The art of war... I mean, critique groups

Hello readers, remember me? I have a blog... I used to post regularly, make fun of myself, and talk about strange things like raisins, brown M&M's, and pizza popsicles.

No, I haven't moved again, joined a cult which professes the evilness of the internet, or sewn my eyelids together,* thus making it impossible to use a computer.

I've just been emotionally bankrupt (which means no energy/creativity for writing) and hiding from the world.


BUT, as part of this most recent move, I tried out a new local writing group on Thursday.

And, since then, I've been thinking a lot about writing groups, CP's, beta-readers, etc.

See... I love talking about writing, analyzing writing, deconstructing writing... and all those other good things about having a community of writing buddies to talk to.

But some things really suck.

Connecting with good writing buddies (IRL) is hard.


When I was freshly new at exchanging work with other writers**, I was freaking terrified. I figured everyone knew better than I did, everyone else had more experience, more knowledge, and more natural talent. Who was I to say anything bad about something they wrote?

I figured the best thing to do was shut up and listen.

Then, after a while, I grew a little more confident. I started thinking, "hey, even though I mostly suck, some of what I'm writing seems to be okay!" ...and then I started noticing things that maybe could be improved in other writer's work. And actually voicing those thoughts.

Scary, yeah.

...and the reactions were really interesting.

Some people completely ignored my comments, talked down to me/dismissed me***, or got mad. Very few people actually said thank you, or recognized (in any small way) how much time and effort I had put into reading their work.

And sometimes that made me angry.

But, I'm not gonna lie, I wasn't the best partner either. I was a master of, "what I was trying to do..." and "what I really meant was..." (translation: I obviously suck at getting to/making my point).

Totally newbie errors, right?

I swear I've improved!

Now, I love(d?) my local writing group in Victoria. They really helped me grow/develop as a writer. I wouldn't be where I am today without their great comments, both ruthless and comical, and they also introduced me to many genres I don't normally read, and generally expanded my view of the whole reading/writing world.

BUT, I've also tried out some other writing groups, as well as exchanged work with many, many people online.

I've made some amazing buddies, been awed by other people's great writing, and had some wonderful conversations/connections, though that's pretty much only been with online exchanges.

So far, the in-person-writing-groups have been single-visits because I would not consider them 'a good fit'.

Translation:

1) writers who seem to get off on tearing apart everyone else's stories, then actually yell (no exaggeration) when you point out errors in their own

2) writers who don't read in the genre they write in, so while they tell you they're writing MG, it actually comes off as adult fiction, 'cause there are very few 12 year olds who commonly use the word 'serendipitous' when describing a situation.

3) writers who tell their story (essentially) in point form

4) writers so busy being literary that they forget to actually tell a story

5) writers who are so concerned with being grammatical perfect, that they want to edit out every scrap of voice within your story, and theirs is about as interesting as reading the content label of a cereal box.

6) writers who say they're serious, but it's painfully obvious they haven't even done the most basic of research****

7) writers who say nothing other than, "that's really good", and who only want to hear the same thing about their own work.


Now, not all of those are things worth leaving a group for, since some are just newbie errors, which everyone is guilty of at some point, but a few of them are worth stepping back and saying, "no, this is not a good fit."

In the last few days of thinking about this, the conclusion I've come to is:

Writing groups work best when you're all at a similar level.

I don't mean writing level (but that helps), I mean level-of-seriousness. If half the members are simply writing as a hobby and don't really care about editing/improving/perfecting their work... then it's a waste of time for those who are serious. If some writers aren't even going to do a basic edit of their work, so when they hand it over you're tripping over obvious grammar mistakes (like half a sentence missing), then it's going to be frustrating for those who work hard to give the cleanest version possible for critique. If some members only want to hear, "this is awesome!" and who only say the same thing in return, then it's a waste of time for those who genuinely want to find mistakes and improve. Similarly, if some writers only care about tearing down the work of other members, it's not only a waste of time for everyone involved, it's destructive.


Almost everything else in a group is workable.


You work in different genres? No problem, it's all about crafting an interesting, comprehensive story!

You're of different ages/genders/religions/cultures? Awesome! Different perspectives!

You live on different sides of the globe? That's what the internet/email is for!

Like I've said before, I've really enjoyed most of the people I've swapped with online. It's unfortunate that finding compatible people in real life is so much harder... but I guess there's a way smaller pool of people to pull from when you're limited by geography.


I was replying to an email today from a writer buddy who lives on the east coast, and she said something that also made me think about CP', and this bit doesn't matter if it's IRL or online.


She said she sometimes feels useless when she doesn't have very many comments to make.

She's not the only one I've heard voice this perspective, it's just this example is the freshest in my brain.

Now, let me tell you, she just critiqued the newly re-tailored first chapter of 'The Rules of Riding Shotgun', despite her insanely busy schedule/life.

She made six comments in the chapter, which is about 2,100 words long, then a summary paragraph at the end.

Three of those comments corrected word usages, not in a, "you're stupid!" kind of way, but in a fully/easily comprehensive, useful manner*****, and each time, she didn't say, "fix this, you are doing it wrong". Instead, she offered the solution she thought would work best, then said (essentially), "you decide if that's right for you/your story/your character".

Two comments were straight-up compliments.

The last (well, actually the first) was a free-form-thought on how she processed the "Rules", which now are at the very beginning of the story. Which was exceedingly helpful, and also made me giddy with joy since by the end of the "thought", she nailed what I was trying to do with the format.

So, out of those 6 comments, 3 were helpful, and 3 made me feel good about what I had written, but they weren't in a "this is awesome!" patronizing sort of way.

The summary paragraph was equally split into thoughtful/helpful comments, and praise of things that I had done right. She also commented on personal preferences (thing she didn't like), but it was obvious she had gone back and re-read at least once to confirm her position.


Now, compliments generally make me suspicious.

I don't like them, because I don't trust them. I either think:

a) I'm being lied to
b) the reader didn't actually bother taking this seriously/reading critically.


But, there is a happy medium between 'problem-writer-#1' and 'problem-writer-#7'.

Compliments that show the reader is being genuine, has actually read the work properly, and isn't saying it just to be nice.

And that's exactly the kind of writing buddy she is.


Yes, having CP's/beta-readers point out errors is a wonderful thing, because how else do you make your writing stronger?

But hearing what you do well is, I think, the only way to truly gain confidence as a writer and develop your own style/voice.

And I think it's under-appeciated as well. I know I err on the side of not stressing the parts I liked in other writer's work. It's something I'm actively trying to improve upon, but I am wired-up to look for mistakes... heck, I've been neurotically seeking out errors in my own writing since I was 7 so others wouldn't suspect there was something 'wrong' with me.


Do you think her comments are useless?

I sure as hell don't!

SO, I really don't think the number of comments matters. As long as the other person took your writing seriously and put some thought into what they do/do not comment on, then it's all valuable :)

More doesn't always mean better.


How about everyone else? What are the best & worst writer-buddy exchanges that you've experienced? Do you have a list of criteria (mental, or written) that you adhere to when starting a relationship with a new/potential CP? What are the qualities you admire most in a CP/beta-reader?


...and sorry, I really should have split this post up into at least 2 separate ones... I didn't mean for it to get so freaking long :p



* Ewww, right? Yah, well, I'm pretty tired right now.
** mostly online at first, but later with a local writing group
*** my favourite was when someone told me I wasn't the target audience for her work because it was "for people who like to think", so it didn't matter if I "didn't understand her writing". FYI, we don't exchange work anymore.
****hello, word-count anyone? Should picture books meant for a 5-year-old be 1000+ words?
***** and seriously, teaching grammar to a dyslexic person is like trying to teach a hippo to dance. This girl has mad skillz... and yes, I'm aware I am the hippo in that example.

Wow, brain = fried

I literally spent all day today completing that MS critique, and almost turned off the computer when I typed my last in-document-comment around 7:30pm... but then I thought of how nice it would be to send it tonight so the author can have it all with no (further) delay.

So, a little more than two hours later, my summarizing commentary (4 single-spaced pages) is done, and I have sent it off.

I am hoping my in-document-comments will not make her burn me in effigy, as I added somewhere between 20,000-25,000 words to her MS... of just comments.

Yes, I have been told my critiques are overwhelming, which is why I normally do not send that file to people, just my "summary", but she requested it this time... and she had fair warning.

...and that's why I don't often take on beta-reading/critiquing projects, as I am incredibly thorough and it takes a lot out of me. My brain doesn't have the same stamina than non-dyslexic brains have... even small things make it work harder, and I get tired easily. But I still enjoy it. I wouldn't do it if I didn't.

Hopefully my comments will be helpful, as hers (on Brake Fluid), will be helpful when I get back to that story. She was the... third? person to suggest a title change, and I've almost made up my mind to do just that. I don't have any particular sentimentality/attachment to the current one, that was just the first thing that popped into my brain, and the title suggested (by everyone) is so ridiculously obvious I kinda feel like slapping myself on the forehead and saying, "duh."

Funny how the dyslexic brain works (or doesn't work). I've been so focused all day, used every scrap of my incredible powers of singularly-chasing-that-ball, and now that *work* is done, I swear my eyes have been glazed with a thick coating of lime Jello. Typing anything more than email for a couple days will certainly be difficult.

My mind feels floppy.

Does your mind feel floppy after a day like that?

What are your thoughts on critiquing/beta-reading? How in-depth do you usually go? Do you stick with line edits, or go for more of the over-arching things like pacing, character development, etc? Do you like giving critiques, or do you find it a chore?

What do you consider a *good* critique? Have you ever felt overwhelmed by comments, or do you usually hunger for more?


I'm definitely in the "shred it up and feed it back to me in small pieces" camp :) But then, some of you should already know that, as I am a self-proclaimed-masochist when it comes to receiving feedback ;)

Winding down on responsibilities, winding up on writing

I've been in Vancouver for 2.5 weeks, and I've pretty much settled into the place, made it my own, and developed a quiet routine with lots and lots of walking (I even broke a pair of shoes last week on the Seawall).

Because of my back, I was unable to drive out to see my sister on her birthday, so Friday I had lunch with her, our mom, and my nephew.

I've changed my cell phone to a local number, and blind cc'd my entire address book with my new contact information.

Now, the only responsibility hanging over my head is finishing up a MS critique I promised... oh, about 5 minutes before everything blew up in January. Normally I don't take this long. Normally, I can get through an entire MS in a week... but no matter what else is going on, I have pride in the quality of work I provide, and I had no intention of working on it when my brain was all over the place.

I've tried getting into a couple books (I brought a stack of physical books with me from Victoria), but keep putting them down after a couple pages.

...'cause what my brain is really wanting to get back to, is writing.

All the long walks with Eva have been great for mind, body & soul, but when my mind is recharged... it wants to work. Hard. Reading isn't enough. TV or movies aren't enough. I need to submerge myself under a dozen layers of miry character motivation, so when I roll over and look up through the conflicting chaos, I can see the direction of light and movement that makes everything fit together. The order of how it works.

Thankfully nothing has boiled over, to the point where it wakes me up at night, but it's on the edge... that stage where the surface of the water ripples, but doesn't yet bubble.

So far, it's also unfocused. I don't know whether I'll leap into writing or editing, or even into which story.

For now, I'm enjoying that pleasant anticipation of 'good things to come'.

It's a beautifully sunny here today... we've had something like 52 mm of rain in the past three days (someone told me that, so I have no idea if that measure is accurate at all), and every time I've taken Eva out, I've gotten soaked clean through.

I'm looking forward to taking her out on the Seawall today and soaking up some Vitamin D.

Maybe this change in the weather will also push my brain over to the boiling point.

Those punch-in-the-gut critiques

I am a bit of a masochist when it comes to handing my work out and begging for it to get shredded, but here's a great article anyways about giving feedback time to sink in.

...I know, more than once, I've certainly thunked my head a few months later after re-reading notes from a writing partner...

I thought it would be timely to post this link since I met my writing group last night and got 'Brake Fluid' handed back to me, nicely minced and seasoned with a couple sarcastic jokes about how best to include merwolves* into the story.

Seriously guys, you're awesome :D

Thank you for indulging my love of writing creepy-relationships.

...and thanks again to all my online CP's who waded (or are still wading) through the miry abomination that is 'Brake Fluid'. I swear I'll put all your comments to good use :)







*Don't ask. Really, don't ask. Unless you've also read a certain published book and have already experienced the 'WTF??!?! I swear that was a NaNo-dare!' reaction. Then you don't need to ask.

Emotional Intelligence in writing

One thing I think I can do fairly well is write emotionally complicated characters. When I'm critiquing other people's writing, I also focus primarily on the characters emotional/psychological arc and whether or not it's effectively coming across to the reader.

Only recently have I been given a term which (probably) describes why this is so, and I've been thinking about it a lot in context of myself, and my writing.

A few months back, I posted a link to Unicorn Bell when they had a call for submissions about gifts. Here's the link to mine.

While in Ottawa for the Porcelain Artists of Canada convention, I reconnected with a friend of my grandmother who had recently retired from a long career as a nurse. She not only worked in many hospitals in the Greater Vancouver area, she taught nursing at a local college and was very involved in many other aspects of the profession, including childhood development.

Somehow over dinner one night, the topic of early childhood memories came up and, since the Unicorn Bell submission was reasonably fresh in my mind, I related it, 'cause I think it's a funny memory.

Apparently, age 3 is an abnormally early age to consider the feelings of others, especially to put the feelings of another person before your own and intentionally lie to make the other person feel better.

She told me that I must have an unusually high emotional intelligence and, being a retired teacher, told me to educate myself. Ha Ha.

So I did.

Here's a good relatively in-depth article about it, but there are 5 Characteristics that I pulled from here I wanted to talk about.

Characteristics of Emotional Intelligence

Daniel Goleman, an American psychologist, developed a framework of five elements that define emotional intelligence:

1. Self-Awareness – People with high emotional intelligence are usually very self-aware. They understand their emotions, and because of this, they don't let their feelings rule them. They're confident – because they trust their intuition and don't let their emotions get out of control.
   
   They're also willing to take an honest look at themselves. They know their strengths and weaknesses, and they work on these areas so they can perform better. Many people believe that this self-awareness is the most important part of emotional intelligence.
2. Self-Regulation – This is the ability to control emotions and impulses. People who self-regulate typically don't allow themselves to become too angry or jealous, and they don't make impulsive, careless decisions. They think before they act. Characteristics of self-regulation are thoughtfulness, comfort with change, integrity, and the ability to say no.
3. Motivation – People with a high degree of emotional intelligence are usually motivated. They're willing to defer immediate results for long-term success. They're highly productive, love a challenge, and are very effective in whatever they do.
4. Empathy – This is perhaps the second-most important element of emotional intelligence. Empathy is the ability to identify with and understand the wants, needs, and viewpoints of those around you. People with empathy are good at recognizing the feelings of others, even when those feelings may not be obvious. As a result, empathetic people are usually excellent at managing relationships, listening, and relating to others. They avoid stereotyping and judging too quickly, and they live their lives in a very open, honest way.
5. Social Skills – It's usually easy to talk to and like people with good social skills, another sign of high emotional intelligence. Those with strong social skills are typically team players. Rather than focus on their own success first, they help others develop and shine. They can manage disputes, are excellent communicators, and are masters at building and maintaining relationships.

Yes, I found this interesting as a deeper look into my own ingrained behaviour (like standing further away from short people so visual cues are easier to give/receive), but immediately I found this to be a useful list to think about while writing, but also, while reading/critiquing.

One of the things that especially bothers me in the YA genre is the 'cheerleader-best-friend' character type. As in, the one that only shows up whenever the MC is feeling upset and/or needs advice, yet other than those times, pretty much never appears in the story at all and often has little-to-no problems of their own, because that might distract from the MC's problems/arc.

Whenever I come across one of these, either in a draft I'm critiquing, or in a published work (yup, they show up a lot, even there), it has always really bothered me, enough that I won't buy an author's next book.

The reason? It deeply disturbs me when one character is so self-involved that they completely neglect/abuse the people around them.

It's why I can't watch 'Family Guy' because Peter Griffin is that type, yet his friends/family treat it like it's perfectly acceptable, therefore enabling his selfishness.

I think, to write more realistic, complex characters, it's important to keep in mind their level of emotional intelligence. It's the core of who they are, how they make decisions, what they expect from other people, and how they interact with those around them.

Are they self-aware or self-absorbed? That will affect all their relationships, but also the level of growth that character will go through. A super self-absorbed character won't suddenly sacrifice themselves to save the world. Major leaps in growth will come across as unbelievable, or worse, simply shovelled in because the plot needs to move forward. Knowing their level of self-awareness is key to keeping characters consistent/on-model.

How well can they control their emotions/impulses? This is something that comes up in YA quite frequently, on a number of different levels, and ties in quite nicely to motivation.

Empathy is very characteristic of that 'cheerleader-best-friend' character type, but rarely defines the MC, unless it's over-done in a Mary-Sue kind of way (and, for anyone familiar with Japanese animation/comic stereotypes, that's the main reason I don't read/watch most of the mainstream stuff.) People will also naturally empathize with those closest to them, and rarely with those they consider enemies, which is great fodder for assumptions/misunderstandings, but also when making choices that will affect the people around them.

What is the character like socially? In YA, the MC usually hangs out on the fringes and the antagonists are often the popular kids. I'm not saying this is bad thing, but it's often a stereotype that can quickly slide into lazy writing, like the mousy-girl-gets-a-makeover-and-attracts-the-hot-guy trope. Personally, I find interactions within the same social group to be far more interesting, and it's one of the things I wanted to explore in 'Brake Fluid'.


By the way, Veronica Roth had an interesting post which prompted me to write about this subject in the first place. Her description of the Erudite's good points reminded me of the EI characteristics and made me think about what things I try to work out through my writing...and then I felt a little embarrassed how often I focus on trust/loyalty as a theme.

Just like getting frustrated with imaginary characters like Peter Griffin and self-absorbed YA MC's who take their friends for granted, in real life I get easily frustrated by the same kinds of people, who seem to think there's a sliding scale of importance and that they have a right to sit up top.


How about you guys? Is emotional intelligence a new concept to you, and how much thought do you put into your characters EI levels, not only the MC's, but the secondary ones as well? Can you think of any books/characters that were either done really well, or really badly?

How about in real life? How closely do you empathize with the people around you? Immediate family? Close friends? Work acquaintances? Strangers on the street? People you've never met from a different social/economic circle? Someone from another country across the globe? How does this affect the choices you make on a daily basis? As a small example, do you buy 'Fair Trade' products even though they're more expensive?

Do you think your own level of EI impacts your ability to write characters?

Also, what things do you work out in your own writing? Are there certain themes you often revisit?


...and sorry this is so nerdy, but it has been a while since I went over-analytical all over a blog post.

A jumble of many things

Well, my laptop is purring nicely after some circus-worthy-computer-fixing-skillz (seriously, Google is my friend... in addition to the number of online forums dedicated to weird glitches)

My cat is also purring nicely. Too bad it's while he repeatedly bites my arm. He's doing this 'cause he's on my lap and is angry that when I type, I slightly brush against one of his ears. He turns 8 in a couple weeks (April 2), so I'm putting it down to him turning into a cranky old man.

My hard drive seems to be running smoother and not as hot as it was before... so I'm just gonna be more careful with my backups and see how it goes... since I don't really want to get a new hard drive if I don't have to.

Onto more important things:

The Blood-Red Pencil had an awesome list of questions to give your beta-readers. I'm definitely bookmarking this one.

Veronica Roth had a great post on objective critique partners.

Janice Hardy had a good post on creating characters, which is similar to my style.

And Guilie Castillo shared the query-wisdom she gleaned from the San Francisco Writing Conference.

With my computer woes, I nearly forgot I signed up for the Unicorn Bell blogfest (still time to sign up I believe), so hopefully today I can bang out a first draft of whatever that will be.


AND, I'll have another small post going up later. I was enlisted to make 'something' for a St. Paddy's Day party, which is still missing one essential element.

Two sides of the same coin

There has to be a balance between loving your work, and being critical of it.

...and I'm certainly not the best example.

I'm very critical of my own writing. Whenever I send it to someone to critique, my email usually includes the phrase, "shred it to pieces". And I never intend that line to be exaggeration for the sake of humour (thought I do poke fun at myself whenever possible).

I do mean it. I want my work to be shredded into itty-bitty pieces.

One of the best things about being dyslexic: I pretty much have an iron skin.

And truly, no shred-tacular critique from a fellow writer is going to be worse than my third grade teacher forcing me to re-write my work on the blackboard in front of the entire class so I would 'learn' not to fool around and would stop writing my letters backwards, while she lectured me the entire time about what a bad student I was.

Yup. I have an iron skin.

I know there are going to be errors no matter how many times I look over the same piece of writing.

What looked fine yesterday will look ridiculous tomorrow, and I'll ask myself, "Was I drunk when I checked that over? Nope? Okay, just dyslexic. Like an idiot, I should have seen those raisins."

The reason I'm super-critical is because I love writing and I want to get better.

Though I expect there to be mistakes, I want it to be perfect. I so badly want readers to 'get' the story I'm trying to tell, to love the characters the way I do, to see the world through my eyes. I don't want to waste my critique partner's time by tripping them up on weirdly worded sentences, white-room-syndrome, confusing character motivations, or pizza-popsicles.

So the more I love the story, the more critical I am.

Does that sound strange?

I do think these are two aspects of the same thing. Like the old saying about love and hate being two sides of the same coin. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. Similarly with writing, being enamoured and being critical of the same page of words... those are both strong emotions, which means you're invested in the story.

But when the two aren't balanced, that's when problems can occur. If you love it too much, you can't see the problems. Similarly, if you are too critical, you can't see the good.

Either way, you can't improve, and I definitely lean more naturally to the second one. Most of the time I'm so desperate to find and fix my mistakes before someone else sees them that I lose focus and don't spend the time I should to refine the parts of my writing that are good, but could be great if I worked on them with the same dedication I use to hunt/destroy the bad parts.

Which is why I have to jolt myself out of that tunnel-vision-mindset, make a mess and have fun once in a while.

I need to remind myself why I love a particular story and why I was willing to devote so much time and energy into it.

How about you guys? Which way do you tend to tilt, towards love or hate? Any words of wisdom in how to re-set your balance? How are you right now with your WIP's?

Rolling over and playing dead

No person is good at everything and it's natural to get frustrated when it feels like you're spinning your wheels while someone else is zooming ahead at Mach 7.

And boy, have I had my moments of wheel-spinning...

Last week when I posted a first-draft scene from Project #5, two commenters (sue & Yvie) were awesome and nailed me on a line that, (as Yvie brilliantly noted):

"I think I like the components of it, but something else about it is catching me."


The line in question was:

When he didn’t come, we set off alone under a sky bright with star trails.

Lines like this frustrate me because the components that make up the description are correct, the image in my mind of what I want to convey is incredibly sharp, yet the execution is flawed in a way where it's not an easy fix.

One of the major problems I have, both in reading and writing, is how my brain scrambles words up in strange ways. That scrambling is also the reason I nearly failed math and French in high-school.

It's a dyslexic thing, I totally get that.

And often this works incredibly well 'cause the way I describe something can be unusual and vivid. Description is actually one of the things I am pretty confident about, probably because I hold so much information in my head in a visual way. For example, math/numbers work like Lego in my mind, unique physical items that snap together to create something larger. They are tangible, not abstract. This is awesome when you're working with lower math... terrible when you start getting into calculus/algebra.

Writing is like very much like playing Tetris. Words have all kinds of shapes. When they are fit together properly, they create solid lines, when put together poorly, they leave ugly gaps. When I write, I pay close attention to how the words look on the page and, with a single glance (too quick to read content), I can usually tell if something is well written or not.

Being dyslexic has its advantages. I have way better spacial skills that most people. I can usually replicate something (like an action or a series of instructions) that I have only seen once. I can also take things apart mentally and put them back together in a different, more efficient way.

It's why I don't outline or make lists. I've trained my brain to remember things differently than *normal*. But ask me to tell you my phone number... and I'm going to have to pull out my phone and double check the sequence. And yes, this is embarrassing every time.

Sometimes I get so frustrated at my own shortcomings that I just want to roll over onto my back and play dead until someone pats me on the head and gives me a cookie.

...a sky bright with star trails. I know exactly what this looks like, but there's a glitch in my attempt to translate that image into a single, precise line of description.

Yes, I am confident in my ability to write description, but it's also the area which needs the most scrutiny and I rely heavily on my CP's because to my eyes, that line looks 100% correct.

Perhaps it's like being colour-blind. If your eye can't distinguish red from green, you're going to have to rely on someone else to tell you when your pants don't match your shirt.

So thank you, sue, Yvie, my long-suffering CP's (you know who you are) and everyone else who is nice enough to point out when my sentences look like red polka-dots mashed together with green plaid.

Now I need a cookie :)

Brown M&M: the QA candy of choice

There's a famous (true) story of how David Lee Roth, the singer of Van Halen, would ask for a bowl of M&Ms to be placed in his dressing room before every concert, and would flip out if he walked in and found a single brown M&M in the bowl.

Some people talk about how he had an ego the size of a small planet, but this wasn't about his ego, it was about quality control.

This odd stipulation was smack dab in the middle of Van Halen's extremely long and precise contract which specified weight requirements for equipment, necessary wattage, number and spacing for all the plugs, etc. Van Halen was one of the first bands to have crazy technical setups/shows, their equipment took nine 18 wheeler trucks to haul everything when the usual standard for a band was about three, so you can appreciate that stages built to hold 1/3 of the weight and support 1/3 of the electricity were going to have problems if Van Halen showed up.

For example: in this particular case, the staging actually sunk through the floor and caused $80,000 worth of damage to the building.

The brown M&M clause was to check and see if the technical specifications of the contract had been carefully read and followed. Without fail, if the band saw any brown M&Ms in their dressing room, there were major problems with the setup, so as soon as they looked at the bowl, they knew whether everything had to be re-checked and re-done before a show.

So, what does this have to do with writing?

The first few pages of your book are no different than that bowl of M&Ms.

I read six books this week. In most cases, all the things I liked and didn't like about those books were clearly evident on the first page or within the first chapter.

I think it's a very good exercise for any writer to consider what they like about books they read, but also carefully pay attention to, and consider, things they do not like.

I've fallen prey to this myself. I have unconsciously replicated things I don't like in other stories in my own writing. I don't know why, perhaps it's simply the case of being familiar with the commonly used tropes, so the story direction naturally flows in that direction unless it is consciously diverted onto a new path.

Probably this is more common for pantsers who happily follow the current instead of mapping out all the waterfalls, rapids and jagged rocks before diving in. I honestly don't know.

Any plotters care to weigh in? Do you have this problem?

It's hard to spot the problems within your own writing, so I think it's really valuable to read critically while you're reading for pleasure. And yes, I think this is possible. Whenever my attention starts to lag or I begin to skim, I pause, briefly, and ask myself why, but it doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the story.

Sometimes it's stupid little things like character tags... seriously, two books I read (not this week) had characters 'sighing' up to five times in a single page. And not just one character, like a personal quirk... it was all the characters.

Or one book I did read this week used very easy-to-read language... then suddenly on one page were the words 'essay', 'ablutions' and 'husband' (the verb, not the noun). Don't get me wrong, it's not like I was stumped by the meaning of these words, but it was jarring to have all three of them show up together in such close quarters, and two were actually within the same paragraph. Other than that one page, this book wasn't taxing the reading level of a normal fourteen or fifteen-year-old (the target market).

I've also discovered that certain types of description send my eyes skimming. In particular, descriptions of quick actions where the language is incredibly exact, so it seems to draw out the movement longer than physically possible... like cheesy-Matrix-esque-slow-motion. This shows up often in fighting scenes, which is probably one of the key reasons I've never taken well to the fantasy genre, but until I started reading critically, I could never pinpoint why my eyes would glaze over the moment swords or magic came onto the scene.

Then there are the larger plot-affecting-problems. For me, love triangles are usually a speed-through-the-rest-of-the-book-then-instantly-forget-I-ever-read-it kind of thing. My oldest and dearest friend (we've know each other nearly 20 years) eats them up. For those kinds of books, it's usually pretty clear in the first chapter that the primary problem is choosing between the sweet-boy-next-door and the sexy-dangerous-new-boy.

Yet all of these things I have been guilty of in some form or another.

For example, what is mysteriously rearing its ugly head in Project #5? Yup, a sort-of-love-triangle. But because I know the specifics/tropes that personally annoy me, I am avoiding them like the tupperware container you find in the back of the fridge which seems to be growing a new form of life...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result.

Knowledge and awareness are two key elements of change.

If I know the over-used elements that bore me to tears and have me counting the word 'sigh' instead of following the storyline, I'm more likely to avoid regurgitating those same elements. If I'm aware of my own writer-quirks/problems before I start tapping madly on the keyboard, there's a higher chance my first-drafts will be cleaner of those kind of unwanted errors that I would otherwise have to hunt and destroy later.

Just like the brown M&M clause, if the contract is read carefully and all the technical details have been checked off, everything is good to go.

I don't want an agent seeing a handful of brown M&Ms in my first five pages and cancelling the show before it even begins because they suspect there are major problems.

Do you?

Gruelling marathon, short distant sprint, or capture-the-flag in the dark?

Show of hands:

Which sounds the most fun?

Anyway you look at it, writing is a long-haul, from the first moment of story-conception, through the long hours of typing, the cringing, self-torture of proof-reading your first-draft, that first stage of editing, the handing it to CP's to slash apart your pretty bows and neat plot-points.

...then more editing, and if you're lucky, you round the track and hit the gravel trail of querying which is another trek in itself... and let's not even talk about all the stages necessary to get from agent to shelf.

But you also get those nice, short sprints, right? Where your lungs are burning, but you can see the goal line of a finished scene before you, or hitting a daily/weekly word-count high.

Sure, it's a lot of hard business and serious work and sacrifices, like sleep, and family, and uhm, actual human interactions...

I think we should all have more fun, though.

I don't know if you guys are like me, but I think I have a pretty good idea about what my writing weaknesses and strengths are.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right... but I think I know. I have some awareness about what I struggle with and what flows with not a lot of effort. And the parts that come naturally, well, you start to get a kind of confidence from that. The weaknesses, you kinda laugh and push them a little off to the side so they won't be staring at you quite so directly.

Well, I do.

And the main reason I do push them out-of-sight-out-of-mind is 'cause they're not fun.

But there's probably something interesting about them, if I looked hard enough, from a different angle, or maybe trying to turn off all the lights and attempting to build a helicopter out of Lego in the pitch dark... oh wait... straying off topic...

Okay, the Lego helicopter came up 'cause my little nephew always says, 'Build me this!' And I go, 'I don't wanna!'

Real mature, I know, but he's only 4.5, so what can you do?

Building helicopters are boring. I'll do it to please him, but I build 'em fast and really don't care when he smashes it to bits three seconds later. I rush and have little-to-no emotional investment in whether it lives or dies. Like writing a scene simply to transition to a better scene that I actually want to write. It's never going to be good if I'm just trying to get it over with.

So, what do you do to make writing more fun for yourself?

I put in a lot of small details that make me laugh. Like the reason behind Simon's name and then challenging myself to never use the phrase, 'Simon said'. In one of my stories, there's a stuffed cow named Melvastyke (pronounced mel-vah-steek). The same stuffed cow that still sits on my bed (husband permitting, well, tolerating) that I've had since I was thirteen. I throw in prime numbers and perfect numbers, I make vague references to weird math-things, like phi, the number by which you calculate a spiral. In Project #5, I plan to sneak in a sort-of-mention of Schrodinger's Cat.

Sometimes I simply designate one sense per character. That character's descriptions/experiences will only ever use that one sense. I do this with colours, too, or images/associations.

There are an obscene number of sly references to my cat...*

And I'm trying to think up the oddest combinations of food for Triss to eat.

Having these things keeps the story fun for me, no matter how many times I go through and re-write, cut, change, etc.

My writing group (unknowingly) are also part of my game. When they make suggestions or ask questions, I remember those things. I read through the text and go, "oh, I purposefully used the word 'rend' here, 'cause of J's last story" and, "here's the part where L smacked me over the head 'cause I was being an idiot. Then she told me how to fix the problem and totally saved me."

I can read a line and recall who patiently re-wrote it on the page so I finally understood what an umbrella pronoun is, or which muddied-description became clear after all the baggage was stripped away.

And it becomes a game of capture-the-flag because every word, every phrase, every sentence has a history, a memory and often a reason to laugh.

Sometimes all you need for a little staying power is making a game. Who says you can't hide a few flags in your work? If that'll motivate you to keep going, to keep it fresh and fun and excited as you work through the text over and over and over again, then do it!



*No, I'm not a crazy cat-lady, despite the evidence...

Great post on crit groups

I love feedback on my writing, like, to a near masochistic degree, so I'm all about writing groups, crit groups, CP's, beta-readers, all that good stuff. Call it what you want, if you can get an objective eye to look over your writing and honestly tell you what they thought (good or bad), that's an awesome thing.

But I'm also pretty quick to warn others that finding good people can be difficult, so be smart and be selective.

Janice Hardy (if you're not following her blog yet, you really should) did a great guest post today on some of the problems you can run into. No, this article isn't fanning the flame of negativity, she's really giving a lot of things to watch for so you can possibly know how to avoid/handle them if you ever get into that situation.

I've personally seen all these, both in real-life meetings, and in online relationships.

...and I know when I started getting my writing critiqued, my personal 'worst' was telling others, not necessarily that they were wrong, but I would try to point out why something was the way it was.* This could have been handled differently (and I think I'm better now), but I think each of the problems are also things that change as the writers grow together as long as there is trust and honesty between them.

I'm really big on asking questions. If someone finds a problem, and I don't really understand why it's a problem or how I can fix it, I ask. Sometimes it does feel like I'm asking a stupid question when it's clearly obvious to the other person what the problem/solution is, but I don't see a reason to feel embarrassed about doing that because I genuinely want to improve my writing. Feeling silly in that moment is a lot better than going away not understanding what the problem is... 'cause then you'll never fix it.

...and if I've learned anything about writers, we love to talk about writing as much (if not more) than we like to actually read/write, so someone asking us to explain further our opinion of something, well, you might as well just wrap that up in a bow, 'cause it's so much fun to analyze characters/plots/etc.

We are all monkeys madly typing away on our keyboards, hoping our next line is Shakespeare instead of nonsense, but it might not be us, it might be the monkey sitting right beside us. We're not in competition with one another, we're a group who are like-minded, goal-oriented, and perhaps just a little crazy, so I think it's great to help each other out and genuinely be happy for the monkeys who succeed one step before us. Between our own nonsense and their lines of Shakespeare, we can each improve and grow.


*this is primarily because I'm prone to over-thinking, even down to the exact words used within a sentence and what double meanings they could possibly have.

N+A+M+E = ?

You could say I'm a lazy-namer when it comes to characters.

I don't agonize over the meanings behind names, or pick clever/interesting names. Honestly, I don't even give them a lot of thought whatsoever.

And this probably isn't a surprise to anyone who follows my blog since I've admitted to being a complete and total pantser*.

Often I use the first name that springs to mind and just keep moving forward with my writing.** Sometimes it's 'cause the name makes me laugh or it has some kind of strange/unconscious association with someone/thing which I don't even understand myself until later. The name just comes out of thin air, shows up on the page and that's that.

The name Triss (from Project #4) was a 'this feels right, moving on' kind of name. But I swear, after looking back, there's some actual logic behind it.

I wanted a strong, single-syllable, uni-sex name that is a chosen deviation from her 'real-name'. For me, it has everything to do with my impression of the character. She's strong, opinionated, rebellious, and because of her... uhm, questionable relationship with the nameless/genderless MC, the uni-sex quality of the name (Triss is short for Tristan, which is the character's middle name) was especially important to me. Somehow, the particular combination of sounds 'fit' that impression. If someone suggested another name which fit all those requirements and sounded right to my ears, I'd have no problem changing it.

The name Simon (from project #3) ultimately was a device to make me laugh. I had been reading articles on dialogue tags, y'know, the ones that tell you to always use 'said'.

...and my brain went, "how funny if the character was named Simon, so every time the character spoke, it would be, "Simon says", like that silly children's game, and the other characters would have to obey.***

...which quickly morphed into an overprotective older brother where the younger brother's character arc would consist of getting out from under his brother's shadow and making his own choices.

The younger brother was named after the chivalrous hero Hector from 'The Illiad' as, out of the two brothers, he is the one who is innocent, trusting and noble. This is one of those connections that I only figured out after I was about 3/4 through the story.  I simply 'knew' it was the right name because of how I felt about the character.

Unlike 'Triss', the names 'Hector' & 'Simon' will never change.

Faith, the most important secondary character in Project #3, well, it's pretty obvious I'm not getting any points for subtlety on that one... but I'm going to bet that no one who has read Project #3 (or the synopsis some of you readers kindly agreed to critique for me) would be able to guess why she's called Faith.

That's one of those things I'll take to my grave, but I'll give one very important (but probably unhelpful) clue. Not one single character in the entire story ever addresses Faith by name until the final scene. At that time, Simon speaks her name once and another character poses the question, "Faith in what, I wonder?"

What about you guys? How much thought do you put into names? Does it have to be the-perfect-name? Do you use names from people in real life, or from movies/books/entertainment? How likely are you to change a character's name? Would you, if an agent/editor asked you to?



* Hey, if I don't even know the name or gender of my MC, I'd say I've hit a new level of pantsing. Although I don't think it's something to be especially proud of, at least I'm having fun :)

** For some reason, 'J' names are unusually prevalent.

*** yes, yes, yes, I know I've got a strange sense of humor... especially considering I made it a point to never actually use the phrases 'Simon said' or 'Simon says' through the course of the entire book.

Voice-shred at Unicorn Bell

I seem to be a little out of it this morning...

Since I am an absolute masochist when it comes to receiving criticism on my writing, I've submitted another first-draft (ugh) scene from Project # 4 over at Unicorn Bell.

It's the scene where I was able to fit in one particularly, um, interesting bit of description.*

Drop by, check it out, tell me where I can hack off a few limbs - I mean, where I can do better ;)



*seriously, I have no idea why there are always so many vomit references in my writing...

Calling all volunteers!

...in preparation for querying, I have finally written *the evil synopsis* for Simon's Oath.

From my extensive online research, it seems the best way to test it out is to have someone who knows next-to-nothing about the story read it and mark down where they were confused/etc.

...so, any volunteers?

I'm totally willing to offer small editing projects in return...

Inspired by failure

I'm sure some of you have already read this guest blog post from Sara Zarr on being inspired by failure, as it seems to be making its rounds...

What this made me think of was a post Janice Hardy wrote on art and writing (my link from which you can get to the original discussion).

The short version is, I claimed that I believe the entire revision process (even up to copyeditors, if you are an agented, soon-to-be-published author) IS part of the act of creating.

So, where's the line of failure?

When  I was in the process of making demo reels (basically the equivalent of a resume -> to showcase my animation and storytelling abilities) I would literally draw hundreds of sketches while deciding what a single character would look like and what possible adventures I might take them on. After that, you don't even want to know how many sketches I would do to practice getting the character *on model* in a number of different poses, expressions, etc. You have to know the character inside and out, from all angles to draw a character that stays on model, which is something Disney can't even do, and if 'The Little Mermaid' is hailed as one of their masterpieces, then really... you have to know that pass/fail doesn't have a whole lot to do with being perfect.

So, how is that different from writing a consistent character? Knowing them and how they will function/act/react in different situations, how they show their emotions, what choices they make, etc. Most of the time, all that is explored while you write the first draft and, like an inconsistent sketch, you know you're going to have to toss some of those mistakes in the end, but you're still closer to what your Ideal is.

When is a story actually *done* or at a point you can say, *I failed*?

Personally, I think a story fails the moment you give up on it.

The first draft isn't the end. Your first round of revisions isn't the end. Querying and nabbing an agent isn't the end. Acquiring a publisher isn't the end. That final stage of copyediting before it goes to press... is that really the end?

As soon as it's in printed form, can it truly be judged as *fail* or *pass*?

When you think of how many writers and artists were considered untalented hacks during their lives and are revered as masters twenty, fifty, a hundred years later... where is the end? Is there one?

You can't please everyone, and if you try to, you'll never please yourself, so I agree when she said to have fun.

When you start thinking negatively, all you're going to do is get disheartened and want to give up. I think it's healthier to say, 'This isn't quite where I want it yet...' and view it as an evolutionary process rather than thinking about a virtual pass/fail chopping block.

The article is good, but I think it's more of a jumping off point.

What do you guys thing? Do you get hung up on the idea of *failing*? Think about anything in your life... anything you're learned how to do... can you really *fail* at any of them? Do you tell your 5 year old kid, you *failed* at learning to tie your shoes, I guess you'll be in velcro forever? How about your teenager struggling with Calculus? What about a marriage, is there a point where you say, *I failed*? How about your job, raising kids, being a friend?

There's a big difference between making a mistake, not being correct, and failing.

The *implication* of a background

Okay, I thought, instead of writing an entire post's worth of clarification on this post from yesterday, I'd just write a separate post.

So, what do I mean about enough details to imply a character background without stating any hard-core facts/etc?

Throughout the story, there are lines sprinkled around like these:

I was thirteen and ran with a crowd whose idea of a good time was lifting stuff from the local Walmart, jacking cds and stereo parts from parked cars and selling it all for cash.

It’s not like I’ve ever eaten somewhere fancier than a fast-food joint.

Sure, my fingers still itch sometimes, especially when I’m hungry and I know there’s a buffet-worth of food small enough to stuff up my sleeves at the local 7-11.

You can starve to death on principle. To steal successfully is to understand that morality is like a jacket you can put on and take off.

You want to be loose with resolve and desire. Tension means your brain is getting in the way of your gut and thinking only slows you down.

To survive, you have to be cold.

Hell, if I had to live in that house with Triss’s mom, I’d go back to sleeping in garbage bins behind the mall.

I know she wouldn’t knife me in my sleep or anything, but it’s still hard to relax, to turn your instincts off when you’re wired up a certain way.

Even if the goosebumps are so bad that they prickle and ache when I run a hand over my skin and the muscles in my neck have locked into knots, I can usually push it all away and forget.

“They need to be properly cleaned. Soaping them up in the bathroom sink after school isn’t enough.” I hear a rustle and a muffled laugh. “Ugh, I can’t even tell what color your t-shirt used to be.”

“The kid talks. I thought you were a mute.” He looked me up and down, at my faded, too-small t-shirt and the cheap jeans worn so thin they were more white than blue. “So I guess you’re just a charity case then?”

You never know, in hostels or wherever, who’s prepared to roll you for the clothes on your back and whatever valuables you might have taped to your skin. Or sometimes the threat is much, much worse.

I haven’t had such bad coffee since I lived at home, and those aren’t memories I want to dredge up while in the middle of a journey to dump a dead body somewhere deep and dark where it won’t ever be found.

And then Triss stepped forward and briefly wrapped her arms around me, tighter and harder than she ever normally would, but just long enough to whisper in my ear, “I’m so sorry. I know you don’t like to be touched.”

Now, very few hard details, right? No explanation of why or how or when. There's no sense of blame, like if it was due to the MC, the MC's parents/family/friends or some external force like social services/etc.

But I'm betting every person who reads these lines will spin a slightly different background for the MC.

And y' know, I'm perfectly happy with that. I'm confident my MC is consistent, and that's all that matters to me.

I firmly believe in the right of the reader to make a story their own. I don't particularly enjoy books that wrap up too neatly, that explain every detail and, oh my goodness, let's not even broach the subject of epilogues...

I wonder about my own story while I'm writing it.

And I like to wonder when I'm reading other people's stories.

If there's too much *explaining*, then I get bored, 'cause all the work (and wondering) has already been done for me. I feel like I might as well be reading 200 pages worth of bullet points or a scientific journal outlining, in minute detail, the hows and whys and whens of a particular experiment.

Taking away the *wondering* aspect ruins my fun.

...and anyone who has had me edit/beta-read one of their stories will tell you I'm over-analytical. I like to think through all angles, I constantly throw, 'what if?' questions at the story while I'm reading. I don't necessarily want answers, but I like to examine the possibilities.

...this also means I love brainstorming solutions ;)

So, I'm perfectly happy with readers making what they will from the details I do *know* about my characters, just as I'm perfectly happy whether readers choose to believe the MC is male or if the MC is female.

Suspense shred by Unicorn Bell

So, I promised you a link :)

Go, read, leave your thoughts there, or come back here. I'd be interested in seeing your comments on this scene, especially those of you who have read the previous snippets and know more of what's going on.

...now, on to read it myself ('cause I haven't yet)

Edit:

Since they didn't post the scene unedited, here it is:

Beta-reading/editing

This post definitely mirrors my philosophy on editing.

Don't go in with the mindset of *fixing* a story, 'cause then there's very little chance of understanding what the heart of the story is about.

Respect the writers and respect their writing, even if it's a genre or style that you don't necessarily like.

NaNo, Day 1

So why am I not writing?

For one very good reason :)

I still haven't sent my full MS to Jenny Bent.

I have been waiting (since the end of July) to receive a specific set of comments from someone.

A published author who agreed to edit my work.

I was just informed on Friday that, due to a number of circumstances, that author won't be able to send me comments*.

That was the main reason I had not yet sent off my MS. Now there's no point waiting any longer, so I will clean up the MS as best as I can using the feedback from a couple new beta-readers I tried out and send it away.

If I do that, then I can completely focus on November and my new stories. And hopefully prevent myself from twisting into knots of anxiety knowing an actual agent is reading one of my stories.

So, all day today I'm going to be editing (and fixing the ending a little), and hopefully I can send it off to her tomorrow after I have one grammar-nazi that I trust give my re-written areas a quick check.

To all you NaNo-ers out there, good luck on your first day of writing! Hopefully I will join your ranks tomorrow afternoon :)


*Nothing to do with my story. I fully understand the reasons the author said, 'sorry' and had to bow out of the commitment. I'm disappointed (obviously), but there are no hard feelings.

Protecting what you love

No, this isn't a campaign against the (brilliant) advice to kill your darlings...

I think, especially for writers who have never had their work torn apart by CP's or beta-readers, this topic is important.

There's a difference between killing your darlings and killing what you love about your story. A 'darling' is when you love a specific string of words on the page. What 'you love about your story' is the heart of it, why you wrote it, the *idea* behind it, the parts that get your excited/passionate about the story and the characters.

I've written about my thoughts on beta-reading before.

The key point of that post was to suggest that beta-readers keep three things in mind:

1) what they, as a reader, want
2) what the author wants
3) what the story wants

...and this is especially true if you, as a beta-reader, are suggesting significant changes, or, as a writer, your CP or beta-reader has suggested big changes.

Let's use my own writing as an example. Project #1, which no one (other than my writing group) is familiar with.

It's on hold for the moment because my group suggested I re-write the entire first 1/3 of the story. Well, they were more detailed than that... essentially, there were a number of problems:

- I was *telling* them at the beginning that Jess behaves like 'A', but on the page, she was behaving like 'B' the entire time (so, no transition)
- Because of this, it made no logical sense for Jess to bring Roan into the group
- Jess also had little-to-no power within the group dynamic (which contradicted some plot points)
- So it made much more sense for a different character, Ray, to bring Roan in
- But Ray's backstory/etc would then need to change, and that would change later plot points as well as other character dynamics... which then snowballed...

...and that's why it's been set aside for now :)

When you actually get down to it, probably about 1/2 the story will have to be re-written. But that's what the story wants. I, the writer, didn't necessarily want it... and my writing group disagreed strongly (with each other) how to handle the problems they uncovered... one suggested I keep the plot as-is, but re-write/re-imagine Jess so she was 'B' the entire time. That was what she, as a reader, wanted. And though that would have worked and could have been what the story wanted, it wasn't what I, the writer, wanted.

Jess's transformation from 'A' to 'B' was one of the major things I loved about the story, and I was (am?) willing to re-write half the book to make that happen.

Jess's character arc through the story is not a 'darling'. It's at the heart of what's important. I may love a lot of the scenes with her in them, but I'm willing to dump/delete/re-write them without a second-thought. Even huge parts of the plot can be discarded/changed because staying true to the characters is far more important to me.

As a writer, and as a beta-reader, you must be aware of the story's *heart*.

As a beta-reader, you may uncover a huge problem, but be careful how to point it out and suggest solutions. If you don't understand the *heart* of the story, ask questions. Don't assume you know the writer's intention because, without meaning to, you might destroy what they love about their story or make them feel it is not worth pursuing/re-writing. That's not your judgement to make.

As a writer, think about what you are willing to change, but more importantly, think about what you're not willing to change. Usually the *heart* of the story is emotional and has to do with how you perceive a character, or a certain relationship between two (or more) characters. If your CP or beta-reader tells you it's not working, don't shut them down, and don't just rewrite it like they suggest. Talk to them. Tell them your intention and find out what actually worked and what didn't.

As a writer, the entire story is in your head, but a lot of it may not have made it onto the page. Often, it's what you didn't write that's the problem.

Don't get attached to your words and dig your heels in. It's far more important to get attached to the *heart* of the story, for that is what readers will remember, not a clever turn-of-phrase on page 187.