Harold Bloom Was Really Talking about Alice

Alice

All literary criticism should reference ALICE. (photo: snipview.com)

In college, I had to read a scholarly work called The Anxiety of Influence by Harold Bloom. The gist of it was this: poets need to read other poets, but how do you make sure that you don’t wind up sounding like them and thus lose your own voice? I always thought Bloom’s argument was spot on, probably because all through college and my early twenties, I was doing some very bad JD Salinger writer-karaoke.  Shortly thereafter, I immersed myself in so much Faulkner that I could barely carry on a normal conversation without sounding like I’d just ridden into town from Yoknapatawpha County. Continue reading ‘Harold Bloom Was Really Talking about Alice’

Getting to Know Villains

villain

Today I’m blogging about creating complex villains because as a professional writer, I am an expert on the subject. Ha! Quite the opposite. I chose this topic because it’s super hard and I’m trying to learn more about it myself. I’ll make a deal with you: I’ll share with you what I’ve picked up, and maybe you can offer me some tips, too. Yay, teamwork! Continue reading ‘Getting to Know Villains’

What Kind of Name is Regina George?

fanpop.com

fanpop.com

I was thinking about doing a blog post on naming characters, and in said post, I was going to discuss how important it is to choose suitable character names that don’t date the writer. Like, for example, if you’re writing a contemporary teen fiction, you probably don’t want to have characters named Debbie, Cindy, or Judy, because when is the last time you met a girl in this generation with one of those names? They’ve just fallen out of fashion. I started teaching in the early 90s, and of all the students I’ve ever taught (and as Billy Collins pointed out in one of his poems I love, there have been enough to populate a small town), I don’t recall ever teaching a Debbie, Cindy, or Judy.  (Lots of Madisons, Taylors, Jordans, and Morgans, though.)

But when I started thinking of this blog post, it occurred to me that one of the most successful teen girl movies ever has an anachronistic main character name: Regina George in Mean Girls. Regina? Really? Does she hang around with Deloris and Betty? Teen girls today just aren’t typically Reginas. So why Regina when that name is so dated? Continue reading ‘What Kind of Name is Regina George?’

To Be or Not to Be…Groovy?

groovy_wordart

I love young people. I love how their future stretches out before them, waiting for choices to be made and adventures to be had. I love their fresh way of looking at the world. I love how, whether they are conscious of it or not, they’re trying on new personas like clothes, trying to find the right fit, until something suits them and just works. And I love how their language parallels all of this–how their use of words evolves and grows and adapts in a ceaseless process of fitting into the fluidity of their lives.

As writers for a young audience, dare we try to keep pace? Continue reading ‘To Be or Not to Be…Groovy?’

Are You Thankful for Rejections?

www.simonwchan.com

www.simonwchan.com

Maybe it’s because the holiday season is winding down, but all the goodwill and gratitude of the past couple of months got me thinking how thankful I am for good rejections.

Sounds crazy, I know. Writers don’t want to be rejected. We want to be told our work is brilliant and breathtaking. But sometimes, it’s just not. And I really appreciate editors who will tell me so.

If you’re a writer and you’re depressed about rejections, I urge you to take another look at them with appreciation. Think of it this way:

Editors don’t owe you anything. Granted, if your agent is well-connected and/or someone they like, editors will try to be diplomatic when saying no to your work. But the fact is, anything you get beyond a polite “thanks for the opportunity to review this manuscript; however…” is a gift. Editors are not obligated to explain WHY your manuscript didn’t work for them. They’re just not. Period. But the awesome thing about some of these editors is that THEY MAY DO IT ANYWAY.

I recently got a long, thoughtful rejection from an editor at a highly prestigious publishing house. He went into great detail about what wasn’t working in my manuscript. I felt humbled that he took the time not only to give my work such a careful read, but also to offer such helpful feedback. One of his suggestions was so good–so why-didn’t-I-think-of-that?-of-course-that’s-the-way-to-go!–that I implemented it immediately. He didn’t have to help me out like that, but I’m grateful that he did.

That’s what I love about writing: there’s always so much more to learn. And I’m thankful for editors who don’t have to teach me but do it anyway.

 

 

 

 

What’s Your Point of View?

QUOTE_point_of_view-e1377542278617

writerlycommunity.azurewebsites.net

I had this amazing English teacher in high school. Her name was Dorothy Ward. I wish I knew where she is now so that I could call her up and tell her she was awesome. Anyway, Mrs. Ward once gave us an assignment to retell the story of Rip Van Winkle  from his wife’s perspective. Maybe she wouldn’t have nagged him all the time if he’d quit sleeping all day while she did all the work…maybe Rip was just a lazy bum…maybe Mrs. Van Winkle had gotten a bad rap all these years. This assignment–with just about any story–is a fun and highly instructive exercise for writing classes, and I highly recommend it to teachers who want to get across the importance of point of view in a cool way.

For fiction writers, point of view is a little more tricky. Not only do you have to decide who will be your POV character, you also have to decide whether you’re going to tell the story in first or third person, or just have an omniscient third-person narrator. (I’d say it’s probably a good idea not to attempt second person unless you’re writing one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books, which, btw, I loved as a kid…but I digress.)

So, how do you know when to use which method? The answer is…I don’t really know. That’s the funny thing about writing–it’s an art, not a science. Sometimes you just have to try something and see if it works and if it doesn’t, go back and try something else. Not the most expedient of methods, but there you are. I can, however, offer a few things to think about when deciding whether to go with first or third. I wish I could remember where I picked up these nuggets of advice, but I’ve been tucking these hints away for so many years now that I’ve lost track. In any case, here they are…. Continue reading ‘What’s Your Point of View?’

What Writers Have in Common with Mick Jagger

www.mirror.co.uk

www.mirror.co.uk

No, it’s not the moves. It’s not the legions of screaming fans (well, unless maybe your name is JK or Suzanne or Stephen). It’s this: much like Mick, writers cain’t get no satisfaction. How do I know? ‘Cause I’ve tried…and I’ve triiiiied.

Many years ago, I saw my name in print on a byline for the first time. It was a regional magazine, and they paid me a whole $35.00 for an essay I wrote. I was thrilled. I even made a color copy of the check so I could keep it forever. It’s…somewhere.

After that, I started wondering if I could get a byline in a national magazine. Then I’ll really be a writer, I thought. So I did. And it was an awesome feeling. For a little while.

Then, I thought, if I could just get my own column…now that would be something. So I did, and I was beyond thrilled. But then I thought…if I could just publish a novel….

Then I thought, what if I could get a fiction series? And one day I asked myself, Woman, are you ever going to be satisfied?! And the answer was no.

I wondered if I just suffered from a personality problem. Maybe I was just a malcontent. So I asked other writers if they felt the same way. And guess what? They do. Here are the results of my informal poll…the thoughts of a highly eclectic group of successful writers I know who chimed in on the subject: Continue reading ‘What Writers Have in Common with Mick Jagger’

Rejection Doesn’t Mean You Stink

imagesI’ve been writing for so long now that I really and truly don’t take rejections personally anymore. When I first started out, I thought the sting of having my work dismissed would stick with me for eternity, but now, I often can’t even remember what a particular editor liked or didn’t like about a novel my agent submitted or a magazine story I pitched.  (OK, I’m more likely to remember what they DID like–a girl’s gotta live on something!)  Point is, rejection is part of being a professional writer. If you can’t learn how to handle it, you’re in the wrong business. So buck up, Nancy! This is no time for a pity party! And to make you feel better, let me give you a few common reasons editors reject books…reasons that have nothing to do with your being a horrible, no-talent, wannabe writer: Continue reading ‘Rejection Doesn’t Mean You Stink’

Agents: The WD-40 of Publishing

as

Don’t you just want to start a publishing biz so you can buy a book from her?

More and more people are self publishing these days, and the book printing available to them is so nice that most folks can’t tell a traditionally published book from a self-published one. Recently, a traditionally published author friend was telling me that she can’t wait for one of her titles to go out of print so she can turn around and self publish it. Much of the stigma of what was once known as the “vanity press” has vanished in this century. Because of this, some argue that today’s writer has no need of a literary agent because all they do is sell your book to a traditional publishing house; therefore, the literary agent is a dinosaur in this new day and age. Allow me to disagree. Agents do much more than sell books–they’re pretty much the publishing industry equivalent of WD-40. Continue reading ‘Agents: The WD-40 of Publishing’

The Age of Omniscience

shake

Threes_Company_full_cast_1977

Not pictured: Don Knotts as Mr. Furley…while we’re on the subject of comedy geniuses.

What do all those wonderful comedies of Shakespeare have in common with late 70s/early 80s TV sitcom Three’s Company?  I mean, besides the fact that they’re both awesome?  (Don’t get me started on what a comedy genius John Ritter was.)

Both thrived on confusion.

And I make this point because for writers in this present age, it’s almost impossible to build a story around confusion.  At least, that’s been my experience.

Confusion can make for great fun.  Like when you don’t know that the dude you just met in the woods is actually your girlfriend in disguise.  Or when you overhear Chrissy and Jack in the kitchen and assume that Chrissy is talking to Jack when she says, “I want to kiss every inch of you,” only to burst in and find that she’s cooing these words to a little puppy.

It used to be that writers could rely on a character’s being in the dark about something in order to move the plot forward.  Nowadays, not so much.  Where is So-n-So?  Why didn’t he show up?  Let’s text him and find out.  Who is this stranger I met at the cafe?  IDK; let’s do a Google search or stalk him on Facebook until we know everything about him.  My mom is going to kill me for blowing curfew, but I can’t get to a phone to tell her the car broke down.  Oh, wait, we all have cells in our pockets.  (Thank goodness there are dead zones when a writer needs them.)

It’s hard to convince readers that characters in this present age don’t immediately know everything because we have the means to immediately know almost everything.  We have zero patience for not knowing every bit of minutiae the second we want to know it.  Find yourself having a sudden flashback to a 1970s Saturday morning PSA cautioning children about the excessive use of condiments?  No worries…you can locate it on YouTube in a matter of seconds.

In a sense, this is the age of omniscience.  We know everything.  Most of it isn’t worth knowing, but we can still know it in an instant.  Certainly this doesn’t make us wise (Whew! We can still fall back on our characters making bad decisions!), but it makes us know-it-alls.  And so it can be challenging as a writer to get your characters into interesting predicaments.

We have to search for new ways to create dramatic situations in spite of this.  It requires some ingenuity.  Case in point, Lindsey Leavitt‘s Going Vintage, in which she uses modern technology to create the story problem and then removes it from the equation to see what happens. What a fun premise!  Shakespeare and John Ritter would both, I’m sure, approve.