Revision Habits

I've just finished the second revision stage of my current work in progress, a light paranormal romance novella, a loose sequel to two previous novellas from the Wild Rose Press. All authors probably have their own individual approaches to self-editing within a few broad categories. Some writing mavens advise a separate editing once-over for each level of potentially needed changes. For instance, one for major plot and character issues, one for style, syntax, word choice, and grammar, and finally one for spelling, typos, punctuation, and other minor errors. A few seem to expect even more rounds of revision. If some writers strictly follow that advice, no wonder they may take years to finish a book.

Such writing mentors probably tend to be the same people who advise us not to bother with granular stylistic and proofreading changes on the first revision or two, because we'd be likely to waste time changing passages that won't even appear in the finished product. That may be good advice for "pantsers." I outline extensively, deal with plot and character difficulties at that stage, and excise elements that don't fit before the actual first-draft composition begins. Also, I edit as I go, at least on the level of sentence structure and word choice. This habit makes me a slower writer than I want to be, but on the other hand, it means I end up with a fairly polished first draft. After all this time, I really can't help doing it that way; my habits were formed over decades as an academic writer and more than twenty years employed as a proofreader.

Personally, I couldn't bear the waste of time involved in doing a separate pass for each level of revision, from global down to nitpicky. I tackle them all at once, sort of. Again, I probably couldn't force myself to do otherwise anyway. If I decided to start with overarching plot and character evaluation, along the way I would inevitably notice minor points that needed fixing. My usual procedure, after the revising-in-progress first draft phase, is to let the work rest for about a week, then read through it and make any corrections that occur to me. Next, I send sections to my online critique group and the whole thing to a critique partner for comment. After addressing all their suggestions, I leave the piece to sit for a few more days. Then I give it a final pass before submitting to the target market. Incidentally, the function that underlines misspellings in red is permanently activated on this computer. That way, I can't miss typos, as might happen if I depended on running spellcheck, with the risk of absentmindedly blowing right past an erroneous word.

Many writing authorities have strong opinions about how many drafts a work should go through before it's ready to submit. Do the terms "first draft, second draft," etc., have any fixed meaning in the era of computer word processing, when previous versions disappear into the ether unless they're printed before changes are made? A draft is an even more nebulous concept for someone who revises in the process of composition, like me. The document I send to a critique group or partner is more like "draft one and a half" than a definable whole number.

I've often thought how unfortunate it is for future collectors and critics that most authors nowadays won't leave successive drafts for scholars to study and compare to the finished work.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

ChessieCon

We spent the Friday through Sunday noon after Thanksgiving at ChessieCon in Timonium (just north of Baltimore). I'm thankful for its location, so that we can drive there and back easily; if it required a flight or a long drive, we probably wouldn't go on a holiday weekend. The author guest of honor was Sarah Pinsker, and the musical guest was S. J. Tucker. In addition to her concert, I attended performances by Cade Tinney (who sang a song from the STEVEN UNIVERSE animated series with heart-wrenching beauty) and filk veteran Roberta Rogow. Highly impressed with Roberta Rogow's historical and SF filk, I bought two of her albums in the dealers' room. I especially like her "Schindler's List." And this piece, which she always closes with:

Fact and Fiction

I appeared on two panels, about "The Care and Feeding of Critique Groups" and STEVEN UNIVERSE. My contribution to the discussion of critique groups came from belonging to an online group of around fifteen people, who interact by e-mail. Weekly critique slots are available, and members who want feedback can send their work to the group after reserving a slot. In practice, only a few either submit or critique regularly; many of the fifteen or sixteen members seldom participate, and there's no requirement or penalty. The typical experience described by other panelists was more often with face-to-face groups of fewer people. We talked about the logistics of organizing a critique group, how to give useful feedback, and the importance of the authors in a group being at about the same level of development.

If you haven't watched the STEVEN UNIVERSE series, you'd be amazed at the depth of emotion embodied in what looks, at first glance, like a humorous superhero cartoon for kids. Steven is fourteen-year-old boy (who looks younger, and there's a plot reason why) living with the Crystal Gems, three feminine-identified aliens who fought with Steven's no-longer-present mother in a long-ago rebellion against the Homeworld Gems, who intended to use Earth as an incubator (thereby destroying all life on the planet). Steven is half Gem and half human. His human father remains involved in his life, but it's the Gems who have to protect Steven and teach him to use his nascent powers. They live in Beach City in the state of Delmarva; their home is an alternate version of Earth, the prehistoric Gem War apparently having knocked the planet's history off the course our primary world followed. The panel naturally spent a lot of time on gender issues, a central focus of the show, but there was much more to discuss. One of the series' dominant themes is reconciliation and redemption. We decided Steven's main "superpower" is empathy. Though still a child and far from perfect, he tries very hard to heal even the most unprepossessing "monsters." The very cartoonish art style belies the underlying seriousness of this animated Intimate Adventure program, so its complexities sneak up on the viewer. Do give it a try. The individual episodes are only about twelve minutes long after the commercials are stripped off. Be warned of "continuity lockout" after the first few episodes; the story really needs to be viewed in order.

My husband, Les, also appeared on two panels, one on submarines in science fiction and one on the phenomenon of high-tech magic, fantasy with scientific underpinnings or science so advanced it looks like magic. We attended another panel on submarines, a slide show presentation on real underwater craft of the nineteenth century (and a bit about Jules Verne's Nautilus). One session that delved particularly deeply into its topic tackled the challenge of creating realistic characters with PTSD. There was also a panel on "Writing Outside the Lines," about constructing characters unlike oneself (in gender, race, etc.), a complex and contentious issue.

Les and I participated in the group author signing and had fun talking to people, even though we didn't sell any copies of our books.

ChessieCon is highly book-oriented with lots of sessions slanted toward writers. It also has a full music track. If you live in or near Maryland, do consider joining us some year.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

The Buddy System

I spent last Saturday teaching a two-hour writing workshop in Tampa, Florida, and have a three-hour one scheduled next Saturday in Fort Myers, Florida. This takes my mind out of the creating process—which is where it usually resides (or tries to) when I’m working on my next book—and puts it into the crafting process. The Q&A process. The “okay-how-do-I-get-published” process. Or as has also been stated, “If Author X can get published by Big NY House, why can’t I?”

Some very good answers to these questions can be found on my agent’s blog, PUBRANTS. Kristin Nelson is, after all, in the daily business of pitching manuscripts, turning them into published books. She blogs daily about what works and what doesn’t, what’s trend and what isn’t, why a writer should follow or ditch trend and most critically, what’s voice and why it works. Quite honestly, if you want to be published, reading Agent Kristin daily should be required.

But even Kristin notes—several times—good writing isn’t enough.

So what else does a writer need besides good writing?

A buddy. A mentor. A damned good crit partner.

And I don’t mean your mother (unless she’s Nora Roberts) or your cousin (unless he’s Stephen King) or your neighbor (unless she’s Robin D. Owens). The problem many writers who are yet-to-be authors have is they choose a crit partner or writing buddy who is at the same place they are in the literary process. That then becomes the proverbial blind leading the blind.

So if you’re looking for a mentor or crit partner, here are my suggestions. And as with any of my suggestions, if they don’t work for you, if they don’t resonate with you, remember the delete key is your friend:

1 – Choose someone higher up the literary ladder than you are. Preferably someone published with a NY house or one of the respectable small presses (ie: not a vanity press). Why? Because this person is “in the system” and knows how to work the system. This person is working to deadlines, dealing with professional critiques and copy edits. On a deadline. This means working under pressure and learning to push aside “personal” feelings about characters and prose because You Are A Professional.

2 – Choose someone who writes in the same genre and style that you do, who reads what you read, who likes what you like, book-wise, plot-wise, character-wise. This will make the crit process go so much more smoothly and insure the advice you get will work for you. As a case in point, I get asked to read lots of soon-to-be-published manuscripts for blurbs or quotes. You’ve probably seen my quotes on books by Ann Aguirre and Lisa Shearin. The feel and flavor and style of their books are similar to mine so I have no problem heartily recommending them. Their writing resonates with me.

Then on occasion I get a manuscript from a NY editor for the purpose of garnering a quote and the book Just Does Not Work For Me. “For Me” are the operative words. Obviously, this book has been purchased by a major publisher. But the writing style and/or the plot just leave me cold. I find it difficult to care for the characters. I find it difficult to finish the book. So I pass on offering a quote.

Now—point is—this book SOLD. But had that writer—whose style is so opposite mine—come to me for mentoring or critting, I’d likely have told them to chuck the story and start something new and, while you’re at it, please don’t let me ever see you refer to the male protagonist’s mouth as “his chiseled lips” or his hair as “flowing locks” again.

But THAT BOOK SOLD. There are agents and editors and readers who love flowing raven locks and manly chiseled lips on their characters. I’m just not one of them and, hence, I’m not the author to mentor or crit that kind of writer. So it’s hugely important that you match your writing to your mentor’s writing. Or else you’ll be a serious cross-purposes and it’ll be frustrating for you both.

3 – Consider taking a class—online or in person—with the possible mentor-author of your choice. A classroom setting provides a great, “under no obligation” opportunity for a published author to get a glimpse of your work and, if sufficiently intrigued, offer to crit some chapters. Keep in mind published authors also take these same classes. So even if the teacher doesn’t offer, another author might.

4 – Do not send an author your sample chapters or, Heaven forefend, your entire manuscript and ask them to read it UNLESS they’ve specifically offered to do so. About three times a year I get chapters or—Heaven forefend—an entire manuscript in my email inbox from someone I do not know. These things get deleted. Sorry, but they do. I try to mentor two to three writers a year but when I hit that two to three limit, I’m out of time. I write full-time for a living. I have deadlines. On occasion, I even like to see my husband. Unless I or any other author has very specifically said: “Send”…do not send. Same goes for an email request of “will you read my manuscript?” Unless I’ve met you at a signing or a conference and told you to send stuff to me, I likely don’t have time. What you’ll get from me is a polite note telling you that I don’t have time and telling you to read Dwight Swain’s Techniques of the Selling Writer and Jack Bickham’s The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes and then read everything on The Essence of Story in the WorldCrafter's Writing Guild on Jacqueline Lichtenberg’s Sime~Gen site. Because honestly, until you’ve done those things, I can’t work with you. And honestly, if you do those things, there’s probably little you could learn from me. Dwight, Jack and Jacqueline are just totally brilliant.

And lastly,

5 – Keep running with the Big Dogs. Go to writer conferences offered by professional organizations, hang out on loops run by professional writing organizations and populated by published authors. You will learn oodles.

Above all, BIC HOK! (Butt In Chair, Hands On Keyboard!)

and now for a word from our sponsor:

~Linnea

www.linneasinclair.com
// Interstellar Adventure Infused with Romance//
Available Now from Bantam: Shades of Dark
2009: Hope's Folly

Two Heads Are Better...

I've had the pleasure this past weekend to have friend and author Stacey Klemstein aka Stacey Kade as my houseguest. Besides the fact that Stacey and I get along hilariously well (even though I'm near her mother's age) it's wonderful to be able to talk--at any time--to another writer. Writing is such a solitary occupation (other than the five hundred or so people living in my head). And yes, while I certainly chat a lot with other authors and authors-to-be via email, there's something special about sitting in side by side rocking chair, feet on the railing, sucking down a beer (me) or Fuzzy Navel (her) on my front porch, debating plot structure, conflict and why we like dark-haired male protagonists better than blonds. Or whatever.

No, it's not the same as speaking to another author on the phone. It's just not.

We've hashed out a number of issues this weekend--she, on her second book and proposal for Hyperion (her first YA paranormal--The Ghost and The Goth--will be out in 2010) and me, the follow-up book to Hope's Folly (the third book in the Dock Five series.)

The fun thing about this Linnea-Stacey combo is we approach the craft of writing fairly differently. She's very much in the Vogler/Writer's Journey camp. I'm solidly Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer. We both subscribe to Deb Dixon's GMC but even with that, we come at ideas and structure in different ways. Which means she gets me thinking and I get her thinking.

Over the past few years that we've been critters for each other, we found it works very well. We've even started teaching writing workshops together.

I know there are authors who don't use critters or beta-readers (I use both). I was in a workshop this weekend with Romance Divas where a few posted that fact. That's great if they don't need the feedback. Me, I do. That doesn't mean I incorporate every comment. But I do consider andl listen to them. Sometimes they prove I'm wrong in my writing and I make changes. Sometimes they prove I'm right. Sometimes I can see why the comment was made but I feel strongly that what and how I wrote it is how it has to be.

But I still need the feedback. Understand--for those of you who aren't authors--that by the time a manuscript gets to the final draft, the author has likely read it over (and over and over) dozens of times. The brain fills in words or meanings that may not actually be on the page. Honest, it does. Fresh eyes and another brain, to me, are very helpful.

On the flip side, helping Stacey dissect her work makes me see more clearly how and why I do things. Explaining a concept to her helps me incorporate it more effectively in my own prose.

It's really a win-win situation.

So I'm in final edits now on Hope's Folly. Bantam has the manuscript and my editor, Anne, is giving it her fresh eyes once over. She, too, will have changes or suggestions. Which, yes, I'll run by Stacey. She knows my characters and worlds as well as I do. Maybe even better.

So I guess that makes three heads...

BIC HOK! (Butt In Chair, Hands on Keyboard: the writer's war cry)

~Linnea