(Finally) Getting Published

Anne Lamott explains how you know you're ready to publish in her book, Bird by Bird. She says, "Finally something inside you just says it's time to get on to the next thing. Of course, there will always be more you could do, but you have to remind yourself that perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor.... Even though you know that your manuscript is not perfect, and you'd hoped for so much more... if you also know that there is simply no more steam in the pressure cooker and that it's the very best you can do for now--well? I think this means that you are done."*

I wrote a novel for my Honor's Thesis back in college. This was almost eight years ago. I went through several drafts even after submitting it to my committee and graduating. And then I sat on it for several years. I had several friends give me some feedback, and I still didn't publish it. It wasn't good enough. And I was working on some other projects.

Then, this year, I told myself that I would get it published. And I mean, submit it to an editor and start the whole process of signing with a publishing company. My dream of being a published author would finally come true.

So I read through the whole book, fixing errors and re-writing some passages as I went. And by the time I finished, I swore I would never let it see the light of day. I didn't think it was good enough to send to an editor. And I knew that I didn't want to work on the book any more, so if an editor sent it back to me and requested extensive revisions I would not be able to bring myself to do it. The book is done. I can't work on it any more.

And I remembered the above quote. No, the book isn't perfect, but it's be very best I can do. The way it is now is the way it will probably always be. And the truth is, I like this book. It has problems, but it's a story I would like to share, even if it is only among a few people.

And I sort of thought about self-publishing. I wouldn't have to please an editor or a publishing company. And I wouldn't have to sign any deals that I release more books with them. I have a kid now, and my writing time is very limited; I can't guarantee a book will be done every year.

And either Google reads minds or I don't remember searching for self-publishing options because I randomly started getting suggestions in my Google feed related to self-publishing. The articles talked about women in India who only self-publish and make a living out of it. One woman had almost fifty books on Amazon, and she said she loved the freedom to release as many stories as she wants when she wants.

So the idea grew in my mind until I finally decided to do it. I've always wanted to be published. I had thought for a long time that that meant signing with a publishing company. But in the end, this might actually work out better for me and my family. After reading through Kindle Direct Publishing's process, I'm getting excited to release my ebook through them. And I'm excited to share this story with you.

If you're sitting on a piece of writing, maybe take a look at it again and ask yourself: is it done? And if it is, what are you going to do with it?

Scripted, my first novel, is now available exclusively on Amazon Kindle. The paperback will also be available shortly.

*Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird. Anchor Books, 1995, pp. 93-94

This Blog Lives?

 And something is coming.

Get hyped! ("File:Jim Gaffigan making
a goofy excited face, Jan 2014, NYC (cropped).jpg"
 by Alan Gastelum is licensed under CC SA 1.0)

The Blue Castle: A Review

The Blue Castle was written by L.M. Montgomery in 1926.  I read it for a book club, and I absolutely loved it.

This is a story about a young woman named Valancy who has been repressed (mostly by her family) for her whole life.  Her strict mother won't let her do anything she wants.  Novels are banned in the house, she's not allowed to go outside in the winter because she catches colds, and her mother doesn't even like the idea of her being alone in her room, so she can't escape the madness.  On top of all this, Valancy is single at age 29 (the horror!) and is rather unattractive.  All of her relatives keep reminding her of this, but also keep asking why she isn't married.

Then Valancy finds out that she's dying.  She has a heart condition which is incurable, and her doctor predicts she will be dead within the year.  He recommends avoiding anything too exciting, frightening, or requiring exertion.  However, Valancy has never had anything really happen to her at all, and decides that, instead of living the last year of her life as a vegetable, she's going to get out there and take back the life that's been stolen from her.

With no fear of the future or of any consequences worse than death, Valancy starts standing up to her relatives, refusing to do what her mother requires and openly disagreeing with her other relatives.  She goes to work for the local drunkard and take care of his disgraced daughter.  And, as it's a romance novel, I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to say that she also pursues love.

While the book doesn't have a lot of action, I somehow found that I couldn't put it down.  I think a big part of that is due to the characters.  Valancy's family are annoying but hilarious in their caricature natures.  Valancy herself is pretty funny once she discovers her sass.  Also, I think I just wanted to see how it would all work out for her, whether she would find the happiness she was seeking.  And whether she would die from excitement or if somehow she'd be cured and get to keep living her happy life.

I have to say at the beginning I wondered if Montgomery had fooled me into sympathizing with the kind of person I would actually hate in real life.  Valancy voices her dislike for everything around her before discovering she's dying.  Her room, her clothes, her hair, her relatives.  When everything displeases you, the common factor is you.  But finally Valancy acknowledges that the reason her life is do terrible is because she's afraid of everything.  Mostly afraid of offending her relatives.  I was glad she realized she had to make a change, not the people around her.  It did get me wondering what fears I have that hold me back.

I also really loved Montgomery's commentary on polite society.  In a community full of Christians, no one will go look in on poor Cissy Gay, the girl who returned pregnant from a summer away from home and is now dying of consumption.  Valancy is the only one willing to step down from her reputation to take care of and befriend her.  Christianity means nothing if it is only for appearances.

There were only two things I had a hard time with, and one of them is a spoiler.  The one I can tell you about is about fear vs duty.  Valancy vows not to let fear control her any longer, and stops caring what her relatives think about her.  However, she also starts acting kind of rudely to them.  Wasn't she just complaining about how rude they were to her?  Isn't there a balance between disregarding someone's opinions about you and disregarding their feelings?  Also, Valancy's new life is rather leisurely; no one tells her when to get up, where to go, what to do.  Which is just what she wanted.  But in trying to find happiness I think we all still have duties that we need to face and accept.  It is possible to be happy, please others, and be part of organized society.

Still, overall this was a great little book.  It wasn't until after I finished that I realized Montgomery was the same L. M. Montgomery who wrote Anne of Green Gables.  That explains it.

The Frustrating Thing about Characters

The other day I was playing Dungeons and Dragons with some friends (I also just had a dream about Captain America and still love the original Yu-Gi-Oh!  I'm proud of my nerd status).  It was the first time in a long time since I've played it, and in total it was only my third experience with it.  At one point in the game I said my character would tell a story while we journeyed to our next location, because my character likes telling stories and I thought it was something she would do to lighten the mood.  I didn't realize I would actually have to tell a story.  It makes sense, I guess.  But I had to come up with a story off the top of my head, and in the end it was super lame.  When I finished I thought, "If I were actually my character, I would have been able to tell a much better story."

That brings me to the focus of this blog post: in writing, your characters are only as smart, awesome, knowledgeable, etc. as you are.

I'm really good at coming up with impossibly hard situations.  The antagonist has all but won, the good guys are trapped or about to die, and it's all up to the main protagonist to come up with a brilliant plan to save everything.  Talk about a climax!  And then I realize that I have no idea how the main protagonist is going to get out of this one.  I stare at the screen, trying to think of a solution, but my bad guy is five steps ahead and there's really nothing to do.  Eventually, I'll re-write the scene so that something in the antagonist's preparations is flawed, or I'll write something absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic to save the day, or I'll go to a friend and ask them what I could do.  The last option usually works out the best.

But it's so frustrating to me that my character, who should be the greatest hero of the age, the brilliant mind who saves the day and ends up a legend, is only as smart as I am.  If I can't come up with a solution, they can't.  If I don't know the inner workings of the CIA, they don't.  If I don't understand what it's like to live in a third-world country, they don't.  That feels very restricting.

Obviously you can do some research to fix the knowledge problem, but that doesn't fix intellect and critical-thinking.  How do you create someone smarter or more talented than you?  Sometimes I wonder whether or not Eoin Colfer, author of the Artemis Fowl series, is a genius like his main character, or if he just gathers enough information on a few subjects to fake his way through.  Maybe he has a brilliant friend whom he asks for help when he gets stuck.

And maybe that's the answer.  You have to ask for help.  Get a new brain to look at the problem and if their suggestions don't work, maybe something they say will spark another idea.

So, I guess that means your characters are only as smart as you and your connections combined.  Just make sure you mention those connections in an Acknowledgements page when the book gets published.

Split Personality Writing

During the last couple of weeks and months I've been working on several different stories and therefore thinking from several different points of view.  Every novel requires at least one main character, and as a writer, I should know enough about them to know how they think, how they view the world, how they'll react to events.  At least, that's ideal.

So that means every time I sit down to write something I have to have a split personality.

Lately, I've had an even greater sense of being double-minded when writing because, 1) I've been writing so many stories, and 2) I've been writing novels from more than one point of view.

For example, I started working on a novel about a woman whose husband doesn't remember her.  Every other chapter is written from her viewpoint and then his viewpoint.  It's been interesting to write through a man's eyes, first of all, and fascinating to consider how other people think and react to each other.  The wife knows everything that happened while the husband doesn't.  Not only do they have different personalities, they have different memories.  She loves him, and he thinks she's pretty but doesn't know her.  I have to be able to see things the way she does and the way he does.

You're going to have to think like
your protagonist and your antagonist.
(Picture by Monsters-Scare-You)

But that's how it is in every book.  Even if you're writing from a first-person perspective and you don't change from one character's mind to another, you still need to consider how each character thinks and how they would react to events.  Secondary characters might be offended or flattered by something your antagonist says based on their background and personality, while your antagonist was simply stating what they thought was obvious without regard to how it would be taken.

Writing requires that you get inside someone else's head.  In fact it requires that you get inside every one of your characters' heads.  You might start to see the world differently.

Revamp

I've been trying to think of something to post about for the last... while, and simply haven't been able to come up with more writing advice.  And then I realized, I've pretty much given all the advice I have on writing.

But I don't want to give up on this blog.  I started it because I wanted to have a place to post stuff that I've written, and because writing is my passion and I wanted to talk about it.

So, I think it's time for a revamp.  The point of this blog has always been to inspire other writers when they couldn't find inspiration.  Now I'm just going to do it in a slightly different way.  I'm going to blog about my own writing from now on.  That is, I'll talk about what I'm working on, how it's going, bumps in the road, insights I get from the process, and whatever else comes up along the way.  If I think of more advice to give, I'll give it, but otherwise you'll probably find a lot more posts about how my muse is out for the day and I'm working through it.

How to Take Criticism

Okay, this should be the last of the revision series.  Now that you've done some editing and sent your work off to friends for feedback, it's time for you to hear what your peer editors think of your work, and sometimes that can be a humbling experience.  So here's some advice for how to take criticism.

First, when you get bad feedback, if it's face-to-face just force a smile and ask for more.  No, really, ask for more.  If your friend/associate tells you you are horrible at characterization, ask for examples of what's bad, for further explanation, and for what you might do to improve.  Don't get defensive.  Sometimes your reader may not understand something, and in that case you may clarify, "I actually meant to do ____ with that character.  Knowing that, does that change anything in your critique?"  Say this in a kind, reserved way.  It's your fault if they didn't understand, not theirs.  This is a chance for your to learn, and if you get defensive or upset, your editor isn't going to want to help you in the future.  So just take it with a grin and ask for more.

Internally, however, or when you're alone in your room, you can allow yourself to go through the grievance process.  Deny every piece of negative criticism they gave you and hate your friend and vow never to speak to them again.  Call them bad names in your head and tell yourself that they could never write anything as good as you.  Then you can realize they may be right and spiral into depression and worry that you'll never amount to anything and think about giving up the whole endeavor to ever write again.

Do whatever you have to, and then pull yourself out of the fetal position on the floor and sit in front of your computer or writing notebook, take a deep breath, and try again.  Look at the sections your editors mentioned and think about what they said.  You asked for their help because you want the book to be better, so really consider their criticism, even if you disagree with it.  Do it for the sake of the story.  You don't have to listen to every piece of advice an editor gives you, but for at least a moment you need to think about how the story might be better if you did follow their advice.

So, be nice, be humble, have a private fit, then actually consider what your editors had to say.  Just because someone didn't like something you wrote, doesn't mean you can't become a great writer.  By listening to criticism, you improve your writing.  Don't be afraid of criticism.  It's good, even if you don't want to hear it.