These stories are all over the internet lately. They play right into the the premise of my story Quintessence.
Google and electronic devices are ruining our memory
NBC Story on Digital Amnesia
UK Daily Mail story
Newser 6 signs you're Suffering from Digital Amnesia
What happens when you become completely reliant on these digital aides when they are taken away? You'll have to read it to find out!
Friday, July 3, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
This is a very broad topic and some smart person could probably do a doctoral thesis on this subject. The internet is an amazing technological gift and I don't think anyone envisioned the sort of potential it had when in its fledgling state. The ability to connect people from all over the world in real-time has unlocked an unprecedented global community.
It's facilitated the Arab Spring, which the jury is still out on whether that is going to turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. We've seen a young woman (Justine Sacco) vilified for making an off-color tweet in a poor attempt at humor that cost her job and ruined her reputation. We've seen young people commit suicide because of cyber-bullying. Harassment and death threats are rampant. And what is turning into a horrible custom--people jumping on the bandwagon of something they have very little knowledge of and creating a mob mentality. All of these things have happened and are happening, and it's sickening. Gamergate, Puppygate, leftwing vs. rightwing politics, I don't even want to get started on the details, but these things impinge on my daily visit to the web. News spreads at a viral pace now and people don't bother to take the time to see if things are true or not, they just take at gospel because everyone else says it's horrible. It must be bad if so many people say it is. It's as if a "journalist" from a gossip magazine is running the internet.
Why is it we want to believe the worst in everyone? The corporate world is not immune either (Examples of Social Media Crisis.)
And here is the worst part. If you speak out against something you are inviting the hordes to your doorstep. In some cases, literally. I'm hesitant to take a stand on any issue now. Who needs that kind of drama in their life? I know I don't, but I do think about stuff, and want to take a stand on things I feel strongly about without being singled out as the target du jour. Free speech should mean we all get to have a say, and be able to do it in a civil manner.
I don't know how we fix it. This age of free speech is different than any other time, because the reach is nearly instantaneous and global. My old roommate used to say, "Why can't everyone just be cool?" What is it about being insulated by your keyboard that gives people carte blanche to be A-holes? It's a little like road rage. It's a lot like pitchforks and torches and burning people at the stake, or a lynch mob--the worst type of social justice with no trial.
We need a new age of civility, social rules for the internet. I would rather see people chastised for breaking etiquette when he or she is being an A-hole, but not death threats, simple peer pressure to do better, that it's not acceptable behavior. I like what Chuck Wendig says about trying to be your best self on social media. I would love to see us be nice to each other, all the time, everywhere. I wish every person could be treated equally, male or female, gay or straight, black or white or whatever, all the time.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but I get the feeling we are on the cusp of something big. I don't know if it's going to be a good thing or a bad thing. I'm reminded of the first age of public discourse back in fourth century Athens, where orators were pleading with the public in courts and public events, to change the course of politics in their day. But that is nothing compared to the way disinformation flies around the world at the speed of light today. We can do so much with the connectivity we have now, but that could mean wonderful things or horrible things. This new age of communication is just beginning, and who knows how it will mutate as it matures. We do have the power of choice. We can chose to stand up for niceness. Or we can pile on.
Here's hoping niceness prevails.
Monday, March 23, 2015
|Used by Permission Hersson Piratoba|
Are you or someone you know looking for an agent? Let me share with you what I've learned in the process. I'm aiming at fiction novelists. If you write short stories, or non-fiction or anything other than novel length fiction this isn't really for you.
There are a few things you will need to start the process--a manuscript, a query letter, a synopsis, and a list of agents.
First and foremost you need a finished manuscript. You can prep the other stuff, but before you send the first thing to a potential agent you need to have your MS completed, reviewed by alphas and betas, and edited as well as possible. It should be polished to a fine sheen, because this is the thing that will cement the deal. Even if you write a great query and a great synopsis, if your manuscript is subpar the agent is going to pass. Make all the arguments you want about story trumping writing or vice versa, but it will still come down to making that agent fall in love with your novel. Work hard on getting the first part of your story to really grab attention and showcase your voice, because it is the first thing the agent will read. Well, duh, but really, it needs to shine, because they always want the first pages--anywhere from ten to thirty or maybe the first three chapters. I'm just going to assume you did this part and move on. Don't make me regret it.
We've toiled on our manuscript for months or years and it's ready to be seen, so the next step is to work on your query letter. The query letter usually includes an introduction, a pitch, and a short bio. It should be double-spaced 12 font, and don't get fancy with the font. My preference is Times New Roman for this stuff. Ideally, it will be all on one page.
The concept for the query is to pique the interest of the prospective agent. Because of this, you need to personalize each one for every agent you query. So, while working on your pitch, you need to start developing a list of agents. Agent Query is a great resource to start (www.agentquery.com/) or you can just Google "your genre" and "agent" to see what comes up. Chuck Sambuchino has a great list at Writer's Digest (www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/guide-to-literary-agents) and he updates it with new agents as they emerge. Preditors and Editors (pred-ed.com/) provides a wide-ranging database for lots of stuff, including which agents to avoid, whether or not they charge to review your work, legal services, and convention lists, just to name a few things. Agents that charge reading fees are warned against, as reputable agents do not charge a reading fee. Absolute Write Water Cooler is another good resource for reviews of agents. (www.absolutewrite.com/forums/)
Take the time to do some research on the agent you select. If you have a connection mention it. If you met them at a con remind them. He or she will usually want your word count and genre listed in this introduction section. If they don't care about such things the agency listing should say. Or if you find an interview online they might mention specific likes or dislikes in a query. Some have done video blogs or live chats where these kinds of things are discussed.
Their agency website will have information about the submission process and their agents, especially their genre preferences, and usually a little bit of personal stuff, like favorite writers. Also take a look at their client list to see if you're a fan of one of their authors,or even if they have any yet. If the client list isn't mentioned on the agency page you can find out on Query Tracker. (querytracker.net/) It's also a great resource for finding agents. The agency website will also have the submission guidelines. Follow them. Every agency is different. Some will have a simple submission worksheet that will be very limited, asking for contact info, a short bio, and a pitch. Others will take 30 pages and a query letter. More will want a full synopsis and first ten pages of your manuscript with the query letter. From my experience, most will want a query, a short synopsis (1-2 pages) and the first ten to fifteen pages of your MS. Pay attention to the details; they're usually quite specific. They will often have one email address to sent your query to, and might share within the agency if the particular agent you targeted thinks you might be a better fit with someone else. Some will have you contact the individual agent directly.
These days most prefer an email with everything including in the body of the email. There will usually be a clear note not to use attachments. Your email will get deleted without being read if you don't pay attention to this. There are still a few holdouts that will only take snail-mail packages.
The meat of the query letter is the pitch, and it needs to have a hook. The sole purpose is to get the agent to ask for your manuscript. This is the part you are going to spend the most time on. You want a one to two paragraph lure for your story, including the stakes and the thing that sets your story apart. I recommend sticking to the protagonist, and maybe the antagonist, and provide the agent with something enticing. There are lots of good places on the web to get help with these. I started with Query Shark (queryshark.blogspot.com/,) which a lot of my friends used as well. Jane Friedman also has a good page for these. (janefriedman.com/2014/04/11/query-letters/) Writer's Digest has a nice Dos and Don'ts page. (www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/the-10-dos-and-donts-of-writing-a-query-letter)
Once you've created that pitch, you can test it out at several blogs. These two will post on their blog and publically critique: Writer Writer Pants on Fire (writerwriterpantsonfire.blogspot.com/p/query-critiques.html) and Kyra Nelson. (kyramnelson.com/query-critiques/) At Agent Query, it's more like a club. (agentqueryconnect.com/index.php?/forum/2-aq-connect-query-critiques/) There are sites popping up and folding pretty regularly, and at the time I posted this all of these were still active. There are contests all the time, so don't be afraid to do some searches on the web when you've drafted your pitch.
For your bio, keep it short, but include any other work you've had published or any experience you have that is germane to your story, like you're an attorney and you write court dramas, that sort of thing. School history is a good thing to include, especially if it pertains to writing, for example an MFA. These things aren't required and if you are a fledgling writer with no writing credits just keep it simple. That won't stop them from reading your work. A great pitch will overcome a lot.
The next thing on the list is the synopsis. The synopsis is a full summary of your story with all the spoilers and secrets revealed, including the ending. There are resources online for how to do this, but essentially it is a scene summary of the conflict in your story. Carly Watters has a nice "how to" on her blog (carlywatters.com/2013/11/04/how-to-write-a-book-synopsis/). Jane Friedman also has a great helper (janefriedman.com/2011/10/25/novel-synopsis/.) I would make several of these of varying lengths--a one page, a two page and a full, which could be up to ten pages. These are usually single-spaced, and nobody has told me different. What they are looking for here is can you tell a complete story. Do your best to keep some of your narrative voice in these.
Lastly, I created a spreadsheet in Excel to track who I sent to and when, what they asked for, and a place for responses and comments. I used a default rejection if I didn't hear anything back after two months. You could always resubmit if this happens. Most advice I've seen is wait at least 30 days for any follow-up. Some agencies welcome trying other agents in their house after a month, and some will tell you not to bother.
You want to keep your manuscript on sub until you have success. My goal was to always have it out to at least four all the time. If someone asks you for an exclusive there needs to be a reasonable timeframe included, 30 to 60 days is normal. Don't let someone lock it up perpetually.
I actually have my MS with an agent right now, waiting to see if he will want to represent me. If he says yes, then the next step of the process starts, seeing how well you work together. Just because you get an offer of representation doesn't mean you have to take it either. Read the fine print on the contract. Obviously, the more reputable the agency the less you have to worry about this, but you still need to read the contract carefully.
Keep your chin up. There will be lots of rejection. Some of it will be nice, some will be generic, and some will seem to simply ignore you. Stay professional, and in the meantime, work on the next project. I wish you all the luck in the world.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Ziegler has a lot of great quotes in his book, The Writing Workshop Notebook, but this one made me laugh and at the same time it rings very true. I spend a lot of time on picking the right words. I spend even more time picking out names of characters and places.
Words have power. They set tone and image and put the reader into the world you are creating. My wife thinks I spend too much time worrying about such things, but the wrong word can be jarring or confusing to the reader, and may draw them out of the story, maybe for only a moment, but great writing is experienced, not just read. When done extraordinarily well, the author becomes invisible and the reader simply goes along for the ride.
Contrary-wise, when the wrong words are chosen, or when there are too many, the reader gets bogged down and can certainly tell there is a conductor at the front of the locomotive who is determined to drive the train off the tracks.
Writers can fall in love with certain passages, and sometimes it can be to the detriment of the story. Less is more may be a cliché, but it's usually true. We've all read stories that were clunky or overly wordy. It's actually one of my pet peeves. I get irritated when the author goes on and on about a particular subject or describes everything in sight in excruciating detail. The consequence is that I skip the passage. If the writer stubbornly continues I may put the book down altogether.
I actually did a blog post about Neal Stephenson's Reamde, Don't Reamde!, if you care to read it, because he is about the most verbose writer of our generation. He doesn't use an editor anymore, at least that is the rumor, and the book could be easily half the length and still tell the same story. I will never read another of his books because he loves his words too much.
Sometimes even when you love them you need to set them free!
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Snyder opens strong with his logline concept. The idea of being able to sum up your story in one sentence has its appeal. It will make pitching your book all that much simpler, but it is certainly easier said than done. Blake's construct is framed around having the "Big Idea" from the start. There is value in this, but his focus is on selling the script to a producer, not on helping frame the book.
He even goes so far as to try to convince the reader that the title of the project should reflect the logline. The titles may be self evident but they certainly aren't "killer" as he would put it. They lack imagination.
Having a logline before you start seems like a good idea if you want to write a story using your craft skills. I can see a lot of "pantsers" arguing that this would strip the soul from their story, but it can be a useful starting point to deviate from perhaps. Trying to go back and capture a logline after the first draft is well underway can be a daunting task.
The next chapter lacks focus but the bottom line is read in your genre and avoid clichés. Snyder confuses the reader with talk about doing the same thing but different, and then provides a list of the different types of movie plots. He refers to them as genre, but they are not the same thing that novel writer would recognize. Perhaps there is profit in this for a screenwriter, but it's more plot focused than genre focused.
Blake follows this with selecting your hero. Here again it can be a little confusing for the novel writer. Snyder says, "It has to be about someone. It has to have one or two people we can focus our attention on, identify with, and want to root for - and someone who can carry the movie's theme." This is all fine and good, but his focus is more on picking a character that will amp up the logline. What I think he actually means is that you need to pick the character that can tell your story and has the most at stake. This is critical. There are craft things we can do to make the character more or less sympathetic, so maybe there is a little of cart before the horse here. I think Snyder knows that, but simply has trouble putting it in the right context. We see snippets in this chapter about his focus of selling the script versus telling a good story, when he talks about not writing the script for a particular actor or type. That is probably good advice for a screenwriter, but not necessarily important for a novel writer.
Next, we get to the meat and potatoes of the book, where the advice is widely praised for its story structure ideas. The three act play and Snyder's fifteen beats are great fundamentals to hang a story on. He goes through each beat, providing good descriptions of what they are, with solid examples. He also explains how they fit within the three act play structure. This chapter alone is the payoff for the entire book. His advice to hit the mark on the proper page can be taken with a grain of salt, but the beats are sound.
The section that follows is also gold. Snyder talks about the value of a good mentor, to which I can attest, and he lays out the storyboard concept.
I've had a lot of mentor figures in my life, both good and bad, and there are beneficial things to be learned from both, but a great mentor is invaluable. It's like a fastpass to learning tricks-of-the-trade along with the fundamentals. They may also furnish priceless networking connections. Even the less good ones can often provide at least a few lessons, as well as showcasing how not to do it if the roles are reversed.
The storyboard idea can be used in pre and post draft work. For someone who enjoys outlining and plotting ahead of time the storyboard is a great way to see if you are staying on track and hitting all your marks. For someone who would rather seat-of-the-pants write, the storyboard can clarify the plot structure and framework of the draft, showing where things might need to be cut or moved around to better fit the flow of the story. I like his concept of using note-cards and limiting them to 40. This keeps the work focused and forces the writer to examine every scene to see if it moves the story forward. I especially like Blake's idea of writing down on each card the emotional change and conflict for each scene. These comments make the story arc easier to visualize, and the ability to color code and add further clarity by tying concepts or arcs together.
The next two chapters go into pitfalls to watch out for, and then he closes with a potpourri of things about selling scripts and stuff that really doesn't do much for the novel writer.
Overall, I found a lot of value in this book. Blake's focus on selling to a producer versus good story telling leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many writers, but there are nuggets of gold in these pages if you can grasp the underlying meaning. The concrete examples he uses provide a clear picture of the concepts and his structure ideas are well worth the read.
Friday, October 17, 2014
This is from a paper I did for my MFA program.
Stephen King's On Writing is more than just a book on how to write. It is a memoir and a journal about how he wrote several of his best sellers. It also showcases his keen eye for what makes a good story.
King is in the camp that believes writers are born, at various skill levels. A writer cannot be made of someone who is not born a "writer". Mr. King does believe that the skill can be sharpened, thank goodness.
I found the memoir section engaging. I'm not sure why this surprised me. Each of these little vignettes was a little story of its own. Even though they were non-fiction, they were quite entertaining. He remembered things that had some aspect that was either jarring or gross. Elements that, no doubt, helped shape the direction his writing life would take. I definitely empathize with getting poison ivy in all the wrong places as a kid. I did notice, however, that even Stephen King uses passive voice when describing something, colorful and evocative though it may have been.
Another facet that helped forge the writer King was to become -- his voracious appetite for reading. He experimented with copying form, and the encouragement of his mother was enough to set him on his course. It amazes me that he still remembers the first thing he wrote.
I gleaned a few writing tips from the first part of the book, including turning off the television and learning to recognize ideas when they show up, usually two unrelated ideas that come together. Also, writing a lot, and develop a thick skin. Stephen wrote a ton, and kept submitting stories despite rejection after rejection. He watched a lot of movies and paid attention, soaking up the stories. But any writing endeavor was usually accompanied with a dose of disapproval. Shame from writing "junk," and not living up to his talent, started early in Junior High School. "If you write . . . someone will try to make you feel lousy about it."
John Gould, editor for the "Lisbon Weekly Enterprise," taught Steve a valuable lesson when he had a brief stint as a sports writer. "When you rewrite, your main job is taking out all the things that are not the story." Gould's other quote that resonated with King was, "Write with the door closed; rewrite with the door open." He mentions this idea several times throughout the book.
After college, King got a job teaching English. He said that teaching zapped his brain, and writing got hard for the first time in his life. Despite that he kept at it. By then he was married, and living hand-to-mouth in real poverty, but his wife kept encouraging him to write. In discussing the development of his first big money piece, Carrie, he learned that stopping a piece just because it's hard is a bad idea.
King talked about his drug and alcohol addiction. His discussion on mind-altering substances, spoken from someone who knows, is a message that needed to be addressed, lest our young artists fall into the same trap trying to emulate Earnest Hemingway. After getting sober, he came to appreciate his life even more. "Life isn't a support system for art. It's the other way around."
In the next part of the book he gets down to the nitty gritty about writing. It's chock full of good nuggets of writing wisdom. I've heard the analogy several times but King has a colorful way of describing the idea that writing is like telepathy, across space and time, from the writer's mind to the reader's. He had some concrete ideas on how to go about starting writing. Construct your far-seeing place, your writing cave. Someplace that you can go, away from distraction. Take the craft seriously, and read a lot.
Good writing consists of mastering the fundamentals. Grammar is touched on, but not at length as he felt this is an entry level requirement. Vocabulary should not be dressed up, but honest, direct, and clear. Words are only a representation of meaning, and may fall short, so you need to strive for clarity. Avoid passive verbs and adverbs are not your friend. "The road to hell is paved with adverbs . . . " His favored dialogue attribution is "said." He is a fan of Strunk and White Elements of Style.
King thinks the paragraph is the basic unit of writing, "where coherence begins." The pace should be varied with beat and rhythm. "The object of fiction isn't grammatical correctness but to make the reader welcome and tell a story. To make them forget they are reading."
Mr. King shared advice about how to go about telling a story. Write about anything as long as you tell the truth. Don't commit intellectual dishonesty in the hunt for the buck. Meaning "write what you like, then imbue it with life, friendships, relationships, sex and work." Write a lot and read a lot. He reads seventy to eighty books a year. Set a daily word goal. He recommended a thousand words a day. He shoots for two thousand. Don't wait for the muse to show up--write six days out of seven. He also listens to music, which he related as another way to "shut the door."
Saturday, October 11, 2014
I learned a new literary term this week. At first I thought my mentor was snarking at my poor use of description, but I looked it up and it's actually a real thing. I've seen it hundreds of times, but like so many other things I had no idea there was an actual title for it.
Pathetic Fallacy - A literary term for the attributing of human emotion and conduct to all aspects within nature. It is a kind of personification that is found in poetic writing when, for example, clouds seem sullen, when leaves dance, when dogs laugh, or when rocks seem indifferent.
I'm adding it to the lexicon. I am still hoping that I get more of these to add. If you know of any that aren't in my Writer's Lexicon please share.
I also get Jane Friedman's blog notes in my email and a few days ago she talked about a visit to Italy for a convention. Nice, huh? Maybe someday I'll be able to justify that, but I digress. Anyway she talked about hearing Bella Andre talk and one of the points really hit home and I think it's especially valid for new writers. There is no wasted work. Anything you do that relates to your writing goes in the experience bag to be used later. Words that never see the light of day are still valid, because they move the bar toward those magical million words that free your writing spirit animal or something. For real though, they do count.
I hear a lot from other writers that are still unpublished that they feel like they are wasting their time. No such thing. Every word is one step closer to figuring it all out, improving your voice and getting that much closer to getting a contract. So keep at it.
On another note, I am closing in on finishing Quintessence. Like ready to send out to agents. I'm excited to finally have something I feel confident enough about to get to this next phase in my career. I'll post if I have any news on that front.
Monday, August 4, 2014
I recently finished my 4th residency for my master's program and I've had some time to reflect on my progress as a writer. I've enjoyed every residency but each has its own flavor. After the first one, I wasn't really sure that the Seton Hill Writing Popular Fiction program was going to work out. I'd spent several years prior to starting the program trying to improve my skill and my knowledge-base about writing as a profession and I felt like I wasn't learning anything new. My opinion on that changed after the second residency, but looking back now, I can see the cumulative effects of the program.
After each semester I'd taken stock of how much my writing skill had increased, if at all. After the semester that ended last winter I felt I'd reached a new plateau, but after spending a full semester with Timons Esaias as my mentor, my skill seems to have gone up an order of magnitude, instead of incrementally. I more easily recognize patterns in writing that I couldn't see before. Common mistakes that a lot of writers make, especially on the first draft, stand out like a strobing beacon. This semester the thing that really emerged was understanding what it means to give a character agency, to really get under their skin and speak through their point of view, but that's only part of it. The craft of writing is making sense. I look back thinking I'd learned a few things, only to find a few months later that I've grown even more. I honestly thought that I was getting it before, but the more I learn the more I see that this is a journey with many plateaus.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
There has been a lot of grousing on the interwebs about the Sochi Olympics and how homophobic the Russians are; the fact that the village isn’t completed, or there may be tens of billions of dollars in graft and corruption. Several of my friends and people whose blogs I read are talking about boycotting Sochi.
I don’t get this.
How is any of that relevant to how hard the athletes have trained? They have devoted their lives to getting ready for the next Olympics. We can debate how important sports are. Or if there is any value in watching sports, but how does boycotting Sochi have anything to do with the events that are televised? The TV rights are bought and paid for. The tickets are already sold for the events. I have never spent a dime on anything related to the Olympics, and I don’t plan to now. About the only thing I can think of is that some Neilson rating number will get an infinitesimally small blip from me watching a televised event.
The Events themselves are often amazing. The athletes are a joy to watch. Their skill, honed through thousands of hours of practice and sacrifice, is a thing of beauty. And most of them are not getting paid for this and had to scrimp and save just to be able to barely get there. They want us to watch them. Many of them have prepared for this moment for their entire lives.
I don’t have to agree with anything the Russians are doing or have done to prepare for this in order to support the athletes. If you want to take the International Olympic Committee to task, or the Russian government, then more power to you. But the athletes aren’t responsible for any of it.