I made a decision this year to take the Creative Writing course my lovely school has to offer. It has not been exactly what I expected; we did not write at all, and my peers in said classroom are not what I expected either. I am definitely not as strange as I thought myself to be... Before a serious depression could fall over me, a silver lining had shone through last Tuesday. Upon entering the classroom I received a packet labelled "How to Say Nothing in Five Hundred Words" by Paul Roberts, giving some good advice to young writes. This, by far, is the most useful thing my school has ever given me.
Roberts describes in depth what teenagers do wrong; many of those problems are some things that I am guilty of doing when writing for an assignment. He mentions "padding" an essay; number one Morgan problem. Padding is basically repeating yourself over and over and over again, rambling about the same thing worded slightly different. After realizing that I am just as lazy as my peers, I learned even more about why some of my quickie essays seem worse than others. "Always take the less usual side." That's always been my strategy, and I'm proud of taking the "bad side" or even making up my own side; you know when there's only "yes or no" and writing in "maybe" followed by an explanation written in my chicken-scratch penmanship. It always yields a good grade and a good laugh; another reason why my teachers have invited me to lunch in their lounge...
What is still eating away at me is how common all these mistakes are, and how often do writer's in general stay astray from such things? I know that most news reports dance around major issues, continually repeating the same thing over and over. Is it just the way things should be shared with mass numbers? Every time I try to figure out whether WWIII has begun, I end up with the same search results. I'm blaming Bing. Could it be that reporters are just as lazy as myself and my fellow heathens? Sometimes laziness and procrastination get the best of me, actually most of the time. Like every bad habit, it needs to be broken... or at least minimized... right? Ah, who am I kidding. I enjoy those well wasted moments so procrastination shall continue, forever and ever.
I must stay on task! Roberts laid out in minute detail everything it takes to write about absolutely nothing and it actually ends up being something that is not utterly repulsive. I'm attempting to do so soon, maybe write about Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice, College basketball, or possibly my view on public restrooms. Either way, you'll get a heavy whiff of my semi-sane opinion. And if you think that I cannot rant about potties free for anyone to use, think once more! I've written two essays about them already! Oh, my educators must have a field day... So, everyone who is still required to spit out essays once a week, I suggest you look for it next time you're at the library.
DFTBA
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
My Cat Died
Jordan Dane
@JordanDane
My cat died last week. A freak thing. I thought cats had nine lives. Pinot Grigio only had one. He was our big yellow meat loaf. By far the prettiest cat we ever had. Our dogs tolerated him. My dog Taco treated him like a salt lick. The cat wouldn't budge. He'd only move his head from side to side until the dog stopped. Pinot was the cool cat who didn't run.
He was ten years old. I figured we'd have him for more time, but I guess you can't count on anything. Last week was a real reminder to me of that point. We'd taken him to the vet for his annual grooming. He was such a fuss budget that he needed to be sedated. He never made it out of the sedation. Second guessing our decision has been hard. Nothing has helped. We miss him.
The day before our cat died, one of my rescue dogs Sancho got into the garage and into rat poison. Don't ask how it happened or why it was there and accessible. I'm still upset that it was there at all, but it was. The dogs aren't out of our sight much, but this time, Sancho was alone in our garage while my husband went into the attic. He was gone long enough that the dog (who rarely leaves his side) had gotten into more than his share of mischief. But if my husband hadn't seen Sancho rooting around and wondered what he'd been doing, our dog would have been dead in a few days. Dying by eating rat poison isn't an easy way to go. By the time symptoms would've showed, it would've been too late. (And before you ask, I don't even want rats or mice to go through that. In the past, I have trapped them in my own catch and release program.)
So many things had to happen in this perfect storm of mishaps. We could have had a far worse week if we'd lost both of them, but I've been thinking of death too much this week. So much is happening in the world on a grander scale of doom that has reminded me how fragile life is.
Mixed with all the bad things came good stuff too. Life is weird like that. My mother had a birthday and we all celebrated in a family reunion that was tons of fun. I got a new agent and have been giddy with excitement over that. I'm now with the Knight Agency and Elaine Spencer. I didn't know what to make of the highs and lows of my life last week. Guess I'm still stunned, but as a writer, I want to remember all of it. Writers are strange that way.
Your homework assignment for today is to kiss the people and the animals you love, for starters. And join me in praying for the people of Syria while you're at it.
@JordanDane
 |
| Our beautiful boy - Pinot Grigio |
 |
| Pinot Grigio "watching" birds - He thinks he fits |
 |
| Rat boy - Sancho - One Lucky Dog |
The day before our cat died, one of my rescue dogs Sancho got into the garage and into rat poison. Don't ask how it happened or why it was there and accessible. I'm still upset that it was there at all, but it was. The dogs aren't out of our sight much, but this time, Sancho was alone in our garage while my husband went into the attic. He was gone long enough that the dog (who rarely leaves his side) had gotten into more than his share of mischief. But if my husband hadn't seen Sancho rooting around and wondered what he'd been doing, our dog would have been dead in a few days. Dying by eating rat poison isn't an easy way to go. By the time symptoms would've showed, it would've been too late. (And before you ask, I don't even want rats or mice to go through that. In the past, I have trapped them in my own catch and release program.)
So many things had to happen in this perfect storm of mishaps. We could have had a far worse week if we'd lost both of them, but I've been thinking of death too much this week. So much is happening in the world on a grander scale of doom that has reminded me how fragile life is.
Mixed with all the bad things came good stuff too. Life is weird like that. My mother had a birthday and we all celebrated in a family reunion that was tons of fun. I got a new agent and have been giddy with excitement over that. I'm now with the Knight Agency and Elaine Spencer. I didn't know what to make of the highs and lows of my life last week. Guess I'm still stunned, but as a writer, I want to remember all of it. Writers are strange that way.
Your homework assignment for today is to kiss the people and the animals you love, for starters. And join me in praying for the people of Syria while you're at it.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Fermentation--a writer's brain
My son, an unreasonably accomplished 20 something who had
been married almost 2 years, used to make beer. The “used to” part may have
something to do with being married, living in 700 sq feet and all the equipment
beer making requires, especially while it is fermenting. Webster’s defines
fermentation this way: a. state of agitation or of turbulent change or
development, b. an agent that precipitates or is capable of precipitating such
a state; a catalyst.
That process of fermentation, the mysterious state when
sugars and other carbohydrates are transformed into alcohol has always reminded
me of the process that happens in a writer’s brain in that turbulent change
from catalyst to idea. Sometimes the process takes a very long time.
As promised in last week’s post I’m going to introduce to
the first character in Beyond the Door, my MG novels that debuts in March, and
share a little of my fermentation process. In 2009 we visited Oxford, England.
Our daughter Claire was studying at St Edmund’s Hall. Of course we had to
visit. In one of Oxford's ancient
churches I looked up into the shadowy rafters and there was a face staring down
at me. It wasn’t any ordinary human face, but eyebrows curled in tendrils,
leafs sprouted from hair and vines curled from mouth. Nothing like the
commercial garden art, this face looming in the shadows was scary,
unpredictable, not safe. I was still
carrying the surprise of this face with me when I left the church and
encountered the second catalyst.
I began to wonder what it would be like to have my skin
split and turn to bark, leaves sprout from my head, vines push their way up my
throat. The character wouldn’t leave me alone. The Greenman was reinforced by
own yard where huge, rough-barked trees, eighty years-old or more, stare at me
every day. And thus he was born,
unpredictable, shapeshifting, not quite safe and animated by hundreds of years
of mythology.
And now for the news update:
SciFi guy, have your heard anything yet?
Quieter than conversation on Mars?
Huh?
The Martian atmospheric pressure is about 0.006 ATM, so it
would be hard to hear anything
How about you?
Nothing. I think New York takes the whole month of August
off.
Stay tuned….
Monday, September 2, 2013
A Certain Fashion Sense
I love it when the New York Times comes out with stuff that's really only "news" to, maybe, the five people who've been living in a cave the last few years. I refer specifically to the article on the J.K. Rowling brouha-ha and the shockingly novel idea that first-time authors face really long odds on making it. No. Really? (I can hear Claude Rains now: "I'm shocked, shocked . . .)
You know, that's always been true: that the odds are long when it comes to making it as an author. (Notice I said, making it: i.e., making a living that pays the bills; I do not mean become a bagillionaire.) Even when a publisher decided/decides to throw a lot of marketing muscle behind a book . . . that's no guarantee of success (I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
Yet it is also just as true that really good books tank and/or quietly vanish all the time (and, conversely, that books pick up momentum and have a very long tail)--and therein lies a real problem that is, while not new, only more pointed in this era of self-pubbing.
About ten days ago, I happened by Passive Voice's blog to see what was doing and came on an interesting (re)-post of something by Miss Snark's First Victim. You should read Snark's full post and then stroll through all the comments on both her site and PV--not necessarily because I agree with everything Snark has to say or the folks piling on to comment but because of the starkness and virulence of that schism as it showed itself on PV.
In a nutshell, Snark says that self-pub really isn't her cuppa at this time. She makes valid points, and I can see where she's coming from. Do I completely agree? No. But . . . you know, there's room for everyone.
What surprised me, though, was the . . . well, anger? irritation? vitriol? . . . directed her way in the PV comments section. It was interesting because it was so volatile and mean-spirited--most of it along the lines of she's so stupid and good riddance--as if there's only one right answer for everyone (and, in the eyes of those folks, that's to self-pub). The comments on Snark's site were more even-keeled, although not everyone agreed with her.
A point that Snark made and which I think is quite valid has to do with marketing: how you grab people's attention. She had no answer for that; in fact, she pretty much said that it felt overwhelming to her. The folks yelling at her on PV didn't say much about that aspect of her comments either.
But, for me, marketing is a huge problem, and it's not relegated solely to folks going the self-pub route. One person on Snark's site hit it on the head (for me, at least): "Self-published can often mean “invisible” in the ocean of other self-published titles, and that ocean grows larger every day."
That certainly strikes a chord in me, and you don't have to be going the self-pub route to feel invisible either. Right now, I'm on the traditional pub track, with marketing support, and I still feel invisible most of the time. I'm not dissing the marketing teams at either house; don't get me wrong. But I've come to discover that a book's got about a month to make a splash (in fact, a marketing person at one of my publishers pretty much said that). That's all the time the marketing folks have to invest in you because they've got other books to move on to, deal with--and, frankly, other books are "bigger" than yours (and by bigger names) and so get a larger piece of that very small marketing pie and sales force support. It's just the way it is.
Well, a month's not a lot of time, and that's with support. What's puzzling . . . or maybe only daunting to me . . . is what you do and how you make a splash, get noticed above the noise, etc., etc., when you self-pub.
In a way, you have to start thinking about how books get noticed. Sure, by reviews and word of mouth . . . but whose reviews and whose word of mouth?
Think about this for a second. How do you, personally, decide what to read? If we accept that all reviews--and I mean, all--are simply private taste made public and legitimized in some way . . . then how do you decide: Okay, I trust him but not her. I'll read this but not that.
So how did you come to those conclusions? I'm asking because of what a marketing person said to me a while back: that bloggers are today's trend-setters and taste-makers. Okay. I can accept that. But which bloggers? And how did they get that way? Why are certain bloggers anointed as trend-setters/taste-makers and others not? Really, someone tell me because I don't know. Is it just because everyone happens to agree? How is it that some bloggers--and who are they, by the way--are seen as better/more trustworthy?
I'm thinking about this the way I think about cover blurbs. You know, it's the name recognition. It's why the cover blurb became important, and a simple enough idea: get a well-known, respected (read that as popular, strong seller) author in a similar genre to say, Hey, this book is worth your time.
Now, has anyone ever bought a book on the basis of a cover blurb? Anyone?
Yes. I have. I really have. Now I will also say that I've decided that some authors, whose books I really like, have crummy taste when it comes to other books because I did not love the book(s) they did. While that doesn't stop me from reading their books, it might make me think twice about reading a book they recommend. But I can still say that, yeah, if author X tells me to try author Y, I might go for it.
I read reviews, too, but I cherry-pick out of the same sensibility/mentality that I said before: reviews are only private taste made public. I can say with almost 100% certainty that just about anything the New York Times gushes over, I normally won't like. (I can think of one or two instances where that wasn't true. Of course, if they raved about my books, well . . .) But I'll look at PW, Booklist, MWA, VOYA, that kind of thing.
What I haven't done yet, though, is check out a book on the basis of a blog. I just haven't. I will check out books on the basis of a friend mentioning, you know, you might check out X,Y, Z . . . but not blogs.
Which is . . . interesting? A problem? I don't know what it is. But if the marketing person's right and (some) bloggers are taste-makers and have a certain fashion sense . . . well, who decides which ones those are? And how? What makes one blogger more powerful than another?
Really, think about this because it has huge implications for all authors: what makes you listen to one person's opinion--someone you've never met and don't know--over another's and then decide that it's better?
For that matter, think about the last book you read: what made you read it? A blogger? Name recognition? (And, if so, was that because you'd read that person before?) A friend said, Hey, read this; you'll love it? A Twitter pal? A bookseller you trust put it in your hand? Amazon's algorithm helped you decide?
What?
(And, oh, how does this relate to Snark and PV and those angry, nasty comments? Because, as a shrink, I've learned to pay attention to when people start yelling. When people yell or get nasty . . . you've hit a sore spot. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze any of those folks . . . but not everything Snark said was wrong and/or naïve or misinformed. In fact, she said that marketing is something authors have to learn about, regardless. But she's happy where she is, in traditional publishing. A ton of people were mad at her for being happy and/or deciding that their way wasn't her way. Think about that. Why does it have to be one way or the other?)
* * *
Okay, time out for a self-serving note: MONSTERS, the last volume in the ASHES trilogy, hits shelves on September 10. As you can see on this site, there's a Goodreads giveaway going on you should check out. But for the next coupla days, you've got a shot at a hardcover, too, so head on over to my part of the AUTHORS ARE ROCK STARS blog tour on Parajunkee.com for your chance to win that sucker. (And thank Jordan Dane, too, for turning them on to me.)
You know, that's always been true: that the odds are long when it comes to making it as an author. (Notice I said, making it: i.e., making a living that pays the bills; I do not mean become a bagillionaire.) Even when a publisher decided/decides to throw a lot of marketing muscle behind a book . . . that's no guarantee of success (I know I'm preaching to the choir here).
Yet it is also just as true that really good books tank and/or quietly vanish all the time (and, conversely, that books pick up momentum and have a very long tail)--and therein lies a real problem that is, while not new, only more pointed in this era of self-pubbing.
About ten days ago, I happened by Passive Voice's blog to see what was doing and came on an interesting (re)-post of something by Miss Snark's First Victim. You should read Snark's full post and then stroll through all the comments on both her site and PV--not necessarily because I agree with everything Snark has to say or the folks piling on to comment but because of the starkness and virulence of that schism as it showed itself on PV.
In a nutshell, Snark says that self-pub really isn't her cuppa at this time. She makes valid points, and I can see where she's coming from. Do I completely agree? No. But . . . you know, there's room for everyone.
What surprised me, though, was the . . . well, anger? irritation? vitriol? . . . directed her way in the PV comments section. It was interesting because it was so volatile and mean-spirited--most of it along the lines of she's so stupid and good riddance--as if there's only one right answer for everyone (and, in the eyes of those folks, that's to self-pub). The comments on Snark's site were more even-keeled, although not everyone agreed with her.
A point that Snark made and which I think is quite valid has to do with marketing: how you grab people's attention. She had no answer for that; in fact, she pretty much said that it felt overwhelming to her. The folks yelling at her on PV didn't say much about that aspect of her comments either.
But, for me, marketing is a huge problem, and it's not relegated solely to folks going the self-pub route. One person on Snark's site hit it on the head (for me, at least): "Self-published can often mean “invisible” in the ocean of other self-published titles, and that ocean grows larger every day."
That certainly strikes a chord in me, and you don't have to be going the self-pub route to feel invisible either. Right now, I'm on the traditional pub track, with marketing support, and I still feel invisible most of the time. I'm not dissing the marketing teams at either house; don't get me wrong. But I've come to discover that a book's got about a month to make a splash (in fact, a marketing person at one of my publishers pretty much said that). That's all the time the marketing folks have to invest in you because they've got other books to move on to, deal with--and, frankly, other books are "bigger" than yours (and by bigger names) and so get a larger piece of that very small marketing pie and sales force support. It's just the way it is.
Well, a month's not a lot of time, and that's with support. What's puzzling . . . or maybe only daunting to me . . . is what you do and how you make a splash, get noticed above the noise, etc., etc., when you self-pub.
In a way, you have to start thinking about how books get noticed. Sure, by reviews and word of mouth . . . but whose reviews and whose word of mouth?
Think about this for a second. How do you, personally, decide what to read? If we accept that all reviews--and I mean, all--are simply private taste made public and legitimized in some way . . . then how do you decide: Okay, I trust him but not her. I'll read this but not that.
So how did you come to those conclusions? I'm asking because of what a marketing person said to me a while back: that bloggers are today's trend-setters and taste-makers. Okay. I can accept that. But which bloggers? And how did they get that way? Why are certain bloggers anointed as trend-setters/taste-makers and others not? Really, someone tell me because I don't know. Is it just because everyone happens to agree? How is it that some bloggers--and who are they, by the way--are seen as better/more trustworthy?
I'm thinking about this the way I think about cover blurbs. You know, it's the name recognition. It's why the cover blurb became important, and a simple enough idea: get a well-known, respected (read that as popular, strong seller) author in a similar genre to say, Hey, this book is worth your time.
Now, has anyone ever bought a book on the basis of a cover blurb? Anyone?
Yes. I have. I really have. Now I will also say that I've decided that some authors, whose books I really like, have crummy taste when it comes to other books because I did not love the book(s) they did. While that doesn't stop me from reading their books, it might make me think twice about reading a book they recommend. But I can still say that, yeah, if author X tells me to try author Y, I might go for it.
I read reviews, too, but I cherry-pick out of the same sensibility/mentality that I said before: reviews are only private taste made public. I can say with almost 100% certainty that just about anything the New York Times gushes over, I normally won't like. (I can think of one or two instances where that wasn't true. Of course, if they raved about my books, well . . .) But I'll look at PW, Booklist, MWA, VOYA, that kind of thing.
What I haven't done yet, though, is check out a book on the basis of a blog. I just haven't. I will check out books on the basis of a friend mentioning, you know, you might check out X,Y, Z . . . but not blogs.
Which is . . . interesting? A problem? I don't know what it is. But if the marketing person's right and (some) bloggers are taste-makers and have a certain fashion sense . . . well, who decides which ones those are? And how? What makes one blogger more powerful than another?
Really, think about this because it has huge implications for all authors: what makes you listen to one person's opinion--someone you've never met and don't know--over another's and then decide that it's better?
For that matter, think about the last book you read: what made you read it? A blogger? Name recognition? (And, if so, was that because you'd read that person before?) A friend said, Hey, read this; you'll love it? A Twitter pal? A bookseller you trust put it in your hand? Amazon's algorithm helped you decide?
What?
(And, oh, how does this relate to Snark and PV and those angry, nasty comments? Because, as a shrink, I've learned to pay attention to when people start yelling. When people yell or get nasty . . . you've hit a sore spot. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze any of those folks . . . but not everything Snark said was wrong and/or naïve or misinformed. In fact, she said that marketing is something authors have to learn about, regardless. But she's happy where she is, in traditional publishing. A ton of people were mad at her for being happy and/or deciding that their way wasn't her way. Think about that. Why does it have to be one way or the other?)
* * *
Okay, time out for a self-serving note: MONSTERS, the last volume in the ASHES trilogy, hits shelves on September 10. As you can see on this site, there's a Goodreads giveaway going on you should check out. But for the next coupla days, you've got a shot at a hardcover, too, so head on over to my part of the AUTHORS ARE ROCK STARS blog tour on Parajunkee.com for your chance to win that sucker. (And thank Jordan Dane, too, for turning them on to me.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)