So first, some bad news:
Ms. Stephanie Thornton and Mr. Bane of Anubis have elected to step down from their regular weekly contributions to the Archives. While we are sad to see them go, Mr. Delman and I are pushing forward and continuing the blog because we think we have something special here to share with you.
And now, the good news:
What this means is that we need two more regular weekly contributors! If you think you might be interested, email us at alliteratiarchives@gmail.com with why you think you'd be a good fit.
And as usual, if you want to do a guest post on a Friday, let us know!
Thanks for sticking around Alliteratus. Stick with us during this period of turmoil-- we promise there are neat things in store!
Showing posts with label Bane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bane. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Rule #1 of Inverse Bullying - Attack the Big Guy
If you guys didn't check out the stupendously organized WriteOnCon, I encourage you to do so, the logged conference perfect for those without funds, time, or social skills (me, the latter).
Despite all the goodness to be found there (agent interviews, author commentaries, etc.), there was one thing that really torqued my jaw. One particular agent offered her time to critique queries via an online chat (full disclosure: mine was not in there). She offered some valuable feedback, but for queries she did not favor, she too often resorted to snark in her criticism (and, unfortunately, all too often, the ogling masses tittered along).
From my experiences, besides retribution, failure and superiority (artificially created or not) are the two largest factors that engender cruelty toward others, and this can be readily spurred on by the mob mentality. Humor, too often in our culture, is created via denigration of those without voice.
In the writing community, failure is a common tattered thread and quasi-superiority isn't far behind (ha, look at that poor schlep's query... starting with a rhetorical question... fool... and let's not get started on agents, gatherers of fawning wannabes who will lap up the milk no matter how spoiled it may be), so, as in comics' circles, we too often flay each other because, hell, we're thick-skinned (we've learned to be via all that damn rejection) and given all our experience (whether failure, success, or just exposure), we've earned the right, right?
If you want to be funny, be neutrally so, or self-deprecatingly so, or, if you must, do so at the expense of the giants to whom you are a mite on their callouses (...yes, I'm trying to vindicate my Stephenie Meyer jests here ;), but don't wreck the voiceless because it's too easy.
Snark, condescension, etc. is pyrite. It can be found in droves. Looks shiny, but scratch the surface and there's not much there. Look at the Nathan Bransfords and Mary Koles of the agent world, agents who have large online followings... achieved through generosity of insight and wit, wit that's sometimes wry, but never inhumanely directed.
As with zoos, don't feed the animals.
Despite all the goodness to be found there (agent interviews, author commentaries, etc.), there was one thing that really torqued my jaw. One particular agent offered her time to critique queries via an online chat (full disclosure: mine was not in there). She offered some valuable feedback, but for queries she did not favor, she too often resorted to snark in her criticism (and, unfortunately, all too often, the ogling masses tittered along).
From my experiences, besides retribution, failure and superiority (artificially created or not) are the two largest factors that engender cruelty toward others, and this can be readily spurred on by the mob mentality. Humor, too often in our culture, is created via denigration of those without voice.
In the writing community, failure is a common tattered thread and quasi-superiority isn't far behind (ha, look at that poor schlep's query... starting with a rhetorical question... fool... and let's not get started on agents, gatherers of fawning wannabes who will lap up the milk no matter how spoiled it may be), so, as in comics' circles, we too often flay each other because, hell, we're thick-skinned (we've learned to be via all that damn rejection) and given all our experience (whether failure, success, or just exposure), we've earned the right, right?
If you want to be funny, be neutrally so, or self-deprecatingly so, or, if you must, do so at the expense of the giants to whom you are a mite on their callouses (...yes, I'm trying to vindicate my Stephenie Meyer jests here ;), but don't wreck the voiceless because it's too easy.
Snark, condescension, etc. is pyrite. It can be found in droves. Looks shiny, but scratch the surface and there's not much there. Look at the Nathan Bransfords and Mary Koles of the agent world, agents who have large online followings... achieved through generosity of insight and wit, wit that's sometimes wry, but never inhumanely directed.
As with zoos, don't feed the animals.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Re-piphany
So on my way from Portland to San Antonio, the wife and I visited Yellowstone Park. As we were driving from one scenic point to the next, I realized again to myself, "***k, there are a lot of trees." Like billions. All in this grand place, most tall, stretching for the sun.
Now, I'm sure these damn trees don't give two acorns about whether or not passerbys stop and stare at them, but seeing all these trees blurring past the window, all I could think about was publishing, and the odds of becoming that tree that stands out that everyone wants to visit. On a slightly less depressing note, if you're a geyser, you've got a better chance.
Another re-piphany occurred as my wife dictated that we stop at place 238 to snap more touristy pictures. Pictures that upwards of 10^6 people have already taken (half of which exist on the net). No new stories, right? Yep, another uplifting analogy. But at least there's something to be done about this one (well, technically, we could chop down all our competition, but that would lead to jail time) -- instead of doing the normal stuff, take that rugged (perhaps even dangerous) hike to a place where few dare go... get a slanted picture... could end up a ruin, but at least you've got something more unique (though, to end as a cynic, unique ain't always better).
Anybody know how to be a geyser?
Now, I'm sure these damn trees don't give two acorns about whether or not passerbys stop and stare at them, but seeing all these trees blurring past the window, all I could think about was publishing, and the odds of becoming that tree that stands out that everyone wants to visit. On a slightly less depressing note, if you're a geyser, you've got a better chance.
Another re-piphany occurred as my wife dictated that we stop at place 238 to snap more touristy pictures. Pictures that upwards of 10^6 people have already taken (half of which exist on the net). No new stories, right? Yep, another uplifting analogy. But at least there's something to be done about this one (well, technically, we could chop down all our competition, but that would lead to jail time) -- instead of doing the normal stuff, take that rugged (perhaps even dangerous) hike to a place where few dare go... get a slanted picture... could end up a ruin, but at least you've got something more unique (though, to end as a cynic, unique ain't always better).
Anybody know how to be a geyser?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Ten Dollar Words
I am still quasi off the grid, in San Antonio now, surrounded by boxes. This is a truncated repost from my blog from back in November, so it might look familiar to some of y'all.
I remember when I first started writing I thought one of the marks of a good writer was the size of his vocabulary. And while I think this still holds some truth, I believe that a mark of a good writer is limiting this vocabulary -- i.e., knowing your audience. In my first novel I wrote some odd years ago, I used the words ambagious, sententious (maybe a 5 dollar word), apotheosis, marmoreal (this is one I actually might still use b/c I like it so much :), estrade... to name a few (all off the top of my head, perhaps sadly)... now, one of these words might be alright every 100 hundred pages (emphasis on might, and dependent on target audience), but you don't want your readers having to struggle to determine what words mean (this isn't the SAT... we're not testing vocab and we want paragraph comprehension to be fairly straightforward, usually -- unless you're in the lit fic realm, which is above my pay grade).
Sure, some of the above words might be sexier to dictionary hounds and entertainment-article writers, but they're obtuse and can easily be replaced by more straightforward words that still might be worth more than a penny (e.g., tortuous, paragon, marble-like -- see, marmoreal's prettier :) -- dais) and won't confound your readers.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Control Theory 101
I'm gonna go super-geek nerd analogy here, so if that floats your boat, keep reading.
My educational background is in Controls and Dynamics, a subset of engineering used in various applications, most notably robotics. The key idea behind controls is to control something (talk about a big reveal). As a simple example, say NASA wants to launch a rocket to Mars, but to conserve fuel to make it to their destination, they need the rocket to travel at 300 miles/second (note: these numbers are completely fabricated). No faster, no slower. The rocket speed is controlled via a propeller (note: rockets do not use props for propulsion, they use rockets, but for simplicity's sake, we're using a propeller).
After launch, a good control algorithm (e.g., nonlinear, adaptive) will adjust the propeller speed in such a way that we quickly get to our desired cruising speed of 300 mi/s and stay there. The problem with these algorithms is that sometimes they can screw you and go out of control (and there ain't no coming back when that happens). Safe algorithms (i.e., linear: pole placement, PID, etc. -- warned you this was super geeky) will always get you to your speed, but usually they will overshoot and then fluctuate around your desired setpoint (300) before eventually settling (a dampened sine wave).
A writer's arc is in many ways analogous to a control algorithm. We don't hit our desired setpoint right away, usually. We tend to overcorrect based on feedback, rules, etc, but eventually, if we iterate enough, we can find our setpoint.
PS - I'm off the grid at the moment (hopefully somewhere in Yellowstone not getting eaten by bears).
My educational background is in Controls and Dynamics, a subset of engineering used in various applications, most notably robotics. The key idea behind controls is to control something (talk about a big reveal). As a simple example, say NASA wants to launch a rocket to Mars, but to conserve fuel to make it to their destination, they need the rocket to travel at 300 miles/second (note: these numbers are completely fabricated). No faster, no slower. The rocket speed is controlled via a propeller (note: rockets do not use props for propulsion, they use rockets, but for simplicity's sake, we're using a propeller).
After launch, a good control algorithm (e.g., nonlinear, adaptive) will adjust the propeller speed in such a way that we quickly get to our desired cruising speed of 300 mi/s and stay there. The problem with these algorithms is that sometimes they can screw you and go out of control (and there ain't no coming back when that happens). Safe algorithms (i.e., linear: pole placement, PID, etc. -- warned you this was super geeky) will always get you to your speed, but usually they will overshoot and then fluctuate around your desired setpoint (300) before eventually settling (a dampened sine wave).
A writer's arc is in many ways analogous to a control algorithm. We don't hit our desired setpoint right away, usually. We tend to overcorrect based on feedback, rules, etc, but eventually, if we iterate enough, we can find our setpoint.
PS - I'm off the grid at the moment (hopefully somewhere in Yellowstone not getting eaten by bears).
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Staining The Fence
Recently finished staining our deck, fence, and porch. Brutally painful. And it wasn't even hot out. The whole process got me analogizing about revising thinking about revision. How when we revise, we make something that looks better. How it's painful, monotonous, tedious. How some things we're better at than others (me: brute strength; the missus: detailed work).
But just because it looks better, doesn't mean it is better. We might have covered up the blemishes without creating any real improvement. Sure, that deck looks pretty, but unless we pretreated it with deck cleaner, swept it with a pressure washer (followed by a few days of drying and another go with a broom), our pretty layer of is just a concealer, not an improver.
Revision sucks. But to do it really well, revision must really suck.
But just because it looks better, doesn't mean it is better. We might have covered up the blemishes without creating any real improvement. Sure, that deck looks pretty, but unless we pretreated it with deck cleaner, swept it with a pressure washer (followed by a few days of drying and another go with a broom), our pretty layer of is just a concealer, not an improver.
Revision sucks. But to do it really well, revision must really suck.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Voice, Fuck Off
Seriously. You plague my head, you bastard catch-all phrase wielded by insiders as a shield. Didn't connect with the voice. Not feeling the voice. Great voice. Love the voice. Didn't connect with the voice. What does that mean? You know how to use sentence fragments? Inverse phrases? How 'bout snarky snarkiness so oft seen on blogs or urban words in a clever manner (like crozzled, Mr. McCarthy)?
Snark's easy voice. Dialogue's easy voice. Easily cultivated, grown, harvested, replanted. And razed.
Hard voice? Related to style? Flow? Rhythm (isn't that sort of like flow... uh oh)? How do you know when you've got it? Or do you ever? Is it something that comes easy or just seems to? According to "writing" books, you're not supposed to think about voice -- well, here's something for you, how 'bout you stop brining it up. Like saying don't look down. Assholes.
Voice, bane of my thoughts, I search for you hard, but until then, fuck off.
Snark's easy voice. Dialogue's easy voice. Easily cultivated, grown, harvested, replanted. And razed.
Hard voice? Related to style? Flow? Rhythm (isn't that sort of like flow... uh oh)? How do you know when you've got it? Or do you ever? Is it something that comes easy or just seems to? According to "writing" books, you're not supposed to think about voice -- well, here's something for you, how 'bout you stop brining it up. Like saying don't look down. Assholes.
Voice, bane of my thoughts, I search for you hard, but until then, fuck off.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Harder: Short Story or Novel?
As someone who's written many of both and had some success with shorts, I'd lean toward the novel. I've seen it written that shorts are harder because that adage about omitting needless words holds more true because you've got to build character, plot, interest in a shorter span. The path for a short might be more clearly defined (i.e., restrictive), but the decorations our left to our imagination (here's where I'm imagining Mel Gibson shouting "Freedom").
In a novel, though the path may be a bit more ambiguous or multi-forked (i.e., open for exploration), we've got to deal with a fairly grumpy HOA. That is, the publishing industry is fully tuned to producing the most perfect (in terms of saleability) novel. Rules, rules, rules (or at least stern recommendations). These can be helpful for finding a path (mundane?), but sometimes it can lead to the artistic gallows.
What do you think?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
An Experiment
Matt, Stephanie, LT, and I are interested in running a bit of a social writing experiment. On occasion, we see agents discussing the difference between pubbed and unpubbed authors. And while our experiment may or may not fuel this debate, we'd like to do an anonymous comparison between the pubbles and the wannabes. But we need volunteers. This is what we'd like:
250 words from one of your pieces (preferably a chapter/section beginning, though not necessarily the first). Give us the genre (e.g., YA, Fantasy, etc.) and location within your manuscript (e.g., -- opening page, chapter 2, etc.)
This is what we plan on doing (on a weekly, biweekly basis - will depend on interest):
Paste a page of a published piece versus a page of an unpubbed - both anonymously and of similar genre - and see who can tell the difference. Obviously this won't take into account (too much) pacing, character and plot development, but it will allow for writing Xs and Os to come through to an extent.
If interested, please email me at BaneOfAnubis@gmail.com. Also, feel free to include another 250 words from a pubbed piece if you'd like us to compare yours to that (if you do this, give us the title of the pubble's book). We will change character/location names in both pieces to reduce chances of ID.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Random Musings from the Dogpound
Happy Post Memorial Day Post.
- With this whole Twilight Saga and learning that a relatively unknown author got a 7 figure advance for Matched, I once again found myself wondering how soon it'll be before Mormons rule the world (assuming everything doesn't go all apocalypse on us). They've got exemplary missionary efforts, a strong breeding program, and are super nice (except when playing basketball). And due to their old-school family values, many LDS women tend to stay home to raise the brood, which allows for more writing time that more 'progressive' women might not be afforded... what's that phrase about the pen and the sword?
- This whole BP spill thing is terrible. I hope nobody disagrees with that. Two things that kind of confuse me:
1.) why isn't the government intervening more (politics, legal issue?)?
2.) whenever there's a disaster with multiple companies involved, some reporter digs up links between the companies (e.g., Exec at company B used to work at company A) and proceeds to chastise company A for hiring company B (for pseudo-nepotism, I guess). What's up with that? If I have cake, I sure as hell am gonna give it to the cubemate I know, not the one I don't. Kind of the inverse of that whole taking stranger candy point.
Sidepoint -- this isn't an easy fix. Know everyone's upset, and BP could have done more (more can always be done, just ask a perfectionist), but that's the danger w/ advanced technology... when shit goes wrong, worse shit happens (like that 'the taller they are...' line... this is one big chopped down beanstalk). Conspiracy theory #1: econuts destroyed the rig to engender further anger toward the big bad Oil Man. Conspiracy theory #2: Dolphins. Tired of getting caught up in fishnets, attacked en masse, bottle-noses at the ready.
- My wife got an iTouch recently and started farming (not farmville, but farmstory). I read that more than 1% of the world's population "farms." Like 80,000,000 people. Know I'm a bit late to the WTF crowd on this, but could someone explain the appeal?
Toodles.
- With this whole Twilight Saga and learning that a relatively unknown author got a 7 figure advance for Matched, I once again found myself wondering how soon it'll be before Mormons rule the world (assuming everything doesn't go all apocalypse on us). They've got exemplary missionary efforts, a strong breeding program, and are super nice (except when playing basketball). And due to their old-school family values, many LDS women tend to stay home to raise the brood, which allows for more writing time that more 'progressive' women might not be afforded... what's that phrase about the pen and the sword?
- This whole BP spill thing is terrible. I hope nobody disagrees with that. Two things that kind of confuse me:
1.) why isn't the government intervening more (politics, legal issue?)?
2.) whenever there's a disaster with multiple companies involved, some reporter digs up links between the companies (e.g., Exec at company B used to work at company A) and proceeds to chastise company A for hiring company B (for pseudo-nepotism, I guess). What's up with that? If I have cake, I sure as hell am gonna give it to the cubemate I know, not the one I don't. Kind of the inverse of that whole taking stranger candy point.
Sidepoint -- this isn't an easy fix. Know everyone's upset, and BP could have done more (more can always be done, just ask a perfectionist), but that's the danger w/ advanced technology... when shit goes wrong, worse shit happens (like that 'the taller they are...' line... this is one big chopped down beanstalk). Conspiracy theory #1: econuts destroyed the rig to engender further anger toward the big bad Oil Man. Conspiracy theory #2: Dolphins. Tired of getting caught up in fishnets, attacked en masse, bottle-noses at the ready.
- My wife got an iTouch recently and started farming (not farmville, but farmstory). I read that more than 1% of the world's population "farms." Like 80,000,000 people. Know I'm a bit late to the WTF crowd on this, but could someone explain the appeal?
Toodles.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Why Blogs Could be Harmful to your Health
Some rules are meant to be followed, others to be bent/ignored, and some are just bullshit. Figuring out which is which, now that's the damn challenge.
Don't use adverbs. Don't swear. Don't head hop. Don't write about vampires anymore. Do write about angels, merman, sprites with kites, or whatever other bullshit faerie creature's hot atm. Do write XX,XXX words for XX genre. Do omit needless words... good luck figuring that out. Do start in media res. Don't start waking up (The Road, The Hunger Games), Don't do prologues...
After awhile, there are enough rules that the box/prison is clearly defined. If you haven't checked out Michelle Argyle's recent post, I'd highly recommend it, because the video she links to captures what's wrong with rules far better than I can.
Doesn't mean we should shun all rules (that 400k novel's not gonna sell for an FTA), but don't let creativity be stymied by others, otherwise the artistic process can become a stressful chore... and then why do it anymore?
Don't use adverbs. Don't swear. Don't head hop. Don't write about vampires anymore. Do write about angels, merman, sprites with kites, or whatever other bullshit faerie creature's hot atm. Do write XX,XXX words for XX genre. Do omit needless words... good luck figuring that out. Do start in media res. Don't start waking up (The Road, The Hunger Games), Don't do prologues...
After awhile, there are enough rules that the box/prison is clearly defined. If you haven't checked out Michelle Argyle's recent post, I'd highly recommend it, because the video she links to captures what's wrong with rules far better than I can.
Doesn't mean we should shun all rules (that 400k novel's not gonna sell for an FTA), but don't let creativity be stymied by others, otherwise the artistic process can become a stressful chore... and then why do it anymore?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Airports and ERs
A few weeks ago I hated flying (fatigue cycling -- watch that wing bounce). Now I really hate flying. However, I love airports (and I'm not the only one) because of the type of people you find there. I still remember this one tool salesman from several months ago -- it was 6:00 in the morning and this putz guy was all up in his Blackberry. But his early morning trilling to the east wasn't what made him special. It was his bottle of orange juice. Every other second he'd uncap it, take a swig, and recap it in one red-bull quick move. Fascinatingly inefficient, IMO, and a great idiosyncrasy.
Another interesting place filled with interesting folk, though you wouldn't be there unless injured, visiting someone injured, or just a wee bit morbid, is the ER. Had the misfortune to visit one last week when I was imagining this post. The common thread, methinks, between an airport and an ER, is that they cater to all-comers and, in general, most of those comers are suffering through some degree of misery, which tends to reduce inhibition and other social filters, allowing for great observation opportunity (hey, if you've got to be there, might as well multi-task, right?).
What about you? Do you have a place you go (or wish you could go - injury free, of course) to people watch?
Another interesting place filled with interesting folk, though you wouldn't be there unless injured, visiting someone injured, or just a wee bit morbid, is the ER. Had the misfortune to visit one last week when I was imagining this post. The common thread, methinks, between an airport and an ER, is that they cater to all-comers and, in general, most of those comers are suffering through some degree of misery, which tends to reduce inhibition and other social filters, allowing for great observation opportunity (hey, if you've got to be there, might as well multi-task, right?).
What about you? Do you have a place you go (or wish you could go - injury free, of course) to people watch?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
No Post Today
Due to some real life events, Bane of Anubis will not be posting today. We'll return to our regular schedule tomorrow.
Thanks for following!
-- The Alliterati
Thanks for following!
-- The Alliterati
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Tenacity
Most of you who have been at this game for awhile know all too well the sharp sting of rejection, the tempering of hope, the expectation of failure. I still recall my first request for more material about 4 WiPs ago and thinking, 'wow, I'm gonna make it.' Foolish mortal. Now that I'm a bit wiser (read: jaded), requests for more material are met with a self-defensive shrug and rejection with a quick stab to the heart masked by a quick eye-blink or two.
Yet, despite all the failure, we struggle on, not because we have to, but because there's still that seed of hope buried deep within a seemingly barren field. Now, perhaps (hopefully) you aren't as dour as I sometimes wax, but I imagine most of you have fallen prey to the indelible misery of shattered hope.
I salute you for the courage to carry on, to volunteer for rejection, to put yourselves out there. It's a hard row to hoe, and I hope all your labors come to fruition. Regardless, stay happy, stay sane, and keep swimming.
Yet, despite all the failure, we struggle on, not because we have to, but because there's still that seed of hope buried deep within a seemingly barren field. Now, perhaps (hopefully) you aren't as dour as I sometimes wax, but I imagine most of you have fallen prey to the indelible misery of shattered hope.
I salute you for the courage to carry on, to volunteer for rejection, to put yourselves out there. It's a hard row to hoe, and I hope all your labors come to fruition. Regardless, stay happy, stay sane, and keep swimming.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
How Many Words
If you're a writer, you've probably heard that adage about needing 1,000,000 words (give or take) to really get a handle on your writing (this links to Kidlit.com, a blog run by Mary Kole of the Andrea Brown Literary Agency... it's geared toward MG/YA authors, but she gives some pretty good advice for writers across the board).
A decade ago, I would have laughed (internally of course) at someone who told me I needed that many to find my style, voice, all that good stuff. Now I wonder if it might require ten million for me to get to that place where confidence and ability go hand in hand. Hope not, otherwise I've got a long way to go. I'm guessing I'm somewhere between 1.2 -1.5M (No, I'm not counting my WWIII stories - complete w/ fiery pictures - from 3rd grade).
Counting short stories, novels+revisions, writing exercises, and anything else writerish, how many words you got, and as you've written more, do you find yourself yearning for those days when you didn't know what you didn't know?
PS - Matt, the one who does most of the legwork for the blog, enlarged the font size. Please let us know if it works or if cross-eyed blurrage still occurs.
A decade ago, I would have laughed (internally of course) at someone who told me I needed that many to find my style, voice, all that good stuff. Now I wonder if it might require ten million for me to get to that place where confidence and ability go hand in hand. Hope not, otherwise I've got a long way to go. I'm guessing I'm somewhere between 1.2 -1.5M (No, I'm not counting my WWIII stories - complete w/ fiery pictures - from 3rd grade).
Counting short stories, novels+revisions, writing exercises, and anything else writerish, how many words you got, and as you've written more, do you find yourself yearning for those days when you didn't know what you didn't know?
PS - Matt, the one who does most of the legwork for the blog, enlarged the font size. Please let us know if it works or if cross-eyed blurrage still occurs.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
White Noise
The whole idea of blogging seemed ridiculous to me a couple of years ago, and, honestly, sometimes I still find myself wondering what the hell I'm doing (I think this in part has to do w/ my lack of platform, but that's a discussion for a different day or one of my colleagues who actually has a handle on the topic -- SD and MD both have a great sense of this, IMO).
For the longest time, I'd comment on a few agent blogs, but never actually had my own. In the few months I've been running mine and visiting others, these are the pros and cons of blog social networking as I see it:
Pros:
- Greater exposure to and involvement with the writing community at large
- Online presence for agent, publisher, consumer exposure
- Dissemination
- An impetus to consider industry, craft, etc. elements that might otherwise be outside one's purview
Cons:
- Time, Time, Time
- Possible foot in mouth syndrome if you sometimes lack a filter (yeah, this is a mirror statement right here :)
Despite my reticence toward blogging, I can happily say that it's provided me more benefit than detriment. I've had great interaction w/ fellow writers (from Betaing to people suggesting specific agents to me who they've heard are looking for what I write) because of my blog and I've had an agent contact me b/c of a blog post (which I wasn't expecting at all). And perhaps the biggest benefit for me has been the empathy from fellow writers who suffer through the solitary persistence of rejection, revision, and madness (thank you).
All that being said, I don't think one needs to blog, twitter, or facebook. Heck, even if you're a classic INTJ like me who hides behind an esoteric moniker and an icon, you can still network w/o any of these by commenting on agent/writer blogs and/or participating in the various anon writing contests (e.g., Miss Snark's first victim monthly Secret Agent contest, Mary Kole over at Kidlit runs contests and workshops every so often).
Ultimately, it's important to sift through all the stochastic noise out there to figure out which frequency(ies) best suit you, if any.
Given my limited experience, I'm sure I'm missing many of the pros (and maybe a few of the cons) of the blogging epidemic. What have you learned from blogging (or not blogging)?
For the longest time, I'd comment on a few agent blogs, but never actually had my own. In the few months I've been running mine and visiting others, these are the pros and cons of blog social networking as I see it:
Pros:
- Greater exposure to and involvement with the writing community at large
- Online presence for agent, publisher, consumer exposure
- Dissemination
- An impetus to consider industry, craft, etc. elements that might otherwise be outside one's purview
Cons:
- Time, Time, Time
- Possible foot in mouth syndrome if you sometimes lack a filter (yeah, this is a mirror statement right here :)
Despite my reticence toward blogging, I can happily say that it's provided me more benefit than detriment. I've had great interaction w/ fellow writers (from Betaing to people suggesting specific agents to me who they've heard are looking for what I write) because of my blog and I've had an agent contact me b/c of a blog post (which I wasn't expecting at all). And perhaps the biggest benefit for me has been the empathy from fellow writers who suffer through the solitary persistence of rejection, revision, and madness (thank you).
All that being said, I don't think one needs to blog, twitter, or facebook. Heck, even if you're a classic INTJ like me who hides behind an esoteric moniker and an icon, you can still network w/o any of these by commenting on agent/writer blogs and/or participating in the various anon writing contests (e.g., Miss Snark's first victim monthly Secret Agent contest, Mary Kole over at Kidlit runs contests and workshops every so often).
Ultimately, it's important to sift through all the stochastic noise out there to figure out which frequency(ies) best suit you, if any.
Given my limited experience, I'm sure I'm missing many of the pros (and maybe a few of the cons) of the blogging epidemic. What have you learned from blogging (or not blogging)?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Character Soup: Attitude
When cooking up a main character, there are a few basic ingredients and everything else is garnish. In general, you want to create someone who is both empathetic and altruistic, someone who most readers would aspire to emulate. Your MC will usually be a hero, but should not be a hero caricature, even if he's Superman. One of the easiest and most critical ingredients in hero creation, and thus one of the easiest to abuse and overuse, is attitude.
Most people, when faced with conflict or adversity, may put a step forward, but ultimately, will shy from even ordinary conflict to maintain a peaceful existence. To push story forward, however, we need conflict, characters who won't back down from danger, from doing what's right or wrong. This requires a strong sense of self, a strong attitude.
Now, we can easily stray into the realm of hyperbole, but think of your favorite books and you'll probably recognize that the MC's attitude is more internal, more what most of us aim for -- the Teddy Roosevelt approach. Similar to plotting, create your attitude more through action and and less through dialogue and introspection, which is what I call overt or cheap showing (hence that aphorism: actions speak louder than words) - sometimes this is necessary or natural, but action's the meat and potatoes, and your readers aren't on a diet.
PS - if you're writing an anti-hero, your MC should have a similar attitude quotient, his motivation's just on a different axis.
Most people, when faced with conflict or adversity, may put a step forward, but ultimately, will shy from even ordinary conflict to maintain a peaceful existence. To push story forward, however, we need conflict, characters who won't back down from danger, from doing what's right or wrong. This requires a strong sense of self, a strong attitude.
Now, we can easily stray into the realm of hyperbole, but think of your favorite books and you'll probably recognize that the MC's attitude is more internal, more what most of us aim for -- the Teddy Roosevelt approach. Similar to plotting, create your attitude more through action and and less through dialogue and introspection, which is what I call overt or cheap showing (hence that aphorism: actions speak louder than words) - sometimes this is necessary or natural, but action's the meat and potatoes, and your readers aren't on a diet.
PS - if you're writing an anti-hero, your MC should have a similar attitude quotient, his motivation's just on a different axis.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
White Men Can't Jump, and Women Can't Drive
Mexicans are lazy, but they're good for manual labor.
Asians are short and unathletic, but smarter than everyone else.
Asians are short and unathletic, but smarter than everyone else.
Jews are good with money, Catholic priests with little boys.
Once you go black, you'll never go back.
All black, Asian, (fill in ethnicity of choice) people look the same.
Blondes really are dumber than brunettes (full disclosure: I count myself as a blonde, despite my wife's protestations).
Engineers are dorks (despite my degree, I do not count myself as an Engineer :).
Women suck at math, but are good for babies
Men suck at romance, but are good for heavy lifting
Blondes really are dumber than brunettes (full disclosure: I count myself as a blonde, despite my wife's protestations).
Engineers are dorks (despite my degree, I do not count myself as an Engineer :).
Women suck at math, but are good for babies
Men suck at romance, but are good for heavy lifting
Something about hoop earrings :)
Most of these stereotypes are fairly mundane (and you can probably think of far worse ones), but odds are at least one would draw a reaction if voiced aloud with serious measure. For the most part, in civilized company, we're gonna be appalled by stereotypes, but when we dig deep into ourselves, most will tend to have at least one or two ingrained beliefs that are stereotypical (that being said, not all stereotypes are necessarily bad, though they can be construed as such - e.g., a man's belief that women need to be protected).
What's the point? Strong reaction, in general, equals conflict, and conflict is what makes the story go according to those in the know. Now, having your characters express outright a certain stereotype, or describing them in such a way to fit them to a stereotype (e.g., a black guy with low slung jeans, a sideways Yankees cap, tats, and bling... lots of bling) to create conflict are what I call your sugar conflicts - ultimately, they may taste better in the beginning and we might like to fill our plates with them, but they don't bring as much to the table as the complex carb conflicts.
Why? Because people aren't stereotypes. Superficially they may seem that way, but once we get past the surface, there's gotta be more. Your characters will believe certain stereotypes, and this can be a strong source of conflict for a story, but it will rarely be overt or even consciously known. Give your readers some sugary 2D side characters, for sure, but keep them healthy with the ones who are stereotyping you behind your backs (Pride and Prejudice leaps to mind).
Most of these stereotypes are fairly mundane (and you can probably think of far worse ones), but odds are at least one would draw a reaction if voiced aloud with serious measure. For the most part, in civilized company, we're gonna be appalled by stereotypes, but when we dig deep into ourselves, most will tend to have at least one or two ingrained beliefs that are stereotypical (that being said, not all stereotypes are necessarily bad, though they can be construed as such - e.g., a man's belief that women need to be protected).
What's the point? Strong reaction, in general, equals conflict, and conflict is what makes the story go according to those in the know. Now, having your characters express outright a certain stereotype, or describing them in such a way to fit them to a stereotype (e.g., a black guy with low slung jeans, a sideways Yankees cap, tats, and bling... lots of bling) to create conflict are what I call your sugar conflicts - ultimately, they may taste better in the beginning and we might like to fill our plates with them, but they don't bring as much to the table as the complex carb conflicts.
Why? Because people aren't stereotypes. Superficially they may seem that way, but once we get past the surface, there's gotta be more. Your characters will believe certain stereotypes, and this can be a strong source of conflict for a story, but it will rarely be overt or even consciously known. Give your readers some sugary 2D side characters, for sure, but keep them healthy with the ones who are stereotyping you behind your backs (Pride and Prejudice leaps to mind).
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Michael Jordan vs. Bruce Bowen
Who else's bracket is completely obliterated (I'm hoping for Butler all the way now; sorry about your Wildcats, Susan)? Last week, I gave some SWAG stats on the likelihood of becoming the literary equivalent of Michael Jordan.
If you don't know who Michael Jeffery Jordan is, you should probably stop reading. Odds are, unless you're an NBA fan (class: non-casual) or a resident of San Antonio, you have no idea who Bruce Bowen is.
Sartorially challenged perhaps, but resilient as a male praying mantis.
Undrafted out of college (corollary: agented, but no bites from publishers), Mr. Bowen played a couple of years in France and the CBA (corollary: dropped by his original agent, he published with small presses, minimal market exposure). The next year, he signed a 10 day contract w/ the Miami Heat. He played 1 minute in 1 game before being let go (corollary: fancy-pants magazine buys a story, but then decides not to publish it).
The following season, his fortunes began to change (corollary: still honing his skills, a big-house agent saw something she liked and signed him). He bounced around for a couple of years as an NBA benchwarmer, but he was still in the quasi-public spotlight (corollary: mid-list, but some people actually might recognize the name). Then he caught on with the San Antonio Spurs (corollary: one of the major publishing houses). In the years from graduation, he had developed his platform (defense) and became a key player in San Antonio's championship success over the next half-dozen years (corollary: his books showed on the front shelves of bookstores, garnered good reviews, and generated strong sales). And now he's a talking head on ESPN (corollary: hot shot author speaking at major conferences)
So, what's the difference between Mr. Jordan and Mr. Bowen? They both had talent and they both worked hard for success, but early on in their careers, BB was toiling anonymously in France while MJ was making commercials w/ Spike Lee.
Most of us won't/can't be Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, etc., but that doesn't mean success can't be had. Talent isn't the only variable in the equation. Be willing to develop and adapt your game. You probably won't be able to buy your own NBA team (corollary: publishing house) like MJ just did, but one day you might have a shot at wearing a bowtie on TV.
If you don't know who Michael Jeffery Jordan is, you should probably stop reading. Odds are, unless you're an NBA fan (class: non-casual) or a resident of San Antonio, you have no idea who Bruce Bowen is.
Undrafted out of college (corollary: agented, but no bites from publishers), Mr. Bowen played a couple of years in France and the CBA (corollary: dropped by his original agent, he published with small presses, minimal market exposure). The next year, he signed a 10 day contract w/ the Miami Heat. He played 1 minute in 1 game before being let go (corollary: fancy-pants magazine buys a story, but then decides not to publish it).
The following season, his fortunes began to change (corollary: still honing his skills, a big-house agent saw something she liked and signed him). He bounced around for a couple of years as an NBA benchwarmer, but he was still in the quasi-public spotlight (corollary: mid-list, but some people actually might recognize the name). Then he caught on with the San Antonio Spurs (corollary: one of the major publishing houses). In the years from graduation, he had developed his platform (defense) and became a key player in San Antonio's championship success over the next half-dozen years (corollary: his books showed on the front shelves of bookstores, garnered good reviews, and generated strong sales). And now he's a talking head on ESPN (corollary: hot shot author speaking at major conferences)
So, what's the difference between Mr. Jordan and Mr. Bowen? They both had talent and they both worked hard for success, but early on in their careers, BB was toiling anonymously in France while MJ was making commercials w/ Spike Lee.
Most of us won't/can't be Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, etc., but that doesn't mean success can't be had. Talent isn't the only variable in the equation. Be willing to develop and adapt your game. You probably won't be able to buy your own NBA team (corollary: publishing house) like MJ just did, but one day you might have a shot at wearing a bowtie on TV.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Call Me C-3PO
Though I do like Mr. Bane (thanks, Harley :)... Well, today, Mr. Bane (I could get used to talking about myself in the 3rd person) is going to combine his love of basketball with his frustration of writing, and his somewhat questionable skill at Math.
Now thatmy Mr. Bane's bracket has been riddled with holes (thank you Villanova and Pitt -- stupid Pennsylvania... but how sweet it was to see No. Iowa take it to the Jayhawks), it's time to move on to the NBA (that's National Basketball Association). One of the questions many a schoolyard boy will ask: "what are my chances of making it to the NBA?"
Google this and the answer will be some variation of "pretty low." Mr. Bane prefers real answers. So, let's do some quick math:
Each year, there are roughly 100 roster spots open for new players (via the draft, older players retiring, etc.).
The max lifespan of a basketball player is roughly 20 years, so for a particular wannabe, there are potentially 2,000 spots available (that's 100 roster spots/year * 20 years). Stick withme Mr. Bane, we're almost done w/ the math.
Now, assume there are 1,000,000 kids who want to make it to the NBA and the answer to the bolded question would be: 100*2,000/1,000,000 = 0.2%.
In reality, this is EXTREMELY optimistic. First, there are way more than 1,000,000 grunts out there who dream big. Next, your chances of making it to the NBA outside of the age range 18 - 22 are almost 0. Third, unless you're a FoN (Freak of Nature), your chances are further reduced. So, let's divide that 0.2% by a factor of 100. That gives us a still highly optimistic chance of 0.002%
Now, on the bright side, one can still play basketball and make a living. Play in one of the minor leagues or in Europe. Mr. Bane has a friend who played in a British league. He didn't get paid much and needed an extra job (as a Nurse), but he was still a professional of some sort. A mid-list basketball player.
SEGUE -- This odds breakdown is, of course, analogous to what writers face. In our battle to become relevant, here's what we've got in our favor over the hoopsters:
- We don't have age limits.
- There's a much larger market (according to Wikipedia, about 172,000 books are published each year in the US) for authors than hoopsters.
Here's what we've got against us:
- The pool of competitors for publication is potentially significantly (that's 2 adverbs for the 2 orders of magnitude) larger than the one for basketball roster spots.
- The payoff is significantly lower - almost every NBAer is a millionaire; almost every author (even some who've hit the NYT lists) needs a second job.
- Fewer people are reading, or at least willing to pay for reading.
This is grand simplification, but Bane put the odds of becoming an independent author (i.e., one who can support oneself without secondary means) at 0.001%, or 1 in 100,000.
Replace independent with successful, and the odds change, depending on how you define success. If you're never published, but happy in what you write, your odds are 100%. Is that good enough? Are you playing for the love of the game? What are your goals? Remember, not everyone who climbs the mountain, no matter how hard they perseverate, will get there. Some will perish. Don't let the destination destroy the journey.
Now that
Google this and the answer will be some variation of "pretty low." Mr. Bane prefers real answers. So, let's do some quick math:
Each year, there are roughly 100 roster spots open for new players (via the draft, older players retiring, etc.).
The max lifespan of a basketball player is roughly 20 years, so for a particular wannabe, there are potentially 2,000 spots available (that's 100 roster spots/year * 20 years). Stick with
Now, assume there are 1,000,000 kids who want to make it to the NBA and the answer to the bolded question would be: 100*2,000/1,000,000 = 0.2%.
In reality, this is EXTREMELY optimistic. First, there are way more than 1,000,000 grunts out there who dream big. Next, your chances of making it to the NBA outside of the age range 18 - 22 are almost 0. Third, unless you're a FoN (Freak of Nature), your chances are further reduced. So, let's divide that 0.2% by a factor of 100. That gives us a still highly optimistic chance of 0.002%
Now, on the bright side, one can still play basketball and make a living. Play in one of the minor leagues or in Europe. Mr. Bane has a friend who played in a British league. He didn't get paid much and needed an extra job (as a Nurse), but he was still a professional of some sort. A mid-list basketball player.
SEGUE -- This odds breakdown is, of course, analogous to what writers face. In our battle to become relevant, here's what we've got in our favor over the hoopsters:
- We don't have age limits.
- There's a much larger market (according to Wikipedia, about 172,000 books are published each year in the US) for authors than hoopsters.
Here's what we've got against us:
- The pool of competitors for publication is potentially significantly (that's 2 adverbs for the 2 orders of magnitude) larger than the one for basketball roster spots.
- The payoff is significantly lower - almost every NBAer is a millionaire; almost every author (even some who've hit the NYT lists) needs a second job.
- Fewer people are reading, or at least willing to pay for reading.
This is grand simplification, but Bane put the odds of becoming an independent author (i.e., one who can support oneself without secondary means) at 0.001%, or 1 in 100,000.
Replace independent with successful, and the odds change, depending on how you define success. If you're never published, but happy in what you write, your odds are 100%. Is that good enough? Are you playing for the love of the game? What are your goals? Remember, not everyone who climbs the mountain, no matter how hard they perseverate, will get there. Some will perish. Don't let the destination destroy the journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)