Writing, a semi-creative endeavor

The professional world of writing is a world of paradoxes. You need to follow the rules but know how to break them. You need to write everyday but you need to build a platform. You can't chase the trends but those who buy your book do. You must engage with your fans but never your reviewers. It can be tricky for a writer to figure out what's the correct thing to do and which hat you need to where for what occasion. It's far more difficult than simply writing.

This is why I'm beginning to consider writing a semi-creative endeavor. Even the most creative aspect, actually writing a story, has limitations and constraints. And outside writing, it takes a lot of disciplined, plug-in-the-pieces hard work to be a successful writer. The key thing is to find the balance that allows your creativity to shine through, combined with the nuts and bolts that put you in the best position to succeed.

Creativity is about spontaneity. It's about doing what your heart tells you and what feels right. It's a mental state full of joy, anger, exhilaration, frustration, and passion. It's what draws most people to the page, the reason we want to be writers. The realization that it isn't enough can be a let down.

For me, the answer is to learn to love both sides of the equation. Sure, I appreciate a fine meal, a masterful creation of a great chef. The combination of tastes, colors, textures; a unique blend that instills a sense of wonder and delight when the first morsel hits your palate.

But I also love In-N-Out (or McDonalds for you non-Californians). The brutal efficiency of a system that churns out food that's the same every time, put together by high school kids working on an assembly line with little or no thought towards what they're making. It's so efficient and functional that it's beautiful.

The idea of making a master chef follow a recipe book is sacrilegious. The thought of what would come out of a kitchen filled with random kids given no instructions is downright terrifying. As a writer, you have to learn when to cook and when to put your head down and do the job.

I've been putting my head down a lot lately, and after a while your neck gets stiff and it's hard to look up. It's important to stay flexible, to come back to the well that feeds your creative side, and open your eyes to the big, bold world out there. To all you fellow writers struggling with real life, and to those lost in the dreamworld of your own creation, enjoy the ride and find the beauty everywhere.

Non-writer's Guide to Interacting with Writers

Most of my followers are writers, but this post is for those of you who are not writers but might come across that magnificent species as you go about your normal day. It's okay to approach them, but here are some tips to avoid spooking the sensitive creatures.

If you are a writer, maybe you’ll want to share this with friends and family, or even the world in general, so that they can understand us a little better. Writers are a diverse group, but I’ve found it’s very common for us to bond over the treatment we get from the people in our lives who don’t really understand what being a writer is all about. With that in mind, I thought I’d put out a few guidelines for those who don’t understand, because the more you know… well, the more the better, right?

Note: these suggestions don’t apply to people who do know what they’re talking about. If you are a writer, have a deep, intimate connection with a writer, work in the writing industry, or are just a super-smart, well-informed individual, then you’ll know how to treat a writer like a proper individual.

Don’t Patronize Us

The most common reaction when you tell someone you’re a writer is: that’s nice. Either the person thinks it’s a silly thing for a grown-up to be, akin to wanting to be an actor or cowboy, or they think that writing is something everyone can do, so it’s no big deal to say you’re a writer. Both are wrong. First off, writing a book is not easy, and just because everyone can put some words down on paper doesn’t mean everyone can do it. Being able to cut someone open with a knife doesn’t make you a surgeon. Writing is a craft; writing well is difficult; writing a compelling story, a full book, takes so much more than a general understanding of grammar. It takes a vivid imagination to create a world and in depth knowledge of reality to make a fantasy world realistic. It takes a keen understanding of human behavior to create fascinating characters. It takes years of study and practice to learn pacing, scene development, authorial voice, tension elements, theme building, and dialogue that reads like real life (without actually being at all realistic). Unless you’ve actually done it yourself, you don’t understand, and if you start by assuming it’s easy – well, you know what happens when you assume…

And the idea that wanting to be a writer is a silly dream is equally frustrating. Sure, it might be a passing fantasy for some folks, but most of the writers I know take it very seriously and put in the kind of effort to realize their dream that would overwhelm most folks who are too afraid to embrace life to the fullest. We know that success is not easy, and we’re not doing this to become rich and famous (though no one would complain about it). We write because we love it, because it gives us a great deal of joy, purpose, and satisfaction. We've chosen a route that we know is difficult and put all our effort into achieving success. I wish more people would do that with their lives.

Do Ask Us About Our Book

Just like any other professional, most of us are happy to talk about our work. In fact, some of us are hard to stop once we get started. So feel free to ask us what kind of books we write. Ask us where we are in the process and what our goals are for the future - but only if you want to hear the answers. If you met a plumber, you might ask them whether they handle commercial buildings or private homes. Do they work for a national chain or run their own shop? Are they planning on opening branches or happy with their job as it is? Same type of questions apply to writing. But if you don't have the slightest interest in plumbing (or writing), then feel free to skip the questions and just wish us success.

Do Ask What We've Published

It can be a bit of an awkward question, since many writers haven't gotten published yet. But it's a fair question - just be prepared for the answer: nothing. Think of it this way, if you meet lawyer, do you ask them what cases they've won? If they've been a lawyer for a while, that might be okay. If they're fresh out of law school, it's likely to lead to a tense silence.

Corollary: Don’t Ask When Our Book Will Be Out

Most people have only the slightest idea of how the publishing world works, so they assume that once you’ve written a book – poof, it gets published. Writing a book is hard, getting it published is harder and out of our control. The traditional route involves finding an agent – that means convincing a stranger that your book is going to sell and they should work hard to help you, without any upfront payment, in hopes that you are correct. You have to convince them that you are worth their time when the other fifty people who approached them this week are not. Then you need to do the same with a publisher, getting them to spend the money to print and sell your book on the hope that the public will ultimately buy it. Even after you sell the book to the publisher it might take a year or two before it’s actually in print and available in a store. It’s not a fast process and much of it is out of our control. Trust us, we’d like to see our book published as soon as possible, but asking us when that will be is like asking us when the cable guy will show up for the installation. When we get to the point where we have an agent, a publishing contract, and a release date, we’ll be the first ones to let everyone know.

Don’t Suggest We Use Kickstarter

It always surprises me when people start to offer advice on how to publish a book even though they’ve never done it and have no idea what it really entails. Kind of like meeting a teacher and telling them about some article you read on Common Core and what they should be teaching the kids – as if they might never have heard of it or don't know how to do their job. If you are an expert on publishing, if you work in the industry, feel free to share away. Otherwise, trust that we know a little bit about the process, that maybe we've done the real research on the career we're pursuing. Just because your second cousin got their collection of poetry published by winning a local grant from the Kiwanis Club doesn’t mean that will work for our epic fantasy trilogy.

Don’t Suggest We Should Self-Publish

First, there’s nothing wrong with self-publishing. But it’s not as simple as that. People offer the suggestion like you can just self-publish and sit back as your book makes all kinds of money. That’s not the reality. Sure, it only takes a few minutes to upload your manuscript and make it available as an e-book. And it doesn’t take much more to do print-on-demand. But then what? It’s one of the half a million books that just sits in the ether and does nothing. To truly self-publish means taking on the job of publishing. It means doing cover design, text layout and typographic setting, marketing and distribution. It can be a great choice for some people and if you do it well you can achieve success. But it’s like telling a lawyer that they should just start their own practice. Unless you know them well, unless you know their specialty, their industry, their financial standing, their career goals, their skills and abilities – unless you know that  and more, you have no idea if self-publishing is a good choice. So maybe you should hold back on the career advice.

Don’t Say You’d Love To Read Our Book

Don’t offer to read our book unless you really mean it. Most people throw it out there the same way they say they’d love to see your new kitchen cabinets. That means they plan to spend five minutes looking at them, nodding appreciatively, and telling you how nice they look while trying to figure out how much you paid. Unless you know what genre we write, unless you read that genre and read regularly, unless you are actually going to put in the time and do it this century, don’t bother shining us on.

Some writers feel like their book is their baby. I’ve never been fond of that analogy, but our books are incredibly important to us. We put ourselves into them. Letting someone read your work is opening up your heart to them and laying yourself bare at your most vulnerable state. If you don’t want the responsibility of taking care of such strong emotions, don’t glibly offer to do so. We’re fine with people not reading our book – we know that it’s not for everyone. But nothing’s worse than someone saying that they’ll take the time to appreciate the months or years of suffering you’ve put into crafting a story, only to blow it off like it’s nothing. Books are not kitchen cabinets, don’t treat them (or us) like such.

Don't Ask How Much Money Our Book Will Make

First, we don't know. Some books make five thousand dollars, some five million. Some never sell and don't make anything. Even those who have sold books before don't know how much the next one will make. And it's always a tacky question to ask how much money someone makes. So unless you want to follow up by revealing your salary, then show a little respect and leave the question of money off the table.

Do Treat Us Like Normal Human Beings

Writing is a job, just like any other. Writers are people who work at that job, even if they don't get paid well (or at all). If you show our career path the same respect you would any other, then we'll get along fine. Don't assume you know about it because you've read a book - just because you drive a car doesn't mean you know how to design and build one. Like most interactions, give a little thought to the other person's perspective before you speak, and everything should go fine. I love it when someone asks about what it takes to be a writer, expresses interest in how publishing works, wants to know where I get my ideas. The chance to explain my world and educate others on something that I think it really cool is appreciated. And as a writer, I'm always interested in learning more about other people and what they do. We're all students, all teachers, and if you approach interactions in both capacities we'll all be the better for it.

Anything Else?

For you non-writers, hopefully this will give you a little insight into where us writers are coming from when we interact. And for you writers - feel free to share in the comments anything I've missed. What would you like non-writers to know about us?

Reading as a Writer: Prince of Thorns

I don't normally do book reviews because that's not what this blog is about. It's about writing and my journey in that world. But reading is a part of writing, and working at the craft has definitely influenced how and what I read, so it seems fair game to discuss a recent book that made me think about how my writing has influenced my reading.

Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence is a buzzy book in the fantasy world, supposedly turning everything about the genre on its head and receiving lots of praise as well as a fair share of criticism. Most of both center on the generally evil nature of the protagonist, an anti-hero who kills, tortures, and has little or no regard for morality in any sense of the word. For me, that was a non-issue, and once you get past the apparent shock value of a story following the 'bad buy', there's some really good stuff in there and some things that made me just roll my eyes and want to stop reading. WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD.

I like books, I like stories, that's why I write them. Some I like better than others, but rarely do I not enjoy reading a book, as long as I can lose myself in another world for a period of time, I'm happy. I've spent the last several years working on my own stories, studying both the concepts of storytelling as well as the art of writing meaningful prose, it's given me a more critical eye and different measuring sticks I can use to judge a book, but in the end it's still a good book if I can get lost in it. That's where Prince of Thorns let me down.

First, I think Lawrence is an incredibly talented writer. Great prose, vivid characters, lovely little details that show his world. I feel like if he tackled something a little more conventional I would have loved it wholeheartedly. But Prince of Thorns is built on gimmick, more concerned with trying to subvert convention than really tell a good story. I was all too often aware of the author using some author trick to accomplish something, rather than the world developing as it should.

The first and most glaring problem for me was the voice. The story is told from the first person Point of View of a fourteen-year-old boy (except when it flashes back to when he was ten) named Jorg. Not once did I feel like I was in the mind of a fourteen-year-old.Now, this isn't your average kid, and his life included some pretty gruesome things done to him and done by him, so a certain world-weariness would fit. But a brutal, psychologically damaged kid is still different from an evil monster of an adult. Lawrence took great pains to explore Jorg's background and justify how he ended up where he was and how he was. And Jorg does have a great voice, just not believable for his age.

This isn't a YA book and I can understand why most readers would give him a pass and just accept that the voice works for the story. But I do write YA; I work very hard to try to make the voice match the age of my characters and it can be incredibly challenging. To me, it felt like Lawrence just didn't want to work that hard. I'm sure it was much easier to create the adult voice of a hard-bitten man and throw it on top of the fourteen-year-old character. The young age of Jorg does add to the story, but it's not a necessary part, it just makes it more shocking - that a kid could be so bad - and shock-value seems to be a lot of what he was going for.

Another problem that I consider lazy writing is the use of multiple deus-ex-machina plot developments. To his credit, Lawrence created a story were seemingly random or incredibly lucky (unrealistic) happenings are explained by 'magic'. A key trait of the main character is his rash nature and constant rushing into danger against all odds and common sense. He always survives, even when he doesn't - he's killed once and just comes back to life because, well, magic. You can get away with a little of this in epic fantasy - we all acknowledge that the 'chosen one' needs some lucky breaks to defeat the stronger enemy. But when that's the core of the plot, that the MC doesn't need a plan, or rational thought, or even to actually survive, then it takes all the tension out of it. Most of the set up seemed to just give the author another chance to point out how immoral the character was and that he survives through strength of will - his evilness/will to power is just that strong.

Again, I write plots, including epic fantasy. I even use magic as an underlying force in some of my stories. But I work really hard to make things plausible, to have the characters act within the rules of their world and for there to be consequences to their choices. Without that, the tension fades. By the end of Thorns, I found myself laughing at the implausible happenings and just waiting for the next silly instance, knowing that it would all work out for Jorg regardless of what he, or anyone else, did. That's not really what you want in a dark and 'shocking' saga.

I think in my younger days I would have enjoyed the book more. Been more willing to overlook these faults, or not even be able to articulate what was wrong. But I'm a writer now, and I hold myself to a high standard. I can't help but hold others to that same level. While I do admire Lawrence's skills, and admit that on many levels he's a better writer than I am, I am a little disappointed in the book and don't plan to continue the series. I'll wait for him to write a good story without falling back on gimmick and shock value - that I'd love to read.

Yet another Amazon vs. Hachette blog post

One of the most talked about topics in the publishing world these days is the ongoing contract dispute between Amazon and Hachette Publishing. Only those on the inside know the exact stakes that are being fought over, but enough info has leaked for most everyone to have a sense of the argument - though knowing facts has never been a prerequisite for stating an opinion on the internet. I am not an insider, I'm not involved in this fight in any material way, and I don't think my opinion is really worth adding to the scrum, but I do have something to say about the economics involved.

What has surprised me about the discussion is the fact that so many writers have taken sides, defending one or the other combatants as their champion, as if the fight is actually over the souls of the creative folks it affects. It's not. The fight is over money, profits for million/billion dollar companies. If anyone thinks that either side is on a noble quest, they really don't understand business.

That's not to say that the outcome won't affect writers. It will. And knowing that, it might very well behoove a writer to choose the side they think will benefit them the most and throw their support that way. Like everyone else in a free market system, we're supposed to look out for our own self interest. The problem is that different people legitimately have different interests and thus different (and quite correct) opinions over which side is 'right'.

Now Entering the Ring

The fight itself is over who gets to control the pricing of books, especially ebooks. Neither Amazon nor Hachette is suggesting that writers get that control; both want control of the final retail price of books published by Hachette (price control in general is a different topic - this battle is strictly over Hachette books). It's a simple truth that when a writer works with a publisher, they effectively give up control of pricing in the hopes that the publisher handles the business side of things in a way that maximizes their (the company's) profits which also maximizes the author's royalties. Hachette is fighting to do exactly that. So is Amazon.

As an economics major, I simplify the differences this way. Hachette's model (and that of the big publishers as a whole) is to find a 'select' group of writers, chosen for their quality and money-making potential, and sell their work at a premium that distinguishes it from random fare. Amazon is a retailer, and their business model is to sell as much of everything as possible, at the lowest price possible, to maximize market share. It will generate more revenue but likely distribute it over a larger number of products (thus diminishing the return on any individual product = fewer royalties for each author). Which side is best for you depends mostly on whether you are (or hope to be) in the 'select' group of published authors.

The War, not the Battle

There are some bigger questions at stake beyond self interest that I think are worth talking about, and once again an individual's position is likely to be determined where they stand in relation to the behemoths. It's worth considering how outcomes affect writers as a whole and what type of system we want to have in place to allow authors to earn enough to provide for the continued creation of fine pieces of literature (and by that, I mean good books of any stripe). For the free market is never really free and rarely arrives at the best solution for all of society - anyone who says differently hasn't taken a freshman Econ class.

The problem with the classical publisher model is that there are barriers to entry - the high cost of publishing lots of books - which creates limited competition. This allows publishers to act as gate-keepers and control the product, a good and bad thing. Good in  that it raises prices to a point where authors can make a living and continue to produce quality work. Bad in that it takes the choice of what is considered quality out of the consumer's direct control. As a consumer (reader), I appreciate that a big-publishing-company book is going to have a standard of quality that separates it from the large amount of garbage that gets produced by writers in general (and yes, I realize I'm one of those garbage producers at the moment). I also think that the system could expand to be more inclusive and I believe self-publishing has widened the range of materials available to the market. I think things are trending in a good direction, but ultimately I do want controls on the marketplace and royalties high enough so support those creating decent work - i.e. I want to be able to find high quality widgets made of steel, with good craftmanship, not just cheap plastic ones mass-produced in China.

The problem with Amazon is the future. While cheap prices may seem like a boon for the consumer, the truth is a little darker than that. Amazon has a huge market share and uses it's power to sell books under cost, thus driving out competitors (Barnes & Noble anyone?) and ultimately leading towards a monopoly. Even people who haven't had freshmen Econ should know that monopolies don't create optimum results for society. And Amazon is actually taking control on both ends - they are the single largest purchaser of ebooks from publishers (a monopsony), thus allowing them to dictate at what price they buy, regardless of what price is necessary for the survival of the producer of the goods (authors). Those who back the free market pricing of Amazon need to take a deep look and decided if the company's goals really match that ideal in the long term.
[A simple yet compelling write up of the situation by agent Andy Ross is found here, actually written years before the current situation with Hachette.]

And the Decision goes to...

There's no simple right or wrong here, no one answer that all authors should be fighting for. I just don't like to see authors fighting each other in a battle where the the true contestants are fighting for their own bottom line. Don't for a second think that a corporation ever has your best interest at heart - their only responsibility is to earn profits for the shareholders, and any benefits to anyone else are incidental. While a free market can lead to the best result for society, it's only a theoretical construct, about as meaningful as freshman physics calculations where we ignore friction and a rolling ball never stops. Book-selling has never been a free market and for many reasons it may be best that it not be. The question is what type of restraint ultimately serves the best interest of those interested in writing and reading good books. I'll let each person make their own call on that.

Update

The fight is over. Who won? Who knows. The details of the settlement between Amazon and Hachette haven't been released. Both claim victory. Personally, I think everyone has lost a little, especially us authors.

Story Notes: In the Beginning

My storytelling started when I was a kid, even if it was just to myself. I would come up with a character and take them on adventures in my head, developing long stories over a period of months. I would also come up with a backstory - I knew all about how that character came to be, their likes and dislikes, what happened them as a child, what led to the world that they currently lived in. As authors, creators of stories, it's natural for us to have a grand sense of the people and world we create. The problem is when we try to share all that with the reader.

A story is not a world, it's a discreet series of events centered around a specific happening. A good story needs to stay focused on what is relevant to itself and nothing more, revealing the past only as it comes up and pertains to the present. A story should start at its beginning, not at its set-up. Think of it in the context of history: the Revolutionary War is a story, but you don't need to know how Native Americans came to North America by way of the Bering Land Bridge to understand it. You don't need to follow George Washington through his childhood (that would be a different story, maybe an interesting one, but not fundamentally about the War).

You'd think it would be easy to start a story where it begins, but you'd be wrong. It's so very easy to start earlier, to share all the wonderful backstory with the reader, to give them all the necessary information they'll need to put the events of the story into the context that they need. But it doesn't actually help the story; it doesn't enlighten the reader or draw them in, more likely it bores them. People want to read a story, not world-building.

So how do you do this? How do writers know where to begin? A commonly given piece of advice is to not worry about it. Start writing, tell your story as you want, and then let your test readers point out where they think the story begins. I think that's works for finding the beginning because ultimately the reader is the best judge of a story, but it also makes more work for the author because they need to change that beginning, and possibly a lot of the story after it as well.

You see, all that world-building and contextual background is useful stuff, and often times essential for the reader to understand the story. It just needs to be delivered during the story itself, woven into the present and not delivered beforehand. As a writer, I find it best to be able to do this as I go, hopefully saving some time and effort during the revising process.

Another common piece of advice is to start with action, with something happening. It doesn't need to be spectacular, it doesn't even need to be physical. It just needs to be something that moves the plot forward, something that is part of the actual story. Since I focus on characters in my writing, I think about what is changing in that person's life that makes this the start of a new chapter - the start of this story. What precipitates the rest of the events? Do they meets someone new, lose a job, learn an important secret?

Let's say we're writing a story about a high school girl who goes out for the school play and falls for the lead actor while learning valuable lessons about life. The story could start at try-outs, or it could start in the cafeteria when the lead actress acts all bitchy and our protagonist decides to win the lead role in the next play. It doesn't start on a normal day when she goes to school and we meet her cool friends who are later important; it doesn't start with a breakfast scene where we learn about her troubled family life. Those are things that are important to her life, but their current actions aren't part of the plot for this story. We can meet her family when they learn about her trying out for the play; we can meet her friends when they show up to cheer her on.

Start with something that connects to the core element of the plot, even if it isn't obviously clear up front how it connects. Trust that the reader is okay without knowing all the backstory and they will trust you to fill things in as you go along. Readers want to know that they are on a path to something, that they've started a story, not history.