Tag-Archive for » publishing «
I’m a little perplexed by the overall tone of this article from The Guardian. By the end, I can’t help but feel patronized to on behalf of all those teen authors out there.
Do I think they all deserve to get published? No. I do think that writing, 99% of the time, improves with age because you gain perspective and experience, something most teens just don’t have. And those aren’t skills you can learn through classes or online. You have to actually live to get them and in order to live, you have to continually wake up alive for more than 18 years in a row.
Of course teens go through drama and hardships. They all do. But high school life is nothing compared to the real world and the heaping pile of feces you learn there. But even in the middle of all of that, there are a few teens that can write with just as much panache as any adult writer and can, in my opinion, put them to shame. You know, people say who better to write for teens than teens themselves? I agree, to an extent. While teens can get the voice and drama down pat, most just don’t have the skills to put it all to publishing standard words, not to mention the age to distance themselves from their own work. Because the work is so derivative, how can you separate yourself from it to give it the editing eye is so sorely needs?
But my issue with this article is that it kind of patronizes young writers. As anyone that’s been around kids and teens know, they want to be taken seriously. There’s nothing worse than an adult pandering to them. And that’s what the author of this article was doing. He was talking about just how funny and “snort-worthy” a book by a nine-year-old was. You know, I’m sure we’d all find a humor in it that the younger generations may not but I can almost guarantee that when that girl was writing it, she wasn’t writing a comedy. It’s someone laughing at your work when it’s not funny and then patting you on the head and saying, “Good try, darling. Very cute.” No one likes to be patronized to and kids aren’t stupid.
I do think that reading something from a kid as young as 9 can have it’s charm and offer a voice and a sight into something that most adults couldn’t write. But if we’re only publishing it because “it’s so cute to read,” wouldn’t it just fare better on a blog post or something? I think giving the kid the god-honest truth before it reaches print is much better than being patronized to when it’s published. The latter is far more detrimental to maintaining a love of reading and writing in a child than telling them what they need to hear.
If all you’re doing it humoring them, then don’t publish them. Please. But if they have something to offer the publishing world and write just as good as all those adults twice their age, why deny them that opportunity because of their age? I mean, the publishing world unleased Stephenie Meyer on us (thanks, by the way O_o) and she’s a mother of three. So let’s not pinpoint quality on age alone, ok? I know 6 year olds that have better quality than her.
If you haven’t already stopped by The Bookshelf Muse yet (and I’ve mentioned them I don’t know how many times), then you might want to do it now. Why? Well, aside from the awesome writing tips and tools they provide, they need your help.
As you all (or maybe not) know, The Bookshelf Muse has a bunch of thesauruses (thesauri?) for things like emotions, settings and most recently colors, textures and shapes to help broaden writerly horizons. They do this in order to provide a resource for writers to use in order to better their writing and not use eye rolling and shoulder shrugging all the time. What they do and the effort they put into their posts is absolutely amazing.
But they need your help because they’re considering putting their efforts into book form. And not just the self-published kind. They want to head on over to the big wigs and option their ideas. How can you help them do this? Easy. Support them. Follow their blog either by the follow option, the feed reader, or both. Comment like crazy, tell other people about everything they’re doing for writers. The more support TBM can show these publishers, the better chance they’ll have at getting their book out there and on the shelves for so many more people to see.
So if you like what TBM has to offer and think they’re providing a valuable service, then scream your support from the rooftops. They deserve it, and so does every writer out there.
If you haven’t heard that the publishing world is imploding with the rest of the economy, then I think you’ve been living under a rock. Or just not into publishing, one or the other. It’s not as news-making as the Big Three wanting a bailout in order to escape insolvency but if you’re a writer, it’s certainly big enough.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt halted adult novel acquisitions last month, or so it was grossly rumored (per the HMH spokesperson) as I read on Agent Kristin’s blog. She’s been reporting on this stuff for the past month or so. If you don’t know what that means, it’s really quite simple. No touchy. HMH will no touchy your work. They ain’t buying nothing. Apparently the children’s department is still acquiring and the spokesman did say the news was taken too far, that they were still acquiring but under a tighter pen, but it’s still daunting news.
Well, Publisher’s Weekly has more news out that people in the publishing biz are dropping like flies, all at HMH and their divisions. They’re consolidating their departments in order to save money. Good for them, bad for the rest of us. For writers it means getting an even smaller chance to get published with an HMH imprint and for readers, it means, in a year or so, less by the way of HMH publications to read. The catalogue is shrinking.
We are in dire straits and no one is being left untouched (unless you’re one of the Big Three and get to fly around in your Lear Jets asking for billions in taxpayer money bailout). Our chances of publication have just slimmed that much more. A random blog I read (hell if I could remember which one now, blasted sieve of a memory) had a post that highlighted reasons it’s great to be a writer in a recession (mainly very little monetary output and maximum creative input) and that’s not to be taken lightly. There’s never a bad time to be a writer (in theory) but when the pickers get picky, you just have to up your game.
Not that you were slacking off before and not that this is an excuse or anything because you’ve always done this, but now is the time to strive to write even better than you did before. The competition’s huge and there are fewer medals to win. You have to be better in order to get that coveted spot. You might have thought you were good before. Now it’s time to supercede that. You don’t have a choice.
These are not good signs but we don’t have any choice but to work with them.
Over at The Bookshelf Muse, they have a guest blogger every once in a while called Grammbo, who just so happens to be a fiction editor. This time around she posted points on specific . . . “styles” (for a lack of a better word) that’ll pretty much guarantee an editor won’t take it (note the “pretty much” part). These points, I think, are pretty objective considering, from reading experience, none of them are going to be something an editor (or an agent for that initial step) are going to want to take on (usually, I need to cover myself there, nothing’s 100%). I think Grammbo hit it on the head with this one and let the other nitpicks, the much more subjective ones, fall by the wayside. Really, there’s no way to round up everything that every editor won’t take because none of them adhere to any strict rules of acquiring. They might not even adhere to these guidelines but I think it’s safe to say they will.
Make sure your manuscript is edited to perfection. Or, at least, your perfection. Don’t send out a first draft. That’s never a good thing. I know there are people that edit along the way as they write but even as you finish writing that first draft, I can almost guarantee it’s not submission-ready (not even for *coughannricecough*). You write your book. Edit it to the very point that you think you can’t edit it anymore. Then have someone else look at it. At least one other person.
A second set of fresh eyes distanced from your work is probably the best thing that can be done for it (just make sure it’s the right set of eyes, someone whom you trust and you know will provide valuable feedback on your work). You, as the writer, are too close to your own work to just edit it yourself. There are things in there you’ve missed even though you may think you got everything. Double up. Trade an edit for an edit with someone else. You’ll thank yourself later.
Make sure your manuscript isn’t sterilized, meaning that it doesn’t follow every single piece of “valid” writing advice to the T. Yes, the advice is valid but it must be taken in accordance with how your manuscript dictates it be written. If you follow every “rule” out there, you’ll end up stripping away the voice that makes your work yours and end up with a story that could have been written by anyone for how unaffiliated it reads.
Take all advice, even the good stuff, with a grain of salt. If you truly believe that a certain piece of advice doesn’t work with your writing, and others support that notion, then don’t tailor your writing just to appease some nagging inner or external editor that’s demanding this be done because it’s a “rule.” Rules are broken all the time in writing. Some frustratingly so. Go out and read more and you’ll see. Once you get comfortable with the notion that it’s ok to be imperfect in your style, you’ll be more comfortable and confident with your writing and less paranoid with the technicalities.
NaNo Update–Definitely questioning my sanity. Also discovering that maybe assigning a chapter a day was a little much for my writing style. It worked out in the beginning because the chapters were shorter but now they’re getting wordier and starting to get to lengths comparable to a chapter and a half or two chapters from the first few. My wrist is starting to hurt and my middle finger isn’t looking too good. I had the hangnail from Hell earlier in the week and it’s just now getting better. Not to mention the scar I still have from the pumpkin carving. An electric turkey carver might work better next time.
So I’m seriously considering tossing the chapter a day thing because I’m finding I just can’t write that much in one day. I write best in short bursts, as I’m learning. I’m getting the same amount of word count in but at this point, I’m thinking a chapter a day is just too much. It’s getting my OCD to come down from the chapter a day goal that’ll be the hardest part.
As for the word count, I’m pretty sure I’m good on that considering how much I’ve been writing. If it isn’t I’ll probably cry. I’ll find out tomorrow.
Yeah, in your dreams. Not that you can’t make money off of writing, and even make enough money to live off of, but becoming rolling in dough wealthy is a pretty far stretch for 99% of the writers out there. That’s not to say someone like me doesn’t dream of being in J.K. Rowling’s shoes but, until it actually happens, that’s all that it is: a dream. Sad but true. It’s like being asked to be the presidential nominee’s running mate. When targets are asked the what if question, they always say they’re content where they are but if actually asked, of course they wouldn’t deny it. Same goes for millionaire authors. I’d be very content making a reasonable salary off of my writing but if the opportunity came to make millions, I’d kick my own ass if I didn’t take it. After the screaming stopped, of course.
As Forbes is wont to do, they’ve released a list of the world’s best paid authors and is it really a surprise at who tops that list? I think what’s much more shocking is just how much more she got than number two, James Patterson. Rowling’s $300 million dollars in the single fiscal year from 2007 to 2008 got her number one on the list (no, I didn’t type that wrong, it really is $300 million) and Patterson’s $50 million got him the second slot.
Are you seeing that astounding gap too? The rest of the authors on the list (including Stephen King, Tom Clancy and Danielle Steele) aside from Rowling are within striking distance of each other. A $250 million gap is more like a precipice. A mini Grand Canyon even. Any of those figures on that list are astounding for any author to make, let alone to be at the top by a $250 million lead.
Yes, something like that can happen but the chances of it happening to you, me or anyone else you know are pretty slim. Might as well go play the lottery in a lightening storm and see what comes up.
Poof! Bestsellers all over the place! You blink and you got another J.K. Rowling on your hands. But is it really an “overnight success” or just a matter of becoming aware of the product? Definitely none of the former and more than likely some of the latter. Kristin Nelson talks about the pure fallacy of “overnight success” in the publishing world and how such successes actually work.
An overnight success in the publishing world is as oxymoronic a term as jumbo shrimp. That’s why when people say they want to get into publishing to “make a quick buck,” I try to smack some sense into them. And just outright laugh at those that “know” what they’re doing and are too pig-headed to learn right. *snerk* That can be a whole ‘nother rant.
First, just think about how long it took it write that first novel. Meyer doesn’t count because she put absolutely no care into the craft, just focused on telling a ridiculous story. Lets use Rowling. Much better example. She started writing Harry Potter in 1993, I believe. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was first copyrighted in 1997. That’s when the book hit shelves. Give it at least a year prior to that to get into an editor’s hands , so 1996 it was sold to publishing. Not to mention the time to find an agent. Lets be generous and use 6 months.
But were there insane Potterheads right from the beginning? Certainly not like there are now. The fandom didn’t pick up until the second book, at least. And that’s not even when Rowling hit the mega-insanity that she has now in the publishing world (and, really, the world in general). The first movie based on the books was released in 2001. So lets say a good year range for the mania to hit was somewhere between 2000 and 2001. That would be 7 to 8 years after the writing started and three to four after the first book hit shelves.
Does that sound like “overnight” to you?
Looks sell a lot of things. There’s no doubt about that. That’s why celebrities don’t look like the back end of a mule and the Tresemme girls have sparkling white teeth. No one’s going to want to buy shampoo from a toothless hag. But do they sell books? Mobylives talks about it in a short post in response to The New Yorker imposing author pictures for the younger, prettier writers in their fiction issue. (Yes, I know that that article is seven years old. To be fair, I found it via The Rejecter’s blog and she highlighted it within the last year. I’m not the only one that far behind. Besides, the topic is still relevant.)
The wonderful thing about writing is that you don’t have to look like a movie star in order to “make it.” I highly doubt Terry Pratchett has hordes of screaming fangirls eager to tear off his clothes. That’d just be weird. Just from what I’ve experienced, people almost expect authors to be somewhat eccentric, not only in the looks department but in the personality venue as well. I can certainly vouch for the latter. But for the former? I think that’s pretty much true. I wouldn’t consider Stephen King a hunk but I think it’s fairly obvious that his un-Brad Pitt-like mug hasn’t held him back any.
I do think that article did go a little overboard though. Don’t get me wrong. I think it was a little weird of The New Yorker to make those authors pose as their characters. Would anyone ask J.K. Rowling to dress up as Voldemort in order to better market her products? Really, I think it was nothing more than an experiment. Lets face it. The writing world isn’t like Hollywood. Age doesn’t matter, not in terms of “staying alive.” The older you are usually equates to how much better of a writer you are over the younger crowds. That’s not always the case, of course, but the majority does rule in this instance. A young publishing Hollywood doesn’t really exist, not when the median age of authors is somewhere in the 30s. What a faux pas that would be in movieland.
