I did some checking about the amount of time I spent writing Book 3. It appears it took five months to belch out that draft. During that time I did little else in the way of side projects and other distractions. Now that it is complete, a great weight has been lifted from me. Revision takes much less work because I go more slowly and only do small bits of work here and there.
This approach works well for me when revising and it gives me time for other things in my life. This is good timing because with Spring arriving I will want to spend time outside to tend to the garden, the tree, and the yard.
This means a lot more time thinking about the events in Book 2 and the new characters that are introduced. Given that the book is over 100,000 words (a personal best) it means I've got a lot of work ahead of me. Hope it it ready to go by December.
But that's not the only potential pitfall. In Book 2 several of the main characters get fleshed out. The issue here is the fine line between drama and dramatizing scenes and melodrama (the type of thing you see in soap operas and reality TV shows). I want drama; I eschew melodrama.
But the whole young adult crazy in fiction now seems to thrive on melodrama. I find myself slipping down that path. The good news is now is the time to revise it out of my story. This is one reason I am proceeding slowly through the book. I need to find the words and scenes that don't belong and remove them or change them so that the text sings.
Essentially this means I'm doing a developmental edit, a copy edit, and a review for word choice and sentence variation all at once. I doubt I could go much faster even if I wanted to.
I think the editor is getting this after I'm done, just to make sure nothing fell through the cracks.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Back to the Future
Time to return to the 21st century, I think. Over the weekend I completed the draft of Book 3 (67,000+ words) so it is time to go back to revising Book 2. The plan is to revise and polish the novel so that is ready for release by the end of the year. That should be possible, but we'll see.
The method I used for writing Book 3 was very old school; I was chained to my desktop computer typing. There is no point to that in an age of mobile devices, but the iPad keyboard does not work well for typing. I make many more typos that I would at my desktop computer. I have since purchased a wireless keyboard for the device so perhaps the iPad will work out better for Book 4.
The technique I'm using for editing Book 2 is one of my own devising. I read it on my Kindle and make notes. Then I transcribe the notes to my draft on my computer. This is a little labor-intensive but it worked really well for Book 1 and avoids the need of editing on paper. I want to avoid using paper and printer ink for environmental reasons. That's why I devised another approach in the first place. It also seems to me to the way to go in the future. I'm thinking that printers attached to computers may very well be as obsolete now as typewriters.
Theoretically, if I want a less labor-intensive approach, I should be able to edit the draft of my novel on my iPad more easily. The problem is edits are not setoff in anyway, the way one might Track Changes in Word. And I need to track my edits so I can review them after I make them. Only in this way do I know if the edit is right and does what I want.
As you can see, I am taking a lot of care in the editing process -- perhaps too much. But I think it is worth it. I need to make sure the text says what I want to convey and that is often hard because English is such a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, this is how I got Book 1 to sing. And this is how I will polish my work.
And in case you are thinking of trying this yourself, please don't. My methods work for me because I am the one using them. You will need different methods because you think differently and have different associations. So experiment and see what works for you.
The method I used for writing Book 3 was very old school; I was chained to my desktop computer typing. There is no point to that in an age of mobile devices, but the iPad keyboard does not work well for typing. I make many more typos that I would at my desktop computer. I have since purchased a wireless keyboard for the device so perhaps the iPad will work out better for Book 4.
The technique I'm using for editing Book 2 is one of my own devising. I read it on my Kindle and make notes. Then I transcribe the notes to my draft on my computer. This is a little labor-intensive but it worked really well for Book 1 and avoids the need of editing on paper. I want to avoid using paper and printer ink for environmental reasons. That's why I devised another approach in the first place. It also seems to me to the way to go in the future. I'm thinking that printers attached to computers may very well be as obsolete now as typewriters.
Theoretically, if I want a less labor-intensive approach, I should be able to edit the draft of my novel on my iPad more easily. The problem is edits are not setoff in anyway, the way one might Track Changes in Word. And I need to track my edits so I can review them after I make them. Only in this way do I know if the edit is right and does what I want.
As you can see, I am taking a lot of care in the editing process -- perhaps too much. But I think it is worth it. I need to make sure the text says what I want to convey and that is often hard because English is such a blunt instrument. Nevertheless, this is how I got Book 1 to sing. And this is how I will polish my work.
And in case you are thinking of trying this yourself, please don't. My methods work for me because I am the one using them. You will need different methods because you think differently and have different associations. So experiment and see what works for you.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Blogging 102
I've been told by various people and sources the same thing about blogging:
Seriously? Is this right? I'm thinking only in part. Sure, I want to provide useful information to my readers. But how do I know what you will find useful? Sometimes I strike a nerve, but I'm guessing I miss the mark as often as I hit it or perhaps I don't hit the mark very often at all. I really don't know since I almost never heard from my readers.
And in regards to being or sounding like an expert, please. Who is going to believe that I, a struggling writer with only a few successes to his credit is an expert on writing, publishing, and technology? Sure I can give you my opinion, and what I learn as I go, but an expert? More importantly, I notice that the people who I consider experts on writing, for example, don't give advice. They write books.
And lastly, regarding the frequency with which I blog, I've been writing Mondays and Fridays, for almost two years now. The audience I've attracted (assuming I've done that) I think is more from my asking people to follow the blog on Facebook than anything else. And I've connected the blog to GoodReads and Twitter and that doesn't seem to have helped. Although, as an aside, the number of Twitter followers is growing but I don't think that has anything to do with the blog, per se.
The bottom line here is I doubt the three points stated at the top of this post are completely correct and accurate. It sounds to me to be poor advice but the only advice people have to give because they really don't know what works.
And in this world of mis-information that we live in I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. What do you think?
P.S. I also been told to end blog posts with a question for readers and voice an opinion. In the words of Rocket J. Squirrel. "The trick never works."
- I need to provide useful information to the readers of the blog.
- I need to sound like (or be) and expert on the subject or subjects upon which I blog.
- I need to blog frequently enough to attract an audience.
Seriously? Is this right? I'm thinking only in part. Sure, I want to provide useful information to my readers. But how do I know what you will find useful? Sometimes I strike a nerve, but I'm guessing I miss the mark as often as I hit it or perhaps I don't hit the mark very often at all. I really don't know since I almost never heard from my readers.
And in regards to being or sounding like an expert, please. Who is going to believe that I, a struggling writer with only a few successes to his credit is an expert on writing, publishing, and technology? Sure I can give you my opinion, and what I learn as I go, but an expert? More importantly, I notice that the people who I consider experts on writing, for example, don't give advice. They write books.
And lastly, regarding the frequency with which I blog, I've been writing Mondays and Fridays, for almost two years now. The audience I've attracted (assuming I've done that) I think is more from my asking people to follow the blog on Facebook than anything else. And I've connected the blog to GoodReads and Twitter and that doesn't seem to have helped. Although, as an aside, the number of Twitter followers is growing but I don't think that has anything to do with the blog, per se.
The bottom line here is I doubt the three points stated at the top of this post are completely correct and accurate. It sounds to me to be poor advice but the only advice people have to give because they really don't know what works.
And in this world of mis-information that we live in I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. What do you think?
P.S. I also been told to end blog posts with a question for readers and voice an opinion. In the words of Rocket J. Squirrel. "The trick never works."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Selecting a Publisher
If you are self-publishing and have no interest in a more traditional approach, this post is not for you. But if you want some assistance with the process of finding a publisher, keep reading.
Selecting a publisher, one that you'll enjoy working with is like selecting a car to drive, or a college to attend, or an employer -- it requires work on your end to do the research you need.
You need to do this research up front in case they accept your submission. I almost never do that work because I almost always get rejected. Almost. And, of course, the one time I don't do that work up front is the one time I am accepted.
Not that is a big deal. Even if you want to do the research after you are accepted, most publisher deals are limited to a number of years. So if you decide to go ahead and take the deal, it won't last forever. Additionally, it is often hard to know exactly what a publisher is going to be like until you work with them, despite the research you do. In this way, selecting a publisher is like going to work for someone else, which you are in a sense. I all the jobs I've ever taken, I never know what it is like working there until I take the job and work there.
Still, you want to do some research up front. For example, you want to know which companies regularly publish in your genre and which companies accept submissions from new writers. Writer's Market is a source for some of this information. You can also search online.
From experience I can tell you, you'll want to focus on small presses. These are small publishing houses that rely on new talent to grow. Note that not all small presses are equal. I find some are really no more than one person doing most of the work. I call these place micro presses (like a microbrewery). I'm not a big fan of micro presses but like everything else there are good ones and bad ones.
Above all, check the web site Editors and Predators to stay away from know bad publishers.
You also want to talk to people who have published with the press you are thinking of using. The simple way to do this is to contact them through their author web sites. You can get a list of names by checking the publisher's category of published writers.
If you find an author has no web site, then try Facebook to see if they are active there.
So good luck with your search; hope you find what you are looking for.
Selecting a publisher, one that you'll enjoy working with is like selecting a car to drive, or a college to attend, or an employer -- it requires work on your end to do the research you need.
You need to do this research up front in case they accept your submission. I almost never do that work because I almost always get rejected. Almost. And, of course, the one time I don't do that work up front is the one time I am accepted.
Not that is a big deal. Even if you want to do the research after you are accepted, most publisher deals are limited to a number of years. So if you decide to go ahead and take the deal, it won't last forever. Additionally, it is often hard to know exactly what a publisher is going to be like until you work with them, despite the research you do. In this way, selecting a publisher is like going to work for someone else, which you are in a sense. I all the jobs I've ever taken, I never know what it is like working there until I take the job and work there.
Still, you want to do some research up front. For example, you want to know which companies regularly publish in your genre and which companies accept submissions from new writers. Writer's Market is a source for some of this information. You can also search online.
From experience I can tell you, you'll want to focus on small presses. These are small publishing houses that rely on new talent to grow. Note that not all small presses are equal. I find some are really no more than one person doing most of the work. I call these place micro presses (like a microbrewery). I'm not a big fan of micro presses but like everything else there are good ones and bad ones.
Above all, check the web site Editors and Predators to stay away from know bad publishers.
You also want to talk to people who have published with the press you are thinking of using. The simple way to do this is to contact them through their author web sites. You can get a list of names by checking the publisher's category of published writers.
If you find an author has no web site, then try Facebook to see if they are active there.
So good luck with your search; hope you find what you are looking for.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Voice and Tone
I was reading a call for submission to anthology the other day. I do this from the small presses that I watch to see if:
a. The call for submission will spark an idea in my head for a story (I don't know why I do that; I'm busy enough, thank you)
b. I can, then, write something for their need.
This almost never works but when it does I usually hit on something good.
This last time got to write a short little piece that is very different from my usual stuff because it was written in the first person. I almost never write fantasy stories in the first person. But more importantly, the story relies heavily on the voice and tone of the narration.
The use of voice and tone is not an unfamiliar one to me. I first learned about it while writing poetry. My Last Duchess, by Robert Browning, is a perfect example. And I have some poems that rely on voice and that work well. But I've not used that technique in fiction, except perhaps, when written dialogue.
And as I think about it, first person stories work best when the voice and tone of the narrator matches the character that is speaking. That means you've really got to know that person well so you can write the narration the way he or she would. It requires close attention to the words used and the way thoughts are expressed.
For example, in my story, the narrator hates humans. He hates their smell and their taste and says so. I focus on these two senses because for the narrator these senses are the most important. To that end, the story opens with the narrator describing the joy she feels in the smell of her cave. The rich aroma of stone and gold mingling. And the cool air which she prefers to the hot wind driven by the sun outside.
So if you are writing in the first person spend some time with your narrator first. It will pay off in the end.
a. The call for submission will spark an idea in my head for a story (I don't know why I do that; I'm busy enough, thank you)
b. I can, then, write something for their need.
This almost never works but when it does I usually hit on something good.
This last time got to write a short little piece that is very different from my usual stuff because it was written in the first person. I almost never write fantasy stories in the first person. But more importantly, the story relies heavily on the voice and tone of the narration.
The use of voice and tone is not an unfamiliar one to me. I first learned about it while writing poetry. My Last Duchess, by Robert Browning, is a perfect example. And I have some poems that rely on voice and that work well. But I've not used that technique in fiction, except perhaps, when written dialogue.
And as I think about it, first person stories work best when the voice and tone of the narrator matches the character that is speaking. That means you've really got to know that person well so you can write the narration the way he or she would. It requires close attention to the words used and the way thoughts are expressed.
For example, in my story, the narrator hates humans. He hates their smell and their taste and says so. I focus on these two senses because for the narrator these senses are the most important. To that end, the story opens with the narrator describing the joy she feels in the smell of her cave. The rich aroma of stone and gold mingling. And the cool air which she prefers to the hot wind driven by the sun outside.
So if you are writing in the first person spend some time with your narrator first. It will pay off in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)