OK, it's time to stop hating the "gatekeepers"--if you haven't already.
In fact, it's long past time to quit hating on them.
Because what we've got by sidestepping the gatekeepers now is a whole swackload of really, really bad books out there. Books that are taking our money and giving us dreck in return.
Now, don't get me wrong. We've always had that swackload, in various quantities, floating around. It's been out there from the first days writers have tried to break down the doors of publishing houses and slip their "babies" in. The difference between that previous condition and what we have now, however, is that now that swackload is publishing themselves, or getting published by small or indie presses...and the result is, shall we say, underwhelming.
OK, let's cut to the chase. It's awful.
CAVEAT: Do not construe this in any way as a generic slam against indie and/or small presses. Do not put those words in my mouth; I'll spit 'em right back at you, with barbs attached. I'm published with small presses myself. I love small presses for many reasons--as long as they do as good a job with their own "gatekeepers" in place as the big monoliths do.
Trouble is...most times, they don't.
I hate saying this. I really hate saying this.
But, unfortunately, it increasingly is the truth.
And it makes a bunch of people in the publishing business look like babbling fools.
The "hatred" of the so-called gatekeepers isn't really anything new. Those first readers, agents, assistants, and others who kept our "darlings" from seeing the true decision-makers in publishing have been maligned for ages. They've been called petty, small-minded drones whose only concern is the bottom line. They've been called ignoramuses who wouldn't know great literature if it walked up and bit them in the neck. They've been called these, and other more unsavory things--once again--since the first writer tried to slip a Magnum Opus, scribbled in crayon on the back of an envelope, over the proverbial transom or under the proverbial door. Why? Because they stopped those Magnum Opera from ever getting near a publishing committee...and therefore, near a paying public. And many, many, many times, that was a splendid and selfless thing to do.
Why splendid? Because when we saw a book get published in the past, we knew--or at least we could be fairly certain--that the book itself would meet certain minimum criteria. It would have a degree of readability. It would have basic conventions of grammar, spelling, punctuation, et al, generally observed and would make a degree of sense (James Joyce notwithstanding). It would, in short, be something that--odds are--not only met a basic benchmark of clarity and comprehensibility but was worth spending a few bucks and a few hours on. We may not fall in love with every book we bought, but at least we wouldn't feel like someone had robbed us of money or time under false colors.
And why selfless? Check out the pay scales for those gatekeepers, and that'll speak for itself. The great majority of editors in big houses begin as assistants to assistants and work their way up. Which means that their starting pay, if five of them room together in an apartment, might get them a decent place without bars on the windows, graffiti on the walls, or shots echoing around the neighborhood at night. Maybe. If you're one of the few people left in the world who really thinks that "working in publishing" means you have a private windowed office overlooking the Hudson and/or Empire State Building, a great little "flat" in Soho or Chelsea or the Upper East/West Side, and that you spend the majority of your day with your feet propped up reading great stuff, in between schmoozing with name authors and agents and discovering the Next Big Thing...
Excuse me. I need to stop snorting now.
But despite these aspects of their trade, which most of them plied without complaint or (much) cussing, these first readers, assistants, and the like have taken a lot of abuse from outsiders in the industry. You know the type: they're the ones screaming about "artistic freedom" and "innovation" and bemoaning the "cookie cutter" aspects of publishing.
The flip side? Much of what they say is, unfortunately, true. Publishing is by and large not run by people who love books; it's run by people who look at books as "product" (which they are) that should turn a profit (which it should!)...and less as artistic achievement--or, as Randy Ingermanson so wonderfully puts it, "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius."
But the resulting "publishing" climate that has grown out of this urge for new, fresh, innovative, and "creative" hasn't resulted in what these people have claimed to want, either. Yes, it's resulted in a more "level playing field." But are arts really about everyone competing on a "level playing field"? Are they even supposed to be?
I would submit that no, they're not.
Arts are not democracies. They never were meant to be that in the first place. Yes, everyone should participate in artistic and creative endeavors. But there still has to be a quality-control system in place so that little Johnny, sawing away on a Suzuki mini-violin, isn't afforded the same performing venue as Itzhak Perlman. He simply hasn't earned it yet, no matter how many participation ribbons his proud parents put up on the wall. He's got years ahead of him to continue to learn the art. To refine it. To understand its nuances, its conventions, its "rules" and its boundaries. If he chooses to break out of any of those things before the time is right, he won't sound brilliant; he'll simply sound unpracticed and unprepared. And no amount of validation of his early efforts will change the fact that, as far as true art is concerned, he's simply not ready. He won't provide a rich musical experience. He may provide an exciting one, a promising one, or an unusual one--but just as likely, he'll simply provide noise.
And noise, no matter how you disguise it, cloak it, label it, or package it, is not music.
Just as "published," no matter how you cloak it, label it, or package it, no longer is any guarantee that a book is ready for public consumption.
But nothing is more apparent in our present publishing climate than a swackload of these not-ready-for-prime-time books getting out there and pretending to be ready.
And their authors truly think they are. No one, after all, gets up in the morning and says, "Today I'm gonna write a really awful book." So they create, without many "rules" and without any "gatekeepers," and they put it out there...truly believing that no one has the "right" to tell them that it's not ready yet.
Well, guess what?
That notion is wrong.
Someone does have the "right" to tell you that you may not be ready yet.
That someone is a gatekeeper. In the case of the arts, it's a teacher, it's a coach, it's a performance jury, or the like. In the case of publishing, it's still a first reader, an assistant, an associate editor, an agent...or whatever title the gatekeeper goes by.
Yes, gatekeepers can make mistakes. And sometimes, especially nowadays, gatekeepers aren't as well-trained as they used to be (partly due to that pesky "level playing field" notion that leads people to think "anyone can do this").
But as they move up in experience and savvy, they won't make anywhere near as egregious a mistake as many, many authors, self-publishers, and small publishers are making nowadays in pushing inferior, badly written, and error-ridden stuff into the marketplace.
Folks who hate the "gatekeepers" are fond of telling us, "Don't worry, the market will correct itself. Those books simply won't sell."
Guess what?
That's wrong, too.
Because the public--even a discerning public--can't tell the difference between a book that looks ready to go and one that actually is. Some of these books are amazingly disguised. Some of them have great cover art, and almost all of them have superb reviews posted online. The brutal truth is, however, that most of them cannot begin to live up to either.
So how is "the marketplace" gonna correct that one?
And when is it gonna start?
I would submit that we already had a pretty good preventive system in place.
Certainly it wasn't always "fair," and certainly it could become hidebound and downright idiotic in what it pursued.
(It still is, at times.)
But at least it was fairer than subjecting consumers like me to thousands and thousands of books that all claim to be ready, all will take my money...and in the end, will rob me of both money and time by being anywhere from merely boring to unspeakably bad.
Those books wouldn't have gotten past gatekeepers in the past.
They didn't deserve to.
They still don't.
And in this way, then, the "experiment" has failed.
How do we fix this?
And which of you strident "anti-gatekeeper" folks is willing to underwrite my next few purchases, so that I can support this Brave New World of deserving writers without getting fleeced by all the ones out there who may as well have put masks on before they sold me their shoddy merchandise?
Thoughts?
Janny
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
The Mutually Exclusive Goal Dilemma
...so I'm thinking that what I really need to do is get out to more writers' conferences and do more speaking, teaching, workshops, etc., for writers. I enjoy it, they seem to enjoy it, and I can do some traveling and get juiced up for my writing at the same time.
Sounds like a great plan, doesn't it? And there was a fall several years ago when I did just that. I spoke at three separate conferences within two months. It was rather a trip, in more ways than one. I loved going around acting like a Big Shot--and at one conference, I won not one but TWO gift baskets. 'twas the only time I ever shipped things home from a conference!
But there's only one problem.
I'm discovering that I don't nearly love to travel as much as I once did.
There was a time when staying in a hotel was a treat.
It's not so much of one anymore, for a couple of reasons.
Some of those reasons have to do with recent travel, where I've been traveling with the family for family stuff instead of anything to do with craft, writers, writing, free lunches, or gift baskets. :-)
Another reason is...I miss my cats. Big-time. Especially my little girl cat, Cassie.
Don't laugh. Lots of people miss their animals when they travel. When I had to leave her for six months when we were going through the relocation here, she basically shifted her allegiance to my husband for a long time and almost had no use for me--after being my "baby" before then. Fortunately, things have evened out now that we've been together again. But she's also gone through some health problems that I've done a lot to nurse her through, and she has once again become my "baby." Literally. When I get in bed, she is on top of me. She's on my head, on my shoulder, on my pillow, or curled up next to me pretty much all night...purring the whole time.
That's not an easy thing to go to bed without now. I even miss it when I'm only gone one night. I find myself wanting to run back home and cuddle with my kitten!
It's not practical to take her on the road, just in case you're wondering. We do transport cats in carriers when we need to--for moves and vets and such--but I would not want to go through the stress of flying with her, even if I did end up in an animal-friendly situation at the hotel in question. (Which most of the time, I wouldn't.)
Added to that a very real love for Being Home instead of Being On The Road...and I have a dilemma.
Day-trips are a possibility--but unless they're literally right next door, they're more exhausting than they're worth.
So what's a writer/speaker to do?
I can apply for some workshops, some conferences, and have the "high" of doing that writing-show thing again. But I'll be missing home way more than I ever used to when I'm doing it.
And I'm wondering how to reconcile those two incompatible goals.
Ideas?
Janny
Sounds like a great plan, doesn't it? And there was a fall several years ago when I did just that. I spoke at three separate conferences within two months. It was rather a trip, in more ways than one. I loved going around acting like a Big Shot--and at one conference, I won not one but TWO gift baskets. 'twas the only time I ever shipped things home from a conference!
But there's only one problem.
I'm discovering that I don't nearly love to travel as much as I once did.
There was a time when staying in a hotel was a treat.
It's not so much of one anymore, for a couple of reasons.
Some of those reasons have to do with recent travel, where I've been traveling with the family for family stuff instead of anything to do with craft, writers, writing, free lunches, or gift baskets. :-)
Another reason is...I miss my cats. Big-time. Especially my little girl cat, Cassie.
Don't laugh. Lots of people miss their animals when they travel. When I had to leave her for six months when we were going through the relocation here, she basically shifted her allegiance to my husband for a long time and almost had no use for me--after being my "baby" before then. Fortunately, things have evened out now that we've been together again. But she's also gone through some health problems that I've done a lot to nurse her through, and she has once again become my "baby." Literally. When I get in bed, she is on top of me. She's on my head, on my shoulder, on my pillow, or curled up next to me pretty much all night...purring the whole time.
That's not an easy thing to go to bed without now. I even miss it when I'm only gone one night. I find myself wanting to run back home and cuddle with my kitten!
It's not practical to take her on the road, just in case you're wondering. We do transport cats in carriers when we need to--for moves and vets and such--but I would not want to go through the stress of flying with her, even if I did end up in an animal-friendly situation at the hotel in question. (Which most of the time, I wouldn't.)
Added to that a very real love for Being Home instead of Being On The Road...and I have a dilemma.
Day-trips are a possibility--but unless they're literally right next door, they're more exhausting than they're worth.
So what's a writer/speaker to do?
I can apply for some workshops, some conferences, and have the "high" of doing that writing-show thing again. But I'll be missing home way more than I ever used to when I'm doing it.
And I'm wondering how to reconcile those two incompatible goals.
Ideas?
Janny
The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really. Part 4--The Final Chapter.
Stuck with it this long? Good! We're about to wrap up this mini-series, so grab a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy this last piece of the puzzle.
We've talked about what to watch out for in the editorial biz. We've talked about "red flags" you should notice, and those that you ignore at your own peril. And we've talked about a couple of key attributes a good editor has: namely, competence and humility--which can be considered as complementary halves of the same coin.
Now, let's talk about some other aspects of good editing and good editorial experiences. What else should you expect from a good editor?
1. A good editor will respect both you and your voice.
You might think this is a given, but it's not. We've talked earlier about editors who don't respect what you're doing, don't like your genre or look down on it, or belittle or ridicule authors out of some misguided attempt to "make them tough." None of these things is the mark of a good editor. When we talk about editorial "humility" as a virtue, we're not just talking about the "head" knowledge an editor has; we're also talking about their "heart." If you ever get the feeling an editor's "heart" is not in the right place, this is not a good editor for your work. And that includes editors who will mess with your "voice."
The converse to that is, however, that you be honest about the difference between "unique voice" and sloppiness. :-) I wish I had a dollar for every naive young author who, when told to correct things like failure to capitalize, spell correctly, or punctuate and/or use the correct word somewhere, countered with, "But that's part of my voice." No, no, and no again. Your "voice" has nothing to do with bad storytelling techniques, awkward sentence structure, or "breaking the rules just to break them." If you know anything at all about the language, you know that any deviation you do from standard written English will result in a "ding" it its clarity. You don't want "dings." These things get in the way, just like spots get in the way of a clear view through a window. Make your writing as spot-free as possible; if you do that, a good editor will discern your "voice" and respect it, even if he/she forces you to do some heavy-duty literary "earth moving" in other ways.
2. A good editor will have a degree of flexibility and not be afraid to use it.
It might sound contradictory to stress format, correctness, and transparency as much as I do...and then sound like I'm saying the opposite in the next point. I'm not. I'm merely saying that a good editor will not "pontificate." It won't be "my way or the highway" unless the change the editor insists upon truly IS a deal-breaker for his/her house or for the sake of the readability of the manuscript. There are cases like that, and writers need to respect them.
But in the great majority of cases, such as if you're using a freelance editor to improve the book prior to sending it to a publisher or agent, a good editor will be willing to meet you halfway. If a requested change sticks in your craw, don't be afraid to ask about a compromise...or to ignore it entirely. Odds are pretty good that either the editor won't notice it--it happens!--or, if he/she does and asks about it, and you explain your reasons, the editor will go with your judgment. If he/she does not, be sure you know why not. It could mean the difference between a faux-pas in your book that you don't want out there...and prose that sings. Most good editors err on the side of the singing!
3. A good editor will be a good communicator.
You'd think it would be a "given" that a person who works with words all the time would know how to stay in touch with authors and other clients...but sometimes, it's not. We've all heard the horror stories of so-called editing professionals who take on a task and then are never heard from for weeks, or months. If at any time you get the feeling that this person may be one of those reclusive silent types, address that issue before you hand over your "baby." Otherwise, it can feel like you've thrown your work down a black hole, and no author deserves that treatment. You're paying this editor for a professional job; part of that professionalism is regular progress reports and quick answers to any questions you have.
What's "quick" and "regular"? Rule of thumb: if you send an e-mail to an editor, he or she should be back to you with some kind of response within the week. I won't say 24 hours, because that's blazing fast, and some of us don't check e-mails more than once a day; anything past five or more days, however, you have a right to question. Treat this working relationship as if you're in the same physical office building together. You wouldn't accept "black holes" there, and you shouldn't accept them in this relationship, even if it's conducted from half a world apart.
Finally...let's get to the nitty-gritty, one of the biggest stumbling blocks on either side of the editorial equation.
4. A good editor will not come cheap.
This is worth repeating (although I won't). But it is worth saying, and saying over and over again--if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it. That's just common sense, but it's absolutely stunning how much common sense flies out the window when it comes to having one's work edited.
Why is that? One answer: too much misinformation is out there about the writing and publishing business. Yes, it's good to educate oneself. But if writers read enough horror stories about "greedy editors" who want "too much money" to "do nothing," they all too often get convinced that if you ask for money at all, you're suspect...and if you ask for a substantial amount of money, you're probably crooked in some way.
Don't fall for it. You get what you pay for...in this area, as in all other aspects of "real life."
This is not to say that you shouldn't take some of this guidance; much of it is sound. And, of course, you can shop around--and you should. Rates will range from as low as $25 or $50 for a complete book edit all the way up to my rates ($5 per 250-word page) and even higher, especially if you're hiring a "book doctor" who also claims to have connections to other media. Much of what you decide to do with a book "doctor" or editor will depend on your budget. That being said, however, resist the urge to go with the low-ball bid strictly on price alone. I've seen $50 edits; trust me, you don't want one for your book. :-) 'nuff said.
When you do compare prices, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Some people's idea of a "book edit" is little more than proofreading: they check obvious typos, they check spelling, and they check to see if your sentences appear to make sense. Unfortunately, some of these people use software to do those checks--which is never a good idea. Word's grammar check alone is so full of errors that, using it as a guide, you will start with something written right and end up with it wrong. (Clearly, Word did not use a good editor for their software "rules"!) Even if these folks do a personal edit, however, they're not necessarily going to examine your storytelling skills, catch plot holes, find things like name changes for a character, etc. And most people I know want all those kinds of things caught in an "edit" as well as the "basics." So when you're comparing, take notes on who offers what--and know what you're going to pay for before you commit. If you want a comprehensive, exhaustive edit such as the kind I (and many other seasoned pros) give, expect to pay at the upper end of the pricing scale rather than the lower end.
One caveat: be aware of the differences in prices--and time frames--per word versus per "page." Pages can be literally any length nowadays, depending on how the writer sets up the manuscript. Obviously, a "page" with 350 words will take longer to edit than one with 250 words, so estimates you receive should reflect that. When I give quotes nowadays, especially for clients who want a "flat-fee" estimate, I tend to do them on per-word rates rather than "per page." It's far more accurate and fair to both sides.
The other rate option is a per-hour rate; that can sound pricey at first, but if you've got a very clean manuscript, it can actually be cheaper to hire a high-per-hour rate editor than one who gives you a flat-fee quote. The higher per-hour editor often is better qualified and will work faster...which means that you pay a modest fee, get a quick turnaround, and have great results that fit your budget.
Such a deal, huh?
Whatever deal you strike, with whatever editor you choose...make sure you know what you're getting, when you're supposed to get it, and what you're paying for it up front. That way, you'll know if you're not getting what you paid for, and you can take steps accordingly. But if you exercise reasonable caution, you shouldn't end up on those "writer alert" boards complaining--or have to pay twice for an edit that should be done right the first time.
Good luck!
=======================
This installment concludes our quick-and-dirty course in Editor Wisdom 101. I hope the info here has been useful, valuable, and helpful. Any feedback you want to put in here will be appreciated!
Thanks for listening...
Janny
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Free Yourself! Throw Out The Lists! Just Write!
....just don't ask me to read and applaud what you come up with.
Deal?
OK, let me backtrack a touch here, or none of this will make sense.
At this time of the year, it's a very popular thing to decide that one is going to "free" oneself to be "truly creative." Sounds terrific, doesn't it? Free yourself. Quit standing in your own way. Quit telling yourself you "have" to do things a certain way for them to be "right."
All that stuff sounds truly enlightened. It sounds like an ideal way to create. Just sit down...and let yourself fly. What happens will be from the heart, and pure, and beautiful!!!!
If I've seen one expression of this sentiment, I've seen a dozen.
And every single one of them grates on my nerves like nails on a blackboard. (Or a plastic knife on Styrofoam, which is even worse. Trust me on this.)
Why is that?
It's because proclaiming that to the wrong audience is pure poppycock.
It's not only a lie...it's a lie that can devastate the very creativity it's trying to free.
At the very least, it encourages--yea, practically demands--mediocrity.
It baptizes it and calls it brilliant.
And it's a disgrace.
Now, this may puzzle you.
You may come away from that statement thinking I just don't believe in creativity.
That I find it threatening in some fashion that people are willing to toss away rules and just "fly." That somehow, because I make so much of my living on the other side of the desk, I've lost the joy of pure creation and want everyone to fit in a "box."
None of that is true, no matter what you might think at first.
As a matter of fact, I'm a great fan of creativity.
I'm just not a great fan of ignorant "creativity."
Of which we have so many examples in the publishing world now, it hurts to talk about them.
A word to the creatively wise--or those of you who would be--then, certainly seems in order.
What these sentiments don't tell you is the crux of the matter.
Which is that creativity, in order to be truly productive and to end with something worthwhile...
...needs a bit of structure.
Stop screaming. I promise, it's not gonna hurt as much as you think.
The hard, grownup truth of the matter is that you are not creative despite the structure within which you work; you are, more often than not, more creative because of that same structure.
Michelangelo splattering paint in general patterns on the Sistine Chapel might have been creative. But it wouldn't have been awe-inspiring, edifying, and instructive--not to mention holy work--the way it came about when he planned out what he was going to do and was willing to spend those months on his back making it happen.
In other words...overall, for most creativity, a structure is a help, not a hindrance. In fact, most of the time, it's the only way that creativity gets channeled to bring about a successful and truly beautiful result.
If you've been told otherwise, you've been lied to.
And I don't care how far up the creative ladder the person was who told you that.
Because they lied.
Deliberately? Nope.
More than likely, they truly believe what they're telling you.
But many of these brilliant, accomplished people are guilty of forgetting one thing: whom they're talking to. Because if you're a brilliant, accomplished person, and you're talking to newbies, you may forget that you're a long way from being in their shoes anymore.
And that's the problem.
Had someone told you, as a beginner, that you should just sit down, ignore all the structures and rules and potential labor-saving advice out there, and allow yourself to "fly"...you probably wouldn't have become a brilliant, successful, and accomplished member of your profession.
(Maybe you tried it, in fact, and discovered the hard way that it didn't work!)
That's why it pays to remember that the ability to do what you do now, to use your creativity to its fullest extent, didn't just fall out of a tree and hit you in the head.
You had to seek it out. You had to learn it.
And, to a great extent, what you sought and had to master was the structure that would enable your work to see the greatest chances for success.
Think about it.
If you're a novelist, what's the best way for your story to see success?
Is it via 90,000 words of free verse?
Is it conveyed well in 300 pages of self-illustrated haiku?
Is it told in newspaper columns, Tweets, or Facebook posts?
Of course not.
It's in the form of a book. With chapters. With scenes. With conflict. With characters who show certain traits, talk a certain way, believe a certain way, and will portray your story in a certain way. For readers who read a certain way and like their stories to unfold a certain way.
In other words, folks...in a structure.
In a shape.
In a format.
Something that requires thought, not just raw emotion, unfettered "freedom," or counter-intuitive "brilliance."
So by all means, free yourself to do your best work...whatever that takes, and however you can do it. Don't be afraid to be creative. Don't be afraid to take a few risks.
But at least have respect for the lay of the land before you attempt to circumnavigate it.
And don't perpetuate this ignorant lie that creativity without thought or structure is somehow "purer" and "better" and more noble.
It's not. It's just self-delusion.
And the sooner you discard it as the counterfeit coin it is...
the sooner you'll be really creative this year.
Thoughts?
Janny
Deal?
OK, let me backtrack a touch here, or none of this will make sense.
At this time of the year, it's a very popular thing to decide that one is going to "free" oneself to be "truly creative." Sounds terrific, doesn't it? Free yourself. Quit standing in your own way. Quit telling yourself you "have" to do things a certain way for them to be "right."
All that stuff sounds truly enlightened. It sounds like an ideal way to create. Just sit down...and let yourself fly. What happens will be from the heart, and pure, and beautiful!!!!
If I've seen one expression of this sentiment, I've seen a dozen.
And every single one of them grates on my nerves like nails on a blackboard. (Or a plastic knife on Styrofoam, which is even worse. Trust me on this.)
Why is that?
It's because proclaiming that to the wrong audience is pure poppycock.
It's not only a lie...it's a lie that can devastate the very creativity it's trying to free.
At the very least, it encourages--yea, practically demands--mediocrity.
It baptizes it and calls it brilliant.
And it's a disgrace.
Now, this may puzzle you.
You may come away from that statement thinking I just don't believe in creativity.
That I find it threatening in some fashion that people are willing to toss away rules and just "fly." That somehow, because I make so much of my living on the other side of the desk, I've lost the joy of pure creation and want everyone to fit in a "box."
None of that is true, no matter what you might think at first.
As a matter of fact, I'm a great fan of creativity.
I'm just not a great fan of ignorant "creativity."
Of which we have so many examples in the publishing world now, it hurts to talk about them.
A word to the creatively wise--or those of you who would be--then, certainly seems in order.
What these sentiments don't tell you is the crux of the matter.
Which is that creativity, in order to be truly productive and to end with something worthwhile...
...needs a bit of structure.
Stop screaming. I promise, it's not gonna hurt as much as you think.
The hard, grownup truth of the matter is that you are not creative despite the structure within which you work; you are, more often than not, more creative because of that same structure.
Michelangelo splattering paint in general patterns on the Sistine Chapel might have been creative. But it wouldn't have been awe-inspiring, edifying, and instructive--not to mention holy work--the way it came about when he planned out what he was going to do and was willing to spend those months on his back making it happen.
In other words...overall, for most creativity, a structure is a help, not a hindrance. In fact, most of the time, it's the only way that creativity gets channeled to bring about a successful and truly beautiful result.
If you've been told otherwise, you've been lied to.
And I don't care how far up the creative ladder the person was who told you that.
Because they lied.
Deliberately? Nope.
More than likely, they truly believe what they're telling you.
But many of these brilliant, accomplished people are guilty of forgetting one thing: whom they're talking to. Because if you're a brilliant, accomplished person, and you're talking to newbies, you may forget that you're a long way from being in their shoes anymore.
And that's the problem.
Had someone told you, as a beginner, that you should just sit down, ignore all the structures and rules and potential labor-saving advice out there, and allow yourself to "fly"...you probably wouldn't have become a brilliant, successful, and accomplished member of your profession.
(Maybe you tried it, in fact, and discovered the hard way that it didn't work!)
That's why it pays to remember that the ability to do what you do now, to use your creativity to its fullest extent, didn't just fall out of a tree and hit you in the head.
You had to seek it out. You had to learn it.
And, to a great extent, what you sought and had to master was the structure that would enable your work to see the greatest chances for success.
Think about it.
If you're a novelist, what's the best way for your story to see success?
Is it via 90,000 words of free verse?
Is it conveyed well in 300 pages of self-illustrated haiku?
Is it told in newspaper columns, Tweets, or Facebook posts?
Of course not.
It's in the form of a book. With chapters. With scenes. With conflict. With characters who show certain traits, talk a certain way, believe a certain way, and will portray your story in a certain way. For readers who read a certain way and like their stories to unfold a certain way.
In other words, folks...in a structure.
In a shape.
In a format.
Something that requires thought, not just raw emotion, unfettered "freedom," or counter-intuitive "brilliance."
So by all means, free yourself to do your best work...whatever that takes, and however you can do it. Don't be afraid to be creative. Don't be afraid to take a few risks.
But at least have respect for the lay of the land before you attempt to circumnavigate it.
And don't perpetuate this ignorant lie that creativity without thought or structure is somehow "purer" and "better" and more noble.
It's not. It's just self-delusion.
And the sooner you discard it as the counterfeit coin it is...
the sooner you'll be really creative this year.
Thoughts?
Janny
Monday, January 07, 2013
Happeeee Anniversareeeeee! Or, A Mixed-Bag Monday
...so today marks two years since the job for which I came to Indiana...laid me off.
Eliminated my "position," which was good news, since that way I got a severance package. Paid me that severance, which was good news, since I was then able to do what I had wanted to do for a long time--go into full-time freelance work. But did it rather abruptly and without much warning, at 3:30 in the afternoon, when I did NOT have a car available to haul stuff home. Which meant I hauled home my personal belongings on a BUS.
Yeah, there are some aspects of things like this that are just unfortunate.
But overall? I'm glad. I'm a happy freelancer, albeit not a rich one yet.
And quite frankly...I've come to the conclusion more than once that I'm simply not "employee" material. I'm "entrepreneur" material, or "contractor" material, or "freelancer" material. "Employee" I don't do so good at, for many reasons.
So this isn't a sad, or mad, or upsetting anniversary.
It's kind of a great day.
The other side of the coin, though, is that it's also the day when we take down Christmas stuff in the house.
Which makes it kind of a sad day as well.
And--joy of joys--I actually have a dental problem to get taken care of this afternoon.
And we all know how much we all love going to the dentist.
Can I do Mondays, or what?
(sigh)
Janny
Eliminated my "position," which was good news, since that way I got a severance package. Paid me that severance, which was good news, since I was then able to do what I had wanted to do for a long time--go into full-time freelance work. But did it rather abruptly and without much warning, at 3:30 in the afternoon, when I did NOT have a car available to haul stuff home. Which meant I hauled home my personal belongings on a BUS.
Yeah, there are some aspects of things like this that are just unfortunate.
But overall? I'm glad. I'm a happy freelancer, albeit not a rich one yet.
And quite frankly...I've come to the conclusion more than once that I'm simply not "employee" material. I'm "entrepreneur" material, or "contractor" material, or "freelancer" material. "Employee" I don't do so good at, for many reasons.
So this isn't a sad, or mad, or upsetting anniversary.
It's kind of a great day.
The other side of the coin, though, is that it's also the day when we take down Christmas stuff in the house.
Which makes it kind of a sad day as well.
And--joy of joys--I actually have a dental problem to get taken care of this afternoon.
And we all know how much we all love going to the dentist.
Can I do Mondays, or what?
(sigh)
Janny
Monday, December 03, 2012
Always A Bad Idea...
...writing a book when you're functionally illiterate.
Unfortunately, too many people do just that.
And it's beginning to wear on the CWC.
My days as an editor may be coming to a close, if the latest stuff is the best they can hand me.
More later,
Janny, who needs a "quiet room."
Unfortunately, too many people do just that.
And it's beginning to wear on the CWC.
My days as an editor may be coming to a close, if the latest stuff is the best they can hand me.
More later,
Janny, who needs a "quiet room."
Friday, November 09, 2012
Nungazing, Now Made Easy
...because of the presence of these wonderful women in Huntington!
I love seeing young, fresh-scrubbed nun faces in the morning. :-)
(ahhh)
Janny
I love seeing young, fresh-scrubbed nun faces in the morning. :-)
(ahhh)
Janny
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really: Part 3.
Last time in this editor discussion, we'd just finished talking about what to be aware of, stay away from, or at least carefully and WARILY question when it comes to the editing biz.
So now, out of the good, the bad, and the ugly...we're gonna talk about the GOOD.
A good editor is...
1. Competent in the language.
A good editor MUST have command of the English language, at least. Some editors are multi-lingual, but I'm here to tell you that (fortunately) that's not required. (Thank heaven!) And, frankly, knowing English well is probably enough to ask of your editor, anyway...because so few of them do.
Do you doubt this? Then how many times have you seen copy that...
...has a plural formed with an apostrophe?
...has a word usage error (as in, say, affect versus effect or metal versus mettle--among dozens of others)?
...has disagreement of subject and verb numbers (singular subject, plural verb, or vice versa)?
Don't laugh. This happens far more often than most people realize, for a couple of reasons.
First, sheer sloppiness. Something that's actually WRONG gets used so many times that it starts to sound correct to the ear. That's how we get sentences like "Every child should know their address and phone number." Uh-yup. (Every child, actually, should know that that sentence is incorrect!)
Second, words that look singular and are actually plural...or plural and look singular. MEDIA, for example, is plural, while STAFF is singular. So if you say, "Our staff look after you with tender loving care," or "The media is a big problem"...guess what. (!)
The reason you see these and multiple other egregious errors is because, in fact, so few people calling themselves "editors" nowadays actually know the language very well. This is no accident: they're products of an educational system that, some years ago, threw out grammar and phonics in favor of...well, whatever in the world they were in favor of. Spelling? Who needs it? Just spell the way you feel. Grammar? That's just dull, boring, and stifling. Word usage? That's the stuff of picky people!
So...editors many times don't know that they don't know something.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they looked things up just to be SURE.
This brings us into the second thing a good editor needs to be:
2. Humble.
I can see your jaws dropping now. "Humble? Doesn't an editor have to have confidence in her own ability? Why would I want a guy who's HUMBLE editing my stuff? I want my editors to know what they're doing and believe in themselves!"
Well, there you have it. Yet more proof positive of how little many of us know the language. Because none of those objections has anything to do with humility.
So what DO we mean by an editor being "humble"?
A humble editor isn't one who denigrates him/herself. It isn't an editor who lacks confidence, or one who's unsure about what he or she can bring to the table, skill-wise.
What humility IS in an editor is what we might call "teachability."
It's knowing one's limits.
A humble editor, in short, knows that s/he doesn't know everything there is to know. Not about the language, to begin with--but certainly not about everything else in the world.
This is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow, for many reasons--not the least of which is, if we've paid our dues in the world, we DO pick up a cornucopia of "stuff" along the way.
Facts. Figures. Proportions. Odds. Specific terminology and jargon. The inner workings of clocks, or radios, or cars, or amoebas, or piano actions, or tiger lilies, or welding torches. Illnesses and their symptoms. Speed and trajectory. Recipes. The proper way to do a backstroke. And so on. And so on.
Yep. We do pick up collections of all kinds of semi-useful stuff, don't we?
But in the process, we also pick up...mistakes. Or misinformation. Or misconceptions.
Some of that's not through our own fault. Especially in the case of historical information, as any student of history will tell you, sometimes what's "factual" depends on who's writing the text!
But even allowing for that gremlin now and again, in the end, one of the most valuable attributes an editor has is the insatiable urge to GET IT RIGHT.
Which means LOOKING IT UP...sometimes in several different places.
And which also means LOOKING IT UP...even if you're fairly sure about it.
That's what we mean by editorial humility.
Let's repeat that.
A humble editor has learned just enough to know that s/he doesn't know everything. So one of the most valuable things he or she can "know" is what he or she doesn't "know"...for sure.
And one of the most valuable traits he or she can have, then, is the need to GET IT RIGHT.
No matter how small the detail may be, or how "sure" an editor is that s/he already knows it.
I'm a crackerjack speller, yet there are still words I have to look up. There are words I've only recently learned I may have been misspelling. You may wonder how that can be: it's simple. The people around me can't spell any better than I can, so they take my word for it!
:-)
All kidding aside, however, do look for an editor who is humble, in the sense that he or she knows that all editors have limitations. Look for an editor who's willing to be taught (some of us do it kicking and screaming, but we CAN do it). Look for an editor who'll query your stuff along the lines of saying, "Are you sure? What's your source for this?" rather than saying, "This is wrong. This would never happen." Because if there's one thing that good editors learn over the years, it's that pretty much anything can happen on this good earth, given the right circumstances, characters, background, and setting. If you're an expert in something I'm not, I'm more than willing to let you teach me about it.
Just don't mess with the grammar...because there, nine times out of ten, I'll getcha. :-)
We'll talk about more aspects of GOOD editing in the next installment. Don't worry; there aren't many more important than these two we've just listed: confidence and competence in the language, and enough humility to make SURE that together, the editor is working with an author to GET IT RIGHT.
Stay tuned for the rest of the story in part 4!
Janny
So now, out of the good, the bad, and the ugly...we're gonna talk about the GOOD.
A good editor is...
1. Competent in the language.
A good editor MUST have command of the English language, at least. Some editors are multi-lingual, but I'm here to tell you that (fortunately) that's not required. (Thank heaven!) And, frankly, knowing English well is probably enough to ask of your editor, anyway...because so few of them do.
Do you doubt this? Then how many times have you seen copy that...
...has a plural formed with an apostrophe?
...has a word usage error (as in, say, affect versus effect or metal versus mettle--among dozens of others)?
...has disagreement of subject and verb numbers (singular subject, plural verb, or vice versa)?
Don't laugh. This happens far more often than most people realize, for a couple of reasons.
First, sheer sloppiness. Something that's actually WRONG gets used so many times that it starts to sound correct to the ear. That's how we get sentences like "Every child should know their address and phone number." Uh-yup. (Every child, actually, should know that that sentence is incorrect!)
Second, words that look singular and are actually plural...or plural and look singular. MEDIA, for example, is plural, while STAFF is singular. So if you say, "Our staff look after you with tender loving care," or "The media is a big problem"...guess what. (!)
The reason you see these and multiple other egregious errors is because, in fact, so few people calling themselves "editors" nowadays actually know the language very well. This is no accident: they're products of an educational system that, some years ago, threw out grammar and phonics in favor of...well, whatever in the world they were in favor of. Spelling? Who needs it? Just spell the way you feel. Grammar? That's just dull, boring, and stifling. Word usage? That's the stuff of picky people!
So...editors many times don't know that they don't know something.
Which wouldn't be so bad if they looked things up just to be SURE.
This brings us into the second thing a good editor needs to be:
2. Humble.
I can see your jaws dropping now. "Humble? Doesn't an editor have to have confidence in her own ability? Why would I want a guy who's HUMBLE editing my stuff? I want my editors to know what they're doing and believe in themselves!"
Well, there you have it. Yet more proof positive of how little many of us know the language. Because none of those objections has anything to do with humility.
So what DO we mean by an editor being "humble"?
A humble editor isn't one who denigrates him/herself. It isn't an editor who lacks confidence, or one who's unsure about what he or she can bring to the table, skill-wise.
What humility IS in an editor is what we might call "teachability."
It's knowing one's limits.
A humble editor, in short, knows that s/he doesn't know everything there is to know. Not about the language, to begin with--but certainly not about everything else in the world.
This is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow, for many reasons--not the least of which is, if we've paid our dues in the world, we DO pick up a cornucopia of "stuff" along the way.
Facts. Figures. Proportions. Odds. Specific terminology and jargon. The inner workings of clocks, or radios, or cars, or amoebas, or piano actions, or tiger lilies, or welding torches. Illnesses and their symptoms. Speed and trajectory. Recipes. The proper way to do a backstroke. And so on. And so on.
Yep. We do pick up collections of all kinds of semi-useful stuff, don't we?
But in the process, we also pick up...mistakes. Or misinformation. Or misconceptions.
Some of that's not through our own fault. Especially in the case of historical information, as any student of history will tell you, sometimes what's "factual" depends on who's writing the text!
But even allowing for that gremlin now and again, in the end, one of the most valuable attributes an editor has is the insatiable urge to GET IT RIGHT.
Which means LOOKING IT UP...sometimes in several different places.
And which also means LOOKING IT UP...even if you're fairly sure about it.
That's what we mean by editorial humility.
Let's repeat that.
A humble editor has learned just enough to know that s/he doesn't know everything. So one of the most valuable things he or she can "know" is what he or she doesn't "know"...for sure.
And one of the most valuable traits he or she can have, then, is the need to GET IT RIGHT.
No matter how small the detail may be, or how "sure" an editor is that s/he already knows it.
I'm a crackerjack speller, yet there are still words I have to look up. There are words I've only recently learned I may have been misspelling. You may wonder how that can be: it's simple. The people around me can't spell any better than I can, so they take my word for it!
:-)
All kidding aside, however, do look for an editor who is humble, in the sense that he or she knows that all editors have limitations. Look for an editor who's willing to be taught (some of us do it kicking and screaming, but we CAN do it). Look for an editor who'll query your stuff along the lines of saying, "Are you sure? What's your source for this?" rather than saying, "This is wrong. This would never happen." Because if there's one thing that good editors learn over the years, it's that pretty much anything can happen on this good earth, given the right circumstances, characters, background, and setting. If you're an expert in something I'm not, I'm more than willing to let you teach me about it.
Just don't mess with the grammar...because there, nine times out of ten, I'll getcha. :-)
We'll talk about more aspects of GOOD editing in the next installment. Don't worry; there aren't many more important than these two we've just listed: confidence and competence in the language, and enough humility to make SURE that together, the editor is working with an author to GET IT RIGHT.
Stay tuned for the rest of the story in part 4!
Janny
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Sigh. And Grin.
Well, I did not final in the Harlequin contest.
Of course, the editors are tweeting all over the place that just because you didn't final doesn't mean they won't be getting in touch with you...if they found your entry "intriguing."
I could hold my breath, but that'd make it hard to sing tomorrow night. :-)
I DO have other plans for the manuscript I sent them, as well---or actually, for the idea behind the manuscript I sent them. But this was an experiment: I wanted to see it get in front of more eyeballs to see if it could pull out complete strangers to vote for it.
Until I know how many votes it DID get--and I doubt I'll ever know that--there's no way to gauge the impact my entry may, or may not, have had upon strange eyeballs.
Ah, well. There are better things to feast one's eyeballs on....like THIS:
Of course, the editors are tweeting all over the place that just because you didn't final doesn't mean they won't be getting in touch with you...if they found your entry "intriguing."
I could hold my breath, but that'd make it hard to sing tomorrow night. :-)
I DO have other plans for the manuscript I sent them, as well---or actually, for the idea behind the manuscript I sent them. But this was an experiment: I wanted to see it get in front of more eyeballs to see if it could pull out complete strangers to vote for it.
Until I know how many votes it DID get--and I doubt I'll ever know that--there's no way to gauge the impact my entry may, or may not, have had upon strange eyeballs.
Ah, well. There are better things to feast one's eyeballs on....like THIS:
My son Matt and his bride, Deirdre...October 5, 2012. MOMGRIN TIME!
(heh heh)
Janny
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Well, I Did It!
...both entered VOICE OF INNOCENCE in the USA Book News Best Book Contest, AND entered RAINMAN'S BRIDE in the Harlequin "So You Think You Can Write" Contest. And yes, I DO think I can write. :-)
The nice thing about the Harlequin contest is it gives me another crack at getting RB into the Harlequin system, where I have believed it belonged since long before it won the Golden Heart (and then was summarily dismissed).
And yes, I understand that Harlequin has a couple of black clouds over it of late. Frankly? I don't care. A lifelong dream of mine has been to sell "those little paperback romances." If I've got a way to do that now, I'm going to at least try it. :-) Yes, they're not the best paying market on the street. But royalties, as I like to say, is royalties. I'll take 'em.
Besides, what goes around comes around. You'll never guess what's finally RETURNING to the Harlequin fold? Good old-fashioned clean romance. Yeppers. The kind, as they put it, you can share with "daughters and granddaughters."
My time may have finally come. One way or the other. :-)
The manuscripts will be posted on the Harlequin Contest website, soyouthinkyoucanwrite.com. Click on "Read Entries" and see what you find. And if you vote for my book, I'll be over the moon. :-)
More later!
Janny
The nice thing about the Harlequin contest is it gives me another crack at getting RB into the Harlequin system, where I have believed it belonged since long before it won the Golden Heart (and then was summarily dismissed).
And yes, I understand that Harlequin has a couple of black clouds over it of late. Frankly? I don't care. A lifelong dream of mine has been to sell "those little paperback romances." If I've got a way to do that now, I'm going to at least try it. :-) Yes, they're not the best paying market on the street. But royalties, as I like to say, is royalties. I'll take 'em.
Besides, what goes around comes around. You'll never guess what's finally RETURNING to the Harlequin fold? Good old-fashioned clean romance. Yeppers. The kind, as they put it, you can share with "daughters and granddaughters."
My time may have finally come. One way or the other. :-)
The manuscripts will be posted on the Harlequin Contest website, soyouthinkyoucanwrite.com. Click on "Read Entries" and see what you find. And if you vote for my book, I'll be over the moon. :-)
More later!
Janny
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really: Part 2.
Last time here, we talked about what a good editor does for your work. But, it must be said, there are a lot of people out there claiming to be editors, book doctors, editorial consultants, writing coaches, et al. Not all of them will be very good at it. Some of them can hurt you.
So how do you know the good ones from the not-so-good?
First of all, let's deal with the truly nefarious, because they're easier to cull--and spot.
You probably want to avoid--or at least QUESTION--any editor or editorial consultant if he/she:
1. Has a Web site full of writing, syntax, spelling, punctuation, usage errors--or just plain wrong information about the business.
This should be obvious; it's not. Now, one or two typos, or a formatting problem--that, ANYBODY can have. We're talking about rampant errors--such as an "about" page that has a dozen or more typos or misspellings on it, and/or recycled "myths" about the publishing industry, blindly repeated. Usually when or if you point such things out to a good editor, they'll thank you and take pains to correct them. If you write a note to an editor about any of these things and he/she gets snarky, however...walk away. Quickly.
2. Has been listed on one of the "warning" sites (Writer Beware, Absolute Write Water Cooler, etc.) as questionable--under ANY name or incarnation.
Crooks or scam artists--in this business as in many others--will often get "busted" under one name, go underground for awhile, and then resurface as a whole new name, business, or enterprise. Some of them will even claim to have "gone straight" and be "legit" in a new partnership...only to have it revealed, upon further research, that they've merely formed a partnership with ANOTHER scam artist and are trying to "con" a whole new generation of writers who haven't heard the horror stories they've left behind them. Don't be fooled by it. Google their names and do a little research. It'll be time well-spent.
3. Makes any guarantees about whether, where, or when your writing will sell.
Yes, I know there are professional book doctors out there who have LOTS of contacts, some of them very high-profile, in the publishing and/or other media industries. That being said, however, not even THEY can "guarantee" that your work will sell at all, much less that it will sell in ____ months or ____ years. Note that this is also different from saying your work will be publishable in ____ months or ____ years. THAT, a professional may be able to tell you. Whether anyone will actually decide to PAY you for that publishable work, however, is something no editor can vouch for unless he or she...
4. Also owns a publishing company, "manuscript showcase" site, or "literary agency."
...which is another BIG FAT RED FLAG.
This is not to say that you should refuse, out-of-hand, the chance of getting your book edited by people who are also publishers--if those two services are separate enterprises. But, in truth, it's danged hard to run ONE of these businesses, let alone BOTH of them, and keep them both separate and high-quality. See the first rule about "warnings" above--many scammers do this kind of thing, offering "editorial and book publishing service" packages that, in truth, are nothing more than what you can do yourself as a self-publisher, with a little elbow grease.
And it goes without saying--or it should--that it's damnably hard to be both an objective editor of work AND a literary agent representing that type of work. Very few people can do it; I'd be tempted to say no one can, actually, except there's probably one or two noble souls out there who manage it. So I won't say it's "impossible." It's just...highly unlikely.
In short, you'll do yourself a favor if you keep the editing, agenting, and publishing aspects of your work SEPARATE and maintain the integrity of each. It's the best way to save yourself time, money, and heartache.
5. Gives any indication that he/she is "above" whatever you're writing or tries to manipulate it in any way.
This is a more subtle element, but it does happen. You're in a creative writing class, or a writers' workshop, where Ms. Incredibly Big Name Famous Editor is on hand to read and possibly consider (gasp!) taking on manuscripts to "nurture." Needless to say, your hopes are dancin' on the ceiling...until you meet this editor, and she looks at your work with a vaguely pained smile on her face and damns it with faint praise--or just comes right out and damns it. No writer's willing to take that kind of abuse, though, right?
Think again.
The world is full of newbies who worship at the feet of Big Names. Newbies who will do anything the Big Name tells them to do. And in the process they take fresh, sometimes wonderful, work--albeit in a raw state--and beat all the freshness out of it. By the time they're done, the book might be salable...somewhere. But more often than not, it's not, because the Big Name didn't get what they were trying to do in the first place, and didn't have the humility to say, "Yanno, honey, this isn't my cup of tea. You might want someone more comfortable with the kind of story you write to take this on." So in the process, the Big Name made them over in the image she's most comfortable with...and they'll sound like no one but a derivative clone of Herself.
Don't misunderstand this; a good editor WILL change your work. A good, ethical editor may ask you to make changes that you think will "gut" the thing; in that case, a little dialogue is in order. But the kind of "editing" we're talking about above doesn't involve dialogue. It involves a condescending, dictatorial relationship in which Big Name says "Jump," and the only acceptable reply is, "How high?" THAT does not a good creative partnership make, and sometimes it takes years to recover from that kind of treatment--both for your self-esteem AND your voice. So don't succumb to that temptation. The best and most talented people in any industry--by and large--are also the nicest and most down-to-earth. Keep that in mind every time you hand your work to ANYONE, no matter what his/her reputation in the business might be. Life's too short to waste it trying to kiss up to prima donnas.
Lots of information here, we know. But it helps to know how to avoid the editorial "weeds" right away, so you can find the editors and writing professionals who will help your "garden grow" the way it should. Next time, we'll talk about what a GOOD writing professional looks like--from professional behavior to fee schedules, and much more in between.
Stay tuned!
Janny
So how do you know the good ones from the not-so-good?
First of all, let's deal with the truly nefarious, because they're easier to cull--and spot.
You probably want to avoid--or at least QUESTION--any editor or editorial consultant if he/she:
1. Has a Web site full of writing, syntax, spelling, punctuation, usage errors--or just plain wrong information about the business.
This should be obvious; it's not. Now, one or two typos, or a formatting problem--that, ANYBODY can have. We're talking about rampant errors--such as an "about" page that has a dozen or more typos or misspellings on it, and/or recycled "myths" about the publishing industry, blindly repeated. Usually when or if you point such things out to a good editor, they'll thank you and take pains to correct them. If you write a note to an editor about any of these things and he/she gets snarky, however...walk away. Quickly.
2. Has been listed on one of the "warning" sites (Writer Beware, Absolute Write Water Cooler, etc.) as questionable--under ANY name or incarnation.
Crooks or scam artists--in this business as in many others--will often get "busted" under one name, go underground for awhile, and then resurface as a whole new name, business, or enterprise. Some of them will even claim to have "gone straight" and be "legit" in a new partnership...only to have it revealed, upon further research, that they've merely formed a partnership with ANOTHER scam artist and are trying to "con" a whole new generation of writers who haven't heard the horror stories they've left behind them. Don't be fooled by it. Google their names and do a little research. It'll be time well-spent.
3. Makes any guarantees about whether, where, or when your writing will sell.
Yes, I know there are professional book doctors out there who have LOTS of contacts, some of them very high-profile, in the publishing and/or other media industries. That being said, however, not even THEY can "guarantee" that your work will sell at all, much less that it will sell in ____ months or ____ years. Note that this is also different from saying your work will be publishable in ____ months or ____ years. THAT, a professional may be able to tell you. Whether anyone will actually decide to PAY you for that publishable work, however, is something no editor can vouch for unless he or she...
4. Also owns a publishing company, "manuscript showcase" site, or "literary agency."
...which is another BIG FAT RED FLAG.
This is not to say that you should refuse, out-of-hand, the chance of getting your book edited by people who are also publishers--if those two services are separate enterprises. But, in truth, it's danged hard to run ONE of these businesses, let alone BOTH of them, and keep them both separate and high-quality. See the first rule about "warnings" above--many scammers do this kind of thing, offering "editorial and book publishing service" packages that, in truth, are nothing more than what you can do yourself as a self-publisher, with a little elbow grease.
And it goes without saying--or it should--that it's damnably hard to be both an objective editor of work AND a literary agent representing that type of work. Very few people can do it; I'd be tempted to say no one can, actually, except there's probably one or two noble souls out there who manage it. So I won't say it's "impossible." It's just...highly unlikely.
In short, you'll do yourself a favor if you keep the editing, agenting, and publishing aspects of your work SEPARATE and maintain the integrity of each. It's the best way to save yourself time, money, and heartache.
5. Gives any indication that he/she is "above" whatever you're writing or tries to manipulate it in any way.
This is a more subtle element, but it does happen. You're in a creative writing class, or a writers' workshop, where Ms. Incredibly Big Name Famous Editor is on hand to read and possibly consider (gasp!) taking on manuscripts to "nurture." Needless to say, your hopes are dancin' on the ceiling...until you meet this editor, and she looks at your work with a vaguely pained smile on her face and damns it with faint praise--or just comes right out and damns it. No writer's willing to take that kind of abuse, though, right?
Think again.
The world is full of newbies who worship at the feet of Big Names. Newbies who will do anything the Big Name tells them to do. And in the process they take fresh, sometimes wonderful, work--albeit in a raw state--and beat all the freshness out of it. By the time they're done, the book might be salable...somewhere. But more often than not, it's not, because the Big Name didn't get what they were trying to do in the first place, and didn't have the humility to say, "Yanno, honey, this isn't my cup of tea. You might want someone more comfortable with the kind of story you write to take this on." So in the process, the Big Name made them over in the image she's most comfortable with...and they'll sound like no one but a derivative clone of Herself.
Don't misunderstand this; a good editor WILL change your work. A good, ethical editor may ask you to make changes that you think will "gut" the thing; in that case, a little dialogue is in order. But the kind of "editing" we're talking about above doesn't involve dialogue. It involves a condescending, dictatorial relationship in which Big Name says "Jump," and the only acceptable reply is, "How high?" THAT does not a good creative partnership make, and sometimes it takes years to recover from that kind of treatment--both for your self-esteem AND your voice. So don't succumb to that temptation. The best and most talented people in any industry--by and large--are also the nicest and most down-to-earth. Keep that in mind every time you hand your work to ANYONE, no matter what his/her reputation in the business might be. Life's too short to waste it trying to kiss up to prima donnas.
Lots of information here, we know. But it helps to know how to avoid the editorial "weeds" right away, so you can find the editors and writing professionals who will help your "garden grow" the way it should. Next time, we'll talk about what a GOOD writing professional looks like--from professional behavior to fee schedules, and much more in between.
Stay tuned!
Janny
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Editor Is Your Friend. No, Really: Part 1.
Aha! Some solid information in this blog for a change!
Seriously.
Not that many of you don't LOVE pot roast recipes...I know you do. :-)
But it's occurred to me several times (because people come right out and tell me, doncha know) that after as many years as I've spent in this profession, and as many millions of words as I've written, slashed and burned, rewritten, cut and pasted, and rephrased with and for people...I might know more than a little about this editing game. How it ought to work...and when to run for the hills, if necessary, to avoid major headaches and/or a lot of wasted money or BOTH.
Ironically, even in this age of unprecedented information, a lot of people DON'T know much about editing. Why it's necessary in the first place. And when they're being well-edited versus HACKED.
So in a series of posts, I aim to help you out with a little information about editing, editors, and the process...and how to make the most of it. It'll be based on my experience, which is wide-ranging and varied. It'll be laced with more than a little cantankerousness. But above all, it'll be helpful.
Trust me on this. It will be. Because that's what I DO.
So let's start from the very beginning...
(This space for singing, "Do Re Mi" to yourselves, now that I've put that song in your heads. HAH!)
The first thing you need to know about an editor--and the most important thing---is whether you need one or not.
The short answer is, "DUH."
The long answer is, "Of course you do."
Everyone does. Yes, even Stephen King. Even Mary Higgins Clark (something that's been painfully obvious by its absence of late). Even lots and LOTS of other "name" authors. And you can tell them I said so. They won't care, of course, because they don't know who I am. (Yet.) But, hey, make my day. Go ahead and tell 'em if you like. Heaven knows reader reviews on Amazon do it all the time.
(When they don't get taken off, like one of mine did. But I digress.)
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, can use a good editor. I don't just say that because I'm in the business; I say it because it's true. Just as a singer needs a vocal teacher (the "third ear" that can tell you where you're going wrong--or right), the writer who knows and uses a good editor will benefit from that "third ear" wordsmith. You'll never regret having a good edit, and your work WILL be much better as a result.
Not "may" be. WILL be.
Why is that?
1) Good editors will catch things you'll never see. Literally.
This is a given, but the reason it happens is more complex. You see, our brains are wonderful things. They will take a piece of writing and "fill in" gaps in it so that when we read it, it makes sense to our brain--even if what's on the page is gibberish. If you doubt this, take one of those "tests" online that has a box of text with letters missing, the wrong letters in a word, etc., and then tells you something about your perception and intelligence if you can understand it. News flash: it has little to do with perception and intelligence. It has to do with brain chemistry, and how our synaptic connections fire. For some of us, they fire faster...but for all of us who write, they can actually sabotage us. You've experienced this sensation if you've ever spent so much time on a piece, either reading or editing, that you literally don't "see" it anymore. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Hence, the need for a "third eye"--or, more accurately, a second PAIR of eyes.
2) Good editors catch you out on every single bad habit you have.
We all--every one of us--have pet words we lurrrve to use in our writing. I LOVE to use "just" and "even" and, of late, "basically." Those are only (another favorite of mine) the tip of the proverbial writing berg; I have many more that good critique partners and editors have caught and underlined or highlighted (or just slashed and burned). (See? I told you it was one of my favorites.) We all also have pet phrases, ways we express ourselves, or ways we like our CHARACTERS to express themselves that are cliched, are anachronistic for the time period in which we set our tales, or make all our people sound the same. What does this say about our writing? That we're lazy? That we don't have wide enough vocabularies? That we're uncreative, or uneducated, or something else equally nefarious?
Nah. All it says is that we, like all of mankind, are creatures of habit. Part of it may be a tiny shred of "laziness," but in truth? I've rarely if ever met a truly LAZY writer. I've met a lot of them who fall back on habits, cliches, or pet phrases...but that's not because they're not trying to write the best things they can. It's simply a matter of writing from a certain comfort zone. We speak the language we speak, however broad or narrow that is, unless someone gently prods us to stretch ourselves and do better. And that's the end result of a good editor...
3) Good editors help you write better than you think you can.
Notice what we say here. Good editors don't tell you you need to write "like someone else." Good editors don't mess with your voice--any more than absolutely necessary--but, once again like a good vocal teacher, they'll strengthen that voice and deepen it until it's true music. Good editors don't make you change things that don't need changing--but they don't let you get away with doing something that's "good enough," either. They'll challenge you. They'll dare you to try things you don't think you can do. They'll push you and prod you and nag you to the point where you wonder whom they think they're talking to, anyway.
The answer? They're talking to a good writer who they think can be better. And the stubborn, persistent, craft-minded, picky ones won't let you get away with less than your best. You may never work so hard in your life as when you have a good editor--but your writing will amaze and astound you when you look back at the difference between what you started with...and what you end with.
That's with a good, topnotch, professional, skilled, artist of an editor.
But how do you know one when you see one?
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series, and we'll talk about that!
Thoughts?
Janny
Seriously.
Not that many of you don't LOVE pot roast recipes...I know you do. :-)
But it's occurred to me several times (because people come right out and tell me, doncha know) that after as many years as I've spent in this profession, and as many millions of words as I've written, slashed and burned, rewritten, cut and pasted, and rephrased with and for people...I might know more than a little about this editing game. How it ought to work...and when to run for the hills, if necessary, to avoid major headaches and/or a lot of wasted money or BOTH.
Ironically, even in this age of unprecedented information, a lot of people DON'T know much about editing. Why it's necessary in the first place. And when they're being well-edited versus HACKED.
So in a series of posts, I aim to help you out with a little information about editing, editors, and the process...and how to make the most of it. It'll be based on my experience, which is wide-ranging and varied. It'll be laced with more than a little cantankerousness. But above all, it'll be helpful.
Trust me on this. It will be. Because that's what I DO.
So let's start from the very beginning...
(This space for singing, "Do Re Mi" to yourselves, now that I've put that song in your heads. HAH!)
The first thing you need to know about an editor--and the most important thing---is whether you need one or not.
The short answer is, "DUH."
The long answer is, "Of course you do."
Everyone does. Yes, even Stephen King. Even Mary Higgins Clark (something that's been painfully obvious by its absence of late). Even lots and LOTS of other "name" authors. And you can tell them I said so. They won't care, of course, because they don't know who I am. (Yet.) But, hey, make my day. Go ahead and tell 'em if you like. Heaven knows reader reviews on Amazon do it all the time.
(When they don't get taken off, like one of mine did. But I digress.)
Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, can use a good editor. I don't just say that because I'm in the business; I say it because it's true. Just as a singer needs a vocal teacher (the "third ear" that can tell you where you're going wrong--or right), the writer who knows and uses a good editor will benefit from that "third ear" wordsmith. You'll never regret having a good edit, and your work WILL be much better as a result.
Not "may" be. WILL be.
Why is that?
1) Good editors will catch things you'll never see. Literally.
This is a given, but the reason it happens is more complex. You see, our brains are wonderful things. They will take a piece of writing and "fill in" gaps in it so that when we read it, it makes sense to our brain--even if what's on the page is gibberish. If you doubt this, take one of those "tests" online that has a box of text with letters missing, the wrong letters in a word, etc., and then tells you something about your perception and intelligence if you can understand it. News flash: it has little to do with perception and intelligence. It has to do with brain chemistry, and how our synaptic connections fire. For some of us, they fire faster...but for all of us who write, they can actually sabotage us. You've experienced this sensation if you've ever spent so much time on a piece, either reading or editing, that you literally don't "see" it anymore. It happens to everyone at one time or another. Hence, the need for a "third eye"--or, more accurately, a second PAIR of eyes.
2) Good editors catch you out on every single bad habit you have.
We all--every one of us--have pet words we lurrrve to use in our writing. I LOVE to use "just" and "even" and, of late, "basically." Those are only (another favorite of mine) the tip of the proverbial writing berg; I have many more that good critique partners and editors have caught and underlined or highlighted (or just slashed and burned). (See? I told you it was one of my favorites.) We all also have pet phrases, ways we express ourselves, or ways we like our CHARACTERS to express themselves that are cliched, are anachronistic for the time period in which we set our tales, or make all our people sound the same. What does this say about our writing? That we're lazy? That we don't have wide enough vocabularies? That we're uncreative, or uneducated, or something else equally nefarious?
Nah. All it says is that we, like all of mankind, are creatures of habit. Part of it may be a tiny shred of "laziness," but in truth? I've rarely if ever met a truly LAZY writer. I've met a lot of them who fall back on habits, cliches, or pet phrases...but that's not because they're not trying to write the best things they can. It's simply a matter of writing from a certain comfort zone. We speak the language we speak, however broad or narrow that is, unless someone gently prods us to stretch ourselves and do better. And that's the end result of a good editor...
3) Good editors help you write better than you think you can.
Notice what we say here. Good editors don't tell you you need to write "like someone else." Good editors don't mess with your voice--any more than absolutely necessary--but, once again like a good vocal teacher, they'll strengthen that voice and deepen it until it's true music. Good editors don't make you change things that don't need changing--but they don't let you get away with doing something that's "good enough," either. They'll challenge you. They'll dare you to try things you don't think you can do. They'll push you and prod you and nag you to the point where you wonder whom they think they're talking to, anyway.
The answer? They're talking to a good writer who they think can be better. And the stubborn, persistent, craft-minded, picky ones won't let you get away with less than your best. You may never work so hard in your life as when you have a good editor--but your writing will amaze and astound you when you look back at the difference between what you started with...and what you end with.
That's with a good, topnotch, professional, skilled, artist of an editor.
But how do you know one when you see one?
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series, and we'll talk about that!
Thoughts?
Janny
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
What I'm Doing...
...in between writing and editing for other people, is trying to get somewhere MYSELF.
I'm hoping this can help me get noticed for some old/new work that's been waiting for just such an opportunity...
...and this can help me get notice for VOI to take off the way it should.
So I'm gonna be a bizzy chicky, if I can make these things, or others like them, pay off.In any event, I'm going for it.
What are YOUR next targets?
Janny
I'm hoping this can help me get noticed for some old/new work that's been waiting for just such an opportunity...
...and this can help me get notice for VOI to take off the way it should.
So I'm gonna be a bizzy chicky, if I can make these things, or others like them, pay off.In any event, I'm going for it.
What are YOUR next targets?
Janny
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Beats Me!
What do you know, as a writer, about "beats"?
And why do so few people seem to be able to use these things?
Second to the myriad errata I see in manuscripts of late in terms of commas, word usages, homophone confusion, and action/reaction transposition--and there are tons of THOSE--comes an embarrassing number of writers who, apparently, have never been taught about beats.
(Some of them haven't been taught about dialogue tags, either, which are related...but not quite the same thing.)
Do you know what a "beat" is?
Can you use it effectively?
How would you describe it?
And how do you learn how to write "beats" well in your prose?
I've got thoughts on this (yeah, like you ever doubted I did?), but I'd like to hear from other writers on this. This problem is so prevalent that I'm beginning to think NO one's taught it for at least a generation of writers...maybe more.
If so, I know what I'm doing my next workshop on.
Chime in if you would!
Janny
And why do so few people seem to be able to use these things?
Second to the myriad errata I see in manuscripts of late in terms of commas, word usages, homophone confusion, and action/reaction transposition--and there are tons of THOSE--comes an embarrassing number of writers who, apparently, have never been taught about beats.
(Some of them haven't been taught about dialogue tags, either, which are related...but not quite the same thing.)
Do you know what a "beat" is?
Can you use it effectively?
How would you describe it?
And how do you learn how to write "beats" well in your prose?
I've got thoughts on this (yeah, like you ever doubted I did?), but I'd like to hear from other writers on this. This problem is so prevalent that I'm beginning to think NO one's taught it for at least a generation of writers...maybe more.
If so, I know what I'm doing my next workshop on.
Chime in if you would!
Janny
Monday, September 17, 2012
Balance in the Morning
...so I'm back to taking a regular walk in the mornings.
I've been doing a morning walk for YEARS now, to the point where I can hardly remember when I didn't do one. And yes, I did take a hiatus from the morning walk for a little while--under the guise that "I can get more work done if I don't spend a half hour in the morning walking nowhere."
I'm here to tell you, however, that for me...that's bunk.
I need that walk--not so much for exercise, although it certainly serves that purpose.
But I need it to establish a sense of balance in the morning.
Sounds odd, but that's the best word I can use for it.
I CAN start my workday immediately after my bath and first cup of coffee.
I DO go to adoration, two days a week, right after said bath and coffee.
But even to adoration, at this point anyway, I walk. It's not MUCH of a walk, but it's a walk.
Now, I do anywhere from 15 minutes to over a half hour, and at times, almost 45 minutes' worth of walking in the morning.
Depending on how I feel, what mood I'm in, etc.
And it's important to note that often, before I start out, it's with the intention of only going 15 minutes or so...but that by the time I've gone about two blocks, I feel like a longer walk, and by the time I've gone about five blocks, I'm ready to keep rambling.
There's something about fresh air, being outdoors, and just walking in the morning that gives me a sense of balance. It makes me feel like, no matter how I woke up, I can start the day refreshed. It does refresh me. If I'm desperately overtired, the fresh air soothes me. It can invigorate me. It makes me feel more relaxed, which paradoxically gives me more energy to start the day. And on the days when I spend the walk praying, it gives me extra "prayer points" as well.
However, it needs to be said that I have to keep the walk unstructured for it to work this way. The moment I start designating it a "prayer walk" or a "fitness walk" or determining that I have to go such-and-such amount of time or distance every day...it loses all its benefits for me. It becomes another thing to check off the list rather than a breath of fresh air at the beginning of the day that enables me to plan the day, shake out the cobwebs, or just enjoy everybody's garden as I amble along.
If for some reason I need to jump in the car to go to adoration--say, there's a dangerous storm or the like and it's hazardous outdoors--I feel the lack of that fresh air respite.
It really DOES make a difference.
So I'm doing the walk every morning again, and I'm feeling much better balanced because of it. To the point where, at least in theory, I can think more clearly and calmly about everything, and in the long run, be more productive.
Which kind of shoots holes in the idea that it's "spending a half hour walking nowhere."
It may be, technically, walking in circles. Walking a few dozen blocks away, and coming back.
But it's far from going nowhere.
And I'd highly recommend it as--paradoxically enough--one of the best ways to actually find yourself, at the end of the day, having gotten further than you thought you would when you woke up.
Just a thought.
Anything that gives YOU balance in the morning? Share it here!
Janny
I've been doing a morning walk for YEARS now, to the point where I can hardly remember when I didn't do one. And yes, I did take a hiatus from the morning walk for a little while--under the guise that "I can get more work done if I don't spend a half hour in the morning walking nowhere."
I'm here to tell you, however, that for me...that's bunk.
I need that walk--not so much for exercise, although it certainly serves that purpose.
But I need it to establish a sense of balance in the morning.
Sounds odd, but that's the best word I can use for it.
I CAN start my workday immediately after my bath and first cup of coffee.
I DO go to adoration, two days a week, right after said bath and coffee.
But even to adoration, at this point anyway, I walk. It's not MUCH of a walk, but it's a walk.
Now, I do anywhere from 15 minutes to over a half hour, and at times, almost 45 minutes' worth of walking in the morning.
Depending on how I feel, what mood I'm in, etc.
And it's important to note that often, before I start out, it's with the intention of only going 15 minutes or so...but that by the time I've gone about two blocks, I feel like a longer walk, and by the time I've gone about five blocks, I'm ready to keep rambling.
There's something about fresh air, being outdoors, and just walking in the morning that gives me a sense of balance. It makes me feel like, no matter how I woke up, I can start the day refreshed. It does refresh me. If I'm desperately overtired, the fresh air soothes me. It can invigorate me. It makes me feel more relaxed, which paradoxically gives me more energy to start the day. And on the days when I spend the walk praying, it gives me extra "prayer points" as well.
However, it needs to be said that I have to keep the walk unstructured for it to work this way. The moment I start designating it a "prayer walk" or a "fitness walk" or determining that I have to go such-and-such amount of time or distance every day...it loses all its benefits for me. It becomes another thing to check off the list rather than a breath of fresh air at the beginning of the day that enables me to plan the day, shake out the cobwebs, or just enjoy everybody's garden as I amble along.
If for some reason I need to jump in the car to go to adoration--say, there's a dangerous storm or the like and it's hazardous outdoors--I feel the lack of that fresh air respite.
It really DOES make a difference.
So I'm doing the walk every morning again, and I'm feeling much better balanced because of it. To the point where, at least in theory, I can think more clearly and calmly about everything, and in the long run, be more productive.
Which kind of shoots holes in the idea that it's "spending a half hour walking nowhere."
It may be, technically, walking in circles. Walking a few dozen blocks away, and coming back.
But it's far from going nowhere.
And I'd highly recommend it as--paradoxically enough--one of the best ways to actually find yourself, at the end of the day, having gotten further than you thought you would when you woke up.
Just a thought.
Anything that gives YOU balance in the morning? Share it here!
Janny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
