Linkyland for writers, w/commentary

[shalanna]

sclerotic_rings pointed me toward Deanna Hoak's "Zen and the Art of Copyediting" posts One and Two.
Wonderful! There still exists a good copyeditor! I see so many booboos in published novels now that I imagined they were all gone.

Elizabeth Bear, winner of many awards, about how a baby novel is birthed at her LJ.

And here's a cool bit about archaic grammar from Marie Brennan.

The reason I thought that was cool is mostly because, years and YEARS ago, I wrote a story titled "The Splatterfairies: or A Maul and the Night Visitors" that was supposed to be for Dean Wesley Smith's "Splatterfairies" anthology. After his company closed, several authors, including me (and my friend Catherine Vanicek--does anybody know where she lurks nowadays? I know she adopted a daughter) got back our stories by mail with the note, "We found this under a stack of papers on Dean's desk as we cleaned it out." The company was closed down because he went off to become a golfer. Did he ever make it on the Senior Tour? Probably. Some people are just lucky. ANYway, I then sent the story to Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine. I got it back with a note from MZB saying that it was too dark and would gross her readers out, but somebody (first readers) had gone through and corrected a couple of my Thees and Thous. My fairies, being ancient and never being in contact with the human world nowadays because they fly by night to do their mischief, still spoke in the olde waye. The corrections were very kind and were helpful. What's the story about? Well, remember those helpful little brownies in the fairy tale that helped out the shoemaker? These are fairies who go around mixing up your index cards and screwing up coat hangers by night. Mine go a little too far. The fellow who wrote the Wing Commander books liked the story. That kept me going for a few years. It takes so very little to encourage me, unfortunately. I probably should just give up--look at all the writers who say on their sites, "I decided to try out writing for the first time last year, and now I have three books out with Warner." Sheesh.

SO ANYWAY. You've almost certainly already seen the Turkey City Lexicon, but I provide a link to the second edition anyhow. Don't take it literally or over-apply it, because some of it is clearly meant to be used only for bashing people in workshops in a mean, contrarian sort of way. But it's a fun read, and you might need some of that vocabulary. Most chick lit is infected with Brand Name Fever, as far as I'm concerned. But I wouldn't dare criticize it. *wry grin*

And wow, a Southern agent! Someone who might actually GET my Southern Gothic!! (Think Fannie Flagg's stories, but well written. Really, seriously, truly, go pick up one of her books and TELL ME THAT IT'S WELL WRITTEN.)

I still haven't heard a peep out of the two editors who are doing crits for me through a charity auction. Nor out of the various agents. But I did get in on the opportunity to audition (by sending a short writing sample) with a relatively new agent who has a book packager wanting someone to write some YA novels for them. I figure, what the hell. It's work-for-hire and I won't see much money and I don't even know if my name would be on the books (surely it would?!), but hey, if it's a foot in the door, anything goes. My problem, as y'all know, is that I like slower-paced character-driven novels, and the stuff I think of to write about is not plot-big. So they don't like it. BUT if they give me an outline, I can follow it. I can crank the stuff out if I know what's supposed to happen and have a guarantee that they're not going to say, "We just don't see any action in this," or "You need to have a few car chases in here--ever see 'The Rockford Files'?" I mean, seriously, I used to take outlines and write up stuff for people as part of my job. And I've done critiques where I wrote sample stuff for people who had no idea how to structure a scene. Hubby says if it brings in a dime, do it. I would be doing it just to get an agent and get a foot in the door. I don't know if it's a good idea. But Ron Goulart eventually got some of his own stuff published after ghosting for everyone and his horse, didn't he? And I was recently told that the "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" is just that--a book written to a book packager's outline. (No wonder it's such a crappy novel. Not enough time spent with each character, a sappy crybaby ending, and WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY EVER TAKE OFF THE MAGIC PANTS)

It's Saturday morning. Go with your friends and Saturday-spend 'til the end of the day.

Comments

[sagitare.livejournal.com]

And wow, a Southern agent! Someone who might actually GET my Southern Gothic!! (Think Fannie Flagg's stories, but well written. Really, seriously, truly, go pick up one of her books and TELL ME THAT IT'S WELL WRITTEN.)

I can pick up any one of the four of hers on my shelf and say, without reservation, that it is, in fact, well written. Fannie Flagg is very much in the vein of Garrison Keillor - she writes quiet stories about families going about living their lives in small towns. She is funny without being crude, and sentimental without being sacchrine. She clearly knows the kind of story she's good at telling and sticks to that, much like Keillor. She also has a very obvious love and personal connection to the places and people in her stories.

On any day of the week, I'd take Fannie Flagg over authors who view writing as a kind of paint-by-numbers exercise, changing their subject matter and/or writing style based on whatever the current 'hot trend' seems to be. Or because they think it'll get them published.

I'm talking about prose style

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

When I say well written, though, I'm not talking about her subject matter or the spine of the stories. Stories about the South and our inimitable eccentrics are great, and that's what hers are. I always like her characters. It's just her prose style that makes me wince. When I try to read her books, that gets in the way. Everything about a story can be in place, and the characters can still be wonderful, and I can still say that the prose is clunky, and that's what I really mean by "well written"--I'm actually talking about the prose itself. Sorry if that led to confusion. To me, a book can have a perfect plot and be logical in every scene and still not be well written in terms of prose.

It's not the Southern voice that bugs me. She uses an awful lot of ellipses, and some of her constructions are confusing. It's just an overall prose style issue. I think she does the Southern gothic very well.

Gail Godwin is another who can write the Southern novel (maybe not such a gothic, though) but has a different prose style, one that I would call mellifluous. Clyde Edgerton also does the South proud, and his prose is purty. I met him at UTD once, and he's even good-lookin'. *grin*

Conversely, a novel can be well written but still not have a good and compelling story (in my worldview). That's not what I was saying about Flagg. Her stories work. Her characters work. It's just the writing itself. Sorry for the confusion.

(continued on next rock)

Re: Writers who do different things with each book

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you about authors who write in different styles. I'd say that anyone who tries to do something different with each book is growing the way an artist is supposed to. Maybe the new book won't be a success, but the writer challenged herself to stretch; I don't see that as a paint-by-numbers at all. If I wrote the same basic plot over and over (category romance, perhaps), that would be more like paint-by-numbers. Picasso learned to draw "the regular way" before he went off to do his own discoveries--when he grew, that was good. Sometimes a writer just gets an idea that fits into a new genre. I do think every genre has its own challenges. Some writers try various styles and subjects until they find something they really love to write. I think that's a *good* thing.

What I hear you saying is that Flagg is true to herself and writes what she knows. But what if she hadn't been able to get her books published because (for instance) people believed Southern themes never sell? Then she'd have had to either give up or try some other kind of subject matter. That's marketing, unfortunately. It's never a good idea to chase the *current* trend, because it'll probably be over by the time you finish the book, but sometimes it's worthwhile to invent a new direction and go with it. One plus that Fannie Flagg had going into it was that she was already a celebrity, having been a stand-up comic in the early 1960s and a regular on "Match Game," Steve Allen, and other TV shows of the time. So that may have eased the way for publishing to take a chance on the Southern themes. I don't know for sure, but it's a possible scenario, because I used to hear at conventions that "Southern stuff doesn't sell outside of the South, and we don't publish it." That all changed after "Fried Green Tomatoes" became a movie in the 1980s. (There were always exceptions, such as Harper Lee and William Faulkner. But the humorous Southern gothic was a tough sell before Fannie Flagg. You're right--she is a trailblazer. I only wish she had more of an ear for cadenced prose.)

I can't really condemn authors who do something that they believe will get them published, though. I mean . . . isn't that what we are all trying to do? If our ultimate goal is publication, then that's what we should do--whatever it is that we think will get us published. One of the pieces of advice that I often heard early on was that if I'd only write category romance, I would be able to sell it more easily, since there are so many slots every month for category novels, and therefore that's where many authors start out. But I never could get into the swing of a category. My characters couldn't concentrate on--even obsess about--the romance as the primary focus; they always got involved in the plot and didn't want to have sex on stage, so I gave up the idea of doing a category book. Still, writing category romance is something that will increase your odds of getting the book published, just looking at the numbers. (Assuming you can write a romance that is well done in the spirit of romance, something that delivers to the readers the experience they're looking for.)

I would even venture to say that if an author can write in various styles and is able to deal with different subject matter (I'm assuming you mean someone who writes mysteries, Westerns, fantasy, mainstream, romance, and whatever comes up), that's great. There aren't that many people who do it--Carole Nelson Douglas does mystery and fantasy, and J. D. Robb/Nora Roberts does romance and mystery, and I know Gillian Roberts is the mystery pseudo of a mainstream novelist--and it's got to take more talent to do that. I see these authors as people with more talent, rather than as dilettantes. It really is tough to write in different styles. Many, many writers find a groove that fits them and then go on to write basically the same kind of book over and over. That suits them and their readers. But that doesn't mean that someone who can do different things is wrong to do all of them.

Anything an author can do that helps a book be more commercial or publishable is probably a Good Thing.

Re: I'm talking about prose style

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

Everything about a story can be in place, and the characters can still be wonderful, and I can still say that the prose is clunky, and that's what I really mean by "well written"--I'm actually talking about the prose itself.

The thing, though, is that having the story in place and the characters come alive is far more important to me--both as a reader and as a writer--than labouring over beautiful mellifluous prose. All too often I find the effort to make my prose "read pretty" comes off as "look at me!" antics that distract and irritate the reader.

Do not mistake this for me preferring a "no-style style" or a "stripped-bare thriller style," because I don't. Writing is about communication and if I'm not communicating... well, it's fun, but eventually you go blind.

If the Plain Style was good enough for Dunstable Ramsey, it's good enough for me. I won't even try to ape Robertson Davies himself--first of all, I lack his weight of classical education. Secondly, if you look at his stuff, there aren't any wasted words there either.