I do. Several times a week, as time permits, I spend more then an hour critiquing a work that's posted, both here and on other sites. But in the forums it's bad manners to mention a specific members writing. You're confusing style with structure. Sculptors use the same tools, but how they use them and their personal creative vision, determines the result. So it is with writing. If you don't know what a scene is, structurally, and its role in bringing the story to the climax you can't write one that will impress an acquiring editor. And when we come to writing almost universally we hold the mistaken assumption that a scene in fiction is like a scene in film. And in any case, given the success rate in the agent's office, clearly those many approaches don't work, so far as the prepublished writer is concerned. Any argument you might advance, so far as everyone having their own valid style, falls apart in the face of the fact that most rejections come on the first page, and the majority never get read further than a paragraph or two. The new writer either addresses that problem or they're wasting the time at the keyboard. Clearly, reading fiction as a means of gaining writing skill doesn't work. That the success rate of the people gathering on the various writing sites doesn't change the rejection situation says that's not a viable approach, either. Seems to me that education works in every other profession. Why shouldn't it work better then "winging it" in writing fiction for the printed word?
@JayG I should preface this by saying that immensely respect the hard work you put into critiquing people's posts. In my eyes you're one of several experts on these forums and I do find myself agreeing with much of what you're saying. Having said that, to me it seems you're proclaiming there is an ultimate recipe for making a publishable, 'good' novel. Others disagree and claim there is no such recipe. Personally, I think the truth lies in the middle. What you have isn't a recipe, but a list of powerful ingredients that will make a meal taste good. If you use all, your chances of success are high, but you don't have to use all, always. One can spice things up and add a personal flavour by using a few different ingredients. Now that I am done with the food analogy, I am going to head off for a wee snack
I actually agree with you, as to what editors do. And I do agree that reading how-to books by people who know what they're doing is immensely helpful. (Don't necessarily agree about Jack Bickham, but that's no big deal. Lots of people DO find his stuff helpful.) And as I also said, I've found many of your comments very helpful indeed. In essence, your advice is correct. Budding writers need to study their craft. I think it's your approach to the forum that might do with a tweak or two. Speaking as an ex-teacher, there are ways to get people to see what needs doing. There are ways to put them off the task altogether. I think if you concentrate on what folks have actually written and do YOUR best to SHOW them what can be improved and how you would improve it, you'll get them excited about their own writing. I think if you say things along the lines of 'no editor would look at this, past the first three lines,' and then send them off to the library, you risk dunting their enthusiasm. I'd say engage with them more. Which means you won't be saying the same thing to each person, because each person is different, each person's story is different, what they're trying to write about is different (in most cases!) and their voices are certainly different. Folk come onto this forum in many frames of mind and in many stages of development. Sometimes they just want to link up with fellow writers, occasionally knock some ideas around. Others come on with something they think is perfect and want praise. Others come on here because they have been writing for years and haven't ever had the courage to show their work to anyone. Others are at the stage where they've just read something they like and now they want to 'do it', too. Learning to please an editor isn't always the first step on the path to becoming a good writer. Finding voice, finding courage, finding perspective, finding storytelling mode, exploring use of words, discovering the impact of words, discovering the joy of creating characters who become real—this is what makes most writers want to write. Wanting to sell your work as quickly as possible is a slightly different carrot. If somebody comes on and says 'I think this is perfect and I'm about to send it off to an agent/editor,' THEN is when you hop in with 'no agent/editor will look at this because your opening three sentences aren't engaging enough.' This is NOT what you say to a person who lacks self confidence, or is just testing the water. Better to engage directly with the writer's work. Say things like: whose eyes are we using to watch this scene unfold? Have you thought of getting another character to tell the story instead? What is your character actually feeling when he says that? How can you get that feeling across without telling us directly? Why not try this...? Or that? What would happen if you chose a word like friend rather than colleague.. The writer goes away feeling validated and encouraged because somebody has taken the time to actually read and try to understand what they're doing. They also may feel enthusiastic about their story again. So many of the Workshop posts indicate that the writer has lost interest or lacks confidence in their writing. It would be nice to give that back to them. I don't mean we should encourage awkward writing. I just mean we sometimes need to tailor our advice more specifically. We need to remember we aren't editors here, coldly and quickly accepting or rejecting manuscripts. We're just fellow writers, offering our own insight into the writing process and what works and what doesn't work for us. I think of it as tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. If you end up dishing out the same generic advice to everyone, that can really put people off. And, by the way, I have a very good grasp of the difference between style and structure! I've studied both for years, not only from the viewpoint of a writer, but from the viewpoint of a reader and analyst as well. I have a BA Honors in English, and a teaching certificate. I have a bookcase full of writing books from many famous authors. I know that structure is very important, but it doesn't have to be done to formula ...unless you want to be a formulaic writer. Sculptures all have structure, true, but they're not all the same. Are they? There is a lot of difference between chipping away at a block of stone, molding clay from scratch or collecting stray bits of attractive materials and glueing them together. To say that there is only one way to make a sculpture will eliminate two of these three art forms, every time.
I'm starting to think we are all just wasting our breath here. No matter what any of us says, the replies are still coming back with the same "I know everything, you know nothing" tone. Obviously our opinions are completely invalid to him, we are all a bunch of ignoramuses who will never in a million years get published, and we should all just move on with our happy little amateur lives.
Admittedly, I haven't read all 7 pages worth of discussion, but he doesn't come across as such to me. As almost everything in life, its a matter of perception. And as for the last bit, as far as I can tell Jay is actually trying to help get people published, but I digress...
Love this Jannert! Cause it's so true. When I first showed up here about a year and a half ago? I was so scared to show my work. I think if it had been just torn apart or offered advice I would've fled. Chicagoliz - actually said she liked the read - a simple thing to say but so encouraging at the time!
It's a sort of interesting thing. People insist that I'm saying that all writers are the same so far as learning craft, but that they will learn what's necessary via largely undefined alternate methods. They're ignoring the fact that all writers were treated the same for twelve years of primary school education, and that all members of other professions are treated the same during the time they're learning their profession or trade. In our basic education we were taught the same techniques, and tested to see that we "got it." No one objects to that. No one suggests that the students should have been free to learn the techniques of writing reports and essays in any way they saw fit. But then, these same people object violently to the idea that there might be equally necessary, and equally common knowledge that a working professional might require. I've been arguing verifiable fact. I've talked about specific technique and areas of knowledge. I've pointed to articles and textbooks. I've pointed to real world statistics like the rejection rate for queries and the result of not owning the necessary craft. In rebuttal what's presented are emotional arguments, like "There are many different ways to learn craft," arguments made without any evidence other than pointing to work that, in the estimation of the one making the argument, support their point of view. As one of the "proofs" that there are many approaches to writing, Hemingway was mentioned. But Hemingway, who was a trained writer, himself, said: “It’s none of their business that you have to learn how to write. Let them think you were born that way.” No one has pointed to a publisher, nor writers who advocate the "every man for himself" approach, where each hopeful writer must deduce the craft of the writer through undefined methods. No one has pointed to a university, a workshop, or a conference that does that. So what's being proposed is that the entire establishment and structure of publishing is wrong in what they define as necessary elements of craft. And when I point out that writers with many divergent writing styles, like Sol Stein, Ben Bova, Jack Bichkam, Dean Koontz, Holly Lisle, and Orson Scott Card are in agreement on craft issues, I might as well not have typed the words. So in the end I'm talking facts and evidence while others are arguing emotional beliefs. That's not a discussion. So in the end, I guess I'll continue to be the bastard who suggests that the hopeful writer look into those areas of craft that the publishers demand we use in our writing. I'm stubborn that way.
"Can you show me one university where they teach writing by having the students do nothing but read and analyze fiction without mentoring or guided discussion? Because if you can't, you're saying that all the universities are wrong and you're right, even though it has not yet worked for you." Are you saying, then, that there is no one anywhere who has ever picked up a work of literature and analyzed the elements and techniques for themselves, then picked up another and done the same thing, followed by a third, and a fourth, and so on and so forth until they have analyzed 'Scene and Structure' for themselves? It does not seem impossible for that to have happened any more than it was impossible for Jack Bickham to write a book on his own research. Colleges, how-to books, and courses on how to write commercial fiction are not vital to learning the craft of writing because it is not outside the realm of possibility that someone of intelligence could do it for themselves. This is not brain surgery we're talking about, or a highly specialized discipline requiring years of instruction with a highly specific skillset. If it were, how could works of art have been produced before such things were invented? As a 'college-educated teacher' of many hundreds of students myself, I can tell you beyond a doubt that courses and instructional books may help develop cookie-cutter skills, but they cannot teach inspiration and they will not produce a great writer. The things that comprise true creativity come from another place entirely that cannot be isolated, broken down, or taught. If brilliance were just a matter of the advice of a few 'experts', then we would all be Faulkners, wouldn't we?
Of course in an infinity of time there are some who will guess right. But the number is vanishingly small, as demonstrated by the fact that most submitted work is rejected before the end of paragraph two. No other profession I can name is learned by guesswork. And no other skill we learned in high school renders us a professional in some field. Why would you think that the general skill called writing is any different? But as far as analyzing a given piece of writing to learn writing, all you will do is imitate what you see on the page, and that doesn't work, because you're studying a product, and you need the process. A writer makes hundreds of choices as they write, and you won't be aware of what those choices were, or what the intent of a given line is unless you already know the story. In evidence, look at Deconstructing Samantha. If you can devine the writer's intent through reading, you'll know exactly why each of the lines was placed, and why it was phrased as it was. And it doesn't matter if the work is good or bad. If you can analyze and know the writer's process, you can do that good or bad. Has it worked for you? You say that as if you personally know through experience. But that aside, I'll be damned if I'll base my career on "not outside the realm of possibility" odds. Not when I can learn from someone who makes their living doing what I hope to do. The average writer produces, edits, polishes, and sets aside between a half million and a million words before achieving publication. So yes, it is a specialized discipline that takes years to perfect—or decades if fumbling is your method. 99.9+% of new writer submissions are rejected, and of them over 75% are said to be unreadable, by publishers. Not unprofessional, unreadable. Only a paltry 3% are seen as written at a professional level. And that's because all but a damn few pre-published writers even know they didn't learn the techniques of fiction for the printed word in their schooling. Learning to use the tools of a carpenter doesn't teach "inspiration" either. And no one anywhere says that any book or course will make a published writer of you. That's your job. The learning only prepares you for the attempt. You cannot write a scene if you don't know what a scene is and how it differs from one in film. You can't handle the nuance of POV if you think the term POV refers to which personal pronouns you use. And unless you get a bit of mentoring or do some study you are not going to know the structure of a scene or a story. “Self-expression without craft is for toddlers.” ~Rosanne Cash
No, it doesn’t validate my advice. I never said it did. And you’re wrong: I haven’t submitted my work because it’s not finished, not because I’m pretty sure it would be rejected. I’m serious. I haven’t finished either of the novels I’m working on. It isn’t that they’re done and I have no confidence in them, it’s that they’re not done. Understand? Who is “we all”? I grew up and was educated in Canada. I’ve had no experience with the American education system. We have members here from all over the world, who grew up with a wide variety of different education systems. They are not all the same, and you can’t say they all teach the same composition skills. And no, the stories in high school lit mags (how many of them are there, anyway?) would not be reprinted in national magazines. That’s silly. Teenagers, even bright ones, don’t necessarily have enough life experience to write stories of interest to a broad audience. They’re young – give them a chance! Jay, I know you’re an old dude, but have you really forgotten that much about being young? What were you doing between eighteen and twenty? Most of us were building our lives as young adults. Some of us were beginning university, studying hard, meeting a whole bunch of new people, new friends. Some of us were moving out of our parents’ homes and establishing our own apartments. Some of us were starting rock bands and playing seedy club gigs with stars in our eyes, hoping to be noticed. Some of us were getting our first real jobs, getting our first paychecks, becoming independent. Some of us were joining the armed forces and serving tours of duty. Some of us were strung out on drugs, unfortunately. Others were doing other things. Those years are huge for a young person, even one who has ambitions to become a writer. Trust me, young people between eighteen and twenty have many other things to do than writing novels. There’s a lot on the plate – an awful lot. For most of those kids, writing can wait – they’re too busy living. One example is not statistically significant, as you very well know. Because, as I said, my novels aren’t finished yet. I’ve spent my career up to now as an engineer, like you. I’ve been busy. And I’m not interested in writing disposable fiction just so some editor will publish it. I’m trying to write something I can be proud of for the rest of my life. As I’ve said several times on this forum, I’m much more interested in writing one book that will last than a hundred books that won’t. Nora Roberts has published over 200 romance novels and has made millions of dollars off them, but I bet none of them will be in print ten years after she dies. Heck, most of them have gone out of print already. Her publisher is reissuing some of them, and, in order to avoid confusion among her fans, they’re putting a special logo on her new books so the readers don’t confuse the reissues for new work. How crazy is that? On the other hand, Harper Lee has published one novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s a classic of American literature and has always been in print, and I bet it will still be read and loved a hundred years from now. I would take Lee’s legacy over Roberts’ any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I’m not in this to write forgettable crap. I want to write a classic. I think I have one in me (I hope I’m right!) but if I don’t, at least I want to go down trying. Two hundred pieces of junk do not beat one masterpiece. I’m shooting for the masterpiece. I’m well aware that most publishers do that. That might be one reason for the sorry state of American literature these days. Of course you can reject the majority of stuff on page one because the writing is idiotic, full of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors, but the 20% left over is worth a more sympathetic read. You told me in an earlier post to use examples of today’s fiction to argue my points, rather than books that are sixty or seventy years old. How about Life of Pi, by Yann Martel? It has, by Swain’s standards, a ridiculous beginning: several pages about sloths. None of that has anything to do with the story, but it’s there. Yet the book has sold more than ten million copies worldwide, won the Man Booker Prize, and was made into a major movie. It was rejected by several publishers. I guess they were the kind of publishers you keep talking about: the shortsighted ones, the lazy ones who won’t read what’s in front of them, the stupid ones. The ones who are, through their carelessness, ruining modern literature. But someone (Knopf Canada) saw the value of the book and hit it big. We all hope we can get the attention of a publisher like that, who won’t summarily reject a wonderful book based on the first couple of paragraphs. Wrong. This is what I was getting at when, in an earlier post, I said you were being deliberately obtuse. It is not that we don’t know what we’re doing. It is that we haven’t finished what we’re doing. What is it about that that you don’t understand? I’m a perfectionist. I don’t want to churn out four or five novels a year. I have two really good novel ideas, and I want to write them as well as I can. I also have a few other ideas, for a series of short stories and a series of novellas, and I want to write them as well as I can. I’m in no hurry. The last thing I want to be is Nora Roberts or Jack Bickham. I’m writing in an attempt to create something great, something of permanent value. I’m not writing just because I like to type. Sheesh. What is it about “I haven’t finished my novel yet” that you don't understand? I’m not published. Right. But I haven’t submitted a novel anywhere yet. Stop using that point to tell me I don’t know what I’m doing. We’ve gone roundy-roundy on this before, and you’re starting to embarrass yourself. Sorry if that comes off as a bit harsh, especially coming from a moderator, but that point is getting old fast. Of course it can. When something is explained to someone and they understand it at last, they stop being confused. This happens to everyone everywhere all the time. Why? One damn line? As I said earlier, I give writers a lot more leeway than that. Many other readers do, too. My guess is that most intelligent readers won’t even register being confused or bored in only one line. If one line stops a reader cold, then I think that’s a pretty dull-witted reader, and if he doesn’t read my story, I won’t mind. Jeez. One line? Really? How can you even respect a reader like that? As I told you before, I don’t make my reading decisions that way. I wonder about studies like that – do they only study people browsing in bookstores at random? Or do they study serious readers as well? I mean readers who research the book and the writer before they enter the bookstore. Readers who consult reviews, author interviews, recommendations from family, friends, professors, etc.? Frankly, I don’t care if the average reader wants a hook in the first three pages. I guess that means I’m not writing for the average reader. If so, that’s fine. Nabokov, Joyce, Faulkner, Pynchon, and others weren’t writing for the average reader. Bickham was, I guess. But I’m not after Bickham’s readers. Not true. Life of Pi got published, and there’s no hook in the first three pages. And it was a home run. Some publishers, at least, look deeper than others. Good thing, too. I have Stein’s book and I’m familiar with it. I found it the opposite of inspiring. It’s a chore to get through, like Swain’s. I prefer Gardner – his books give me hope.
I don't doubt he is--as long as you are willing to do it his way. Any other methods are met with harsh resistance and insults, and from what I can tell, people are getting tired of it. Because he is talking about writing fiction for the dull-witted masses that rarely pick up the printed word aside from the newspaper or People magazine; readers who only pick up novels at the airport for something to do on that long, boring flight from New York to L.A. Of course they will get bored and confused if something doesn't appeal to them in a line or two. It's not an insult, just lack of understanding or enthusiasm on their part. They're not out for a deep story they have to think about, they're out for a time filler, like watching a rerun on TV. Yet again, you sum up my view of writing perfectly. I didn't get my first publication until I was 24. This was during one of the sober points of my young adulthood. Between the time I was 14-26, I spent way more time strung out on drugs than I did attempting to write novels. Did I always have ambitions to write? Yes. This goes back to the days when I used to enter children's short story contests in grade school, and even won a couple. But at 18-20, booze, women, heavy metal music, and fast cars took priority over writing, and my ambitions were shelved for awhile. Yes, several times in R/C and scale model hobbyist periodicals. And before he discounts that tidbit as being "not real experience," bear in mind the way he always seems to point out that "Peter Pissedhispants was a journalist before he was a novelist..." whenever anyone claims a specific novelist did not receive any formal training in writing fiction. THANK YOU!
Um, read it more carefully dude. I've taken the liberty to screenshot the post, so there is no confusion. The red box shows the post author I was quoting, who is @Andrae Smith The blue box is a tag, e.g. where Andrae tagged you in that particular post. Below that is my response where I agreed with his words. So there you have it, I nor anyone else misquoted you or claimed you said anything of the sort.
@minstrel you understand! :') That exactly what me, my sister and many of my friends and (former) classmates are doing. I know one who is a musician. I have many of who are working (and an unsettling number who are engaged or pregnant). I have many who joined the armed forces and fortunately only a few who are on the drugs. These years mean a lot to we who have so few years under my belt. I just turned 20 on Friday (the 24th) and I can say with sincerity, there is a lot that I am learning and experiencing. Writing is not at the forefront of my busies, and I've only just realized it doesn't need to be. I have to live and grow into a functioning adult. I need to make friends and do things. I need to find a way to pay the remaining $4500 ASU wants for this year. I need to figure out where I'm going to school next year and when, and deal with the fact that my mom and sisters moved to Colorado (while I'd be returning to Cali). Lots going on and it all seems so important because I am, admittedly, still learning to balance some things and to really be. I know my writing to this point has not been very good, but I'm learning and doing so at a pace that makes since considering I'm also learning French, Editing, and all about life in the "real world."
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/1087/ If you check into the history of the public education system you'll find that it was instituted at the beginning of the industrial revolution because reading and writing was taught at home, and there was no standardized spelling or reading comprehension. The result was that employers had to hold classes to teach reading and writing skills. To solve that problem, kids were taught a set of basic skills, the traditional three Rs, to ready them to become useful and productive adults. Things have changed as needs did, but they are all general skills of use to most adults, not the specialized techniques of any profession. For example, at one time Boston conducted classes in drawing that any adult could attend, because being able to sketch a part before a craftsman built it was a marketable skill. We leave high school possessed of a set of writing skills that are appropriate to writing reports, essays, and letters, all author centric, all fact based, and all designed to inform. Yes, we're given assignments to write fiction, which is graded by a teacher who has no more knowledge of the character-centric, emotion based technique of fiction for the printed word than their students. Were that not universal, the students of one nation or the other would begin selling their work in high school—including those writing assignments the teacher assigns. But they don't. . Nonsense. They have all the experience necessary to write young adult because they are young adults and know their needs, desires, and hopes better then do adults. And given that it's the kind of fiction they read, unless those who insist that all we need do is read to learn how to write are wrong, their reading should have taught them what they need to know. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we learn to write professionally through attending grade-school and analyzing what we read and then excuse people who do precisely what's suggested and then consistently fail to achieve the objective. You cannot say that there are other methods with any validity without both explaining what those methods are and pointing to success by the group attempting to use that method. As you said, a sample of one is statistically meaningless. Their work doesn't sell for the same reason publishers aren't hanging around this site treating the work posted in the workshops as queries: the work reads like a high school writing assignment. And that makes sense because they're writing in exactly the way they were taught. Hasn't it occurred to you that if the nation's teachers are qualified to teach how to write fiction they would form the bulk of the writers? Who better to write successfully than people who teach writing? I get a lot of people assuming that because I'm in my seventies I must have become stupid. But you're ignoring that I'm also a published dude. I'm the dude people paid to tell them why their work wasn't selling. I have seventy-six years worth of experience, not one years worth repeated seventy-six times. Denigrating my opinions by implying that I'm to old to know better is hardly reasoned literary discussion. Were I to treat you that way, as moderator I suspect that you would be telling me to cut it out. I was unqualified to write fiction because I had not a clue of how to write for the page. In fact after writing six novels I was still unqualified, until a professional showed me what I was doing wrong, and that learning the craft of the writer was a necessity. We get lots of people here who are in their early twenties trying to write. Will you discount their efforts? Surely you're not saying that they could write with skill but choose not to? You're finding rationalizations for why they didn't even try, but that's all they are, rationalizations, because when they do try their work still reads like a high school writing assignment. And I know that, not only because I read and comment of work here, as I said people used to send me work for critique. And almost invariably, the words and the plot might be different, but the writing suffered exactly the same faults all new writers face. They talked about the protagonist and thought s/he was the POV character because they did. They filled the work with overview that was concerned with plot points, not emotional and character centric issues. They had no scene goals. They placed effect before cause. Their scenes were chronicles, not units of tension. Etc..etc...etc. Make a list of the most common new writer mistakes and you could check them off one after another because they're the result of ignorance not a lack of talent. These were decent sincere people, working as hard as they could to please the reader, using techniques inappropriate to the task because no one ever told them there was any other way to approach the creation of fiction. And of course, others in the same situation praised their work. Interesting. You just denigrated the entire publishing industry as unworthy. Best sellers are disposable? Genre fiction? Disposable, too? Their writers are unworthy of your respect? Only the reader decides if writing has merit. No one gives a damn how proud of the work you are. No one cares that your intent is to write brilliantly. It's the reader and what your words mean to that reader. Dickens wrote his fiction for the masses, to entertain. And he published it in serial form, in cheap publications to reach more people. And Dickens trained the people who worked for him in his methods. He wasn't trying to write undying prose. his goal was to make a living. And he did. Personally, I'd go for something that readers will love. Well, Sol Stein has done that. But you don't like Sol Stein's advice on writing. George Orwell did it and you reject his advice along with the others. Ernest Hemingway advised learning how to write, and he didn't mean sitting alone in a room and rediscovering the craft of the writer. Personally, I like Robert Frost's observation: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.” Poor girl will just have to make do with all those millions, I guess. Has it not occurred to you that pleasing ten million people right now is not in the slightest way inferior to pleasing a tiny fraction of that number each year over a long period of time? A million people who like your story is a million people who like your story. The difference between that and what you're shooting for is that you won't know it happens because you'll be dead. She has it happen again and again during her lifetime. Do you really believe that she has less talent than someone who impresses college professors? That's an elitist view, where you get to decide what matters, and denigrate the tastes of millions of people as lesser than yours. You disparage people like Nora Roberts, who have demonstrated again and again that they can hit their chosen target over and over. And you disparage them because they write in a genre you don't favor. Worse yet, you feel yourself superior because it's your intention to write a masterpiece. The difference between a goal and a dream is a timetable. You're the one labeling them that. Their writing isn't idiotic, and many of them could well have a career in writing were they to learn their craft. The problems they have in common aren't spelling or punctuation, it's that they're using inappropriate techniques because they're the only techniques they know. And when they ask, too often they're told to just write, and it will come. No, the beginning is the supposed narrative by the "failed novelist." Surely you didn't think that was real? And if you understand motivation/response units as it applies to narrative fiction, they're right there, involving the reader with the narrator. The business with the sloths? I skimmed it because it was boring, But I kept going because the introduction had interested me with the premise, and hooked me with one single line, "I have a story that will make you believe in God." You're also not taking into account that the the book is written in the literary genre, where long digressions and the approach used is both common and expected by fans. You're missing the most obvious point, which is that unless and until you learn to write on what an editor views as a professional level you're not even in the game. Tor's guidelines used to have an interesting observation. They said to forget looking at what the odds of acceptance are, because if you're not writing on a professional level they're impossible. If you are, they're not bad at all. But you're not the publisher. Nor are you the norm based on real studies publishers have done. They make their money only if books fly off the shelves so they've done a great deal of research on why readers say no. No one wants to be confused, especially when they expect to be entertained. And no matter how hard you may try you cannot remove confusion retroactively. You may say it's unfair, and wrong. And you may be right. Certainly we all deserve to be successful writers. But this is the world we work in. A publisher's acquiring editor turns to page one and begins to read. They assume that the opening is the single best edited section of the book, given that it's what you've sent them to evaluate—and be hooked. They read until they find what they view as a screwup. It might be nonfiction technique. It might be an info-dump, a POV break, or a hundred other things. And that's it. They have hundreds of other submissions, from people just as dedicated, just as sincere, and probably writing at the same level. So they display no forgiveness or pity. They just stop reading and reach for the next one on the stack. And because it's not their job to teach us how to write they don't explain. They just say no. Worse yet, because they know in advance that they'll reject a hundred submissions for every one they agree to read in depth, they aren't expecting much when they open the envelope, and don't read yours with the same attitude as they read one of their stable of writers. That means you grab they by the throat on page one and never let go. They have plenty of "as good as" writers so you have to be brilliant. You have to know what that reader wants to see and what they don't. It's up to you to please them by meeting their expectations, not your own. You're missing the most important point. You have one customer, the acquiring editor who will talk that publisher into spending the money to bring your work to market. The reader is their customer. And that customer sees the work only after the publisher takes your rough work and polishes, fact-checks, and a dozen other operations. You please that editor, and do it more than the other thousand people vying for that publishing slot or you keep your day job. I "We" haven't finished? Is that the imperial we, or are you claiming that the reason 99.9% of submissions are rejected is because the author isn't finished? We're no longer discussing how to write, how to learn craft, or the needs of a writer. You're having a personal argument with Jay because you find the things I say upsetting. And that's certainly not my intention because it benefits no one, and contributes not at all to the atmosphere of this site, which is one of the best available. So let me modify my assertion to this: If someone wants to write low class fiction of the kind that will make them lots of money, but will not be honored as brilliant 100 years from now, you might want to look into the craft and technique that those common publishers feel is necessary.
I’ve made it clear that I’m not one of those people. I agree with you that we need to learn the craft of writing fiction. That’s why I took the courses I did, and it’s why I’ve read dozens of books on how to write. I submit that one possible reason their work doesn’t sell is that it doesn’t exist. And even when it does exist, they haven’t submitted it to publishers or agents. You’re probably right that, if it did exist and was submitted, it would be rejected for the reasons you say. But I don’t think high school kids are writing and submitting much. You seem to think that high school kids are all churning out novels by the bushel, submitting them everywhere, and collecting enough rejection letters to wallpaper their houses. I doubt that’s happening. I submit that most kids under twenty haven’t written any novels. If you’re looking for a reason the bestseller lists aren’t full of novels by kids, you might start there. I don’t see how this follows at all. Being qualified to teach how to write wouldn’t automatically make one want to be a writer. It wouldn’t fill your head with ideas and characters that you just have to write about. It wouldn’t give you the time you need – teachers work pretty long hours, and if they have families, where’s the time to churn out novels? You seem to think that everybody desperately wants to be a professional writer, and that the only thing keeping them all off the bestseller lists is lack of technical skill. You seem to think that if they have the skill, then of course they would spend every waking moment writing fiction. This is unrealistic. Please accept my apologies for the “old dude” comment. I didn’t mean it to be offensive. But my point still stands. You were saying that, if they had the skills, young people between eighteen and twenty would be writing novels like there’s no tomorrow, and filling the bestseller lists with them. I don’t believe that’s true for the reasons I said. Of course not. Of course not. That may be true for the ones who submit work here. I’m saying that most teens haven’t written novels, good or bad, let alone submitted them anywhere. No, I did not denigrate the entire publishing industry. I said I wasn’t interested in writing disposable fiction. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with disposable fiction; it just means I’m not interested in it. It’s an industry and many people make good livings in it. That’s fine. I’m a fan of Alistair MacLean, who wrote action-adventure novels to great acclaim, and had many of his novels made into movies, but it’s all disposable. He was on the bestseller lists many times, but he’s completely out of print now. He died in 1987, and he’s already out of print. My roommate got interested in his work and had to buy all his copies secondhand. I don’t want to write the kind of book that suffers that fate. As for genre fiction, I’m writing it right now. I’m doing a series of science-fiction stories. I have great respect for genre fiction. I am not interested in hack work. I am not interested in writing disposable fiction, and that does not equate to genre fiction. Not so. Look at Amazon and check the reviews of just about any famous novel you care to name. There will be some five-star reviews and some one-star reviews, and everything in between. Which reviews are right? Some say the writing has merit and others say it doesn’t. Readers do not agree, and that means that this “reader” you keep talking about doesn’t exist. How is that different from my ambition? I want to write something that will last, and by definition, that means I want readers to love my work. When, exactly, did I reject Orwell’s advice? I’ve never even mentioned Orwell. Sigh. I know. I advise learning how to write, too. As I’ve said now many times, I’m not one of those who just advocates reading good novels and writing craft will just come. Sigh again. I never said Nora Roberts is inferior. She’s doing very, very well and I respect her for that. What I did say is that she is, very knowingly, writing disposable fiction for profit. She’s extremely successful at it, and good for her. But that is not what I want to do. If I were to do what she does, it would feel like typing practice, not the creation of art. Not because it’s inferior, but because it isn’t what I want to do. I told you months ago that we disagree because we are not in the same business. You are in the commercial fiction business (which I have, perhaps uncharitably, often called the “disposable fiction” business), and I am trying to write great literature. I doubt I ever will – my talent is limited and my chances are very small – but I’m aiming high. As high as I can. Because it isn’t worth my time to even bother writing if I’m not aiming as high as I can. I probably won’t hit my target, but it’s why I write. John Steinbeck once said something I like. I don’t remember the exact wording, so this is a paraphrase: “All the world’s great have been like a little boy who wanted the moon. Running and climbing, he sometimes caught a butterfly. But if one grows to a man’s mind, he realizes that he cannot have the moon and wouldn’t want it if he could, and so catches no butterflies.” I’m aiming for the moon. I hope I catch a butterfly or two. It is an elitist view, I suppose. I don’t apologize for wanting to be the best I can be. But I don’t denigrate the tastes of millions as lesser than mine. All I’m saying is that they are not the audience I’m writing for. I don’t disparage Nora Roberts. I respect her – she has achieved what she set out to do. But I do not want to emulate her. I don’t want her career. I don’t want to spend my working life doing what she does. My goals are different from hers. We are not in the same business. Her business is extremely lucrative and mine isn’t. That’s okay with me. I do not “feel superior” because I intend to write a masterpiece. Trying to write a masterpiece actually makes me feel hopelessly inadequate and very, very humble. But that doesn’t mean I won’t try. I admire masterpieces. I love masterpieces. I don’t love disposable fiction. I won’t bother trying to write what I don’t love. I’ll work on what I do love to my dying day. I expect to keep my day job anyway. Making a living writing literary fiction is about as likely as winning a lottery. I’m well aware of that. I prefer to think of editors, publishers, and agents as partners rather than customers. I’m trying to sell to whatever group of readers will appreciate my work, not to an editor. I’m hoping, eventually, to find an editor who understands what I’m trying to do and will help me get it to the readers. I know that’s probably a pipe dream, and my roommate keeps calling me an incurable optimist, but it’s thoughts like that that keep me going. Allow me to rephrase. “I” haven’t finished. I’m sorry if it comes across like that. I don’t mean it to. My argument with you fundamentally stems from this: I have read hundreds of interviews with some of the most outstanding writers of the past sixty or seventy years. I have read dozens of books on the art and craft of writing fiction. I have taken courses in fiction writing. And never once, in all of that study, have I ever seen anybody ever mention Swain or Bickham or any of your favorite, oft-repeated points (the three things readers need to know at the beginning of a scene, motivation-response units, reversing cause and effect (come on – that one really is trivial), scene goals (those are pretty darned obvious, even to someone who’s untrained), and so on). They talk theme, structure, symbol, the importance of original and appropriate imagery, strong and deep character development, the use of prose which essays effects beyond the mere conveying of basic information. They talk about why a novel is important – why it leaves some kind of psychological residue, why it changes us. They talk about the sheer beauty of the art of writing. They inspire me. Swain does not. Swain reduces something almost divine to a simple checklist – do a, b, c, and d, and you are likely to be published, as if that were the goal. He sucks all the passion, joy, and life out of the art of writing. For him, it’s a mechanical, punch-the-time-clock kind of occupation that has no more meaning than cleaning public toilets. Swain has no interest in anything that makes writing important to me. When you keep holding up Swain as an example and as a mentor, it feels like you’re poisoning my desire to write. When you talk of publishers who will reject a manuscript after two paragraphs, you’re destroying my faith in the publishing industry. (I know there are publishers who don’t do that – the existence of literary novels is proof of that.) When you say acquisitions editors are our customers, you are making a really terrific argument for self-publishing. I’m bowing out of this now.
Surely you don't think the workshop here is devoid of the writing of younger writers? But forget that. You and I are in agreement that craft must be learned. And that, alone, explains why new grads don't sell. It also explains why their work doesn't sell whenever they decide to begin writing, because they've added no craft to their education, just desire and intent. Most adults haven't written novels, either, so that's a null argument. But lots of kids write novels. Christopher Paolini wrote Eragon at seventeen, though he had devoured every book on writing he could get his hands on, and had the good luck to have parents who owned a small publishing business. Ideas are the easy part. Writing well is a bitch. But that aside, there are probably as many teachers who decide to write as there are members of other professions. If what they taught truly is what we need (and you've said it's not enough) they would have a significantly larger success rate than any other profession. You're reading something into my beliefs that has little connection to what I believe. But to clarify: • If your goal is to be published, or write with a skill level that will please readers who will contrast your story's presentation to what they're used to buying, you need to learn craft. • If all a given person is doing is writing to please themself, without regard to the needs of the potential reader, they have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion of writing technique. • There are people who come here hoping to learn how to write with enough skill to sell their work, and their questions reflect that desire. Do they not deserve accurate and useful information, as against "This is what I do," from someone who's "winging it?" It's those people, the ones who want to learn that I'm addressing. The ones who have easy self-critics or who are indulging in a hobby aren't looking for the amount of work becoming a pro requires. And certainly it's their right to write in any way they care to. It's also their right to give any advice they care to. But someone has to point out that the advice, if followed, will preclude publication. Someone has to point out where accurate information can be found, and why it's necessary. As a result, I'm going to end up making the same points when new people ask the same questions, or post work with the usual problems. And as a result, the people who hold the "Just write and you can fix all the problems when you edit," and the ones who say, "You don't need do anything but analyze the work of the masters and you will know all you need," are going to be upset to be contradicted yet again. So of course there will be people complaining that I'm looking down on their methods and pointing out that they aren't working for the one giving the advice. But the alternative is to remain silent and watch as yet another potential career is scuttled by misinformation. The problem is that ten thousand people in agreement on a given point are outvoted in the editor's office by one single intern who looks at the work, says, "More amateur writing," and recommends rejection. As much as we might like to believe it is, ignorance isn't additive. One thing I've noticed, and I see it happening in these forums, is that as time goes on, those who feel their toes are being stepped on become more strident (and I'm not pointing at you). But your contention is that anything that isn't declared a masterpiece is "disposable fiction." And that term is yours, not that of the industry. It reads as a put-down, implying that people like Nora Roberts, Dean Koontz, and the majority of those being published today are lacking in the qualities that a writer should strive to attain. Here are people, giants in the industry, beloved by millions, and you call their work disposable. Suffers the fate of making millions in profit and pleasing people? Being read by millions? Having your name on everyone's tongue? If only I could suffer such humiliation. One would think, were that true, and those things obvious, there would be at least some posted work in which the author noticed them and included it in their writing. You keep making assertions that are not born out in the real world of the hopeful writer, right here in the workshop. Again I went to novels, took a random starting point and looked at ten entries in a row. At least one of them should have shown some of the things you feel are so obvious. Here's the result: #1 A spew of words with no paragraphing or anything but “this happened…that happened…he said…and after that…” #2 A lecture on conditions, in general, where the story takes place. An Info-dump. #3 A lecture on what drug users are like. #4 100% telling. Scene goal unknown. Where we are, who we are, and what’s going on, unknown. #5 The scene begins and actions are described, but the reader never learns motivation, purpose, internal landscape issues, goal, or anything meaningful. #6 Another, “This happened and then that happened, format. No scene goal, no idea of where we are in time and space, and no scene setting. Just a running comment on the film the author is visualizing in his/her head. #7 Literally unreadable. #8 An info-dump “prologue” of the kind rejected before the end of the first paragraph. #9 Skipped because it’s not an actual excerpt but instead a question on a paragraph #9a Sadly, another that is incoherent and unreadable. #10 Another in which the author recorded the words s/he would use to speak the story aloud. No known scene goal, no introduction of time, protagonist, or anything useful. These are the people I'm advising to take steps to learn their craft. Maybe in the end they will feel as you do and hope to write in the same style. But at the moment, they are in the unenviable position of not having the slightest idea that there is craft that can be learned. All abstract concepts. But the tools of writing, the craft, is objective, not subjective. Style is how you use those tools. But to use them you must first possess them. Who cares how great your theme is; how relevant and interesting the plot is; how much it will effect them psychologically, if the reader closes the cover before the end of page one because we don't engage them? First you learn to walk, then to run. In school we're issued a placid little dray horse, useful for carrying loads and the need of commerce. But commerce isn't relevant to someone hoping to take to the sky. For that they need to know the mundane details of capturing and caring for Pegasus. Then, with knowledge of how to fly, they can set their destination with some chance of reaching it. You can advise those with literary aspirations. I'll stick to helping those who are still unable to find their ass with both hands and a map. Again, not something born out in the real world. The very first thing Swain says, in the introduction, is: Be warned in advance that we here shall deal with one topic and one only: writing. By writing, I mean the process of creation as applied to fiction . . . the conjuring up of original stories out of the nether reaches of your mind. My purpose is to help would-be fiction writers learn how to carry out this process less slowly and less painfully. The devices set forth all are used, consciously or otherwise, by selling writers. This is because said devices have proved effective in making stories enjoyable and/or enticing to readers. The selling writer, as a commercially-oriented professional, can't afford to write copy that isn't enjoyable and/or enticing. Since they're primarily tools, these techniques have little bearing on literary quality or the lack of it. No writer uses all of them. No writer can avoid using some of them. How well they serve will depend on you yourself. They are, in brief, tricks and techniques of the selling writer. They're all this book has to offer. Nowhere in there does he mention checklists or anything akin to it. He's talking only about tricks and techniques the writer uses as they please. Are they learned, one at a time? Hell yes, just like you learned how to spell, punctuate, and the nonfiction compositional skills employers require. Swain wants people to know why things are done, not just the how. An indictment that, again, has no basis in fact. Compare what you accuse him of and what he says on page two: Good—that is, salable—stories presuppose that you know how to write, how to plot, how to characterize, how to intrigue readers; how to make skilled use of a hundred tools. A book like this one shows you these basic tricks and techniques. What you do with those devices, however; how well you use them, is a thing that must ever and always depend on you: your intelligence, your sensitivity, your drive, your facility with language. Your talent. But before you shrug and turn aside, remember just one point: In writing, more than in almost any other field, initiative is the key. Ernest Hemingway had to write a first line and a first story too. So did John Steinbeck and Edna Ferber, Faith Baldwin and Pearl Buck and Frank Yerby and Erle Stanley Gardner. Each followed the same path. Each linked desire to knowledge, then took his chances. Try it yourself. You may prove more able than you think. Seems to me that he's encouraging people to use their creativity and talent to the maximum by giving them access to the tools that made the greats what they are, great.
