A few of the members in one of my writer's groups are into spiritual stuff in a big way. Anyway, so one of the members came in the other day with a book she'd picked up at a secondhand bookshop, and it was all quotes about writing. Would've been a great book if the writers (or compilers) had just acknowledged who said them, but they didn't. Anyway, the other spiritual member picked up the book and said, "It's telling me to open it here." And she proceeded to open the book and decided that whatever was on the page was obviously something she was meant to take seriously. Really, she couldn't go wrong because the whole book was full of useful aphorisms.
So, I picked up the book and wondered what it would "tell" me. And, really, it was quite fitting -- something fitting for all of us writers, so I'm going to pay it forward and send it on to all of you:
MAKE WRITING A PRIORITY.
Showing posts with label advice for writers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advice for writers. Show all posts
10 November 2007
03 July 2007
Buninyong Writers' Festival
On Saturday (yes, I'm getting rather behind) I dragged along Lorraine, Margaret and Lynette, three of my fellow Western Women Writers to the Buninyong Writers' Festival, south of Ballarat. I wanted to go because one of my friends, and past student, Dennis McIntosh was speaking as an emerging writer. So we left Melbourne at 8.30 am, and got there just on 10.30 for the beginning of the festival, and I must say it was lovely to see some people I knew in the audience: two of my past students, Demet and Dee (who were there independently), Anne, who was in Western Union Writers with me for a while, and Janey, a fellow PWE teacher. Much of the festival seemed centred around Varuna and the masterclasses and fellowships that they offer there.
The first session was emerging writers: Dennis, Asher Leslie and Sylvia Owers. All of the writers spoke about how they got into writing.
Asher spoke about how he found his calculator to be the most useful writing tool -- in terms of how long it would take him to write a novel at a set number of words per day. He said that writing was like having a conversation with no interruptions. Clearly, he hasn't got children! Many of us dream about thinking about writing in this way. Well, not really, but we would if we thought about it. He also talked about how important goals are when you're writing.
Sylvia talked about writing and rewriting to get more into her character's heads. Her first rewrite took her from 80,000 to 150,000 words. This is my problem too. I always want to flesh out characters more, but I can't afford to expand. I have to cut, cut, cut because I started this draft at 191,000 words, and now three-quarters of the way through I'm still at 188.
Dennis talked about having the courage to tell a story in a voice that is not usually seen in literature. He writes about his time as a shearer, and the voice is authentic, strong. In response to a question about what to do when you hit a wall and can't write, he spoke about sitting in the tension and just getting on with it. He was obviously inspirational because other writers were quoting him all day long. One of the things he was quoted on was advice of how to fictionalise real events: keep true to the emotion and then lie as much as you can.
Peter Bishop, who hosted this session, talked about how easy it is for life to move in and take the space carved for reading and writing. How true that is. I still remember what happened to my word counts when I first started teaching. To keep my students writing, I brought writing contracts into my Novel 2 class, and made sure I signed one along with the rest of them, and this still really helps keep me on track. He also said that those with the passion will make the space.
The second session was the industry professionals: Peter Bishop, the creative director at Varuna; Linda Funnell, Publisher at HarperCollins, and Vanessa Radnidge, Publisher at Hachette Livre.
Vanessa began and went through a typical day for her at work, which might involve, among other things, assessing manuscripts and writing reader's reports; structural editing; copyediting; proofreading; applying for permissions; writing blurbs; preparing information sheets for the publicity team; liaising with photographers, agents and authors; putting contracts together; and working with an author to make them feel included as part of the publishing world. As well as the publishing process, she talked about how the editor has to sell the book to the rest of the publishing house at the acquisitions meeting, and how she doesn't take knockbacks personally. I think that it's easy for us writers to forget that an editor loving our books may not be enough. Or rather, that if we get a no, it doesn't necessarily mean that the editor didn't love it. It needs the editor to love it and to be able to convince everyone else in the acquisitions meeting that they should love it too! She reminded us that publishers are competing for a slice of people's entertainment money: why they should buy this book instead of a DVD or CD or going to see a movie. She said, therefore, that writers need to find stories that readers will want to give up time for, stories that will transport people.
Peter talked about what Varuna does for writers. Really, it's best that you check into this yourself because they have many excellent programs. The website is at www.varuna.com.au -- he also said that memoir sells more than fiction because people want to know about writers, but what they don't realise is that a novel will tell just as much about a writer as a memoir will.
Linda talked about HarperCollins's three imprints: Fourth estate (literary), HarperCollins (general) and the one closest to my own heart: Voyager (SF). She said HarperCollins want writers who are going to write more than one book, but when they take on someone new they have to look at what their existing authors are doing and what spaces are available. She said writers need to have a story they're ready to share with a wider audience, and need to be clear about what their motivations for seeking publishing are. HarperCollins don't accept unsolicited manuscripts -- when they did they received over 500 per week. Yes, that's correct. Per week. They only look at manuscripts from agents, through Varuna, or from already published authors. However, you can send them a query letter with a two-paragraph description of your book, and they might then solicit the manuscript if it sounds interesting. Linda says what gets noticed is if you can write really well. She said not to send gimmicky things, but rather to put all your effort into what's on the page: correct all spelling errors, proofread etc. And for editors, she said that every author is different and has something to teach you. How true that is. Every project I've worked on as an editor has taught me something new. And I reckon 75% of them have involved copyright law in some way. Bizarre.
Session three was the published writers: Adib Khan, Robbi Neal and Julie Gittus.
Robbi talked about how life before being published was pretty much the same as life afterwards. (Though one wonders if she was organising great writing festivals beforehand!) She also talked about wrestling with second-book syndrome.
Adib said that his writing was at first accidental and incidental but how creativity can be inspired by desperation. That was reassuring -- I think! He said that we shouldn't "graft ourselves to the imaginative trunk" and that it must be "life over art" -- in other words to take care of ourselves financially and not rely on having written a bestseller. Sage advice, indeed. He spoke about fencing off his writing time and not allowing anyone to breach that fence. Yes, indeed! He also said that when the editing is done a book is finished, and that you must cut the umblical cord as soon as you can and get on with the next book. Here's something else he said that may reassure struggling, published writers: every few years he asks himself whether he has another novel inside him, but he only finds the answer out when he's finished the first draft. He says he starts his novels both in first and third person before he decides which is working best. I've never heard of anyone else doing this all the time. Interesting. He says that when writing your first novel, passion carries you through, but that for subsequent novels you have to rely on discipline.
Julie talked about her road into writing through the freefall writing workshops, recommended by her friend Gina Perry. She quoted Churchill who said, "The good thing about war is that you don't have to write that day".
Peter was hosting this session as well and said that an editor is the closest reader you'll ever have, and that they're looking at whether your writing is fully articulate, and that if they reword something it's one suggestion for how you might fix something.
Finally, there was an excellent performance of Dorothy Porter's The Monkey's Mask. Dorothy answered questions after the performance and said a couple of really interesting things: she thinks poetry is too cramped on the page, and that poets should be aware of other possibilities; and that she has both a poet and a novelist read her verse novels to make sure they are working on both levels.
This festival had a great atmosphere, and I really enjoyed the day. Left me with plenty to think about too.
The first session was emerging writers: Dennis, Asher Leslie and Sylvia Owers. All of the writers spoke about how they got into writing.
Asher spoke about how he found his calculator to be the most useful writing tool -- in terms of how long it would take him to write a novel at a set number of words per day. He said that writing was like having a conversation with no interruptions. Clearly, he hasn't got children! Many of us dream about thinking about writing in this way. Well, not really, but we would if we thought about it. He also talked about how important goals are when you're writing.
Sylvia talked about writing and rewriting to get more into her character's heads. Her first rewrite took her from 80,000 to 150,000 words. This is my problem too. I always want to flesh out characters more, but I can't afford to expand. I have to cut, cut, cut because I started this draft at 191,000 words, and now three-quarters of the way through I'm still at 188.
Dennis talked about having the courage to tell a story in a voice that is not usually seen in literature. He writes about his time as a shearer, and the voice is authentic, strong. In response to a question about what to do when you hit a wall and can't write, he spoke about sitting in the tension and just getting on with it. He was obviously inspirational because other writers were quoting him all day long. One of the things he was quoted on was advice of how to fictionalise real events: keep true to the emotion and then lie as much as you can.
Peter Bishop, who hosted this session, talked about how easy it is for life to move in and take the space carved for reading and writing. How true that is. I still remember what happened to my word counts when I first started teaching. To keep my students writing, I brought writing contracts into my Novel 2 class, and made sure I signed one along with the rest of them, and this still really helps keep me on track. He also said that those with the passion will make the space.
The second session was the industry professionals: Peter Bishop, the creative director at Varuna; Linda Funnell, Publisher at HarperCollins, and Vanessa Radnidge, Publisher at Hachette Livre.
Vanessa began and went through a typical day for her at work, which might involve, among other things, assessing manuscripts and writing reader's reports; structural editing; copyediting; proofreading; applying for permissions; writing blurbs; preparing information sheets for the publicity team; liaising with photographers, agents and authors; putting contracts together; and working with an author to make them feel included as part of the publishing world. As well as the publishing process, she talked about how the editor has to sell the book to the rest of the publishing house at the acquisitions meeting, and how she doesn't take knockbacks personally. I think that it's easy for us writers to forget that an editor loving our books may not be enough. Or rather, that if we get a no, it doesn't necessarily mean that the editor didn't love it. It needs the editor to love it and to be able to convince everyone else in the acquisitions meeting that they should love it too! She reminded us that publishers are competing for a slice of people's entertainment money: why they should buy this book instead of a DVD or CD or going to see a movie. She said, therefore, that writers need to find stories that readers will want to give up time for, stories that will transport people.
Peter talked about what Varuna does for writers. Really, it's best that you check into this yourself because they have many excellent programs. The website is at www.varuna.com.au -- he also said that memoir sells more than fiction because people want to know about writers, but what they don't realise is that a novel will tell just as much about a writer as a memoir will.
Linda talked about HarperCollins's three imprints: Fourth estate (literary), HarperCollins (general) and the one closest to my own heart: Voyager (SF). She said HarperCollins want writers who are going to write more than one book, but when they take on someone new they have to look at what their existing authors are doing and what spaces are available. She said writers need to have a story they're ready to share with a wider audience, and need to be clear about what their motivations for seeking publishing are. HarperCollins don't accept unsolicited manuscripts -- when they did they received over 500 per week. Yes, that's correct. Per week. They only look at manuscripts from agents, through Varuna, or from already published authors. However, you can send them a query letter with a two-paragraph description of your book, and they might then solicit the manuscript if it sounds interesting. Linda says what gets noticed is if you can write really well. She said not to send gimmicky things, but rather to put all your effort into what's on the page: correct all spelling errors, proofread etc. And for editors, she said that every author is different and has something to teach you. How true that is. Every project I've worked on as an editor has taught me something new. And I reckon 75% of them have involved copyright law in some way. Bizarre.
Session three was the published writers: Adib Khan, Robbi Neal and Julie Gittus.
Robbi talked about how life before being published was pretty much the same as life afterwards. (Though one wonders if she was organising great writing festivals beforehand!) She also talked about wrestling with second-book syndrome.
Adib said that his writing was at first accidental and incidental but how creativity can be inspired by desperation. That was reassuring -- I think! He said that we shouldn't "graft ourselves to the imaginative trunk" and that it must be "life over art" -- in other words to take care of ourselves financially and not rely on having written a bestseller. Sage advice, indeed. He spoke about fencing off his writing time and not allowing anyone to breach that fence. Yes, indeed! He also said that when the editing is done a book is finished, and that you must cut the umblical cord as soon as you can and get on with the next book. Here's something else he said that may reassure struggling, published writers: every few years he asks himself whether he has another novel inside him, but he only finds the answer out when he's finished the first draft. He says he starts his novels both in first and third person before he decides which is working best. I've never heard of anyone else doing this all the time. Interesting. He says that when writing your first novel, passion carries you through, but that for subsequent novels you have to rely on discipline.
Julie talked about her road into writing through the freefall writing workshops, recommended by her friend Gina Perry. She quoted Churchill who said, "The good thing about war is that you don't have to write that day".
Peter was hosting this session as well and said that an editor is the closest reader you'll ever have, and that they're looking at whether your writing is fully articulate, and that if they reword something it's one suggestion for how you might fix something.
Finally, there was an excellent performance of Dorothy Porter's The Monkey's Mask. Dorothy answered questions after the performance and said a couple of really interesting things: she thinks poetry is too cramped on the page, and that poets should be aware of other possibilities; and that she has both a poet and a novelist read her verse novels to make sure they are working on both levels.
This festival had a great atmosphere, and I really enjoyed the day. Left me with plenty to think about too.
19 June 2007
Past perfect
Past perfect is one of those difficult tenses. Sorry to bore you all, but today I'm in the mood for a grammar rant. (Wearing the grammar teacher and editor hats today.) I love tenses. I love all their different names and the way they interconnect, and how you use them differently. For the uninitiated, past perfect is a tense formed with "had" + past participle of a verb, eg had walked, had danced, had brought, had eaten, had ridden etc.
Past perfect is used for actions completed in the past before another action in the past. It's like a second step back in time. For example, if I'm writing in present tense and want to indicate a past event, I use simple past: Today I go to the milk bar; yesterday I went to the bakery. But if I'm writing in past tense, then I can't just use simple past, and need to show another step backwards: Yesterday I went to the milk bar; the day before I had gone to the bakery. Should be simple, right?
I remember someone saying to me when I first started taking writing seriously that you should never use "had had", that the second had was never needed. I know now that this was a stupid piece of advice. Even then it felt wrong, and so when I wrote my fledgling stories I would contract the first one and use I'd or she'd or whatever, just because I could tell instinctively that I really did need both verbs, but people tended to let me keep the two verbs. Perhaps where this advice stemmed from -- or at least should have stemmed from -- is that when you segue into past perfect, which indicates a second step back in time, you only have to use the had the first one or two times and then can slip into simple past tense. Simple past is much more direct. Too many "hads" bog down a sentence. Pace stagnates when it should be racing. Of course the trick is to signal clearly to the reader when you are returning to the "now" of the story, whether it's in present or past tense.
But the problem I see often in student work is use of past perfect when simple past will do. This is usually because a student is writing in present tense and so should use simple past for past events, but I think they're so used to writing in past tense that they take that second step backwards when only one is necessary. They'll also use past perfect when they really want present perfect (have gone, have fished, have eaten, have drunk). Obviously for some it's tricky stuff. I'm lucky because it's always come naturally to me. Sometimes I think it only affects them on paper -- that they can handle tenses properly in speech, but this isn't always the case. My tip, as with any problem when writing, to improve your tenses? Easy: read lots. Read widely. And pay attention to what the author is doing.
Past perfect is used for actions completed in the past before another action in the past. It's like a second step back in time. For example, if I'm writing in present tense and want to indicate a past event, I use simple past: Today I go to the milk bar; yesterday I went to the bakery. But if I'm writing in past tense, then I can't just use simple past, and need to show another step backwards: Yesterday I went to the milk bar; the day before I had gone to the bakery. Should be simple, right?
I remember someone saying to me when I first started taking writing seriously that you should never use "had had", that the second had was never needed. I know now that this was a stupid piece of advice. Even then it felt wrong, and so when I wrote my fledgling stories I would contract the first one and use I'd or she'd or whatever, just because I could tell instinctively that I really did need both verbs, but people tended to let me keep the two verbs. Perhaps where this advice stemmed from -- or at least should have stemmed from -- is that when you segue into past perfect, which indicates a second step back in time, you only have to use the had the first one or two times and then can slip into simple past tense. Simple past is much more direct. Too many "hads" bog down a sentence. Pace stagnates when it should be racing. Of course the trick is to signal clearly to the reader when you are returning to the "now" of the story, whether it's in present or past tense.
But the problem I see often in student work is use of past perfect when simple past will do. This is usually because a student is writing in present tense and so should use simple past for past events, but I think they're so used to writing in past tense that they take that second step backwards when only one is necessary. They'll also use past perfect when they really want present perfect (have gone, have fished, have eaten, have drunk). Obviously for some it's tricky stuff. I'm lucky because it's always come naturally to me. Sometimes I think it only affects them on paper -- that they can handle tenses properly in speech, but this isn't always the case. My tip, as with any problem when writing, to improve your tenses? Easy: read lots. Read widely. And pay attention to what the author is doing.
12 June 2007
Last day of con
It's always a bit sad when a con ends. There's nothing like spending a few days hanging with your friends -- some of whom you don't see very often -- attending panels to hear how other writers approach the craft, or discussing other aspects of writing or something that might illuminate fantasy (such as sword fighting as previously mentioned or, today, blacksmithing). At the end of it you're exhausted but have come away after days of thinking, breathing and eating writing, feeling inspired and ready to go. Pity you have to come home and do class prep, really! Well, all right, most people don't, but I do. And finalise my marks, which is why I'm late to my blog again.
I was all set to be in at 10 for the panel on hooks, but sat for many minutes at Flinders St in a train that was supposed to be departing. Anyway, I was late, which led me to standing outside the panel door, thinking is it worse to be rude and go in, or to miss out? I'm really glad today (as I usually do) I decided to walk in, because today I had an epiphany of sorts. I always go to cons or writing sessions, hoping to hear something new, and once you've been around the traps (to use a cliche) awhile this doesn't happen very often. But today it did.
Anyway, I'll stick to the format I seem to have adopted and go panel by panel:
(i) Hooks -- Pamela Freeman and Isobelle Carmody were both talking about their being two kinds of short stories: those that have a hook and are usually science fiction (and often have a twist and a payoff) and those that don't, but focus on character and have an emotional payoff -- they give a deeper understanding of humanity and what it is to be alive. I've conflated what they were saying together here, but it seems to make a viable whole. Joel Shepherd talked about publishers looking for a universal hook that doesn't exist, but acknowledging that some hooks do hook more people than others. Lucy Sussex talked about how publishers talking about hooks are often really after a sound bite -- the type of thing politicians have to do when they have ten seconds to deliver a message. An audience member raised a question about how important it is to end a series with a hook to get the reader into the next book, and Pamela Freeman says she doesn't do this but rather leaves at a point where it's clear that more is going to happen. This is where I've left my first book too. I would hate to be a reader left with a giant hook and then having to wait twelve months to find out what happens. It was the same when I first saw Empire strikes back and, although it was my favourite of all the Star wars movies, I felt enormously frustrated by the ending. The film felt unfinished. I knew it was the middle of three, but I wanted some kind of closure, the way the first (fourth) movie had done.
Anyway, this, today, led to the moment of epiphany, because Pamela went on to talk about worldbuilding, and how she read a number of fantasy novels and found she often finished the first book and didn't want to read on, but rather to speak to others who had read the book. When she thought about why this was she realised that most fantasy writers do all their worldbuilding at the beginning of the first book and after that point there are no new revelations about the world. Being a fantasy reader, she says she reads as much for the world as the story, and one of the great pleasures is turning a corner. She wanted to offer the idea that this world (of hers) was full of infinite possibilities and so during the last quarter of the first book she puts in new information about the world. Wow! I had never thought of that before. When I caught up with Ellen after the session, she was as blown away as I was. So was her friend Simone. For me, that revelation made going to the whole con worthwhile. Even if everything else had been shitty (which it wasn't), it would've been worthwhile.
Isobelle continued on to say that each book must be as good as the others, and that if the story was going to take three books, there had better be good reason for this, which Pamela backed up by talking about the overall story arch. I think (missed this in my notes) she then talked about each book being part of a three-act structure, which again I'd never heard stated before, but I think I intrinsically knew -- especially from hearing George Lucas talk about his trilogies. He spoke about "middle films", and so I think I had made that leap, but still believe, as the panelists said, that each book should stand alone.
Joel Shepherd made an interesting point about following Tolkien's lead and setting different parts of his story in different places.
(ii) Blacksmithing -- Steve Gleeson. Now, Steve, fresh from his triumphant film debut (or at least debut at this con) was back in familiar territory. Ellen, Lita (fellow SuperNOVArian who's off doing the Inca Trail at the moment), Bren and I did a workshop with Steve in his forge last year, and it was excellent. Bren and I only made it there for half a day, but I loved every minute of it. Well, almost every minute. I do remember the heat getting to me and feeling faint towards the end. So it was really good to have the theoretical aspect to attach to the practical experience. Steve spoke of how he got started, how he acquired his tools, how blacksmiths served their apprenticeships, what attributes a smith needs -- really, all sorts of things. I was the magpie, picking up new terms. There were a few things I hadn't thought of before. Stuff I'll have to google, especially because one of my main characters is the son of a blacksmith. Now, I know why he didn't want his father's business (whereas before I thought he'd left for other reasons). It's lovely to be sitting there, and subconsciously working away on your novel in the background. I didn't think I needed another reason for this character to leave, but I love having more complex motivations because they more closely reflect real life. And I have to say I hadn't heard of a whitesmith before, but maybe that's just my naivete. I also hadn't thought of the beginnings of the phrases "strike while the iron is hot" and "too many nails in the fire". Come to think of it -- I hadn't even heard the second phrase before, so there you go. And now I know the difference between a striker (person) and flattener (implement).
(iii) Fantasy -- this one was about alternatives to European-based fantasy. Joel Shepherd said his fantasy is European-based because historical events drive it, but if doing something more epic, you can do whatever you want. There was some discussion on the difference between trying to subvert the paradigm and playing with the familiar fantasy tropes. There was some dispute about which authors actually did subvert the paradigm, because whenever someone suggested a particular author, someone else was able to give a good reason why they weren't subversive. Then Pamela Freeman, in the audience, raised the question of cultural appropriation. I'm always pleased to hear people talking about this, because I think that we white Australians, living among a people whom we have dispossessed, a people with a living culture who are still hurting from all that has been taken from them, need to be particularly sensitive about this. I've argued with writers who say we should be able to mine anything. But I acknowledge it's not always that simple. When do we cross lines? Is it writing from an indigenous perspective? Probably. (And I have written one story where I have done this -- because it was the only way to tell the story, and it is set in the future; however, because I have done this, I'm not sure I will ever be comfortable about sending it out for publication. I don't know. I really don't.) Is it when we write any indigenous characters into our stories? If so, if we never do this, doesn't that then make them invisible? It's very tricky stuff. And loaded.
Gilian Polack said she does cultural appropriation all the time because she's Jewish and writing stories with a Christian sensibility. She made some great points about learning your own cultural limitations and how it depends on which people you're writing about, how you write about them and how well you understand particular subcultures. Glenda Larke said that writing about Malaysia in a mainstream novel offended her Malaysian in-laws so she moved into SF. Joel Shepherd said that if you didn't know a culture well enough to know whether they'd be offended then you were in for trouble. He talked about Lian Hearn, and all she'd done to learn Japanese culture. Pamela Freeman, who seemed to be the person for me with the off-centre comments that kept striking a chord, talked about setting her novel in Aus but it not working, and she said it's because that was another form of cultural appropriation, and that certain landscapes have stories attached to them, and they're not our stories. I found this harder to accept, because that land is our land now tell, so there we are mired somewhere in the dichotomy of that little statement. She said certain landscapes evoke certain types of stories. Although I disagree (right now) with her take on this being cultural appropriation, I found her comments valid and woth thinking about.
On that, pretty much, the con ended. Ellen, Simone and Lucy Sussex and I wandered down to the bar for coffee, where we were joined by Bren and Claire. And then it was all over, and Bren and I were walking back to the railway station. I'm sure I'll have more to say about the con as a whole, but I'll do this when I'm a bit more awake.
I was all set to be in at 10 for the panel on hooks, but sat for many minutes at Flinders St in a train that was supposed to be departing. Anyway, I was late, which led me to standing outside the panel door, thinking is it worse to be rude and go in, or to miss out? I'm really glad today (as I usually do) I decided to walk in, because today I had an epiphany of sorts. I always go to cons or writing sessions, hoping to hear something new, and once you've been around the traps (to use a cliche) awhile this doesn't happen very often. But today it did.
Anyway, I'll stick to the format I seem to have adopted and go panel by panel:
(i) Hooks -- Pamela Freeman and Isobelle Carmody were both talking about their being two kinds of short stories: those that have a hook and are usually science fiction (and often have a twist and a payoff) and those that don't, but focus on character and have an emotional payoff -- they give a deeper understanding of humanity and what it is to be alive. I've conflated what they were saying together here, but it seems to make a viable whole. Joel Shepherd talked about publishers looking for a universal hook that doesn't exist, but acknowledging that some hooks do hook more people than others. Lucy Sussex talked about how publishers talking about hooks are often really after a sound bite -- the type of thing politicians have to do when they have ten seconds to deliver a message. An audience member raised a question about how important it is to end a series with a hook to get the reader into the next book, and Pamela Freeman says she doesn't do this but rather leaves at a point where it's clear that more is going to happen. This is where I've left my first book too. I would hate to be a reader left with a giant hook and then having to wait twelve months to find out what happens. It was the same when I first saw Empire strikes back and, although it was my favourite of all the Star wars movies, I felt enormously frustrated by the ending. The film felt unfinished. I knew it was the middle of three, but I wanted some kind of closure, the way the first (fourth) movie had done.
Anyway, this, today, led to the moment of epiphany, because Pamela went on to talk about worldbuilding, and how she read a number of fantasy novels and found she often finished the first book and didn't want to read on, but rather to speak to others who had read the book. When she thought about why this was she realised that most fantasy writers do all their worldbuilding at the beginning of the first book and after that point there are no new revelations about the world. Being a fantasy reader, she says she reads as much for the world as the story, and one of the great pleasures is turning a corner. She wanted to offer the idea that this world (of hers) was full of infinite possibilities and so during the last quarter of the first book she puts in new information about the world. Wow! I had never thought of that before. When I caught up with Ellen after the session, she was as blown away as I was. So was her friend Simone. For me, that revelation made going to the whole con worthwhile. Even if everything else had been shitty (which it wasn't), it would've been worthwhile.
Isobelle continued on to say that each book must be as good as the others, and that if the story was going to take three books, there had better be good reason for this, which Pamela backed up by talking about the overall story arch. I think (missed this in my notes) she then talked about each book being part of a three-act structure, which again I'd never heard stated before, but I think I intrinsically knew -- especially from hearing George Lucas talk about his trilogies. He spoke about "middle films", and so I think I had made that leap, but still believe, as the panelists said, that each book should stand alone.
Joel Shepherd made an interesting point about following Tolkien's lead and setting different parts of his story in different places.
(ii) Blacksmithing -- Steve Gleeson. Now, Steve, fresh from his triumphant film debut (or at least debut at this con) was back in familiar territory. Ellen, Lita (fellow SuperNOVArian who's off doing the Inca Trail at the moment), Bren and I did a workshop with Steve in his forge last year, and it was excellent. Bren and I only made it there for half a day, but I loved every minute of it. Well, almost every minute. I do remember the heat getting to me and feeling faint towards the end. So it was really good to have the theoretical aspect to attach to the practical experience. Steve spoke of how he got started, how he acquired his tools, how blacksmiths served their apprenticeships, what attributes a smith needs -- really, all sorts of things. I was the magpie, picking up new terms. There were a few things I hadn't thought of before. Stuff I'll have to google, especially because one of my main characters is the son of a blacksmith. Now, I know why he didn't want his father's business (whereas before I thought he'd left for other reasons). It's lovely to be sitting there, and subconsciously working away on your novel in the background. I didn't think I needed another reason for this character to leave, but I love having more complex motivations because they more closely reflect real life. And I have to say I hadn't heard of a whitesmith before, but maybe that's just my naivete. I also hadn't thought of the beginnings of the phrases "strike while the iron is hot" and "too many nails in the fire". Come to think of it -- I hadn't even heard the second phrase before, so there you go. And now I know the difference between a striker (person) and flattener (implement).
(iii) Fantasy -- this one was about alternatives to European-based fantasy. Joel Shepherd said his fantasy is European-based because historical events drive it, but if doing something more epic, you can do whatever you want. There was some discussion on the difference between trying to subvert the paradigm and playing with the familiar fantasy tropes. There was some dispute about which authors actually did subvert the paradigm, because whenever someone suggested a particular author, someone else was able to give a good reason why they weren't subversive. Then Pamela Freeman, in the audience, raised the question of cultural appropriation. I'm always pleased to hear people talking about this, because I think that we white Australians, living among a people whom we have dispossessed, a people with a living culture who are still hurting from all that has been taken from them, need to be particularly sensitive about this. I've argued with writers who say we should be able to mine anything. But I acknowledge it's not always that simple. When do we cross lines? Is it writing from an indigenous perspective? Probably. (And I have written one story where I have done this -- because it was the only way to tell the story, and it is set in the future; however, because I have done this, I'm not sure I will ever be comfortable about sending it out for publication. I don't know. I really don't.) Is it when we write any indigenous characters into our stories? If so, if we never do this, doesn't that then make them invisible? It's very tricky stuff. And loaded.
Gilian Polack said she does cultural appropriation all the time because she's Jewish and writing stories with a Christian sensibility. She made some great points about learning your own cultural limitations and how it depends on which people you're writing about, how you write about them and how well you understand particular subcultures. Glenda Larke said that writing about Malaysia in a mainstream novel offended her Malaysian in-laws so she moved into SF. Joel Shepherd said that if you didn't know a culture well enough to know whether they'd be offended then you were in for trouble. He talked about Lian Hearn, and all she'd done to learn Japanese culture. Pamela Freeman, who seemed to be the person for me with the off-centre comments that kept striking a chord, talked about setting her novel in Aus but it not working, and she said it's because that was another form of cultural appropriation, and that certain landscapes have stories attached to them, and they're not our stories. I found this harder to accept, because that land is our land now tell, so there we are mired somewhere in the dichotomy of that little statement. She said certain landscapes evoke certain types of stories. Although I disagree (right now) with her take on this being cultural appropriation, I found her comments valid and woth thinking about.
On that, pretty much, the con ended. Ellen, Simone and Lucy Sussex and I wandered down to the bar for coffee, where we were joined by Bren and Claire. And then it was all over, and Bren and I were walking back to the railway station. I'm sure I'll have more to say about the con as a whole, but I'll do this when I'm a bit more awake.
11 June 2007
Con day two (or three?)
Sir Talkalot came with me to the con today -- his first experience of a con, and mine of taking a kid to a con. He was given very strict instructions about how he could and could not behave, and behaved generally very well. Having him with me did affect some choices in panel a little. When we first arrived it was a choice between writing horror stories and cover art. I probably would've gone to the first, but knew he'd be more interested in the second, so took him to see that (although it was already halfway through). After the first panel, caught up with Ellen and Steve, and finally Bren, who we had somehow missed all day yesterday.
(i) I hate my cover -- Isobelle Carmody talked about the main function of a cover is to make you pick a book up, and then about the importance of a blurb, and the difference between writing your own and having the publisher get someone to write it for you. Her tip is that a mixture of both works best. An audience member talked about how publishers often designed covers based on demographics, so a white horse on a fantasy cover was often geared towards a younger audience, whereas a dapple grey horse was for an older audience. He had some really interesting things to say. Isobelle talked about how publishers like fat spines because they can put more on them, and those books elbow others out of the way, but as a counterpoint how much harder it was to get a fat book translated because of the cost. That was an interesting point I had never considered.
(ii) Science fiction and fantasy in the school curriculum -- panelists talked about what was on the curriculum and the difficulty in getting kids to read SF, that they're just not interested in it, which surprised me! But they also talked about the fact that the only books on the curriculum were old books or not Aussie writers (eg Frankenstein had made it on because if it was written in the nineteenth century then it must be good, right?), and the trouble being that to get more more-modern SF on the lists you have to convince people at the very top, and the teachers, because the teachers ultimately decided what gets taught. I was also amazed to learn that most teachers hate teaching creative writing (because they don't know how to mark it) and that teaching creative writing is no longer being taught during their teacher training years. Some audience members, however, felt that it was about to make a comeback, with the Victorian curriculum about to change.
(iii) How to promote your book -- Ian Irvine talked about all he has done and gave the rather depressing bookseller stats in the US. The most interesting thing he said (and he had a lot of interesting things to say) was that the most important bit of promotional work you can do is promoting yourself to your publisher. Yes, an interesting point, and one that was driven home to me recently by a friend's experience in trying to promote her book.
(iv) The swordfighting panel -- always a highlight for me. I go all gooey when I see men wielding big swords. My students laugh when I tell them this. Or how rockets make me go gooey too. We came in in the second half of this panel -- though I really, really wanted to see it, I thought that I should do the promotion panel, which was just a half hour one. Some interesting points were on why female fantasy sword wielders are often portrayed incorrectly, and how bendable Viking swords were, and the importance of wrestling in swordfighting. Chris Barnes, one of my Clarion buddies, is always great value -- entertaining and informative. Every con needs panels on swordfighting!
(v) Approaching the craft -- a number of writers talked about where their ideas come from and how they develop them. Isobelle Carmody made some interesting points about the difference between short stories, which she sees as being quite circular, and novels, which she sees as more linear, and how in the short story the situation is more important. If I recall correctly, because I missed this part in my notetaking, she also talked about how a story often is chosen to illustrate an aspect of a situation, and a light bulb came on for me because this is how a lot of my short stories come into being, I think. A few of the panel talked about how rigid they have to be in their working hours -- something that always bears thinking about because it can just be far too easy to let time go.
(vi) Interview with Isobelle Carmody -- I'm sure she had plenty of great stuff to say, because she has been really inspirational, but I had hit the wall. I looked across and Bren, Ellen and Steve all seemed to be fighting to stay awake, which is no reflection at all on Isobelle, but rather on the heat and the fact that we were all feeling panelled out. Every year I hit a wall on the afternoon of day two, when I just can't take any more in. And here I was facing it down. My mind was wandering. My eyes growing heavy. But Isobelle spiced things up with a reading from a cat's POV, and Richard Harland (her interviewer for this session) read the parts of a couple of dogs. Both were excellent. Isobelle had so perfectly captured the cat's disdain in both her words and in her mannerisms. Fantastic reading that woke me right up.
There was really only one more session (or a choice of a couple, really) but that was it for us. Bren, Ellen, Sir Talkalot and I hit the bar, and then caught up with Claire McKenna and her partner. We all went out for a quick dinner, with a couple of others who are in Claire's film, and then back for the launch of the new Orb and the launch of Liminal Claire's film. Steve has the lead role and was great. Sir Talkalot and Princess Sleepyhead were both in it as extras (they looked so young!) and I had a very fleeting role along with Adam Browne, who's another great friend of mine. The film is still a work in progress so there were a few minor problems like colour inconsistencies and sound problems, but it was so much fun to watch. Must say I'm a bit worried about the jars of body parts labelled "Bren" and "Tracey" -- and those of many of my other friends. And that I can't see myself in any serious acting career. Ever. But it was fun to be a part of it -- I was in it because I'd dropped my kids off, and Claire needed a few extra extras, so thought I could do that. But it was interesting seeing all these people I know but hadn't known were in the film. Other SuperNOVArians had major roles, which was brilliant and Choofa's daughter was great. Afterwards, we went off to the bar to celebrate, and caught up with lots of people who I hadn't seen in a while, which is one of the brilliant parts of being at a con. And I must say I'm not a great fan of the maskobolo (or masked ball) that usually occupies one of the night, so having the film to watch instead was much more fun for me. Sir Talkalot and I caught the train home with Adam -- so that rounded off the night beautifully. Still didn't talk to as many people as I would've liked, but you can't do everything, and I feel like we did plenty today. One more day to go, so better get off to bed!
(i) I hate my cover -- Isobelle Carmody talked about the main function of a cover is to make you pick a book up, and then about the importance of a blurb, and the difference between writing your own and having the publisher get someone to write it for you. Her tip is that a mixture of both works best. An audience member talked about how publishers often designed covers based on demographics, so a white horse on a fantasy cover was often geared towards a younger audience, whereas a dapple grey horse was for an older audience. He had some really interesting things to say. Isobelle talked about how publishers like fat spines because they can put more on them, and those books elbow others out of the way, but as a counterpoint how much harder it was to get a fat book translated because of the cost. That was an interesting point I had never considered.
(ii) Science fiction and fantasy in the school curriculum -- panelists talked about what was on the curriculum and the difficulty in getting kids to read SF, that they're just not interested in it, which surprised me! But they also talked about the fact that the only books on the curriculum were old books or not Aussie writers (eg Frankenstein had made it on because if it was written in the nineteenth century then it must be good, right?), and the trouble being that to get more more-modern SF on the lists you have to convince people at the very top, and the teachers, because the teachers ultimately decided what gets taught. I was also amazed to learn that most teachers hate teaching creative writing (because they don't know how to mark it) and that teaching creative writing is no longer being taught during their teacher training years. Some audience members, however, felt that it was about to make a comeback, with the Victorian curriculum about to change.
(iii) How to promote your book -- Ian Irvine talked about all he has done and gave the rather depressing bookseller stats in the US. The most interesting thing he said (and he had a lot of interesting things to say) was that the most important bit of promotional work you can do is promoting yourself to your publisher. Yes, an interesting point, and one that was driven home to me recently by a friend's experience in trying to promote her book.
(iv) The swordfighting panel -- always a highlight for me. I go all gooey when I see men wielding big swords. My students laugh when I tell them this. Or how rockets make me go gooey too. We came in in the second half of this panel -- though I really, really wanted to see it, I thought that I should do the promotion panel, which was just a half hour one. Some interesting points were on why female fantasy sword wielders are often portrayed incorrectly, and how bendable Viking swords were, and the importance of wrestling in swordfighting. Chris Barnes, one of my Clarion buddies, is always great value -- entertaining and informative. Every con needs panels on swordfighting!
(v) Approaching the craft -- a number of writers talked about where their ideas come from and how they develop them. Isobelle Carmody made some interesting points about the difference between short stories, which she sees as being quite circular, and novels, which she sees as more linear, and how in the short story the situation is more important. If I recall correctly, because I missed this part in my notetaking, she also talked about how a story often is chosen to illustrate an aspect of a situation, and a light bulb came on for me because this is how a lot of my short stories come into being, I think. A few of the panel talked about how rigid they have to be in their working hours -- something that always bears thinking about because it can just be far too easy to let time go.
(vi) Interview with Isobelle Carmody -- I'm sure she had plenty of great stuff to say, because she has been really inspirational, but I had hit the wall. I looked across and Bren, Ellen and Steve all seemed to be fighting to stay awake, which is no reflection at all on Isobelle, but rather on the heat and the fact that we were all feeling panelled out. Every year I hit a wall on the afternoon of day two, when I just can't take any more in. And here I was facing it down. My mind was wandering. My eyes growing heavy. But Isobelle spiced things up with a reading from a cat's POV, and Richard Harland (her interviewer for this session) read the parts of a couple of dogs. Both were excellent. Isobelle had so perfectly captured the cat's disdain in both her words and in her mannerisms. Fantastic reading that woke me right up.
There was really only one more session (or a choice of a couple, really) but that was it for us. Bren, Ellen, Sir Talkalot and I hit the bar, and then caught up with Claire McKenna and her partner. We all went out for a quick dinner, with a couple of others who are in Claire's film, and then back for the launch of the new Orb and the launch of Liminal Claire's film. Steve has the lead role and was great. Sir Talkalot and Princess Sleepyhead were both in it as extras (they looked so young!) and I had a very fleeting role along with Adam Browne, who's another great friend of mine. The film is still a work in progress so there were a few minor problems like colour inconsistencies and sound problems, but it was so much fun to watch. Must say I'm a bit worried about the jars of body parts labelled "Bren" and "Tracey" -- and those of many of my other friends. And that I can't see myself in any serious acting career. Ever. But it was fun to be a part of it -- I was in it because I'd dropped my kids off, and Claire needed a few extra extras, so thought I could do that. But it was interesting seeing all these people I know but hadn't known were in the film. Other SuperNOVArians had major roles, which was brilliant and Choofa's daughter was great. Afterwards, we went off to the bar to celebrate, and caught up with lots of people who I hadn't seen in a while, which is one of the brilliant parts of being at a con. And I must say I'm not a great fan of the maskobolo (or masked ball) that usually occupies one of the night, so having the film to watch instead was much more fun for me. Sir Talkalot and I caught the train home with Adam -- so that rounded off the night beautifully. Still didn't talk to as many people as I would've liked, but you can't do everything, and I feel like we did plenty today. One more day to go, so better get off to bed!
09 June 2007
Con day one (or two?)
Day 2 of the con, but my day 1.
Hmm, saw lots of good panels today, so might just list what they were and anything that came out of them that I found really inspiring.
(i) Where are the new dangerous visions -- interesting because there seemed to be some disagreement among the panel members (Jack Dann, Gillian Polack and Dina Taylor (hope I've got her name right)) adout where the new dangerous visions lay. Dina thought they were in gender, sexuality and race; Gilian thought in religion. Jack talked about magic realism and how it seems to have infiltrated other fiction -- which corresponds to my wonder about how MR is accepted in lit, whereas the rest of SF is frowned upon. Bizarre. Doesn't make any sense.
(ii) Isobelle Carmody's Guest of Honour speech -- very entertaining and with great sound effects. But she talked about how fantasy tries to name the unnameable, and how she thinks it's popular because it embodies that yearning that many of us have for something more in life. Interesting and reassuring to here her talk about not using lists of details. Although I do have a lot of worldbuilding stuff and character profiles, I sometimes feel I don't look at them as often as I should. But she married the whole idea of continuity with the push for publishers not spending enough time on the editing process. She thought they viewed it as part of the technical process rather than creative, and that this was part of the problem. I liked the way she talked about finding that not writing books in series one after the other keeps her fresh.
(iii) Worldbuilding 101. Ellen and I divided for this one as we also wanted to see the panel on good versus evil in fantasy, so Ellen did that one and I went along to worldbuilding with Ian Irvine, Gilian Polack and Keith Stevenson. Gilian thought that for good worldbuilding you need an addictive personality. Should suit me, I thought, as I am known to become rather obsessive about things. Ian Irvine talked about not getting too lost in the details -- something all panelists agreed on. Ultimately the worldbuilding has to serve the story, not the other way around. Some things of particular interest here were Ian's comment that if you try to create a world where everything is different, you'll end up having to spend half your novel explaining things, and will end up with a xenobiology text. He said lots of readers don't like his stories because they have only a touch of alienness, but that's why. Must say I agree with that. An audience member said he'd been to something where an editor said that to become a hotshot writer you should build a world, write six or so stories in it and then sell them to Asimov's. Ian said that that might be true of science fiction but that he would be astonished if it were true in fantasy because hardly any successful fantasy writers were writing short stories. I kept thinking of the SuperNOVA boys who would like to see me write more short stories. It's just not the genre or form I'm most comfortable in. I mention genre because I don't think fantasy lends itself particularly well to short stories. He also said that to do great worldbuilding, you don't need a PhD but a keen interest. Keith asked the others what the biggest pitfalls were. Gilian thought Mary-Sue. Ian thought putting too much thought into the worldbuilding and not enough into telling the story. He reminded us that every page has to have something interesting, exciting or curiosity-arousing to maintain tension.
(iv) Eating ancient food -- with Gilian Polack. She said that we focus obsessively on food in real life, but we hardly mention it in our writing. I found this interesting because one criticism I read levelled at fantasy quite often is that writers mention food too much. But perhaps it's just that thing about not being able to please all the people... She said a lot of writers get food right, but a lot more get it wrong, and that anyone who thinks people ate rotten food all the time in the Middle Ages is a zombie. She said spices were more expensive that fresh meat, and anyway rotten food disguised with spices will still give you food poisoning. Touche. I did get to try some Grains of Paradise -- a medieval aphrodisiac. Mmm, quite nice, too.
After this panel Ellen and I checked out the dealers' room, and then swapped notes about the panels we'd missed. Then we rehit the panel trail, marvelling about how some people like us go to cons for the panels, whereas another group rarely go on them.
(v) Teen angst -- Kate Forsyth said that someone said (Susan Cooper, I think, but I wasn't sure) that children are people without the coats of time. Interesting. Pamela Freeman said that she thought fantasy was popular with teens because it has an intensity of experience and element of idealism. Kate Forsyth thought it was because it often has a theme about empowerment. Lucy Sussex talked about the trouble she sometimes has telling whether a review book is meant for YA or adult audiences, and that sometimes price is the best guide. That was quite interesting. Pamela talked about how some people don't have a fictional imagination and are better suited to nonfic.
(vi) I wish I'd thought of that -- Keith Stevenson's talk about his theories of how people get down to write -- ie the pinball theory of creativity, plus some stuff to consider for worldbuilding.
Ellen and I had lunch out, and went out with Steve Gleeson for dinner, which was interesting as he's just come back from Vietnam so had lots to tell us. Anyway, we were late for the Ditmars, and as Ellen and I were on public transport, decided to come home and be very decadent and write. So I'd better heave-to!
Hmm, saw lots of good panels today, so might just list what they were and anything that came out of them that I found really inspiring.
(i) Where are the new dangerous visions -- interesting because there seemed to be some disagreement among the panel members (Jack Dann, Gillian Polack and Dina Taylor (hope I've got her name right)) adout where the new dangerous visions lay. Dina thought they were in gender, sexuality and race; Gilian thought in religion. Jack talked about magic realism and how it seems to have infiltrated other fiction -- which corresponds to my wonder about how MR is accepted in lit, whereas the rest of SF is frowned upon. Bizarre. Doesn't make any sense.
(ii) Isobelle Carmody's Guest of Honour speech -- very entertaining and with great sound effects. But she talked about how fantasy tries to name the unnameable, and how she thinks it's popular because it embodies that yearning that many of us have for something more in life. Interesting and reassuring to here her talk about not using lists of details. Although I do have a lot of worldbuilding stuff and character profiles, I sometimes feel I don't look at them as often as I should. But she married the whole idea of continuity with the push for publishers not spending enough time on the editing process. She thought they viewed it as part of the technical process rather than creative, and that this was part of the problem. I liked the way she talked about finding that not writing books in series one after the other keeps her fresh.
(iii) Worldbuilding 101. Ellen and I divided for this one as we also wanted to see the panel on good versus evil in fantasy, so Ellen did that one and I went along to worldbuilding with Ian Irvine, Gilian Polack and Keith Stevenson. Gilian thought that for good worldbuilding you need an addictive personality. Should suit me, I thought, as I am known to become rather obsessive about things. Ian Irvine talked about not getting too lost in the details -- something all panelists agreed on. Ultimately the worldbuilding has to serve the story, not the other way around. Some things of particular interest here were Ian's comment that if you try to create a world where everything is different, you'll end up having to spend half your novel explaining things, and will end up with a xenobiology text. He said lots of readers don't like his stories because they have only a touch of alienness, but that's why. Must say I agree with that. An audience member said he'd been to something where an editor said that to become a hotshot writer you should build a world, write six or so stories in it and then sell them to Asimov's. Ian said that that might be true of science fiction but that he would be astonished if it were true in fantasy because hardly any successful fantasy writers were writing short stories. I kept thinking of the SuperNOVA boys who would like to see me write more short stories. It's just not the genre or form I'm most comfortable in. I mention genre because I don't think fantasy lends itself particularly well to short stories. He also said that to do great worldbuilding, you don't need a PhD but a keen interest. Keith asked the others what the biggest pitfalls were. Gilian thought Mary-Sue. Ian thought putting too much thought into the worldbuilding and not enough into telling the story. He reminded us that every page has to have something interesting, exciting or curiosity-arousing to maintain tension.
(iv) Eating ancient food -- with Gilian Polack. She said that we focus obsessively on food in real life, but we hardly mention it in our writing. I found this interesting because one criticism I read levelled at fantasy quite often is that writers mention food too much. But perhaps it's just that thing about not being able to please all the people... She said a lot of writers get food right, but a lot more get it wrong, and that anyone who thinks people ate rotten food all the time in the Middle Ages is a zombie. She said spices were more expensive that fresh meat, and anyway rotten food disguised with spices will still give you food poisoning. Touche. I did get to try some Grains of Paradise -- a medieval aphrodisiac. Mmm, quite nice, too.
After this panel Ellen and I checked out the dealers' room, and then swapped notes about the panels we'd missed. Then we rehit the panel trail, marvelling about how some people like us go to cons for the panels, whereas another group rarely go on them.
(v) Teen angst -- Kate Forsyth said that someone said (Susan Cooper, I think, but I wasn't sure) that children are people without the coats of time. Interesting. Pamela Freeman said that she thought fantasy was popular with teens because it has an intensity of experience and element of idealism. Kate Forsyth thought it was because it often has a theme about empowerment. Lucy Sussex talked about the trouble she sometimes has telling whether a review book is meant for YA or adult audiences, and that sometimes price is the best guide. That was quite interesting. Pamela talked about how some people don't have a fictional imagination and are better suited to nonfic.
(vi) I wish I'd thought of that -- Keith Stevenson's talk about his theories of how people get down to write -- ie the pinball theory of creativity, plus some stuff to consider for worldbuilding.
Ellen and I had lunch out, and went out with Steve Gleeson for dinner, which was interesting as he's just come back from Vietnam so had lots to tell us. Anyway, we were late for the Ditmars, and as Ellen and I were on public transport, decided to come home and be very decadent and write. So I'd better heave-to!
25 May 2007
Synopses
Well, in yesterday's post I was talking about contradictory information and conflating that with the synopsis -- or at least I was going to. Don't know how far I got with it, which is the point really of today's post.
Surely nothing gives would-be novelists more headaches than the dreaded synopsis. I own two books that have whole chapters (and more) devoted to this. I have Writer's Digest articles on how to write them -- one memorable one says that each time you introduce a character you should put their whole name in all caps (but only with that first introduction), and all manner of other wonderful layout suggestions, and when I used this template a few years ago, the page looked like the layout had been done by some kid on LSD. There were things in bold and things in italics. And then the Goddess of All-Information That IS Publishing, Miss Snark (the literary agent), said on her blog that all caps in a synopsis drives her crazy!
Of course if you want to know how to write a good synopsis, and haven't heard of Miss Snark, who very sadly has retired from her blog a few days ago, I can do no better than direct you there (see the link under 'Blogs I love') and tell you to hunt out her Crapometers. Just be warned, there are many many hours of reading to be spent trawling this site.
What the Crapometer taught me is that the most important thing about a synopsis is to be interesting. After all, this is a tool of engagement -- or it needs to be. You need to engage the editor or agent you're sending your work to. I rewrote my synopsis at that point, culling back on the number of plot events I covered and focusing a bit more on the main characters and who they were.
But with the different advice I've heard along the way -- well, it's no wonder novelists are intimidated and confused. Do you reveal the ending, for example? Of course. The editor is looking to see that you know how to construct a story, and how can they tell if you don't include the ending? The synopsis isn't meant to be a tease. It isn't the time to be coy. However, when I was at a big workshop a few years ago, one of the well-published novelists (who also taught Creative Writing in higher ed) said that you never, never, never reveal the ending in a synopsis. Huh? When I was talking to some of my fellow compatriots at the time, and said that that advice was contrary to every other thing I'd ever read or heard about writing synopses, they said that now I'd been put straight. Hmmm.
Earlier, I'd done a course with another novelist who showed us her synopses -- just a list of characters and a few lines about what happens. I queried her about whether it wasn't one thing for published novelists and perhaps something different for aspiring novelists, and she said that the first synopsis she had ever sent out had been pretty much the same. So there you go. I guess the bottom line is that it's the writing in your manuscript that counts, but this is another opportunity to grab the editor's (or agent's) attention, and one you don't want to stuff up, because if it's really bad then they won't even get to the manuscript, and that's the last thing any of us wants.
Surely nothing gives would-be novelists more headaches than the dreaded synopsis. I own two books that have whole chapters (and more) devoted to this. I have Writer's Digest articles on how to write them -- one memorable one says that each time you introduce a character you should put their whole name in all caps (but only with that first introduction), and all manner of other wonderful layout suggestions, and when I used this template a few years ago, the page looked like the layout had been done by some kid on LSD. There were things in bold and things in italics. And then the Goddess of All-Information That IS Publishing, Miss Snark (the literary agent), said on her blog that all caps in a synopsis drives her crazy!
Of course if you want to know how to write a good synopsis, and haven't heard of Miss Snark, who very sadly has retired from her blog a few days ago, I can do no better than direct you there (see the link under 'Blogs I love') and tell you to hunt out her Crapometers. Just be warned, there are many many hours of reading to be spent trawling this site.
What the Crapometer taught me is that the most important thing about a synopsis is to be interesting. After all, this is a tool of engagement -- or it needs to be. You need to engage the editor or agent you're sending your work to. I rewrote my synopsis at that point, culling back on the number of plot events I covered and focusing a bit more on the main characters and who they were.
But with the different advice I've heard along the way -- well, it's no wonder novelists are intimidated and confused. Do you reveal the ending, for example? Of course. The editor is looking to see that you know how to construct a story, and how can they tell if you don't include the ending? The synopsis isn't meant to be a tease. It isn't the time to be coy. However, when I was at a big workshop a few years ago, one of the well-published novelists (who also taught Creative Writing in higher ed) said that you never, never, never reveal the ending in a synopsis. Huh? When I was talking to some of my fellow compatriots at the time, and said that that advice was contrary to every other thing I'd ever read or heard about writing synopses, they said that now I'd been put straight. Hmmm.
Earlier, I'd done a course with another novelist who showed us her synopses -- just a list of characters and a few lines about what happens. I queried her about whether it wasn't one thing for published novelists and perhaps something different for aspiring novelists, and she said that the first synopsis she had ever sent out had been pretty much the same. So there you go. I guess the bottom line is that it's the writing in your manuscript that counts, but this is another opportunity to grab the editor's (or agent's) attention, and one you don't want to stuff up, because if it's really bad then they won't even get to the manuscript, and that's the last thing any of us wants.
24 May 2007
POV markers
I was leafing through one of my tried and trusted writing books the other day -- one called Scene and structure by Jack Bickham -- one of the many excellent productions put out by Writers Digest. Honestly, I can't extol the virtues of these books enough. I loved them before I ever started teaching writing, and once I started teaching I found them a godsend.
Anyway, Scene and structure was the one book that really nailed home the importance of causality in a story. Cause and effect -- even on a sentence letter. (Eg why "After I ate dinner, I went out" is a better sentence than "I ate dinner after I went out". Whereas if that had read "before" the second would be better -- it's all about information being presented in causal order.) He has lots on cause and effect, and stimulus and response, and this was vital to my own understanding of writing better fiction and to the way I taught this aspect of fiction.
So, it was with some bemusement that I came across a section where he talked about POV markers -- words a writer uses to tell a reader whose POV they're in. Words like "he felt", "she saw" etc. Words that I think tell the reader about what the character is experiencing when really the writer should be showing them. I think that if the writer has written something from firmly within the character's POV, the reader understands that they are feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing these things, so putting these markers in is the exact opposite to what I'm telling my students, which is: take them out.
Anything in moderation is okay. If you're writing in first person and have an "I felt" every ten pages or so, that's fine, but if you've got several on every page, I'm going to be thinking that you're not deeply enough inside your POV character's head. It's something I seem to say a lot in class: "You need a closer POV". I want my students to write from the inside out, to be the character (or at least think like him or her) while they're writing. Readers today are so much more used to intimacy with a character -- whether it's in first person or third-person multiple viewpoints. I think that lack of intimacy is why third-person omniscient (where the writer can dip in and out of any character's head, and even give their own thoughts on the matter at hand) feels dated today (though you do still see it in spec fic writing quite a bit).
So, I'm interested in what other writers think. Do you consciously put POV markers into your text, or are you like me and try to avoid them?
In any case, the Bickham book is still worth a read for all his great stuff on causality, and on other structural elements too. But perhaps it's a reminder that opinions differ -- I shudder when I think of all the different information I've heard about synopses, and how contradictory it all is. But that's something for a future post.
Anyway, Scene and structure was the one book that really nailed home the importance of causality in a story. Cause and effect -- even on a sentence letter. (Eg why "After I ate dinner, I went out" is a better sentence than "I ate dinner after I went out". Whereas if that had read "before" the second would be better -- it's all about information being presented in causal order.) He has lots on cause and effect, and stimulus and response, and this was vital to my own understanding of writing better fiction and to the way I taught this aspect of fiction.
So, it was with some bemusement that I came across a section where he talked about POV markers -- words a writer uses to tell a reader whose POV they're in. Words like "he felt", "she saw" etc. Words that I think tell the reader about what the character is experiencing when really the writer should be showing them. I think that if the writer has written something from firmly within the character's POV, the reader understands that they are feeling, seeing, smelling, hearing these things, so putting these markers in is the exact opposite to what I'm telling my students, which is: take them out.
Anything in moderation is okay. If you're writing in first person and have an "I felt" every ten pages or so, that's fine, but if you've got several on every page, I'm going to be thinking that you're not deeply enough inside your POV character's head. It's something I seem to say a lot in class: "You need a closer POV". I want my students to write from the inside out, to be the character (or at least think like him or her) while they're writing. Readers today are so much more used to intimacy with a character -- whether it's in first person or third-person multiple viewpoints. I think that lack of intimacy is why third-person omniscient (where the writer can dip in and out of any character's head, and even give their own thoughts on the matter at hand) feels dated today (though you do still see it in spec fic writing quite a bit).
So, I'm interested in what other writers think. Do you consciously put POV markers into your text, or are you like me and try to avoid them?
In any case, the Bickham book is still worth a read for all his great stuff on causality, and on other structural elements too. But perhaps it's a reminder that opinions differ -- I shudder when I think of all the different information I've heard about synopses, and how contradictory it all is. But that's something for a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)