It may be an unusual concept to many writers, especially those new to the field or for some who have been in the field for a long time with no or little success, but you do not sell your work, you allow the work you have written and submitted to an editor, agent or publisher to sell itself. If you must explain what you mean by phrases and ideas, if you must first lay down ground work in order to get the reader to understand what you are delivering then you need to seriously consider reworking the submission, because by the sounds of it, the work isn't ready.
To get the most out of your work you have to develop a critical mind, one that has spent a lot of time deconstructing and reconstructing your work. If you create a story, or a concept for a novel it is wise to consider how many variations of this one story you can create, how many differences you can add and subtract to get to the final conclusion. This goes for lineal and abstract stories, it goes for all genres, all styles and all the weird and wonderful variations in between. No story you write today is set in concrete, at any time you can turn it back into dust and start again.
NEVER, EVER - tell a reader how they are supposed to read your work, or how they are supposed to understand the concepts involved, to do so tells the experienced reader you know very little about the industry and perhaps even very little about what it means to be a writer, period.
Many writers believe they are infallible when it comes to their words, they are the best and only judge of what is good, bad or indifferent. Note, all writers journey through this, but very, very few actually get to the other end - the majority stop when they feel they are the best and only judge and what they write is perfect. It comes down to what you want to be as a writer, do you want to explore and journey through everything with editors, publishers or readers, or do you aim to become a writer that simply tells readers and others what to read and to like it or lump it. This latter position is quite common amongst the writers of today. Is it a good position to be in? Does this mean you need to be in this position to express your confidence in your own work? Interestingly, confidence has nothing to do with sticking to your guns over an editorial decision - though many might argue this.
Confidence in your work comes from the ability to make change and knowing you are not only able to flex and bend with your mind and materials, but you are able to do it at ease and with expert precision. The lazy confidence is the unalterable position, the’ I am right and you are wrong’ position, and many an editor will have more than a few hundred stories about managing writer egos over this very issue.
In the presentation of your work allow it to sell on its own strengths and weaknesses and allow yourself the luxury of flexibility and exploration within the possibilities presented to you via outside sources. If you, the author, display a confidence that even comes close to resembling dogged thinking and rigid positions many editors just won't work with you, they don't have the time or resources to deal with someone who has worked themselves into a position of possible righteousness.
This may all sound rather harsh and extreme but if you the writer can get over yourself, get over the preciousness of your work and attitude, you will become a good writer - if you are able to listen, learn, adjust and accept different views (not all will be right for you, but search the reason behind the view before dismissing it) then you will become a great writer.
How does the writer of this blog treat his own work -
As a novelist I have completely deconstructed novels to make them better than what I thought was already good - I listened to some commentary, and though I disagreed with it, I followed it, as it was made for a reason. The eventual outcome was my novel Uttuku -- I did what I had to, I adjusted and manipulated things to get a different outcome, and thus a superior novel.
All my published work has had some editorial input and I have made those alterations and been confident in my ability to be flexible in this way. People want to work with me, even when they get a story that might have some issues; they know I can make the alteration quickly, efficiently and without complaint. This is perhaps why I have a little more success than some.
The message is, yes, feel confident about your work, feel excited about your writing and your materials, but don't try to sell it through your open enthusiasm, the work must speak for itself at all times.
Right, get back to it, edit and rethink what you wrote yesterday, rework what you think is brilliant and make it better. The day you stop learning and growing as a writer is the day you should just give it away.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Getting the Process Right
There are a lot of websites, free advice services and paid advice services all giving expert advice on how to submit everything from short stories, articles and novels to publishers; some of this is good but most of it is not so helpful.
Here is one key element most seem to go light on; or no mention at all. The publisher, no matter what some tell you or even feel experienced to tell you, do not actually care about you and your book, story or article. This is not a shock to some, and then there are others who will stand up and say this isn’t so -'my publisher is wonderful'. This is where things have to be considered carefully and in context. If you have no publishing record, if you do not already have a book deal in place and are selling copies of your latest novel, you do not actually exist and will not exist until some, if not all of these things are achieved. Is that being overly harsh? perhaps, but ask any first time author in short or long how many professional editors have called them for a chat, or to shoot the breeze? How many new writers have ever rang a publishing house or magazine and actually spoken to an editor? I would say very few, if any.
I am not saying editors don't care about what they do, on the contrary, they care very much, but they do not have to time to nurture someone new and unprofitable through the whole writing/submission/publication process; so you have to learn all of this second hand and even anecdotally.
How important is your work to the editor? It has no importance at all until they see it making money, or in short stories, if they will please the readership, only then does the work take on any real value and the editor starts the first suggestions of even caring who you are. New writers biggest mistakes come when trying to treat editors as long lost friends; this doesn't work very well unless you have a vibrant and engaging personality to back up this approach. Let's face it, writers, in a general sense, are not the most vibrant of people.
Am I making all this sound grim? Have there been some readers already fly of the handle and scream rubbish? They will, and so to will some established writers, who sadly have forgotten how difficult it really can be. There is something to be said to always present the positive, bubbly and encouraging front, but when the rubber hits the road (oh the cliché) most of the bubbly effervescence vanished in a cloud of stinking soot.
Right, prepare yourself with the idea the industry doesn't care. Instead of then going to 'why bother then?' you move to this position and the one all new writers need to move to. 'I will make them care', 'I will make them see me by becoming the best I can.'
Use this one truism of publishing to fire you up to achieve and know, when you do start selling stories, or even novels that you are quite privileged and in that thought never forget how tough it was to make someone care about you, or more to the point to get someone to see there was profit to be made in caring for you and your work.
When you are popular editors love you, do anything for you, call you just to say hi, but until that day comes you do need to slug it out in obscurity. Don't make the mistake of thinking you have made it and no longer need direction; that has brought down more writers than the plague.
So, how do you submit work to publishers and editors, or even literary agents? First you find their guidelines and find out exactly how they want their submissions and you follow these directions to the letter - you are not different and you are not special. If you fail in your first submission then look at your work again, examine areas that could be improved; the writer who simply flood the market with their very first version of a work is ignorant and even deserves to be ignored. The idea is to send something out, work on something new and if rejection comes, which is more likely, you examine the materials and make those improvements. Don't expect and editor to tell you what is wrong, it rarely happens, and if by chance one does make a suggestion then I say you'd better damn well listen up.
There is a great deal of professional talk about how long to wait, when to nudge and publisher or magazine and how to cross examine them to get what you want. Let me remind you of the first thing I mentioned. They don't care about you, and will not care unless there is profit to be made. So, you send and forget and move on. If your writing world is focused on one work then your focus is misdirected. You need to have multiples working for you, different stories; different submission targets all working together to create one break. You put the eggs in one basket (another cliché) then you will most certainly remain in the same spot you started out in ten years ago.
Why listen to me on this subject? Am I an expert? Do I have credentials to splash around?
If you have to ask this before you need to follow basic instructions then don't let me stop you moving through the maze of publishing nightmares. Now, I am sure there are plenty of experts in the world that will sell you their knowledge.
Your task is to make the editor care and in that caring you will find success.
Here is one key element most seem to go light on; or no mention at all. The publisher, no matter what some tell you or even feel experienced to tell you, do not actually care about you and your book, story or article. This is not a shock to some, and then there are others who will stand up and say this isn’t so -'my publisher is wonderful'. This is where things have to be considered carefully and in context. If you have no publishing record, if you do not already have a book deal in place and are selling copies of your latest novel, you do not actually exist and will not exist until some, if not all of these things are achieved. Is that being overly harsh? perhaps, but ask any first time author in short or long how many professional editors have called them for a chat, or to shoot the breeze? How many new writers have ever rang a publishing house or magazine and actually spoken to an editor? I would say very few, if any.
I am not saying editors don't care about what they do, on the contrary, they care very much, but they do not have to time to nurture someone new and unprofitable through the whole writing/submission/publication process; so you have to learn all of this second hand and even anecdotally.
How important is your work to the editor? It has no importance at all until they see it making money, or in short stories, if they will please the readership, only then does the work take on any real value and the editor starts the first suggestions of even caring who you are. New writers biggest mistakes come when trying to treat editors as long lost friends; this doesn't work very well unless you have a vibrant and engaging personality to back up this approach. Let's face it, writers, in a general sense, are not the most vibrant of people.
Am I making all this sound grim? Have there been some readers already fly of the handle and scream rubbish? They will, and so to will some established writers, who sadly have forgotten how difficult it really can be. There is something to be said to always present the positive, bubbly and encouraging front, but when the rubber hits the road (oh the cliché) most of the bubbly effervescence vanished in a cloud of stinking soot.
Right, prepare yourself with the idea the industry doesn't care. Instead of then going to 'why bother then?' you move to this position and the one all new writers need to move to. 'I will make them care', 'I will make them see me by becoming the best I can.'
Use this one truism of publishing to fire you up to achieve and know, when you do start selling stories, or even novels that you are quite privileged and in that thought never forget how tough it was to make someone care about you, or more to the point to get someone to see there was profit to be made in caring for you and your work.
When you are popular editors love you, do anything for you, call you just to say hi, but until that day comes you do need to slug it out in obscurity. Don't make the mistake of thinking you have made it and no longer need direction; that has brought down more writers than the plague.
So, how do you submit work to publishers and editors, or even literary agents? First you find their guidelines and find out exactly how they want their submissions and you follow these directions to the letter - you are not different and you are not special. If you fail in your first submission then look at your work again, examine areas that could be improved; the writer who simply flood the market with their very first version of a work is ignorant and even deserves to be ignored. The idea is to send something out, work on something new and if rejection comes, which is more likely, you examine the materials and make those improvements. Don't expect and editor to tell you what is wrong, it rarely happens, and if by chance one does make a suggestion then I say you'd better damn well listen up.
There is a great deal of professional talk about how long to wait, when to nudge and publisher or magazine and how to cross examine them to get what you want. Let me remind you of the first thing I mentioned. They don't care about you, and will not care unless there is profit to be made. So, you send and forget and move on. If your writing world is focused on one work then your focus is misdirected. You need to have multiples working for you, different stories; different submission targets all working together to create one break. You put the eggs in one basket (another cliché) then you will most certainly remain in the same spot you started out in ten years ago.
Why listen to me on this subject? Am I an expert? Do I have credentials to splash around?
If you have to ask this before you need to follow basic instructions then don't let me stop you moving through the maze of publishing nightmares. Now, I am sure there are plenty of experts in the world that will sell you their knowledge.
Your task is to make the editor care and in that caring you will find success.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Win an iPod
WIN AN iPOD 8Gb. Purchase a copy of Uttuku from Amazon.com (Book or Kindle) and submit your reciept number to my message box, at author@altair-australia.com. Winner annouced March 1 2011. Please share this with your friends.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Yesterday for Today
Why look back in time when we have so much to look forward to in the future?
In the examination of the past it is becoming clearer that the future might not be the bright shining beacon futurologists of visionaries are branding and selling the people of Earth. Some are now asking, have we actually travelled this road before? It might even be suggested that technology is simply masking civilization and its slow decay, a slow narrowing of though through exclusivity based on pointed knowledge.
It is possible. Knowledge of some kind went into the construction of a deliberately buried structure at Gobekli Tepe around 12 000BC. Here a civilization which predates the time when archaeologists say civilizations existed, broke away from hunter-gatherer living to set down something so amazing that it has all thrown into question all visions of the past. The builder people were building well before the concepts of henges went through Europe. A builder and thinker civilization existed in Neolithic times; a time many modern thinkers consider primitive and far removed from today.
While Gobekli throws up some tricky questions, it is perhaps the Thorbourough henge in North Yorkshire that suggests the greatest example of knowledge and lost knowledge. Here there is a construction on a massive scale with an accuracy undeniably sophisticated - and sadly still denied by those who believe maths and complex calculations and use of the stars belongs to the great thinkers of a much later age. 5-6000 years ago a civilization was realising its potential and was creating structures that would, even today, take some thinking.
For some reason the builders faded away and only the constructions have managed to survive the scourge of time. So, has this knowledge been lost forever? No, not at all. The knowledge used to create place like Gobkli, Stonehenge or Thorbourough has already been rediscovered and it was considered very modern thinking when it was used again in the Renasance period across Europe. In fact some very early Neolithic sites exist across France, so many of these old knowledge could have been passed down through groups in dribs and drabs; enough to keep thinkers of the new age thinking, testing and discovering.
What can be suggested is that during the thousands of years after the construction of such buildings the knowledge ownership narrowed and possibly continued to narrow to only a few wizened priest/builders knew all there was to know, but had become so exclusive ta]hat fewer and fewer new converts came to learn these ways. It would have only taken illness or more likely a fight or uprising against these priest type people to eliminate the knowledge completely. Instead of a widespread knowledge base it was very narrow, and like the Egyptian builders who took their secrets with them, the knowledge was lost.
In today's world, where knowledge is everywhere it is becoming quite obvious that it would on take a century to lose all known knowledge we share today. With the advent of the digital world, and the fragile nature of digital media, all known knowledge could be lost with just the flick of a switch, or the multiple crash of hard drives. Information stored in digital formats thirty years ago are unreadable unless you use equally antiquated devices - which are even more fragile.
Like the Neolithic knowledge loss modern knowledge is poised on a pin head, granted a big pin head, but its access is restrictive and become more and more exclusive as media ownership buys up known knowledge for sale. When will it become too expensive to make knowledge available? An, when, like the civilizations of 12 000 BC or 6000 BC the exclusive owners fade away, just how much will be lost and how much will the world have to relearn?
In the examination of the past it is becoming clearer that the future might not be the bright shining beacon futurologists of visionaries are branding and selling the people of Earth. Some are now asking, have we actually travelled this road before? It might even be suggested that technology is simply masking civilization and its slow decay, a slow narrowing of though through exclusivity based on pointed knowledge.
It is possible. Knowledge of some kind went into the construction of a deliberately buried structure at Gobekli Tepe around 12 000BC. Here a civilization which predates the time when archaeologists say civilizations existed, broke away from hunter-gatherer living to set down something so amazing that it has all thrown into question all visions of the past. The builder people were building well before the concepts of henges went through Europe. A builder and thinker civilization existed in Neolithic times; a time many modern thinkers consider primitive and far removed from today.
While Gobekli throws up some tricky questions, it is perhaps the Thorbourough henge in North Yorkshire that suggests the greatest example of knowledge and lost knowledge. Here there is a construction on a massive scale with an accuracy undeniably sophisticated - and sadly still denied by those who believe maths and complex calculations and use of the stars belongs to the great thinkers of a much later age. 5-6000 years ago a civilization was realising its potential and was creating structures that would, even today, take some thinking.
For some reason the builders faded away and only the constructions have managed to survive the scourge of time. So, has this knowledge been lost forever? No, not at all. The knowledge used to create place like Gobkli, Stonehenge or Thorbourough has already been rediscovered and it was considered very modern thinking when it was used again in the Renasance period across Europe. In fact some very early Neolithic sites exist across France, so many of these old knowledge could have been passed down through groups in dribs and drabs; enough to keep thinkers of the new age thinking, testing and discovering.
What can be suggested is that during the thousands of years after the construction of such buildings the knowledge ownership narrowed and possibly continued to narrow to only a few wizened priest/builders knew all there was to know, but had become so exclusive ta]hat fewer and fewer new converts came to learn these ways. It would have only taken illness or more likely a fight or uprising against these priest type people to eliminate the knowledge completely. Instead of a widespread knowledge base it was very narrow, and like the Egyptian builders who took their secrets with them, the knowledge was lost.
In today's world, where knowledge is everywhere it is becoming quite obvious that it would on take a century to lose all known knowledge we share today. With the advent of the digital world, and the fragile nature of digital media, all known knowledge could be lost with just the flick of a switch, or the multiple crash of hard drives. Information stored in digital formats thirty years ago are unreadable unless you use equally antiquated devices - which are even more fragile.
Like the Neolithic knowledge loss modern knowledge is poised on a pin head, granted a big pin head, but its access is restrictive and become more and more exclusive as media ownership buys up known knowledge for sale. When will it become too expensive to make knowledge available? An, when, like the civilizations of 12 000 BC or 6000 BC the exclusive owners fade away, just how much will be lost and how much will the world have to relearn?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Why, Why Oh Why?
From the outset it is clear I am a Christian and it is quite true I folloqw the teachings of Jesus and some of his diciples, but what isn't obvious is that I also approach my faith from a historical and scientific background.
This usually become obvious around Christmas time when competeing belief systems set out to bring down the whole idea of Christmas, which the term suggests is a Christ Mass. The time of year is historically important though and not just because Christiansd also started celebrating this time in 330AD. There are the traditions of the Solstice, The Harvest, even Isis in Rome was celebrated around this time.
Historically Christians made the celebration more prominent through time and through countries around the world, where variations of paganism and even wicca was being followed. The early Christians, like St Patrick, who was first driven off for being against Celtic traditions eventually set aside his rigid Roman Catholic Church teaching to develop faith along the lines of inclusivity of culture and tradition; this is why through Europe we see the Christmas tradition well developed with many traditional nature elements.
There came a time of inquisition that swept through the world, or reformations that unravelled the nature of the church while it was trying to enforce power over the very people it said it was protecting. Good Christians still kept on developing strong relationships with their neighbours and accepted traditions and incorporated many of them. Sadly history only records much of the bad that was done and in circles where it is easier to quote something out of context it is hard to deliver and type of understanding about those nightmarish times. The inquisition failed, more people came to the side of Jesus, but not to stand alongside the Catholic Church, but to stand up against the wrongs that were being done on the name of Jesus the Christ.
In many ways the exploitation of people does continue and it comes not from Christians endeavouring to help others but from the new versions of the inquisitipon that call themselves Christians and Churches. Penticostal Churches (At times rabit religious fundamentalists) are infiltarting poor countries and spreading a belief system that, on the surface is a salvation from hatred, develops a kind of deeper hatred of self and those who are not like you. Where this can lead has already been played out in the USA bible belt where you see religious types (I have difficulty even calling them Christian) deliver rant after rant of nonsense and misdirection as if it were some for of God spoken truth. Watch a TV evangelist to see what I mean. These types of Christians do not make up the majority of Christaians in the world today, but like the inquisitions of older times, it is hard to fight against this type of persecution when minorities are not taking the time to understand the differeneces between people and what they believe.
Sometimes, at Christmas, I like to incorporate as the systems that made the early Christian world so vibrant, caring and adventurous - not the TV version people do like to recite in argument, but the guy changing lighbulbs for the old couplwe down the road, the woman mending clothes for ex-cons, or the small church on the corner that sends care packages to soldiers in war torn parts of the world regardless of what the soldier has as a faith.
Today, in the times we try to share there are new voices crying out to be heard, but not crying out in a manner that is of any benefit to others in a tangible sense, but more the individual sound of someone thinking they have more rights than everyone else. Something, if a Christian is of the Jesus following kind, doesn't really consider. That is not to say self is not important, but that self is not something pushed above all others. I think communism tried to be like a atheist model of Christian ideals, and we know how well that worked out. It is at Christmas time that the minority groups scream the loudest, scamper for their piece of dirt so they can hoist their flag higher than anyone elses. Why? What difference does it make if the majority of the country follows a Christian styled Christmas - what harm does this do?
Consider the red suited father Christmas being promoted. This varriant which people seem sometimes to feel more comfortable with is actually the worst kind of Christmas iconism. The red suit and product promotion is only 90 years old, it is a Coca Cola advertisemnt from the 20s, the most effective product ADVERTISING CAMPAIN IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. While [people balk at the idea of celebrating the birth of a baby who brought hope into the world when the world needed it, they scamper with self righteous pride to an incidious ad campain that commercialised a form of Christmas for profit.
Even Pagan and Wicca belief systems, which would have moree familiarity with the new hope (harvest, birth) ideal would find the red suited fat man too much to accept - yet people do argue this is the true meaning of Christmas when much, much older celebrations created this time of year.
The term Christmas didn't even appear until 330AD, well after much of the old Rome had fallen.
So, why does all this matter to me? It matters because minorities who are not happy with just celebrating their own understanding of the time of year, set out to bring down any other varriant of this celebration. Even I, knowing the history behind the red suit, do not try and bring it down, or stop people from believing in the icon. What is important, and is always important, is that hope is the key to this time of year. Be it solstice, harvest or new birth, all bring the idea of hope into the mind and allow us to astep forward a little more confidently into the future.
I know the history of Christmas (the Christian version that created the name) but that knowing allows me to see the value to all people no matter what they want to believe. If you find negativity in Christmas, than this negativity exiasts in your own heart and mind - true you may find others to join you in some bitterness, there are always plenty of mean spirited people in the world, but on the whole Christmas is a good thing.
With such a long blog for Christmas, my last for the year, it is hard to know what the future will be for people I know and the ones I have yet to meet. Some will naturally of pre conceptions of me as Christian, which will make friendship difficult, and some will find it even appropriate to simply tell me I believe in make beleive. That is the sadness of the modern ages I suppose.
Within myself I know I mean no harm and only wish all people a reasonable life with steady moments of peace, safety and good health.
I could say a lot more, but to be honest, I feel I would then be infringing on othhers opinions and beliefs. I do not want to do that, so please know even as I write this I am cautious not to offend anyone too deliberately.
This usually become obvious around Christmas time when competeing belief systems set out to bring down the whole idea of Christmas, which the term suggests is a Christ Mass. The time of year is historically important though and not just because Christiansd also started celebrating this time in 330AD. There are the traditions of the Solstice, The Harvest, even Isis in Rome was celebrated around this time.
Historically Christians made the celebration more prominent through time and through countries around the world, where variations of paganism and even wicca was being followed. The early Christians, like St Patrick, who was first driven off for being against Celtic traditions eventually set aside his rigid Roman Catholic Church teaching to develop faith along the lines of inclusivity of culture and tradition; this is why through Europe we see the Christmas tradition well developed with many traditional nature elements.
There came a time of inquisition that swept through the world, or reformations that unravelled the nature of the church while it was trying to enforce power over the very people it said it was protecting. Good Christians still kept on developing strong relationships with their neighbours and accepted traditions and incorporated many of them. Sadly history only records much of the bad that was done and in circles where it is easier to quote something out of context it is hard to deliver and type of understanding about those nightmarish times. The inquisition failed, more people came to the side of Jesus, but not to stand alongside the Catholic Church, but to stand up against the wrongs that were being done on the name of Jesus the Christ.
In many ways the exploitation of people does continue and it comes not from Christians endeavouring to help others but from the new versions of the inquisitipon that call themselves Christians and Churches. Penticostal Churches (At times rabit religious fundamentalists) are infiltarting poor countries and spreading a belief system that, on the surface is a salvation from hatred, develops a kind of deeper hatred of self and those who are not like you. Where this can lead has already been played out in the USA bible belt where you see religious types (I have difficulty even calling them Christian) deliver rant after rant of nonsense and misdirection as if it were some for of God spoken truth. Watch a TV evangelist to see what I mean. These types of Christians do not make up the majority of Christaians in the world today, but like the inquisitions of older times, it is hard to fight against this type of persecution when minorities are not taking the time to understand the differeneces between people and what they believe.
Sometimes, at Christmas, I like to incorporate as the systems that made the early Christian world so vibrant, caring and adventurous - not the TV version people do like to recite in argument, but the guy changing lighbulbs for the old couplwe down the road, the woman mending clothes for ex-cons, or the small church on the corner that sends care packages to soldiers in war torn parts of the world regardless of what the soldier has as a faith.
Today, in the times we try to share there are new voices crying out to be heard, but not crying out in a manner that is of any benefit to others in a tangible sense, but more the individual sound of someone thinking they have more rights than everyone else. Something, if a Christian is of the Jesus following kind, doesn't really consider. That is not to say self is not important, but that self is not something pushed above all others. I think communism tried to be like a atheist model of Christian ideals, and we know how well that worked out. It is at Christmas time that the minority groups scream the loudest, scamper for their piece of dirt so they can hoist their flag higher than anyone elses. Why? What difference does it make if the majority of the country follows a Christian styled Christmas - what harm does this do?
Consider the red suited father Christmas being promoted. This varriant which people seem sometimes to feel more comfortable with is actually the worst kind of Christmas iconism. The red suit and product promotion is only 90 years old, it is a Coca Cola advertisemnt from the 20s, the most effective product ADVERTISING CAMPAIN IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. While [people balk at the idea of celebrating the birth of a baby who brought hope into the world when the world needed it, they scamper with self righteous pride to an incidious ad campain that commercialised a form of Christmas for profit.
Even Pagan and Wicca belief systems, which would have moree familiarity with the new hope (harvest, birth) ideal would find the red suited fat man too much to accept - yet people do argue this is the true meaning of Christmas when much, much older celebrations created this time of year.
The term Christmas didn't even appear until 330AD, well after much of the old Rome had fallen.
So, why does all this matter to me? It matters because minorities who are not happy with just celebrating their own understanding of the time of year, set out to bring down any other varriant of this celebration. Even I, knowing the history behind the red suit, do not try and bring it down, or stop people from believing in the icon. What is important, and is always important, is that hope is the key to this time of year. Be it solstice, harvest or new birth, all bring the idea of hope into the mind and allow us to astep forward a little more confidently into the future.
I know the history of Christmas (the Christian version that created the name) but that knowing allows me to see the value to all people no matter what they want to believe. If you find negativity in Christmas, than this negativity exiasts in your own heart and mind - true you may find others to join you in some bitterness, there are always plenty of mean spirited people in the world, but on the whole Christmas is a good thing.
With such a long blog for Christmas, my last for the year, it is hard to know what the future will be for people I know and the ones I have yet to meet. Some will naturally of pre conceptions of me as Christian, which will make friendship difficult, and some will find it even appropriate to simply tell me I believe in make beleive. That is the sadness of the modern ages I suppose.
Within myself I know I mean no harm and only wish all people a reasonable life with steady moments of peace, safety and good health.
I could say a lot more, but to be honest, I feel I would then be infringing on othhers opinions and beliefs. I do not want to do that, so please know even as I write this I am cautious not to offend anyone too deliberately.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
In View of the Character
In the modern form a fictional writing the development of the character has become paramount to the sucess of a novel, regardless of which genre you are writing in. In Romance if your hero is not engaging then your reader will simply throw your book away and never consider your work ever again.
Regardless of whether or not your character is a vampire, a fairy or even a woman who finds dressing as a man on weekends, all need to have a connection to the person who is reading the words before them.
I often hear talk amoung new writers or less experienced writers that they need time to set up the story, time to develop the character in order to get the story in motion. In realistic terms do you know how long you have to capture a reader with your character? How long you have to create someone so engaging the reader will want to know more? If you are lucky a reader will give you one whole page, some will even give you two pages, but when a reader is standing at that book shelf in the store you might only have the opening paragraph to say; 'read me, you will like me'.
So, how do you create a connecting character so quickly? And is it hard? The idea is to create immediate empathy with as many people as possible - naturally you won't capture every single person who picks up the book or looks at the story, but you want to create the impression this is what you are doing. The character we first see is the character we will see in the final stages of the book, the person we hear about in those opening words is the character we will be following through the story; is the same chracater who will make us laugh, cry and feel frustration for. And yes it is hard.
Let me look at a simple plot of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. I know the main character is Roger and it is his story we are really following, yes, later we meet Sarah, but for now we need to establish a connection with Roger from the outset.
Here is what we don't do:
Roger is a home boy, he loves him mom and enjoys playing football with his friends in the park. He is bored with the same chores about the house and hates putting out the garbage on a Thursday night and the only reason he does is so he can see Sarah, the girl next door who practices her basketball in the drive every Thursday nights with her dad.
I have seen openings exactly like this and whenever I confront the author about just how maddeningly bland this is I am hit with abuse and qualifiers as to why it is important to start the novel and story this way. Yes, it might be well written, yes it might introduce us to Roger and yes you do get an idea of the story, but it is total rubbish.
How to engage immeditaely:
Roger slammed the bedroom door, he didn't care what his mother said, he was asking the girl next door to the prom; he was sixteen he could do what he liked. He dropped on the bed and stared up at the Green Day poster on the wall, he only started listening to them because he knew Sarah liked the band. How was he ever going to ask her out now?
Here we open with angst, the idea of a questionable love and a character who seemed to want to do whatever it took to find his girl. A multiple of small things thrown together to, at the very least, trigger some connection back to a time of forbidden love or even forgotten love. Or if this is a teen novel it is an immediate connection to what the teen is already dealing with. Empathy, the opportunity for emptahy exists in the revised opening.
But why angst? Why not a nice story?
It is time to face the truth about the reader, or us the reader. On the most part the majority of readers don't want nice stories, they want to see tension, conflict and the over coming or failing because of that conflict. If the reader wanted nice they would turn on a documentary on TV. It is wise to understand what the reader actually expects from the book they have just paid good money for - they are wanting to be transported throught the character and put in another place. Yes, the story will do this, and how you tell the story will be a huge advantage to you, but if they cannot connect immediately to the principle character then no amount of good writing and purple prose will save you.
Look at your very first chapter, and then look at the openings of all your chapters, if they are not captivating, empathetic and engaging, every single one of them, then there is work to be done. Get the character connected, that is your real challenge.
Robert N Stephenson
author of Uttuku Novel.
Regardless of whether or not your character is a vampire, a fairy or even a woman who finds dressing as a man on weekends, all need to have a connection to the person who is reading the words before them.
I often hear talk amoung new writers or less experienced writers that they need time to set up the story, time to develop the character in order to get the story in motion. In realistic terms do you know how long you have to capture a reader with your character? How long you have to create someone so engaging the reader will want to know more? If you are lucky a reader will give you one whole page, some will even give you two pages, but when a reader is standing at that book shelf in the store you might only have the opening paragraph to say; 'read me, you will like me'.
So, how do you create a connecting character so quickly? And is it hard? The idea is to create immediate empathy with as many people as possible - naturally you won't capture every single person who picks up the book or looks at the story, but you want to create the impression this is what you are doing. The character we first see is the character we will see in the final stages of the book, the person we hear about in those opening words is the character we will be following through the story; is the same chracater who will make us laugh, cry and feel frustration for. And yes it is hard.
Let me look at a simple plot of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. I know the main character is Roger and it is his story we are really following, yes, later we meet Sarah, but for now we need to establish a connection with Roger from the outset.
Here is what we don't do:
Roger is a home boy, he loves him mom and enjoys playing football with his friends in the park. He is bored with the same chores about the house and hates putting out the garbage on a Thursday night and the only reason he does is so he can see Sarah, the girl next door who practices her basketball in the drive every Thursday nights with her dad.
I have seen openings exactly like this and whenever I confront the author about just how maddeningly bland this is I am hit with abuse and qualifiers as to why it is important to start the novel and story this way. Yes, it might be well written, yes it might introduce us to Roger and yes you do get an idea of the story, but it is total rubbish.
How to engage immeditaely:
Roger slammed the bedroom door, he didn't care what his mother said, he was asking the girl next door to the prom; he was sixteen he could do what he liked. He dropped on the bed and stared up at the Green Day poster on the wall, he only started listening to them because he knew Sarah liked the band. How was he ever going to ask her out now?
Here we open with angst, the idea of a questionable love and a character who seemed to want to do whatever it took to find his girl. A multiple of small things thrown together to, at the very least, trigger some connection back to a time of forbidden love or even forgotten love. Or if this is a teen novel it is an immediate connection to what the teen is already dealing with. Empathy, the opportunity for emptahy exists in the revised opening.
But why angst? Why not a nice story?
It is time to face the truth about the reader, or us the reader. On the most part the majority of readers don't want nice stories, they want to see tension, conflict and the over coming or failing because of that conflict. If the reader wanted nice they would turn on a documentary on TV. It is wise to understand what the reader actually expects from the book they have just paid good money for - they are wanting to be transported throught the character and put in another place. Yes, the story will do this, and how you tell the story will be a huge advantage to you, but if they cannot connect immediately to the principle character then no amount of good writing and purple prose will save you.
Look at your very first chapter, and then look at the openings of all your chapters, if they are not captivating, empathetic and engaging, every single one of them, then there is work to be done. Get the character connected, that is your real challenge.
Robert N Stephenson
author of Uttuku Novel.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Art of Layering Your Fiction
Over the years I have read many great authors and studied their works in order to improve mine. I wrote a book about writing -The Writing Soldier (available from www.altair-australia.com)- which does look at some of what I have learned but one of the most interesting aspects of writing is learning how to layer and layer well.
This is a typical short scene:
Jeff walked into the room, the oak door opening to reveal an ornately decorated study with Turkish rugs on the floor, antique European furniture that could have been from the 1700s and a fire buring warmly in the hearth.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly said. She sat in a large armchair that almost swallowed her diminutive size.
"Mr's Witherly. Why have you called me here?"
On the most part you could say this is quite a reasonable scene, and on first look it is like any scene as described in any popular book today, but, and this is an interesting but, the scene could be better if it was layered rather than compartmentalised as most modern writing is. This also brings us to the concept of Show V Tell and layering is part of the show doctrine only it isn't as rigid as some may believe. If I were to take this same scene and add some extra skil,l it might read like this:
Jeff's hand touched the warm surety of the oak door, the smooth finish helped him consider the slipperyness of the situation. Easing the door inwards, the hinges groaning under the weight of solid timber he caught the acridness of wood smoke and the too sweet odour of perfume; even with the Turkish rugs and antique European furniture the room was oppressive; he could feel the presence before she actually spoke.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly looked up from her book, a shrunken woman in an oversized leather chair. The flaming hearth as a backdrop gave her a demonic appearance.
He took a deep breath, a steadying of his mind and words; the heavy air made him choke and the sound of crackling of burning wood was a indicator as to how dangerous this meeting was. "Why have you called me here?"
The differences are quite slight but enough of a difference to add life, or extra life to a scene and allow it to breath within the reader's chest as they read. Why you do this is so the reader can feel and experience every word, rather than have to simply piece the words together to make an image.
Layering allows you to build the image of the world, the characters and their interactions together in a smoothly flowing stream of prose, where the compartmentalised approach has a tendency to keep these three elements uniquely seperate.
Okay, this is my first observation, I will look more on this later, but consider your words now and how you use them and create scenes that breath rather than just create a static picture of slightly connected elements.
This is a typical short scene:
Jeff walked into the room, the oak door opening to reveal an ornately decorated study with Turkish rugs on the floor, antique European furniture that could have been from the 1700s and a fire buring warmly in the hearth.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly said. She sat in a large armchair that almost swallowed her diminutive size.
"Mr's Witherly. Why have you called me here?"
On the most part you could say this is quite a reasonable scene, and on first look it is like any scene as described in any popular book today, but, and this is an interesting but, the scene could be better if it was layered rather than compartmentalised as most modern writing is. This also brings us to the concept of Show V Tell and layering is part of the show doctrine only it isn't as rigid as some may believe. If I were to take this same scene and add some extra skil,l it might read like this:
Jeff's hand touched the warm surety of the oak door, the smooth finish helped him consider the slipperyness of the situation. Easing the door inwards, the hinges groaning under the weight of solid timber he caught the acridness of wood smoke and the too sweet odour of perfume; even with the Turkish rugs and antique European furniture the room was oppressive; he could feel the presence before she actually spoke.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly looked up from her book, a shrunken woman in an oversized leather chair. The flaming hearth as a backdrop gave her a demonic appearance.
He took a deep breath, a steadying of his mind and words; the heavy air made him choke and the sound of crackling of burning wood was a indicator as to how dangerous this meeting was. "Why have you called me here?"
The differences are quite slight but enough of a difference to add life, or extra life to a scene and allow it to breath within the reader's chest as they read. Why you do this is so the reader can feel and experience every word, rather than have to simply piece the words together to make an image.
Layering allows you to build the image of the world, the characters and their interactions together in a smoothly flowing stream of prose, where the compartmentalised approach has a tendency to keep these three elements uniquely seperate.
Okay, this is my first observation, I will look more on this later, but consider your words now and how you use them and create scenes that breath rather than just create a static picture of slightly connected elements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
