CRAFT: Dialogue - All you gotta do is listen

I'm told I write great dialogue, or at least good dialogue, but who knows?  It's all subjective and a matter of opinion.  However, I do like to write dialogue and my first draft is almost entirely just...dialogue.  Probably proves nothing at all but I thought I'd mention it as a sort of credential.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this dialogue thing because there's nothing that can't be improved upon.  If you're currently having problems with your dialogue (no one thinks they are having problems with their dialogue but an honest critique partner might let you know) the fastest way to find out is to read it aloud.  Or, better yet, get a friend to read it aloud while you listen.  If it sounds stilted, it's because it is.

Some of you may know that I write historical romantic mysteries--sort of.  One of the biggest myths about the Regency period is that no one used contractions.  Not!  Sure, when they were giving a formal speech or when in a particularly hoity-toity situation this might be true, but on a day-to-day basis...naw.  People use contractions when they speak.  They also leave out words, speak in half-sentences, and otherwise butcher the language.

However, you do have to make what your characters say at least seem to make sense so you can't go completely crazy.  So, here is my advice on the subject of dialogue.

Regency Period
Give your hero and heroine a break and let them use a few contractions so their speech sounds less stilted.  Those are the two characters you really want your readers to bond with and no modern reader is going to bond with a character who sounds like she's talking with her nose in the air.  If you have older characters who are very proper, let them take the heat and enuciate everything perfectly and speak very properly with no contractions.  I'd also allow the normal citizens to speak with contractions--you know, the hawkers in the street and the poor little flower girl selling voilets on the corner.

If you actually look at documents from the period, not only do they use contractions, but they use so many abbreviations that I actually have a hard time figuring out what they're trying to say (and why do they HATE the letter 'e'?  It's the letter most commonly left out...).

Examples:
The Duchess of Devenshire wrote to a friend in 1788...
I don't know in my Life that I Pass'd so many Miserable Hours, S. had so completely involved himself with Ly D. in that a suit was actually commenced against them in the Doctors Commons...however, thank God! The business is hush'd up...

I see "don't" used a lot in letters and reported conversation, so that's at least one contraction you are completely safe in using for Regency-set stories.

The point here is that you want your hero and heroine, at least, to sound human and like someone the reader could care about.  No one likes a stuffed shirt.  'Nuff said.  (Oh, and if you want to really sound historical, abbreviate everyone's name to just an initial, capitolize most of your nouns, and replace all your 'e' characters with a apostrophe ( ' ).  Yeah.  Right.

This "don't use contractions" rule probably came about by readers of Jane Austen who was very sparing of contractions (she mostly didn't use them) but I think it's important to realize her novels were somewhat formal affairs where everyone pretty much spoke correctly. But even this high authority had her moments...

From PERSUASION by Jane Austen
"Yes, I have.  Presently.  But here comes a friend, Captain Brigden; I shall only say, 'How d'ye do,' as we pass, however.  I shall not stop.  'How d'ye do.'

Be aware that all writers are writing for their audience and their times.  In Austen's time, readers preferred main characters who spoke beautifully and it is mostly the secondary, 'lower class' characters who may be portrayed as speaking in a more informal fashion (although this is not 100% true even in Austen).

If you are writing now, be aware that while 'lower class' characters may still speak more informally, most of our readers are not going to bond with characters who speak like they have a poker stuck up their rear end, hence my suggestion to let the hero and heroine use a few contractions to make them easier to like.

I've said that about a dozen ways now, so I'll move on to more modern time frames.

Now
If you want to write good dialogue, you're going to have to be a good listener.
When I was in High School, I had a teacher who thought he was hot stuff and decided to teach us "kids" that we were not good listeners.  So, for one of his lectures, he talked about a technique for listening which he called reflective listening.  It's a real technique and I urge you to try it.  This dumb-ass teacher just made the assumption we would not know how to do this, but anyone who has parents knows just how far they can push them, and they know because they're using reflective listening.   Teenagers know perfectly well that when dad says, "That's enough!" in a certain tone of voice, he means, you had better shut up and run like hell because the world as you know it is about to explode into a million jagged fragments and if you're here when that happens it is not going to be a good experience for you.

Of course the fact that both my parents got their PhD's in Child Development/Psychology also means that I may be a little more familiar with this technique than your average skate-boarding/head-phone-wearing/pink-haired psycho.  Anyway, this technique involves listening.  You rarely say anything and when you do, it's basically an attempt to restate or clarify what the speaker has said to make sure you really understand them.  It responds to the person rather than to the impersonal or abstract.  You are not asking questions or telling what the listener feels or wants-you're listening and reflecting back what they are saying.

So, how will this help you?  It will make you listen to what people are saying and how they are saying it.  Then, when you go to write dialogue, you are going to write it the way you remember people actually speaking.

Like I said, unless they are giving a speech or are in some formal situation, people speak very off-handedly.  They rarely use a complete sentence.  Depending upon the character, they may not even speak grammatically.  I would caution you, however, not to go insane and start using a lot of bizarre spelling to indicate dialects or accents, because that is a dialogue killer.  It makes it unreadable.  All you have to do is sprinkle in a few characteristic words that a particular character likes to use, and that will make the reader "hear" the dialect without making them go insane trying to decipher mispelled/phonetic words. 

Let me give you a few good examples of dialogue from recent books, set well, recently.

From DUTCH UNCLE by Peter Pavia
"Right now?  I'm trying to get back to New York."
"Is that right," Leo said.  "How much money you got?"
"I don't know, I got a few bucks."  He knew the amount to the penny, $12.97, but there was no reason Leo had to know it, too.

"You feel like making some?"
Harry didn't know if he liked the way that sounded.  "What do I have to do?"
"When was the last time you saw your uncle?"
"My uncle," Harry said.  "What uncle?  How do you know my uncle?"
Leo looked at him like he knew a secret.  "I'm talking about your uncle Manfred."

I love this because Leo answers a question with a question which is just so in character.  You see what I mean about the casual tone?  This sounds exactly like two guys talking...which is what it is.

From DEJA DEAD by Kathy Reichs
"What do you think you're doing?  You break that door, trou de cul, and you're going to pay for it."
"Police," said Claudel, ignoring the asshole reference.
"Yeah?  You show me something."

I included this because it shows you exactly what I mean about dialect.  She doesn't make it impossible for the reader by trying to do some phonetic hijinks to show a French accent or dialect.  What she does is include one small phrase, trou de cul, which she even defines for the reader on the next line in a very off-hand but expert manner.

Now, the final example from a book which is almost entirely dialogue.

From BIG TROUBLE by Dave Barry
"So what you're telling me," Evan Hanratty, organizer of the Killer game, said to Matt, "is that her mom beat you up?  Her mom?"...

"She jumped me from behind," said Matt.  "And there were two of them.  And I wasn't gonna hit women."
"Looks like they hit you pretty good," said Evan, studying Matt's lower lip.
"Well, I got a lot of help from my backup man," said Matt.
"Hey," said Andrew, "call me crazy, but when somebody starts shooting, I leave."

Note the use of italics (reversed here, actually, for purposes of this blog) to place the emphasis on certain words.  This is important because it gives this the right rhythm for the speakers, who are teenagers.

My final tips are:

• Don't have conversation consisting of silliness like line after line of "Yes." "No." "The weather is fine."  That sort of dialogue is a time-waster and can be covered in a simple:  She agreed.   Don't waste space on conversation that is going nowhere.  There is an exception to this and it was done in DEJA DEAD when the police were grilling a suspect.  The suspect only answered in monosyllables, but it was important to the scene.
• Don't use perfect sentences--no one talks like that.  Listen to the rhythm of real conversation and try some reflective listening to pick up what people are really saying and how they are saying it.  (Just don't get confused and start to think you're a psychologist and begin asking questions like:  Is it accurate to say that what you are feeling when you say that is...)
• Don't be afraid to use a sprinkling of contractions in Regency-speak.
• Don't go insane and use a lot of garbled phonetics that no one is going to take the time to sound out or understand.
• Try to keep the conversations "in character".  If all your characters sound alike, you've got a problem.  People have different pet phrases--it's often a good idea to figure out a rhythm and/or pet phrase for your main characters that will indicate to the reader who is speaking.  It will give them a handle and make your characters seem more realistic.  For example, you could have a detective who frequently uses the phrase, "I see," when questioning suspects.  I like to key this off of other character traits when developing conversational traits.  Some people are very sound-oriented.  They need to hear something to understand and remember it, so as a student, they may prefer a lecture to reading material in a book.  This person may use phrases such as, "I hear ya," or "We're not all singing the same song," when they talk.  They use phrases related to the audatory senses when possible.  Someone who uses the phrase, "I see," may be more visually oriented.  A person who is a "do-er" or who needs "hands on" to learn something, may use phrases such as "I can't get a grip on that," or "I can't grasp that."
• Read your dialogue out loud.  If it sounds formal and/or stilted and it's not intended to do so, then cut out a few words.  Make it more casual.  You don't need to be grammatically correct in dialogue--only in the other parts of your writing.  Of course, punctuation is still important. :-)

That's it - have fun!  If you have dialogue pet peeves, I'd love to hear about them.

Ways to Improve your Writing

As I've already mentioned ad nauseum, I'm in the midst of revising a manuscript. It's a good thing, too, because I can't believe how bad that manuscript really was, even though two agents have signed me based upon it. In any event, I got about half-way through revisions and started to worry that I was adding too much introspection.

How much is too much?
One way to get some sort of measure is to see what other, published writers have done. After glancing through a few books, I realized I needed a way to visualize the percentage of introspection in a book and I remembered a technique I had heard about in a writing seminar.

This technique consisted of taking a packet of different colored highlighters and marking the various elements such as dialogue, description, introspection, etc, with different colors so you could see at a glance the weight of each element. This is fine, but I find it's too much extraneous information and too many colors to deal with--too much information, but it was still useable if I exercised a little moderation. I just picked up one highlighter and highlighted all the introspection in one chapter that was at about the same "place" in the book as my current editing location. I wanted the relative placement to be just about even because as books progress, the amount of introspection often changes.

It worked. But here's the really exciting part: although I was about average as far as the amount of introspection, I had unexpectedly changed my hero, and not for the better. Somehow, going through marking things up made me realize understand other aspects such as this character change. Because of all my editing, my hero had started to overthink things. As I was editing, I added a lot of complex inner thoughts.

Women tend to do that, men--less so. Men tend to be more "direct" thinkers, perhaps even "simple" in that they don't circle around the barn when they can just walk right through it. Cut to the chase, bottom line. That's how my hero was before I started fooling around with him. In highlighting the introspection, I realized I was uncomfortable not because I had too much introspection, but because I was inadvertently changed my hero from a fairly straightforward guy into a convoluted, angst-ridden, hand-wringing person. Not good.

Sometimes when we think we have a problem, it isn't the problem we think we have.

Thank goodness for highlighters.

Damped Flailing

This is really more by way of reassurance than anything, because it takes me a long time to work things out and I'm trying to convince myself that I'm not a terrible writer.  Over the last few months, I've been trying to work out a way to write which will not require a million drafts, massive cutting, and even more gigantic episodes of rewriting.  I keep thinking there has got to be a better way--I've got to learn how to do this more efficiently and with better quality.  Right now, I'm stuck, and I mean STUCK in revision hell and it's making me think maybe I'm not such a great writer, after all.  I look at my critique partners who started out approximately when I did, and they are all published.  Some are e-published, some are single title published with traditional publishers. 

I'm still lagging behind, as usual.  So what am I doing wrong?

When I first started writing, I plotted out everything very carefully and grew distraught when halfway through I realized things weren't going according to plan and I had to replot.  At the same time, I was attending writing conferences and it seemed like everyone I knew (who got published--this is the key thing for me--I was looking at methods used by those who actually got published) thought that plotters were, well, a lower form of writer.  All my critique partners who got single title contracts with traditional publishers such as Kensington were pansters.

So, I thought maybe my problem was that I shouldn't be a plotter, I should be a panster--one of those writers who just write by the seat of their pants.  This technique slowed me down, though, because I didn't know where I was going with the story, so I sort of compromised by writing perhaps three phrases for each chapter that indicated to me what I wanted to do in that chapter.  Not in depth plotting, but I could stumble along with that.

Then, attending a few more sessions, this time given by plotters, I realized I really did need to plot things out because when I didn't, my writing slowed to a crawl and I thought, if I did a good job plotting, maybe I wouldn't have to cut and rewrite so much.  These published writers who plotted often only did one draft!  Amazing!

Then, to my horror, I realized that a major part of my problem was what I was plotting.  I was plotting scenes or events, not character developments.  In large part, I thought this was necessary because I have a mystery element, so it made sense to me that if the body is found in Chapter 3, I ought to plot out that the body is found in Chapter 3. 

It is slowly dawning on me that this is not right.  I'm focused on the wrong thing.  I'm focused on the plot element happening--the body being found--instead of what is happening to the character at that time.  Here is what I mean.  If your story concerns a detective who doesn't trust women and he's called to investigate a death where it appears that a woman may be the killer, then the discovery of the body isn't the plot point you need to consider--the body is the "scenery" and you wouldn't say for a plot point that they discover a chair in the dining room.  The plot point is the fact that the detective is now involved in a murder which will test him in the way he deals with women. Will he allow his prejudices to influence his investigation?  How will he wrestle with this?  Can he be fair?  Will he ask to be assigned to a different case?

This is much more difficult - it's much easier to focus on what is happening instead of the character's issues and development (I refuse to call it a journey), but that is what is important.

That's why I end up cutting and doing rewrites - because after I've written the book, I realize that I haven't covered the character's development and that needs to be addressed.  (My first draft also consists almost solely of dialogue with small bits of action, so I actually have to add in all the descriptions, emotions, transitions, etc.  I even have to add in dialogue tags.  I remember one scene that went on for several pages with so few "he said" and "she said" tags that during revisions I lost track of who was speaking half-way down the page and had to go through and put tags in so I knew what was going on.  The amazing thing is that when I wrote it, I followed the conversation without any tags at all, quite well.)

I also have to "get to know" my characters and the only way for me to do that is to write.  As a result, I usually throw away the first chapter or two, because those are my crucible where I form the characters.  I can't avoid this.  I can draw all the character sketches I want, do all the interviews I want, do all the things other writers do to flesh out their characters, but until they start interacting with one another and the situation, I don't know them well enough to get a good start on the story.  Now, I have written two manuscripts where I believe I've started them in a place that might be Chapter One in the finished product, but I'm not holding my breath.  I won't know until I'm done editing them.

The bottom line of this is actually several bottom lines.
1)  It's okay to be a plotter, a panster, or something else, like me.  Everyone is unique and you really do have to write in the way that works best for you.  Try different techniques and see what you like.  Throw away the rest.  Don't feel like you're less talented just because you don't follow any of the well-known strategies.

2)  Sometimes, you can't finish a manuscript in one draft with one revision.  That might work for really tight writers--I know several in fact who do this--but for some of us, this just doesn't work.  The process of writing for me more closely resembles something a previous boss called damped flailing.

3)  Damped flailing is my technique.  It's for people who are not plotters and not pansters.  Damped is a term more often seen in physics, but it basically means to slow, decrease or stop the amplitude of an oscillating system.  Your book is the oscillating system and it's a real mess when you're done with draft 1--it's oscillating all over the place.  So, what damped flailing is, is starting out flailing around in a huge spiraling circle, trying to figure out your plots and your characters and get that down on paper as your first draft.  As you work on the story, the spiral gets tighter and your flailing around decreases, but doesn't entirely go away until you're done editing.  The some drafts may even cause you to flail around into larger spiraling circles again until you find all the pieces you wanted in your story, and take out all the bad bits, until you focus it down to a very precise, tight little story--rather like the eye of a hurricane.     

I wish I didn't have to do things this way.  I wish I didn't have to almost entirely rewrite my current manuscript, but this time around, my flailing is definitely damped and I'm hoping to get it right.

I hope this encourages you if you're like me and can't create the perfect masterpiece the first, second or even third time.  Or if you go through the pain of having to cut your first few beloved chapters because, after the fourth edit, you realize you really didn't need them after all.  It's all good.

Here's to all of us writers who flail around blindly, hoping for the best.

CRAFT: Improving your writing

I've been judging writing contests lately, not that I'm published yet or have any great claim to knowledge, and I've noticed something that's been on my mind. Some writers just sound...immature. Not emotional immaturity -- I don't really know how you'd know about that aspect, but their writing is immature. I've noticed that most published writers do not have this quality.

Immature is probably not a good word for this, but I do believe that writers can improve so I wanted to use a word that implied it would be possible to get over it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What this quality is, however, is extremely hard to define. I believe that is what makes it so hard for many of us writers who get to a certain level to get over that last hurdle into publication. We may have wonderful characters, great plots, understand scene and sequel, and do it all, but our writing just isn't what it needs to be. It's not polished.

It is painfully obvious when I read contest entries that some writers are not polished, but many times, I don't even mention it because I can't define what the writing is lacking and how to fix it. I am sure, however, when I read it that it is not going to get published no matter how great the story itself is. So, struggling with my own rewrites and the fear that my writing is also immature, I'm going to try to describe what I think some of the issues are. It isn't easy.

1. Too many short, choppy sentences or incomplete sentences. Like this one.

Many writers of suspense, mysteries or Chick Lit have developed a style that uses a lot of rapid-fire, short sentences. That is fine for a really tense scene or an action scene because the short sentences move the story more quickly, however this style can really get old very quickly. I sat in on an agent discussing some of the submissions they had seen and one of the things this agent mentioned was his dislike of incomplete and abrupt sentences. It is okay once in a while but not if the whole story is written in this style. You want to have a more flowing structure except in those passages where the staccato paragraphs are necessary because of what is going on. They should be the exception and not the rule. If you constantly use very short sentences, it develops this unpleasant rhythm very quickly, along the lines of See Jane run. Isn't Jane fast? Jane is tired now.

2. Sentences which are all alike. These can be short sentences, or long sentences, or sentences which all have the same structure.

Here is an example.
Robert came home from work a few minutes early only to find his wife in bed with Albert, the guy next door and Robert's used-to-be-best friend. Robert hadn't expected his marriage to end so abruptly nor had he expected to lose his only friend in the process. Robert also didn't expect to be indicted for murder because he wasn't good with surprises but he was very good with a gun.

Okay, what was wrong? The fact that every sentence started with "Robert".
You can make the same mistake by having every sentence start with a phrase, such as the following.

Realizing that he didn't want to go to jail, Robert dragged both bodies into the garage and stuffed them into the trunk of his late-model Oldsmobile, thinking it was really too bad that he had to use his wife's car because if she had been in a position to know, she'd be furious that her trunk was about to be stained quite badly. Walking back into the house, he cleaned up the bedroom and changed the sheets since although he wasn't as neat as his wife, he wasn't such as pig that he wanted to wallow around in the results of his handiwork. Trembling with exhaustion, he finally cooked himself dinner and relaxed in front of the television, thinking nothing would really start smelling until at least tomorrow afternoon.

So, you want to vary your sentence length and your sentence structure, both. Most of the time, you also want to use longer (not run-on like me, but long-er) sentences to avoid the "Dick and Jane ran up the hill" syndrome. One thing you are battling is reader boredom and there is nothing that will bore a reader faster than sentences that all sound the same or pages upon pages of very short sentences. It sort of gets on your nerves after about 2 pages. (I'm telling you this based on my own frayed nerves after reading contest entries that average 25 pages, some of which have short, choppy and partial sentences throughout without any breaks at all. There may be one or two slightly longer sentences, but no nice refreshing paragraphs of more flowing text.)

3. The other problem I see in many manuscripts is a lack of vocabulary. I could argue this point--there are a lot of people out there who say you should never use big words, but frankly, I get bored with excessively simple writing. I like there to be at least a few interesting words, otherwise you again get that "Dick and Jane" effect. One thing to note is that you may want to step back and sort of unfocus your eyes and see if your sentences seem to all be short words on the page with nothing longer than six or seven characters. This is a very good clue that you may need to vary your wording a bit to give your writing some interest.

These things don't seem like much, and they aren't, until you have to read a bunch of manuscripts that do these things to you. Remember, editors and agents are reading many, many manuscripts each day. The last thing you want to do is get on their nerves or bore them. Believe me.

Busting Writer's Myths and Misconceptions

No introduction to this is needed--this is what it is. There are a lot of platitudes about writing which are just plain wrong.

1) It's a myth that many writers drink alcohol, or need to drink alcohol.
This is a misconception that many health-conscious writers have adopted in recent years. Calling the necessity for alcohol a myth is just plain wrong. It's very helpful to drink yourself blind and writers like Hemingway proved it. It can loosen you up so you don't think everything you're writing is utter drek. If you suffer from that serious psychological block modern pundits call "an internal critic" then you need to start drinking--heavily. I guarantee it will cure this disease. In fact, I believe this illness, which is of recent origin, is due entirely to the belief that writers drinking is, and always was, just a myth. It is not and was not.

2) Persistence is key to getting published.
Not exactly. Athough you do need persistence. Persistence by itself will not get you published if you continue writing crap year after year. There is no calendar on agent's and editor's desks keeping track of the number of years you have annoyed them in your persistent efforts to get published and after some set number of years they will leap up and exclaim, "NOW! We will publish her NOW!" What matters is that you have to improve enough to write something of publishable quality. This may take years, and I'm sorry. I'm in the same boat, however, I'm being persistent and I'm working on improving until I can write the manuscript editors will HAVE to publish.

And don't whine that your manuscript is just as good as published author X's manuscript because something is wrong otherwise it would be published. Okay, now it is possible that what is wrong is that you've submitted it to people who honestly just don't get it, a la Stephen King. But on the other hand, if you've submitted it to everyone, including your best friend's dog, and everyone has rejected it, then move on to the next manuscript. Each new manuscript you write will, hopefully, be better than the last. If it isn't, then you aren't trying.

Persistence is necessary so you'll keep writing, taking classes, and eating those rejections like chocolate chip cookies, but what is key is improving. You can never be too good (although you can be too thin).

3) Everything cycles back.
Misunderstanding. No, it does not. Genres change over time. New, hot ones like paranormal or erotica will mature--which means the editors will become more selective over time as demand flattens out--but old genres do not come back in their original form. It's more like reincarnation. Your soul may come back, but the second time around you may be a cockroach instead of a human. A better example is the gothic genre. Originally, gothics were often written in 1st person from the heroine's point of view. She was a virgin. There was no s-e-x, although there was plenty of romance. There was a mystery. Those were some of the original elements. This genre has morphed into one where it may or may not be written in first person and may include the hero's point of view, as well. The heroine's virginity is unimportant and assumed to have gone missing well before the story begins. There is s-e-x-ual tension and actual s-e-x. There's still a mystery.

See? It's changed. So if you're writing some genre that's suddenly gone dry, e.g. classic Regency romances where there is no explicit s-e-x, then fine, but don't cry when you can't sell it--ever. Five year ago, yes. Today, no. There are still romances set in the Regency, but the sensuality has increased dramatically and explicitly. And this is not going to cycle back to the days when there was no explicit sex. Times change and you should read Thomas Wolfe's You Can't Go Home Again and try to understand what he is saying if you think you can hang on to an old-style manuscript and publish it at some time in the future. You really can't go home again. Time moves forward, not backward.

My advice to you is to read more recent works and see how you can adapt what you like to write to what is currently being sold. I hate to say this because this pains me and I'm one of those stuck in the past who needs to update herself and her work, but there it is. You have to move with the times. Preferably ahead of the times like...well, like Stephen King who basically started a whole new trend.

4) Get nice critique partners.
No. Get mean, nasty critique partners. They will stiffen your backbone and prepare you for what you are facing when you submit to agents and editors. In addition, a nice critique partner won't tell you if your plot or characters stink-on-ice. A nasty one will. Okay, it would be nice if she or he was kind when they were telling you that your characters stink-on-ice, but let's face it, do you want to improve? Do you want to learn how to write something publishable? Do you want to get published?

The worst thing you can do when faced with a harsh critique is whine, "but that's my style of writing". If your mean, nasty critique partner says she couldn't read past the first page because your writing was so melodramatic or overly flowery, or she just didn't understand what the heck you were trying to say, you have to think about that. She's probably doing you a favor, but you may not be ready to accept it yet.

Think of those harsh words as an impetus for you to do better: "I'll show that b^tch!"
That's the attitude you want. Show 'em you can do it and do it better than anyone thought possible.

5) Revising can be done right after you finish your manuscript.
There are some people who actually revise as they go along and never really do a good solid front-to-back (or my revision style: back-to-front) revision. They are some weird sub-species of writer I'm not even going to talk about. I'm talking about the rest of us who actually have to revise because the first draft is just that: a draft. Something to get our characters and plot down on paper so we can work with it.

Don't revise when you finish your manuscript. You won't have a clear head. You have to cleanse your palette by writing another manuscript and when you're finished with that one, go back and revise the first. This actually has several benefits.

A) It forces you back a step so you can be more objective and do a better job editing.

B) The second manuscript will actually improve your writing skills so when you go back to the first one, you can apply what you've learned.

C) When you start submitting that first manuscript, you can edit the second one and when Ms. Agent or Mr. Editor says: The first manuscript isn't quite right for us, do you have anything else? You can say: You betcha and here it is!

Time is your friend. Use it.

6) The artistic integrity of your manuscript is more important than anything else.
Is it more important than getting published? That's for you to decide. However, if you're like me and you started writing manuscripts without much emphasis on sensuality, and your agent and the editors she has contacted say you need to increase the level of sensuality, you have a decision. Do you sacrifice a small bit of artistic integrity and increase the sensuality because that's today's world, or do you cling to your vision? Personally, I'm working with my agent and bringing the sensuality up a notch. I may think Barbara Michaels is the cat's meow and nobody could do romance better, but that's not today's market and you have to write something that is at least partially if not squarely in line with what readers are reading. Today. Not yesterday.

The other important factor to consider is that your editor, assuming you attract one, has to actually market your work. If you cannot fit within any genre they are able to market, your sales will suffer. If your sales suffer, you may well be a one book wonder because other editors will see you as an unmarketable writer. So you are better off trying to fit into a genre which can be marketed, because editors will be much happier to acquire you. Unless you're the next Stephen King, in which case you can begin a new trend. I have to say, though, that the odds of you being the next Stephen King are pretty long, although I suppose not entirely impossible. I'd just be really, really wary of believing you can start a new trend. In fact, I don't think even King thought he was creating a new trend when he did so. He just wrote a darned good book.

That's really all you need to do. Persist with your writing until you've written a darned good book.

CRAFT: Theme -- Why?

Themes...hmm, well, themes aren't what you see listed as themes all over the place such as paranormal or cowboy for romance novel "themes". Themes are the underlying idea the author is trying to convey. It's not easy to define, and no, sorry, there isn't a master list of themes any more than there is a master list of ideas humans can have. Sometimes the author may not even be really aware of what idea is driving them or underpins their story, but the smart writers try to identify the major theme in their work and strive to make sure the story and every scene in the story supports and enhances the theme.

Themes are the difference between a fluffy novel that you enjoy and promptly forget the next day, and novels which resonate with the reader long after they have finished it. Sure, you can "get away" with not developing a theme, but you're missing the main method we have to write something with depth, something that will live long after we have turned to dust.

I've avoided tackling themes because they really are hard. They hard to identify and they're one more crafty-thing we have to think about when writing our stories, which can already be a daunting task even without trying to work out themes. But it is truly worth the effort.

For me, the theme underpining much of my own work is the importance and responsibility of individual freedom--the more Society tries to control and restrain individual freedom, the more hostile the environment is to innovation and progress, however, individual freedom does not mean behaving badly or attempting to destroy the Society in which one lives. It is a delicate balance but an important one. I firmly believe in responsible, individual freedom.

One note: it is important to differentiate between themes and subjects. A subject is what something is about, like Dickens writing about child labor, while a theme is what the author thinks about it, i.e. that child labor is shameful and ought to be eliminated. That's why it can be so hard to precisely articulate a theme, because it is the what the author feels and thinks about a specific issue, not just the issue itself.

If you can identify the subject and then state what the author thinks about it, you've got a theme. Another tipoff is the word "that". You'll notice I used the word "that" when I finally described the theme: Dickens often wrote stories showing that child labor is shameful and ought to be eliminated.

So, in my continuing efforts to improve my own writing, I'm going to explore themes.
First, let's talk about what are not themes.

Not-Themes
Romance, Mystery, Suspense, Science Fiction, Chick Lit, Paranormal, Mainstream: These are genres, not themes.

Cowboys, vampires, fairies, elves, werewolves, hidden baby, reunion, plump heroines, Irish, Regency, Scottish, Sweet, Historical, Time-travel: These are all "handles" for types of romance novels, created so readers can find the stories containing the situations and/or characters they like best.

Themes
Now that you know what are not themes, lets look at some themes. The interesting thing about themes is that not all readers will agree on exactly what idea, or theme, the author had in mind when they wrote the book. That's why English majors can write doctoral theses endlessly on the same novel(s) and they can all be right, because different people will digest the really big themes in slightly different ways, and as I pointed out earlier, the theme is what the writer thinks about the subject, which makes it subjective.

Readers can more easily articulate the subject, e.g. the plight of the Colonists before 1776, but the theme is whether the writer thinks the Colonists were a bunch of cry-babies who would have been better off under British rule, or if the writer believes the Colonists did the right thing by breaking away from the idiotic tyranny of the Empire. It's the slant or position taken that differentiates the theme from everything else. Yet another reason it is so hard to write any kind of guidance about themes or give a list to anyone. That said, I'm going to take the plunge and give two examples.

We'll start with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Rand was obsessed with a lot of things, but after reading this particular book and having it resonate deeply, I, personally, decided that to me, one of the themes in this book concerns the tyranny of the mediocre. The main characters in this book are basically what you might consider over-achievers who, if allowed to do so, could provide the world with products that would improve everyone's lives. However, instead of being given the freedom to expand their business, create new products, and generally improve mankind's lot, the other petty, mediocre characters held them back and placed obstacles in their path. Every scene in this book built upon this theme of brilliant, innovative ideas being held up or destroyed by people who didn't want anyone else to get ahead. In the end, however, innovation succeeds and is its own reward.

If you want to know why this theme resonates with me, I can give you one real-life example of the theme in action. My grandmother was working in a factory during WWII. Taking great pride in her work, she did as good a job as she could. After her first week in the factory, her co-workers "met her" in the lunch room and told her if she didn't slow down they would break her arms because she was making the rest of them look bad. Tyranny of the mediocre. That's one theme and one interpretation of that theme.

As you can see, it is easier to identify a theme if it has some meaning in your life. If an author's theme does not have any particular meaning to a reader, they will most likely be unable to identify it clearly. That's why I think it's so hard for young people to get a handle on themes in the literature they are forced to read in school, because they have limited life experience.

However, being unable to articulate a theme is actually quite alright. At a minimum, if you can give the reader a good story, they will love it despite not "getting" the underlying theme. They may not even be aware that they are missing what is under the surface.

The thing is, even if the reader doesn't consciously "get" the theme, by making sure your story has a consistent theme underpining it, your story will be stronger and more memorable. It will lend the story an internal consistency and skeleton which, although unseen, will give it legs and carry it where "weaker" stories can't go. Chances are good, your characters and your story will be the ones the readers will remember.

Let me give you another example of a strong theme. Again, this is how I understand the theme. Your mileage, as they say, may differ. Do you remember the Charles Bronson Death Wish movies? Now there is a strong theme. When Society's justice system fails, you must take justice into your own hands. In stating that, I consciously avoided the use of the word revenge even though I desperately wanted to say: Revenge is sweet. Although Bronson's character suffers mightily in meting out justice in an unjust society, there is an underlying message that this is necessary to bring order to Society, even if it does not ultimately bring the hero happiness. It's difficult, actually, to say whether the hero is at least satisfied at the end--although as a viewer of the movie, I'd have to say the audience is expected to be satisfied when order and justice prevail. I'm certainly satisfied.

Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy has been analyzed ad nauseum, but the themes in it that resonate with me are those of duty and self-sacrifice. That it is important to do the right thing even if it means you may die trying. Frodo must carry the ring and try to destroy it, even if it means his personal destruction. Star Trek fans may recognize this same theme in Spock's memorable statement: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Sometimes, self-sacrifice is necessary.

I realize I've really only talked about two themes, but as you can see, they are as varied and numerous as the stars and just as difficult to describe. You may completely disagree with me on even just the two I've mentioned, and that's okay, because that's the power of Themes: personal interpretation.

This brings me to one more tip about Themes: at some point, and usually at several points, your characters should and probably will state your theme, just as Mr. Spock did.

Gertrude Stein's Three Lives contained a story about Melanctha who stated a theme, if not the theme, in no uncertain terms. You have to know what you've got, when you've got it. I read that story 30 years ago and still remember it. I still recall that line from it, being repeated by Melanctha several times, because although she said she knew what she had when she had it, she still lost it. Think of the power of that writing if I can remember it 30 years later without having opened the book again since school days.

Identifying your theme and ensuring that your character's state it gives your readers the keys to the kingdom. It will make them catch their breath and remember not only that specific line from your book, but your entire book. It is what will catch at them years later and may even influence the way they see the world. It is the power of storytelling.

Don't ignore the power. Take hold of it and use it.

Writer's Miscellany

For followers of my blog, I apologize for my recent silence. I've been thinking.

I may have mentioned that my agent indicated she planned to send me a revision letter--and she did. I've been pondering it and writing in general, hence my silence.

The letter was for a manuscript that managed to snag two agents but no editors, more's the pity. So, instead of a revision letter, my agent and I had a long talk about what could be changed to make it more saleable to editors.

The night of our talk, I just felt numb and afraid I couldn't make the manuscript as good as it needed to be. Oh, let me make a few things clear: I had already primed myself with a "can-do" attitude because I wanted to make this work, so that wasn't the entire problem. The things we discussed were all things that will make the book better (well, I'm not sure about the s-e-x scene stuff, but I put that in the category of "do you want to make a sale or not?" so I'm not going to fret over it). What I wasn't sure--and am still not sure--about was whether my skills will be good enough to do what must be done.

When I hung up the phone with her, I was also unable to figure out how to implement the changes. I had a strong, self-destructive urge to stick a metaphorical stake through the heart of the book and rip out all the "sparkle" (witty interchanges between the hero and heroine) to make it darker and more realistic, two of the things suggested for the revisions. Sort of: Okay, if they want it darker and more realistic, G-D-it, I'm make it freakin' darker and more realistic. All their witty conversations--gone. Bing, bang, gone.

This self-destructive mood lasted about two days. Then, I could sit back and try to think about ways of making it more realistic without destroying the sparkle--which was the foundation of my love for the story and the two main characters. Without the wry conversations between the hero and heroine, it would be just a blah, plodding book to me.

So...I finally sat back and tore a few sheets off the hotel notepad next to the phone (yes, I've also been on travel the entire week--another excuse for my silence, other than just being stunned and depressed--oh, and they lost my luggage. And I was exhausted from the time change, and it didn't help when they delivered my luggage at midnight but anyway...). I labeled one sheet Charlotte (my heroine) and the other sheet Nathaniel (my hero) and I sat down to really crystalize why they acted the way they did and how I could bring out the pathos in Charlotte's position more. Make it all more realistic. Previously, for the sake of staying "light" I glossed over a lot of the details of her rather dismal circumstances. I decided this was a mistake, because even in a comedy, you need a few "Oh, no..." moments and dead bodies aren't enough.

After working an hour or so and developing ideas, my plane was late coming home so instead of arriving around 3pm, I got home MUCH later in the middle of the night, oh...sorry, I digress. Anyway, so, I developed a few more ideas and felt a little better and less bent-on-destruction of the manuscript. Then, yesterday I went to a writing seminar featuring Stephanie Bond (www.stephaniebond.com) who I highly recommend and she further stimulated my meager brain cells so now I'm firing on maybe 3 out of 4 cylinders and am actually thinking of starting to tackle this revision thing. I'd like to finish the revisions before I meet with my agent at the end of July, so that's my target.

What decisions did I come to and could they help you?
Maybe.
There were four main things I want to tackle immediately. You might want to consider them, too, because they are mistakes a lot of authors--even published ones--make.

First, you have to start with the main character of your story because that's the one the readers will bond with. I started mine with a scene including the hero--which was good--but not good enough. The scene was a card game where the hero's uncle wins an heiress. The problem is, the uncle is already married. Okay, that's beside the point, but you see how I drifted off toward the uncle there? That's where I'm going wrong...although it is an important point to remember.

Here are the things to consider and where I failed the first time. It's where I plan on not failing this time.
1) Could I cut the first scene at White's club because it doesn't include the heroine? This was not a requested revision, but I wanted to make sure I had a reason for each scene in the book. I considered cutting it but decided "no" because:

• It's a short prologue and I'm going to make it shorter - hopefully less than 1.5 pages
• It includes the hero
• It's necessary to set up the heroine's situation without later going into backstory or making her issues seem less important or more contrived
• It reveals something about both the hero, Nathaniel, and the Archers who are going to be Charlotte's guardians.

One of the hero's problems is that he's titled, rich, young, and handsome, and women are falling all over themselves to trap him into marriage. He's sick of it. Since this fact is one of the reasons he is at the all-male club, White's, I have to put that right up front. I should start with this. It will lay out his situation from the beginning--he is at White's to get away from women (and to relax with his uncle).

If you look at all the really great books, the first sentence often covers the main character's situation and/or conflict. That's change 1 for me.

2) Chapter 1 introduces Charlotte. While Charlotte reveals to her new guardians that she's been shifted from one family to the next, I didn't follow through with her asking how she happened to come to have the Archers as her guardians. She doesn't know they won her in a card game. Part of her problem is that everyone treats her like a leper, although on the surface, she ought to be very popular since she's an heiress. But she gets shifted from one family to the next and it hurts. Deep down, it really hurts, and as a result, all she wants is to get control of her inheritance and leave England. She has dreams of becoming an explorer in Egypt--anything to get away from her misery.

In Chapter 1, I need her to ask the Archers how it is they are now her guardians. They aren't going to give her a direct answer--the Archers have a bit of the con artist about them and are as cagey as heck, and they wouldn't dream of hurting her by telling her they won her in a card game--but the point is, I need to have her ask--to betray this deep hurt and sense of not belonging anywhere.

My agent and Stephanie Bond made the point that even in a comedy, you need a little pain. It's the contrast that gives the story depth.

3) Delete the kidnapping sub-plot. Sigh. I did the inexperienced author's mistake of throwing in everything except the kitchen sink as far as the plot. I had too much going on. Okay, so I never have sagging middles (goody for me) however I also don't have enough depth to the main plotlines, which are the romance and the murder mystery. I needed to focus on those two strands and develop them more thoroughly.

Interestingly, when I used the word "delete" my agent almost panicked. She said, "No, no, not delete--save it and use it in another book." My guess is that she was also very fond of that plotline--it opened the door to a lot of chuckly scenes and situations, so okay, when I used the word "delete" I meant remove it from this book. I'll keep it maybe, someday, use the subplot in another book. It really was sort of funny and that's why I threw it in.

I was trying to do what Stephanie Bond suggested: i.e. show your main character in a variety of environments because people act differently in different situations and by seeing this, it lends reality and depth to the characters. However, while this was a lofty goal, I was trying to do this via an entire subplot and that didn't work. I need to show Charlotte interacting in other venues, just in the normal plotlines so I can focus and develop those.

Focus on your main plot and perhaps a subplot--don't include so many subplots or make your plot so complex that you don't have time to develop the characters and follow through with the main plot itself.

4) Make sure you develop your characters and plots--give them depth. This sort of repeats part of what I said in point three. Show the main character (in my case, Charlotte) in a variety of situations so we can see the different facets of her personality and make her real. Develop the mystery plot more and show how solving the mystery brings Charlotte and Nathaniel together.

Although my manuscript did solve the mystery and bring Charlotte and Nathaniel together, I did not go into this much or show how it was really affecting them. I left a lot up to the reader's imagination. This isn't always bad, but in my case, I left out too much. Part of that was because I had too much going on. And I'm not a big fan on introspection because it's too tempting and too easy to get bogged down in a lot of belly-button gazing.

Summarizing this point would look an awful lot like the summary to point three, so I'll just say: Focus on and explore how your characters develop and how the plot affects them. That's the point of the story, after all.

That's good for starters. Now I just need to buckle down and make this manuscript something no editor can resist.

Easy, right?

Pet Peeves in Novels

As a treat to myself because I've successfully completed the work week (even though, technically, I'm still on duty this weekend), and because I'm trying to avoid housework, I'm going to give myself the treat of a mini-rant.

The following is a list of the things I really, really hate when I come upon them in a novel. Some of them will cause me to stop reading the novel. When this happens, I may, or may not, go back to reading the novel. Sometimes, I won't even buy another book by the author.

I'm not saying authors should avoid doing these things, because all readers have their own list of pet peeves and if you put all the lists together, you wouldn't be able to write anything. You've got to write the story you've got to write, period. However, some of these things may just be poor writing technique, which can always be improved. I've noticed that big-time authors (Tess Gerritsen, Lindsay Davis, Sue Grafton, Dick Francis, etc) don't seem to make these mistakes, so I have to assume that there is a higher level we as writers can attain. Or at least try to attain.

So here is my list. Feel free to add your own comments and items...

1. She glared at him, her emerald eyes flashing, her rich fiery-red tresses streaming out behind her like a living thing, glowing in the darkness... This hits several of my hot buttons. I may have mentioned how I'm just tired of characters with green eyes and red hair, and I'm particularly tired of eyes described in similies to jewels and rocks... His obsidian eyes raked over her, lingering on the neckline of her dress which had slipped fractionally, revealing her large, ripe breasts, rising and falling rapidly as she tried to control her anger... I don't know what it is, but if I read about another pair of "obsidian" or "emerald" eyes, I'm going to scream. Surprisingly, I have less problems with granite. Anyway, I'm not here to psycho-analyze myself--so that's number 1.
   
2. Women acting like fools. I don't mean what you think I mean. I'm actually okay with the woman creeping down the dark basement steps with a flashlight and no gun or cell phone, knowing that a mad-dog killer is on the loose and having heard the sound of breaking glass in the cellar. I'm okay with that because I'm hoping that either: a) she's about to die horribly; b) it's going to be exciting; c) the mad-dog killer's about to die in an inventive way; or d) it's a trick and it's really the cat knocking over a jar of preserves.
   
   What I mean by "acting like fools" are those absolutely humiliating scenes the authors contrive to have the hero walk in on the heroine where she's doing something "cute"/stupid/humiliating. Here are just a few examples:
   
   The heroine decides to go skinny dipping on the hero's property. This is particularly aggregious in a historical romance. I mean, come on!
   
   The heroine decides to burst out into song and dance somewhere other than her own house (or better yet, bedroom/shower), like in the middle of a field, garden, or woods on the hero's property.
   
   The heroine decides to take a bath in the hero's bathtub, when he's supposedly not home, or when she's like...some kind of a worker like a maid in the hero's house.
   
   The heroine is in the shower and she screams because a cockroach (or something similar) falls on her head and the hero comes running from the guest shower or bedroom, or whatever. Of course, he's probably naked, too, for whatever reason. Sheesh.
   
   The hero and heroine decide to wrestle in the nude. Honestly, I read that in a book and I was like, o-kay I guess we're just a little hard-up for an inventive s-e-x scene, now, aren't we?
   
   The heroine performs a little song-and-dance strip-tease routine for the hero (yeah, that's right, like in that movie...). I actually have to leave the room or skip over it....
   
3. Emotional manipulation by the author to make you like the heroine or hero. The most horrendous are the animals. I am so sick (gag) of stories where in the opening scene, the hero or heroine is saving an animal of some sort. Paticularly a wild animal. Paticularly if the author has that person caring for a wild animal on their own, because most states in the U.S. have laws about that--you're supposed to take the critter to a wildlife rehabilitiation specialist--and this really steams me if the author has someone like a vet (who should know better) patch up the wild critter and give it back to the people who brought it in for care! That vet should lose their license and be hit over the head with a brick a few times. Okay, it's hard for me not to launch into a really long rant over this, but suffice to say, the proper thing for a vet under these circumstances to do would be to do what they can to stabilize the critter and then call the appropriate authorities who will contact a licensed wildlife rehabber, who will then do what is necessary. Under no circumstances would or should the critter go back to the nice, caring individuals who brought it to the vet. Give the people a gold star and let them go on their way.
   
   And if the hero or heroine are not licensed wildlife rehabbers than I don't want to read about them picking up and taking care of injured wild critters, because for one thing it's irresponsible. (Do you have any idea how many fawns/deer starve to death or get diseases or illnesses because some fool decided they knew what they were doing and were going to care for them? That they even had a clue about the dietary requirements?) Like I said, don't get me started.
   
   Of course, that's just one example. The other examples of emotional manipulation is the poor heroine who has to take some horrible job as a companion/governness/mistress because the poor heroine has to earn money to take care of poor old granny and/or lots of young brothers and sisters, and let's not forget the cute little brother or sister who has some kind of physical or mental problem. This is generally more of a historical-type situation. I actually don't mind the companion/governness/mistress part--I actually like stories like MISTRESS OF MELYN (I can't spell the title, but I like it) but there is no family, no sickly younger sibling involved. It's those appendages that make me feel like the writer is looking for a short-cut to make their hero/heroine look sympathetic.
   
   I actually like quite unpleasant heroines/heros. I like characters with flaws. I don't like being manipulated, however, into liking a character based on "poor little me - I'm trying to take care of all these relations..." That just ain't gonna happen.
   
4. Anger management: If your hero and heroine fight from page 1 through page 389, one or both need to be in anger management. If I read about one more heroine who stamps her foot and glares at the hero after he makes some innocuous statement, I'll...well...maybe I need anger management. For some reason, hero's don't tend to do the foot-stamping/glaring stuff so much, for which I'm eternally grateful.

That's four biggies. I have more, but it really is getting late and I've got to at least pretend to do some housecleaning today.

What are your pet-peeves?

(I have an ulterior motive--I'm paranoid I'll do something really, really stupid in my own books...)

CRAFT: First Person Point of View

I admit it, I love first person. That's a point of view, or POV, for those writers out there. It's where you write as if you are the narrator, telling the story... I did this and that and so on. A lot of chick lit books are written in first person, as well as mysteries. It's particularly good where you want to slowly unveil the story from the narrator's perspective.

Anyway, what I thought I would do, because I really do love first person, is give examples from books that use first person very effectively. It's a nice sampling and it shows how effective first person is, and how it's done. The major thing to remember is that the narrator is a character in the story so you have to "stay in character" when you're telling the tale. That's the challenge.

(The following is done by professionals--don't try this at home without proper supervision or a very large glass of wine. Preferrably red because it's better for the heart.)

From MOON-SPENDER by Jonathan Gash
This story begins where I'm making love to an ancient Chinese vase, on gangster's orders, watched by eleven point two million viewers.
But first, how to sell stolen hankies, from poverty, in the rain.

By evening the crowds of shoppers had thinned. The wet snuffed daylight off the Lion Walk spire, leaving me on the glistening square while women battled pushchairs in the rain. Those old Victorian lamps would have imbued the scene with a romantic opalescence. As it was, our town council now brittle us to death with a neon glare that hurts your eyes. Daft, like everything modern. I'm an antique dealer so should know.
"Genuine Irish linen hankies," I warbled. People hurtled past. "Hankies. Genuine Lancashire," I tried. Prams zoomed. Where has compassion gone? I hoestly wish people would reform. I'll even reform myself when I get a minute.

From THE KILLING DANCE by Laurell K. Hamilton
The most beautiful corpse I'd ever seen was sitting behind my desk. Jean-Claude's white shirt gleamed in the light from the desk lamp. A froth of lace spilled down the front, peeking from inside his black velvet jacket. I stood behind him, my back to the wall, arms crossed over my stomach, which put my right hand comfortably close to the Browning Hi-Power in its shoulder holster. I wasn't about to draw on Jean-Claude. It was the other vampire I was worried about.

From DATING CAN BE DEADLY by Wendy Roberts
I charged through Seattle's Memorial Cemetery with my arms pumping and heart pounding. My mouth wheezed in great mouthfuls of dreary afternoon drizzle while I ruined a perfectly good pair of black leather sling-backs. To top that off, the purse snatcher, who was at least double my twenty-six years and probably a heroin addict as well, had easily outrun me.

From "G" IS FOR GUMSHOE by Sue Grafton
Three things occurred on or about May 5, which is not only Cinco de Mayo in California, but Happy Birthday to me. Aside from the fact that I turned thirty-three (after what seemed like an interminable twelve months of being thirty-two), the following also came to pass:
1. The reconstruction of my apartment was completed and I moved back in.
2. I was hired by a Mrs. Clyde Gersh to bring her mother back from the Mojave desert.
3. I made one of the top slots on Tyrone Patty's hit list.

From A DYING LIGHT IN CORDUBA by Lindsey Davis
Nobody was poisoned at the dinner for the Society of Olive Oil Producers of Baetica--though in retrospect, that was quite a surprise.
Had I realized Anacrites the Chief Spy would be present, I would myself have taken a small vial of toad's blood concealed in my napkin and ready for use. Of course he must have made so many enemies, he probably swallowed antidotes daily in case some poor soul he had tried to get killed found a chance to slip essence of aconite into his wine. Me first, if possible. Rome owed me that.

From KEEPERS by Gary A. Braunbeck
"Hey, Gil--your air freshener's standing by the side of the road." Cheryl adjusted the focus on the new binoculars and then laughed.
"My whosee-whats--it is huh?"
"You'll see when we catch up to him in a minute."
Traffic in our lane wasn't moving nearly as fast as it was in the other two--in fact it was barely moving at all. We were coming back from the gran opening week of my second "novelties and collectibles" store, this one in Columbus, and had gotten into Cedar Hill just in time for rush hour--lucky us.

---
The first few examples above are pretty classic first person. They are all the first few paragraphs in the book. The last example from Braunbeck does some interesting things later on, and I'm going to show you right below. These passages are from later in the book (although still very close to the beginning).
-----

...
I've never done well when it comes to ministering to sick or wounded animals. I guess it stems from an incident that occurred when I was a high-school sophomore, one of those "It Happens" incidents that you think you'll eventually get over but never really do, even though admitting to it some three decades later feels embarrassing...but the sight of this pathetic animal on my lawn caused this particular instance of "It Happens" to happen across my memory once again.
(See there, pal? You can remember things if you want to. If you'll just go a little further back...)
Go away, please.
After school I had a part-time evening job at Beckman's Market, a local neighborhood grocery store, one of those mom-and-pop operation that had been in the area for as long as anyone could remember...

----
That's it--did you see what happened there? You actually slipped inside his head for a few minutes and got to hear those little voices we all have in there. Writer things like this are incredibly exciting to me. I love this. This book, KEEPERS, is a horror novel so being able to get inside the head of Gil Stewart, the narrator, turns the screws to a nearly unbearable degree. You can feel that fear and tension in his head, and hear him trying to control and suppress it.

Okay, okay. So what was the point in my laboriously typing in all these introductory passages? Well, I wanted you to see the differences in the voices. Remember, the voices being used are the main characters' voices -- not the author's voice. And they are all different. Just because you write in first person, doesn't mean your book is going to sound like every other book written in first person--not if you do a good job. In addition, each book you write in first person that features a different narrator, will sound different. Or at least it should sound different, assuming you're doing a good job.

And, the last example should show you something else. Even within pure first person there are layers of techniques. You have to figure out how to express the narrator's emotions in a revealing way--you can't just say: I was mad as blazes. That's where it takes a little effort, that and trying to figure out a way to describe yourself (because you're the main character) without looking into mirrors or reflective windows all day long. Because I have to tell you, I was snooping on another group of writers and readers the other day and they were all complaining about authors who use the mirror/window thing to describe the narrator. They hated it and thought it was lazy writing. Let that be a lesson to you, if you're even thinking of doing that. Don't.

Surprisingly, many of them said they preferred the narrator not to be described at all, or just to get snippets like: the color of my jacket clashed with my blonde hair. Or something like that, but not as bad as that.

Anyway, I love first person point of view (POV). I hope this gives you a little taste of what can be done with it. And I'm wondering if others find first POV as fascinating or just think it's annoying...

Surviving Revisions

Writers need to be flexible and resilient. In fact, everyone needs those qualities if they're going to be successful in life, but it's even more important for writers. You see, although each and every one of us is convinced that we're writing deathless prose which will live on down the centuries inspiring (or creating fear in the hearts of) the masses, what we're really doing is, well, just writing. And no matter how good you are or how many books you've published, you're not perfect. No matter what you think. There is always something more to learn, something you wish you could have changed before that book went into print.

I decided to talk about revisions in my blog tonight to prepare myself for the revision letter my agent is sending me. I know her suggestions will be terrific and make my manuscript 100% stronger--and more importantly--more likely to tempt an editor to offer a contract, but I also know when I read that list of revisions, it's going to hurt. Because it's never easy to have someone point out your faults to you and your manuscript is even more dear and perfect to you than anything else in the whole wide world. You slaved away on that thing, night and day, blood dripping from every pore, trying to give life to a brilliant idea that you--and only you--thought of.

So here is what I'm trying to remember. The revision letter may not touch on a single one of these things, but by spelling them out, I'm hoping to dull the pain when I do get the letter.

• Scenes *can* be cut. If I can't show a purpose for a scene except, "Oh, it just shows so much about my character's personality" then I probably need to cut it. Surely there are other scenes in my 385 page masterpiece that provides insight into the character while it's also accomplishing something else, like moving the plot along, so this shouldn't be so excrutiating. And most importantly, I can't keep a scene just because it has my favorite line or lines--ever. I'm not saying I have scenes that fall in this category--at least I don't think I do--but it's possible. So if my agent tells me to cut some scene (I haven't gotten the revision letter yet) I'm prepared for the sacrifice.
  
• Subplots can be removed. I'm praying she doesn't tell me to remove the mystery element because I want to write mysteries and I hate to think that I'm not any good at doing that. This is a tough one. However, several editors said they didn't like the mystery element so it may have to go. I'll see what she says. Maybe I can remove the actual dead bodies plotline and just leave the kidnapping. Sigh. This one really does distress me, but I have to be flexible and pragmatic about this. It's a business, after all.
  
• Increase the s-e-xual tension and perhaps add a love scene. I am virtually certain this will form part of the revisions because we've discussed this before. Let me say up front that I'm game and will work on doing this. Now that I've said that, I'm going to whine. WARNING--WARNING--WARNING! The next bit is my mini-rant. It's my opportunity to cry, stamp my foot, and declare how really unfair it is that I'm going to have to make changes I don't want to make, as opposed to changes which are fine by me. Really, wording, scenes, plotting, all that crafty-stuff, well, it can only be made better. I may be upset that I did it so poorly the first time but it can be FIXED. It's not changing the actual flavor of my work, per-se.
  
  One of the reasons I like mysteries (other than the fact that I like mysteries) is because they tend not to go into laborous details about s-e-x. The romance is but the gravy to the meat. Unfortunately, my work seems more suited to the romance market where the romance is the meat and the mystery (if any) is the gravy. In that market, you need the dreaded s-e-xual tension and obligatory love scene or scenes. ARGH!
  
  I'm afraid s-e-xual tension and love scenes are not high on my list of interesting things to read about, but I have been thinking about it. I even have a couple of blogs on the subject, trying to find ways of incorporating it into my writing without feeling like I'm making my writing worse instead of better. This is one area I'm definitely going to have to do some serious study and work. S-e-x sells and I've just got to get over my dislike of forcing my characters into s-e-xual situations. Their independence is now, officially over. They will toe the line and they will hop into bed with each other at the first possible moment whether their personalities and moral character would naturally do this or not. There shall be no more thoughts about morals and the possible consequences of their actions.
  
  I will inject them into situations which will lead to the bedroom (or other convenient spot). I'm really sorry about this, but it's one area where I'm going to have to ignore my artistic sentiments and judgment and just do it. And just to be clear--I've got several manuscripts where the characters have been more than happy to fall all over each other--and they have. It's the heroines in my historical set manuscripts that have been so very, very stubborn. You see, most of the heroines in my historical set manuscripts are actually intelligent. And they are perfectly aware that "doing it" in a time that had no convenient pill or really effective birth control leads to babies and they don't want babies out of wedlock, or to be ostracized as being "fast", so they don't want to do it before they get married. And they may have other goals than getting married, too. But, unfortunately, their opinions can no longer matter to me on that score. They shall risk it. I'm exceedingly sorry about the entire situation. Sigh. This really is one area that is going to kill me, but I'm going to do it. I have to do it. I have to get over this. And please, no emails about how s-e-x scenes have all this depth of meaning and really enhance a story, and blah, blah, blah. Although I have laboriously tried to analyze books and convince myself of this over the last five years, I've yet to meet a scene (other than really brief ones like Tess Gerritsen has in her books, and a few others that I've read that are fine, just fine) that can't be completely excised from the book without losing a single thing. Not one single thing. Tess' really brief scenes are usually more about expressing some need or desire that must be expressed at that point and the actual lovemaking is usually just a few very brief lines, if not done behind closed doors. That's perfect. It makes the point and moves on without breaking the tension/suspense in the book or making her characters come across as hormone-driven morons. Unfortunately, I don't think I have that freedom, seeing as how I'm not published and Tess is a brilliantly famous best selling author, and what do I know, anyway? If you disagree with what a million other people are saying, who is wrong?
  
  So, end of whining. What I am going to do is study Tess and Theresa Monsour and a few others who do this s-e-xual tension thing really, really well and try to imitate them. If I can do THAT maybe I can actually add this to my manuscript without feeling like I've violated the integrity of my characters. More importantly, I might be able to add it and not create something that I would never want to read.
  
  You see--that's the point you need to get to when you get a revision letter. My whining above, childish though it was, was a necessary phase for me to work out my resentment/fear/sadness that my original manuscript wasn't quite as good as it could be, and that there were areas I really needed to work on. The thing you have to realize is that the one issue that makes you the angriest or hurts you the most is probably the area that needs the most work. For me, I know it's s-e-xual tension because I don't like writing about emotions--they make me very uncomfortable, and I get annoyed when what I see as the "real plot" gets "sidetracked" by all that emotional stuff, particularly romantic emotional stuff. Because of this, it is my inclination to give it short-shrift. But in a book, the characters' emotions are the life of the story so you can't ignore it.

If you have one area in your writing that touches on a subject that makes you uncomfortable or that you don't like in other books, study it. It's stretching as a writer, moving out of your "comfort zone", that will make you a better--no, a great--writer like Tess or Theresa or any one of a number of fabulous authors.

So revisions are not a bad thing. They are an opportunity to reach for something better. Don't close your mind. Be flexible.

CRAFT: Moron Descriptions

That was a typo. It was supposed to be "More on Descriptions".
So, I'm sitting here in my bathrobe, considering showering and the fact that I need to clean house, and I've decided to write this blog about descriptions. What works, what doesn't. Keep in mind, this is from my perspective, and I've a very jaundiced perspective on descriptions.

I scoured my shelves to find really bad descriptions but didn't find many, so I'll probably use stuff from my own writing when I reach the "this is what is lurid and awful section". That'll probably be in my next blog, though.

Before I get into it, I just want to say one more thing by way of a caveat or general disclaimer: what's with the violet eyes? Does anyone out there realize what color violet is? It's blue mixed with red (or pink). Hmmm. You know, I never thought Elizabeth Taylor's eyes were violet. They always looked blue to me until she started drinking heavily. Then they were blue and bloodshot--OH! I get you. Blue-and-bloodshot. Blue and pink. OH, YEAH! Violet. Okay, I'm with you now. Gotcha. So heroines with violet eyes are probably closet alchoholics or have severe allergy problems that make their blue eyes bloodshot. Gotcha. It's sort of a shorthand for a condition you don't want to describe in your book. Okay, I'm good with that.

So how to write good descriptions.
Keep 'em brief.
Keep 'em realistic.
Keep 'em ordinary.

Ordinary? Did I say that? Yes. Because all that flowery junk makes me wince. It's probably just me. I guess some people like that stuff.

In Wendy Roberts' book Dating Can Be Deadly, she does a great job with brief and realistic. I'll give you two examples, the first is the heroine's friend and the second is a guy the heroine has a crush on (not the hero, though).

First, the friend:
...Stumbling in my direction, with high heels sinking in the sodden grass and with ample bosom rising and falling in deep gasps, was my good friend Jenny...
...
...She tucked a strand of hair behind her ear, the red hair color, Claret Classic, was courtesy of this week's sale at Neuman Drugs. Next Jenny dug in her purse and pulled out a cigarette. She lit up then nodded her head in the direction the thief had taken...
...

Get the picture? There's a bit more interspersed through their conversation, but only brief phrases. That is a great technique, by the way, since it lets the reader build up a picture of the person without being hit over the head with one long paragraph of description. In fact, let me continue so you can see the build up. I'll use the standard elipses (...) to show where I've left out the text between the descriptions.

...Jenny was retaining twenty-five years of fried food, not water, but she was my best friend so I supported her delusions of water retention...

...Jenny planted thick fingers on wide hips...

Okay, now for the not-hero guy. She give us the initial description in dialog as the poor heroine looks up so see a coworker (this guy) in her checkout line:

..."Golden hair, body like a Greek god, has on a brown leather jacket and there's a blonde, a model-type, hanging off his arm," I whispered. ...

But doesn't that violate the rules above about keeping it ordinary and all? No. Not really. Because this is converstation. If it's how your characters would talk, then that's how the description goes. She does go on to say he has azure eyes, but I let her get away with that, although it was a little close.

Here's a final description from this book, just showing a secondary character. I include it because it's just as important to know how to describe secondary characters as it is main characters--maybe more so, because you've got to give the reader a handle for secondaries.

...Suddenly, the doors did open and out stepped a stocky middle-aged man with skin the color of expresso. He wore a rumpled overcoat, a worn tweed suit and a dour expression...

Got the picture? Okay, let's continue.

Another approach
Here's another description from Jonathan Gash's Paid and Loving Eyes. Gash writes the fabulous Lovejoy mysteries about a rather seedy antique dealer. I'm not going to give you a lot of analysis or explain why Gash's descriptions meet my standards. Ths one is pretty self-explanatory. It's exquisite.

...There was relish in her mellifluous husky words. I recognized the respone. Women love conflict more than men. In the oblique light of the loading yard she looked stark somehow, black and white yet languid with the serenity of the well used. Lovely. Money's easier to spot on a woman. They like it to show more. Smallish, slender, intense, voluptuous. I loved her...
...
..."What is life or death?" She actually licked her lips...
...
...Diana glanced at me, at them, her excitement growing and showing. God, but women interrupt your thoughts...

Those were all from the same scene - I only cut out small bits of converstation between. All I can say is...masterful. In both these examples there is one major thing to remember: they are written in first person so in both of them, it is the narrator who is doing the describing, and you have to remember to write the descriptions the way the narrator would express them. So if you've got some flowery English-professor type who takes five years to say something an ordinary mortal would say in five minutes, then that's how you have to describe the scene, whether you (we) like flowery or not. Okay? Got that?

Now it's important to realize that there is a wide variety of ways to effectively describe things without going totally nutso and diving into purple prose.

Here is a description of Anita Blake's boss in Laurell K. Hamilton's Bloody Bones.

...He glanced up, smiled, and motioned me closer. The smile bothered me. Bert was never pleasant unless he wanted something.
His thousand-dollar suit framed a white-on-white shirt and tie. His gray eyes sparkled with good cheer. His eyes are the color of dirty window glass, so sparkling is a real effort. His snow-blond hair had been freshly buzzed. The crewcut was so short I could see the scalp...

See, now she uses similies and so on, but it works because she stays in the narrator's voice. It's also not overly flowery. Here is her description of one of the heroine's early love interests. It's quite a long descritpion, actually, but again, she pulls it off because it's in Anita's cocky tone. Ms. Hamilton approaches my wince zone quite frequently, and I stopped reading after things just went too far into the erotica/sensual zone in her last few books for my taste, but she's still very good at descriptions. She gets them right up to the edge, but the cocky tone saves them from being smaltzy or purplish.

...I had to admit that Richard was worth a crush or two. His thick, brown hair was tied back in a ponytail that gave the illusion that his hair was very short and close to the head. He has high, full cheekbones and a strong jaw, with a dimple that softens his face and makes him look almost too perfect. His eyes are a solid chocolate brown with those thick lashes that so many men have and women want. The bright yellow shirt made his permanently tanned skin seem even darker. His tie was a dark, rich green that matched the dress slacks he wore. His jacket was draped across the back of his desk chair. The muscles in his upper arms worked against the cloth of his shirt as he held the book...

Pretty good, right? She goes on some more, dribbling in tasty descriptions and Anita's reactions to him.

Okay, but those examples are all written in first person. In many ways, it's easier to write descriptions in first person, because any over-blown phrases can just be blamed on the taste of the narrator. It's much harder to write good descriptions in third person, because you, Mr. or Ms. Author, are responsible.

So, here's one final example for today (I still have to think up or find some bad examples, but maybe I'll have those in a later blog.) This example is from the fabulous Georgette Heyer's The Masqueraders. It's quite longish. It's quite good.

...My lady's brother gave his three-cornered hat into his servant's keeping, and struggled out of his greatcoat. He was much of his sister's height, a little taller perhaps, and like enough to her in appearance. His hair was of a darker brown, confined demurely at the neck by a black riband; and his eyes showed more gray than blue in the candlelight. Young he seemed, for his cheek was innocent of all but the faintest down; but he had a square shoulder, and and good chin, rounded, but purposeful enough. ...The lady wore a fine silk gown, and Mr. Merriot a modish coat of brown velvet, with gold lacing, and a quantity of Mechlin lace at his throat and wrists. A pretty pair, in all, with the easy ways of the Quality, and a humorous look about the eyes that made them much alike...

While not precisely brief, it doesn't go in for fantastical comparisons to things like jewels or fruit, which can really just not work. If you look at this, the description is very down-to-earth, very real. In fact, that's the key element in all of these that makes the work really shine. It's so real you can see it.

That's what makes a great description.
So... What kind of descriptions do you like?