I'm going way off topic this week, but it's because of a certain call I've been answering. And I think that call has to do with all of the edits (and writing) I've been working on.
When I love a story, I always want more. I'll read and re-read the same book again and again. For example, I'm a huge fan of Jane Austen. And, while I haven't read all of her novels, the ones I have read, I read again. And again. She never wrote sequels of her most beloved books. But, other people have.
Just like Sense and Sensibility, I find myself re-reading the Pamela Aiden series Fitzwilliam Darcy, A Gentleman. But, every time I do, it brings to mind a question I've been asking myself for many years. Something of a debate I've held with myself over my guiltiest of pleasures. When is it art and homage and when is it just fan fiction?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Great E-book Debate
A lot is being made of the Kindle--the electronic reader that has a wireless Internet connection, allows you to store hundreds of books inside and read them on the screen, as well as instantly downloading books in electronic format for $9.99 each. There are a lot of benefits being touted, such as that you don't have to carry around a lot of books to have them at your fingertips (the Kindle is narrow and lightweight).
I've seen the pro-vs.-con argument phrased as a "Usability vs. Nostalgia" conundrum, and while I agree that there are nostalgic reasons to hang on to books, this way of framing the issue sets books up to fail--who wants to let nostalgia and silly emotions get in the way of better convenience and usability? I've even seen some people start to write about actual books as "analog books" (Seriously? Analog books?). The word "analog" automatically denotes something hopelessly behind the times, in my opinion--and again weighs the outcome in the mind of the reader before they've even read the article.
So this is my response to that: Why real books are more user-friendly and convenient than e-books, in my opinion.
I can't read an eBook in the bath. I love reading books in places where you wouldn't want to take a Kindle: in the bathtub, on the beach, in an inner tube floating on a lake. You get your book so wet it can't be read, and it'll cost you a couple of bucks to replace it. You get your Kindle wet, and you're a little under $300 in the hole. Clear disadvantage to the Kindle there.
Kindles are EXPENSIVE. Speaking of how much it costs: even if you're a voracious reader, reading is an inexpensive hobby. You can go to libraries and buy your books used--and you don't have to furnish an arm and a leg to feed your reading habit. But a Kindle will cost you a lot--Amazon is selling it for $259 right now. In my opinion, it's a way of making a low-tech, inexpensive hobby more pricey and less easy to get into. If Kindles become the norm, will people stop reading as much because they can't afford one?
I look at a screen all day. I need a break. A lot of workers look at computer screens from 9-5 every day, if not more. When I read, I'm getting away from the screen. I love getting unplugged from the world and reading a book. A Kindle keeps your eyes glued to the screen--not a fun way to spend a vacation, in my opinion.
Your Kindle can run out of batteries. Kindles have a long battery life--up to seven days with the wireless turned on and two weeks without. But they still have a battery life. What if I wanted to take mine camping and there's no plug-in on the mountaintop? Or what if you just forget to plug it in? A book may be heavier in your backpack, but it won't run out of batteries.
You can't write in your Kindle. My books tend to be lived-in. I dog-ear, I write in the margins, I highlight. You can't do that with a Kindle.
You can't lend your books out. I love exchanging books with friends--and of course if I read mainly on a Kindle, I couldn't do that. I'd have to lend out my entire Kindle, and not read anything til my friend gave it back. Or *gasp* be stuck with "analog" books until then.
No sensory book experience. When talking about the things Kindle takes away from the reading experience, a lot of people bring up the sensory book-reading experience--the smell of a new book, the way the pages feel and sound as you turn them, and so on. I think this is ultimately a losing argument--it draws on emotion and nostalgia, which have a hard time standing against the next new thing in popular opinion. But I believe there's something to it--you just don't get that sensory experience with a Kindle.
Do you use a Kindle? Do you prefer it over books? And, do you feel it's better in some situations than others?
I've seen the pro-vs.-con argument phrased as a "Usability vs. Nostalgia" conundrum, and while I agree that there are nostalgic reasons to hang on to books, this way of framing the issue sets books up to fail--who wants to let nostalgia and silly emotions get in the way of better convenience and usability? I've even seen some people start to write about actual books as "analog books" (Seriously? Analog books?). The word "analog" automatically denotes something hopelessly behind the times, in my opinion--and again weighs the outcome in the mind of the reader before they've even read the article.
So this is my response to that: Why real books are more user-friendly and convenient than e-books, in my opinion.
I can't read an eBook in the bath. I love reading books in places where you wouldn't want to take a Kindle: in the bathtub, on the beach, in an inner tube floating on a lake. You get your book so wet it can't be read, and it'll cost you a couple of bucks to replace it. You get your Kindle wet, and you're a little under $300 in the hole. Clear disadvantage to the Kindle there.
Kindles are EXPENSIVE. Speaking of how much it costs: even if you're a voracious reader, reading is an inexpensive hobby. You can go to libraries and buy your books used--and you don't have to furnish an arm and a leg to feed your reading habit. But a Kindle will cost you a lot--Amazon is selling it for $259 right now. In my opinion, it's a way of making a low-tech, inexpensive hobby more pricey and less easy to get into. If Kindles become the norm, will people stop reading as much because they can't afford one?
I look at a screen all day. I need a break. A lot of workers look at computer screens from 9-5 every day, if not more. When I read, I'm getting away from the screen. I love getting unplugged from the world and reading a book. A Kindle keeps your eyes glued to the screen--not a fun way to spend a vacation, in my opinion.
Your Kindle can run out of batteries. Kindles have a long battery life--up to seven days with the wireless turned on and two weeks without. But they still have a battery life. What if I wanted to take mine camping and there's no plug-in on the mountaintop? Or what if you just forget to plug it in? A book may be heavier in your backpack, but it won't run out of batteries.
You can't write in your Kindle. My books tend to be lived-in. I dog-ear, I write in the margins, I highlight. You can't do that with a Kindle.
You can't lend your books out. I love exchanging books with friends--and of course if I read mainly on a Kindle, I couldn't do that. I'd have to lend out my entire Kindle, and not read anything til my friend gave it back. Or *gasp* be stuck with "analog" books until then.
No sensory book experience. When talking about the things Kindle takes away from the reading experience, a lot of people bring up the sensory book-reading experience--the smell of a new book, the way the pages feel and sound as you turn them, and so on. I think this is ultimately a losing argument--it draws on emotion and nostalgia, which have a hard time standing against the next new thing in popular opinion. But I believe there's something to it--you just don't get that sensory experience with a Kindle.
Do you use a Kindle? Do you prefer it over books? And, do you feel it's better in some situations than others?
Friday, February 5, 2010
Write with the passion of a four-year-old blowing bubbles and revise with the discipline of a Yoga- master with OCD!
Jenny and Angel both bring up really good points about outlines. Much like Angel, I am still not sold on the usefulness of an outline while writing a first draft.
Here's why:
First Drafts are Overwhelming
Or overwhelming enough to me without the stress of having to hit plot points and character arcs (not to mention plot twists and subplots, whew). For me, this is where my characters get to feel their oats, they get to tell me who they are. I can't tell you the amount of times that I think a character is going to be one type of person and I'm proved wrong by his/her next action. If I had to follow an outline I'm not sure I would have been able to give the characters the room they need to develop. Or, even worse I'm not sure I'd be able to get through all of the plot points needed to get to the end of the book.
That said, I never start a story that I don't know the ending to
Actually, I usually begin every story knowing the end first. I have a rough idea of the plot, what has to happen and what the characters need to do from the start to finish in their journeys. Usually I know the pivotal plot points and maybe a few other relevant details. I tend to do a lot of 'pre-outlining' before I start writing. This is all generally in my head and never makes it onto paper or screen. I am awful at beginnings though, which is maybe why I encourage myself to write without knowing the beginning first (I just start with the action). This usually means my beginnings change quite a bit between drafts.
However, that said, now that I am editing my first novel, I am completely convinced of the need for an outline for revisions. My first draft is a train wreck, mostly because about halfway through my novel I changed my initial ideas about what the focus of the novel was. Which has made the story much richer, and was something I felt able to do, because I hadn't pre-plotted out everything. Because while writing I allowed myself the flexibility to see my characters as changeable and capable of a growth I hadn't outlined or predicted.
Now, that I am actually re-writing this beast (and it is a beast!) having an outline that gives me a clear set of checkpoints to hit, makes sense of my plot and helps me to chart each of my characters growth is vital. When I began revising I read through each of the chapters made corrections and jumped in feet first. This seemed like a good idea. An idea free of procrastination and filled with actions. I am good with actions. When I have any excuse to procrastinate I will. However, I found myself becoming more and more confused by the narrative of my plot. I was overwhelmed by my story. I needed to break things down scene by scene (or chapter by chapter).
And I did.... with much procrastination (I am still awful about this!) I devised an outline that has allowed me to go back through my story and actually make sense of everything I have written. What seemed like an overwhelming wreckage of writing before is now a manageable story-- albeit a story that needs some changes. I have been using my outline now to revise my novel and I couldn't be happier. When I finish my second book-- sometime in the spring, the first thing I'll do is draw up an outline. I am not sure I could revise without an outline. I am confident that for me, having an outline while writing is prohibitive, but while revising it's a necessity.
Does this make me still on the fence about outlines? Well, probably not. I do think outlines are necessary; they are the nuts and bolts of writing. They are the compass and maps of a story (ok, or GPS/Magellan/Tom-Tom/pick your own SatNav system). You need some sort of well thought out plan to make it to the end-game, to a finished novel that you feel confident showing to other people. However, when I'm writing, I still think I just need to listen to my characters-- even if later on I wished I hadn't. All's fair in first drafts and second, no?
Here's why:
First Drafts are Overwhelming
Or overwhelming enough to me without the stress of having to hit plot points and character arcs (not to mention plot twists and subplots, whew). For me, this is where my characters get to feel their oats, they get to tell me who they are. I can't tell you the amount of times that I think a character is going to be one type of person and I'm proved wrong by his/her next action. If I had to follow an outline I'm not sure I would have been able to give the characters the room they need to develop. Or, even worse I'm not sure I'd be able to get through all of the plot points needed to get to the end of the book.
That said, I never start a story that I don't know the ending to
Actually, I usually begin every story knowing the end first. I have a rough idea of the plot, what has to happen and what the characters need to do from the start to finish in their journeys. Usually I know the pivotal plot points and maybe a few other relevant details. I tend to do a lot of 'pre-outlining' before I start writing. This is all generally in my head and never makes it onto paper or screen. I am awful at beginnings though, which is maybe why I encourage myself to write without knowing the beginning first (I just start with the action). This usually means my beginnings change quite a bit between drafts.
However, that said, now that I am editing my first novel, I am completely convinced of the need for an outline for revisions. My first draft is a train wreck, mostly because about halfway through my novel I changed my initial ideas about what the focus of the novel was. Which has made the story much richer, and was something I felt able to do, because I hadn't pre-plotted out everything. Because while writing I allowed myself the flexibility to see my characters as changeable and capable of a growth I hadn't outlined or predicted.
Now, that I am actually re-writing this beast (and it is a beast!) having an outline that gives me a clear set of checkpoints to hit, makes sense of my plot and helps me to chart each of my characters growth is vital. When I began revising I read through each of the chapters made corrections and jumped in feet first. This seemed like a good idea. An idea free of procrastination and filled with actions. I am good with actions. When I have any excuse to procrastinate I will. However, I found myself becoming more and more confused by the narrative of my plot. I was overwhelmed by my story. I needed to break things down scene by scene (or chapter by chapter).
And I did.... with much procrastination (I am still awful about this!) I devised an outline that has allowed me to go back through my story and actually make sense of everything I have written. What seemed like an overwhelming wreckage of writing before is now a manageable story-- albeit a story that needs some changes. I have been using my outline now to revise my novel and I couldn't be happier. When I finish my second book-- sometime in the spring, the first thing I'll do is draw up an outline. I am not sure I could revise without an outline. I am confident that for me, having an outline while writing is prohibitive, but while revising it's a necessity.
Does this make me still on the fence about outlines? Well, probably not. I do think outlines are necessary; they are the nuts and bolts of writing. They are the compass and maps of a story (ok, or GPS/Magellan/Tom-Tom/pick your own SatNav system). You need some sort of well thought out plan to make it to the end-game, to a finished novel that you feel confident showing to other people. However, when I'm writing, I still think I just need to listen to my characters-- even if later on I wished I hadn't. All's fair in first drafts and second, no?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Outlines: Another Side of the Die
Granted, outlines can be useful; I wouldn't outright say that outlines aren't useful.
And I certainly wouldn't say that whatever I have against them involves stifling my creativity.
My first story was written the whole way through with a kind of non-traditional outline. The story is set in a specific time-frame, and I needed to keep that frame in mind. And so, I set a loose outline of that story up in a day planner. My chapters are less "chapters" and more like what happens each day for my three protagonists. The day-planner approach (I hesitate to call it an outline, but it is one. Kind of.) was really helpful for me in visualizing what was going on and the pacing of my story. But it hasn't worked in all cases, for example, my second story.
For my second story (a Nano-Novel), there was no physical outline. I thought about a day planner, but it didn't fit. I had a plan from the beginning for the over-reaching story arc and while the smaller stories with in it have been developing within that framework, there wasn't an outline set out for the first (or second, or third) of what I hope to be a series of three. I finished the story, ran through a first set of edits and then a second, marking in the text notes for what I wanted to see and when. I had a fairly good idea about the way the story flowed and the way it progressed. I've always been a bit of a patchwork writer anyway and I see the connections between pieces. It's all in my head and I'm good at visualizing where it goes and if it needs to be moved. The big picture.
It wasn't until the three of us sat down and set out a specific deadline for passing around a draft of one of our novels that someone even mentioned outlining, and while I did it to stay in tandem with both Genn and Jenny, I really felt that doing the outline was keeping me from doing what I needed to actually do on my actual story -- do something about all of those notes about "move this here," "eliminate this," or "bring this in here." The only thing the outline I completed has helped me to do is to see where I put the song lyric quotes I still am not convinced I need for most chapters. There are one or two chapters where the song quote is just too perfect to get rid of, which is why I'm still having a bit of a hink about keeping them or not. I broke up a few chapters into smaller pieces, but really, the reason I'd had them together as one before was thematic. I spent most of January working on something that the whole time I was convinced (and am still convinced) that at this point, I don't need. It was far too late for an outline on this story.
My third story, still being written, is also going right along without an outline. But, it's also a story line I've had in my head for a while, and while I've had a few fits on some specific scenes (some characters just don't want to be written out! What cheek!), it's still going right along without one. I know what I need to write next, even if it's hard. And I know what I need to do for the last chapter. I've written some of it already, thanks to another suggestion of Mike's, something I've been leery of letting myself do as it's part of my prior MO with my unfinished novels -- writing scenes out of order. I never used outlines back then, either. I don't think I'm creating an outline for this one. I feel pretty confident I know what's going on the whole story through.
My fourth story (another Nano-Novel), was actually finished before my third story, but it's the second for the series mentioned earlier. I'm still tottering on whether or not this edit is going to need an outline. If I do, should I go with an option -- like with my first novel -- that isn't conventional. The problems with the story were ones I'd realized before I'd finished, much like the earlier Nano-Novel: this one ends abruptly, there stuff missing -- like tension and a plot line. I don't want this to be filler between the first and third stories, so I have to find some way of making this story stand up on it's own, and once I've finished with this round of edits on the second story (confused yet?), I need to roll up my sleeves and figure out some way to breathe life into the inert monster that is this second-of-three-stories. Even so, not having read it over once yet, I'm fairly confident I know what's wrong and what I need to do where. No outline, but an idea of where things go in my head.
So, I'm still out on whether or not I think outlines are useful or just a procrastination tool. I haven't finished a story because I've had an outline. I've finished a story because I gave myself goals and deadlines and put my butt in the chair and got to work. That's just how I roll....
Although, I could have probably used an outline for this blog post.... ;)
And I certainly wouldn't say that whatever I have against them involves stifling my creativity.
But, I think there's a time and a place for everything under heaven. And at some point if you haven't set the thing down on paper, creating one is actually more of a procrastination tool than anything else.
That said, I've worked on my own stories both with and without it, and I think that needing one or not, and the format you use (as Mike Chen mentioned not too long ago, when talking about his story webs), depends on the narrative. For me, at least.
My first story was written the whole way through with a kind of non-traditional outline. The story is set in a specific time-frame, and I needed to keep that frame in mind. And so, I set a loose outline of that story up in a day planner. My chapters are less "chapters" and more like what happens each day for my three protagonists. The day-planner approach (I hesitate to call it an outline, but it is one. Kind of.) was really helpful for me in visualizing what was going on and the pacing of my story. But it hasn't worked in all cases, for example, my second story.
For my second story (a Nano-Novel), there was no physical outline. I thought about a day planner, but it didn't fit. I had a plan from the beginning for the over-reaching story arc and while the smaller stories with in it have been developing within that framework, there wasn't an outline set out for the first (or second, or third) of what I hope to be a series of three. I finished the story, ran through a first set of edits and then a second, marking in the text notes for what I wanted to see and when. I had a fairly good idea about the way the story flowed and the way it progressed. I've always been a bit of a patchwork writer anyway and I see the connections between pieces. It's all in my head and I'm good at visualizing where it goes and if it needs to be moved. The big picture.
It wasn't until the three of us sat down and set out a specific deadline for passing around a draft of one of our novels that someone even mentioned outlining, and while I did it to stay in tandem with both Genn and Jenny, I really felt that doing the outline was keeping me from doing what I needed to actually do on my actual story -- do something about all of those notes about "move this here," "eliminate this," or "bring this in here." The only thing the outline I completed has helped me to do is to see where I put the song lyric quotes I still am not convinced I need for most chapters. There are one or two chapters where the song quote is just too perfect to get rid of, which is why I'm still having a bit of a hink about keeping them or not. I broke up a few chapters into smaller pieces, but really, the reason I'd had them together as one before was thematic. I spent most of January working on something that the whole time I was convinced (and am still convinced) that at this point, I don't need. It was far too late for an outline on this story.
My third story, still being written, is also going right along without an outline. But, it's also a story line I've had in my head for a while, and while I've had a few fits on some specific scenes (some characters just don't want to be written out! What cheek!), it's still going right along without one. I know what I need to write next, even if it's hard. And I know what I need to do for the last chapter. I've written some of it already, thanks to another suggestion of Mike's, something I've been leery of letting myself do as it's part of my prior MO with my unfinished novels -- writing scenes out of order. I never used outlines back then, either. I don't think I'm creating an outline for this one. I feel pretty confident I know what's going on the whole story through.
My fourth story (another Nano-Novel), was actually finished before my third story, but it's the second for the series mentioned earlier. I'm still tottering on whether or not this edit is going to need an outline. If I do, should I go with an option -- like with my first novel -- that isn't conventional. The problems with the story were ones I'd realized before I'd finished, much like the earlier Nano-Novel: this one ends abruptly, there stuff missing -- like tension and a plot line. I don't want this to be filler between the first and third stories, so I have to find some way of making this story stand up on it's own, and once I've finished with this round of edits on the second story (confused yet?), I need to roll up my sleeves and figure out some way to breathe life into the inert monster that is this second-of-three-stories. Even so, not having read it over once yet, I'm fairly confident I know what's wrong and what I need to do where. No outline, but an idea of where things go in my head.
A lot of times, I think what really is my bug-a-boo about outlines is that I'm not entirely a lineal thinker. I can keep it all straight in my head, but if I were to create something to show the whole network of plot bits, I'd have to have the software used to plot epidemics (a whole web of connections) or I'd have to create an "idea mobile, with strings connecting each floating piece, or use an erector set with little tags on it for each point at my desk (hmmm... I like this idea. I haven't done that in a while.... where is that erector set...?) -- and that takes up a lot of physical space.
So, I'm still out on whether or not I think outlines are useful or just a procrastination tool. I haven't finished a story because I've had an outline. I've finished a story because I gave myself goals and deadlines and put my butt in the chair and got to work. That's just how I roll....
Although, I could have probably used an outline for this blog post.... ;)
Monday, February 1, 2010
Outlines: Why I Never Work Without One.
Outlining is a bit of a contentious subject in noveling. Some people swear by their outlining process. Others believe that it’s stifling to the creative process. Personally, I can’t get through a novel without at least a basic outline—and would even go so far as to suggest that if you’ve gotten halfway through several novels before abandoning them, it’s probably because you’re an outliner trying to write like a non-outliner. Here’s why outlining is so crucial to my noveling.
Because inspiration won’t carry you forever. This happens to me every time I sit down to write a novel. For the first 100 pages or so, inspiration carries me. I know exactly where I want the novel to go—and the beautiful scenes just flow. Then around the 100-to-150-page mark, I lose my direction. I hit the point where I have to make real choices—limiting choices—about my plot and characters. Indecision can freeze me—and leave me thinking it would be better to just scrap this one and start over.
Because outlining gets me over story loathing. I get this around the same time that I lose my direction in terms of inspiration. I start to hate the story. I want to give up—and I’ve lost many novel ideas over the years this way before figuring out that this is how I work. The outline is like a lifeline, pulling me out of story loathing and back to a place where I can be excited about the book. It shows me that yes, this plot works, I have a plan—and I just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Because without one, I couldn’t keep this stuff straight. I would lose my way so fast without an outline—especially after inspiring discussions with my writing group, new ideas about how the plot goes, and figuring out how to integrate all that. Without an outline, I’d lose new ideas as fast as I came up with them—or start to doubt them because I couldn’t see how they worked in the bigger picture.
Because outlines give you a sense of timing. Are you doing enough to build tension between your hero and heroine? Have you built up the suspense gradually, or is it all in one clump at the end? Timing is everything, and even in a long work like a novel it’s easy to get it wrong. The outline allows me to work out timing issues before I start writing—and my margin for mistakes is lower.
Outlining literally saved my writing career. Before, I would start novels, get them halfway done, hit a wall and then give up. I'd think the problem was what came before--and I'd erase and start over. I never got anywhere--until I started really committing to an outline. Then I finished the first novel I tried it with. If you don't outline, and you've never finished a novel--a lack of organizational structure may be at the root of why.
Because inspiration won’t carry you forever. This happens to me every time I sit down to write a novel. For the first 100 pages or so, inspiration carries me. I know exactly where I want the novel to go—and the beautiful scenes just flow. Then around the 100-to-150-page mark, I lose my direction. I hit the point where I have to make real choices—limiting choices—about my plot and characters. Indecision can freeze me—and leave me thinking it would be better to just scrap this one and start over.
Because outlining gets me over story loathing. I get this around the same time that I lose my direction in terms of inspiration. I start to hate the story. I want to give up—and I’ve lost many novel ideas over the years this way before figuring out that this is how I work. The outline is like a lifeline, pulling me out of story loathing and back to a place where I can be excited about the book. It shows me that yes, this plot works, I have a plan—and I just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other.
Because without one, I couldn’t keep this stuff straight. I would lose my way so fast without an outline—especially after inspiring discussions with my writing group, new ideas about how the plot goes, and figuring out how to integrate all that. Without an outline, I’d lose new ideas as fast as I came up with them—or start to doubt them because I couldn’t see how they worked in the bigger picture.
Because outlines give you a sense of timing. Are you doing enough to build tension between your hero and heroine? Have you built up the suspense gradually, or is it all in one clump at the end? Timing is everything, and even in a long work like a novel it’s easy to get it wrong. The outline allows me to work out timing issues before I start writing—and my margin for mistakes is lower.
Outlining literally saved my writing career. Before, I would start novels, get them halfway done, hit a wall and then give up. I'd think the problem was what came before--and I'd erase and start over. I never got anywhere--until I started really committing to an outline. Then I finished the first novel I tried it with. If you don't outline, and you've never finished a novel--a lack of organizational structure may be at the root of why.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Revisionasaurus Rex: Tips for Taming the Beast
I’ve finished my very first book—definitely a cause for celebration. When I did, I broke out the wine, called my best friends, and bought myself something nice as a reward. But as great as it is to finish your book—you know that you CAN finish a book, which is an accomplishment in itself—too much celebration is premature. You’re likely facing several waves of full-on edits before you shop it around, get an agent, and get it published. In short, your work is only barely beginning.
I’m in the editing stage now. The Revisionasaurus Rex can take over your life—editing can drag on for years, much longer than it takes to actually write a book. But if you want a writing career, you can’t afford to spend several years editing—you want to get your book market-ready as efficiently as possible, so you can get your writing career started. Here are a few tips for taming the beast.
Break it up into manageable segments. It’s empowering to watch your word or page count creep up while you’re writing your first draft. But when you’re editing, goals can be a little more ephemeral. You’re not increasing your page or word counts, as you might be deleting and rewriting large chunks as well as writing new scenes from scratch. So you can’t keep track of your progress by volume alone.
Still, it’s important to keep track of your progress. It makes you see that you’re MAKING progress—which helps to keep you motivated. You can create excel spreadsheets, graphs and charts if you’re so minded—but if you’d rather keep it simple, just keep track of the number of chapters you’ve revised. If you don’t have your draft divided up into chapters yet—mine won’t be divided into chapters until after this round of edits—count by scenes.
Work from an outline. I’m a big proponent of outlining. After I finished my first draft, I printed out the whole thing, read it, made notes of where the plot was weak—and re-outlined the whole thing. Now I have a structure to go on. I feel that outlining is even more important during the editing process than the first-draft writing process. That’s because with the first draft, you’re flying by the seat of your pants—but in the editing process you have to clean up your plot and make sure your pacing is right. Without my outline, I’d be lost.
Talk it out. By the time I finished my first draft, there were holes in my plot that I could drive a Volkswagen Beetle through. Those plot holes screwed up my editing process for months—I just couldn’t figure out how to fix them, and it made me lose enthusiasm for the story.
Then one night I sat down with a friend, who is also editing her first novel, and told her about my plot holes. We’d hashed out a solution in the space of a few hours and a few glasses of wine. Pretty soon I had a renewed interest in my book—and the editing process has been much easier since then.
Set a deadline—and stick to it. Your book will never be perfect—and you can languish in the editing process for years or decades. Don’t let yourself do that. Pick a deadline. Pick one you can stick to, but not without significant effort. Pick a few people you plan to show your book to after this round of edits. Tell them you’re planning to give the book to them on that date—and get it done.
Editing isn’t easy. Your editing process could hold up your career for a long time—but only if you let the Revisionasaurus Rex run rampant. With a little (who am I kidding: a lot) of discipline, however, you should be able to get past the edits and get your novel ready for submission—sooner rather than later.
I’m in the editing stage now. The Revisionasaurus Rex can take over your life—editing can drag on for years, much longer than it takes to actually write a book. But if you want a writing career, you can’t afford to spend several years editing—you want to get your book market-ready as efficiently as possible, so you can get your writing career started. Here are a few tips for taming the beast.
Break it up into manageable segments. It’s empowering to watch your word or page count creep up while you’re writing your first draft. But when you’re editing, goals can be a little more ephemeral. You’re not increasing your page or word counts, as you might be deleting and rewriting large chunks as well as writing new scenes from scratch. So you can’t keep track of your progress by volume alone.
Still, it’s important to keep track of your progress. It makes you see that you’re MAKING progress—which helps to keep you motivated. You can create excel spreadsheets, graphs and charts if you’re so minded—but if you’d rather keep it simple, just keep track of the number of chapters you’ve revised. If you don’t have your draft divided up into chapters yet—mine won’t be divided into chapters until after this round of edits—count by scenes.
Work from an outline. I’m a big proponent of outlining. After I finished my first draft, I printed out the whole thing, read it, made notes of where the plot was weak—and re-outlined the whole thing. Now I have a structure to go on. I feel that outlining is even more important during the editing process than the first-draft writing process. That’s because with the first draft, you’re flying by the seat of your pants—but in the editing process you have to clean up your plot and make sure your pacing is right. Without my outline, I’d be lost.
Talk it out. By the time I finished my first draft, there were holes in my plot that I could drive a Volkswagen Beetle through. Those plot holes screwed up my editing process for months—I just couldn’t figure out how to fix them, and it made me lose enthusiasm for the story.
Then one night I sat down with a friend, who is also editing her first novel, and told her about my plot holes. We’d hashed out a solution in the space of a few hours and a few glasses of wine. Pretty soon I had a renewed interest in my book—and the editing process has been much easier since then.
Set a deadline—and stick to it. Your book will never be perfect—and you can languish in the editing process for years or decades. Don’t let yourself do that. Pick a deadline. Pick one you can stick to, but not without significant effort. Pick a few people you plan to show your book to after this round of edits. Tell them you’re planning to give the book to them on that date—and get it done.
Editing isn’t easy. Your editing process could hold up your career for a long time—but only if you let the Revisionasaurus Rex run rampant. With a little (who am I kidding: a lot) of discipline, however, you should be able to get past the edits and get your novel ready for submission—sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Annoying Romance Novel Missteps
I'm reading a romance novel right now. A really, really bad one. I'm not naming the author; I'm not out to make enemies or hurt anyone's feelings. But I do feel compelled to talk about some things romance writers do sometimes that immediately make me fall out of love with the characters. If you want me to toss your book against the wall and stomp away in a huff, here's what to do:
Have more than one hero in a book. It's a big trend now for heroes from an author's past books to stop by and visit the current one, or to have a secondary character in one book who's going to become a hero in the next one. I know, I know it's a way to get readers interested in more than one character. I know it's common. It's practically endemic. It has to stop.
Here's why: your hero is supposed to be the handsomest, toughest, sexiest guy on the planet. And if there's more than one handsomest, toughest, sexiest guy on the planet, well...one of them has to play second fiddle, or both of them are diminished. And second fiddle isn't sexy. As a reader, I'm not going to fall in love with two guys at the same time. That's not romantic. That's confusing. And I'm not going to buy into the second-fiddle guy in one book becoming the hero of the next book, or vice versa.
Even worse, sometimes the secondary hero seems more interesting to me than the one who's supposed to be the primary hero of the book I'm reading. Like the one right now. The real hero is kind of run-of-the-mill, but there's a secondary character that's much more intriguing. He's only in the book for a few scenes, but I'm finding myself wishing the author would just write a darned book about him. It's like real life, folks: if a secondary character is catching my interest, there isn't much spark between me (ahem: the heroine) and the primary hero.
Make hero and/or heroine unnecessarily obnoxious. I know the typical formula states that heroes and heroines have to despise each other before they get to love each other. But it's all too common for authors to make heroes and heroines overly mean in an attempt to up the chemistry, raise the stakes, and so on. Tthere has to be something to their exchanges besides a bunch of snarking--and the snarking has to be realistic. If it doesn't make sense to me why the heroine is such a bitch or why the hero is such a jerk, I'm totally going to fall out of love with them--and I'm not going to get what they see in each other at all.
Make the hero a wuss. In today's world, it's tough to come up with excuses as to why two people can't be together. It's the era of free love, and women no longer have to be virgins or marry people they don't love. Those barriers to love are needed to create tension and drama in a romance novel. Sometimes, in order to manufacture that barrier, an author will make it so that a hero doesn't want to get with the heroine because his friends wouldn't approve, or his daughter's still mourning his ex-wife, or some other dumb reason. Look: a hero is a seize-the-day kind of guy. He sees something he wants and he takes it. That's what makes him a hero. If he's the one trying to resist the heroine, it better be for a really compelling reason. Not a dumb, complicated, wussy reason that would trip up the rest of us.
Have the hero and heroine spend more time apart than together. This one romance novel I read has the hero and heroine getting together for a few months, then the heroine is kidnapped by pirates, loses her memory, gets kidnapped by a sheik and forced to live in his harem, and doesn't get back together with the hero (who is something of a milquetoast anyway) until the end of the book. Um...excuse me? Where's the romance in that?
Make the heroine or hero fall for someone else. I realize real life is complicated. And I realize you can find...ahem...carnal pleasure with lots of different people. But in the realm of romance novels, your body tells you who you love. If the heroine finds sexual satisfaction with lots of different guys, well...okay, that might be empowering or freeing or whatever. But it's not romantic. Same if either hero or heroine have romantic feelings for others in the book--in many cases, it dilutes their feelings for each other. Keep some focus, for god's sake.
Romance novels need to focus on the relationship at hand. The hero and heroine must both be larger than life, standing out from the others around them. If more than two characters are this big-as-myth stature, it dilutes everyone. It might sound overly simplistic, but that's why I love romance novels--and why a lot of others do as well.
Have more than one hero in a book. It's a big trend now for heroes from an author's past books to stop by and visit the current one, or to have a secondary character in one book who's going to become a hero in the next one. I know, I know it's a way to get readers interested in more than one character. I know it's common. It's practically endemic. It has to stop.
Here's why: your hero is supposed to be the handsomest, toughest, sexiest guy on the planet. And if there's more than one handsomest, toughest, sexiest guy on the planet, well...one of them has to play second fiddle, or both of them are diminished. And second fiddle isn't sexy. As a reader, I'm not going to fall in love with two guys at the same time. That's not romantic. That's confusing. And I'm not going to buy into the second-fiddle guy in one book becoming the hero of the next book, or vice versa.
Even worse, sometimes the secondary hero seems more interesting to me than the one who's supposed to be the primary hero of the book I'm reading. Like the one right now. The real hero is kind of run-of-the-mill, but there's a secondary character that's much more intriguing. He's only in the book for a few scenes, but I'm finding myself wishing the author would just write a darned book about him. It's like real life, folks: if a secondary character is catching my interest, there isn't much spark between me (ahem: the heroine) and the primary hero.
Make hero and/or heroine unnecessarily obnoxious. I know the typical formula states that heroes and heroines have to despise each other before they get to love each other. But it's all too common for authors to make heroes and heroines overly mean in an attempt to up the chemistry, raise the stakes, and so on. Tthere has to be something to their exchanges besides a bunch of snarking--and the snarking has to be realistic. If it doesn't make sense to me why the heroine is such a bitch or why the hero is such a jerk, I'm totally going to fall out of love with them--and I'm not going to get what they see in each other at all.
Make the hero a wuss. In today's world, it's tough to come up with excuses as to why two people can't be together. It's the era of free love, and women no longer have to be virgins or marry people they don't love. Those barriers to love are needed to create tension and drama in a romance novel. Sometimes, in order to manufacture that barrier, an author will make it so that a hero doesn't want to get with the heroine because his friends wouldn't approve, or his daughter's still mourning his ex-wife, or some other dumb reason. Look: a hero is a seize-the-day kind of guy. He sees something he wants and he takes it. That's what makes him a hero. If he's the one trying to resist the heroine, it better be for a really compelling reason. Not a dumb, complicated, wussy reason that would trip up the rest of us.
Have the hero and heroine spend more time apart than together. This one romance novel I read has the hero and heroine getting together for a few months, then the heroine is kidnapped by pirates, loses her memory, gets kidnapped by a sheik and forced to live in his harem, and doesn't get back together with the hero (who is something of a milquetoast anyway) until the end of the book. Um...excuse me? Where's the romance in that?
Make the heroine or hero fall for someone else. I realize real life is complicated. And I realize you can find...ahem...carnal pleasure with lots of different people. But in the realm of romance novels, your body tells you who you love. If the heroine finds sexual satisfaction with lots of different guys, well...okay, that might be empowering or freeing or whatever. But it's not romantic. Same if either hero or heroine have romantic feelings for others in the book--in many cases, it dilutes their feelings for each other. Keep some focus, for god's sake.
Romance novels need to focus on the relationship at hand. The hero and heroine must both be larger than life, standing out from the others around them. If more than two characters are this big-as-myth stature, it dilutes everyone. It might sound overly simplistic, but that's why I love romance novels--and why a lot of others do as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
