If it wasn't for advice from others, my writing would suck a lot more than it does right now. I don't think there's a good writer alive who hasn't had amazing advice. So, let's share it.
Some amazing pieces of advice I've gotten:
1. Become the person you are writing the perspective from.
2. Cut the first scene of your manuscript.
3. Kill all cliches. All. Even on the prose level.
4. Read your manuscript out loud.
5. Don't expect revisions to be done in the time frame you want it to be. Multiply your 'ideal time frame' by five and that might be more realistic.
6. Get a diverse set of beta readers. Writers that read different genres, come from different backgrounds, different ages, etc. You need multiple perspectives on your book. Beta readers are the best thing to ever happen to your book other than, well, you writing the book.
7. Learn learn learn about your subject. Write what you know - and if you don't know it, get to know it. Here's a very old blog post I did on this subject. Might be the most important advice ever, in my opinion!
8. Do whatever it takes (as long as you don't end up in prison) to get your book's voice/mood correct. For me, that meant writing it in longhand first, then writing it on a Word doc that had black pages and white words.
YOUR TURN. Share your best writing advice, however obscure it may be!! What is some really good writing advice you've gotten, advice that you constantly keep in mind while writing?
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Monday, February 9, 2015
Monday, October 20, 2014
The Honest Benefits of Teaching Writing to Others
Bob Clary, from the online learning company Webucator, invited me to speak about teaching writing -- meaning, how to pass on the knowledge of the writing craft to others -- as part of their "Teach Your Talent" project. Specifically, he asked: "When you're staring at a page (or screen!), how do you turn the words into wine? You could write a tutorial for your readers, or even give a lesson to someone and then share how the experience went."
I am beyond honored that he asked me to speak about this, and I hope I do the topic justice!
(I have not been paid or anything to do this.)
#
I'm not going to talk about craft. If you want to know about craft, go to writers better than me and those who have talked about it in more depth than I will: Stephen King's "On Writing", Kurt Vonnegut's essays, etc.
I taught a writing workshop for adults with developmental disabilities. 'Taught' is too strong of a word; 'led' or 'guided' would be more appropriate. And even though it'd be great to think that the workshop completely changed their lives around, it'd be a lie. They changed me more than I changed them.
There are things that I never knew or would know about these adults had we been in any other situation. Their favorite foods, relationship to roommates and other adults in the building, boyfriends, girlfriends, enmities: all those I found out in two one-hour sessions.
There are times when the triviality of writing dawns on me and scares me. I like to think I write for myself (I can't not write or I'll explode) but I write to expose horrors that frustrate me. Part of that requires that I go out to the places I'm writing about -- such as the homeless community -- and get first-hand experience to convey what I'm talking about. And after these experiences, I need time to collect myself - because I want to rip apart all my writing.
How stupid must I be to think that I can sit in a room and write while people, actual people, go through horrors and nightmares every day? To be 'moved' by what I'm writing feels like a ghost compared to what I saw. I am in no position to write about such things. The whole 'pretending' aspect of writing becomes disgusting and despicable. I'm pretending and, if things go well, I will reach a larger audience than those shunned by society. My stories will be heard by more people than the stories of those who know more about their situations than I do. How can I write? No matter how hard I try, it'll be a lie.
And I don't have an answer to that. No matter how much I know the fallacy of my writing, I must write. Books have the power to change lives, I know that, you know that, you told me that. And I must write. I simply must, I'd explode if I don't. I try as hard as possible to be honest in my writing, especially with my current novel.
Teaching the adults with developmental disabilities exposed me to an entire new view about how to write honestly.
Give a person a pencil and they'll expose their lives to you. It might take digging, it might be hiding under the surface of their stories, but the writer and the story can never be independent. I'm sorry, but it's true. Probably. (I don't like saying statements are 100% true, but that statement just might be.)
So this is an odd benefit of teaching writing, one that I only realized once I went out and 'taught' a group of people who usually do not get 'taught' writing. For one thing, teaching went out the window. it was all about exploring, encouraging, having fun. Their writing was pure at its greatest form, only for themselves without care for standards -- and they never felt ashamed about sharing their writing. They spoke up and told other adults to speak up if they hadn't for a long while. This is what writing can do to a person. Writing without need of publication has a power in itself, a power of expression for only expression's sake. It's an undeserved privilege to witness it.
Because witnessing their writing meant witnessing their minds and lives. If I wrote a book about adults with developmental disabilities before the workshops and after the workshops, they'd be two different novels. That may seem obvious, but think about what that means in terms of the power of 'teaching' writing.
This benefit may seem niche but in fiction, writers are not writing autobiographies (they're writing veiled autobiographies ;) ). They're writing about other people. For example, a woman might be writing a book about a man coming to terms with his impotency. And although there might be men who published articles and books about their lives, this published writing is inherently different than writing for writings sake. The latter tends to be incredibly more honest in a way that staggers the mind.
If you want to write honestly about someone, 'teach' that someone writing. And by 'teach', I mean give them open prompts ("Make a poem where every line starts with 'I am'"; "What is your favorite season? Holiday?" simple stuff, harder stuff if you feel like it, "What is your worst memory?") and, if they trust you, they'll bloom in front of you.
Don't ever do someone the disservice of 'pretending' in fiction without any attempt to honestly learn about their situations. Without a doubt, when you go to learn about them, people will surprise you.
I can't find it on YouTube, but I watched a video about adults with developmental disabilities who were asked the question, "If you would change one thing about yourself, what would you change?"
Not one of them mentioned their disability. The most common answers were, "Be happier," or "I wouldn't change a thing."
Go out. Learn about your subjects.
"Write what you know." And if you don't know what you want to write about, don't be one of those people who discredits, in my opinion, the greatest adage in writing and thinks, "I can make it up, write what you know is so dumb! What about fantasy?"
GET to know it, your world, your emotions. Or else you'll be one of those fools who conveys their subject falsely, writes yet another source of misunderstanding in the public. Ever wonder where the idea of rough and tough, gun-wielding lesbians come from? Straight people.
You'll fail to connect with those you've written about, and for me, that'd mean my novel failed.
Hopefully, this benefit of teaching writing to others is unique. I don't want to repeat what others have said because others can say things better than I can.
But really, teaching, learning, and writing itself has a whole spectrum of benefits that many people can talk about and present unique takes. That's why I'm so so glad Bob asked a number of writers to discuss this topic on their blog. Please take a look at Webucator's Twitter feed and read some of the links they Tweeted.
Webucator is offering a free Microsoft training class each month. It's a necessary skill that most employers require, and their classes run the entire spectrum of Microsoft applications (some I haven't even heard of!). Check out Webucator's reviews and take a look at their classes. They seem great. If you think you can learn anything from the classes, check them out.
Thank you so much again for inviting me to speak on this, Bob!
Monday, September 22, 2014
Do Cupcakes Inspire You?
Just look at that cupcake below.
Yea. I'm having late-night cravings thanks to Wendy Nikel. She asked if eating them makes me feel inspired in respond to a cry on Twitter wondering what I should blog about.
THIS IS A CHALLENGE! I must somehow incorporate writing with cupcakes!
But now I'm just so dang hungry and really want a cupcake with frosting and cakeyness. Argh. I'm hungry. But it's 1 AM. No way I can run out to buy cupcakes, that's just weird.
YES, THE CONNECTION!
This oddly plays so well with those sudden bursts of writing at the worst possible times. Like, "holy crap I need to write, but I have to be up by seven tomorrow and it's two am. BUT I MUST WRITE!"
I must have that cupcake!! Should I wait until I wake up? But I know myself, and I know that if I go to sleep, when I wake up I will no longer have my cupcake craving. My inspiration will fade away and I won't be as cupcake-passionate.
That happens to me in writing as well. It happened a lot in the beginning, but I think I've trained myself to be inspired on my own command - and to write even if I'm not inspired. But there was a time....I think late last year, when I just had to write a scene I was mulling in my head before I went to sleep. I usually think about stuff before I sleep (who doesn't?) and I was thinking about my characters, and what if this? what if that? And I felt so passionately about a scene, so riled up, I had to get out of bed and write it. And I did, and I'm so proud of it because I've never felt like that while drafting anything before. It was an incredibly powerful experience (so powerful it made me get out of bed!) and I don't regret it. After all, given months and months, who'll ever regret not getting enough sleep that one night? Unless, of course, it leads to some crazy things the next day and in that case, you're more than justified to regret not sleeping enough.
Do you have these cupcake inspirations? (That's what I'm going to call them from now on :D Thanks Wendy!!) How do these inspirations come - randomly or with a lot of thought - and how do you handle them if the situation is really bad for you to start writing? (I usually text myself some lines or main ideas.)
Monday, July 21, 2014
The Best Mentality to Write With
I rarely ever say something is the 'best' way to do something. Quite simply, there are many ways to do anything and one way could work best for one person and another way for another. But what if I told you what I believe to be the best way to write?
It all started when I read the article, "The Secret of Effective Motivation". Read it quickly then come back, to this page.
Basically, the article summarizes a research project studying motivation. The researchers surveyed about 11,000 cadets at West Point, asking them to rank their motives to attend the academy. The motives were split into internal motives like being trained to be an officer (basically, goals that are inherently related to the journey itself) and instrumental motives like finding a job later on (goals that aren't inherently related to the journey).
The researchers expected that the cadets who would become officers, got early promotions, and stayed in the military longer would obviously have strong internal motives but also strong instrumental motives. The most surprising thing was this: the cadets that had strong internal and strong instrumental motives "performed worse on every measure than did those with strong internal motives but weak instrumental ones."
What does this mean for your writing journey?
Obviously, we probably all want to be published, become NYT bestsellers, etc. The idea of winning prizes, holding a physical copy of our books in our hands, etc. drives us to write. We love to write, sure, but we'd love recognition. In fact, what might be best to getting that recognition is not running after it at all.
It's a hard mentality to switch to, but I think it's necessary. Could JK Rowling really have spent nine years simply in planning the Harry Potter series and writing the first book if all she desired was publication? Nine years is a long time to wait for something. What must have driven her was the journey itself; the intrinsic goals of writing the book, being with the characters, discovering her world, and crafting prose.
The funny thing is that there really shouldn't be a balance between intrinsic and instrumental motivations. To be successful, as the study shows, your intrinsic motivations must outweigh your instrumental ones by a lot. Don't try going for the best of both worlds; pick the better world and your world will become better as a result. Don't go for a 50-50 balance unless you're absolutely certain it works for you (I'd be skeptical, because the study proves that weak instrumental motivations and strong intrinsic ones win out every day).
This also helps a lot in keeping your chin up through the rejection-heavy process of writing. If you don't long for winning contests, prizes, even being published, rejections won't hurt nearly as bad. It might be scary to think, I don't need to be published, but think of it as: I need to create the best book possible for myself, as a writer, and publication will come as a side effect.
If you are intrinsically motivated to create the best book possible, publication itself shouldn't be the goal (just think how many bad books are published). If you want publication alone, you might just do the bare minimum to get a book deal instead of pushing your writing the furthest it could go. I highly doubt that writers like Hemingway, Angelou, Hugo, Salinger, Rowling, Tartt, and more just wanted to be published. They pushed writing to a new height, and it couldn't have happened unless they were intrinsically motivated to be the absolute best they could be, instead of just publishable.
I know, it's easy to say 'forget about your dream goals'. I still long to be published, win prizes, etc. It's hard to get out of that mentality, but it might be necessary. Don't shut down or ignore your instrumental motivations, that's just dangerous. Just let it flow through your mind like water. Acknowledge them and move on. Obsess over your intrinsic motivations instead: creating the best prose possible, fleshing out your characters, tightening that plot. And, as a result, you'll be on your way to success.
I loved that article - it completely changed the way I think about motivation. What do you think about the study?
It all started when I read the article, "The Secret of Effective Motivation". Read it quickly then come back, to this page.
Basically, the article summarizes a research project studying motivation. The researchers surveyed about 11,000 cadets at West Point, asking them to rank their motives to attend the academy. The motives were split into internal motives like being trained to be an officer (basically, goals that are inherently related to the journey itself) and instrumental motives like finding a job later on (goals that aren't inherently related to the journey).
The researchers expected that the cadets who would become officers, got early promotions, and stayed in the military longer would obviously have strong internal motives but also strong instrumental motives. The most surprising thing was this: the cadets that had strong internal and strong instrumental motives "performed worse on every measure than did those with strong internal motives but weak instrumental ones."
What does this mean for your writing journey?
Obviously, we probably all want to be published, become NYT bestsellers, etc. The idea of winning prizes, holding a physical copy of our books in our hands, etc. drives us to write. We love to write, sure, but we'd love recognition. In fact, what might be best to getting that recognition is not running after it at all.
It's a hard mentality to switch to, but I think it's necessary. Could JK Rowling really have spent nine years simply in planning the Harry Potter series and writing the first book if all she desired was publication? Nine years is a long time to wait for something. What must have driven her was the journey itself; the intrinsic goals of writing the book, being with the characters, discovering her world, and crafting prose.
The funny thing is that there really shouldn't be a balance between intrinsic and instrumental motivations. To be successful, as the study shows, your intrinsic motivations must outweigh your instrumental ones by a lot. Don't try going for the best of both worlds; pick the better world and your world will become better as a result. Don't go for a 50-50 balance unless you're absolutely certain it works for you (I'd be skeptical, because the study proves that weak instrumental motivations and strong intrinsic ones win out every day).
This also helps a lot in keeping your chin up through the rejection-heavy process of writing. If you don't long for winning contests, prizes, even being published, rejections won't hurt nearly as bad. It might be scary to think, I don't need to be published, but think of it as: I need to create the best book possible for myself, as a writer, and publication will come as a side effect.
If you are intrinsically motivated to create the best book possible, publication itself shouldn't be the goal (just think how many bad books are published). If you want publication alone, you might just do the bare minimum to get a book deal instead of pushing your writing the furthest it could go. I highly doubt that writers like Hemingway, Angelou, Hugo, Salinger, Rowling, Tartt, and more just wanted to be published. They pushed writing to a new height, and it couldn't have happened unless they were intrinsically motivated to be the absolute best they could be, instead of just publishable.
I know, it's easy to say 'forget about your dream goals'. I still long to be published, win prizes, etc. It's hard to get out of that mentality, but it might be necessary. Don't shut down or ignore your instrumental motivations, that's just dangerous. Just let it flow through your mind like water. Acknowledge them and move on. Obsess over your intrinsic motivations instead: creating the best prose possible, fleshing out your characters, tightening that plot. And, as a result, you'll be on your way to success.
I loved that article - it completely changed the way I think about motivation. What do you think about the study?
Friday, February 21, 2014
The JK Rowling Excuse - the Danger of Success Stories
I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel this way before. I'm a writer. Heck, I live for fantasies.
Back when I was querying my YA Epic Fantasy (since then, I've put that manuscript aside), I was absolutely torn apart with all these fantasies I had for my work.
It was, originally, about 40k words over the standard limit for the genre. Also, it had not one, but two prologues (both of which, as I later understood, weren't working). But the thing was, for months, I just wouldn't believe that it'd hinder me from getting published.
I kept thinking that I'd be like JK Rowling. I'd been reading (and I still do read) success stories of authors like Rowling, like Tolkien, like Margaret Mitchell.
Rowling: published an over-long children's novel which became the best selling series of all time. Tolkien: originally, his trilogy was a single, 500k novel which his publishers split up. Mitchell: her novel, deemed to be so freaking good (and also a debut novel), was overpriced simply because the publisher believed if it was that good, it'd sell.
I'd been drinking in all the exceptions to the rules of publishing. I thirsted for them, searched for them, and I think it was because I wanted some sort of validation that my two prologues and over-long book had a chance. That everyone (everyone) that gave me smart advice were wrong, that I'd prove them all wrong.
Well, I got 67 query rejections in a row. Not a single request. (And appropriately so).
You see, as hard as it might seem to take the hard advice, it'll probably help you more than any other advice. It's weird but it's true: the advice that hurts the most, the advice that makes you search for articles online to prove it wrong, the advice that makes you sad...that's the advice you probably need to follow. That's my acid test as to whether a harsh criticism has merit or not.
(Another way, possibly the best way to tell whether you are the exception or not, is to get trusted and honest critique partners to give you feedback. They'll tell you if your rule-breaking is working or not.)
Deep down, we all know the truth of our own novels. We know how successful they can be and we know what possibly can burden its potential. But we don't want to go through the work of lifting those burdens. Writing a book, polishing it, revising it...that's all hard enough. Why go through more work?
And because of that attitude, we refuse to cut out that scene we love so much because JK Rowling had a similar scene in her novel. We refuse to cut our words because Tolkien wrote such a long masterpiece and his was a debut. We refuse. How many times do we hear, "But JK Rowling did it!!! She did it, and sold so many books, so if I do it, I'll sell a ton as well! You all just don't understand."
But very few of us are at the level that Rowling and Tolkien are/were. (If you want to talk about how 'lucky' Rowling was, know that she spent almost a decade before publishing the first Harry Potter simply building up the world, plotting, and working hard on the novels. Almost a decade. And still, due to her editor, she had to cut many scenes from her first novel to make it more of a 'publishable' length.) Those that are on that level know who they are. Those that think they are at that level, frankly, probably are very, very far away. I think the best place is to be in the middle: confident about our abilities, but not foolish enough to believe that publishing doesn't have rules and that our 700k literary fiction debut will ever be picked up.
I write this knowing that if someone read this, then went out and sold their 700k lit fic debut, they might think about this post and snicker. And, frankly, I feel foolish writing this post just thinking about that! But for every one person that will sell a 700k, there are hundreds of others that'll have to deal with not being the exception to the rule. The sad thing is, many, many people think they are the exception, and thus they don't take critiques to heart, they don't heed advice, and they query with a bad manuscript foolishly hoping that they'll be a NYT bestseller. There is probably nothing that has helped me more in my quest for publication than the feedback of my writing friends.
I'm one of those hundreds that have to deal with not being a major exception (I add 'major' because simply finishing a book is an exception as well). After all, we can't all be exceptions.
You know what they say: you got to learn (and live by) the rules before you can break them. And realizing that we all can't be exceptions can help us get past our own insecurities and (possibly) become the exception and break the rules.
Do you think 'The JK Rowling Excuse' is dangerous?
Back when I was querying my YA Epic Fantasy (since then, I've put that manuscript aside), I was absolutely torn apart with all these fantasies I had for my work.
It was, originally, about 40k words over the standard limit for the genre. Also, it had not one, but two prologues (both of which, as I later understood, weren't working). But the thing was, for months, I just wouldn't believe that it'd hinder me from getting published.
I kept thinking that I'd be like JK Rowling. I'd been reading (and I still do read) success stories of authors like Rowling, like Tolkien, like Margaret Mitchell.
Rowling: published an over-long children's novel which became the best selling series of all time. Tolkien: originally, his trilogy was a single, 500k novel which his publishers split up. Mitchell: her novel, deemed to be so freaking good (and also a debut novel), was overpriced simply because the publisher believed if it was that good, it'd sell.
I'd been drinking in all the exceptions to the rules of publishing. I thirsted for them, searched for them, and I think it was because I wanted some sort of validation that my two prologues and over-long book had a chance. That everyone (everyone) that gave me smart advice were wrong, that I'd prove them all wrong.
Well, I got 67 query rejections in a row. Not a single request. (And appropriately so).
You see, as hard as it might seem to take the hard advice, it'll probably help you more than any other advice. It's weird but it's true: the advice that hurts the most, the advice that makes you search for articles online to prove it wrong, the advice that makes you sad...that's the advice you probably need to follow. That's my acid test as to whether a harsh criticism has merit or not.
(Another way, possibly the best way to tell whether you are the exception or not, is to get trusted and honest critique partners to give you feedback. They'll tell you if your rule-breaking is working or not.)
Deep down, we all know the truth of our own novels. We know how successful they can be and we know what possibly can burden its potential. But we don't want to go through the work of lifting those burdens. Writing a book, polishing it, revising it...that's all hard enough. Why go through more work?
And because of that attitude, we refuse to cut out that scene we love so much because JK Rowling had a similar scene in her novel. We refuse to cut our words because Tolkien wrote such a long masterpiece and his was a debut. We refuse. How many times do we hear, "But JK Rowling did it!!! She did it, and sold so many books, so if I do it, I'll sell a ton as well! You all just don't understand."
But very few of us are at the level that Rowling and Tolkien are/were. (If you want to talk about how 'lucky' Rowling was, know that she spent almost a decade before publishing the first Harry Potter simply building up the world, plotting, and working hard on the novels. Almost a decade. And still, due to her editor, she had to cut many scenes from her first novel to make it more of a 'publishable' length.) Those that are on that level know who they are. Those that think they are at that level, frankly, probably are very, very far away. I think the best place is to be in the middle: confident about our abilities, but not foolish enough to believe that publishing doesn't have rules and that our 700k literary fiction debut will ever be picked up.
I write this knowing that if someone read this, then went out and sold their 700k lit fic debut, they might think about this post and snicker. And, frankly, I feel foolish writing this post just thinking about that! But for every one person that will sell a 700k, there are hundreds of others that'll have to deal with not being the exception to the rule. The sad thing is, many, many people think they are the exception, and thus they don't take critiques to heart, they don't heed advice, and they query with a bad manuscript foolishly hoping that they'll be a NYT bestseller. There is probably nothing that has helped me more in my quest for publication than the feedback of my writing friends.
I'm one of those hundreds that have to deal with not being a major exception (I add 'major' because simply finishing a book is an exception as well). After all, we can't all be exceptions.
You know what they say: you got to learn (and live by) the rules before you can break them. And realizing that we all can't be exceptions can help us get past our own insecurities and (possibly) become the exception and break the rules.
Do you think 'The JK Rowling Excuse' is dangerous?
Monday, February 3, 2014
On Receiving - and Handling - 'Harsh' Critiques
Getting critiques on your work is tough. Grueling. It almost physically hurts. The query, the 250, the manuscript, the synopsis, etc. that you spend so. much. time. on is now torn apart by someone who read it in a few minutes. Now, your work starts all over again.
But there is one thing I'll always maintain: as long as you're really passionate about writing, getting harsh critiques is a lot LOT better than getting no critiques.
This has been inspired by my 'Become an Agent' contest currently going on right now (by the way, entrants, deadline to submit your votes is Wednesday night 9 p.m. EST!). No, it's not just one person who informed me that the feedback they received was a bit on the tough side. I've had multiple people tell me this. Last year, I think I had only one. That's why, frankly, I'm a bit shocked and even puzzled as to why this problem has sprung up. And that's why I'm writing this post right now.
The responsibility of the critiquer is to be clear and precise in their feedback so their advice isn't hard to understand. They also have a responsibility, not to baby the writer, but to critique with the writer's best interest at heart.
The thing is, as far as I've seen, basically every entrant in this contest gave this type of feedback.
It hurts to get 'harsh' critiques. It hurt for me, too, when I entered the Authoress's Public Slushpile contest (very much like this contest) and got the results.
I'm going to show you guys something that I'm almost embarrassed of. I really, really don't like showing people this but I think it's important for everyone still hurting from a critique to know this story.
Almost two years ago, I entered the Public Slushpile contest thinking my query would get tons and tons of Yes's. And, behold, out of 49 votes, I got only 4 Yes's (and I'm fairly sure those were sympathy Yes's because there were no limits to how many Yes's someone could give out). You want to see the entry? Sure you do. Here it is. I won't even tell you not to cringe.
I'm almost embarrassed by that query but in no way would I ever go back to the future and take it down from the public's eyes. I don't even want to take it down now. I had entered that query after getting over a dozen different eyes on it: finally, critique after critique, getting something I thought was a solid query. I was going to send that query out to agents, for Pete's sake. Read the query. Just read it. It is HORRIBLE.
That contest and the critiques I got left me hurting. I was in shock, I couldn't believe it. I was angry, frustrated, because I had worked so hard on the query. But a few days after I realized just how right everyone of those No's were.
Yes, that contest bruised my ego (more like snapped it in half and threw it in the trash). But because of that contest, I revised and revamped my query into something much, much better (but, eventually, I never sent it out because I started work on a new novel - the one I'm revising right now!). Because of that contest, I realized how stupid I was in thinking I had a good query. I would have gotten dozens of rejections and missed my chance with amazing agents.
Because of what I learned from that contest, I created 'Become an Agent' to give other writers a chance at the same experience I had. I do not exaggerate: that contest may be the most powerful contest I've ever been in (another one would be the Writer's Voice, solely because it's because of that contest that I created this blog in the first place). I desperately wanted to give other writers the same experience I had.
So sure, you may have gotten all No's in this contest, or your query or 250 or manuscript is being torn apart by your critique partners. But if you really, really think about it, would you rather get these critiques and feel bad for a few days, or would you rather be ignorantly happy while sending out horrible queries to agents, getting rejections, and never knowing why?
There's an odd rule: the more a critique seems to hurt, the higher the chance that the critique is spot-on. Don't react to a critique right away; give it at least a day for you to relax and think about it.
This is really tough love on my part, but I say it because critiques might be the only way for you to become the very best writer you can. Don't let your emotions or short-term feelings of happiness come in the way of your talent. I want you to succeed. It's why I made this contest in the first place, for Pete's sake.
But success doesn't mean winning this contest. Success means short-term sadness but long-term success. Be happy you got all No's or mostly No's. Swallow your anger and funnel it towards making your query even stronger. In fact, I think the person who gets the least from this contest is the one who gets all Yes's, which is why I'm (if I get permission) doing an interview with the winner (so the winner gets something). That's why I've been saying over and over that winning isn't the point of this contest (although, by calling it a contest - for lack of a better word - I guess I've invited it upon myself).
This contest is a tough one, I've said it when it started. But, hopefully, it will be a contest you'll remember - and cherish - for a long while to come. All you have to do is forget about trying to win. Try to grow instead. And I do hope you won't hate me or hate my blog after reading this post because I'm not writing this out of spite! (Good gosh, I just realized I have a big fear of people hating me. That's not good for a writer, is it?)
Entrants have until Wednesday 9 p.m. EST to finish up votes!
ALSO: To all entrants!!! If you want to submit a REVISED version of your query and 250, simply include them in a comment to your original post any time after Wednesday 9 p.m. EST. I'll write up a blog post for Thursday putting up a list of all the posts that have revised entries (so people can easily find them). Anyone who wants to can critique the revisions by replying to the comment! Most likely, you'll have to return the favor (so include your post number at the end of your critique).
For entrants: how do you feel about the contest so far? Anything to improve on for next year? How has the feedback been?
For everyone: How do you feel about getting harsh critiques or reviews?
But there is one thing I'll always maintain: as long as you're really passionate about writing, getting harsh critiques is a lot LOT better than getting no critiques.
This has been inspired by my 'Become an Agent' contest currently going on right now (by the way, entrants, deadline to submit your votes is Wednesday night 9 p.m. EST!). No, it's not just one person who informed me that the feedback they received was a bit on the tough side. I've had multiple people tell me this. Last year, I think I had only one. That's why, frankly, I'm a bit shocked and even puzzled as to why this problem has sprung up. And that's why I'm writing this post right now.
The responsibility of the critiquer is to be clear and precise in their feedback so their advice isn't hard to understand. They also have a responsibility, not to baby the writer, but to critique with the writer's best interest at heart.
The thing is, as far as I've seen, basically every entrant in this contest gave this type of feedback.
It hurts to get 'harsh' critiques. It hurt for me, too, when I entered the Authoress's Public Slushpile contest (very much like this contest) and got the results.
I'm going to show you guys something that I'm almost embarrassed of. I really, really don't like showing people this but I think it's important for everyone still hurting from a critique to know this story.
Almost two years ago, I entered the Public Slushpile contest thinking my query would get tons and tons of Yes's. And, behold, out of 49 votes, I got only 4 Yes's (and I'm fairly sure those were sympathy Yes's because there were no limits to how many Yes's someone could give out). You want to see the entry? Sure you do. Here it is. I won't even tell you not to cringe.
I'm almost embarrassed by that query but in no way would I ever go back to the future and take it down from the public's eyes. I don't even want to take it down now. I had entered that query after getting over a dozen different eyes on it: finally, critique after critique, getting something I thought was a solid query. I was going to send that query out to agents, for Pete's sake. Read the query. Just read it. It is HORRIBLE.
That contest and the critiques I got left me hurting. I was in shock, I couldn't believe it. I was angry, frustrated, because I had worked so hard on the query. But a few days after I realized just how right everyone of those No's were.
Yes, that contest bruised my ego (more like snapped it in half and threw it in the trash). But because of that contest, I revised and revamped my query into something much, much better (but, eventually, I never sent it out because I started work on a new novel - the one I'm revising right now!). Because of that contest, I realized how stupid I was in thinking I had a good query. I would have gotten dozens of rejections and missed my chance with amazing agents.
Because of what I learned from that contest, I created 'Become an Agent' to give other writers a chance at the same experience I had. I do not exaggerate: that contest may be the most powerful contest I've ever been in (another one would be the Writer's Voice, solely because it's because of that contest that I created this blog in the first place). I desperately wanted to give other writers the same experience I had.
So sure, you may have gotten all No's in this contest, or your query or 250 or manuscript is being torn apart by your critique partners. But if you really, really think about it, would you rather get these critiques and feel bad for a few days, or would you rather be ignorantly happy while sending out horrible queries to agents, getting rejections, and never knowing why?
There's an odd rule: the more a critique seems to hurt, the higher the chance that the critique is spot-on. Don't react to a critique right away; give it at least a day for you to relax and think about it.
This is really tough love on my part, but I say it because critiques might be the only way for you to become the very best writer you can. Don't let your emotions or short-term feelings of happiness come in the way of your talent. I want you to succeed. It's why I made this contest in the first place, for Pete's sake.
But success doesn't mean winning this contest. Success means short-term sadness but long-term success. Be happy you got all No's or mostly No's. Swallow your anger and funnel it towards making your query even stronger. In fact, I think the person who gets the least from this contest is the one who gets all Yes's, which is why I'm (if I get permission) doing an interview with the winner (so the winner gets something). That's why I've been saying over and over that winning isn't the point of this contest (although, by calling it a contest - for lack of a better word - I guess I've invited it upon myself).
This contest is a tough one, I've said it when it started. But, hopefully, it will be a contest you'll remember - and cherish - for a long while to come. All you have to do is forget about trying to win. Try to grow instead. And I do hope you won't hate me or hate my blog after reading this post because I'm not writing this out of spite! (Good gosh, I just realized I have a big fear of people hating me. That's not good for a writer, is it?)
Entrants have until Wednesday 9 p.m. EST to finish up votes!
ALSO: To all entrants!!! If you want to submit a REVISED version of your query and 250, simply include them in a comment to your original post any time after Wednesday 9 p.m. EST. I'll write up a blog post for Thursday putting up a list of all the posts that have revised entries (so people can easily find them). Anyone who wants to can critique the revisions by replying to the comment! Most likely, you'll have to return the favor (so include your post number at the end of your critique).
For entrants: how do you feel about the contest so far? Anything to improve on for next year? How has the feedback been?
For everyone: How do you feel about getting harsh critiques or reviews?
Monday, January 6, 2014
The Best Way to Understand a Book...is to Read it with an Accent?
I'm back! I'm back from my trip to India -- and, surprisingly, Abu Dhabi as well, due to an overbooked flight during our stop in Abu Dhabi. I've got a few pictures up on my Twitter feed (mostly because Michelle said she expected pics, and I couldn't say no XD) and I plan to put more up there from when I was in India. It's easier to upload onto Twitter from my phone rather than upload it onto the computer to get it on this blog (I don't even think I know how to do that). IT WAS AWESOME. And I'm refreshed, got 2 weeks away from my first draft, and I've already dived into revisions! They're going well so far. I hope you all had a great New Year's!
I'm currently reading (amongst a lot of other books) Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. Now, this is considered to be one of Woolf's masterpieces. So much is said about her technique, her style, and especially about her lyrical prose.
Lyrical prose means that the arrangement of the words sound musical. The way the words roll off the tongue, they way they sound next to each other, the way they're pronounced....
Virginia Woolf was British. That means that her prose was crafted around a British dialect.
Now, as an American, am I missing the true magnitude of her words' musicality by reading Mrs. Dalloway in my normal American accent?
Yea, I know, it's a really weird thought, so go ahead and laugh (I snickered in my mind when I first thought of it).
But lyrical prose is very much like a poem itself. Poems change dramatically if they are read in its true accent: words that normally don't rhyme together suddenly do; the poem solidifies into a united structure; the rhyme scheme and meter and rhythm all come together.
It's a silly thing to get caught up about, and this issue mostly comes up only where the prose is the main draw of the writing, but just think: how much do readers unknowingly cast aside because they don't live in the same world that the writer does?
In America, it's a public school. In Britain, their public school is the equivalent of an American private school. Now, say an American writer wrote, "Little Billy sat in the classroom of a Chicago public school." British people would nod and be like, "Very good for Little Billy! You go Little Billy, good job, go get that great education."
Let me tell you something. Little Billy might be getting something in a Chicago public school but more than likely it's not a great education.
It's a concept lost in translation, for modern Chicago public schools are amongst America's most infamous education systems, characterized by an epidemic of poverty, misbehavior, and extremely low results. But a British reader might associate Chicago (a big city) and a public school (rich private education) to mean Little Billy is of wealthy means, something entirely opposite to what the writer wanted. On the same token, a British writer might say, "Little Billy went to a public school in the depths of London," and an American would think, "Well, Little Billy's in for a rough time," completely opposite to what the writer intended.
As hard as we try, we'll never be able to pick up on all these mistranslations by ourselves unless we live in both countries and are immersed in both cultures. It's not because we're dumb; it's because half the allusions the foreign writer puts in we, seriously, don't give a second thought. For instance, very few probably knew that JK Rowling's magical creation of 'Spellotape' (basically a magical version of normal tape) is a pun on the very popular British brand, 'Sellotape'. The American equivalent is Scotch tape.
I think this is why the translator's job is so incredibly important, even in UK to US or US to UK translations (imagine translations between languages.... I'm not even going to try talking about that in this post). There are so many differences in any two cultures that the translator needs to pick up on, needs to bridge the gap for the reader so the reader gets the full power of the original text.
What I love are annotations. You'll find them in most classic novels, especially in the translated ones, little blurbs that explain a piece of the text. They give such a richness to the novel and help bring the reader closer to the author's intentions.
So, while it might be too exhausting to read a British book in an American accent, or an American book in a British one, knowing that there is a culture gap is the first step to understanding the book.
Realize, at least, that the author wrote the book in a different dialect than the one you're used to. Then you can research the novel more, buy an annotated edition, try understanding it yourself, or simply read it normally. It doesn't matter. From there, it's all up to you. Just don't read in ignorance.
What do you think?
*** First Blog Post of 2014!!!!! WOO!!! ***
I'm currently reading (amongst a lot of other books) Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. Now, this is considered to be one of Woolf's masterpieces. So much is said about her technique, her style, and especially about her lyrical prose.
Lyrical prose means that the arrangement of the words sound musical. The way the words roll off the tongue, they way they sound next to each other, the way they're pronounced....
Virginia Woolf was British. That means that her prose was crafted around a British dialect.
Now, as an American, am I missing the true magnitude of her words' musicality by reading Mrs. Dalloway in my normal American accent?
Yea, I know, it's a really weird thought, so go ahead and laugh (I snickered in my mind when I first thought of it).
But lyrical prose is very much like a poem itself. Poems change dramatically if they are read in its true accent: words that normally don't rhyme together suddenly do; the poem solidifies into a united structure; the rhyme scheme and meter and rhythm all come together.
It's a silly thing to get caught up about, and this issue mostly comes up only where the prose is the main draw of the writing, but just think: how much do readers unknowingly cast aside because they don't live in the same world that the writer does?
In America, it's a public school. In Britain, their public school is the equivalent of an American private school. Now, say an American writer wrote, "Little Billy sat in the classroom of a Chicago public school." British people would nod and be like, "Very good for Little Billy! You go Little Billy, good job, go get that great education."
Let me tell you something. Little Billy might be getting something in a Chicago public school but more than likely it's not a great education.
It's a concept lost in translation, for modern Chicago public schools are amongst America's most infamous education systems, characterized by an epidemic of poverty, misbehavior, and extremely low results. But a British reader might associate Chicago (a big city) and a public school (rich private education) to mean Little Billy is of wealthy means, something entirely opposite to what the writer wanted. On the same token, a British writer might say, "Little Billy went to a public school in the depths of London," and an American would think, "Well, Little Billy's in for a rough time," completely opposite to what the writer intended.
As hard as we try, we'll never be able to pick up on all these mistranslations by ourselves unless we live in both countries and are immersed in both cultures. It's not because we're dumb; it's because half the allusions the foreign writer puts in we, seriously, don't give a second thought. For instance, very few probably knew that JK Rowling's magical creation of 'Spellotape' (basically a magical version of normal tape) is a pun on the very popular British brand, 'Sellotape'. The American equivalent is Scotch tape.
I think this is why the translator's job is so incredibly important, even in UK to US or US to UK translations (imagine translations between languages.... I'm not even going to try talking about that in this post). There are so many differences in any two cultures that the translator needs to pick up on, needs to bridge the gap for the reader so the reader gets the full power of the original text.
What I love are annotations. You'll find them in most classic novels, especially in the translated ones, little blurbs that explain a piece of the text. They give such a richness to the novel and help bring the reader closer to the author's intentions.
So, while it might be too exhausting to read a British book in an American accent, or an American book in a British one, knowing that there is a culture gap is the first step to understanding the book.
Realize, at least, that the author wrote the book in a different dialect than the one you're used to. Then you can research the novel more, buy an annotated edition, try understanding it yourself, or simply read it normally. It doesn't matter. From there, it's all up to you. Just don't read in ignorance.
What do you think?
Friday, December 13, 2013
The Books We're Writing are Not All Ours
ETA: Changed this post's title because 'plagerized' seemed too strong.
I paint. A lo lot. I'm actually known as the artist amongst my family (great genes from my mom, thank you mom!). It's what I do, in all mediums, but my 'real' work is in oil paints, and especially portraits.
Once a week (usually) I go to a professional artist's studio and paint under her guidance. She's incredible; an amazing teacher and artist as well.
So, many weeks ago, I was doing this portrait with her. But I couldn't get the face to look how it should. I couldn't block in the colors and the paints how she does, so after a while, she took my brush (something she doesn't like doing - she likes having the student's work be the student's work) and helped me out. Because of her help, artistically speaking, that portrait was the best I've ever done. Yet even though I did the underpainting and the structure of the face, even though I did basically everything else of the painting, when it came for me to sign it, I just couldn't. It's still unsigned, even though she told me over and over to sign it, that it was all my work.
I can't handle that. It feels wrong that I'm taking full credit for the painting when one of the most beautiful parts of the painting is the face: how wonderfully, loosely, and artistically it is handled. I half-jokingly told her that she should sign it too, but of course, she wouldn't hear of it.
It's still an amazing painting; I love it. It's the best portrait 'I' have ever done; but the thing is, I didn't do it. I had help. A lot of help.
The top art shows, if I am not mistaken, require that all paintings be done at home or without any sort of supervision. Meaning you can't get help from your teacher. And in most shows, if you even mention that your submitted painting was partially painted by someone else: immediate disqualification. It's plagiarism.
So what irks me and makes me feel so guilty is that if (and hopefully, when) I get an agent, then an editor and a publishing deal, how will I ever write my name on the bottom of the book cover?
And even though many of us aren't at that stage yet, how about critique partners? Beta readers? We'd be lying through our teeth if we say that we could create the same book without their help. My critique partners saw things I'd never have caught in my first manuscript. Because of them, I've grown so, so much. And when I finish my current work-in-progress, I'll send it to them, and that book will be the work of not only me but my friends as well.
Can you ever deny that your critique partners, your agent, your editor, did not even change one word in your book? Most likely, only because of them, you changed pages and pages of your book. And in the painting world, if you dared write it off as your own....
This isn't just a problem for authors hoping to be traditionally published. If you're going the correct way in self-publishing, you'll hire an editor to go through your manuscript as well.
It's something I have a very tough time with. I can't feel good about writing my name at the bottom of my book, or that painting, when other hands have formed it as well. How can I take credit for their work as well?
Some consolations:
1. You did come up with the main idea and do almost all the work by yourself (but that's the same with the painting).
2. You have an acknowledgments section in which you can list everyone who helped you. This is what's keeping me sane. The idea that the other hands will be written with the book as well.
3. In the end, it is your decision to take your editor's, agent's, and/or critique partners' suggestions. You, technically, can say, 'Screw you, it's my own!' or, 'I like that idea, I'll do that,' and then it's your idea...kind of. But that's idealism. You can't disregard everything an editor or agents suggests. Doing so would mess up your publication deal. At most, as a debut author, you can have three possible big changes to fight for and win (but that's pushing it). So technically, in the end, your book is ultimately approved by you and you can keep anything you want, but it's either do the changes or ruin your relationship with your agent/editor, so..... Also, even if you love the suggested changes, would you ever have thought of them by yourself?
That's all the consolations I can think of. This isn't really a very happy post.
Realizing that this applies to basically every book that's been published is scary and maddening, because it tarnishes the image of authors I love and idolize. All their genius wasn't only theirs.
I don't know. I don't know how to come to terms with this.
I think the best thing possible is to really go hard on that acknowledgments section. Otherwise, we might just have to add 'Mostly written by' in front of the author's name, and that'd be more correct.
I think, in the end, we simply have to give more respect to agents, editors, and critique partners. All the attention usually goes to the author, and honestly, that's not right. It's a bitter truth.
I paint. A lo lot. I'm actually known as the artist amongst my family (great genes from my mom, thank you mom!). It's what I do, in all mediums, but my 'real' work is in oil paints, and especially portraits.
Once a week (usually) I go to a professional artist's studio and paint under her guidance. She's incredible; an amazing teacher and artist as well.
So, many weeks ago, I was doing this portrait with her. But I couldn't get the face to look how it should. I couldn't block in the colors and the paints how she does, so after a while, she took my brush (something she doesn't like doing - she likes having the student's work be the student's work) and helped me out. Because of her help, artistically speaking, that portrait was the best I've ever done. Yet even though I did the underpainting and the structure of the face, even though I did basically everything else of the painting, when it came for me to sign it, I just couldn't. It's still unsigned, even though she told me over and over to sign it, that it was all my work.
I can't handle that. It feels wrong that I'm taking full credit for the painting when one of the most beautiful parts of the painting is the face: how wonderfully, loosely, and artistically it is handled. I half-jokingly told her that she should sign it too, but of course, she wouldn't hear of it.
It's still an amazing painting; I love it. It's the best portrait 'I' have ever done; but the thing is, I didn't do it. I had help. A lot of help.
The top art shows, if I am not mistaken, require that all paintings be done at home or without any sort of supervision. Meaning you can't get help from your teacher. And in most shows, if you even mention that your submitted painting was partially painted by someone else: immediate disqualification. It's plagiarism.
So what irks me and makes me feel so guilty is that if (and hopefully, when) I get an agent, then an editor and a publishing deal, how will I ever write my name on the bottom of the book cover?
And even though many of us aren't at that stage yet, how about critique partners? Beta readers? We'd be lying through our teeth if we say that we could create the same book without their help. My critique partners saw things I'd never have caught in my first manuscript. Because of them, I've grown so, so much. And when I finish my current work-in-progress, I'll send it to them, and that book will be the work of not only me but my friends as well.
Can you ever deny that your critique partners, your agent, your editor, did not even change one word in your book? Most likely, only because of them, you changed pages and pages of your book. And in the painting world, if you dared write it off as your own....
This isn't just a problem for authors hoping to be traditionally published. If you're going the correct way in self-publishing, you'll hire an editor to go through your manuscript as well.
It's something I have a very tough time with. I can't feel good about writing my name at the bottom of my book, or that painting, when other hands have formed it as well. How can I take credit for their work as well?
Some consolations:
1. You did come up with the main idea and do almost all the work by yourself (but that's the same with the painting).
2. You have an acknowledgments section in which you can list everyone who helped you. This is what's keeping me sane. The idea that the other hands will be written with the book as well.
3. In the end, it is your decision to take your editor's, agent's, and/or critique partners' suggestions. You, technically, can say, 'Screw you, it's my own!' or, 'I like that idea, I'll do that,' and then it's your idea...kind of. But that's idealism. You can't disregard everything an editor or agents suggests. Doing so would mess up your publication deal. At most, as a debut author, you can have three possible big changes to fight for and win (but that's pushing it). So technically, in the end, your book is ultimately approved by you and you can keep anything you want, but it's either do the changes or ruin your relationship with your agent/editor, so..... Also, even if you love the suggested changes, would you ever have thought of them by yourself?
That's all the consolations I can think of. This isn't really a very happy post.
Realizing that this applies to basically every book that's been published is scary and maddening, because it tarnishes the image of authors I love and idolize. All their genius wasn't only theirs.
I don't know. I don't know how to come to terms with this.
I think the best thing possible is to really go hard on that acknowledgments section. Otherwise, we might just have to add 'Mostly written by' in front of the author's name, and that'd be more correct.
I think, in the end, we simply have to give more respect to agents, editors, and critique partners. All the attention usually goes to the author, and honestly, that's not right. It's a bitter truth.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Make Your Titles Useful
Of course, you've heard it all.
Make your blog titles tempting. Make them enticing. Make them relevant.
But I'm going to add another adjective: useful. And I'm learning it as well.
You see, this realization came when I was reading this one blog post. I read the title and I started to read the post. Then I basically just freaked out.
Honestly, the post didn't jive with the title at all. They were two separate beasts entirely, I couldn't see how they were related at all until later on in the post when the actual title-part was introduced.
Maybe the author had something great to say in those few paragraphs in the beginning. Maybe the author had some point to make. But I couldn't get it, I couldn't understand the post, I couldn't start reading because I was so darn confused.
I'm not saying your blog titles have to be simple summaries of your post. I'm not saying they have to be dull. Make them exciting. But all that flash won't matter if it just confuses the reader. I'd rather have a summary of a title than a flashy one, because, think about it: summary-titles will make reading the post much more easy, and summary-titles are most prone to getting picked up by Google searches (do you search 'How to get good characterization' or '101 Tricks in Spicing Up Your Hero' when you do a Google search?).
Yes, yes, this post is directed towards the blog-writing audience, but it works for every other writer as well. Think about chapters.
I forget where I heard it, but one agent makes all her clients get rid of their chapter titles and replaces them with numbers, unless the titles are super super important or voicey.
I was aghast when I first read this (I loved my titles!) but then I thought about just how long I spend trying to find a good chapter title. And then I think about how chapter titles ruin some books for me if I glance at the Table of Contents (because, honestly, if I read, 'Back Alive' as the title for the last chapter, do you think I'll believe that the main character is dead?).
Just something to think about. I still love chapter titles when they're used well, but reading about this agent made me realize just how much more important the story is. It's something many of us (me too) forget; we think awesome titles, awesome covers, awesome whatevers, will make-or-break our novels when the single biggest thing we should spend the most time worrying about is the text itself. That's where the gold is.
Titles should serve the purpose of whatever comes under the title, be it a blog post, a chapter, or even a whole darn book. Don't make the mistake of thinking the title is more important than the rest of the words. If anything, your title should help convey or even further your text's meaning (think of the poem "In the Orchard") but not make it more confusing. The title should be a vehicle to convey the message of the text without interfering with it. If your title does this, then feel free to add all the attention-getting and sparklies you want.
Because the main star is the text, not the title. And we should never forget that.
How do you feel about chapter titles? And how much time do we spend worrying about the less important parts of a book?
P.S. You might not believe it but I've been going to sleep before midnight for the last two nights. It's literally something I haven't done in years, and I plan on going to bed even EARLIER tonight! AHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZY.
Make your blog titles tempting. Make them enticing. Make them relevant.
But I'm going to add another adjective: useful. And I'm learning it as well.
You see, this realization came when I was reading this one blog post. I read the title and I started to read the post. Then I basically just freaked out.
Honestly, the post didn't jive with the title at all. They were two separate beasts entirely, I couldn't see how they were related at all until later on in the post when the actual title-part was introduced.
Maybe the author had something great to say in those few paragraphs in the beginning. Maybe the author had some point to make. But I couldn't get it, I couldn't understand the post, I couldn't start reading because I was so darn confused.
I'm not saying your blog titles have to be simple summaries of your post. I'm not saying they have to be dull. Make them exciting. But all that flash won't matter if it just confuses the reader. I'd rather have a summary of a title than a flashy one, because, think about it: summary-titles will make reading the post much more easy, and summary-titles are most prone to getting picked up by Google searches (do you search 'How to get good characterization' or '101 Tricks in Spicing Up Your Hero' when you do a Google search?).
Yes, yes, this post is directed towards the blog-writing audience, but it works for every other writer as well. Think about chapters.
I forget where I heard it, but one agent makes all her clients get rid of their chapter titles and replaces them with numbers, unless the titles are super super important or voicey.
I was aghast when I first read this (I loved my titles!) but then I thought about just how long I spend trying to find a good chapter title. And then I think about how chapter titles ruin some books for me if I glance at the Table of Contents (because, honestly, if I read, 'Back Alive' as the title for the last chapter, do you think I'll believe that the main character is dead?).
Just something to think about. I still love chapter titles when they're used well, but reading about this agent made me realize just how much more important the story is. It's something many of us (me too) forget; we think awesome titles, awesome covers, awesome whatevers, will make-or-break our novels when the single biggest thing we should spend the most time worrying about is the text itself. That's where the gold is.
Titles should serve the purpose of whatever comes under the title, be it a blog post, a chapter, or even a whole darn book. Don't make the mistake of thinking the title is more important than the rest of the words. If anything, your title should help convey or even further your text's meaning (think of the poem "In the Orchard") but not make it more confusing. The title should be a vehicle to convey the message of the text without interfering with it. If your title does this, then feel free to add all the attention-getting and sparklies you want.
Because the main star is the text, not the title. And we should never forget that.
How do you feel about chapter titles? And how much time do we spend worrying about the less important parts of a book?
P.S. You might not believe it but I've been going to sleep before midnight for the last two nights. It's literally something I haven't done in years, and I plan on going to bed even EARLIER tonight! AHHH!!!! THIS IS CRAZY.
Monday, November 25, 2013
I'd Rather Have Readers
I wrote a post last Friday about the Dickens Schism, where his most critically acclaimed book, best selling book, and the book he loved the most, were all different. Which drew the question, what criteria matters the most? Critical acclaim, popularity, or self-fulfillment?
I asked you all to discuss your opinions in the comments of that post, and I said I'd share my answer today. So here it is!
I was surprised to see that all (or most, depending if new comments have arrived by the time this post gets published) of the comments wanted popular acclaim. Because, that is my answer as well.
It's funny. I thought a lot of people would put self-fulfillment as their answers because they write for themselves, etc. etc. But I do think, for most people, the honest answer is that they write because of the readers. And that answer holds true for me as well.
Let's just do a little process of elimination.
Why not write for yourself?
Because, as Michael so smartly pointed out in the comments, "[if] you're just writing a book for you, don't bother publishing." It's on point if you think of it, and doesn't need much more talking about. It's almost unarguable: if your main purpose in writing is for yourself, don't publish. I'd like to hear an argument about how that statement wouldn't hold true because I can't think of any!
Why not write for critics?
This is a tougher one because you can indeed wish to publish for critical acclaim. And authors have done that: think James Joyce and his Ulysses. I'd be stretching to say that that book is incredibly popular amongst those not pursing English degrees or publication ;) Some writers do indeed write for critical acclaim, to explore and invent new ways to use language and words. And it is to them that writers owe much of their knowledge in prose and literary techniques.
But in the end, most writers, in fact the vast majority of writers, write for the readers. If they want critical acclaim, it might be easier to publish in a literary magazine instead of trying to get a Big 5 publisher which might not want to risk publishing a book of a new style. Yet most writers strive for Big 5 publishers, or self-publishing, any way to reach masses of readers.
I, personally, have a story to tell. Something to say. Because, as Maya Angelou said, "There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you." And I think that quote is so, so true.
It is due to this agony that writers go through years and years of rejection, of typing, of revising, of little hope. I think we many times underestimate just how insane writing truly is: years of voluntary pain for a goal that may never come.
But at the end of the darkness, it's not really self-fulfillment that's driving us forward. If it was, we wouldn't be striving for publication. For most of us, it isn't critical acclaim (or at least, solely critical acclaim - because who wouldn't like being called the new Hemingway?) that drives us on. It's too much of a niche to hold on to. It's the masses, the large populations, the millions of readers, that push us along. It's the idea of having a voice in this world, of having an impact, of being heard. It's the idea of having your ideas be spread to other minds instead of bottled up in your own.
So, for me, it is mostly about the readers. Because, yes, I wouldn't dare publish or write a book that I hate, nor do I want to be laughed at for my prose. But I do want big sales: not because of the money, and I mean that. It's because that means many, many people have heard what I have to say. They've read my story. And hopefully, it had an impact.
How about you guys? What would you want?
I asked you all to discuss your opinions in the comments of that post, and I said I'd share my answer today. So here it is!
I was surprised to see that all (or most, depending if new comments have arrived by the time this post gets published) of the comments wanted popular acclaim. Because, that is my answer as well.
It's funny. I thought a lot of people would put self-fulfillment as their answers because they write for themselves, etc. etc. But I do think, for most people, the honest answer is that they write because of the readers. And that answer holds true for me as well.
Let's just do a little process of elimination.
Why not write for yourself?
Because, as Michael so smartly pointed out in the comments, "[if] you're just writing a book for you, don't bother publishing." It's on point if you think of it, and doesn't need much more talking about. It's almost unarguable: if your main purpose in writing is for yourself, don't publish. I'd like to hear an argument about how that statement wouldn't hold true because I can't think of any!
Why not write for critics?
This is a tougher one because you can indeed wish to publish for critical acclaim. And authors have done that: think James Joyce and his Ulysses. I'd be stretching to say that that book is incredibly popular amongst those not pursing English degrees or publication ;) Some writers do indeed write for critical acclaim, to explore and invent new ways to use language and words. And it is to them that writers owe much of their knowledge in prose and literary techniques.
But in the end, most writers, in fact the vast majority of writers, write for the readers. If they want critical acclaim, it might be easier to publish in a literary magazine instead of trying to get a Big 5 publisher which might not want to risk publishing a book of a new style. Yet most writers strive for Big 5 publishers, or self-publishing, any way to reach masses of readers.
I, personally, have a story to tell. Something to say. Because, as Maya Angelou said, "There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you." And I think that quote is so, so true.
It is due to this agony that writers go through years and years of rejection, of typing, of revising, of little hope. I think we many times underestimate just how insane writing truly is: years of voluntary pain for a goal that may never come.
But at the end of the darkness, it's not really self-fulfillment that's driving us forward. If it was, we wouldn't be striving for publication. For most of us, it isn't critical acclaim (or at least, solely critical acclaim - because who wouldn't like being called the new Hemingway?) that drives us on. It's too much of a niche to hold on to. It's the masses, the large populations, the millions of readers, that push us along. It's the idea of having a voice in this world, of having an impact, of being heard. It's the idea of having your ideas be spread to other minds instead of bottled up in your own.
So, for me, it is mostly about the readers. Because, yes, I wouldn't dare publish or write a book that I hate, nor do I want to be laughed at for my prose. But I do want big sales: not because of the money, and I mean that. It's because that means many, many people have heard what I have to say. They've read my story. And hopefully, it had an impact.
How about you guys? What would you want?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Let's Think of Writing as We Do About Blogging
All those blogging writers out there will understand me when I say that maybe it's time to think of writing as we think of blogging (and all those non-bloggers out there, stay tuned, because the underlying message here is something to think about).
I usually get to bed around eleven or twelve at night. Sometimes, I get in later, much later.
But if it's a Sunday or Thursday night, I stay up, because I blog on Mondays and Fridays. Missing a blog post is just not something I'd consider happily. So I stay up and type up a post and then go to sleep.
This means I'm tired, I'm groggy, I sometimes can't even think of something to blog about. Sometimes I'm in my bed, about to sleep, and then I remember I have to blog and I get up and type. It's insane, probably not healthy, but it works, because I must blog.
The question is, isn't it more important that I must write?
If I'm tired on a Tuesday or Wednesday night (no blog post to write), I just sleep and say I'll catch up with my writing the next day. But that doesn't work. Not for me, anyway. I keep dragging and dragging and soon I'm barely writing anything at all.
Why is it that when I have a blog post to write, I can find/force time in, even when I'm tired?
It's partially because of the expectations.
I have readers (you are the best!). I don't want to disappoint them, I don't want to ruin my routine, and I don't want to miss out on a day of blogging. I don't want to leave a mini-vacuum.
My posts usually run about a few hundred words. That's a few hundred words of writing I can put in my manuscript if I have the same stone-cold, rigid, inflexible dedication to it as I have to this blog.
The thing is, what blogging gives us is an excuse. An excuse to write, and an inflexible excuse as well. It has easily-seen results with a straight-forward purpose, something our vague, many-months-long novel-writing periods don't have. We don't have instant gratification every few hundred words of writing (unless you use the program, Written Kitten, which gives you a new picture of a kitten every few hundred words you write). It's just not the same.
What we should do is find a way around this mental block, this need for instant gratification. Because only after months will we have anything ready to be read by others; blog posts take a few minutes. And it feels so good to get comments on your work, whatever type it is!
So, What Does Blogging Teach Me about Writing?
I usually get to bed around eleven or twelve at night. Sometimes, I get in later, much later.
But if it's a Sunday or Thursday night, I stay up, because I blog on Mondays and Fridays. Missing a blog post is just not something I'd consider happily. So I stay up and type up a post and then go to sleep.
This means I'm tired, I'm groggy, I sometimes can't even think of something to blog about. Sometimes I'm in my bed, about to sleep, and then I remember I have to blog and I get up and type. It's insane, probably not healthy, but it works, because I must blog.
The question is, isn't it more important that I must write?
If I'm tired on a Tuesday or Wednesday night (no blog post to write), I just sleep and say I'll catch up with my writing the next day. But that doesn't work. Not for me, anyway. I keep dragging and dragging and soon I'm barely writing anything at all.
Why is it that when I have a blog post to write, I can find/force time in, even when I'm tired?
It's partially because of the expectations.
I have readers (you are the best!). I don't want to disappoint them, I don't want to ruin my routine, and I don't want to miss out on a day of blogging. I don't want to leave a mini-vacuum.
My posts usually run about a few hundred words. That's a few hundred words of writing I can put in my manuscript if I have the same stone-cold, rigid, inflexible dedication to it as I have to this blog.
The thing is, what blogging gives us is an excuse. An excuse to write, and an inflexible excuse as well. It has easily-seen results with a straight-forward purpose, something our vague, many-months-long novel-writing periods don't have. We don't have instant gratification every few hundred words of writing (unless you use the program, Written Kitten, which gives you a new picture of a kitten every few hundred words you write). It's just not the same.
What we should do is find a way around this mental block, this need for instant gratification. Because only after months will we have anything ready to be read by others; blog posts take a few minutes. And it feels so good to get comments on your work, whatever type it is!
So, What Does Blogging Teach Me about Writing?
- Find a short-term gratifications. This means a deadline of a certain amount of words to be sent to your critique partner, a piece of chocolate after every chapter, whatever. Just get a way to make yourself feel good about getting a few hundred words in!
- A FORCED, No-Excuse, No-Running-Away reason to write. Even if you don't want to, even if you'd rather cry, you get out of bed and write. Why? Because, maybe, you send over every day's work to you critique partner. Whatever excuse it is, it should make you forced to write, even when you don't want to.
- You don't need a muse. TRAIN it. So, so many times, I have to pause and think about what to blog about. I don't have a clue. But I need a blog post for the day so I force myself to think of something. Train your muse to your command! It is not the boss of you; you are the boss of it.
- A solid start and finish. I would force myself to write this post until I finished it. It would just be...disgusting if I didn't. So, finish one scene. No matter what. The 'No matter what' aspect trails back to point number two above. Also, this sold 'start and finish' completely, entirely streams your thoughts so you'll spend, say, 20 minutes so focused on just one scene. You won't wander, won't surf the Internet, until you get that scene done. And once it's done, you'll be free. You'll be incredibly surprised by the results (just look at my very last sentences on this post for proof - it will be SHOCKING).
- Get a routine and a structure. Basically: You must get this done, on this future day, this time, no exceptions, no excuses. And this must be accomplished by that time, which you say, and if you miss it, there's no going back. Give yourself an ultimatum (I know, it's scary (but the funny thing is, you can always break it ;) Shhh....)).
The sad thing is, on the days I blog, I probably write more words on a blog post than the average daily amount I write in my manuscript! I need to get more trained.
Is this just me, or does blogging seem more efficient in forcing yourself to write than normal writing does? What do you think about this connection, and how can one bridge the pros of blogging over into writing?
Hooollllyy crap. Case in point. This blog post is more than 900 words. I finished it in about 20 minutes. WHAT. THE. HECK. This is entirely because of (I feel) point number four above. WHY CAN'T I WRITE LIKE THIS?!?!?! I'd write about 3,000 words in just an hour! AHHH!!! This sucks.
P.S. I might, might not be able to get around to commenting on everyone's blogs today because I'm at my cousin's wedding (I wrote this post Monday night and scheduled it for Friday). But, don't worry! Once I get home, I'm going to comment on everything :) (I also might might not have a post on Monday, depends on if I get Internet connection at my cousin's and/or if I'm back home in time.)
P.S. I might, might not be able to get around to commenting on everyone's blogs today because I'm at my cousin's wedding (I wrote this post Monday night and scheduled it for Friday). But, don't worry! Once I get home, I'm going to comment on everything :) (I also might might not have a post on Monday, depends on if I get Internet connection at my cousin's and/or if I'm back home in time.)
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Secret to Writing a First Person POV
I recently did a
little 3-week writing course. From this course, the biggest piece of
writerly-information I received was about first person vs. third person:
namely, what first person can accomplish which third person cannot.
A big part of
this discussion boiled down to the fact that if changing your first person
story to third person did not alter your story in any big way at all, it should
have been told in third person in the first place. And the generic explanation
does not work: “Oh, but it gives my character a better voice!”
Because if you’ve read Harry Potter, if you’ve read Alex Rider, if you’ve read Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz or Charles Dickens, you know that you can give characters incredible voice with the third person. In fact, it might even be a stronger voice because all first person books tend to mesh together over time. (Sorry guys.)
Because if you’ve read Harry Potter, if you’ve read Alex Rider, if you’ve read Alice in Wonderland or Wizard of Oz or Charles Dickens, you know that you can give characters incredible voice with the third person. In fact, it might even be a stronger voice because all first person books tend to mesh together over time. (Sorry guys.)
Don’t hurt me
but I feel that “The Hunger Games” (I loved that series) could have been
amazing as third person because first person didn’t really contribute much to
it at all, and with the third person, one can truly distance oneself from the
main character and love them in that way. Their personality’ll shine through
and you’ll love them in the same way you love your best friend: from the
outside looking in. Cris Mazza, a Creative Writing professor (but not mine),
sparked this thought in me and our class as a whole.
Because, really,
why are so many stories being told in first person for no reason at all? Good
examples of first person are “The Catcher in the Rye,” “Lolita,” epistolary
novels (all told in letter-form), etc, where changing the story to third person
would essentially render the entire story obsolete and uninteresting.
The secret to
making a first person POV REALLY work is by really, really, REALLY getting into
your main character’s head. And I mean really.
Basically, become the main character.
For example, in
my work-in-progress, my main character is sort of cynical in the beginning and
his wife is more optimistic. So when they have to move to a dirtier part of the
city due to financial problems, they both look at the apartment complex. My
main character sees all the dirty laundry hanging around, the torn up bricks,
etc. Then his wife pipes up, “Look, flowers.” And indeed, there are flowers in
the windowsill. The reader doesn't even know there are flowers there because, well, "I" never cared to notice.
Why did the main
character not notice them in the first place? Because he wouldn’t. She (the wife) would.
That’s why
blanket descriptions (spending one paragraph to describe location) don’t work
well in first person because people rarely ever stop and stare and think about
the whole place. Usually they’re moving, walking, driving, and they see maybe a
beautiful building, the street lamp, people walking—not the names of every
sign, not which building is next to which, not every street name.
To add on, in
first person, there should be almost NO adverbs (even more so than in the usual
‘no adverbs’ rule). Because in real life, you don’t see someone open the door
‘slyly.’ You see the corners of their mouths twitch upwards. You don’t see
someone running ‘fast.’ You see them running and if they are really fast, you
react, “Woah, that’s crazy!” This is hyperrealism. If you are writing with a
first person voice, embrace this. Because first person does not let you write
general descriptions. Third person—observing from a distance—allows you more
freedom than first person. In first person, you’re literally stuck in only one
person’s world.
That means you don't look in the mirror and think about every part of your body. That means you don't say "I walked around the stairs, trying not to breathe hard." It's, "I walked." Because when you see something surprising, you don't think about your breathing at all! It is INCREDIBLE difficult because you must think of every word you write down, whether it is truly what a person would do. It's mind-numbing.
That means you don't look in the mirror and think about every part of your body. That means you don't say "I walked around the stairs, trying not to breathe hard." It's, "I walked." Because when you see something surprising, you don't think about your breathing at all! It is INCREDIBLE difficult because you must think of every word you write down, whether it is truly what a person would do. It's mind-numbing.
Hyperrealism and
first person are buddies. For first person to truly work, hyperrealism must be
present. What’s fun is the unreliable narrator: having the first-person voice
basically trick himself/herself because they are in denial, want to cover
something up, etc. VERY interesting things can happen with the first person,
one just has to utilize them all.
Because, at
least for me, many first person characters/books tend to blend together over
time. Third person characters rarely ever do. The best first person characters are unforgettable: Holden Caulfield,
anyone? And that’s because JD Salinger utilized the gifts of first person very,
very well.
So think about
it. I’m writing a first person novel and I’m trying to use hyperrealism in my
novel and really make my main character’s voice stand out. It’s not an easy thing
to do. It’s a lot to think about, and I know many of you might be writing first
person as well. So this is something for you guys as well.
Thank you so
much, Cris Mazza, for sparking these thoughts! And hopefully they sparked some thoughts in you too; maybe uncomfortable, but real thoughts, when you really thinks about what first person entails. It was an eye-opening (and slightly painful when I thought of revisions!) experience for me.
What do you think? Can first person really
be elevated to something grander by utilizing its true potential? (This has been a rather less ranty post
than my previous ones! Thought you guys would like a break :D (I also don’t
have much else to rant about….))
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
What/Who Are Your Biggest Influences?
Well, today is JK ROWLING'S BIRTHDAY!!!!! And Harry Potter's (meaning the character himself) birthday too.
Obviously, she's a huge influence on me. Just look at my last few posts and my blog's header -- although I really need to change that header because I've fallen more in love with JK Rowling's adult novel to only call this a "Harry Potter" blog. She changed my life, got me to thinking that writing could be an outlet during years which weren't really the best for me. She sparked the biggest passion in my life: to write. I can't imagine ever not writing again in my life. I honestly think it'll be one of the worst days of my life if arthritis takes over my wrists. I'm seriously thinking of doing wrist exercises right now because of it. Thinking, not doing. Because. You know. Exercising. And wrists. I'd rather get a six-pack. One day. One day.
Obviously, she's been a huge influence on me, and this is National Harry Potter Day so I thought I had to do a post on this! But it's more than that.
This is about influences.
My family definitely had a bigger impact on my life than JK Rowling has had (real life seems to trump imaginary ones, sadly) but that's expected. But that's okay. How about strangers? What stranger has changed you, impacted you in ways neither of you will ever truly understand?
Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" left me breathless and sparked a book idea in my mind which I know I'm still not prepared to tackle.
JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" is what I consider the most perfect book almost entirely due to the book's voice: it's perfect because I wouldn't change a word in it; I wouldn't change a word in it because Holden would simply not allow it and I'm not messing with him. The book taught me stuff about voice and the usage of the 1st person, information which I'll never forget.
And obviously, JK Rowling and Harry Potter and "The Casual Vacancy," all which you already guessed and I have so much to say about her adult novel that I'll just direct you to my review of the book.
But what's more interesting is to see the vast rainbow of influences in the world, and sadly, I can't fill up this blog post with them because I don't know who affected you.
So for you:
What got you to start writing? To start living? What or who (and it must be strangers, not your family because that is almost a given!) changed you in huge ways?
HAPPY HARRY POTTER DAY!!!
Obviously, she's a huge influence on me. Just look at my last few posts and my blog's header -- although I really need to change that header because I've fallen more in love with JK Rowling's adult novel to only call this a "Harry Potter" blog. She changed my life, got me to thinking that writing could be an outlet during years which weren't really the best for me. She sparked the biggest passion in my life: to write. I can't imagine ever not writing again in my life. I honestly think it'll be one of the worst days of my life if arthritis takes over my wrists. I'm seriously thinking of doing wrist exercises right now because of it. Thinking, not doing. Because. You know. Exercising. And wrists. I'd rather get a six-pack. One day. One day.
Obviously, she's been a huge influence on me, and this is National Harry Potter Day so I thought I had to do a post on this! But it's more than that.
This is about influences.
My family definitely had a bigger impact on my life than JK Rowling has had (real life seems to trump imaginary ones, sadly) but that's expected. But that's okay. How about strangers? What stranger has changed you, impacted you in ways neither of you will ever truly understand?
Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" left me breathless and sparked a book idea in my mind which I know I'm still not prepared to tackle.
JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" is what I consider the most perfect book almost entirely due to the book's voice: it's perfect because I wouldn't change a word in it; I wouldn't change a word in it because Holden would simply not allow it and I'm not messing with him. The book taught me stuff about voice and the usage of the 1st person, information which I'll never forget.
And obviously, JK Rowling and Harry Potter and "The Casual Vacancy," all which you already guessed and I have so much to say about her adult novel that I'll just direct you to my review of the book.
But what's more interesting is to see the vast rainbow of influences in the world, and sadly, I can't fill up this blog post with them because I don't know who affected you.
So for you:
What got you to start writing? To start living? What or who (and it must be strangers, not your family because that is almost a given!) changed you in huge ways?
HAPPY HARRY POTTER DAY!!!
Friday, March 29, 2013
Please, Writers. Don't Get Discouraged
I just ran a "Become an Agent" query contest where contestants vote Yes or No on each other's queries. And, as was obvious, there were a lot of No's.
This rejection is so prominent in writers -- as is the sadness afterwards.
Let me tell you a story.
I did a query contest similar to this one on the Authoress's blog about a year ago. And, I got about 40 No's and only about five Yes's.
That sucked.
I was so sure that query was going to be the one, that I'd get a lot of Yes's and little/no No's. I was so sure. I had worked on that query so, so hard and I thought it would all pay off.
But it didn't. My query sucked.
But you know what? I'm happy I got those No's. What if I actually queried with that mess of a query? Ignorance is NOT bliss in the publication game we are in. We need to be as informed as possible about all steps of publication, including the quality of our own writing. Especially about the quality of our own writing.
Sure, it's easy to be discouraged after all the No's. In fact, it's normal to be discouraged. To want to call it quits. To want to give up.
But you know what? Go ahead. Give up. Seriously, there is nothing, nothing wrong with realizing writing is not for you. So try it. Give up.
And those who are truly writers, deep down; you'll come back in a little while. And you'll write again. And you'll hate it. But you'll need it. And you'll soon love it.
Take this all less seriously. I've always thought we make too big deal about our writing. We're not performing surgery, making life-or-death decisions. We get torn apart by constructive criticism and almost succumb to depression if we get a bad critique. But we're writing. We're doing something we love. We're improving something we love. And we are having fun.
Next time you get a bad critique, laugh at yourself at making that oh-so-obvious plot hole. Shake your head, smiling, as you start to edit. For most of us, there is no time limit to get our books in order. So why get frustrated if a critique sets you back? (I, way too often, try to rush my way through. I'm trying to stop that.)
Let's all make a conscious decision to take our writing less seriously. To see our books as our children (I read this somewhere, forgot where). We'll love them, but force them to improve. And we'll love to see them grow, no matter how long or how many lessons it takes.
How do you guys like the contest so far? I'm on the outside looking in, so I can't tell how you feel about it! Is it helpful?
You have all of Saturday to get your critiques in :)Winner (the one with the most Yes's) will be posted Monday!
This rejection is so prominent in writers -- as is the sadness afterwards.
Let me tell you a story.
I did a query contest similar to this one on the Authoress's blog about a year ago. And, I got about 40 No's and only about five Yes's.
That sucked.
I was so sure that query was going to be the one, that I'd get a lot of Yes's and little/no No's. I was so sure. I had worked on that query so, so hard and I thought it would all pay off.
But it didn't. My query sucked.
But you know what? I'm happy I got those No's. What if I actually queried with that mess of a query? Ignorance is NOT bliss in the publication game we are in. We need to be as informed as possible about all steps of publication, including the quality of our own writing. Especially about the quality of our own writing.
Sure, it's easy to be discouraged after all the No's. In fact, it's normal to be discouraged. To want to call it quits. To want to give up.
But you know what? Go ahead. Give up. Seriously, there is nothing, nothing wrong with realizing writing is not for you. So try it. Give up.
And those who are truly writers, deep down; you'll come back in a little while. And you'll write again. And you'll hate it. But you'll need it. And you'll soon love it.
Take this all less seriously. I've always thought we make too big deal about our writing. We're not performing surgery, making life-or-death decisions. We get torn apart by constructive criticism and almost succumb to depression if we get a bad critique. But we're writing. We're doing something we love. We're improving something we love. And we are having fun.
Next time you get a bad critique, laugh at yourself at making that oh-so-obvious plot hole. Shake your head, smiling, as you start to edit. For most of us, there is no time limit to get our books in order. So why get frustrated if a critique sets you back? (I, way too often, try to rush my way through. I'm trying to stop that.)
Let's all make a conscious decision to take our writing less seriously. To see our books as our children (I read this somewhere, forgot where). We'll love them, but force them to improve. And we'll love to see them grow, no matter how long or how many lessons it takes.
How do you guys like the contest so far? I'm on the outside looking in, so I can't tell how you feel about it! Is it helpful?
You have all of Saturday to get your critiques in :)Winner (the one with the most Yes's) will be posted Monday!
Monday, March 11, 2013
Writers CAN Read Too Much
(Time change made me lose an hour of sleep. Yawn. I like the time change more in autumn, but I love the extra daylight now. And, this change might help me get back to a normal, non-insomniac sleep pattern. Really. It's a problem.)
This is for all those people who feel that reading has become almost like a chore.
I have a huge to-be-read pile. I do. I TOTALLY do. Here's a list.
1. Anna Karenina
2. This Side of Paradise
3. Tender is the Night
4. The Beautiful and the Damned
5. The Brothers Karamazov
6. Wuthering Heights
7. An anthology of Ernest Hemingway (which I got from Barnes and Noble)
8. The rest of Victor Hugo's work (I've fallen in love with him after reading Les Mis)
9. Inferno (Dan Brown's new book about to come out)
AND THAT IS JUST SOME. I have to read so, SO many more modern books! I'm still in a classic-fix and I can't get out. They're just too darn good. (But I do plan on reading some of the books you suggested . Some of those books will one-up the books I have listed above :D THANK YOU FOR THAT! I neeeed to read more modern books, and you've given me a gold mine.)
As writers, we read (at least, most of us do). We have a love for it, and we want to read a LOT.
But there is only so much time on your hands, and so, so many books. For some of us, getting time in to write is a chore in itself. Many of us don't have the luxury of a lot of free time to write. So if you spend that time reading instead of writing - well, you aren't doing much to be a writer.
Reading should be a pleasure. It should be fun, it should be exciting, it should remind you why you want to be a writer in the first place. And reading is almost necessary to be a good writer. Reading a lot is one of the biggest things you can do to advance your writing. Every book is a lesson on writing.
But if you have just one hour of free time a day, write. Don't read.
If you have to chose between finishing writing a scene or finishing reading a scene, write.
Because we are writers, and writing is our job. No matter how fun something is, you wouldn't be able to stop an important meeting and do that thing, right? The same way, writing is your job. Work at it, and spend your free time (we all know we have some sometime during the week) doing what you love. Reading can be that thing.
But if you are experiencing frustration (which is different from Writer's Lag), take a break from writing and maybe read. Do something else.
And if reading feels like a chore (next book, then the next book, then the next book) and you are rushing, but not enjoying it, take a break! Stop and smell the roses! Know why you are reading in the first place - to enjoy. Life is not all about rushing. Don't read like a robot - feel free to explore and read things just for fun (not just "high-brow" classics). I really should listen to my own advice, by the way....
Don't read so much so that you become a reader and not a writer. But, don't read so little so that you don't know how to write.
Reading is SUPER SUPER SUPER important. BUT, reading is not your job, nor your chore. Writing is. Finding the balance between the two is hard, but important.
And laugh at yourself! We are not fighting in a war, putting our life on the line, or have lives on our hands. We are writing, and it is a blessing that we can do that. Don't feel so stressed out by it all - have fun, and...well, this has become a post about having fun, so I'll end it right here and save it for another post :D
HAPPY MONDAY GUYS!
What do you think? Does reading ever feel like a chore to you?
Don't forget to subscribe! There is a CONTEST coming up soon.... For those queriers/future queriers, won't want to miss it :)
This is for all those people who feel that reading has become almost like a chore.
I have a huge to-be-read pile. I do. I TOTALLY do. Here's a list.
1. Anna Karenina
2. This Side of Paradise
3. Tender is the Night
4. The Beautiful and the Damned
5. The Brothers Karamazov
6. Wuthering Heights
7. An anthology of Ernest Hemingway (which I got from Barnes and Noble)
8. The rest of Victor Hugo's work (I've fallen in love with him after reading Les Mis)
9. Inferno (Dan Brown's new book about to come out)
AND THAT IS JUST SOME. I have to read so, SO many more modern books! I'm still in a classic-fix and I can't get out. They're just too darn good. (But I do plan on reading some of the books you suggested . Some of those books will one-up the books I have listed above :D THANK YOU FOR THAT! I neeeed to read more modern books, and you've given me a gold mine.)
As writers, we read (at least, most of us do). We have a love for it, and we want to read a LOT.
But there is only so much time on your hands, and so, so many books. For some of us, getting time in to write is a chore in itself. Many of us don't have the luxury of a lot of free time to write. So if you spend that time reading instead of writing - well, you aren't doing much to be a writer.
Reading should be a pleasure. It should be fun, it should be exciting, it should remind you why you want to be a writer in the first place. And reading is almost necessary to be a good writer. Reading a lot is one of the biggest things you can do to advance your writing. Every book is a lesson on writing.
But if you have just one hour of free time a day, write. Don't read.
If you have to chose between finishing writing a scene or finishing reading a scene, write.
Because we are writers, and writing is our job. No matter how fun something is, you wouldn't be able to stop an important meeting and do that thing, right? The same way, writing is your job. Work at it, and spend your free time (we all know we have some sometime during the week) doing what you love. Reading can be that thing.
But if you are experiencing frustration (which is different from Writer's Lag), take a break from writing and maybe read. Do something else.
And if reading feels like a chore (next book, then the next book, then the next book) and you are rushing, but not enjoying it, take a break! Stop and smell the roses! Know why you are reading in the first place - to enjoy. Life is not all about rushing. Don't read like a robot - feel free to explore and read things just for fun (not just "high-brow" classics). I really should listen to my own advice, by the way....
Don't read so much so that you become a reader and not a writer. But, don't read so little so that you don't know how to write.
Reading is SUPER SUPER SUPER important. BUT, reading is not your job, nor your chore. Writing is. Finding the balance between the two is hard, but important.
And laugh at yourself! We are not fighting in a war, putting our life on the line, or have lives on our hands. We are writing, and it is a blessing that we can do that. Don't feel so stressed out by it all - have fun, and...well, this has become a post about having fun, so I'll end it right here and save it for another post :D
HAPPY MONDAY GUYS!
What do you think? Does reading ever feel like a chore to you?
Don't forget to subscribe! There is a CONTEST coming up soon.... For those queriers/future queriers, won't want to miss it :)
Monday, February 11, 2013
The Secret to Writing WOWZA Metaphors
You know those moments: when the writer writers that one sentence and you're just like.... "That's not fair. That was SO FREAKING GOOD!"
From this fantastic book, I learned how to arrange words that make the reader go "Wowza!"
It's all about pushing your comparisons/similes/metaphors.
Don't settle for the first thing that pops into your mind. Or the second. Or the third. Even the fifth. KEEP PUSHING IT!
One example is in JK Rowling's A Casual Vacancy. She says Samantha "enjoyed [Miles'] pomposity with precisely the same spirit as she liked, on formal occasions, to wear a hat."
Another example is a lyric from the epic musical, Les Misérables. "We'll be ready for these schoolboys. They will wet themselves with blood."
Do you think those two quotes were first attempts? Do you think they just sprang into the writer's mind on the first try? No. They pushed it and pushed it, and this fantastic book gives a writerly exercise to help you do the same.
Basically, it lists a character trait (say, "silly") then gives you columns to write your attempts. Keep in mind the connotations of whatever word you decide! You can really flex those writing skills by choosing a word that has a connotation in touch with your voice/imagery. For example, in "silly," the various ways to describe silly can really add nuance to really describing what kind of silly that character is. Your first attempt might be: "She was a clown." BORING. 2nd. "She was a monkey." BORING. (But see the difference in effect when you use 'monkey' vs. 'clown'? Clown seems much more like her silliness is fake/a performance. 'Monkey' makes it seem like it's natural to her personality. 3rd. "She's one of those girls who would make out with her girl friend to piss off anti-gay protesters." This is so different than the first. It gives so much development to the character, and the connotation of "silly" is so different than "clown".
So what are the Secrets to writing WOWZA comparisons?
From this fantastic book, I learned how to arrange words that make the reader go "Wowza!"
It's all about pushing your comparisons/similes/metaphors.
Don't settle for the first thing that pops into your mind. Or the second. Or the third. Even the fifth. KEEP PUSHING IT!
One example is in JK Rowling's A Casual Vacancy. She says Samantha "enjoyed [Miles'] pomposity with precisely the same spirit as she liked, on formal occasions, to wear a hat."
Another example is a lyric from the epic musical, Les Misérables. "We'll be ready for these schoolboys. They will wet themselves with blood."
Do you think those two quotes were first attempts? Do you think they just sprang into the writer's mind on the first try? No. They pushed it and pushed it, and this fantastic book gives a writerly exercise to help you do the same.
Basically, it lists a character trait (say, "silly") then gives you columns to write your attempts. Keep in mind the connotations of whatever word you decide! You can really flex those writing skills by choosing a word that has a connotation in touch with your voice/imagery. For example, in "silly," the various ways to describe silly can really add nuance to really describing what kind of silly that character is. Your first attempt might be: "She was a clown." BORING. 2nd. "She was a monkey." BORING. (But see the difference in effect when you use 'monkey' vs. 'clown'? Clown seems much more like her silliness is fake/a performance. 'Monkey' makes it seem like it's natural to her personality. 3rd. "She's one of those girls who would make out with her girl friend to piss off anti-gay protesters." This is so different than the first. It gives so much development to the character, and the connotation of "silly" is so different than "clown".
So what are the Secrets to writing WOWZA comparisons?
The Secrets to Writing WOWZA Comparisons
1. On a separate piece of paper, write down the word you are trying to describe. Then, next to it, write at least five (solid) phrases as attempts to describe your base word. PUSH IT! You'll be incredibly pleased with the results (I hope).
2. Incorporate voice and attitude in your comparisons. For example, if you're writing a serious, nonfiction piece, do NOT use silly metaphors. Your comparisons should reflect your story's voice and attitude.
3. Utilize your story's world! For example, if you have a city in the clouds, push your comparisons to be more related to clouds, thunderstorms, snow, sun, wind, etc. Use your metaphors to create even more of a believable world.
I actually haven't utilized the first Secret at all in my manuscript, and after writing this post, I think I will (I'm starting the editing phase).
The thing is, it takes a good deal of time to come up with stellar comparisons. It involves a lot of thinking. So I suggest you do it in the editing phase; don't bog down your first-draft momentum to create one delicious sentence (HOW YOU LIKE THAT COMPARISON, HMMM? 'Delicious' instead of 'amazing'! I'm learning already!!!).
How do you go about crafting luscious sentences?
Monday, January 28, 2013
In a Genre Rut - Recommend Books to Me!!
You see, lately, I haven't read a single modern book. I've only picked up classics from Barnes and Noble. Why? Because they are proven to be good - they are classics after all.
I don't feeling that a book has wasted my time, because I could have been reading something that might have been much, much better. There are thousands, millions of books out there, and hundreds of classics; there is only one me, and one life I have to live. I don't want to waste my time reading useless books. So I go to those proven to be amazing: classics.
I've only read classics for almost two years or so, with only a few exceptions (one being A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling). I can't get myself to buy a modern book unless I've heard from so many people that it is good.
There are so many classics out there. Proven life-changers. I want every book I read to change my life or my writing style. I want to improve my writing and my life with each book I read, and classics are proven to do that.
But the trouble is, classics are old-fashioned. They are written in a style that is no longer in use, and if you do use the same style as Dickens, well, you'll have a tough time getting traditionally published. It's just out of vogue.
If you want to be published, reading classics is not bad (it is actually fantastic); being addicted to them is. And I am definitely addicted.
Plus, I could be missing out on so many amazing books (that thought scares me).
I recently went to Barnes and Noble with the intention to buy something new.. I ended up with Anna Karenina (by Tolstoy), This Side of Paradise (by Fitzgerald), and a four-book-set of Ernest Hemingway.
Sigh.
Help me! Recommend some books to me! I need to freshen up my writerly palette; I need to know how books are being written today, and somehow, I've come to think that modern books = useless, and classics = the only books worth reading. THAT IS NOT TRUE! I know it in my brain, but not in my heart.
So, please, if anyone knows any books with great characters and EMOTION (this is big; I love heart-wrenching books, even though I've never legitimately cried in a book.... Whoops) please, suggest them to me.
I love a good tragedy, as long as it is not a "Good gosh, I hate this ending" type of tragedy. Think A Tale of Two Cities, The Casual Vacancy, and Les Misérables. YES, LES MISÉRABLES! Basically: bittersweet endings. Those are awesome. Either adult or YA, doesn't matter, and fantasy or contemporary or realistic... doesn't matter :D
In the end, I just want a book that is powerful, so even if it is chick lit, please, tell me. Basically, what is your favorite book?
Thank you so much guys!
One thing you can take away from my lesson: being in a reading rut is not good.
You write how you read; if you read the same things over and over again, your writing will be formulaic and boring. Why not incorporate some literary elements in your thriller? Branch out! Explore! Read different things so you can bring something new to your own genre.
Has anyone else experienced being in a genre-rut, or am I the only one?
Now I'm off to read Anna Karenina. Sigh. Thanks for your help!
I don't feeling that a book has wasted my time, because I could have been reading something that might have been much, much better. There are thousands, millions of books out there, and hundreds of classics; there is only one me, and one life I have to live. I don't want to waste my time reading useless books. So I go to those proven to be amazing: classics.
I've only read classics for almost two years or so, with only a few exceptions (one being A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling). I can't get myself to buy a modern book unless I've heard from so many people that it is good.
There are so many classics out there. Proven life-changers. I want every book I read to change my life or my writing style. I want to improve my writing and my life with each book I read, and classics are proven to do that.
But the trouble is, classics are old-fashioned. They are written in a style that is no longer in use, and if you do use the same style as Dickens, well, you'll have a tough time getting traditionally published. It's just out of vogue.
If you want to be published, reading classics is not bad (it is actually fantastic); being addicted to them is. And I am definitely addicted.
Plus, I could be missing out on so many amazing books (that thought scares me).
I recently went to Barnes and Noble with the intention to buy something new.. I ended up with Anna Karenina (by Tolstoy), This Side of Paradise (by Fitzgerald), and a four-book-set of Ernest Hemingway.
Sigh.
Help me! Recommend some books to me! I need to freshen up my writerly palette; I need to know how books are being written today, and somehow, I've come to think that modern books = useless, and classics = the only books worth reading. THAT IS NOT TRUE! I know it in my brain, but not in my heart.
So, please, if anyone knows any books with great characters and EMOTION (this is big; I love heart-wrenching books, even though I've never legitimately cried in a book.... Whoops) please, suggest them to me.
I love a good tragedy, as long as it is not a "Good gosh, I hate this ending" type of tragedy. Think A Tale of Two Cities, The Casual Vacancy, and Les Misérables. YES, LES MISÉRABLES! Basically: bittersweet endings. Those are awesome. Either adult or YA, doesn't matter, and fantasy or contemporary or realistic... doesn't matter :D
In the end, I just want a book that is powerful, so even if it is chick lit, please, tell me. Basically, what is your favorite book?
Thank you so much guys!
One thing you can take away from my lesson: being in a reading rut is not good.
You write how you read; if you read the same things over and over again, your writing will be formulaic and boring. Why not incorporate some literary elements in your thriller? Branch out! Explore! Read different things so you can bring something new to your own genre.
Has anyone else experienced being in a genre-rut, or am I the only one?
Now I'm off to read Anna Karenina. Sigh. Thanks for your help!
Friday, January 18, 2013
The Secret to Powerful Word-Usage
You know those times when you come across a sentence, a phrase, even a word, that just makes you pause? When the writing and the prose just make you: "OH MY GOSH THIS IS SO AMAZING!!"?
I recently had one of those moments by listenting to a song in Les Misérables the musical, and now, movie.
Here is the background so you can experience the true awesomeness of the following line from the song.
Basically, Javert, a policeman, is singing about the 1832 Paris Rebellion, where a bunch of students rose against the monarchy. Javert is dedicated to the law, and he plans on bringing these ruffians down. Plus, he's very confident.
Here is the line.
"One day more to revolution, we will nip it in the bud. We'll be ready for these schoolboys, they will wet themselves..."
"One day more to revolution, we will nip it in the bud. We'll be ready for these schoolboys, they will wet themselves..."
 |
| My reaction at the first part of the line (I don't own this gif) |
"...with blood."
 |
| My reaction at the rest of the line (I don't own this pic) |
ISN'T THAT FREAKING AMAZING? When we think 'wet themselves' we think of scared little toddlers. BUT, it is morbid and dark, because instead of, well, pee, these students will be covered with blood.
It is an amazing, remarkable piece of dialogue (if lyrics can be called such). If you want to hear the actual lyrics, go to 1:35 of the video below.
I think that's where the power of language rests: in the ability to use words in a new and different way to reveal the truth.
The line I just showed you guys incorporates Javert's mood towards the revolutionaries: he thinks they are childish and does not like them at all (to say the least).
What can you learn from all this?
The Secrets to Powerful Word-Usage
- Don't rely on clichés or the first thing that pops into your head. Push the simile or metaphor. Do more. Be original.
- Turn the phrase or twist the words to your own benefit. Be new.
- Reveal the truth. Don't write an awesomely-fantastic simile if the simile is not true. Don't force in beautiful sentences just for the sake of beauty (I need to learn this too). Let it be natural, and make sure it has a purpose. Case in point: Javert's line reveals his character, which is a big reason the line is just so darn powerful. (Now please, someone teach me to do this!)
- Read/Listen. You can't hit the target if you don't know what to shoot for. Read books and listen to movies, people, etc. You will find the sentences you fall in love with, and those sentences (if you analyze and understand them) will teach you more about beautiful sentence-level writing than I will ever be able to.
I REALLY need to see this movie now. Hopefully, I will over the weekend. Sigh.
Happy Friday everyone!
What do you feel is necessary for powerful writing and language?
Friday, December 21, 2012
The Secret to Strengthening Your Climactic Scene
Now, the world might end before this post goes up, but I'm going to write it JUST IN CASE. Look at me, going above and beyond. Be proud of me, anti-procrastination gods.
If you think your climax is missing that punch, if you feel your climax needs to be epic, or if you just want a darn good climax (I'm talking about writing, you perverts), heed this secret:
Preparation? What does preparation mean?
Here is one amazing example:
In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry is enrolled in a tournament which has three parts to it. Almost the ENTIRE book is spent preparing for the last leg of the race; everything revolves around it. But, neither Harry nor Hermione knows what would really happen in the third leg. Rowling spends a good deal of the book simply gathering excitement for it.
The reader knows something will happen in the last leg. The reader knows something big and something unexpected will happen even if the characters don't know it themselves; this gathers nervous steam for the climax.
Now, making this work requires having your climactic scene coincide with a big event in your novel; the last leg is the climactic scene in Goblet of Fire. This coinciding trick makes the reader anxious for the event to come. It is like seeing a man far in the distance running towards you. Whether the man carries a knife or a gift, you don't know, but you are still nervous for his arrival.
Make the reader anxious for the arrival of the climactic scene. That idea is the base for this secret.
In my own novel, the climactic scene coincides with the 700th birthday of the most important person in the city. It is a huge, huge deal; this guy literally built the city. There is a good bit of the characters talking about this event and preparing, and this goes a long way; the reader begins to get nervous for the event.
That is what the writer has to accomplish. Make the reader nervous and excited for the climax and your book into a simmering pot. Make the reader unable to stop reading even if there are 'relaxing' scenes in your novel. Make the reader pick the book up again after putting it down.
And, make them excited/anxious.
Hope I helped, guys!
What are your favorite plot techniques?
Oh, and HAPPY END OF THE WORLD, GUYS! WOO!!
If you think your climax is missing that punch, if you feel your climax needs to be epic, or if you just want a darn good climax (I'm talking about writing, you perverts), heed this secret:
If you want to strengthen your climax, use preparation.
Preparation? What does preparation mean?
Here is one amazing example:
In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry is enrolled in a tournament which has three parts to it. Almost the ENTIRE book is spent preparing for the last leg of the race; everything revolves around it. But, neither Harry nor Hermione knows what would really happen in the third leg. Rowling spends a good deal of the book simply gathering excitement for it.
The reader knows something will happen in the last leg. The reader knows something big and something unexpected will happen even if the characters don't know it themselves; this gathers nervous steam for the climax.
Now, making this work requires having your climactic scene coincide with a big event in your novel; the last leg is the climactic scene in Goblet of Fire. This coinciding trick makes the reader anxious for the event to come. It is like seeing a man far in the distance running towards you. Whether the man carries a knife or a gift, you don't know, but you are still nervous for his arrival.
Make the reader anxious for the arrival of the climactic scene. That idea is the base for this secret.
In my own novel, the climactic scene coincides with the 700th birthday of the most important person in the city. It is a huge, huge deal; this guy literally built the city. There is a good bit of the characters talking about this event and preparing, and this goes a long way; the reader begins to get nervous for the event.
That is what the writer has to accomplish. Make the reader nervous and excited for the climax and your book into a simmering pot. Make the reader unable to stop reading even if there are 'relaxing' scenes in your novel. Make the reader pick the book up again after putting it down.
And, make them excited/anxious.
Hope I helped, guys!
What are your favorite plot techniques?
Oh, and HAPPY END OF THE WORLD, GUYS! WOO!!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Your Novel's Most Important Quote
I LOVE quotes. I can go for hours just looking up quotes, because I love them so much -- they mean so much to me. As such, I like to think of your novel's most important quote as your novel's thesis, and the way to find it is this:
What quote would you put before in the pages before your book starts?
You've seen this in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; JK Rowling included two poems; one by William Penn, and one by Aeschylus before the first chapter. Odds are, you've seen this in tons of novels (I just can't think of any right now -- call me stupid) and you might put one in yours.
If so, I applaud you. *Clap clap clap*
It doesn't matter if your future agent, editor, beta reader, etc. decides to cut it out in the end. This is much like what writing the query to a work in progress does to your plot; the query gives your plot a guide. As such, the quote gives your novel a theme.
Themes are important. About every single novel has a theme to it which is the book's message, angst, 'truth,' whatever you wish to call it. The theme is what makes the book live on in the readers' minds after they have finished it. The theme is what the reader stays up at night thinking about.
This is why finding a quote to sum up your book is so important; it guides the theme of the novel, and gives your book focus.
Now, probably, you don't have some amazing quote just yet to some up your novel, and if you do, it is truly wonderful (I mean it). But if you are at a lost to find a quote for your theme as I was (and am), I suggest you go to this website, which lists out quotes in terms of topic. Or, as I usually do, just search, "Quotes about love" and you will get links to websites chock-full of quotes for your budding romance novel.
Let me take a gander here and list some quotes for famous books:
A Tale of Two Cities:
I wish you the best in your search :)
What quote would you put before in the pages before your book starts?
You've seen this in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; JK Rowling included two poems; one by William Penn, and one by Aeschylus before the first chapter. Odds are, you've seen this in tons of novels (I just can't think of any right now -- call me stupid) and you might put one in yours.
If so, I applaud you. *Clap clap clap*
It doesn't matter if your future agent, editor, beta reader, etc. decides to cut it out in the end. This is much like what writing the query to a work in progress does to your plot; the query gives your plot a guide. As such, the quote gives your novel a theme.
Themes are important. About every single novel has a theme to it which is the book's message, angst, 'truth,' whatever you wish to call it. The theme is what makes the book live on in the readers' minds after they have finished it. The theme is what the reader stays up at night thinking about.
This is why finding a quote to sum up your book is so important; it guides the theme of the novel, and gives your book focus.
Now, probably, you don't have some amazing quote just yet to some up your novel, and if you do, it is truly wonderful (I mean it). But if you are at a lost to find a quote for your theme as I was (and am), I suggest you go to this website, which lists out quotes in terms of topic. Or, as I usually do, just search, "Quotes about love" and you will get links to websites chock-full of quotes for your budding romance novel.
Let me take a gander here and list some quotes for famous books:
A Tale of Two Cities:
“Sometimes when you sacrifice something precious, you're not really losing it. You're just passing it on to someone else.”
― Mitch Albom, The Five People You Meet in Heaven
― Mitch Albom, The Five People You Meet in Heaven
The Great Gatsby:
"Love is blindness."
--- Jack White
And so on and so forth. (Don't attack me for the above quotes. I just threw something out there so you can get a picture of what I'm talking about. The quotes sum up the theme of the novel.)
My current manuscript (YA Fantasy) is split into two parts, Part One consisting of the MC going around (more like being forced) to different places and being desperate to find a place she feels... happy. Meanwhile, she's bombarded with insults saying that she is stupid for thinking in the way she does.
My quote for Part One is:
"Not all those who wander are lost."
--- J.R.R. Tolkien (Whoa, really? I never knew he invented this quote! I just Googled to check.)
I still have to find my Part Two quote, and my Part One quote might change. If you want (just as an exercise) you can put a quote for every single chapter (if you are in dire need of a focus for your novel).
That's the beauty of this system. You just go along and you come across the perfect quote, and you feel all happy because you know that's the one -- and it might change when you find another quote.
It's a remarkable feeling to find the quote that completely understands your novel, and that's what you have to find: the quote that understands your novel.
I wish you the best in your search :)
Do you have any quotes you are thinking of for your novel? Do you have an addiction for quotes like I do (I really do)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)