Lots and lots of links!
First off, if you live in the Bay Area or plan to pass through our fair part of the country I will be hosting a workshop at your friendly neighborhood Books Inc. Opera Plaza in San Francisco on September 13th. The workshop is called Secrets of a Literary Agent, it will be about finding an agent and the secrets therein, and believe it or not, after I reveal this top secret classified agenting information I will not then have to kill you. You’ll just have to take a memory erasing drug.
Amid all this talk of Amazon’s world domination comes more persistent rumors about Apple developing a (potentially Kindle-killing) tablet sized device. T-minus six months until Apple is the new company the Internet thinks is going to bring about the apocalyptic end of books as we know it.
And speaking of the Kindle, remember way back a week ago when everyone was worried about Kindle pricing? Former HarperBusiness publisher Marion Maneker has a terrific article in Slate’s The Big Money this week summarizing the issues surrounding the price point battle and why publishers are reluctant to embrace $9.99. Essentially, even though publishers are generally receiving near hardcover-level revenue from the Kindle as Amazon takes a loss, publishers are anxious about Amazon using their books as loss leaders and also about the extent to which readers are fleeing paper books in the direction of plastic whenever a big title comes out.
The article is also noteworthy as Maneker is the first individual to ever utter the following words in a journalistic sphere: “Publishers aren’t stupid.” HISTORY IN THE MAKING, PEOPLE. Also there is no word on Maneker’s whereabouts. Journalists don’t take kindly to such loose talk.
For more discussion on the future of e-books: B&N recently announced the creation of a massive e-book store, PBS recently featured a segment on e-books (thanks to reader Heidi Willis for the link), there’s an article on demand pricing for e-books by Evan Schnittman, and a 100% must read by Mike Shatzkin evaluating the future of e-books. Shatzkin envisions a near future where there’s an explosion of devices and purchase points, an environment in which Amazon and B&N in particular may not have an edge (via Pub Lunch)
Meanwhile, in news that is completely and totally unrelated to this week’s Orwell/Amazon Internet freakout, Shelf Awareness linked to an article in Retail Week about how customer service expectations have soared in the recession. Hmm..
In Jessica Faust news, I thought three of her recent posts were especially terrific. First is a list of reasons she would stop reading a query and the second is a fairly comprehensive post on novel word count. The last one is advice for all: “Good enough” isn’t good enough.
Also in agent advice, Jane Dystel has a great post on etiquette when submitting to an agent. Some goes just for Dystel & Goderich and some is universal, but definitely check it out.
Still with me? MORE LINKS TO GO.
Anonymous publishing intern The Intern wrote a post about how many spiritual memoirs she’s been receiving (she’s not alone) and some things to consider when writing one. (via Janet Reid)
And in more writing advice news, my amazing client Jennifer Hubbard wrote about the importance of patience (no, really, you’re going to need it), and she also linked to a very interesting discussion by Janni Lee Simner about the distinctions between “girl” and “boy” books and voices.
Many people passed along Editorial Anonymous’ recent Publishometer, a point system by which you can see whether you pass the bar for publication.
Almost finally, as many of you know ANGELA’S ASHES author Frank McCourt passed away this week and there have been many remembrances in the media and online. I was particularly struck by the LA Times book blog Jacket Copy’s article that remembers McCourt as one of the great late blooming authors, having published ANGELA’S ASHES, his first book, when he was 67 and retired.
And finally finally, I was immediately drawn to this video of the world’s fastest everything. I only wish they had included footage of the world’s fastest novel (via Andrew Sullivan).
Have a great weekend!
Anonymous says
Michael,
Do not let online agents get under your skin. Be glad that they have revealed their attitudes and 'quirks' so that you can evaluate their suitability to be your agent.
When an agent has said enough to reveal their true inclinations, or put their foot in their mouth one time too many for you to imagine successfully working with them, then just take their name off of your potential agents list.
Just as in business, where we are told not to send an email when we are angry – do not post anything when you are ‘spitting mad’. Do not be goaded. Create a pseudonym and use it consistently, as so many others do, so that you are not judged years or even months from now, when – as you so eloquently pointed out – you will not be who you are today. There is nothing worse than our past haunting our present.
Case in point: Take Ms. Dystel off your agent consideration list and put her on your NEVER WOULD CONSIDER list. When you do write your bestseller, she has ensured, today, that she will not get an option at it tomorrow. Who knows how many other authors she has offended?
You are an excellent writer. You are very articulate.
Sincerely and forever,
Anonymous
P.S. So do you, Laura
Anonymous says
Laura,
I meant that you write beautifully.
Anonymous
Nathan Bransford says
ello-
I was planning on addressing that with a separate blog post.
Laura Martone says
I agree with you, Mira – everyone deserves to have some joy in his or her life. Just as having nothing BUT joy in one's life can limit the complexity of one's stories, having nothing BUT pain can hinder a writer, too. To be the best writers we can be, it's important to understand both sides of the coin (an analogy that doesn't work, I'm afraid, for Harvey Dent).
I also agree with Bane and Anon 7:47 – as unfair as Ms. Dystel's blanket submission rules might seem (and as much anger as they might engender in many a writer), they are an unfortunate fact of life. Not every agent is the same, as Bane so astutely pointed out – and all that Ms. Dystel has done is given some writers (me and, I'm assuming, Michael the Goose included) a darn good reason to NEVER query her. After all, who wants an agent who doesn't believe that writers can improve over time?
–Laura
P.S. To Michael the Goose, wherever you are, I apologize if I seemed unnecessarily harsh with my "deprivation" rebuttal. Just as Ms. Dystel's comments boiled your blood, generalizations tend to boil mine. But I appreciate the fact that you expressed your opinion openly – and I wouldn't judge you "years or even months from now" as Anon 7:47 suggested that some might. It's perfectly fine for you to express your opinion, just as it's perfectly fine for me to disagree. As long as we treat each other with respect, we're doing just fine. 🙂
Anonymous says
Anonymous, your post worries me a little bit.
It worries me because I fear that you might be correct – should I be signing with my real name?
At forums, or blog sections, such as this, I'm capable of being extremely – what's the phrase I'm searching for here: ah yes, 'hot-headed'… no, not hot-headed, apt to write down my thoughts exactly as they're presently forming in my head. If my head happens to be hot can I honestly help it?
Has this hot-headed-ness thing gotten me into trouble in the past?
Yes it has.
So what you're saying, then, is, just don't sign my real name – hmm? I don't know… that's just not me. I think I'd rather sign my own name and just accept the consequences.
Most of what I write I believe in anyhow (most of us do), so I honestly don't see why it matters?
I fear that you are correct though.
Yours truly,
Michael…
Michael Jackson.
Matilda McCloud says
Weighing in on the Dystel thing. I've queried them twice for two different mss–actually the same agent there who was quite nice and requested partials both times (I don't know if she remembered me or not from the first query). Just wait at least a year or more to query with another project. If you really feel your current ms is stronger, then send go ahead and send a query. It's no big deal.
Chuck H. says
When I read that Frank McCourt was 67 when he finally got published, it made my day. I still have 4 years to make it.
Anonymous says
Goose Michael Jackson,
You should always be true to yourself and speak honestly.
But as my fictitious Grandpappy once told me: “There's a time and place it’s ‘ceptable to have ye bum out – Broad Street ain’t’ one of dem.”
Of course, that was shortly after a newspaper photographer took a picture of Grandpappy actually displaying his backside on Broad Street. It was an embarrassment for the whole family, but I'd bet he’d do it again, if it suited him. But, then again, he never planned on running for Mayor.
I loved my fictitious Grandpappy – bum and all.
Michael or Goose, either way, you are a character. I enjoy your wit.
Signed,
Still Anonymous
Anonymous says
The topic of deprivation on its own is an interesting idea and would be a fascinating detour, detour because I don't find it germane to discussions about the agent-writer relationship. An agent doesn't need to know whether a writer has suffered or vice versa, just as they don't need to know what the writer has gone through in their life. The primary locus of said relationship is the writing. Saying a writer won't work with an agent that doesn't 'get that deprivation is a part of them/the writing process' is like an agent saying that a writer only gets one shot at them with one ms – both don't really have anything to do with anything.
Other Lisa says
Okay, that world's fastest video? I am so not that fast.
Donna says
Ok, so slapstick humor is not my style; but some of this stuff is wierd enough to catch even my attention.
That said; I'd like to go off topic a moment.
I'd like to return to the guest blog topic of "what is your writing dream?" Well, it took me a long time to answer that question.
The answer is: I'd like to be a ghost writer. I want someone to dictate to me the details of what they consider an interesting life, and I get to put it down in marketable prose.
Is this ghost writing?Biographical? I don't want to make up the initial story, I want to fill in the details in a marketable way.
So, I want to ask Nathan: what is the fine line between creative non-fiction and biographical. If someone tells you their story as a child, in another era, do you have to give them citation credits; pay the person a fee for discoursing information that might help you sell your novel?
Because I am a social worker, and come into contact with persons willing to divulge ther entire story to anyone willing to let them talk; can I use what they say in a victional environment, or do I need a release of information just because it's an actual revelation? Even if the context of my scenario is a compilation of too many similar stories to count. At what point do so many similar stories become usuable fodder for a novel character?
And yeah, I want to take a workshop run by my favorite author blogger! It so happens that I put in for some leave (vacation) time, then and have been told that since I have the on-paper leave accural they won't tell me no; but there are reasons I shouldn't take the time off.
Yeah, yeah. Close to, I'll see what my finances are to determine if I get to "call in sick".
But in the meantime: biographacials, ghost writing; should a writer take on the project? How to write credits, share royalties; get permission?
……….dhole
Anonymous says
By the way, does anybody here know which writer I was referring to?
This cat was going on about deprivation, and although what he was saying was truly striking a chord with me, I didn't think to take his name down.
I merely ask, since Mr. Bradford's website here seems to be attracting a slightly inordinate percentage of highly intelligent and knowledgeable… uh, folks.
The interview with the novelist in question was re-broadcast a couple of nights after he died – anybody?
He was old. He was at least in his eighties. The original broadcast aired quite a while ago too. I'm thinking mid-90's.
Apart from the deprivation thing, I remember that this novelist mentioned his wife (then deceased).
He said that when he took her back home (to the mid-west, I think it was) for the first time that his father didn't say anything, and that for this reason his feelings were quite hurt. But that night, as he sat alone with his father on the front porch, his father, not a poetic man, suddenly said: "She's a star… we've never had one in the family before."
The other thing I remember was a comment he made about memory. "I had no idea that being old would be so wonderful," he said. "In my mind I can travel to any part of my life, and re-live it… it's wonderful."
Yeah, that's a novelist, alright.
I always say to people that as a human being I'm really just a collection of memories. And honestly, for the life of me, I can't understand why some people never look back?
For starters, one can't examine one's life if one never looks back.
And you know, and I know, that the unexamined life is not worth living – which cat said that? I think it was that Socrates bird, wasn't it? Did anybody here study Philanthropy in college?
But, more importantly, that collection of memories that we all have is what constitutes one's self – me, I always look back. Some people are always rattling on about the future, but I'll deal with that when I get there. IF I get there.
Anyhow, if anybody could help me out with this – much appreciated. Thanks.
Yours truly,
Michael Jordan.
Anonymous says
Michael –
here´s a little true story for you. When J. K. Rowling, often invoked on this blog, received the request for her full MS as an exclusive, the agent she had sent her submission to had yet to read a word of her partial. I bet good old J. K. sure is glad her initial package landed in the hands of the office junior who sent off for the full while the boss was presumably out having drinks at the Groucho.
What I´m trying to say, I guess, is, ´tis a gamble any which way you look at it, and your only hand is to query extremely widely to maximise your chances of catching the right agent (or intern) on the right day.
I´m sure I´m not the only one who is a touch mystified by some of the winning query letters we are often presented with by blogging agents, such as Nicholas Sparks´s query for The Notebook, which Nathan has previously referred to (https://www.nicholassparks.com/WritersCorner/Query.html). I can just picture Miss Snark grinding her heels into that one!
There´s no accounting for personal taste or preferences, and therefore no excuse for levels of professional courtesy slipping, on behalf of either agent or aspiring author. Here in the UK I recently received a reply to a query from an agent who was downright condescending about the genre I write in, without having read a word of a partial or indeed having mentioned on his website that he does not represent this genre. I wrote back cordially thanking him for his prompt reply, which I don´t regard as turning the other cheek, but as doing my bit for not letting the tone in this world totally go to the dogs.
There is so much one has to develop a thick skin against in this game, on every level of outside recognition or lack thereof.
Mira says
Michael – well, hmmm. Well I see you have an anonymous guardian angel, with a very strong writing voice and compelling argument.
I'm going to agree on some points – ranting is problematic. Most people shut down when someone 'yells' at them, and they can harbor feelings about it.
There's also the general truth that people can hear that you're angry, or they can hear what you're saying. Most people can't hear both at the same time.
So ranting at agents isn't always effective if your goal is to have agents hear you – although it may be effective in getting writers to listen. Ranting under a false name isn't a bad idea, if rant you must.
I wouldn't give a second thought to this thread. I seriously doubt anyone would hold this thread against you, and if they did, that's not the type of person you want for an agent.
So, our Anon has laid out two options:
a. Rant and blow your professional writing career because of the despicable practice of blacklisting.
b. Play ball.
There is a third option. It's called expressing your opinion when you're not angry, with professional courtesy, but also integrity. Knowing two things:
a. Allowing yourself to be silenced damages those very channels you've worked so hard to open. It wounds who you are as a writer at the very core.
b. Even if you are blacklisted, the game is changing dramatically. In a few years, the same agents who are working to keep writers quiet, not understanding that lessens them as writers, which is something no agent should ever want to do, will be fighting to find their place.
Agents should work on allying with writers, not silencing them.
Anonymous says
Mira,
Blacklisting never entered my mind.
The advice was about maintaining one's professional decorum in a public arena.
As Goose noted, what we write reflects who we are – but in the one-dimensional world of blogging, we can only reflect limited aspects of our multifaceted personalities. Also, there is the old adage about first impressions.
As we stand in judgment (and we do whether we admit it in writing or not) of agents who blog, so do agents who read blogs. If you are actively seeking representation at this time, then alienating any number of unnamed agents by coming off as combative and hotheaded is not an intelligent course. Sometimes we forget that we are not in a vacuum, and we express our emotions in the moment of time. We’re writers – that’s what we do – express emotions through stories.
I assure you that if I expressed myself as blatantly as I so desired in even one business meeting, I’d be without employment. And that would be in one boardroom with identified attendees. In other words, I would know exactly who I was offending.
Blogging in the internet is another universe. We are alone in our homes, in a blog, and can sometimes feel quite isolated. But in reality, we do not know who is listening, drawing opinions and taking names. Aren’t the odds difficult enough without letting one incident in which we’ve openly expressed our more extreme emotions label us as hotheaded or difficult to work with?
We are participating on a professional AGENT’S blog that has many unidentified lurkers. Not spies, but people interested in the topic of conversation, and we all develop opinion of every “named” blogger here. That’s why the Other Lisa wants an identify to associate with a personality. That's normal.
I simply want to remind my fellow authors that the audience is much larger and varied than we sometimes realize or remember.
I am late for a wedding, so I will wrap up with the one thought: I was not giving out heavy-handed threats, conspiracy theories, or blacklists… just friendly professional advice because I like my fellow authors.
Ink says
Michael Jordan,
Always admired your game, man. Go Bulls. How's my man Pip doing?
On a serious note, I'm still really struggling with this idea of deprivation you've thrown out. There's a very big difference between saying "My writing comes out of deprivation" and "All true writing comes out of deprivation." It's perfectly valid to talk about your own experience of writing this way; it's your experience, and no one knows it better than you. But to then generalize that to all writers is utterly illogical.
As Laura said, all people face some deprivation. It's part of the human condition, and so to single it out seems rather strange, as your formulation either ignores or dismisses any other motive for writing, for creating art, dismisses any other drive behind the creative impulse. There are as many different reasons for writing as there are writers. Some will write out of deprivation, some will write out of joy, some will write out of fear, some will write out of hope and conviction. Most of us, in truth, will write out of many things, for the creative impulse is not a simple or linear thing, but rather a vast complex interconnecting our own complexities with the complexities of the world around us. Great art comes from deprivation? No, great art comes from many things. And great art is not easily reduced.
Just because one writer said one thing that struck a chord with you does not make it right. Because a common thread runs through Irving's works does not mean that this is where all his writing comes from. A single association does not prove causality. There are a few other things going on in his books, too. Some of them he even intended, I'm sure. Such a limiting Freudian analysis of the subconscious literary impulse seems dangerous when it leads to such simplified generalizations as "all true novelists write from deprivation".
A statement like that offers only two paths: either you're pretending to speak for me (I'm deprived, and a true writer) or you're dismissing me (I don't write from deprivation and am not a true writer). Neither one particularly thrills me. The former lacks any logical basis and is full of presumption, and the latter, in particular, is really, really, really (really) insulting. Now, I don't think you meant it intentionally. I admire your honesty here, and your humour, and your conviction in your artistic undertakings. I'm glad you spoke up, and you have some good points. But you basically just called anyone who doesn't write for the same reasons as you a hack.
If I am, say, a humour writer, playing off the quirks of marriage and social life, and utterly uninterested in writing about or from deprivation, am I suddenly not a true writer? It seems a little ridiculous. Art can, and has, come from everywhere. A statement like "all true writing comes from deprivation" is almost meaningless in any sense beyond the personal and subjective. You could equally say all good writing comes from lust. Or fear. Or conviction. Or marshmallows. It's an expressive statement lacking any form of logical context.
to be continued…
Ink says
So while I agree that the Dystel statement is rather odd, and can be a little insulting, it seems a lesser evil than the one you made (as I'm guessing the Dystel line was meant more as a comment on compatibility, a "hey, if we've rejected you a few times we're probably not the right stylistic or personal match" rather than a "if you're not good enough now, you never will be" sort of comment. I have a feeling they didn't fully think through the ramifications of their statement). Your statement, on the other hand, attempts to define who I am and what I do. And if I don't fit that definition I'm a hack and not a "true" novelist. Which is a very troubling statement.
Having said all that, I have enjoyed your contributions here (you've made me laugh outright a couple times), and think some of your points are important ones to consider. And don't worry about blacklisting, I'd say, as Nathan's little playground here is always a safe place for debate (assuming everyone is sticking to the ideas rather than personal attacks). Lots of room for differing opinions. I mean, I disagree with Mira all the time, and she still gives me ice cream. At least she said she would… maybe once she's finished building her continent hurtling catapult. Butter pecan sounds nice to start with…
My best,
Bryan
Ink says
Okay, I admit, that was a really long comment. It didn't even fit in one comment box. Does that mean no ice cream?
Bane of Anubis says
Youz guyz are writin frickin thesises here… I knew there was a reason I wasn't a liberal arts major (that and all the damn reading 😉
BTW Bryan – 3 posts in a row means some internet monster w/ a Japanese name's coming to get you…
Ink says
I can take Mothra.
Anonymous says
It's presently fashionable, at forums, or at websites such as this (and by the way, I would like to thank Mr. Brailford for allowing us to post here – we all benefit greatly from the interchange that occurs in this section of his blog), for a person to preface their every strongly worded sentence with the phrase: in my opinion.
Some people will use this phrase so often that they'll just abbreviate it with imo.
I just don't feel the need to write imo before every sentence that I write (I would much rather write a complicated preface like this one) – it should be obvious that what I'm writing is just my opinion.
So in my opinion then – since we have been discussing what makes a novelist a novelist – here are some of the things that will surely cause one to become a novelist (and doom one to a life of poverty and misery in consequence) should one happen to possess, for whatever reasons, the majority of these traits or characteristics.
1) Deprivation.
Fundamental in its connection with novelists – deprivation is at the heart of every true novelist. A writer is deprived of something, and so attempts to make up for it by exiling oneself from regular society and by creating fictional art. (see Charlie Rose) (See John Irving)
2) Most novelists possess an exaggerated understanding of language that's almost innate in origin – or at the very least have had an early abnormal experience with the printed word.
When I was in the first grade I thought that I was stupid because I didn't know how to read – everyone but me seemed to know what the rules were, and everyone else exuded such an assuredness and such a confidence that I mistakenly thought that they all knew how to read, and what they were doing.
I knew I had to catch up to these guys – the result being that I over-compensated.
On a side note: befriending many of these people, I would later learn how stupid some of them were. "Hey, I've got an idea: let's build a ramp, and then lay down some kids and see how many of them we can jump over on our bikes!"
3) Being introverted doesn't hurt.
Did you know that the scientists have discovered that there's a gene for this? Apparently, an introverted person can no more refuse to be introverted than a sick person can refuse to be sick. I could have told you that!
Also, being introverted means that you'll be… uh, 'pre-conditioned' to spend massive amounts of time alone. The one thing that non-novelists just don't understand is how much time a novelist will spend alone.
I can go months without talking to people – easily. This has made it relatively easy for me to spend massive amounts of time alone, writing. It's also the reason I write in public a lot – I like people, and need to be around them.
Being a good listener, is also helpful. Being downright nosey is even better!
Also, if you're introverted, then you're imaginative – and that helps… a lot!
4) All novelists are liars. Really, really bad liars.
5) Many novelists are alcoholics – there's so much evidence of this that I'm not even going to bother to say anything more about this subject… except, maybe, help!
6) Novelists are fascinated by people, and possess the rare ability to put themselves in the shoes of others and to understand the world from their perspectives.
Novelists will converse with anybody (most homeless people, in particular, have led extremely fascinating lives') – and will often be able to extract information out of people in a rather astonishing fashion.
7) Novelists have time on their hands – it's going to take you ten to fifteen years to pass through your apprenticeship.
The novelist Margaret Atwood was approached at a party by a brain surgeon, who said to her that when he retired from being a brain surgeon he was going to become a novelist – and Atwood responded that when she retired from being a novelist she was going to become a brain surgeon.
It does take fifteen years, at least, to learn how to write commercial fiction.
8) Deprivation.
Mike Younger
Mira says
Bryan,
I would never deprive you of Butter Pecan, that would be cruel and unusual. But I think you forgot a rather crucial point of our deal.
The deal was: ice cream = Mira's always right.
I realize that is going to require a complete personality transplant for you, so, you know, I'll give you some time.
Can I also say that what you wrote was extremely eloquent and sincere? But it did raise a question for me. What's this mean to Bryan? My goodness, he's protesting…..alot.
Anon – I have to write a paper (!) I am terrified of writing my first 5 page paper for college. Shaking in my boots. Lol. I should type it into this little box, then it will be a 65 page paper and Bane will be happy. Anyway, point is, I'll respond later. Enjoy your wedding.
Ink says
Mike,
Well, yes, I know it was your opinion, because I also know it's not fact. The problem is that part of your opinion doesn't make much sense to me, which is why I think it's important to discuss it.
Your list is interesting, but again it's full of misleading generalizations. Yes, many of these are skills that are helpful for a novelist to have. But it's dangerous to say "This is what makes a novelist".
1) The problem with your first item is that if you find one writer for whom this does not hold true the statement becomes invalid. It's very absolutist here. Why not just say "deprivation is a key element for many novelists"? Because there are lots of writers not writing for this reason. Such a blanket generalization makes the idea absolutist, makes it black or white, either/or.
2) Yes, novelists have to be good with language, the same way a surgeon has to be good with a scalpel or a cashier with a cash register. That seems pretty basic.
3) Well, this statement about introversion is feasible, in that it at least isn't a statement of absolutes. Is introversion helpful? Maybe. Or maybe just characteristic. Whether it's actually helpful would be an interesting discussion, I think. Certainly there are lots of novelists who aren't introverted, however. Yes, they have to be capable of spending time alone, but that does not necessarily equal introversion. And even the terms introvert and extrovert are binary simplifications of real people, who will vary much more along a scale (and might, for instance, simultaneously occupy both ends of that scale).
And certainly I see no particular reason to connect introversion with imagination. Are introverts necessarily more imaginative than extroverts? I'd want to see some evidence before believing that. Really, "imagination" is a hard sort of thing to measure, though such a study would be interesting.
4) Bad liars? Or good liars? Certainly writers create something that isn't literally true, and we manipulate words to create specific effects. Though whether that is really "lying" is debatable, as any intended deceit is in collusion with the reader.
…to be continued (again)…
Ink says
5) "Many novelists are alcoholics"… Sort of getting into that dangerous reasoning again. Many lawyers are alcoholics. Many teachers are alcoholics. Probably some dentists, too. What's "many"? What bearing does it have in any specific sense on being a writer as opposed to being a mechanic? Many novelists are not alcoholics. Most of them, I'd wager. A large percentage majority are not alcoholics. So I'm not sure what relevance the statement has outside of the adoption of the old Hemingway mystique.
6)Yes, successful novelists will be able to put themselves in others shoes (unless they write mostly autobiogrpahical stuff), at least in a fictional sense. They may not be able to do it in real life. They might be able to imagine a character's reality for a novel, but not be able to understand a neighbour's viewpoint.
"Novelists will be able to talk with anybody…" Why? I don't see it. This is another grand generalization with no real basis in fact, as far as I can see. I doubt writers, in general, are much better at speaking to "anybody" than anyone else. I can't say I've seen much to support that idea. And what happened to your introverts? That doesn't sound very introverted.
7) Yes, writing certainly takes some time to learn. It takes some applied effort. But the generalization of fifteen years is certainly innacurate. As an average… maybe. As a rule, no. I mean, one of the blog readers here is having a novel published as a teen. And I doubt she started writing novels at age two. (Though I'm sure she was a precocious two year old) But as an average I could live with that idea of ten to fifteen years, at least until I saw some hard evidence (with the understanding that there will be many exceptions to that average).
8) Well, I already talked about deprivation. As an element for some writers, sure. No problem. As the defining element for every "true" novelist (whatever that is)… nope, I can't buy that. Do you really think the creative impulse is that simple? Void – Fill Void. Seems rather monochromatic to me. And it certainly doesn't apply to me as a writer. So I guess I'm not a "true" novelist. Shucks.
Ink says
Mira,
Lol, I guess that's what it means to me. Certainly it got my fingers moving on a lazy Saturday at work. And Bane will be happy, too. That first one was just an honor's thesis. Now I got me a Masters degree. Actually, that's giving me flashbacks. My masters thesis was (cough cough) over 1200 pages. Shocking! you all say. Imagine Ink rambling on for too long a period. Never would have guessed it.
And now it looks like Mothra's going to be bringing a friend…
Bane of Anubis says
I'll respond 🙂
1.) Deprivation is overrated – Laura's right that emotional pain is needed to convey greater depth, but not deprivation (which almost implies intentional conceit).
2.) Most think they do; the best authors know when to suppress it so their works communicate w/ the masses and not a select few within their intellectual cabal.
3.) Depends on what you're writing and who you're trying to appeal to.
4.) Not sure what this means, but I'll take this space to say that introversion doesn't give one a better imagination – it just gives one the sense that he should have one.
5.) I don't drink more than twice a year, so I guess I'm screwed 🙂
6.) Most people are fascinated by people – otherwise magazines like People and Us wouldn't flourish. Good authors use this ubiquitous fascination to enhance their pieces with empathy/sympathy/ observation… none of which are rare traits (though incorporating them effectively into a piece of work probably is)
And again, I'm screwed b/c I'm rather particular with whom I'll converse.
7.) Seriously? Tell that to Stephanie Meyer. Love Margaret Atwood, but she's blowing smoke up her own arse. Some people can write, others can't. Some need 2 years, others 20. Some get lucky, others don't.
8.) overrated
You've painted yourself and others into a nice little box. If your goal is to create a Joycian mindf**k of overworked prose, I'd agree more, but, frankly, this a bunch of mental masturbatory bullpucky that isolates and alienates more than it validates, IMO.
Bane of Anubis says
Bryan – heck, I thought I was writing a bunch, but you just did another thesis… (mine was only 130 pages, full of equations and graphs and I still felt like it was overly long 8)
Ink says
Bane,
I was going to give you a long explanation, but I would've run out of space again. What's with these little boxes? Though, for some reason, that's never happened before. Twice in a day! I'm on a roll. Maybe I should write Mira's paper for her. If she's doing molecular biology I might be screwed. Or need a really good refresher course.
wordver: mullets.
Really. Swear I never had one.
Anonymous says
Mira, people who can't stop themselves from posting are referred to as being 'serial posters'.
I think that you might be one of them – nothing wrong with that! It's a good sign!
But do you ever post in the morning, while you're eating your breakfast?
Then you're a cereal poster too.
And Ink – yes, that's the way to do it, just insert a very large 'imo' over everything that I write. That's what people should always do. But also, you have to consider that another person might have evidence that you don't have – hey, I love being wrong about stuff and then finding out about it. That's how I learn! If I think that I'm right all the time then it means I'm not learning – obviously.
I don't know how it works with you, but it usually takes me a day or two to digest what somebody else has written, and then to admit that I was wrong. This frequently happens when I'm shaving?
Also, when I said that typically a novelist will apprentice for at least 15 years… I kind of was generalizing… I didn't mean exactly 15 years.
Then again, the Atwood quotation that I provided does hold weight.
Also, there's a big difference, obviously, between a writer who gets lucky, and a person who is born with the qualities of a novelist.
E.M. Forster is a novelist,
Robert James Waller is a person who wrote a novel and got very very lucky.
They're just not the same class of writer.
I appreciate your input on this matter.
(I saw right away that this place could be a kind of forum in which powerful discussions might take place. But of course we also have to try and remember that this is a person's blog – Mr Banddsford is either tolerating us… or he's on vacation?)
Michael Younger
Mira says
Okay – I wrote the first three paragraphs of my paper. I'm inordinately proud of myself.
I'm stopping for a second because I don't want Bryan to misunderstand me – I didn't mean you wrote too much. I think it's cool that you're so into this. I don't speak for Nathan (although I'd like to – Nathan let me know when I can) about length of posts, I'm not sure what his stance is….but I was misquoting Shakespeare as in the gentleman doth protest….
Okay later gator.
Ink says
He's tolerating us. 🙂 As long as we play nice, that is. But I wouldn't play if there were personal attacks going on. I like discussion, where the ideas matter. And I like to think I hold my ideas firmly, but am always open to being convinced. Though realizations rarely come while I'm shaving, as I avoid that as long as possible. The beard helps.
And I'd agree that ten to fifteen years is probably a pretty good rough guess at an average for the whole novel apprenticeship thing. And the Atwood comment does have some traction, at least depending on how you look at it. In a literal sense, there's nothing to say that a brain surgeon couldn't become a novelist once they retire. But I think Atwood's comment nicely points out the implicit idea that many people hold that writing a novel is easy. It's just a matter of finding the time, as if the ability to write a (good) novel is naturally inherent.
I'm not so sure about the whole writer/luck division you point out. It's a very subjective thing, that decision of quality, of what's better than what. Waller's sold a lot of books and has a lot of fans. He certainly seems a novelist. Maybe he's not E.M. Forster, but that doesn't necessarily negate the fact that he's a novelist. "Luck" is a little harsh. Every writer needs a little luck… and at the same time luck is never enough. You don't satisfy that many readers without doing something right. Probably many things. It just seems sort of subjective: this one's a real novelist and this one's not because I like this one better.
My best,
Bryan
Anonymous says
Also, I remember hearing The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, once say how much she valued debate: "Because that's where your ideas are truly put to the test," she said, "when there's fierce debate between two opposing groups."
Where debate falls apart, obviously (and this is especially true of discussions that take place on the internet), is when people are no longer exchanging ideas, but are exchanging insults instead.
Have I ever participated in one such debate (because my ego got the better of me?) – yes, of course, many times.
Michael Younger
Ink says
Mira,
Nope, I took it the way you wanted me to take it. I think.
And, remember, you're only right once I get the ice cream. Until then you're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. So, you know, pony up some gelato.
🙂
Ink says
Mike,
You've been tip top here, and very friendly, so I hope I didn't imply you were making personal attacks. I wouldn't have kept chatting if you weren't open to honest discussion, which you've always seemed to be.
Anonymous says
For 1:26 and 11:10,
It's BRANSFORD, not Brailford. Do not get that wrong, not here. Not Bradford, BRANSFORD. Don't miss it, don't joke about it, get it right. At least have the courtesy to type the name right, he's humoring you and letting you air your thoughts and the others are humoring you and adding to the discussion even though you essentially hijacked the thread away from a true examination of agent/writer connections which would have been on topic.
That's fine, sort of, you may be a troll but the topic is interesting enough and the others clearly agree. And the first mistake you made on Mr. BRANSFORD's name may have been just that, a mistake, but the second makes me think you are a troll and a disrespectful one at that, which puts everything you're writing into a lesser context.
The antidote is simple: get his name right or don't use it, refer to our moderator or the owner of the blog, etc.
So, rail away, pontificate all you like. But show some respect, please. You're being accorded as such.
Anonymous says
About Mr. Bransford's name – I was just joking!
And if you had read this section in its entirety then you should have understood that I was just joking.
You're taking this too seriously.
And quite frankly, there's a huge, huge, huge difference between a person who's trying to lighten up his own post with a joke, and a person who's deliberately trolling a public forum or a comments section such as this.
(That said, if Mr. Bransford was offended over the deliberate miss-spelling of his name on my part, then I unconditionally apologize for having given offense.)
Also, I wouldn't want to detract from the discussion at hand, but I actually was responding to the discussion at hand.
Mr. Bradford… Bransford posted a set of links. I was responding to what I read having followed those links. Presumably, that's why he posted them – so that we would read the associated articles and blogs.
I'm not going to agree with everything that I read, however, and being a writer (like everyone else here), I tend to write responses to what I've just read (like everyone else here!).
That's why this comments section is here.
Michael Younger
Anonymous says
Get his name right. Everything else is fine.
Steph Damore says
Wow, wow, wow – look at all these comments!
Glad to see you're all having a good time – remember first-grade playground rules are in effect – don't make me get the lunch lady.
Okay, back to the original thread.
NATHAN I have a question – has novel word count changed much in the last few years? Wondering because with the economy and all. Is it cheaper or easier to sell a shorter work say 60k as opposed to 80k? Or does it not really matter?
Anonymous says
Yeah, wow, I agree Michael, your just joking, some people, sheesh.
Re deprivation I think you have3 a good point, it's something lacking that you feel missing there that you're trying to make up for or something. All artists have it in common, though I think that any person who tries really hard to get something, obsessively, that signals being deprived of something at some point in their life.
I agree too with the others, that's not all that you need, but you can probably trace the development of an artist to something beyond the norm, that most people don't have to deal with. So in other words it's not necessarily heartbreak based on two people not being able to work things out. But it would be there with someone who lost a loved one who died. Divorce too, not everyone deals with that, or disability.
Other Lisa says
I dunno.
I have always wanted to write. Always. As soon as I knew there were words and books (my first case of writer's block came when I couldn't complete my opus about cats going camping because I could not spell "tent"). Unless we are talking about some very early childhood trauma/narcissistic injury, I can't see where deprivation fits into that impulse.
There are a million theories out there about creative people and what drives them to create (including a number on the relationship of creativity to mood disorders, which is really interesting stuff IMO).
The simplest one I've ever heard is that we create because it makes us feel good. Which kind of works for me.
Anonymous says
I've come back from a beautiful wedding and reception to find that all my words were for naught.
I weep.
With that said, here’s my response to the list: (I trust that IMHO is understood)
1. All humans suffer from some form of deprivation – every single one of us. But self-deprivation, well, that’s another thing altogether.
In fact, we don’t necessarily write from personal experiences. Some of us explore experiences that are not our own through our writing. Certainly, most readers read to experience situations, emotions, and lives that are not their own. I know that I do.
2. We may or may not possess an exaggerated understanding of language. I believe that we write to satisfy our need to express ourselves. I know that I write as a means to examine life, people, events and possibilities.
3. Many authors are extroverts. I am an extrovert. I love talking to people. Even when I spend hours alone, writing, I am ultimately speaking to my readers. If I am fortunate, I will be speaking to my readers long after I am dead. However, I am an introvert in that I am self-examining. I ask myself, why. I ponder, and, then, I talk or write about it.
4. I am a liar in that I am human – not because I am an author. In fact, authors of superb fiction fabricate stories that contain within them extraordinarily complex truths.
5. I am not an alcoholic. However, my AAA sponsor might not agree. I’m just kidding – hiccup – there I go ‘tale- telling’ again. 😉
6. Some of us like people, but others do not. As varied as humans are – so are authors. Therefore, some of us write humor, horror, revelations, literary, romance, etc. The list is as limitless and as varied as our individual personalities, experiences, dreams and fears.
7. Novelists make time to write because we have something that we want to explore and/or say. How much we dedicate to the craft is based on individual choices and capabilities (i.e. freedom).
8. Martyrdom is not required.
I have genuinely enjoyed this intellectual examination of authors’ motivations. Thank you – Goose, Bane, Ink, Mira, Other Lisa, other Anonymous (es) – for a lively and fun discussion.
Anonymous says
Martyrdom is not required, says the chap who comes back from his soiree to find his words were 'all for naught.' Sorry, dude, couldn't resist. I completely agree with your pov in that it's yours but there is no one truth for anyone when it comes to writing. There are as many truths as there are writers. Introvert, extrovert, deprived, not deprived, different, same, same, different.
THAT is the beauty.
Laura Martone says
Woah, woah, woah!
I go away for less than a day… and the whole "deprivation" discussion explodes.
I'm overwhelmed by all the groovy sentiments here – and nearly rendered speechless, so while I ponder my life as a poor, introverted, language-lovin', people-understandin' "true" novelist, I should just point out that I'm not an alcoholic. A tea-aholic, yes. Alcoholic, no. So, I guess I'm not a "true" novelist after all.
Sniff, sniff. Whatever shall I do now? Stop editing my novel and become a park ranger?
Donna says
I’m very late reading these, but I’m commenting on the 7/24 posting:
INK: Very well said about Michael’s points. You brought up a lot of things exactly as they were in my mind. What an interesting name you have. Can I use it for one of my characters?
MICHAEL: I happen to agree with you about a writer’s ability to learn and improve their craft. Where we differ in our opinions is that years of diligent effort does not always equal proficiency. I have spent years – since the day I first realized crayons can make pretty pictures – trying to draw. After many years spent watching PBS and other networks teach the basics of drawing, I can say that I’ve finally graduated from stick figures, but nobody will ever pay me to draw their portrait. Practice doesn’t make one perfect.
As for not getting the “Agent” to read your submission instead of a clerk, I’m sure the clerks are well trained (many of them aspiring Literary Agents themselves) to recognize obviously amateurish work or specific things the agent refuses to work with. I guess I understand this process because of own career choice. I am the person my clients most want to see, but I am also the last person in screening process. And why would a “novelist” query an agent who clearly states if you don’t meet their criteria on the first try they never want to see your name again?
OTHER LISA: Kudos! Tell it like it is and make no apologies.
……dhole
Anonymous says
Laura –
Wow. Sorry, my eyes are popping out of my head. Anyway, take heart, I don't think you need to join Forestry. Definitely don't write while you're out there, it drove Kerouac mad.
Drink instead of writing, get the heightened sense of reality that, I always say.
Other Lisa says
I am compelled to leave one final comment because of my word verification:
Punkons!
It's like, a new race of Star Trek aliens!
"Captain, the Punkons, they're slam dancing!"
Sorry. I will re-engage the Lurking Device now.
Marilyn Peake says
Whoa. Interesting discussion going on here. My own opinion of writers … and other types of artists: musicians, painters, etc. … is that they need to possess imagination, sensitivity, intensity, creative drive, and the sort of empathy that allows them to understand different types of people well enough to portray them accurately. When an imaginative, sensitive, creatively driven person experiences deprivation, that might give them a boost in empathy and intensity; but the deprivation isn’t actually necessary in order to create great works of art.
I was fascinated when I learned the following in grad school. It’s often believed that intelligent people are loners and don’t get along with other people. However, psychological research has shown that children with high I.Q.s usually get along well with their peers, presumably because they’re smart enough to figure out how to do that. However, geniuses with I.Q.s too high to measure by the usual I.Q. tests (i.e. I.Q.s literally off the charts) tend to be extremely cynical, presumably because they see negative patterns in human behavior that others don’t.
Here’s an interesting report published in 2003 suggesting that creativity and mental illness might spring from the same biological mechanism, BUT clarifying that both creativity and mental illness do not need to both occur for the mechanism to exist.
Writers often say things about the process of writing that’s based on their own experience, whether it’s true for all writers or not. Some great writers’ quotes:
Kingsley Amis: "If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing."
E.L. Doctorow: "Writers are not just people who sit down and write. They hazard themselves. Every time you compose a book your composition of yourself is at stake."
William Styron, interview, Writers at Work 1958: "The good writing of any age has always been the product of someone's neurosis, and we'd have a mighty dull literature if all the writers that came along were a bunch of happy chuckleheads."
Ray Bradbury: "You must stay drunk on writing so reality cannot destroy you."
Franz Kafka: "Writing is utter solitude, the descent into the cold abyss of oneself."
Interesting quotes about the art of writing :
Anton Chekhov: "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."
Mark Twain: "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you're inclined to write ‘very;’ your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be."
goldchevy says
That boys/girls book thing has really got me thinking. Let me start by saying that I am the mother of a 9-year-old boy who just threw down a book last night because the word "crush" was used (And it was a Clone Wars book for goodness sake). According to this post, we raise our boys to be this way. But I think this is only partially true. I remember one day, when my son was only one year old, his daycare provider had him play dolls with the girls. But when I went to observe, although all the girls were tenderly caring for their dolls, he was smashing his against the wall. He was really too young at this point to be influenced by our culture (unless I missed an episode of Blues Clues where Steve finally lost it and started slamming animated characters against the wall).
He's nine now and just finished Lego camp–24 boys signed up. No girls. This is most certainly because Lego gears their product towards boys. But Lego seems to me to be in it for the money (Do you know how much some of those Clone Wars battleships cost?) If they could make money off Lego Barbies–I'm sure they'd do it. (After all, they can and do make round blocks as well as square ones).
But girls just don't seem to be as into the build and destroy thing as boys are. Maybe this is because of the way they are raised. But maybe also they just aren't that into it.
Anyway, although I am not denying that our culture is rampant with sexism, I'm thinking genetics might just play a tiny role in this boy/girl thing too.
And whether it's genetics or culture, I think it's a good idea if you're writing a boy's book to avoid using the word "crush." Especially on the first page.
Marilyn Peake says
And a quote from George Orwell :
"Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand."
Scott says
Thanks, Nathan. Some interesting stuff here. Some of it common sense, too, but so many of us creative types lack it at different times.
I do want to say that I thought the Boy/Girl article a bit aimless. I grew up with a veritable library of books, many of them aimed at girls as I was the youngest of three with two older sisters. But I was a boy and learning to figure out what that was about. We're action oriented by nature, so it wasn't hard to find boy protagonists to study. My sister and I shared Encyclopedia Brown mysteries, but I have to say I wasn't all that interested in her Judy Blume books or Nancy Drew series. Not that I had a problem with them, I just had enough going on otherwise.
The idea that our preferences for characters reflects how we're raised just seems born of awkward logic. In fact, it feels like those times when a mother forces a brother to let his little sister tag along. It can be sweet and nurturing, but it's not indicative of anything unnatural or improper for the boy to moan a bit and reluctantly agree.
My nephew is digging the Outsiders. I suspect he has a thing for Cherry, as well. And I can tell you that I'm well pleased that he's put down his Gameboy long enough to turn a few pages. Thankfully, girls and all their exquisite mysteries are not yet one more thing to make him put it down.