writing or in selling, but either way, you can be in control).

 

Writers who know business

Dean Wesley Smith, writer, publisher, teacher. Along with Kris Rusch, he's written a gazillion books across many genres. His Killing the Sacred Cow of Publishing series is MUST READ material if you're considering a career as a writer. There are also some very smart people responding in the comments, so set aside some time to read it all.

Kristine Kathryn Rusch is also a multi-genre writer and teacher. Her Business Rusch series is also chock full of good stuff.

Dean and Kris are good people--straight forward, no-nonsense types with solid business credentials. And they're not all anti-Big 6-publishers that you might hear about in the rising indie world.

David Vandagriff, is a lawyer who blogs about publishing and contracts as The Passive Guy. He's got some very good information and throws out a lot of food for thought.

The best advice I've picked up recently is to keep an open mind about the industry. Things are changing quickly, so the best thing you can do as a writer is to educate yourself about the industry, about what it means for you, and don't sell yourself short by signing a contract you don't really understand (or have been told "it's the standard contract") or by giving up any idea of publishing because you can't land an agent or your agent can't land you a contract.

There are readers out there who are looking for you book. Give them a good story, tell them where they can buy it, and they will come.

Just write it.

Chuck Wedig has something to say about writing: And that life is too short not to take risks and long to live with an output of weak-kneed, limp-noodled, utterly derivative, safe-as-houses storytelling. Amen to that, amen.

Only thing I disagree with is his nod to it being a big secret. It's not a secret. Writers should always write the story they want to tell, not the one they think will sell. With digital publishing being easy for independent writers to sell their work, it's even less important to think about "market".

Obviously have an audience in mind--you have to think about who will be reading this book because a story aimed at an 8-10 year-old-boy is not going to be the same as the one aimed at adult women. That's just common sense (and you should already know this).

Publishers have other concerns you, as an indie writer, may not have to worry about. You just write. You can even write lots of different kinds of things, if you want. I'd advise slapping on a pen name for something totally different, though, just to keep your brands tidy (and for organizational purposes). Readers who love your cozy mysteries might not be the same ones who like your urban techno fantasies, so make it easy for your audience to find the books they like.

In the end, just do it. Just write what you like.