Rumblings (and Ramblings) at Madeline's -- JANUARY 2008

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by pyan

Synopsis Challenge: Your favourite book in 50 words or less........

That does sound like an interesting idea. (It looks like I would have just squeaked in under the limit.)

[Leisha]

Can I enter the draw too?

----------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Just because I'll be holding forth, please don't think that comments and discussion are unwelcome here. (It's exactly the opposite: if I don't hear from anyone, I'll assume that no one is reading this and that the experiment is a failure.)

Teresa, I think this blog is a good idea; if you have something important to say, or something you want to share, then share it. There will always be someone who wants to listen. If I ever get published, I would do a similar thing.

And thank you for your synopsis information. If I hadn't already written my synopsis and was happy with it, I'd have found your post helpful. It's nice to see someone actually making a living as a writer -- and who gives up there time to help others -- as opposed to hearing about how difficult it is to get into the business.

[Sephiroth]

Well put, Leisha. It's very inspiring.

[Leisha]

Thank you. Aspiring writer's are lucky to find an author who's willing to give up their own time -- which means their writing time -- to help us. The same goes for John Jarrold and all he does here.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Leisha

As opposed to hearing about how difficult it is to get into the business.

It is difficult to get published -- but difficult in the sense of taking a lot of time and effort, rather than difficult in terms of the odds being stacked almost impossibly against you, as some would have you believe. To a very large extent the odds are in our own hands. Those who complain the loudest and the most often are frequently (not always, but frequently) those who have expended a very small amount of effort.

Which may sound hypocritical coming from me, since I sold my first book about twenty years ago, and to the second publisher I sent it to. But I did spend something like six years of sustained effort on the thing before I started submitting it. I freely admit that I wouldn't have had the courage to stick with it, if I had had any idea how long it would take me to produce something I thought was good enough. Every draft I wrote, after the first two or three, I thought: This will be the second to last. I can't even tell you how many drafts there were, because I stopped counting at seven. (Someone with more sense undoubtedly would have divided that number of drafts between several books.) And of course there was an element of luck and timing; there always is. (I've been on the wrong side of that, too, since then.) But the more effort you put in, the more tickets you get in that lottery.

[Leisha]

Wow, I hope that's true. I've been working for over five years on my world and my novel, and I've paid out for my manuscript to be edited (which is no mean feat when you have hardly any money), and I'd like to think that, with every day I spend on it, and with every redraft I've done and will do, my work is improving.


Of course, as you, John, and most other professionals say, it's also about luck and timing.

[Sephiroth]

That is brilliant to hear you say, Teresa, because it is what I hoped might be the case, but from the outside one can never be sure. I'm still in the process of producing something I think is good enough. I've always believed that if I can finish something and be satisfied with it, it will have a reasonable chance of success. If I believed that the odds were almost impossibly stacked against me, I wouldn't have that hope, and I don't think I could do it.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If I believed that the odds were almost impossibly stacked against me, I wouldn't have that hope, and I don't think I could do it.

This is why I get so worked up and am inclined to go into long rants when I see people trying to infect other writers with their own negativity.

Mind you, I think it's just as bad when someone looks at something that is utter rubbish and in an effort to be encouraging says, "Oh, this has wonderful potential. I want to see more." It sets up unrealistic expectations and actually impedes a writer's improvement. Sensible, constructive criticism is, in the end, so much kinder. (Although I have made myself very unpopular in certain quarters for saying so.)

[Sephiroth]

Well, I agree with you. For all that I don't speak from any position of 'authority', I make it a point only to critique things I think show genuine potential, and I give my honest opinion of any flaws therein. And I expect the same honesty from people when they read my work. I'm not fishing for compliments, after all, but trying to improve. If people read it and think it stinks, I need to know why.

And of course, I need to believe I have the ability to improve it, subsequently.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have occasionally met people of such spectacular density that I've despaired of their ability to improve. It doesn't happen very often, and even there I may be wrong.

But as for writers who are self-critical and who are able to take constructive criticism from others, they don't fall into that category. In their case, I think there is always the ability to improve.

I have to believe that, because I'm always trying to improve my own writing. If I thought this was the best I'll ever be, that would be very disappointing.

[Leisha]

But as for writers who are self-critical and who are able to take constructive criticism from others, they don't fall into that category. In their case, I think there is always the ability to improve.

That's what agents and editors are looking for as well: potential clients who show determination and have the temperament to make necessary changes when asked. I suppose it must be an editors nightmare, to come across an author who refuses to do ANY edits/rewrites simply because they think their work's good enough already.

That said, I read somewhere that agents and editors are also looking for authors who can put there foot down when they need to, since it is the writer's story and they know how everything will pad out. I suppose it's an organic process, and once you find the right editor and agent, they will each discuss your manuscript at length.

[Teresa Edgerton]

With all the editors I've ever worked with, when they find a problem they simply say "fix this," and leave me to deal with it in my own way.

So you're quite right. They're looking for writers who are professional and cooperative, but a good editor also respects the individual writer's creative process. Plus, quite frankly, they don't have the time to do your work for you. The days when the acquiring editor went through a manuscript with a blue pencil, acting almost as the writer's collaborator, are long past.

[Leisha]

With all the editors I've ever worked with, when they find a problem they simply say "fix this," and leave me to deal with it in my own way.

I like that idea. They trust the writer to understand the fault and fix it, leaving them free to get on with their business, and the writer to improve.

[Sephiroth]

It's hugely relieving, if you ask me. I'd much rather do what needs doing myself.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Sometimes you have to watch out for the copy editor, though, if they're just out of college and think they are God's gift to literature.

But the CE you can usually overrule with a minimum of fuss.

Most of the copy editors I've dealt with have been very good at their jobs (I did have some issues with the last one) and my two best friends have done copy editing, so I consider them by-and-large a noble breed, but I have heard of writers who have had such bad experiences they had rubber stamps made with the word "stet" (which, for those who don't know, means "leave it the way I had it"), to save them the trouble of writing it over and over and over. The problem with that is, if you stamp it in ink, you can't erase it later when you cool down.