The Life Cycle of a Book

When writers get together, sometimes we talk about which we like better: first drafts or revisions. It seems that most of us like revising more, and there are many good reasons for this. I personally have a "grass is always greener" response: I like whichever one I'm not doing.

Currently, I'm in the midst of a revision on one YA novel and the first draft of another. While it feels and sounds somewhat schizophrenic, it kind of works for me.

I really love first drafts. Maybe everyone does. I mean, it's usually a fairly new idea, which means exciting, intriguing, fresh, not yet muddied with many critiques and different ideas about where it should go. You can experiment with voice and format, structure and characters. It's play time. No one can take their first draft seriously. And that's why I like it so much. I allow myself to be completely free to write crap, to not make sense, to not censor my ideas, and to just let it all be so very messy. How much fun is that? I can leave large gaps in narrative with just a note to myself that I need to add a scene here that is interesting. I don't actually have to write the interesting scene. I am getting to know my characters and their back stories. I get to create the world they will inhabit.

The hard thing about first drafts for me is that you have to create something out of nothing. While I find this creatively fulfilling and stimulating, it's also extremely hard. It's like being pregnant. You have to create one cell at a time until the whole being is there. It's exhausting and exhilarating at the same time. Sometimes the creative spirit is there and the writing seems to fill the page almost magically. Oftentimes, the writing feels like concentrating on each single breath you take in  a day, as if you have to make yourself breathe instead of it being an involuntary act your body does automatically.

But when all is said and done, you have a mess of a first draft. Ugh. Now you have to make it into something that other people might want to read. This is really hard work. It's so natural to look at this beautiful baby we've created and think it is just perfect and needs no additional work. But we all know that's not true at all.

However, revisions can be a playful time as well. I love to get critiques from my writing group, from editors at workshops, from my daughters who are also writers. There are so many wonderful ideas and possibilities. I get to look at them all and decide which ones fit the story I'm trying to tell. It's a collaborative time for me. A social time.

The comforting aspect of revisions for me is that at least I have something already there to work with. However, much of it will be cut by the time I finish revising. I always save those sections, just in case I decide to use a certain turn of phrase or save the scene for some other book. So I never really delete things--just save them  for another day. For example, one of the characters in my current revision project came to me more than 25 years ago, and waited around patiently until her turn came. Sometimes I cut several chapters completely. Less experienced authors sometimes gasp when I tell them this, but I never regret having written those scenes--or having to cut them. They were a piece I needed to write in order to know something important about my characters or my story. It just doesn't work in the storytelling.

Usually, for me, the first draft is fast and dirty. I just want to get the whole thing out so it's all there on the page. I rush too much and don't include enough detail. Structure and meaning often fall by the wayside. And I skip a lot of internal and emotional plot in order to get the bare bones set up.

So revision is my change to go back and add the rest of the parts to that skeleton, the sinew and the connective tissue. The guts and the muscle. It's often a layering process. I usually end of up a layer of skin first to keep it all held together, and then I add the internal organs to keep the life force flowing. Bit by bit, until I get the teeny nerve endings in there in the final revision, the ones that help it all make sense and transfer imagery and meaning. This part is more like raising the child you gave birth to--it takes a long time and a lot of work (hopefully not 18 years, though). Eventually, you launch it into the world.

My favorite part of all is the having done it. Being done, knowing I put my best into it. It's such a satisfying feeling to see what I have made. Just like the baby I raised into an adult--it is so amazing, beyond my imagination actually, what came from my efforts.

What happens after that is out of my hands.


by Neysa CM Jensen
(in Boise, Idaho)

Internal Heckler vs. Internal Editor (Critic)

I was listening to Writing Excuses. I've come to look forward to listening to Writing Excuses. If you haven't listened to one of their podcasts, try it this week. Brandon Sanderson, Mary Kowal, Howard Tayler and Dan Wells talk about and give advice on everything writing.

This was the session I listened to the day:
 
-->

Mary pitched this subject to us — it’s a discussion of the difference between that voice that says “this will make your story better” and the voice that says “nothing can save this story because you’re awful and should quit forever.”

You’ve probably heard the staple bit of sage advice that which says, in essence, “silence your internal editor.” Some of us need that internal editor, though, and the distinction between the editor and the heckler is critically important. And some of us need to train up those voices in our heads so that they say something useful.

Mary pitched this subject to us — it’s a discussion of the difference between that voice that says “this will make your story better” and the voice that says “nothing can save this story because you’re awful and should quit forever.”
You’ve probably heard the staple bit of sage advice that which says, in essence, “silence your internal editor.” Some of us need that internal editor, though, and the distinction between the editor and the heckler is critically important. And some of us need to train up those voices in our heads so that they say something useful.
- See more at: http://www.writingexcuses.com/#sthash.eIiqZzT1.dpuf

Mary pitched this subject to us — it’s a discussion of the difference between that voice that says “this will make your story better” and the voice that says “nothing can save this story because you’re awful and should quit forever.”
You’ve probably heard the staple bit of sage advice that which says, in essence, “silence your internal editor.” Some of us need that internal editor, though, and the distinction between the editor and the heckler is critically important. And some of us need to train up those voices in our heads so that they say something useful.
- See more at: http://www.writingexcuses.com/#sthash.eIiqZzT1.dpuf

I loved this idea! I think there is a distinction between the two. Mary talks about how much she appreciates her real live editor and the advise she gives. I think this is true for our inner critic/editor. We are told to tune out our critic but what if she/he is really helping?

A heckler is totally different, trying to discourage us by telling us we are worthless and so is our writing. That is the inner person we need to ignore.

* What do you think about the distinction?


Here is the link to that podcast if you want to give it a listen:

Internal Heckler vs. Internal Editor

Agent, Editor, or Self Publish

By Julie Daines

I've been getting asked a lot recently if it's better to get a literary agent, go straight to a publisher, or self publish.

My answer is always the same. I think all writers should carefully consider what they feel is best for them, set goals, and stick with them.

Don't let discouragement or the opinions of others lure you onto a different path than the one you have your heart set on.

No path to publishing is easy, they each have their pros and cons. And no path leads to guaranteed success. Changing course for the wrong reasons will only lead to regret and disappointment.

That is my advice.

If you're not sure what the difference is between literary agents and in-house editors, here is link to a quick article on that topic.

A few pros and cons in my opinion:

Agents are great because they will do everything they can to sell your manuscript to the best publishing houses, get you the best deals, and help negotiate contracts. Usually they will help you polish the manuscript before they query the editors.

However, having an agent is still no guarantee that your manuscript will sell, and on average they take 15 percent of commission on book sales.

Going straight to an in-house editor cuts the middle man, but, many of the editors in larger publishing houses won't accept submissions from un-agented writers. Plus, you're on your own to negotiate the contract unless you hire an attorney with experience in publishing.

Many smaller or local publishers won't accept writers that do have an agent, so if you're willing to start off at a smaller press to get your foot in the door, bypassing an agent makes sense.

Of course self-publishing bypasses agents and editors altogether. Because of that, it is possible to make more money from a self-published ebook than a print book from a publisher.

However, it is extremely rare for a writer to generate enough sales on their own without the marketing help of a publisher to make self-publishing lucrative. Sometimes, authors who have already developed a strong readership find that switching to self-publishing makes them more money than royalties alone, but only because they already have a following.

If self-publishing is your goal, it is crucial that you get your book edited by a competent freelance editing company. Depending on the length of your story, this can easily cost hundreds of dollars, so make sure you factor that into your decision. Many writers who self-publish skip this essential step, and that is the main reason why self-published books often carry a negative stigma.

What are your thoughts on this subject? I've only mentioned a few quick pros and cons, what do you consider important about making publishing decisions?

The Proper Care and Receiving of Criticism

By Julie Daines

As writers, we are constantly putting our writing out there for critique. We have writing groups, beta-readers, we win a critique from someone, we get a rejection letter enumerating all that is wrong with our story. It's a tough business and we need a thick skin.

So let's talk a little about how to receive criticism. Some of it is valuable, some of it--not so much. How do you know what to accept and what to reject?

First of all, consider the source. If an agent or editor tells you the story is too slow or the voice is off, listen. Agent feedback is valuable and almost always spot on.

When it comes to your writing group, they feel it is their job to point out as many problems as possible. If they have no negative feedback they feel they are failing at their responsibility so they may dwell on the nit-picky. As we say in my group, scraping the bottom of the barrel. Consider their advice and then go with your gut reaction.

Non-writer feedback can be useful because they tend to look at the story as a whole. But if your writing falls outside of their preferred genre, their feedback could mean nothing.

Second, pay attention to the feedback's level. Criticism that considers the story as a whole is more valuable than the nit-picky. If a reader mentions overall plot issues, says the story didn't hook them, it was confusing, didn't care about the main characters, too much repetition, too slow--those are red flags. Listen up and fix it.

If the feed back is full of nit-picky small stuff then those are the kinds of changes you think about and then go with what you feel is right for your story.

If a reader says your story just really isn't their thing, no problem. Move on. They are not the target audience.

In the end, all criticism is based on personal opinion and should be carefully considered. Most writers and readers that offer feedback are well-meaning and want to help you write the best story you can, so don't get offended or disheartened by negative comments. Listen to them, think about why that person said what they did, and then use those comments to strengthen your writing.

What are your tips for receiving (or giving) criticism?

Coincidentally, I just noticed that Mary Kole wrote an excellent article on agent vs. paid editorial feedback and why agents say the things they do. Check it out.

Be Wise. Revise.

by Scott Rhoades

Finally, after months and months of work, you're about to write your book's final chapter. This is an exciting moment. You've always dreamed of writing a novel, and in a few hours you'll be able to say you have. In the rush of much-deserved emotion and pride, it's easy to get ahead of yourself and start querying.

Three words: Don't do it.

Be proud. Be excited. Dream of success. But whatever you do, don't short circuit that success before you've had a chance to plug it in.

Many writers (points at self with both hands) get so excited about completing that first novel that they start querying the book before it's ready. This is a bad idea.

Many more writers know better and spend a couple of weeks intensely rereading and revising, and then they query. Still too early. Still a bad idea.

I've read that you should plan to spend as much time revising as you did writing. I've also read that you should plan to spend at least two or three times as long revising as you did writing. That's difficult advice to take. You love your book, and you don't want to wait to fulfill your dream of seeing it in print. Besides, the writing is the fun part. For many writers, the joy is in the creativity. Revising is drudgery. Writing is play. Revising is work.

But querying too early guarantees rejection. Not only are those too-early rejections discouraging, they also cut off potential markets that might be available to you if you wait until your book is truly ready. Most agents and editors won't look at something for a second time. That means, if you query too early, even an agent who loves that type of book becomes unavailable to you after rejecting you.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that your book is so good that you can get away with querying early, and revising once an agent or editor can point out the weak spots. But this industry is full of people who think we are the exception. A little secret: almost nobody is an exception. Even the very few writers who make millions have to revise--or pay somebody to do it for them.

Don't think of revision as work. Revision is where craft comes in. It's where you graduate from writer to Writer. It's where you go from sketch to painting.

Here are a few tips:

1. Put the manuscript away for a while.

If you revise immediately after finishing the last chapter, you're still too close to the work. You're still in the heat of the moment. Revising requires distance. You won't find mistakes when you're excited about what you wrote. You won't spot certain types of flaws while you are still so close to the work that you're actually reading what you think you wrote instead of the actual words on the page. Confusing passages or scenes will be clear because you know what you meant. Time and distance makes it easier to read as an editor instead of as the writer. I've heard people say to stick the manuscript in a drawer for a month, or a year, or whatever works for that writer. I know that stuff I haven't looked at for a long time practically throws its flaws at me when I pick it up again, and the longer it's been, the better I can revise. What do you do during the rest time? Start another book. Learn how to write a query. Research agents. Develop a marketing plan. Pay attention to your family. Read. Take an editing class.

2. Read in reverse.

A key element of revision is strengthening nouns and verbs, eliminating unnecessary adverbs and adjectives, and making sure every word is strong. That's hard to do when you get caught up in your own story and get excited by your writing. So start at the end of a scene and go backwards, scanning the words instead of reading the sentences. Don't worry about context. Just mark potentially weak words. You can go back and check them later to decide whether to keep them or change them.

3. Look for one thing at a time.

Look for adverbs. Adjectives. Weak nouns and verbs. Dull, purposeless dialogue. Repeated words. But don't look for all of them all at once. Trying to do a single comprehensive edit, especially in the early stages of revising, guarantees that you'll miss stuff, and that you'll get caught up in the story. Remember, distance is key. Don't read for anything except that one thing you're looking for. Use different colors to mark each type of potential problem.

4. Print it out.

It's so easy to edit your manuscript in your word processor. That's one of the great things about technology. Plus, paper costs money (not to mention printer ink costs--what's up with that?) and creates garbage. But you can thoroughly mark up a printout. More importantly, just the fact that the page looks different will help you find things you don't see in the writing tool you're used to looking at. If you really don't want to print it, at least paste scenes or chapters or troublesome passages into your email or Google Docs or some other thing that makes it look different.

5. Read it aloud.

Nothing helps you find awkward bits like reading aloud. Those of you in writing groups know that, no matter how much you polish your chapter before taking it to group, as soon as you start reading you find junk you thought you'd fixed, or that you would have fixed if you had noticed it. Never send out anything--sample chapters, a query, a synopsis--until you've read it out loud. Another thing that helps is using one of the free software programs that will read it to you. Listening to a dull emotionless computer voice helps you spot problems that are easily covered by a dramatic reading.

Every writer can add to this list (and I hope some of you do). There are also many books that will provide much more detail than I can in a single (albeit over-lengthy) blog post. Here are three books that I find useful:

• Self-Editing For Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King
• The First Five Pages: A Writer's Guide to Staying Out of the Rejection Pile by Noah Lukeman
• Spunk & Bite by Arthur Plotnik

You could also do much worse than to read back through the excellent advice that has been posted on this blog. It's a treasure trove of good editing advice. And it's free.

One last personal note: Happy birthday, Granddad. I miss you.

Quiet Your Inner Editor

by Deren Hansen

Several years ago I listened to Jeanette Ingold's suggestions for quieting your inner editor. I recently came across my notes and decided to share the highlights.

Jeanette began with the observation that editors are a critical part of the writing process because they "help bring out the power of well chosen details." Indeed, it is in the details where editors shine.

All of us who put pen to paper (if only metaphorically), have an inner editor--the writer's equivalent of a conscience. "Your internal editor is no-nonsense, wants to keep you out of trouble, and doesn't want you to make a fool of yourself."

The problem with the inner editor is that "when you're trying to do something new, you don't need your internal editor looking over your shoulder. You certainly don't need your internal editor when you're working on your first draft. At that point, you're still playing with the basic ideas of your characters, what they want, and who stands in their way."

Inner Editor

So, how do you get rid of your internal editor?

Well, you can't. But you can do the next best thing: put them to work.

Remember, your inner editor is all about details. So send them of to:

• Make a map of where the story takes place
• Create calendars and time-lines of events critical to the story
• Keep notes about character decisions

You can also keep your inner editor busy reading books. [Every writer knows, of course, that when you're not writing you should be reading.] Turn your inner editor loose on current books in your genre to see what works and what doesn't.

Process

Process is also a good way to calm your inner editor. If you work systematically, it's much easier to convince your inner editor that you'll come back and correct the details that may be amiss in the early drafts.

Jeanette offered the following suggestions about process:

• Don't be a binge writer; make a plan to write every day
• Take advantage of forward momentum. Just keep going forward even if you realize something needs a major change.
• Don't worry about getting the writing perfect. Worry about getting your story on paper. There will be plenty of time with subsequent drafts to polish the text.
• First drafts should be written chronologically
• Let your first draft season for a month or so after you finish, then read it straight through to the end ("for pleasure") to get a gut feeling for the pacing.
• After that first read-through, you can unleash your internal editor.
• Now the editor will cut out everything that doesn't belong in the story.
• Have some fun and write a jacket blurb before you turn your editor lose: it will give your internal editor an editorial framework.

Editing

Finally, when you start editing, remember, "The strength of your antagonist determines the strength of your protagonist." Look for ways to:

• Make your villains more villainous
• Pump up the stakes
• Make sure your hero really is the hero--the one who makes things happen

Deren blogs daily at The Laws of Making.

Editing Your Book-Help!

Hate editing? Maybe these tips will help make editing less daunting.

Writers enjoy writing! The creativity that flows from head to hand is a miracle and no writer wants the flow to stop. But now the book is written and before it can be published, it needs to edited.

What? Your book is perfect?

Maybe so, but let’s look at editing just in case.

First, print out your story and read it out loud. The mistakes will be more obvious. Your book still may be perfect, but what about when you put ‘cute’ instead of ‘cut’. Spell check won’t pick up the mistake. Mark the mistake; circle it in red, cross it out in orange, whatever works for your creative mind.

You might notice a few other mistakes while you’re reading your story out loud. Did you overuse the word ‘really’ or ‘awesome’? Did you notice many cliches? Did your characters say ‘hi’ and ‘how’s it going’ to each other a lot? As you read your story out loud, you will also be able to find character ‘voice’ easier.

Your book is almost perfect.

Now it’s time to show it to someone. Writers need thick skin to allow someone else to read their work. A critique group is a good forum. Or you can pay an editor. Or have your distant aunt who loves grammar to read your story and edit it for you. Another pair of eyes will show you what else you may have missed. What about the dog in your story? Did you tell the reader what breed it was or color? What writers see in their minds may need make it to the paper.

Are you sick of the of your story yet? Yes? Than put it on the shelf, or shut off the computer and walk away from it for a few days. This will be hard to do because the two have you have been joined at the hand for weeks or months. But like any good relationship, time apart will make you stronger. Your piece will feel fresh and you, the writer, will be refreshed!

What's the best way you edit?
Do you any tips on editing?

Grr and Other Writing Angst

I like to refer to anything that causes me to pause in my writing as causing me to "Grr." (I also like to make up verbs.)

So, let me go through some things that have caused me some writing angst in the last year (shoot, am I even using 'angst' properly? Let's pretend I am.)

I've been working on my current WIP for the last 5 years. I'm still not satisfied with it. Yeah, that's going to cause some angst. But that isn't even my biggest problem lately with writing.

Let's go back to last September. The ever awesome, dude-tacular James Dashner spoke at UVU's The Book Academy. After the first section of classes, I went up to James and introduced myself. Why? Because he's cool and most people who follow my other blog know I hero worship (modern phrase is 'man crush' but that sounds worse to me for some reason) James. Anyway, the thing is, he gave me some advice, which was kind of him. The rest of the day was spent trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. So, what did I do? I begun rewriting.

I finished the draft and was basically told that it was kinda anti-climatic (blogger thinks that needs to be hyphenated, so it is.) So I started rethinking the story...again.

When I went to LDS Storymakers in April, I had an awesome boot camp critique group, including the ever awesome Julie Daines. The advice I received from the writers, along with Kirk Shaw, was very useful. But, that meant redoing my beginning, which led to me redoing my entire book for the fourth or fifth time. Shoot, it took over 3 years just to finish the first draft. I'm impressed when I can do a new draft in a few months. How Brandon Sanderson writes his novels in such a short period of time, I haven't any clue?

Well, I got past a certain point in my book recently and I felt like something was wrong. When I do that, I back up to the last spot that felt right. So, I proceeded to erase some things and start a section over again in my latest chapter. It still felt wrong. I backed up further...again, it felt wrong. I backed up again and realized that if I continued how I was going, my story would once again become anti-climatic. Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

So today, I get to (yes, get to) figure out what I really need to do. Well, I take that back. I know what I need to do, it's the 'how to do it' that I'm debating. Why can't the computer link to my brain and create the changes that I need?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

But please remember, as I always say, that...

Alien abductions are involuntary, but probings are scheduled.

Whatever Happened to that First Manuscript?

After years of contemplation, months of agonizing and then days of staring at your blank screen, you’ve finally started writing your first manuscript. As you type each sentence, and as your words begin forming a story, you are thinking to yourself how brilliant you are! How different your ideas and characters are from any others. Months later (or longer, depending on how addicted you’ve become), you type the final paragraph and lean back, excited to review the work of art you’ve just created.

But as you start reading, you might start to notice that some parts of the manuscript sound like a five-year old wrote it. Characters might seem one-dimensional and you might notice major plot holes. Discouraged, you can’t even bring yourself to start making revisions.

At the BYU WIFYR Conference I attended last year, more than one of the authors suggested that a first manuscript is a good writing exercise, and something that you may never want another person to read.

So is it worth it – writing and editing that first manuscript? Should you consider it good practice and then file it away, never to see the light of day again?

My opinion is that giving up on that first manuscript - that first exciting idea - is letting go of part of your creative side. The side that dreams up your ideas, visualizes your characters, provides you with inspiration and keeps you smiling when your editorial side wants to tear you down. Yes, it will take a lot of revisions to get that first manuscript ready to submit to an agent or editor, but that practice will forge you into a stronger writer.

If you still have that first manuscript sitting in a file box, dust it off and enjoy a fun night of reading. You’ll probably find that it’s not as terrible as you remember, and with some editing, it could be ready to run by an agent/editor!