Sunday, April 29, 2007
New Gig
I am starting to review books for the Chicago Sun-Times. I am stoked to be writing for such a wonderful publication. My deadline isn't until the end of May but I will be sure and announce when my first review is in print.
Switching Teams
I love books. I love reading them and writing them. When people ask me what kind of stuff I read, I reply by saying, "Everything." Sure there are certain types of books or certain story lines that aren't my cup of tea, but in the end, good writing is good writing, no matter what the genre.
My girlfriend is not like this. She likes Literature with a capital L. I don't think she's ever set her eyes on the popular fiction section in Borders. The opposite is true of others. I've met plenty of people who only read mysteries, or romance, or sci-fi. This is not a criticism by any means; people like what they like. Who am I to argue?
This morning, I finished one of the best books I've read this year: The Price of Silence by Camilla Trinchieri. It's a beautifully written novel with intriguing characters and I couldn't put it down. I told my girlfriend that she would love it and she asked if I was reviewing it for Crimespree. Immediately, I knew what she would say when I told her I was: I just don't like mysteries. So I found myself trying to convince her that she would like it, telling her it was character driven, that crime wasn't the focus, etc. It's all true. In fact, if I was a bookseller, I wouldn't really know where to shelve it.Later this afternoon I was reading the books section of the Sun-Times and saw that Michael Chabon's latest book was reviewed. My girlfriend is, I think, THE biggest Chabon fan. She pre-ordered The Yiddish Policemen's Union weeks ago and has cleared her schedule so she can read Tuesday, the moment it comes out. But when I read her snippets of the review, one in particular stuck out:
"Chabon unleashes a noir murder mystery that is part Raymond Chandler, Part Isaac Bashevis Singer..."
In my mind, being compared to Chandler is an incredible compliment, but to Nicole, it was cause for worry. Here is one of her favorite authors, the creator of Kavalier and Clay, she's been looking forward to his latest book for nearly a month and what does she get? A "noir murder mystery."
I am open minded when it comes to genres, but my girlfriend demonstrates that most aren't. Most readers have great genre loyalties and when beloved authors cross over to the dark side (or just to the other side of the bookstore) they run the risk of losing fans. Tess Gerritsen blogged about her experience when Harlequin began re-releasing her old romance novels. She says:
"The problem is, my readers get upset with me when they buy a Tess Gerritsen book, expecting a gritty thriller, and find they’ve bought an old romance novel. My first reaction is to say to them: ”Hey, try it, maybe you’ll like it.” But a lot of them think they’ll get cooties or something from reading a romance, and then they write me angry letters. Or even worse, they stop buying my books altogether."
Because I am as open minded with my writing as I am with my reading, this scares the hell out of me. Sure, I love writing mysteries/thrillers, but what about later? Will I always want to stay in this genre or will I get an idea for a story that's totally different? Should I be more careful about the genre I write in now because it's what I'm going to be writing for a really long time? Or do I go back to my artist attitude of "write what's pulling you" and not worry about my future in publishing?
Once your published, developing a fan base is extremely important. But those fans aren't necessarily loyal to you, they may be loyal to your genre, to your brand. They may be loyal to your serial killers, your government conspiracies, your social commentary. Change your product, they may go looking for a new brand. Trust me, if my girlfriend can doubt the brilliance of Michael Chabon based on genre, your fans can and will do the same.
In my mind, the story is what's important. Good writing is important. Interesting characters are important. In the end, I could care less what shelf I found the book on. But am I the minority? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Curve Article
Want a funky new haircut? Check out Not Your Mama's Beauty Parlor, my latest article in Curve Magazine.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Who You Know
Most writers I know, defy the stereotype of the loner, Salinger-like author that never goes out and has no friends. In fact, writers are some of the most sociable people I know. Maybe it's because we know how to tell a story, maybe it's because we can all bond over our love for books, but whatever it is, we can drink and chat until the wee hours of the morning.
Over the years, I have acquired numerous writing buddies: people in my critique group, people I went to college with, people I met at conferences, on Backspace, through the blogosphere. The act of writing is such a solitary experience, that it feels nice to walk away from the computer and have a drink with people that know exactly how it feels.
When I've mentioned the authors or reviewers I know to people outside the community, I have gotten the same response: "That must really help your career!" In the beginning, I never really thought about it like that. When I'm talking to people at writers conferences, I never think about how they can help me. And I think we've all been in that situation. Someone introduces themselves and immediately, you get the vibe of "I hope your someone important because otherwise I won't waste my time talking to you." It's awkward, the conversation is strained, and connections aren't made.
That being said, I attribute many, if not most, of my successes and opportunites to people I have met. I began reviewing books for Crimespree because I met Jon at Love is Murder. Reviewers like Sarah Weinman and David Montgomery have recommended me to their editors. Ken Bruen, bless his heart, not only read but blurbed my yet-to-be-published novel. When I met these generous people, I wasn't thinking about what they could do for me. And it's because of that, because I had no hidden agenda, that they have done so much.
When it comes to publishing a novel or getting freelance gigs, your work is what's important. It doesn't matter who your friends are if you have a bad product. Honing your skills, perfecting your craft, and writing the best book you possibly can should be priority number one. Networking comes later. Knowing people in high places may get your foot in the door, but it's not going to close the deal.
The world of publishing is a tough one and I'll do anything I can to help another writer out. Fortunately, other members of the community feel the same way. We look out for each other, push each other's books, listen to the experiences of others and dole out advice when we can. The act of writing may be solitary but the act of publishing certainly isn't. It goes back to the old saying: it takes a village to raise a child. And man, we've got quite a village.
Over the years, I have acquired numerous writing buddies: people in my critique group, people I went to college with, people I met at conferences, on Backspace, through the blogosphere. The act of writing is such a solitary experience, that it feels nice to walk away from the computer and have a drink with people that know exactly how it feels.
When I've mentioned the authors or reviewers I know to people outside the community, I have gotten the same response: "That must really help your career!" In the beginning, I never really thought about it like that. When I'm talking to people at writers conferences, I never think about how they can help me. And I think we've all been in that situation. Someone introduces themselves and immediately, you get the vibe of "I hope your someone important because otherwise I won't waste my time talking to you." It's awkward, the conversation is strained, and connections aren't made.
That being said, I attribute many, if not most, of my successes and opportunites to people I have met. I began reviewing books for Crimespree because I met Jon at Love is Murder. Reviewers like Sarah Weinman and David Montgomery have recommended me to their editors. Ken Bruen, bless his heart, not only read but blurbed my yet-to-be-published novel. When I met these generous people, I wasn't thinking about what they could do for me. And it's because of that, because I had no hidden agenda, that they have done so much.
When it comes to publishing a novel or getting freelance gigs, your work is what's important. It doesn't matter who your friends are if you have a bad product. Honing your skills, perfecting your craft, and writing the best book you possibly can should be priority number one. Networking comes later. Knowing people in high places may get your foot in the door, but it's not going to close the deal.
The world of publishing is a tough one and I'll do anything I can to help another writer out. Fortunately, other members of the community feel the same way. We look out for each other, push each other's books, listen to the experiences of others and dole out advice when we can. The act of writing may be solitary but the act of publishing certainly isn't. It goes back to the old saying: it takes a village to raise a child. And man, we've got quite a village.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
MFA or CPA?
The occupation of "author" is perhaps not the most practical career choice. It probably goes along with "musician" or "painter" in terms of stability. But I emphasize career choice; you choose what you do for a living. My knack for writing could have been applied to numerous jobs, practical jobs, ones with vacation time and a 401k. But I chose freelancing, I chose novel writing, despite the lack of stability. It's what I love and I know I cannot be happy doing anything else.
Tess Gerritsen had an interesting blog post about the lack of Asian-American authors, saying that as a race, there is much emphasis on the sciences and families encourage their children to pursue careers in that field. Gerritsen became a doctor before pursuing her career as a novelist, and she wonders how many Asian-American Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award winners are out there working in the sciences.
I completely understand where Gerritsen is coming from, but I don't think it is simply an issue of racial differences. Although culture and upbringing play huge roles in shaping a child's future, I think many, if not most, Americans are working somewhere other than their dream job. How many people have told you, "I've always wished I was a rock star/movie star/president/etc?" Far more, than people who have told you they love what they do and wouldn't want to do anything else.
But it's more than just doing what makes you happy, it's also doing what your good at. I love to sing, but I save it for the shower because I sound horrible. Scratch rock star off the dream job list. My mother always wanted to be a forensic scientist, but flunked high school chemistry because she accidently burnt all the textbooks with acid. Talent+Passion=dream job. Can't have one without the other.
So that leaves us with the people who have a talent for something, but don't have a passion for it. My girlfriend is a brilliant accountant, but it's hard for me to believe that she'd rather audit than do anything else. Why does she do it? Because, as she says, "Having a CPA is like money in the bank. I'll always have a job." She does it for the stability (and the nice paycheck). My father, when he was in high school, told his mother that he wanted to be a plumber. She gasped and pleaded for him to set his goals higher, but he said that being a plumber was a stable occupation, that he would never be without work. (Side note: he is now an accountant).
Writing was never seen as a stable occupation, and now, with people reading less and less, it seems even more impractical. But to me, going to school for creative writing wasn't as dumb a decision as practical people may think. Writing is a skill, a trade, and I went to school for it. In nearly every career, writing is a necessary skill, one that many professionals, sadly, do not have. To me, I can always get a job writing and my degree is far more "practical" than others.
I've always had a "follow your bliss" attitude, but I can see where it's difficult for others to have the same. Stability is important, but to me, it's more important to do something you love. Fact of the matter is, whatever you love to do and whatever you're good at, there's someone out there who will pay you to do it. My girlfriend has a passion for tea and a knack for business and I always tell her to open up her own tea shop. My mother loves helping people and is great at solving problems and listening, so she became a therapist. I love to tell stories so I became a writer, and can be one of those people who say, "I love what I do and wouldn't want to do anything else.
Tess Gerritsen had an interesting blog post about the lack of Asian-American authors, saying that as a race, there is much emphasis on the sciences and families encourage their children to pursue careers in that field. Gerritsen became a doctor before pursuing her career as a novelist, and she wonders how many Asian-American Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award winners are out there working in the sciences.
I completely understand where Gerritsen is coming from, but I don't think it is simply an issue of racial differences. Although culture and upbringing play huge roles in shaping a child's future, I think many, if not most, Americans are working somewhere other than their dream job. How many people have told you, "I've always wished I was a rock star/movie star/president/etc?" Far more, than people who have told you they love what they do and wouldn't want to do anything else.
But it's more than just doing what makes you happy, it's also doing what your good at. I love to sing, but I save it for the shower because I sound horrible. Scratch rock star off the dream job list. My mother always wanted to be a forensic scientist, but flunked high school chemistry because she accidently burnt all the textbooks with acid. Talent+Passion=dream job. Can't have one without the other.
So that leaves us with the people who have a talent for something, but don't have a passion for it. My girlfriend is a brilliant accountant, but it's hard for me to believe that she'd rather audit than do anything else. Why does she do it? Because, as she says, "Having a CPA is like money in the bank. I'll always have a job." She does it for the stability (and the nice paycheck). My father, when he was in high school, told his mother that he wanted to be a plumber. She gasped and pleaded for him to set his goals higher, but he said that being a plumber was a stable occupation, that he would never be without work. (Side note: he is now an accountant).
Writing was never seen as a stable occupation, and now, with people reading less and less, it seems even more impractical. But to me, going to school for creative writing wasn't as dumb a decision as practical people may think. Writing is a skill, a trade, and I went to school for it. In nearly every career, writing is a necessary skill, one that many professionals, sadly, do not have. To me, I can always get a job writing and my degree is far more "practical" than others.
I've always had a "follow your bliss" attitude, but I can see where it's difficult for others to have the same. Stability is important, but to me, it's more important to do something you love. Fact of the matter is, whatever you love to do and whatever you're good at, there's someone out there who will pay you to do it. My girlfriend has a passion for tea and a knack for business and I always tell her to open up her own tea shop. My mother loves helping people and is great at solving problems and listening, so she became a therapist. I love to tell stories so I became a writer, and can be one of those people who say, "I love what I do and wouldn't want to do anything else.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Where is your ARC?
I just got back from a wonderful trip to San Francisco, a city I had never been to and will hopefully return to soon. Like most tourists, we hit up Alcatraz and Fisherman's Wharf, took long hikes, drove across the Golden Gate bridge, etc. But with every new city I go to, unlike most tourists, I check out the mystery bookstore. This one was a quaint storefront connected to a house where, I assumed, the owners lived. Perusing the shelves, I happened upon a whole wall dedicated to advanced reading copies, all adorning the labels "uncorrected proofs" and "not to be sold". I asked how much the ARCs were going for and the counter person told me that they were all ten dollars. Guess they ignored the labels.
It is my understanding that authors (or their publicists) send ARCs to bookstores so the owners can read them and hopefully recommend them to customers, not to make a profit. The author receives no compensation for the sales of ARCs. My initial reaction was frustration. Authors slave away for a year writing the book, they send out ARCs to put their names out there and hopefully generate sales, but instead of reading the books, this bookseller just places them on a shelf to generate revenue for themselves. I have expressed this frustration in a previous post regarding used books; authors should be compensated for their work.
But then another thought came to mind. The point of these advanced copies is to put your name out there. You send them to critics to get reviews and to booksellers for customer recommendations. So even though you don't receive royalties for the ARCs sold, you could potentially gain readership and therefore ensure future sales. But perhaps this is being optimistic.
My girlfriend is into book collecting. Okay, she has become an addict of book collecting. She seeks out first editions, rare printings, anything she thinks "could be worth something someday". To her, the ARCs are an investment, and she seriously considered purchasing an ARC of The Blade Itself (even though she already has three first edition, first printings) because she thinks it will gain in value. When she buys a rare first edition online or from a book dealer, the author doesn't receive compensation from that sale either, so does the same go for ARCs? Because they're rare, do they cross over into the realm of collector's item?
Call me a stickler or a goody goody, but I feel like if something says "not to be sold" I don't think it should be sold. Why should someone make a profit off of my work without giving me a cut? But I'd like to put it out there for the published authors (or non-published if you have an opinion). How do you feel when you see your ARCs on Ebay or being sold at local bookstores? Does it help build readership? Is it good publicity? Or is it just someone trying to make a buck off of your hard work?
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Too Predictable?
I've always been good at predicting movies. When I saw The Sixth Sense I figured it out halfway through and ruined it for everyone in the theater. Primal Fear and The Illusionist, which were known for their "twist" endings, didn't fool me either. For me, the mark of a good movie or book is the ability to surprise, for the ending to be unexpected but make sense at the same time.
So when I got feedback on my third draft of Street Walk, I was very disappointed to hear that both my mother and girlfriend figured out the mystery on the same page, chapters before the big reveal. Where I thought I was just dropping a hint, a seed to make the ending tie in later, I was actually giving it away. They both assured me that they still loved the book and there was still the suspense of how the killer was going to be caught, but it didn't change the fact that, in my mind, my book was predictable.
When I had lunch with Lee Child a few Bouchercons ago, I asked him about eliminating predictability in books and how important it was to him that people didn't figure out the mystery too soon. He said that even if a person thinks they've figured it out, they'll still read to the end to see if they're right and ultimately, you just want the reader to keep reading.
For someone like me who becomes a harsher critic with each book she reads, figuring out the ending too soon definitely changes my opinion of a novel, especially a mystery. If the whole attraction of the genre is to figure out the who and the why, wouldn't a predictable ending defeat the purpose of reading? While some people may find satisfaction in figuring out the killer before the big reveal, I get disappointed, thinking that it was the writer's job to fool me and fool me well.
There is certainly a fine line between revealing too much and too little. Give away too many clues and readers will figure it out prematurely. Withhold too much and readers will feel cheated, like it came out of nowhere. Authors use red herrings to steer readers in the wrong direction, but if a character is too likely of a suspect, it's a safe bet that they didn't actually do it.
Ultimately, crafting the mystery seems like every other aspect of writing: practice makes perfect. So I will return to my manuscript and make the necessary changes, not wanting my story to be predictable. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. How important is the element of surprise? If you figure out the mystery too soon, does it change your opinion of the novel? Or does the saying ring true, is it about the journey and not the destination?
So when I got feedback on my third draft of Street Walk, I was very disappointed to hear that both my mother and girlfriend figured out the mystery on the same page, chapters before the big reveal. Where I thought I was just dropping a hint, a seed to make the ending tie in later, I was actually giving it away. They both assured me that they still loved the book and there was still the suspense of how the killer was going to be caught, but it didn't change the fact that, in my mind, my book was predictable.
When I had lunch with Lee Child a few Bouchercons ago, I asked him about eliminating predictability in books and how important it was to him that people didn't figure out the mystery too soon. He said that even if a person thinks they've figured it out, they'll still read to the end to see if they're right and ultimately, you just want the reader to keep reading.
For someone like me who becomes a harsher critic with each book she reads, figuring out the ending too soon definitely changes my opinion of a novel, especially a mystery. If the whole attraction of the genre is to figure out the who and the why, wouldn't a predictable ending defeat the purpose of reading? While some people may find satisfaction in figuring out the killer before the big reveal, I get disappointed, thinking that it was the writer's job to fool me and fool me well.
There is certainly a fine line between revealing too much and too little. Give away too many clues and readers will figure it out prematurely. Withhold too much and readers will feel cheated, like it came out of nowhere. Authors use red herrings to steer readers in the wrong direction, but if a character is too likely of a suspect, it's a safe bet that they didn't actually do it.
Ultimately, crafting the mystery seems like every other aspect of writing: practice makes perfect. So I will return to my manuscript and make the necessary changes, not wanting my story to be predictable. But I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. How important is the element of surprise? If you figure out the mystery too soon, does it change your opinion of the novel? Or does the saying ring true, is it about the journey and not the destination?
New Tess Gerritsen Post
Today, Tess Gerritsen writes about what to expect when tackling the second draft. Definitely know where she's coming from!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Advertising in Novels?
J.A. Konrath has a very interesting blog post about funding books with advertising dollars. Being who I am, I'm against using product placement and ads to fund my novels, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless.
Query 101
The Truth: I nearly failed Freshman English. I can't spell worth a damn and I still don't know what a participle is. I run into my grade school Language Arts teachers and when I tell them I'm a writer they laugh and assume I'm joking. Originally, I was destined for business. In high school, I was the DECA state champion and I went to Michigan State University with plans to obtain a marketing degree. Even though I soon realized my passion for creative writing and transferred to Columbia College, my business mind has never left. I may die without spellcheck and I may consult The Elements of Style on a regular basis, but when it comes to query letters, it's all about the marketing.
There are all types of query letters with all sorts of structures and formats, but there are a few universal truths when querying an agent or editor.
1) Do your homework. Visit the agent or editor's site and see what authors and genres they represent. Yes, this takes time, but in the end, it's worth it. When you write your query, be sure to show the person that you have done your homework. Tell them why your book would be a good fit.
2) Grab from the get-go. If you've ever been to an agent or editor's office, you have seen the piles. They have stacks and stacks of query letters to go through, all of which get read but only a few make it to the next step. It's important to make your letter stand out, primarily in your pitch. You only have a paragraph to say what your book is about, so you better make it good. Test out your pitch at writer's conferences, with your critique group, with your mom, whoever. See if it grabs your attention. If even you mother's eyes glaze over, it won't grab an agent's attention.
3) Show that you're serious. Before they even get to your manuscript, an agent or editor wants to know that you're a serious writer, not just someone who spewed off 80,000 words one weekend. Any publishing credits and awards received should be included in your query (usually after the pitch paragraph). If you have a BA or MFA in creative writing, all the better, especially if the MFA is from Iowa. None of the above? Put down that you've attended writer's conferences and/or seminars where you have networked. You're not just selling your manuscript, you're selling yourself.
4) No mistakes. Read it twenty times if you have to, but you're query letter should be free of misspellings and grammatical errors. It's not just a query, it's a demonstration of your writing abilities. If you make two mistakes in a one-page query, how many mistakes will be in your manuscript?
5) SASE. Always, ALWAYS, include a self-addressed stamped envelope with your submission. Without it, even a kick-ass query will be tossed aside.
Little things: Some of this is personal preference, so take it or leave it.
There are all types of query letters with all sorts of structures and formats, but there are a few universal truths when querying an agent or editor.
1) Do your homework. Visit the agent or editor's site and see what authors and genres they represent. Yes, this takes time, but in the end, it's worth it. When you write your query, be sure to show the person that you have done your homework. Tell them why your book would be a good fit.
2) Grab from the get-go. If you've ever been to an agent or editor's office, you have seen the piles. They have stacks and stacks of query letters to go through, all of which get read but only a few make it to the next step. It's important to make your letter stand out, primarily in your pitch. You only have a paragraph to say what your book is about, so you better make it good. Test out your pitch at writer's conferences, with your critique group, with your mom, whoever. See if it grabs your attention. If even you mother's eyes glaze over, it won't grab an agent's attention.
3) Show that you're serious. Before they even get to your manuscript, an agent or editor wants to know that you're a serious writer, not just someone who spewed off 80,000 words one weekend. Any publishing credits and awards received should be included in your query (usually after the pitch paragraph). If you have a BA or MFA in creative writing, all the better, especially if the MFA is from Iowa. None of the above? Put down that you've attended writer's conferences and/or seminars where you have networked. You're not just selling your manuscript, you're selling yourself.
4) No mistakes. Read it twenty times if you have to, but you're query letter should be free of misspellings and grammatical errors. It's not just a query, it's a demonstration of your writing abilities. If you make two mistakes in a one-page query, how many mistakes will be in your manuscript?
5) SASE. Always, ALWAYS, include a self-addressed stamped envelope with your submission. Without it, even a kick-ass query will be tossed aside.
Little things: Some of this is personal preference, so take it or leave it.
- I don't like questions in the query letter. I have read many queries that end on, "May I send you the first three chapters?" It doesn't sit well. I'd go with, "I look forward to sending you the complete manuscript." It's confident and shows that your novel is ready to be submitted.
- Always include what you have enclosed along with the query letter. If for some reason your SASE or pages get misplaced, the agent or editor will know that you included them in your submission.
- If you have a blog or website, include it with your contact info, under your e-mail address or in your heading. My homepage has numerous short stories posted along with my resume, so people can look at it before responding. I landed two freelance gigs sending nothing but a pitch. The editor said she was sold after looking at my webpage. Going back to point #3, blogs and webpages show your seriousness.
- Name dropping is not a crime...if it's done tactfully. Agents and editors will find you more appealing if you have a network of writers that would provide blurbs when your novel comes out. If one of those writers is represented by the agent you're querying, all the better. Here is a sample from one of my agent queries:
I received my B.A. in fiction writing from Columbia College Chicago, where I studied under great authors such as Patricia Rosemoor and Joe Meno. My uncle, Lee Child, has also been a great mentor to me. Each of these authors has agreed to provide blurbs for my novel.
For me, the book Agents, Editors, and You has been very helpful, as well as Hallie Ephron's Writing and Selling Your Mystery Novel. Writing a good query takes practice, but hopefully, if you follow these suggestions, it won't be long before an agent or editor asks for pages.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Chicken and the Egg
How many times have you heard the following responses to "What's your book about?"
"It's Pulp Fiction meets Lethal Weapon...with penguins..."
"It's a high concept techno thriller with a dash of romantic suspense."
"It's about this guy...(This is where you zone out because no one should start their pitch with these four words)"
So how does an author begin a book? Do they start with a concept and develop characters along the way? Or does the idea stem from "this guy" and the plot forms from there? What comes first, the characters or the plot?
For me, it's been both. Thou Shall Not began with a group of people: ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel. I knew it was a world that most people didn't know much about and thought that many would be interested. While that was marinating, I read a newspaper article about a small scandal in New York where prevalent Rabbi's were caught soliciting prostitutes. This happens quite often, especially in Israel, but I knew that the story shocked most of America. Add some murders and a crime reporter who deviated from the community and came to Chicago and I had my first novel. However, with Street Walk, the character came first. Suzanne, a former prostitute who left the business after being attacked. Then I thought about how to make it worse. I made her pregnant when she was attacked and now she's living on Chicago's north shore raising her daughter. I had no idea what the plot would be, but the character intrigued me so much, that I let the plot stem from her.
I know many writers who start off with a genre, or a concept, and let the characters and plot form around that. Joesph Finder created the new sub-genre "Corporate Thrillers", thinking that since most people work in corporate America, they'd enjoy reading about it. Tess Gerritsen, after writing Romance novels, wanted to put her medical experience to use and write a medical thriller. It's hard for me to believe that writers such as Dan Brown or Michael Chrichton start developing their characters before thinking about plot.
Is one method better than the other? Of course not. Authors can't control where they get their ideas or what they think of first. But I do believe the final product is different. The aspect the author spends more time developing, will be the driving focus in the finished manuscript.
Take a book like Mystic River (okay, I know I'm a total Lehane-head, but the guy is brilliant.) What do you remember most about that book? The characters and the relationship between them. It's hard for me to believe that Lehane first developed the plot of that book before thinking about the characters. What about Jurassic Park? I don't think Chrichton first thought of a scientist and developed the character before even thinking about the concept.
Ideally, the final product would have both. Authors like Gayle Lynds and Lee Child manage to create both memorable characters and high-concepts. The important thing is that the story is compelling, whether it's the plot or the characters driving the story forward. We can't control what ideas come into our head, what thoughts preoccupy us until we put them down on paper. But even if you think of a plot idea or a concept first, it's important to create characters that are multi-faceted and will add to the story. Conversely, a book cannot ride on characters alone; you need a gripping story that will keep readers turning pages.
"It's Pulp Fiction meets Lethal Weapon...with penguins..."
"It's a high concept techno thriller with a dash of romantic suspense."
"It's about this guy...(This is where you zone out because no one should start their pitch with these four words)"
So how does an author begin a book? Do they start with a concept and develop characters along the way? Or does the idea stem from "this guy" and the plot forms from there? What comes first, the characters or the plot?
For me, it's been both. Thou Shall Not began with a group of people: ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel. I knew it was a world that most people didn't know much about and thought that many would be interested. While that was marinating, I read a newspaper article about a small scandal in New York where prevalent Rabbi's were caught soliciting prostitutes. This happens quite often, especially in Israel, but I knew that the story shocked most of America. Add some murders and a crime reporter who deviated from the community and came to Chicago and I had my first novel. However, with Street Walk, the character came first. Suzanne, a former prostitute who left the business after being attacked. Then I thought about how to make it worse. I made her pregnant when she was attacked and now she's living on Chicago's north shore raising her daughter. I had no idea what the plot would be, but the character intrigued me so much, that I let the plot stem from her.
I know many writers who start off with a genre, or a concept, and let the characters and plot form around that. Joesph Finder created the new sub-genre "Corporate Thrillers", thinking that since most people work in corporate America, they'd enjoy reading about it. Tess Gerritsen, after writing Romance novels, wanted to put her medical experience to use and write a medical thriller. It's hard for me to believe that writers such as Dan Brown or Michael Chrichton start developing their characters before thinking about plot.
Is one method better than the other? Of course not. Authors can't control where they get their ideas or what they think of first. But I do believe the final product is different. The aspect the author spends more time developing, will be the driving focus in the finished manuscript.
Take a book like Mystic River (okay, I know I'm a total Lehane-head, but the guy is brilliant.) What do you remember most about that book? The characters and the relationship between them. It's hard for me to believe that Lehane first developed the plot of that book before thinking about the characters. What about Jurassic Park? I don't think Chrichton first thought of a scientist and developed the character before even thinking about the concept.
Ideally, the final product would have both. Authors like Gayle Lynds and Lee Child manage to create both memorable characters and high-concepts. The important thing is that the story is compelling, whether it's the plot or the characters driving the story forward. We can't control what ideas come into our head, what thoughts preoccupy us until we put them down on paper. But even if you think of a plot idea or a concept first, it's important to create characters that are multi-faceted and will add to the story. Conversely, a book cannot ride on characters alone; you need a gripping story that will keep readers turning pages.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
From Fiction To Reality
When I created this blog, I promised myself that it wouldn't turn into an indulgent, "look how great I am", attempt at self-promotion, or worse, an unstructured rambling of any thought that comes into my head. I wanted to share my experiences and opinions, which are hopefully helpful and a bit entertaining. But this is something I can't resist sharing although I can assure you, it won't be helpful in anyway and may not be entertaining to anyone other than myself.
#1 The Fiction: In my latest book, I needed a way for my main character to live in an affluent suburb even though she's a waitress and has a five year old daughter and probably couldn't afford anything in that area. After much brainstorming, I decided to have her strike a deal with her landlord that she'd clean the common areas of the building in exchange for a reduced rent. Problem solved.
The Reality: In September I moved into my very spacious yet very affordable apartment. It was a sublet, so the lease is up at the end of April and my landlord sent me a letter regarding possible renewal. The letter informed me that my rent would be raised by about 10% if I wished to continue living here. That, I can't afford and really, I don't want to spend the money to move again. After lots of negotiating (okay, arguing) about how much my rent should be, seemingly out of nowhere, I blurted out, "What if I clean the common areas for a reduced rent?" Seriously, I surprised myself. But she agreed and I will continue to live in my very spacious yet very affordable apartment.
#2 The Fiction: Last summer I started a short story about a girl overcoming drug addiction who joins a swim team, knowing that regular exercise is an important part of recovery. But as the year continues, she finds herself getting addicted to swimming, going to the pool three times a day, getting tremors if she doesn't get enough yardage, etc. Basically, I've always said swimmers are slightly sadistic and have to be a little crazy, and thought it would make for an interesting story if I exaggerated the hell out of it.
The Reality: When I joined my masters swim team this summer, I started going two days a week. When my work schedule shifted, I was able to go three, sometimes four days. On Tuesdays, when I can't make it to practice, I swim at my gym. Then, in December, meet season started, so I started competing on Sundays every few weeks. My girlfriend thinks it's starting to get out of hand. Our team has a "mile-a-day" challenge where the goal is to swim 365 miles in 2007. To keep track, we have a spreadsheet where we input our yardage every day. Last week, I looked it over and saw that I swam every day for three weeks. No break. No rest. In April, we're going to San Francisco and while my girlfriend is looking up restaurants and things to do, I go online and search for pools. When I tell her there's a masters team that practices down the street from our hotel she gives me a look that says, "I will leave you if you go to swim practice on our vacation." I'm starting to agree that I may have a problem. My name is Dana and I'm a swim-aholic.
We always talk about putting ourselves in our characters, giving them traits that we possess. But I never knew it was possible to actually become our characters, become like the fictional people we have created. Anyone else? Am I the only one?
#1 The Fiction: In my latest book, I needed a way for my main character to live in an affluent suburb even though she's a waitress and has a five year old daughter and probably couldn't afford anything in that area. After much brainstorming, I decided to have her strike a deal with her landlord that she'd clean the common areas of the building in exchange for a reduced rent. Problem solved.
The Reality: In September I moved into my very spacious yet very affordable apartment. It was a sublet, so the lease is up at the end of April and my landlord sent me a letter regarding possible renewal. The letter informed me that my rent would be raised by about 10% if I wished to continue living here. That, I can't afford and really, I don't want to spend the money to move again. After lots of negotiating (okay, arguing) about how much my rent should be, seemingly out of nowhere, I blurted out, "What if I clean the common areas for a reduced rent?" Seriously, I surprised myself. But she agreed and I will continue to live in my very spacious yet very affordable apartment.
#2 The Fiction: Last summer I started a short story about a girl overcoming drug addiction who joins a swim team, knowing that regular exercise is an important part of recovery. But as the year continues, she finds herself getting addicted to swimming, going to the pool three times a day, getting tremors if she doesn't get enough yardage, etc. Basically, I've always said swimmers are slightly sadistic and have to be a little crazy, and thought it would make for an interesting story if I exaggerated the hell out of it.
The Reality: When I joined my masters swim team this summer, I started going two days a week. When my work schedule shifted, I was able to go three, sometimes four days. On Tuesdays, when I can't make it to practice, I swim at my gym. Then, in December, meet season started, so I started competing on Sundays every few weeks. My girlfriend thinks it's starting to get out of hand. Our team has a "mile-a-day" challenge where the goal is to swim 365 miles in 2007. To keep track, we have a spreadsheet where we input our yardage every day. Last week, I looked it over and saw that I swam every day for three weeks. No break. No rest. In April, we're going to San Francisco and while my girlfriend is looking up restaurants and things to do, I go online and search for pools. When I tell her there's a masters team that practices down the street from our hotel she gives me a look that says, "I will leave you if you go to swim practice on our vacation." I'm starting to agree that I may have a problem. My name is Dana and I'm a swim-aholic.
We always talk about putting ourselves in our characters, giving them traits that we possess. But I never knew it was possible to actually become our characters, become like the fictional people we have created. Anyone else? Am I the only one?
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Reviewers' Plight
The other day I received a call from a fellow writer/reviewer stating some concerns about books he was scheduled to review.
"I have two books," he tells me with a sigh. "One was really good, but the author totally cheated at the end and it really pissed me off. The other one was okay, the writing wasn't too great, but it was good enough that I can review it."
My reaction was he can review the first one and state his frustrations about the ending, or just not review it at all. As for the other one, why did he keep reading? If I'm not liking a book, I put it down. Life's too short to read bad books. But he told me he had three books on his stack and was afraid he wouldn't like any of them and couldn't go to his editor empty handed.
In a perfect world, reviewers would love everything that comes across their desks. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have to make judgement calls and tough decisions about what to review and how to review it. Most of it depends on the publication. Crimespree doesn't publish bad reviews (with all the ARCs they get, they don't need to waste time reading bad books) while Time Out Chicago wants brutal honesty. Truthfully, when I read a book like my friend did, where the author cheats at the end, every part of me wants to vent and tear the book apart. But most of the time, it's refreshing to read what you want and not be pressured to get through a book that you seriously dislike.
But most books aren't so clean cut. There are books that I love and books that I hate, but most fall somewhere in between. Most books are well written but have plot problems. They have interesting characters but not enough suspense. So, what to do? Generally, if the author kept my interest for 300 pages, they're doing something right. If I made it to the end, it's getting reviewed. But what if there were significant problems with the plot, or a character, believability, etc.? I give credit where credit is due, writing about the good things and dropping no more than a line about the bad. The reader can take it or leave it. Fact of the matter is, we all have different tastes. I'm more into character driven novels, but someone else may enjoy the high-concept novels with less character development. I did not particularly care for The Da Vinci Code, but I can think of thousands of people who did. Something that I may view as a weakness, someone else may see as a strength.
As with blurbing authors, reviewers run the risk of losing credibility. Write too many good reviews of bad books and you will surely lose your audience. Write too many bad reviews and authors will hiss at you at writers conferences. Be honest and you'll maintain your credibility. Yes, I write a lot of positive reviews, but that's because the bad books don't get reviewed. It's hard enough for authors to sell books without some critic writing about how bad it is. Like my mother taught me: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
I can't speak for every reviewer, but most of us got into this business because we love books. We're not disgruntled authors who could never get anything published so we decided to degrade the work of others. We love reading, love a good story and love discovering new authors. We sometimes have to read books we don't want to, or write reviews that aren't stellar, but in the end, the hope of finding a book we adore makes the whole process worth it.
"I have two books," he tells me with a sigh. "One was really good, but the author totally cheated at the end and it really pissed me off. The other one was okay, the writing wasn't too great, but it was good enough that I can review it."
My reaction was he can review the first one and state his frustrations about the ending, or just not review it at all. As for the other one, why did he keep reading? If I'm not liking a book, I put it down. Life's too short to read bad books. But he told me he had three books on his stack and was afraid he wouldn't like any of them and couldn't go to his editor empty handed.
In a perfect world, reviewers would love everything that comes across their desks. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We have to make judgement calls and tough decisions about what to review and how to review it. Most of it depends on the publication. Crimespree doesn't publish bad reviews (with all the ARCs they get, they don't need to waste time reading bad books) while Time Out Chicago wants brutal honesty. Truthfully, when I read a book like my friend did, where the author cheats at the end, every part of me wants to vent and tear the book apart. But most of the time, it's refreshing to read what you want and not be pressured to get through a book that you seriously dislike.
But most books aren't so clean cut. There are books that I love and books that I hate, but most fall somewhere in between. Most books are well written but have plot problems. They have interesting characters but not enough suspense. So, what to do? Generally, if the author kept my interest for 300 pages, they're doing something right. If I made it to the end, it's getting reviewed. But what if there were significant problems with the plot, or a character, believability, etc.? I give credit where credit is due, writing about the good things and dropping no more than a line about the bad. The reader can take it or leave it. Fact of the matter is, we all have different tastes. I'm more into character driven novels, but someone else may enjoy the high-concept novels with less character development. I did not particularly care for The Da Vinci Code, but I can think of thousands of people who did. Something that I may view as a weakness, someone else may see as a strength.
As with blurbing authors, reviewers run the risk of losing credibility. Write too many good reviews of bad books and you will surely lose your audience. Write too many bad reviews and authors will hiss at you at writers conferences. Be honest and you'll maintain your credibility. Yes, I write a lot of positive reviews, but that's because the bad books don't get reviewed. It's hard enough for authors to sell books without some critic writing about how bad it is. Like my mother taught me: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
I can't speak for every reviewer, but most of us got into this business because we love books. We're not disgruntled authors who could never get anything published so we decided to degrade the work of others. We love reading, love a good story and love discovering new authors. We sometimes have to read books we don't want to, or write reviews that aren't stellar, but in the end, the hope of finding a book we adore makes the whole process worth it.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The Chicago Contingent: Why We Rock
I am very fortunate to be a part of a wonderful critique group, something that many writers struggle to find. The original members were all handpicked by Patricia Rosemoor, our professor at Columbia. We had all taken either her Suspense Thriller writing or Writing Popular Fiction class and wanted to continue working on our books after the semester had ended. Now, most of us have completed our manuscripts, Marcus Sakey and Andre Frieden each have books out, and Marc Paoletti has two novels due out next year. I'd say that as a group, we're doing pretty well.
Aside from having a talented group of writers, there are many reasons our critique group works as well as it does. For starters, all but one of us attended Columbia College at some point in time. We are familiar with both giving and receiving feedback. We know how to read critically, to listen both as readers and writers. Many writers never attend writing workshops or go through a creative writing program; they only have themselves to critique. But because we are all familiar with Columbia's method there is a level of understanding when making comments or receiving them.
Although we all write genre fiction, everyone is working on something different. We have a couple of YA authors, one espionage, and a few crime/mystery/thriller writers. I find variety refreshing, even though it is sometimes jarring to go from a serial killer thriller to a Young Adult fantasy book with fairies and giants. But I think that it is important that we are all writing novels, and it helps that they are all genre fiction. I don't know how effectively I could comment on a play or poetry; prose is what I know. In my opinion, maintaining a certain level of uniformity within the group is important.
On that note, because we are all writing genre novels, the writing group also serves as a support system when it comes to publishing or getting an agent. Now that many people in our group are beginning the querying process, they are turning to the members who have agents for advice. When it comes to publishing, everyone has a different experience and it helps to know people who are going through the same thing. When I got offers from two agents (both exciting and nerve racking) I turned to Marcus for advice. He also had offers from two agents, knew what I was going through, and gave me the best piece of advice I could have gotten: have a beer. Which I did. And it helped. When another member of our group finished her novel and was ready to begin the agent search, three of us sent her the spreadsheets of all our agent research. When Marc Paoletti's book got picked up by Five Star, Andre and I gave him blurbs. We all have a goal, to succeed in the writing industry. Our writing group isn't just about getting feedback, it's about coming together and helping each other out.
I'm not going to say that a writer needs a critique group in order to be successful. I will say that personally, I need my critique group. I think I'd lose my mind without it. But if you're searching for a writing group, keep these things in mind. It's not just about getting feedback or hearing other people's work. It's a group, a network, and for it to be effective, everyone needs to gel. I know that Backspace has tons of people looking for writing groups, but for me, it would be a little weird to get together with a bunch of strangers. If you go to writer's conferences or readings, network with local authors, find out if they have writing groups. I think the most important thing about the people in a writing group is that they respect each other's work and that they can have fun together. Writer's conferences and readings are perfect places to do both.
Anyone else form a critique group? How did it come about? Please leave comments, advice, additions to my ramblings, etc.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Art of the Interview
Riding home on the EL last night, I was approached by a young Northwestern student wanting to interview me for an article he was writing for his journalism class. Even though I was looking forward to reading a book on the hour-long train ride, I agreed, wanting to help out a newbie writer in any way that I could. He began by asking me my full name, age, place of residence, etc. before moving into some controversial questions about the situation in Iraq. Never ashamed to voice my political opinion, I answered his questions honestly. But as the interview went on, I couldn't help but feel some disconnect, that something was off. And then I realized what it was: his interview style. He asked a lot of yes/no questions, didn't respond to my answers with follow up questions, he was even reading his questions off a pre-printed list. And although I was tempted to give him a few words of wisdom, I kept my mouth shut.
Greg Kot, rock critic for the Chicago Tribune and contributor for Rolling Stone, once told me that interviews should feel like a conversation. When I began freelancing, I was always anxious about interviewing subjects, but I kept his words in mind and hoped that everything would go okay. Prior to meeting with the person I was interviewing, I would dig up as much information as I could so I could talk with them intelligently and ask productive questions. Even though I would prepare some questions prior to the interview, by list would usually be thrown out the window, because our conversation, not interview, would take on a life of it's own.
So although I didn't preach to the Northwestern student, I thought I'd share a few interview tips with everyone. I'm sure I'll miss at least a hundred so feel free to comment with pearls of your own.
1) Don't ask yes or no questions. Seems like common sense right? But believe me, it's hard not to. You want to ask questions that spur on answers. Yes/no questions don't do that. Instead of asking, "Did you enjoy working with so-and-so?" ask "How did it feel to work with so-and-so?"
2) Know your subjects. Before an interview, I always Google the person I'm interviewing. If they have a website, I peruse it. If they wrote a book, I read it (at least the excerpt on Amazon). My first real interview was Shannon Blowtorch, dancer with goth band All The Pretty Horses. I had never heard of her or the band, but I made sure I had listened to their tracks and knew her bio before giving her a call.
3) Think on your feet. Although I said you should research your clients, it sometimes comes back to bite you in the ass. I was assigned to interview Nikki Weiss and Carole Antouri, agent and make-up artist who made a pilot about the Baton. But when I googled, up popped all these articles about gay adoption advocates. Fortunately, there were photos so I knew when I got to their door that it was a different Nikki and Carole. But a lot of my prepared questions focused around adoption. Too many times, you'll be thrown for a loop and have to be prepared to respond. Interviews take on lives of their own and if you can't think fast, you may not have enough material for your piece.
4) Have a back-up plan. There have been too many times where my tape recorder has failed me or my Internet was down to not have some sort of back up plan. Even if you're recording, always take notes as well. If you have scheduled an e-mail or chat interview, have the person's phone number as well, just in case. Also, don't wait until the last minute. Often I'm writing on tight deadlines and something comes up where the person I'm supposed to interview isn't available. Always give yourself an out. Don't schedule an interview the day before an article is due.
5) Be both friendly and professional. You want your subjects to be at ease when they talk to you and often times that means being friendly and trying to break down the barrier of subject/interviewer. However, you can't lose your professionalism in the meantime. It's easy to get on tangents and want to discuss your personal life. After all, the person you're interviewing is telling you everything. But you have to keep a certain distance to remain neutral. Also, after an interview, always e-mail the subject to thank them for talking to you. I usually give them a call when the article comes out to congratulate them on the press and make sure that they were happy with the piece.
Interviewing is honestly my favorite part of freelancing. I get the chance to meet interesting people that often times I would never have met otherwise. The quality of your article is directly related to the quality of your interviews, and, as with everything, practice makes perfect. Hopefully this tips are helpful; maybe I should pass them along to the folks at Medill...
Greg Kot, rock critic for the Chicago Tribune and contributor for Rolling Stone, once told me that interviews should feel like a conversation. When I began freelancing, I was always anxious about interviewing subjects, but I kept his words in mind and hoped that everything would go okay. Prior to meeting with the person I was interviewing, I would dig up as much information as I could so I could talk with them intelligently and ask productive questions. Even though I would prepare some questions prior to the interview, by list would usually be thrown out the window, because our conversation, not interview, would take on a life of it's own.
So although I didn't preach to the Northwestern student, I thought I'd share a few interview tips with everyone. I'm sure I'll miss at least a hundred so feel free to comment with pearls of your own.
1) Don't ask yes or no questions. Seems like common sense right? But believe me, it's hard not to. You want to ask questions that spur on answers. Yes/no questions don't do that. Instead of asking, "Did you enjoy working with so-and-so?" ask "How did it feel to work with so-and-so?"
2) Know your subjects. Before an interview, I always Google the person I'm interviewing. If they have a website, I peruse it. If they wrote a book, I read it (at least the excerpt on Amazon). My first real interview was Shannon Blowtorch, dancer with goth band All The Pretty Horses. I had never heard of her or the band, but I made sure I had listened to their tracks and knew her bio before giving her a call.
3) Think on your feet. Although I said you should research your clients, it sometimes comes back to bite you in the ass. I was assigned to interview Nikki Weiss and Carole Antouri, agent and make-up artist who made a pilot about the Baton. But when I googled, up popped all these articles about gay adoption advocates. Fortunately, there were photos so I knew when I got to their door that it was a different Nikki and Carole. But a lot of my prepared questions focused around adoption. Too many times, you'll be thrown for a loop and have to be prepared to respond. Interviews take on lives of their own and if you can't think fast, you may not have enough material for your piece.
4) Have a back-up plan. There have been too many times where my tape recorder has failed me or my Internet was down to not have some sort of back up plan. Even if you're recording, always take notes as well. If you have scheduled an e-mail or chat interview, have the person's phone number as well, just in case. Also, don't wait until the last minute. Often I'm writing on tight deadlines and something comes up where the person I'm supposed to interview isn't available. Always give yourself an out. Don't schedule an interview the day before an article is due.
5) Be both friendly and professional. You want your subjects to be at ease when they talk to you and often times that means being friendly and trying to break down the barrier of subject/interviewer. However, you can't lose your professionalism in the meantime. It's easy to get on tangents and want to discuss your personal life. After all, the person you're interviewing is telling you everything. But you have to keep a certain distance to remain neutral. Also, after an interview, always e-mail the subject to thank them for talking to you. I usually give them a call when the article comes out to congratulate them on the press and make sure that they were happy with the piece.
Interviewing is honestly my favorite part of freelancing. I get the chance to meet interesting people that often times I would never have met otherwise. The quality of your article is directly related to the quality of your interviews, and, as with everything, practice makes perfect. Hopefully this tips are helpful; maybe I should pass them along to the folks at Medill...
Monday, February 19, 2007
Quality vs. Quantity
Whenever I'm in a bookstore, usually a few times a week, I wander over to the "Writing/Publishing" section. The usual suspects are there: Writing for Dummies, Get Published Now!, Writing the Bestseller, etc. It takes a while to sift through the garbage and find a few quality books on the craft of writing and the publishing industry. Over the years, I have collected numerous writing books, some better than others, many contradicting each other. Some say write fast, that the more you write, the better you get. Others say take your time, let the story marinate. Some say write numerous drafts, others say take your time and write better first-drafts. It's enough to make the newbie writer throw in the towel and choose a new career.
There is no one way to write, only the way that works for you. Whether your Nora Roberts who seems to write a book by lunch time or Dennis Lehane who takes a few years to unveil his masterpiece, as long as you make your contracted deadline, there are no rules about how long you should take to write the actual manuscript. It seems that most genre authors are on a book-a-year contract, but what they do in that year varies greatly. Lee Child spends 6-8 months on the manuscript, 2 months promoting his latest book, and whatever is left he takes for himself. J.A. Konrath, to my understanding, sequesters himself for a month to write his book and spends the rest of the year marketing and promoting. Other authors take almost the entire year completing their next book, writing and editing while doing book tours.
For me, I write fast and I write a lot. I finished Thou Shall Not in about 5 months and Street Walk, after 4 months, is in its final stages. Does that make me better than those who take a year? Obviously not. It's just the way I write best, gluing myself to my chair and purging the words onto the paper. People have asked me, "What's the rush? You're not on a deadline." And it's true. I could take years if I wanted. But I don't. When a a story is pulling me, I can't help but write it. If I take too long, the story loses its freshness, its excitement, and it will show in the writing.
I truly believe that writing, like any sport or craft requires practice. The more you do it the better you get. Last summer, I joined a swim team, practicing 1-2 hours a day five days a week. Intense and a little insane, I know. But the more I swim, the faster and better I get. If I miss a week, it shows. Writing is the same way. I meet a lot of writers who say they can't help it, they must write everyday, like breathing. I commend them. For most of us, it's easy to succumb to television or books or bars or any other activity we enjoy. But we have to keep practicing, improving our craft, and that includes writing something, anything, every day. If you're in between books, try your hand at a short story or essay. If you're blocked, journal a bit. Blog. Write your grandma a letter. Something. Anything. Every day.
Whether you write slowly or fast, a lot or a little, the important thing is that you write. A book written in 3 months can be just as good as a book written in 3 years. Ultimately, we all strive to write quality fiction, but most of the time, the quality of our work is proportional to the quantity that we produce. Read the writing books, take from them what you wish, but you have to find your own way, not someone else's.
I'd love to hear feedback from everyone regarding their writing frequency. How many words per day? How many hours per day? Maybe we can compile our own "How To Write" book.
There is no one way to write, only the way that works for you. Whether your Nora Roberts who seems to write a book by lunch time or Dennis Lehane who takes a few years to unveil his masterpiece, as long as you make your contracted deadline, there are no rules about how long you should take to write the actual manuscript. It seems that most genre authors are on a book-a-year contract, but what they do in that year varies greatly. Lee Child spends 6-8 months on the manuscript, 2 months promoting his latest book, and whatever is left he takes for himself. J.A. Konrath, to my understanding, sequesters himself for a month to write his book and spends the rest of the year marketing and promoting. Other authors take almost the entire year completing their next book, writing and editing while doing book tours.
For me, I write fast and I write a lot. I finished Thou Shall Not in about 5 months and Street Walk, after 4 months, is in its final stages. Does that make me better than those who take a year? Obviously not. It's just the way I write best, gluing myself to my chair and purging the words onto the paper. People have asked me, "What's the rush? You're not on a deadline." And it's true. I could take years if I wanted. But I don't. When a a story is pulling me, I can't help but write it. If I take too long, the story loses its freshness, its excitement, and it will show in the writing.
I truly believe that writing, like any sport or craft requires practice. The more you do it the better you get. Last summer, I joined a swim team, practicing 1-2 hours a day five days a week. Intense and a little insane, I know. But the more I swim, the faster and better I get. If I miss a week, it shows. Writing is the same way. I meet a lot of writers who say they can't help it, they must write everyday, like breathing. I commend them. For most of us, it's easy to succumb to television or books or bars or any other activity we enjoy. But we have to keep practicing, improving our craft, and that includes writing something, anything, every day. If you're in between books, try your hand at a short story or essay. If you're blocked, journal a bit. Blog. Write your grandma a letter. Something. Anything. Every day.
Whether you write slowly or fast, a lot or a little, the important thing is that you write. A book written in 3 months can be just as good as a book written in 3 years. Ultimately, we all strive to write quality fiction, but most of the time, the quality of our work is proportional to the quantity that we produce. Read the writing books, take from them what you wish, but you have to find your own way, not someone else's.
I'd love to hear feedback from everyone regarding their writing frequency. How many words per day? How many hours per day? Maybe we can compile our own "How To Write" book.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tess Gerritsen Blog Post
An interesting post by Tess Gerritsen. Are readers ever satisfied?
http://tessgerritsen.com/blog/2007/02/04/the-author-didnt-play-fair/
http://tessgerritsen.com/blog/2007/02/04/the-author-didnt-play-fair/
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Pants on Fire
Author n. 1. The writer of a book 2. A person who creates something
I am an author. I write books and I create. I'm a bullshit artist, a liar. Don't believe a word I say.
I have yet to meet a writer who doesn't bring their talent for storytelling into their daily lives. We exaggerate, spin yarns, have a flexible definition of what is true and false. When we get pulled over, we tell the cops elaborate stories about our sister who's in labor and we're driving fast to try to make it there on time. At parties, we make intelligent comments on recent news headlines or political legislation even if we haven't watched the news or listened to the radio in weeks. At conferences, we claim to have read every book that every author has ever written, and are able to speak intelligently on the various characters and plot lines. It comes naturally, like breathing.
My love for fiction writing stems from laziness, that I'll admit. While I'd rather write freelance articles than punch a clock everyday, I still get annoyed when I have to research or go on interviews. I get irritated when I need something more than my mind to get the job done. When I started writing, I loved the fact that all I needed was a pen and paper, or a computer, and my brain to produce. But I soon learned that even writing fiction requires research, requires truth and accuracy.
We've all heard it time and time again. Research. Get your facts right. Readers will crucify you if you make too many mistakes. I admit, when I read novels about Chicago and they get street names and neighborhoods wrong, the author immediately loses my trust. But then again, we're just telling a story. It's fiction. Why all the focus on facts?
For years I relied on the George Castanza theory: It's not a lie if you truly believe it. If you tell a story with enough authority no one will question its accuracy. Most authors (that I know of) have never shot a man, never spent a day in prison, never hijacked a plane or caught a terrorist. But their knack for storytelling, their belief in what they write, gives off a sense of authority and we don't question it. We believe that this is what killing someone feels like, that this is what it's like in prison, that their story illustrates the way to successfully hijack a plane. I can research the prison system, read serial killer websites, check out books from the library on the effects of poison, but I will never actually experience it.
Ultimately we are authors, creators, not the bearers of truth. The research we do for our novels adds authority to our stories, to our voices, forcing readers to believe our bullshit. Make too many mistakes and you lose credibility, but show enough facts and readers will follow you anywhere. At parties, my girlfriend may roll her eyes as I criticize the recent Oprah pick knowing that I hadn't read it, but the rest of my audience will listen, will believe me, because I state my opinion with authority. It's not a lie, if you truly believe it.
I am an author. I write books and I create. I'm a bullshit artist, a liar. Don't believe a word I say.
I have yet to meet a writer who doesn't bring their talent for storytelling into their daily lives. We exaggerate, spin yarns, have a flexible definition of what is true and false. When we get pulled over, we tell the cops elaborate stories about our sister who's in labor and we're driving fast to try to make it there on time. At parties, we make intelligent comments on recent news headlines or political legislation even if we haven't watched the news or listened to the radio in weeks. At conferences, we claim to have read every book that every author has ever written, and are able to speak intelligently on the various characters and plot lines. It comes naturally, like breathing.
My love for fiction writing stems from laziness, that I'll admit. While I'd rather write freelance articles than punch a clock everyday, I still get annoyed when I have to research or go on interviews. I get irritated when I need something more than my mind to get the job done. When I started writing, I loved the fact that all I needed was a pen and paper, or a computer, and my brain to produce. But I soon learned that even writing fiction requires research, requires truth and accuracy.
We've all heard it time and time again. Research. Get your facts right. Readers will crucify you if you make too many mistakes. I admit, when I read novels about Chicago and they get street names and neighborhoods wrong, the author immediately loses my trust. But then again, we're just telling a story. It's fiction. Why all the focus on facts?
For years I relied on the George Castanza theory: It's not a lie if you truly believe it. If you tell a story with enough authority no one will question its accuracy. Most authors (that I know of) have never shot a man, never spent a day in prison, never hijacked a plane or caught a terrorist. But their knack for storytelling, their belief in what they write, gives off a sense of authority and we don't question it. We believe that this is what killing someone feels like, that this is what it's like in prison, that their story illustrates the way to successfully hijack a plane. I can research the prison system, read serial killer websites, check out books from the library on the effects of poison, but I will never actually experience it.
Ultimately we are authors, creators, not the bearers of truth. The research we do for our novels adds authority to our stories, to our voices, forcing readers to believe our bullshit. Make too many mistakes and you lose credibility, but show enough facts and readers will follow you anywhere. At parties, my girlfriend may roll her eyes as I criticize the recent Oprah pick knowing that I hadn't read it, but the rest of my audience will listen, will believe me, because I state my opinion with authority. It's not a lie, if you truly believe it.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Self-Promotion
There is much debate about what it takes to sell a book. As authors, the burden of marketing usually falls on us (unless you're James Patterson or Norah Roberts who have insane amounts of publicity money). So what does it take? Print advertising? Book signings? Many authors blog about the best ways to market a book, but since I've yet to publish a novel, I'm going to take it from the perspective of a book buyer. What makes me buy a book?
1) Plot. Ultimately, if a book doesn't sound interesting I'm not going to buy it. With the review books it's different; I give most books a chance even if they are different from my usual taste. But when I'm shelling out ten bucks, I want to make sure the book I'm buying sounds interesting. I always read the back cover and usually the first chapter. If it catches my interest, I'll put it in my cart.
2)Word of Mouth If someone I trust tells me that a book is amazing, I'll go looking for it. If I read a review or an article and the book sounds interesting, I'll usually pick it up. Again, it comes back to plot. It could be an excellent book, but if it's just not my thing, I may not invest.
3) Appearances This weekend I met Tom Schreck whose novel was just released with Midnight Ink. My first introduction was when he handed me a beer cozy with his book cover on it. Now, that beer cozy alone would not have made me buy the book. But we got to talking and he's a nice guy and his book, the story of a part time boxer part time social worker, sounded interesting. When I meet authors face to face and they talk to me about their work, it usually leads me to bookstores looking for their novels. Panels and book signings alone may not do it, but if we have a drink afterwards and make that face-to-face connection, it helps a lot more.
4) Scandal Now this may be harder to concoct, but if you're book is causing controversy, I'm going to read it. Maybe it's just me. When Ken Bruen told me that there was a push to ban his book, immediately I wanted to read it. When Oprah dissed James Frey and all the controversy arose, I wanted to be in the know, so I read Million Little Pieces. This point may not be as helpful to most authors, but I felt I had to include it. Scandal sells books, and if you're writing on a controversial subject, chances are, I'm going to pick it up.
Things like cover art and publisher may come into play a bit, but they're not deal breakers. Although word of mouth and author appearances play a large role in introducing me to the books that are available, ultimately it has to be an interesting story. Your first job is to write the best, most interesting book you can. Then, when it comes to marketing, get out there, meet and greet, cause a buzz and if you can, get your book banned!
1) Plot. Ultimately, if a book doesn't sound interesting I'm not going to buy it. With the review books it's different; I give most books a chance even if they are different from my usual taste. But when I'm shelling out ten bucks, I want to make sure the book I'm buying sounds interesting. I always read the back cover and usually the first chapter. If it catches my interest, I'll put it in my cart.
2)Word of Mouth If someone I trust tells me that a book is amazing, I'll go looking for it. If I read a review or an article and the book sounds interesting, I'll usually pick it up. Again, it comes back to plot. It could be an excellent book, but if it's just not my thing, I may not invest.
3) Appearances This weekend I met Tom Schreck whose novel was just released with Midnight Ink. My first introduction was when he handed me a beer cozy with his book cover on it. Now, that beer cozy alone would not have made me buy the book. But we got to talking and he's a nice guy and his book, the story of a part time boxer part time social worker, sounded interesting. When I meet authors face to face and they talk to me about their work, it usually leads me to bookstores looking for their novels. Panels and book signings alone may not do it, but if we have a drink afterwards and make that face-to-face connection, it helps a lot more.
4) Scandal Now this may be harder to concoct, but if you're book is causing controversy, I'm going to read it. Maybe it's just me. When Ken Bruen told me that there was a push to ban his book, immediately I wanted to read it. When Oprah dissed James Frey and all the controversy arose, I wanted to be in the know, so I read Million Little Pieces. This point may not be as helpful to most authors, but I felt I had to include it. Scandal sells books, and if you're writing on a controversial subject, chances are, I'm going to pick it up.
Things like cover art and publisher may come into play a bit, but they're not deal breakers. Although word of mouth and author appearances play a large role in introducing me to the books that are available, ultimately it has to be an interesting story. Your first job is to write the best, most interesting book you can. Then, when it comes to marketing, get out there, meet and greet, cause a buzz and if you can, get your book banned!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Love is Murder recap
I am finally recovering from the draining (yet incredibly fun) Love is Murder weekend. The three days were filled with great people, great conversation, and of course, lots of drinking. I got to meet a lot of new authors, catch up with old friends, and I even made it to a panel or two. Although no one jumped in a lake this year, some of the highlights included:
- Meeting and mingling with bestselling author Ken Bruen, who is one of the sweetest, funniest, most entertaining people I have ever met.
- Getting to be on a panel with the brutally honest and wildly entertaining Jennifer Jordan. She's a great reviewer and a lot of fun to hang out with.
- Getting my hands on Darren Callahan's latest script, an adaptation of his novel Documentia. Can't wait to dive in.
- When the soon-to-be-published Jamie Lavish traded his hand crafted cowboy boots for Ken Bruen's watch at two in the morning. Don't know how fair the trade was, but Ken wore the boots for the rest of the conference.
Overall it was a fun couple of days and I can't wait for Thriller Fest this summer. Enjoy the photos!
Darren Callahan, Sharon Doering and Tasha Alexander
Marcus Sakey and James Lavish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
