I want to make one quick point about the last post where we practiced communicating emotion without stating the emotion directly. (You all did a wonderful job, by the way, and wasn't it fun to see how many different ways the same action could be interpreted?)
This kind of writing might feel hard when you first start doing it, but it gets easier with practice. Before too long, you'll start realizing there are other ways to communicate concepts without putting them in giant neon letters. HEY READER! MY THEME IS, "KARMA GONNA GET HIM!" We hardly ever see such direct statements in fiction, right? But authors have still found ways to communicate these indirect concepts. It's the nature of storytelling. And even though it might feel hard or challenging now to control unstated notions on the smallest scale, as we did in the last post, eventually you'll find ways to broaden that technique and find ways to incorporate implied concepts on a much larger scale.
We might even take a look at that some day. But for today, I want to keep the focus tight and look at something that several of you mentioned in comments and email. "Skittered." You liked that use of that word. It's a good verb because it's slightly unusual, vivid, dynamic, and has a hint of emotion which we could draw out in the context. How much weaker would the sentence have been if we'd started with, "Henry leaped," or "Henry jumped," or the dreaded, "Henry moved." Nothing wrong with these verb choices. They're perfectly serviceable. But they're not quite as awake as skittered, are they?
We talk a lot about verbs here. We've made lists of overused verbs, and we've done endless sentence revisions to show you ways to cut down on verbals, and we've sung the praises of good verb choices. Why so much focus on verbs? They're the heavy lifters in a sentence, and yet so many manuscripts treat them like also-rans. Think about, for example,
She looked at the lush purple heather glowing faintly crimson under the striped pink-and-orange sunset and the puffy tinted clouds.
We see variations of this basic problem over and over again -- we might even file this one under "Marks of the Amateur." I think of this as a balance issue. The two most powerful word slots in that sentence -- in any sentence -- are the subject and main verb. And what do we have in those two power slots? A drab pronoun and a flat verb. The sentence is backloaded (and overloaded) with descriptive words in lesser positions.
Sometimes you want to do this to achieve a particular effect. But when sentence after sentence is written this way, the effect is clunky, overwritten, off-balance prose.
What's a quick fix for this sentence? Assume the point of view is clear, and post your revised sentences in the comments. I'm willing to bet we'll find several ways to improve it. But regardless of the method chosen, I'm also willing to bet that the main verb of the sentence becomes much more powerful.
Theresa
Showing posts with label mark of the amateur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mark of the amateur. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Last Revision Before Submission
I'm going to start a checklist for writers who are about to submit, just a checklist for the most common grammar and usage errors. So help! Any additions? I'm sort of concentrating on what I find most annoying, but you know me. I find it all very annoying. :) I do like a pristine manuscript. Make use of grammar sites (particularly university writing centers) on the web, or grammar textbooks (there are many, and often available cheap at used bookstores-- just choose one that explains things in ways you like). There is no excuse these days for mechanical mistakes in submissions.
1. Check for apostrophe problems. Apostrophes are used in possessive nouns and in contractions, and their proper use is a signal to the editor that you know what you're doing with words and sentences. You want to show that you understand what words mean-- that this noun is a possessive, or that this word has letters left out to make a contraction. Here's a good site to help with apostrophe use. Apostrophe mistakes are a real "mark of the amateur"(TM) for me, and I doubt I'm the only editor who cringes at "Shirleys mom really believes in marriage: She has had five husband's herself."
2. Check for commas after introductory elements. This comma isn't always needed, but in my experience, most house stylebooks call for it. So most editors will read a submission and make mental note of each intro element that needs a following comma, as they will have to fix this if you don't. You don't want the editor making mental notes of how much work your manuscript will require if bought. So:
If she had her way, Joey would have gone to college and become an engineer.
All things considered, he would have been happier then.
Unfortunately, there wasn't enough money to pay for school.
3. Check for misused words, including homophones ("sound-alikes") and misspellings that get past spell-check (that is, they are words, just not the right words). More than a couple uses of wrong words tells the editor that you aren't reading your own sentences for meaning, or you'd notice that you mention "the blogger form Indiana". And if you don't read your own work for meaning, real meaning is likely to be a haphazard process. Read ALOUD. You will hear the sentences as sentences, not as collections of words. And then you'll figure out if there are any wrong words, because the sentence won't mean what you want it to mean.
For more on homophones, see Commonly Misused Words.
4. Check for run-on sentences. You thought I was going to say fragments, didn't you? Well, check for them too. But fragments can be used occasionally to good effect, while run-on sentences are usually another sign that you're not reading carefully. (I've seen run-ons used to good effect in action scenes, and sometimes in highly emotional scenes and love scenes-- but that intensity is seldom created by accident, and most run-on sentences are... accidents.)
5. Check for sentence length and complexity. There's no actual right or wrong here, of course. Just check the sentences against the effect you're trying to achieve to make sure you're not undercutting (like a series of short sentences won't give that lush feeling you want as the heroine relaxes in the hammock).
6. Check for transitions in time and space. If the characters move or if time passes, show it in the narrative. It doesn't take much, maybe a few words at the start of the new sentence, but it makes all the difference. If you use these transitions (like now, across the room, a few days later, when she got into bed), the editor will get a sense of flow in your paragraphs, and also follow the action better.
7. Check for dangling modifiers. These tend to be invisible to the writer but jump right out at an editor. I'd start by checking every participial phrase, as those are the ones most likely to dangle. Then look at prepositional phrases. Almost any adjectival phrase can wind up dangling. Again, reading aloud is your best revision technique at this point. LISTEN to your narration.
What else? I mean just mechanical things. I'll add more when I am feeling more inspired, or exasperated. :)
Alicia
1. Check for apostrophe problems. Apostrophes are used in possessive nouns and in contractions, and their proper use is a signal to the editor that you know what you're doing with words and sentences. You want to show that you understand what words mean-- that this noun is a possessive, or that this word has letters left out to make a contraction. Here's a good site to help with apostrophe use. Apostrophe mistakes are a real "mark of the amateur"(TM) for me, and I doubt I'm the only editor who cringes at "Shirleys mom really believes in marriage: She has had five husband's herself."
2. Check for commas after introductory elements. This comma isn't always needed, but in my experience, most house stylebooks call for it. So most editors will read a submission and make mental note of each intro element that needs a following comma, as they will have to fix this if you don't. You don't want the editor making mental notes of how much work your manuscript will require if bought. So:
If she had her way, Joey would have gone to college and become an engineer.
All things considered, he would have been happier then.
Unfortunately, there wasn't enough money to pay for school.
3. Check for misused words, including homophones ("sound-alikes") and misspellings that get past spell-check (that is, they are words, just not the right words). More than a couple uses of wrong words tells the editor that you aren't reading your own sentences for meaning, or you'd notice that you mention "the blogger form Indiana". And if you don't read your own work for meaning, real meaning is likely to be a haphazard process. Read ALOUD. You will hear the sentences as sentences, not as collections of words. And then you'll figure out if there are any wrong words, because the sentence won't mean what you want it to mean.
For more on homophones, see Commonly Misused Words.
4. Check for run-on sentences. You thought I was going to say fragments, didn't you? Well, check for them too. But fragments can be used occasionally to good effect, while run-on sentences are usually another sign that you're not reading carefully. (I've seen run-ons used to good effect in action scenes, and sometimes in highly emotional scenes and love scenes-- but that intensity is seldom created by accident, and most run-on sentences are... accidents.)
5. Check for sentence length and complexity. There's no actual right or wrong here, of course. Just check the sentences against the effect you're trying to achieve to make sure you're not undercutting (like a series of short sentences won't give that lush feeling you want as the heroine relaxes in the hammock).
6. Check for transitions in time and space. If the characters move or if time passes, show it in the narrative. It doesn't take much, maybe a few words at the start of the new sentence, but it makes all the difference. If you use these transitions (like now, across the room, a few days later, when she got into bed), the editor will get a sense of flow in your paragraphs, and also follow the action better.
7. Check for dangling modifiers. These tend to be invisible to the writer but jump right out at an editor. I'd start by checking every participial phrase, as those are the ones most likely to dangle. Then look at prepositional phrases. Almost any adjectival phrase can wind up dangling. Again, reading aloud is your best revision technique at this point. LISTEN to your narration.
What else? I mean just mechanical things. I'll add more when I am feeling more inspired, or exasperated. :)
Alicia
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Another mark of the amateur
This is "bling," as Theresa calls it, junky typography:
Inappropriate capitalization. You're writing in English, not German. Generally only proper nouns (names, titles) and the first letter of a sentence are capitalized. If you have the slightest doubt, check. Capitals really stand out, and a first pageful of seemingly random capitalization will make your opening look unprofessional. Just get it right unless you have a reason to get it wrong.
Alicia
Inappropriate capitalization. You're writing in English, not German. Generally only proper nouns (names, titles) and the first letter of a sentence are capitalized. If you have the slightest doubt, check. Capitals really stand out, and a first pageful of seemingly random capitalization will make your opening look unprofessional. Just get it right unless you have a reason to get it wrong.
Alicia
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Who is teaching this stuff?
Sometimes Theresa and I will consult on some odd prose thingy that has suddenly popped up in nearly every submission we get, and one of us will say, "Who is teaching this stuff?" That's because whenever many submissions have some feature that we don't actually see in many published books, we suspect (perhaps wrongly) that there's some influential teacher or editor or agent or big name writer who suggested this in some interview or class, and the suggestion has bounced from writer to writer, critique group to critique group, and suddenly half the writers out there have added this whatever to their voice arsenal.
Maybe that's unfair. Maybe every writer who uses this independently and simultaneously developed it. Maybe every single one of them just developed their voice in that direction. I don't know. Maybe a whole bunch of writers just got a blast from their muse: "Start half your sentences with present participles! It's variety!"
But I think someone is teaching these things.
This year I'm getting a bunch of submissions with doubled terms, usually predicates.
She spoke, muttered, "Get out of my sight."
The cat jumped, leaped for the window.
But I'm also seeing this in modifiers:
He moved quickly, rapidly.
Her face was red, pink with frustration.
A few thoughts here:
1) A teacher of course should never say, "Don't learn from others," so I won't say that. I also won't say, "Voice can't be taught," though I think that's true-- voice can't be taught, but it can be refined and developed, and certainly the input and wisdom and example of others can help with that.
However, whatever you learn and apply should be something that fits your voice, that helps (especially the Almost There writers who have already developed skills at plotting and characterization) individualize your voice in an attractive way. That actually is not likely to be the same thing that a hundred other writers are suddenly using-- how can you individualize your voice if you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing? So when someone passes on some cool new prose thing, really examine whether it fits in with your voice, whether your voice is evolving in that direction. Some prose innovations really don't go with some voices.
If, for example, you like to replicate the character voice, well, really, does it make sense that ALL your characters would suddenly start talking and thinking with this new construction?
Or if you have a rather formal voice, is it likely a NEW trend is going to be formal?
Or if you have a casual, conversational voice, is this new trend going to fit that? I doubt it, because most of these trends tend to lead to rather arcane and artificial constructions which are not going to be conversational-- they are more "writerly".
So just consider that a prose trend from a spam email sent to every writer in the world (I'm figuring that's how it gets transmitted: "To My Beloved Writter" heading: "Dear one. I am Sir Justice Legatt, the literary Executor for the esteemed Late Mrs. Louise Backover, the Nobel Prize Winning Writer. When she died last year of a Broken Heart, she left in my trust a manuscript that is certain to earn $1oooooo. I was given your name as a distinguished author who might be looking for a partnership....") isn't likely to be appropriate for your voice.
2) Think about how this came into your ken. If in fact you evolved this all by yourself (and do think about this, because, as I said, these little memes tend to come from writers in clumps, and they probably all think they came up with this themselves), then I say, go with it. It might not end up being something that you actually add to your repertoire, but your voice will always benefit from your own experimentation and innovation. But experimentation, of course, means fiddling with the use, the placement, the construction, and figuring out what works and when. A good voice comes from sensitivity, and that means being selective. Just because it's cool in this paragraph doesn't mean it'll be cool on every page. :)
3) If you realize you got this from an outside source (and that's great-- that's a way to learn... I got my love of parentheticals from CS Lewis, and I figure, hey, if it was cool in Narnia, it will be cool for me too) and you kind of like this phrasing or trend or whatever it is, do a bit of evaluation. First, I'd say, if this is such a clever thing, it probably should be showing up in published work too. Buy some of the latest books by newer authors in your sub-genre and see if it shows up at all there. Now of course, you don't just want to do what the published books do, you want to be fresh and unique and all that. But really, YOU should supply the freshness and uniqueness by how you use this thingy. It's a good idea to remind yourself of that, so you don't think merely using this is in and of itself fresh.
But anyway, if you don't see it anywhere in newly published work, it could be because it really is fresh. Or it could be because published authors don't think it's that cool. Or it could be that they do think it's that cool but the editor yanked it all out. It's sort of like when you're in high school and you get that issue of InStyle or Seventeen and there's this cute model in a kicky outfit, you know, just a long purple sweatshirt over long john pants, the white thermal waffle-weave type (that make anyone over 16 look like she has thunder-thighs), and you decide you simply have to wear that. And you go to school the next day and half the girls are dressed just like that, in which case you feel sort of un-unique and realize they too all got their issue of Seventeen in the mail yesterday, or you pull on those long john pants and waltz off to school and NO ONE is wearing it, and in fact, the most fashionable girl in your class studies you through her lorgnette (this high school is in Regency London), and says in that languid way, "Did you forget to put on your ski bibs?" and you know that in fact this really isn't a trend everyone loves. And somewhere in your soul you think maybe they're right that this isn't all that awesome a look.
Well, if you never or almost never see this thingy in published work, it could be because no one has ever thought of it before. Or it could be because it's really not that awesome.
4) Hey, maybe it is that awesome! Maybe the languid girl puts down her lorgnette and asks if you want to sit at her table at lunch. But are you going to wear the long sweatshirt and the long johns every day from now on? Even in May? Even to the senior prom? Even when the trend has changed from sporty to girly? Even when your breasts grow bigger and the sweatshirt gets too tight (which impresses the boys, but not Her Lorgnette)?
As an editor or reader, I probably wouldn't notice or highlight or laugh at one use of this awesome device. And if it really works in a context, I might even admire it and invite you to sit at my lunch table. But we notice and decry all these thingys because they are overused, to the point that they become a joke. Yes. Okay, it's not a FUNNY joke, but editor jokes aren't usually funny. They're more rueful. Really, I wouldn't bother worrying about a couple lines where you've doubled the predicate. Maybe I'll figure you have a good reason I'm too tired to puzzle out. Maybe I figure I should just trust you. Maybe I'll think that you're a good stylist and you know your audience and they'll like this even if I'm not blown away. Maybe I'll be blown away. But if I see this same thingy fifty times in your 200 pages, well, I'll start wondering what the heck this is doing in this action scene when you just used it in the introspection for another POV character, and is it really effective in both instances, plus the other 48?
5) Certain prose stylings draw attention to themselves. (Sudden "bursts" of unattributed dialogue at the start of scenes, say. Stacked modifiers. ) That's good occasionally, but if you do it too often, you might be dragging the reader's attention away from the story. That's a big difference, I think, between literary fiction and popular fiction. Nowadays, literary fiction is often more about the presentation, and you can see the appreciation for sentences and metaphors in the reviews, which often quote these. But in popular fiction, I think if someone says, "That's a fabulous metaphor on page 22," it's sort of saying, "I was so caught by that metaphor I stopped reading the story." That's not to say you can't have great sentences and metaphors in popular fiction, or that pop fic writers can't be great stylists-- but I do think they have to be more stealthy about it. The pop fic writer can obsess about technique as long as he remembers always that the pop fic reader is more interested in the story. Anything that adds to the experience of the story will be good. But "kill your darlings" is good advice when you find yourself frequently using very clever prose thingys that draw the reader's eye and stop the reading.
And repetition doesn't make reading this a more pleasant experience. After the third or fourth doubled predicate, the reader will really start noticing. And she won't notice the way the protagonist is dealing with the conflict, she'll notice the doubled predicate and think, "Don't regard and study mean about the same thing? So why does she put both there?"
You don't want the reader stepping away from your story to wonder at your word choice.
6) Using these thingys could actually keep you from finding or creating your own voice. That's an important determination-- what do you sound like? What do you want to sound like? What's right for this book? What's right for this character?
To tell you the truth, sometimes I get a submission and I can highlight five or six of these trendy thingys, oh, right, this one is from the late lamented "duh" offsides trend; and she must have picked this rhetorical question meme last year when it was going around; oh, yeah, there's the list of brandnames-- she stole that one from DeLillo-- and yep, right on schedule, here's the one-word paragraph thing-- ayee, it burns, it burns.... That is, some submitters have "voices" that are mostly a collections of clever thingys they picked up the last few years. Those are not your voice. Your voice is your unique way of presenting your story. Don't ever forget that.
7) Don't forget that editors constantly have to consider factors you don't generally have to consider when you're drafting. For example, you might think that one-sentence paragraphs are kind of cool and make the prose seem really active (I don't think that, far from it, so please don't ever send me a scene full of these barbarisms). You might think it really enlivens the scene. You might not think at all, I don't know. But anyway, you send it off to Ernie Editor at Big Print Publisher Books. Ernie sees all that white space and thinks, "This is like 50,000 words, but 350 pages in manuscript. Be about the same in print. No way!"
Paper costs-- a lot, these days, and of course, multiply that by X number of copies printed, plus the additional binding cost. No editor is going to want to explain to his boss why this book is going to take almost twice as many sheets of paper as the usual 50K-word book.
"But I'm sending this to an electronic press," you protest. "They don't have to worry about paper!" No, but put yourself in the mind of a customer. The editor has to do that.
What would the reader think? Okay, let's say this isn't one of the MOST readers who would get really crabby at so many one-sentence paragraphs. Let's say this is just a reader who likes to read, and she spent $5 on this novel, and she's done reading it in two hours, and she thinks, gee, that wasn't much book for $5. There are a lot of other books which feel deeper and longer for the same cost. Why did this book feel so thin? Oh, right. Look at all that white space.
Some thingys are good. Some thingys are best in moderation. Some thingys bring up all sorts of considerations you need to consider if you want to publish with many publishers.
Another example-- Some writers like to put in a lot of cusswords, especially when they're in a man's POV. I see this a lot lately. A whole lot. I was thinking of investing in Dial soap because there are a lot of fictional fellas who need their mouths washed out. Maybe you think this is good-- that's the way this guy would think. Okay. But what if the line you're aiming at is a bit more sedate? What if the editor is religious or prim (or her boss is)? As you write, you might not have to consider that, but audience primness is something you might consider when you submit.
8) If you still kind of like those long johns (yes, really, this was a trend among my students a few years back, only, horrors, they'd wear long board shorts over the long johns, so we got to appreciate these layers: Sweatshirt. Knee length baggy saggy shorts. Long johns. Doc Marten boots), think about why. Evaluate. Let's say that you like the stutter step rhythm and the nuance that comes from doubling the predicate or modifier. Okay. Then please, use it. But use it where it works, and --because it's distinctive and distinctively annoying in repetition-- use it only when it really adds to the passage, when you want that stutter step rhythm. (And trust me, you do NOT want it always.)
Then don't assume because it works here, that any combination of two predicates will work here. It's not the doubling of predicates that works, it's this particular sentence that has the doubling using these particular predicates. So what the words are will matter. Be judicious here. For example, the most annoying for me is when you have two close synonyms, either one (but not both) of which could work:
He climbed, clambered up the wall.
Come on. That's like saying "roast beef in au jus sauce." He climbed, climbed. Are you really sure you want to present that to a cynical, jaded editor?
Another annoyance is when the second word kind of contradicts the first one:
Her face flushed red, pink.
Red and pink are two different colors. If her face is flushing red, what happens to make it pink? Does it first flush red and then dull to pink? If so, why not say so? If you mean she flushed sort of between red and pink, well, first, how important is the exact color? And if the exact color is important, why not name the exact color? Rose? Deep pink?
But... this is actually something I myself do occasionally. The "arcane and artificial" above actually started as "arcane, artificial," but I changed it to make a point. If you can put "and" between them -- NOT "or"-- and it makes sense because 1) they're not the same and 2) they're not contradictory, maybe the construction (sans the "and") can work... but you want to have a good reason not to use the "and" (like these are adjectives before the noun, or the rhythm is right for the passage).
Here's a passage by a master of this construction (Faulkner). Do NOT try this at home-- this is a short sentence for him. :)
Then hearing would reconcile and he would seem to listen to two separate Quentins now-the Quentin Compson preparing for Harvard in the South, the deep South dead since 1865 and peopled with garrulous outraged baffled ghosts, listening, having to listen, to one of the ghosts which had refused to lie still even longer than most had, telling him about old ghost-times.
See how each of those three doubled phrases do something different.
This is an elaboration, a qualification. I grew up in Virginia, which is "the south, but not the deep South," and I really understood that. It's conversational -- "I grew up in the South, not the deep South"-- but it also makes the point that the deep South is something special, something apart, within the greater South.
garrulous outraged baffled ghosts
This is my favorite phrase ever, I think. It gets its weight from an accumulation of modifiers there, but notice that each adjective is very different without being contradictory. I can just imagined these ghosts who just keep talking about how mad they are and puzzled by their deadness and the deadness of the deep South after the war. "That's not fair! I can't believe it! How did that happen?" And that capstone word ghosts. Wow. No repetition, but no contradiction either-- just an accumulation of traits so when you get to the end, you know exactly what he means.
listening, having to listen,
Here, the doubled predicates! And you might say, "Hey, that's really redundant-- listen/listen." But it's not listen/listen. It's listen/have to listen. There's a deepening of meaning there, as if the character is correcting himself, and the correction itself shows the process. He starts out just listening, but pretty soon, he can't stop listening. He has to listen. He doesn't have a choice but to listen.
So maybe:
He climbed, slipped and grabbed hold again.
Or:
He climbed, scrambled up the rock face.
Or (this is a good place for a participle!):
He climbed, scrambling up the rock face.
Or:
Her face flushed first red, then a dull pink as she realized what he meant.
I'd be especially careful with words that are close synonyms. Maybe they create nuance, or maybe they just confuse. "Do you mean climbed, or clambered? Choose one!"
That is, analyze what you mean here. Make the sentence mean what you want it to mean. Don't fall so in love with some thingy that you forget that what matters is the meaning.
Remember your voice or your character's voice isn't any one of these thingys. Voice is far more than the strewn cussword or the repetitive use of a particular construction. And if your voice is going to suffer a whole lot because you take out 90% of the doubled predicates, or have them only in action scenes, well, I think the problem is that you don't have a really strong voice there, and you need to work on that, and you don't get a strong voice by following trends. You have to know yourself and know your story and, yes, know what works and doesn't work in prose, and for that, you know, the best teachers are books you love, especially books you love that are in the sub-genre you're targetting, not me or Literary Executor Legatt.
"Mrs. Backover left in my trust five extremely literarily impressive thingys, and I would like to pass them on to a trusted member of the writing environment. You are that person. If you will deposit $42112 into this account, I will forward you these valuable thingys."
Alicia
Maybe that's unfair. Maybe every writer who uses this independently and simultaneously developed it. Maybe every single one of them just developed their voice in that direction. I don't know. Maybe a whole bunch of writers just got a blast from their muse: "Start half your sentences with present participles! It's variety!"
But I think someone is teaching these things.
This year I'm getting a bunch of submissions with doubled terms, usually predicates.
She spoke, muttered, "Get out of my sight."
The cat jumped, leaped for the window.
But I'm also seeing this in modifiers:
He moved quickly, rapidly.
Her face was red, pink with frustration.
A few thoughts here:
1) A teacher of course should never say, "Don't learn from others," so I won't say that. I also won't say, "Voice can't be taught," though I think that's true-- voice can't be taught, but it can be refined and developed, and certainly the input and wisdom and example of others can help with that.
However, whatever you learn and apply should be something that fits your voice, that helps (especially the Almost There writers who have already developed skills at plotting and characterization) individualize your voice in an attractive way. That actually is not likely to be the same thing that a hundred other writers are suddenly using-- how can you individualize your voice if you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing? So when someone passes on some cool new prose thing, really examine whether it fits in with your voice, whether your voice is evolving in that direction. Some prose innovations really don't go with some voices.
If, for example, you like to replicate the character voice, well, really, does it make sense that ALL your characters would suddenly start talking and thinking with this new construction?
Or if you have a rather formal voice, is it likely a NEW trend is going to be formal?
Or if you have a casual, conversational voice, is this new trend going to fit that? I doubt it, because most of these trends tend to lead to rather arcane and artificial constructions which are not going to be conversational-- they are more "writerly".
So just consider that a prose trend from a spam email sent to every writer in the world (I'm figuring that's how it gets transmitted: "To My Beloved Writter" heading: "Dear one. I am Sir Justice Legatt, the literary Executor for the esteemed Late Mrs. Louise Backover, the Nobel Prize Winning Writer. When she died last year of a Broken Heart, she left in my trust a manuscript that is certain to earn $1oooooo. I was given your name as a distinguished author who might be looking for a partnership....") isn't likely to be appropriate for your voice.
2) Think about how this came into your ken. If in fact you evolved this all by yourself (and do think about this, because, as I said, these little memes tend to come from writers in clumps, and they probably all think they came up with this themselves), then I say, go with it. It might not end up being something that you actually add to your repertoire, but your voice will always benefit from your own experimentation and innovation. But experimentation, of course, means fiddling with the use, the placement, the construction, and figuring out what works and when. A good voice comes from sensitivity, and that means being selective. Just because it's cool in this paragraph doesn't mean it'll be cool on every page. :)
3) If you realize you got this from an outside source (and that's great-- that's a way to learn... I got my love of parentheticals from CS Lewis, and I figure, hey, if it was cool in Narnia, it will be cool for me too) and you kind of like this phrasing or trend or whatever it is, do a bit of evaluation. First, I'd say, if this is such a clever thing, it probably should be showing up in published work too. Buy some of the latest books by newer authors in your sub-genre and see if it shows up at all there. Now of course, you don't just want to do what the published books do, you want to be fresh and unique and all that. But really, YOU should supply the freshness and uniqueness by how you use this thingy. It's a good idea to remind yourself of that, so you don't think merely using this is in and of itself fresh.
But anyway, if you don't see it anywhere in newly published work, it could be because it really is fresh. Or it could be because published authors don't think it's that cool. Or it could be that they do think it's that cool but the editor yanked it all out. It's sort of like when you're in high school and you get that issue of InStyle or Seventeen and there's this cute model in a kicky outfit, you know, just a long purple sweatshirt over long john pants, the white thermal waffle-weave type (that make anyone over 16 look like she has thunder-thighs), and you decide you simply have to wear that. And you go to school the next day and half the girls are dressed just like that, in which case you feel sort of un-unique and realize they too all got their issue of Seventeen in the mail yesterday, or you pull on those long john pants and waltz off to school and NO ONE is wearing it, and in fact, the most fashionable girl in your class studies you through her lorgnette (this high school is in Regency London
Well, if you never or almost never see this thingy in published work, it could be because no one has ever thought of it before. Or it could be because it's really not that awesome.
4) Hey, maybe it is that awesome! Maybe the languid girl puts down her lorgnette and asks if you want to sit at her table at lunch. But are you going to wear the long sweatshirt and the long johns every day from now on? Even in May? Even to the senior prom? Even when the trend has changed from sporty to girly? Even when your breasts grow bigger and the sweatshirt gets too tight (which impresses the boys, but not Her Lorgnette)?
As an editor or reader, I probably wouldn't notice or highlight or laugh at one use of this awesome device. And if it really works in a context, I might even admire it and invite you to sit at my lunch table. But we notice and decry all these thingys because they are overused, to the point that they become a joke. Yes. Okay, it's not a FUNNY joke, but editor jokes aren't usually funny. They're more rueful. Really, I wouldn't bother worrying about a couple lines where you've doubled the predicate. Maybe I'll figure you have a good reason I'm too tired to puzzle out. Maybe I figure I should just trust you. Maybe I'll think that you're a good stylist and you know your audience and they'll like this even if I'm not blown away. Maybe I'll be blown away. But if I see this same thingy fifty times in your 200 pages, well, I'll start wondering what the heck this is doing in this action scene when you just used it in the introspection for another POV character, and is it really effective in both instances, plus the other 48?
5) Certain prose stylings draw attention to themselves. (Sudden "bursts" of unattributed dialogue at the start of scenes, say. Stacked modifiers. ) That's good occasionally, but if you do it too often, you might be dragging the reader's attention away from the story. That's a big difference, I think, between literary fiction and popular fiction. Nowadays, literary fiction is often more about the presentation, and you can see the appreciation for sentences and metaphors in the reviews, which often quote these. But in popular fiction, I think if someone says, "That's a fabulous metaphor on page 22," it's sort of saying, "I was so caught by that metaphor I stopped reading the story." That's not to say you can't have great sentences and metaphors in popular fiction, or that pop fic writers can't be great stylists-- but I do think they have to be more stealthy about it. The pop fic writer can obsess about technique as long as he remembers always that the pop fic reader is more interested in the story. Anything that adds to the experience of the story will be good. But "kill your darlings" is good advice when you find yourself frequently using very clever prose thingys that draw the reader's eye and stop the reading.
And repetition doesn't make reading this a more pleasant experience. After the third or fourth doubled predicate, the reader will really start noticing. And she won't notice the way the protagonist is dealing with the conflict, she'll notice the doubled predicate and think, "Don't regard and study mean about the same thing? So why does she put both there?"
You don't want the reader stepping away from your story to wonder at your word choice.
6) Using these thingys could actually keep you from finding or creating your own voice. That's an important determination-- what do you sound like? What do you want to sound like? What's right for this book? What's right for this character?
To tell you the truth, sometimes I get a submission and I can highlight five or six of these trendy thingys, oh, right, this one is from the late lamented "duh" offsides trend; and she must have picked this rhetorical question meme last year when it was going around; oh, yeah, there's the list of brandnames-- she stole that one from DeLillo-- and yep, right on schedule, here's the one-word paragraph thing-- ayee, it burns, it burns.... That is, some submitters have "voices" that are mostly a collections of clever thingys they picked up the last few years. Those are not your voice. Your voice is your unique way of presenting your story. Don't ever forget that.
7) Don't forget that editors constantly have to consider factors you don't generally have to consider when you're drafting. For example, you might think that one-sentence paragraphs are kind of cool and make the prose seem really active (I don't think that, far from it, so please don't ever send me a scene full of these barbarisms). You might think it really enlivens the scene. You might not think at all, I don't know. But anyway, you send it off to Ernie Editor at Big Print Publisher Books. Ernie sees all that white space and thinks, "This is like 50,000 words, but 350 pages in manuscript. Be about the same in print. No way!"
Paper costs-- a lot, these days, and of course, multiply that by X number of copies printed, plus the additional binding cost. No editor is going to want to explain to his boss why this book is going to take almost twice as many sheets of paper as the usual 50K-word book.
"But I'm sending this to an electronic press," you protest. "They don't have to worry about paper!" No, but put yourself in the mind of a customer. The editor has to do that.
What would the reader think? Okay, let's say this isn't one of the MOST readers who would get really crabby at so many one-sentence paragraphs. Let's say this is just a reader who likes to read, and she spent $5 on this novel, and she's done reading it in two hours, and she thinks, gee, that wasn't much book for $5. There are a lot of other books which feel deeper and longer for the same cost. Why did this book feel so thin? Oh, right. Look at all that white space.
Some thingys are good. Some thingys are best in moderation. Some thingys bring up all sorts of considerations you need to consider if you want to publish with many publishers.
Another example-- Some writers like to put in a lot of cusswords, especially when they're in a man's POV. I see this a lot lately. A whole lot. I was thinking of investing in Dial soap because there are a lot of fictional fellas who need their mouths washed out. Maybe you think this is good-- that's the way this guy would think. Okay. But what if the line you're aiming at is a bit more sedate? What if the editor is religious or prim (or her boss is)? As you write, you might not have to consider that, but audience primness is something you might consider when you submit.
8) If you still kind of like those long johns (yes, really, this was a trend among my students a few years back, only, horrors, they'd wear long board shorts over the long johns, so we got to appreciate these layers: Sweatshirt. Knee length baggy saggy shorts. Long johns. Doc Marten boots), think about why. Evaluate. Let's say that you like the stutter step rhythm and the nuance that comes from doubling the predicate or modifier. Okay. Then please, use it. But use it where it works, and --because it's distinctive and distinctively annoying in repetition-- use it only when it really adds to the passage, when you want that stutter step rhythm. (And trust me, you do NOT want it always.)
Then don't assume because it works here, that any combination of two predicates will work here. It's not the doubling of predicates that works, it's this particular sentence that has the doubling using these particular predicates. So what the words are will matter. Be judicious here. For example, the most annoying for me is when you have two close synonyms, either one (but not both) of which could work:
He climbed, clambered up the wall.
Come on. That's like saying "roast beef in au jus sauce." He climbed, climbed. Are you really sure you want to present that to a cynical, jaded editor?
Another annoyance is when the second word kind of contradicts the first one:
Her face flushed red, pink.
Red and pink are two different colors. If her face is flushing red, what happens to make it pink? Does it first flush red and then dull to pink? If so, why not say so? If you mean she flushed sort of between red and pink, well, first, how important is the exact color? And if the exact color is important, why not name the exact color? Rose? Deep pink?
But... this is actually something I myself do occasionally. The "arcane and artificial" above actually started as "arcane, artificial," but I changed it to make a point. If you can put "and" between them -- NOT "or"-- and it makes sense because 1) they're not the same and 2) they're not contradictory, maybe the construction (sans the "and") can work... but you want to have a good reason not to use the "and" (like these are adjectives before the noun, or the rhythm is right for the passage).
Here's a passage by a master of this construction (Faulkner). Do NOT try this at home-- this is a short sentence for him. :)
See how each of those three doubled phrases do something different.
So maybe:
He climbed, slipped and grabbed hold again.
Or:
He climbed, scrambled up the rock face.
Or (this is a good place for a participle!):
He climbed, scrambling up the rock face.
Or:
Her face flushed first red, then a dull pink as she realized what he meant.
I'd be especially careful with words that are close synonyms. Maybe they create nuance, or maybe they just confuse. "Do you mean climbed, or clambered? Choose one!"
That is, analyze what you mean here. Make the sentence mean what you want it to mean. Don't fall so in love with some thingy that you forget that what matters is the meaning.
Remember your voice or your character's voice isn't any one of these thingys. Voice is far more than the strewn cussword or the repetitive use of a particular construction. And if your voice is going to suffer a whole lot because you take out 90% of the doubled predicates, or have them only in action scenes, well, I think the problem is that you don't have a really strong voice there, and you need to work on that, and you don't get a strong voice by following trends. You have to know yourself and know your story and, yes, know what works and doesn't work in prose, and for that, you know, the best teachers are books you love, especially books you love that are in the sub-genre you're targetting, not
"Mrs. Backover left in my trust five extremely literarily impressive thingys, and I would like to pass them on to a trusted member of the writing environment. You are that person. If you will deposit $42112 into this account, I will forward you these valuable thingys."
Alicia
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Theresa is right. :)
RE: details vs. plot-- they are not, as you keep pointing out, Theresa, mutually exclusive. Details can help support and drive the plot, and to paraphrase van der Rohe, the theme is definitely in the details. It's a matter of choosing details which reveal more about the character, the situation, the conflict. That's what is going to distinguish a sophisticated writer-- ill-chosen details, or none at all, are a Mark of the Amateur (I think we ought to apply for a trademark for that).
I also think that the advanced READER wants more than just a plot. Someone who has read two novels a week for twenty years needs more texture, more interactivity, more continuity, more coherence, than a new reader would need.
Any novel that can be reduced to a few Twitter tweets, well, that's a novel that might appeal more to the new reader than to the Constant Reader.
It's a little complex when it come to marketing, as there's no doubt that many best-sellers are "just the plot, ma'am". Why is that? It's because to make book a best-seller, you need (first option) a very large base of readers, and that usually happens because you've been publishing for many years and have gathered fans with every book (Stephen King, say, who uses plenty of details :). Or (second option) you need to grab the one-book-a-year buyers in great number, the ones who buy the latest novel as a gift for an acquaintance, or need a book to read on the plane and don't have, let's say, the towering TBR (to be read) pile that you and I have. Those readers buy the books that are marketed heavily (and easy to find-- you don't need to go to a bookstore), and because they're newer readers, they don't "parse" the details particularly well, or even notice them, and don't need them. A book with a strong or sharp plot and a fast pace will appeal more to the new reader. Nothing wrong with that... but to reach those readers, to get the level of publisher support required to market to those readers, you have to get an editor to buy your book first, or really, really inspire marketing to write great jacket copy. :)
So I don't know what the route to best-sellerdom might be for any individual author. I just know that most of the books we all love-- and we're Constant Readers, aren't we-- are not "just plot". They're NOVELS. They start with plot, maybe, but they don't end with it. They provide a story that will (we hope) satisfy the newer reader, but characterization and detail and texture and subtext that will add more interest for the sophisticated reader. That's the reader who will buy your next book, not to mention blog about it and recommend it to his/her friends and send you fan emails and suggest that the local library buy it. You don't fascinate and enthrall readers with "just plot". And I don't think you maintain a reader base, book after book, without appealing to the Constant Reader.
However, I'm not naive enough not to have noticed that many publishers have decided that the New Reader is the only one who counts, hence the constant chase for the next trend, the frenetic search for the next (for two years) best-selling writer, the new emphasis on looks and performance in authors (so they can look good on the Today show). I also notice that the industry as a whole is losing the Constant Reader (go figure), and doesn't seem to care much. But there should always be Good Books (any type of book can be Good-- I'm not being elitist here), and there'll always be readers (I hope) who will seek them out. And I hope there'll always be writers who challenge themselves to attain the next level, even if commercial success and best-sellerdom eludes. There will always be a need for story, and "story" is far more than "plot," as Sophocles, Shakespeare, Dickens, and JK Rowling taught us.
Alicia
I also think that the advanced READER wants more than just a plot. Someone who has read two novels a week for twenty years needs more texture, more interactivity, more continuity, more coherence, than a new reader would need.
Any novel that can be reduced to a few Twitter tweets, well, that's a novel that might appeal more to the new reader than to the Constant Reader.
It's a little complex when it come to marketing, as there's no doubt that many best-sellers are "just the plot, ma'am". Why is that? It's because to make book a best-seller, you need (first option) a very large base of readers, and that usually happens because you've been publishing for many years and have gathered fans with every book (Stephen King, say, who uses plenty of details :). Or (second option) you need to grab the one-book-a-year buyers in great number, the ones who buy the latest novel as a gift for an acquaintance, or need a book to read on the plane and don't have, let's say, the towering TBR (to be read) pile that you and I have. Those readers buy the books that are marketed heavily (and easy to find-- you don't need to go to a bookstore), and because they're newer readers, they don't "parse" the details particularly well, or even notice them, and don't need them. A book with a strong or sharp plot and a fast pace will appeal more to the new reader. Nothing wrong with that... but to reach those readers, to get the level of publisher support required to market to those readers, you have to get an editor to buy your book first, or really, really inspire marketing to write great jacket copy. :)
So I don't know what the route to best-sellerdom might be for any individual author. I just know that most of the books we all love-- and we're Constant Readers, aren't we-- are not "just plot". They're NOVELS. They start with plot, maybe, but they don't end with it. They provide a story that will (we hope) satisfy the newer reader, but characterization and detail and texture and subtext that will add more interest for the sophisticated reader. That's the reader who will buy your next book, not to mention blog about it and recommend it to his/her friends and send you fan emails and suggest that the local library buy it. You don't fascinate and enthrall readers with "just plot". And I don't think you maintain a reader base, book after book, without appealing to the Constant Reader.
However, I'm not naive enough not to have noticed that many publishers have decided that the New Reader is the only one who counts, hence the constant chase for the next trend, the frenetic search for the next (for two years) best-selling writer, the new emphasis on looks and performance in authors (so they can look good on the Today show). I also notice that the industry as a whole is losing the Constant Reader (go figure), and doesn't seem to care much. But there should always be Good Books (any type of book can be Good-- I'm not being elitist here), and there'll always be readers (I hope) who will seek them out. And I hope there'll always be writers who challenge themselves to attain the next level, even if commercial success and best-sellerdom eludes. There will always be a need for story, and "story" is far more than "plot," as Sophocles, Shakespeare, Dickens, and JK Rowling taught us.
Alicia
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Marks of an Amateur: The Query Letter
I loved Alicia's list of red flags in manuscripts that make us think the writer might be not quite ready yet. Her list focused on the actual manuscripts, and I thought it might make sense to do a companion list for query letters.
1. Dropping a Stranger's Name/Botching a Personal Referral
"Annie Author suggested I send this to you." You know, sometimes we will ask Annie Author if she actually made this referral. Sometimes Annie Author is downright puzzled that her name is being bandied about by random strangers, and that might just get you a rejection. It may very well be that you met Annie in line for lunch at a conference, and she said you should look into submitting to her publisher. But that's not quite the same as a personal referral.
The absolute best way to handle a personal referral is to get Annie Author to send me a quick email right around the time that you sub your work. Also, a good rule of thumb is to assume that your published friends will do less for you than you would like them to do. This is because a) you probably want too much, and b) when you ask an author for a referral, they're likely to give you the nice polite answer.
You're safe to assume that when I ask Annie Author if she referred you, her answer will be somewhat muted and self-protective. "Yes, I know her. I see her at chapter meetings a few times a year. She seems nice." This endorsement might seem lukewarm to you, but at least nobody is stabbing you in the back. That happens, too. "She asked me if she could use my name. Awkward! I couldn't exactly say no." Or, the dreaded, "Yes, I know her. She told me I was committing career suicide by writing erotic romance. Did she actually use my name?"
2. Asking for Representation Instead of Publication
"Hello, I hope you will consider representing my book, The Pregnant Billionaire Sheikh's Matchmaking Virgin."
Nope. I won't consider that. I understand that you may have drafted a form query when seeking an agent, but it's not appropriate to use the same form letter when submitting directly to publishers. You do understand the difference between an agent and a publisher, right?
3. Issuing Demands
"Here's my plan. You publish this in December so we can get lots of holiday sales."
(Great plan. Good luck with that.)
"If I don't hear from you by Friday, I'll sell it to someone else."
(Okay. ::shrug:: Good luck with that.)
"My marketing plan requires you to publish this in X formats."
(Heh. You think your marketing plan leads our distribution? Good luck with that.)
Does this sound cruel? I think we often go to great lengths to accommodate our authors. I even consult with them sometimes about their preferences for release dates and similar decisions. (Sometimes. When I have that flexibility and have a reason for exercising it. It's not always possible.) But there is a wide world of difference between talking to a contracted author about whether March or April suits her better, and accepting a slush sub from an author who thinks they have rights over the entire corporate calendar.
4. Providing Cover Art
I won't say this is an auto-rejection. Does that surprise you? We've let several author make their own covers, and we've been dazzled by the results. Creative people are often cross-functional. Think about how many writers you know who are also pastry chefs, guitar players, avid scrapbookers, seamstresses, and so on. Why shouldn't a writer also be a graphic designer?
But here's the catch. Your art had better be good, and it had better fit in with our house style. Covers are a very tricky business. We often reject covers or ask for changes to various elements, and those are covers provided by artists who've worked with us for years. This isn't because we're capricious, but because the cover is hoo-damn important, one of the most powerful selling tools we've got.
If you want to do your own cover art, my advice is that you first establish your relationship with the publisher. Get them to buy your manuscript. Show them you're capable of taking constructive criticism. Demonstrate that you understand house style. And then, if you can deliver a strong cover, we might consider it.
In other words, don't submit your proposed cover with your manuscript. Wait until later.
5. Never, Never, Never Send a "Hurry! Act Now!" Letter
Do you really want me to equate your query letter with junk mail? 'Nuff said.
6. Selling Yourself Short
I can't tell you how many queries include some variation of this statement:
I might not be Hemingway, but I hope you'll give me a chance.
Okay, first of all, know your audience. "Not Hemingway" might actually be a selling point rather than a detraction. Alicia will remember this -- we were once at a conference together, God knows when, but I think it was in Indianapolis. The speaker was trying to make a point about using simple, clear, direct words. This was a romance conference, keep in mind. Romance insiders enjoy poking fun at Hemingway and speculating on just how tiny his penis must have been if it required that much overcompensation. I mean, really, think about it. Hemingway is sort of the opposite of romance.
So the poor speaker, a very nice man who deserved better treatment, said something about how magnificent Hemingway was because he only had 3500 words in his vocabulary. And the entire room erupted in sighs, groans, eyerolls, titters, and muttered comments about how that explains a few things. The speaker was shocked. He couldn't believe that an entire roomful of people would have a laugh at the expense of St. Ernest. (Required FTC Disclaimer: I have not been compensated in any way for stating my opinion -- perhaps we should say suspicion -- that Hemingway had a tiny penis. If it turns out that he had a cock like a yule log, his publishers should not be fined for my deceptive statement.)
In any case, if you name a famous author, you do so without knowing what I think of that author. And my opinion might surprise you. Even if our opinions coincide perfectly, don't let false modesty get in your way. You send me your work because you want my opinion on its publishability. Don't invite me to form a negative opinion before I've opened the file.
7. Overselling Yourself
"My daughter thinks this is every bit as good as Stephenie Meyer's books."
(Cool. Is your daughter going to publish it, then?)
"This book is going to make us both rich."
(Your lips to god's ears. Sure, lightning can strike. And Dr. Emmett Brown can even predict where and when. The rest of us have to rely on P&Ls with past performance indicators, and if you're a new author, your indicator is not going to be Dan Brown.)
There are thousands of reasons why you shouldn't boast in a query letter, and I suspect those reasons are obvious. Your book might be the biggest breakthrough in romance since The Flame and the Flower, but you're not the one who gets to decide that. The marketplace does.
8. Using Rhetorical Questions as Hooks.
"Did you ever wonder what the world would be like if trees developed the ability to speak and walk, and they conquered the world?"
Um, no. Can't say I have.
Hucksters use this kind of Q&A format to try to build bonds with their audience, which they can then exploit to make a sale. One of the keys to this selling technique is picking a question with a predictable and controllable answer. Have you ever worn clothes? Have you ever smelled food cooking? Have you ever seen dirt? Why, yes, I have! However did you know? Then boy, do I have a product for you!
This techniques simply doesn't translate neatly to fiction queries. It's hard to build that common bond by referencing something unique like warlord trees, on the one hand. And on the other, if you do reference something common enough to build a bond, you're in danger of losing what makes your book unique. (Do you long for a story with a happy ending?)
It's a hard technique for a query letter, and you're better off avoiding it.
These are a few of the things we see over and over in query letters that make us doubt the readiness of the author. I'm sure there are more! Alicia, you have anything to add to the list?
Theresa
1. Dropping a Stranger's Name/Botching a Personal Referral
"Annie Author suggested I send this to you." You know, sometimes we will ask Annie Author if she actually made this referral. Sometimes Annie Author is downright puzzled that her name is being bandied about by random strangers, and that might just get you a rejection. It may very well be that you met Annie in line for lunch at a conference, and she said you should look into submitting to her publisher. But that's not quite the same as a personal referral.
The absolute best way to handle a personal referral is to get Annie Author to send me a quick email right around the time that you sub your work. Also, a good rule of thumb is to assume that your published friends will do less for you than you would like them to do. This is because a) you probably want too much, and b) when you ask an author for a referral, they're likely to give you the nice polite answer.
You're safe to assume that when I ask Annie Author if she referred you, her answer will be somewhat muted and self-protective. "Yes, I know her. I see her at chapter meetings a few times a year. She seems nice." This endorsement might seem lukewarm to you, but at least nobody is stabbing you in the back. That happens, too. "She asked me if she could use my name. Awkward! I couldn't exactly say no." Or, the dreaded, "Yes, I know her. She told me I was committing career suicide by writing erotic romance. Did she actually use my name?"
2. Asking for Representation Instead of Publication
"Hello, I hope you will consider representing my book, The Pregnant Billionaire Sheikh's Matchmaking Virgin."
Nope. I won't consider that. I understand that you may have drafted a form query when seeking an agent, but it's not appropriate to use the same form letter when submitting directly to publishers. You do understand the difference between an agent and a publisher, right?
3. Issuing Demands
"Here's my plan. You publish this in December so we can get lots of holiday sales."
(Great plan. Good luck with that.)
"If I don't hear from you by Friday, I'll sell it to someone else."
(Okay. ::shrug:: Good luck with that.)
"My marketing plan requires you to publish this in X formats."
(Heh. You think your marketing plan leads our distribution? Good luck with that.)
Does this sound cruel? I think we often go to great lengths to accommodate our authors. I even consult with them sometimes about their preferences for release dates and similar decisions. (Sometimes. When I have that flexibility and have a reason for exercising it. It's not always possible.) But there is a wide world of difference between talking to a contracted author about whether March or April suits her better, and accepting a slush sub from an author who thinks they have rights over the entire corporate calendar.
4. Providing Cover Art
I won't say this is an auto-rejection. Does that surprise you? We've let several author make their own covers, and we've been dazzled by the results. Creative people are often cross-functional. Think about how many writers you know who are also pastry chefs, guitar players, avid scrapbookers, seamstresses, and so on. Why shouldn't a writer also be a graphic designer?
But here's the catch. Your art had better be good, and it had better fit in with our house style. Covers are a very tricky business. We often reject covers or ask for changes to various elements, and those are covers provided by artists who've worked with us for years. This isn't because we're capricious, but because the cover is hoo-damn important, one of the most powerful selling tools we've got.
If you want to do your own cover art, my advice is that you first establish your relationship with the publisher. Get them to buy your manuscript. Show them you're capable of taking constructive criticism. Demonstrate that you understand house style. And then, if you can deliver a strong cover, we might consider it.
In other words, don't submit your proposed cover with your manuscript. Wait until later.
5. Never, Never, Never Send a "Hurry! Act Now!" Letter
Do you really want me to equate your query letter with junk mail? 'Nuff said.
6. Selling Yourself Short
I can't tell you how many queries include some variation of this statement:
I might not be Hemingway, but I hope you'll give me a chance.
Okay, first of all, know your audience. "Not Hemingway" might actually be a selling point rather than a detraction. Alicia will remember this -- we were once at a conference together, God knows when, but I think it was in Indianapolis. The speaker was trying to make a point about using simple, clear, direct words. This was a romance conference, keep in mind. Romance insiders enjoy poking fun at Hemingway and speculating on just how tiny his penis must have been if it required that much overcompensation. I mean, really, think about it. Hemingway is sort of the opposite of romance.
So the poor speaker, a very nice man who deserved better treatment, said something about how magnificent Hemingway was because he only had 3500 words in his vocabulary. And the entire room erupted in sighs, groans, eyerolls, titters, and muttered comments about how that explains a few things. The speaker was shocked. He couldn't believe that an entire roomful of people would have a laugh at the expense of St. Ernest. (Required FTC Disclaimer: I have not been compensated in any way for stating my opinion -- perhaps we should say suspicion -- that Hemingway had a tiny penis. If it turns out that he had a cock like a yule log, his publishers should not be fined for my deceptive statement.)
In any case, if you name a famous author, you do so without knowing what I think of that author. And my opinion might surprise you. Even if our opinions coincide perfectly, don't let false modesty get in your way. You send me your work because you want my opinion on its publishability. Don't invite me to form a negative opinion before I've opened the file.
7. Overselling Yourself
"My daughter thinks this is every bit as good as Stephenie Meyer's books."
(Cool. Is your daughter going to publish it, then?)
"This book is going to make us both rich."
(Your lips to god's ears. Sure, lightning can strike. And Dr. Emmett Brown can even predict where and when. The rest of us have to rely on P&Ls with past performance indicators, and if you're a new author, your indicator is not going to be Dan Brown.)
There are thousands of reasons why you shouldn't boast in a query letter, and I suspect those reasons are obvious. Your book might be the biggest breakthrough in romance since The Flame and the Flower, but you're not the one who gets to decide that. The marketplace does.
8. Using Rhetorical Questions as Hooks.
"Did you ever wonder what the world would be like if trees developed the ability to speak and walk, and they conquered the world?"
Um, no. Can't say I have.
Hucksters use this kind of Q&A format to try to build bonds with their audience, which they can then exploit to make a sale. One of the keys to this selling technique is picking a question with a predictable and controllable answer. Have you ever worn clothes? Have you ever smelled food cooking? Have you ever seen dirt? Why, yes, I have! However did you know? Then boy, do I have a product for you!
This techniques simply doesn't translate neatly to fiction queries. It's hard to build that common bond by referencing something unique like warlord trees, on the one hand. And on the other, if you do reference something common enough to build a bond, you're in danger of losing what makes your book unique. (Do you long for a story with a happy ending?)
It's a hard technique for a query letter, and you're better off avoiding it.
These are a few of the things we see over and over in query letters that make us doubt the readiness of the author. I'm sure there are more! Alicia, you have anything to add to the list?
Theresa
Monday, October 12, 2009
Marks of the amateur-- starting a list
By popular demand--
This is something I'd never really contemplated before becoming an editor, but every editor I've spoken to since knew immediately what I meant. That is, "What tips you off about a submission that this isn't an experienced writer? What are the marks of the amateur?"
Now I don't mean to be insulting here. These marks don't actually mean that the writer is an amateur, rather that we see these mostly in submissions by newer or inexperienced authors, and so we sort of automatically assume.... well. What's important is to make sure you don't inadvertently trigger our "oh, amateur" assessment.
So anyway, when I was in England (very nice-- I want to live there, seriously, and I've narrowed my future home choice down to Somerset, Wiltshire, or the Yorkshire Dales), I asked my friends who had edited what they would put on this list.
Just to get started, and please add on or ask questions as we go:
1) Improper dialogue formatting. That's first for me, because, uh, if you've been reading for decades and never noticed there's a comma after the quote tag and before the quote mark, and a capital letter starting the quote, and the punctuation INSIDE the quote mark, and a new paragraph with a change in speakers, well, you are apparently not really absorbing writing conventions as you read. That will make the work of editing this rather onerous.
2) A whole lot of introductory participial phrases. One or two or three, sure. Sometimes the meaning of the sentence calls for that. But for whatever reason, whenever there are many intro participles on a first page, the submission proves to be a little amateurish in several ways. Hey, I don't make the rules. I'm just reporting.
3) Lynn said semicolons, but really, I'm okay with the occasional semicolon, even in fiction. (Theresa is sighing-- another round in the Great Semicolon Battle.) But more than one or two semicolons on the first couple pages? Trying too hard to sound mature, are you? And improperly used semicolons? Even worse. It looks like a 10-year-old wearing mascara.
4) Clumsy quote-tagging. Everyone agreed on this. I am the most lenient (yes, really-- I am a positive libertine compared with Some Sticklers Recently in Yorkshire), as I don't mind the infrequent "hissed" or "grumbled" if that's in fact what the speaker sounded like. But the default for tagging your dialogue should be "he/she said" or an action.
He adjusted the rearview mirror. "I think we're being followed."
A bunch of "creative" quote tags-- He intoned, she simpered, he ejaculated (I couldn't help it, sorry!), she expostulated, she exclaimed, he temporized-- indicates to me that the writer is more obsessed with the tags than with the actual thing being said by the speaker.
5) More than a couple homophone mistakes (then/than, here/hear, etc.). This suggests the writer is making too extensive use of spell-check rather than actually READING the sentences.
6) Starting the passage with whatever the latest trend is-- an unattributed line of dialogue, a "cute meet" and (this is important, because a good writer might do this and I'd like it) doing it badly. Yeah, those are so old they should be interred with Milton Berle, but I'm still seeing them, and what they say is, "I don't care about what makes my story unique. I want to sound like all the others."
7) Starting with odd stuff that we might put in the published edition, if we got that far, but shouldn't be in a submission (acknowledgments, dedications, a history lesson). But you know, I do like maps. Go figure.
8) Too many names in the first couple paragraphs. Who is the POV character? That's the name we need.
9) POV shifts on the first page. This presages a book full of headhopping that I really don't want to have to fix. Not to mention this must be a submitter who has not read my many posts and articles (and book!) about POV. :) (I am NOT against multiple POV-- but keep it controlled, and open in one POV and stick with it awhile, okay? So I know you know how to do that? (Again, a good writer might have a good reason for doing this, but I'll know the difference when I see it.)
What else? We'll make a list.
Alicia
This is something I'd never really contemplated before becoming an editor, but every editor I've spoken to since knew immediately what I meant. That is, "What tips you off about a submission that this isn't an experienced writer? What are the marks of the amateur?"
Now I don't mean to be insulting here. These marks don't actually mean that the writer is an amateur, rather that we see these mostly in submissions by newer or inexperienced authors, and so we sort of automatically assume.... well. What's important is to make sure you don't inadvertently trigger our "oh, amateur" assessment.
So anyway, when I was in England (very nice-- I want to live there, seriously, and I've narrowed my future home choice down to Somerset, Wiltshire, or the Yorkshire Dales), I asked my friends who had edited what they would put on this list.
Just to get started, and please add on or ask questions as we go:
1) Improper dialogue formatting. That's first for me, because, uh, if you've been reading for decades and never noticed there's a comma after the quote tag and before the quote mark, and a capital letter starting the quote, and the punctuation INSIDE the quote mark, and a new paragraph with a change in speakers, well, you are apparently not really absorbing writing conventions as you read. That will make the work of editing this rather onerous.
2) A whole lot of introductory participial phrases. One or two or three, sure. Sometimes the meaning of the sentence calls for that. But for whatever reason, whenever there are many intro participles on a first page, the submission proves to be a little amateurish in several ways. Hey, I don't make the rules. I'm just reporting.
3) Lynn said semicolons, but really, I'm okay with the occasional semicolon, even in fiction. (Theresa is sighing-- another round in the Great Semicolon Battle.) But more than one or two semicolons on the first couple pages? Trying too hard to sound mature, are you? And improperly used semicolons? Even worse. It looks like a 10-year-old wearing mascara.
4) Clumsy quote-tagging. Everyone agreed on this. I am the most lenient (yes, really-- I am a positive libertine compared with Some Sticklers Recently in Yorkshire), as I don't mind the infrequent "hissed" or "grumbled" if that's in fact what the speaker sounded like. But the default for tagging your dialogue should be "he/she said" or an action.
He adjusted the rearview mirror. "I think we're being followed."
A bunch of "creative" quote tags-- He intoned, she simpered, he ejaculated (I couldn't help it, sorry!), she expostulated, she exclaimed, he temporized-- indicates to me that the writer is more obsessed with the tags than with the actual thing being said by the speaker.
5) More than a couple homophone mistakes (then/than, here/hear, etc.). This suggests the writer is making too extensive use of spell-check rather than actually READING the sentences.
6) Starting the passage with whatever the latest trend is-- an unattributed line of dialogue, a "cute meet" and (this is important, because a good writer might do this and I'd like it) doing it badly. Yeah, those are so old they should be interred with Milton Berle, but I'm still seeing them, and what they say is, "I don't care about what makes my story unique. I want to sound like all the others."
7) Starting with odd stuff that we might put in the published edition, if we got that far, but shouldn't be in a submission (acknowledgments, dedications, a history lesson). But you know, I do like maps. Go figure.
8) Too many names in the first couple paragraphs. Who is the POV character? That's the name we need.
9) POV shifts on the first page. This presages a book full of headhopping that I really don't want to have to fix. Not to mention this must be a submitter who has not read my many posts and articles (and book!) about POV. :) (I am NOT against multiple POV-- but keep it controlled, and open in one POV and stick with it awhile, okay? So I know you know how to do that? (Again, a good writer might have a good reason for doing this, but I'll know the difference when I see it.)
What else? We'll make a list.
Alicia
Monday, September 21, 2009
Another mark of the amateur
Here's a real mark of the amateur-- when you're not using the perfectly sensible, accessible, and learnable techniques that help a reader know what you mean, like names instead of pronouns or recasting the sentence to identify who is thinking, acting, speaking; punctuation and paragraphing to make it clear what's happening. You have to go beyond what you know in your head (you do know who is saying what) to see what you've put on the page, and how to revise to make this understandable to the reader.
This is an adaptation of an actual submission (I changed everything but the structural issues):
Hal said, "I've always wondered. Have you forgiven yourself yet?” He shook his head. How could he forgive himself? His parents had lost their life savings because of him. He'd gotten caught up in the adrenaline rush of starting a new company, and they were his parents, and they wanted to support his efforts. And he wanted them to be proud of him, the first in the family to make something of himself. “How much was it?”
He turned abruptly to face his tormenter.
“The bankruptcy court hasn't figured it out yet.”
(And it goes on like that-- Hal speaks, "he" reacts/thinks/acts in same paragraph, and it's all very jumbled.)
When I read a passage like that, I figure I'm not dealing with an accomplished writer, because this writer has no understanding of what is happening in the passage, what the reader will be experiencing while reading.
(And yes, of course you can go beyond the conventions of paragraphing and punctuation... if you know what you want to accomplish and know when you've accomplished it and when you haven't. I'm all for that... but I also think if you do it well, the editor or agent will probably understand what you're doing. :)
This is especially important in that first couple paragraphs. There's a real tendency to want to shove too much into the first paragraph, and often this is shown in very long complicated sentences. (More accomplished writers tend to the other extreme-- they are often so cryptic that I can get a page into the story without knowing what's going on.) But as you know, if you lose an editor on the first page, you've lost her forever. You don't need to be clever or innovative in those first paragraphs-- clarity matters most. (That doesn't mean that you have to tell all, or that the reader has to know everything-- but the reader should know what you want her to know, and be intrigued enough to keep reading.)
Anyway, another in the long-running "mark of the amateur" series. But you guys aren't doing that stuff! So often I think I'm preaching to the choir. (At least you don't make me blow on a pitch-pipe!)
Alicia
Friday, September 4, 2009
Newbie "Tells"
Alicia posted some of the things she considers "marks of an amateur," and she spent some time explaining why adverbs used as empty amplifiers can weaken prose.
I agree with her (of course), but would add that other kinds of empty amplifiers hurt the prose, too. Bling punctuation is a good example of this, and one we've blogged about in the past. Look on the sidebar for a link to posts about ellipses if you need a refresher. The bottom line? Strong conflicts don't need gimmicks and bling. They're strong enough without them. (And if they're not strong enough without them, you might want to look at strengthening them instead of adding a chain of exclamation marks.)
Other things that can make me doubt your readiness--
-- loads of present participial phrases
-- misplaced modifiers
-- dangling modifiers
-- errors in usage
-- too much exposition or "set-up"
-- comparing your work to Hemingway's*
-- telling me you're agented when you're not**
-- selling yourself short***
-- lack of respect for the genre****
-- lots of grammar or punctuation errors*****
-- query letters that read like bad ad campaigns******
More than all this, though, is that you can just tell when a writer is not in complete control of the narrative. Maybe there are so many vague, ten-dollar words that you lose track of the action. Or maybe the prose is so flat that the characters vanish into the page. They don't know how to focus on action and exploit conflicts, or they don't know how to write sentences that crackle with energy. There are long meanders through character histories and resumes. Characters die in chapter four, and then reappear without explanation in chapter nine. Characters change their hair color, occupation, and even gender mid-story. Characters dress in parkas and boots to go snorkeling in Jamaica.
The point is that each newbie manuscript is unique to some degree, and often manuscripts fail in unique ways. There are common faults, and these should be avoided at all costs, of course. But it takes work to control a narrative. It takes careful, deliberate thought. There's a long learning curve in fiction writing, and it can be hard to accurately assess where you are on that curve. That doesn't mean you stop trying. It means you have to understand what you're in for. There may be frustrating moments and hurt feelings and loads of self-doubt.
But there's also magic. Everything you do along the learning curve brings you closer to that magic when you suddenly understand that all story is character, and all narrative is story. When you understand that, you'll know that there is no failure in writing. There is only a learning curve and, eventually, magic.
* Don't do this. But especially don't do this if you're writing romance. Hemingway is the opposite of romance. (A shocking number of writers talk about Hemingway in their queries. Why?)
** You think we can't google this? Imaginary agents can only negotiate imaginary deals.
*** "I'm not very good at this, but I'm willing to learn more." Great. You do that, and after you've learned what you need to know, write something new to sub.
**** "I am writing the great American novel, but thought I would write romance to support myself along the way." Yeah, because it's so easy to make a living writing romance these days.
***** I'm not talking about optional usages. I know when an author has deliberately chosen to use or not use a particular comma convention. I also know when they they're just sprinkling commas like glitter because they suspect commas should go somewhere.
****** "Theresa, do you yearn to discover new talent? Crave the excitement of seeing a book climb the bestseller charts? Call today to learn more about this exciting manuscript!"
Theresa the Picky
I agree with her (of course), but would add that other kinds of empty amplifiers hurt the prose, too. Bling punctuation is a good example of this, and one we've blogged about in the past. Look on the sidebar for a link to posts about ellipses if you need a refresher. The bottom line? Strong conflicts don't need gimmicks and bling. They're strong enough without them. (And if they're not strong enough without them, you might want to look at strengthening them instead of adding a chain of exclamation marks.)
Other things that can make me doubt your readiness--
-- loads of present participial phrases
-- misplaced modifiers
-- dangling modifiers
-- errors in usage
-- too much exposition or "set-up"
-- comparing your work to Hemingway's*
-- telling me you're agented when you're not**
-- selling yourself short***
-- lack of respect for the genre****
-- lots of grammar or punctuation errors*****
-- query letters that read like bad ad campaigns******
More than all this, though, is that you can just tell when a writer is not in complete control of the narrative. Maybe there are so many vague, ten-dollar words that you lose track of the action. Or maybe the prose is so flat that the characters vanish into the page. They don't know how to focus on action and exploit conflicts, or they don't know how to write sentences that crackle with energy. There are long meanders through character histories and resumes. Characters die in chapter four, and then reappear without explanation in chapter nine. Characters change their hair color, occupation, and even gender mid-story. Characters dress in parkas and boots to go snorkeling in Jamaica.
The point is that each newbie manuscript is unique to some degree, and often manuscripts fail in unique ways. There are common faults, and these should be avoided at all costs, of course. But it takes work to control a narrative. It takes careful, deliberate thought. There's a long learning curve in fiction writing, and it can be hard to accurately assess where you are on that curve. That doesn't mean you stop trying. It means you have to understand what you're in for. There may be frustrating moments and hurt feelings and loads of self-doubt.
But there's also magic. Everything you do along the learning curve brings you closer to that magic when you suddenly understand that all story is character, and all narrative is story. When you understand that, you'll know that there is no failure in writing. There is only a learning curve and, eventually, magic.
* Don't do this. But especially don't do this if you're writing romance. Hemingway is the opposite of romance. (A shocking number of writers talk about Hemingway in their queries. Why?)
** You think we can't google this? Imaginary agents can only negotiate imaginary deals.
*** "I'm not very good at this, but I'm willing to learn more." Great. You do that, and after you've learned what you need to know, write something new to sub.
**** "I am writing the great American novel, but thought I would write romance to support myself along the way." Yeah, because it's so easy to make a living writing romance these days.
***** I'm not talking about optional usages. I know when an author has deliberately chosen to use or not use a particular comma convention. I also know when they they're just sprinkling commas like glitter because they suspect commas should go somewhere.
****** "Theresa, do you yearn to discover new talent? Crave the excitement of seeing a book climb the bestseller charts? Call today to learn more about this exciting manuscript!"
Theresa the Picky
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Another mark of the amateur
Someone asked for us to list what we see in submissions that we think of (cruelly) as "marks of an amateur."
A lot of introductory participial phrases, that's something that seems to correlate to "new writer" for me.
Here's another. Gushing. I'm thinking not of where, in the query letter, you tell me how wonderful I am (gush away then :), but rather in the story, where the writer amplifies in an overly positive way--
Like:
She was astoundingly beautiful.
The keychain was the most wonderfully perfect gift he'd ever received.
The chair was incredibly richly detailed.
The road was wonderfully pretty.
A lot of introductory participial phrases, that's something that seems to correlate to "new writer" for me.
Here's another. Gushing. I'm thinking not of where, in the query letter, you tell me how wonderful I am (gush away then :), but rather in the story, where the writer amplifies in an overly positive way--
Like:
She was astoundingly beautiful.
The keychain was the most wonderfully perfect gift he'd ever received.
The chair was incredibly richly detailed.
The road was wonderfully pretty.
She was incredibly beautiful.
He was amazingly smart.
The problem is usually in the modifier/modified combination. This doesn't mean you shouldn't use modifiers-- I love 'em-- but be careful of redundant combos:
voraciously hungry
excruciatingly painful
enormously large
But you know, I could probably live with those, because I see that the writer has a vocabulary. But whenever I see "incredibly" in a sentence? Well, it means NOTHING. It's just an intensifier, and more annoying than, well, "more" or "very" (which are, after all, common words that mean exactly what they're meant to mean in the sentence-- intensification). "Incredibly" means 1) nothing, 2) not what you want it to mean in front of that other word. (It means "unbelievably," another empty intensifier.)
You don't want to sound like a pre-teen girl talking about how much she loves one of the Jonas Brothers, do you?
"Incredibly delicious..." This makes me think about how "delicious" used to be enough. You know, when I was growing up, a dish of vanilla ice cream was about as far as our little imaginations could reach. But that wasn't delicious enough, and now this is what you can order (for $7) for dessert: A brownie sundae, with brownie, hot fudge sauce, chocolate chips, marshmallow creme, whipped cream, oh, and vanilla ice cream. Definitely "incredibly delicious".
(Speaking of definitely... a couple semesters ago I had a raft of papers come in that kept using the word "defiantly" -- "I was defiantly glad that Mom and Dad adopted my little brother." "History is defiantly the major for future videogame writers." Whoa. I mean, that led to some interesting ideas... defiantly glad, huh? Mom and Dad punished you for being glad? Or? Then I realized that they'd all misspelled "definitely" the same way-- definately-- and spellcheck had corrected that to "defiantly". :)
Consider a "show" here so you don't have to "tell" so much.
Even raising his hand for the bill set off waves of pain through his shoulder.
He was so grateful he sat down and wrote his mother a thank-you note.
If we "see" the amazingly incredible whatever, we'll believe it more. After all, Helen wasn't termed "amazingly beautiful." Rather she had a face that launched a thousand ships.
Try to show the amazingness in some action or some comparison. Don't gush-- show us.
Alicia
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
DQ'd for Low Literacy
Yesterday I made the comment that we sometimes disqualify slush submissions for multiple spelling errors or egregiously bad grammar. I want to clarify that we're not talking about simple typos, which can happen to anyone. I don't ever expect to get a manuscript which is 100% typo-free. This is because I live in the real world and know how it operates. Fingers can be clumsy, and eyes can miss details.
Just to give you some idea of what I mean, here are some creative spellings I've encountered in recent memory.
queery
manuskript
manuscrip
novell
storey
storie
heero
heroe
erottic
aventure
sex seen
I could go on. You get the idea. One slip like this won't count against you. I'll just assume your fingers slipped and you missed it in the proofing stage. But imagine reading a letter something like this:
To whome it may concern:
Dear editer,
Hi my name is Susan and I'm 23 year old and I love books ever since I was a kid I've been reading allot. Please read my novell its about a heroe who goes up in a space, ship and then he crashes the planet is full of beautiful woman. One in particular. And so they don't know because woman rule this planet. But he's not like that. There are lots of great sex seens, as I'm sure you can geuss!!!!!!!
Please let me know soon k, thx.
Susann
This is not an actual query letter, but mimics problems we routinely see on the "egregious grammar" end of things. Run-on sentences, multiple spelling errors, incoherent statements, incorrect word usages, bad punctuation, text-style phonetic usages, and so on. They're not all this dreadful, of course, but maybe you begin to see what I mean about signs of low literacy levels.
And yes, I have absolutely seen people spell their own names two different ways. I hope this means they're still debating about pen name choices.
Theresa
Just to give you some idea of what I mean, here are some creative spellings I've encountered in recent memory.
queery
manuskript
manuscrip
novell
storey
storie
heero
heroe
erottic
aventure
sex seen
I could go on. You get the idea. One slip like this won't count against you. I'll just assume your fingers slipped and you missed it in the proofing stage. But imagine reading a letter something like this:
To whome it may concern:
Dear editer,
Hi my name is Susan and I'm 23 year old and I love books ever since I was a kid I've been reading allot. Please read my novell its about a heroe who goes up in a space, ship and then he crashes the planet is full of beautiful woman. One in particular. And so they don't know because woman rule this planet. But he's not like that. There are lots of great sex seens, as I'm sure you can geuss!!!!!!!
Please let me know soon k, thx.
Susann
This is not an actual query letter, but mimics problems we routinely see on the "egregious grammar" end of things. Run-on sentences, multiple spelling errors, incoherent statements, incorrect word usages, bad punctuation, text-style phonetic usages, and so on. They're not all this dreadful, of course, but maybe you begin to see what I mean about signs of low literacy levels.
And yes, I have absolutely seen people spell their own names two different ways. I hope this means they're still debating about pen name choices.
Theresa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
