Archive | Writing RSS feed for this section

IF SITTING IS THE NEW SMOKING … (4 things to do about it)

May 17, 2013 by Chila Woychik 5 Comments

… most writers are likely 3-pack-a-day-ers.  And that’s not good.

But instead of providing you with facts and figures you’ve probably already heard many times over, let’s talk about what I do to combat this trend, and then get your input about what you might do differently.

First of all, some could say I have a leg-up by living in the country, but I’m not sure that’s the case.  When we lived in the Milwaukee area for 17 years, it was in a suburb, and the only options I had were yard work, walking, etc., like most city-dwellers. At one place, I terraced our backyard slope, added rocks and flowers and a few veggies, and made a very pretty terraced garden area.  I was usually always the one who liked mowing the yard, so got that chore & did so with a push lawnmower.  I also grabbed a softball and glove or football or badminton racquet whenever anyone would agree to take up the challenge with me. :)  Point: with a little innovation, anyone can be active no matter what their situation or where they live.

But what do I do now, instead of sitting for hours on end at a computer (even though on certain days I do find myself having to sit longer due to the nature of the project I’m engaged in)?

1)  I move my laptop. It usually never stays in the same place for more than a couple of days, if that.  This helps to alleviate boredom and predictability. It helps me realize I’m not stuck in one room at one desk with only one option while working. Of course, unless one has a laptop, this may not be practical.

2)  I move myself.  I don’t stay seated for long periods at a time, if possible.  I do a little work, get up and do other work around the house or yard, then come back later to things I need to do. This takes more discipline than #3, so as often as I can motivate myself, I opt for #3 …

3)  I stand at my computer.  Sometimes I use my treadmill desk, sometimes the ironing board (works wonders!) – sometimes I’ll leave the laptop there all day, with me passing by it numerous times, stopping to do some work, then moving on to do other things. It keeps my sitting at a minimum, though of course it’s harder to get large chunks of work done by doing this.

I also have a computer stand, a HDMI cable that connects to our tv screen, and I occasionally hook the laptop up there and work from the stand.  I actually do this less often because the height of the stand isn’t quite right. I’m tall, and I need something higher, ironing-board height.

4)  I stand while eating. If I have a lot of computer work to do one day,  I usually don’t sit to eat lunch, but stand at the counter for that.  I never watch television/movies during the day, unless I’m sick (rarely), so that eliminates some potential sitting time.  In other words, I don’t look for reasons to sit if I have substantial computer work to do already.

They say that even a longish walk during a day doesn’t make up for lots of sitting, so my goal this year is to try to walk regularly but even moreso to just not sit as long while working.

I also try to eat well, supplement with good quality vitamins/minerals, minimize stress levels.  These are all part of a wholistic approach to better health.

This is a tough area to deal with for those of us who do lots of desk work.  What do you do to combat the negative health risks of too much sitting?  Maybe I can implement a few of those ideas, as well.

~Chila

Writing, Stuff

WHY SHOULD A READER CARE ABOUT YOUR CHARACTERS?

May 10, 2013 by Chila Woychik 4 Comments

We should love everyone, agreed, especially if we claim to hold to some sort of religious belief – love as a reflection of what we believe – but sometimes people are less than interesting, aren’t they?  Some are downright hard to love.  Others, we love to hate, and still others are initially off-putting but then they display a redeeming streak that sets them apart and makes us like them, in an odd, almost twisted way.

For example, in one of my current WIP’s, a very charming scoundrel doesn’t seem like such a bad guy, and maybe he’s not.  Or is he?  Well, more is disclosed as the story progresses, but initially, yes, I kinda like the guy, with reservations.

On the other hand, one of my characters is way too honest, self-depreciating, and infuriatingly sassy … but I like her.  I know. It’s a tough call sometimes, but the fun part of getting to know people, both real and imagined, is being able to discover them, good and bad, and then see how their character plays out in the things they do. Sometimes the best, “goodest,” can turn out to be really nasty in spirit or character or just plain self-righteousness, and sometimes those who seem really nasty can totally surprise and amaze us with their depth, kindness, and self-sacrifice.

What do you think makes a character of yours interesting?

Do you think you’re producing a character an audience will care about in the end?  Without giving specifics, can you hint at how you’re doing that?

~Chila

PYP, Writing

12 QUESTIONS I ASK MYSELF WHEN MAKING A FINAL DECISION ON A MANUSCRIPT

May 1, 2013 by Chila Woychik 5 Comments

I ask myself these questions, in no particular order, and without access to this written list – when making a final decision on a manuscript.  It’s an intuitive thing, and though intuition is subjective, when combined with knowledge it becomes very powerful.

My unwritten list, now written:

1. Does it read smoothly page after page?

2. Do I enjoy reading it?

3. Is it taking me somewhere I want to go?

4. Can I closely relate to at least one character, care about him or her, what happens to him or her? (This is essential to keep pushing me forward.)

5. Is the writing clean and tight, intelligent and versatile?  In other words, has the author developed a believable and beautiful writing style infused with variety and mastered-technique?

6. Is there a noticeable lack of redundancies in language, excessive dialog tags, cliches, boring bits?  ”Redundancies” can include anything from over-much swearing, abundance of filter words, etc.

7. Does the writing sparkle and move me along swiftly?

8. Does the story make sense and keep me captivated?

9. Am I excited about the next time I can pick up the manuscript, regardless of whether I know the author’s other works or not? Does it stand alone as a book I want to read, rather than an obligation to read a friend’s or favorite author’s work?

10. Can I think of at least one potential mainstream contest this story could win?

11. Can I heartily recommend this story to the most discriminating readers I know?

12. And just as important, is this story devoid of religious, political, or social-agenda plugs, instead crossing over into universal truths transcending the particulars that would otherwise divide reader from reader?

My list.  Feel free to share yours!

~Chila

PYP, Writing

UNIQUE AUTHOR, UNIQUE WRITING – 4 Things A Writer Must Do or Be To Become Immortal

April 22, 2013 by Chila Woychik 6 Comments

The noise, the voices, the insistence to conform has never been greater.  It’s everywhere.  But conformity does not a thinker make, and it takes a thinker to be a writer who stands out.

A couple thoughts:

BE YOU, not somebody else.

As someone said, “Be yourself; no one is better qualified.”  But then someone else added this, “‘Just be yourself’ is about the worst advice you can give some people.” The assumption here is that if you tell the simpleminded “just be yourself,” they’ll not want to improve, grow, learn.  But I’m assuming no one like that is reading this post …

BE YOURSELF – this is the ability to stay utterly objective in the face of peer pressure, other-author suggestions, writing or critique group models for how to write, general societal writing norms regarding what writers should do or be or how often they should interact with the public, and so forth.  It’s the hard-won discipline of being able to pull away from the media noise, and be who you are, write who you are, regardless of the shouts to do otherwise, often from those closest to us.

Don’t be afraid of being labelled an eccentric, unconventional, or even a “tall poppy,” a term a friend once introduced to me:  ”a pejorative term primarily used in the UK, Canada, New Zealand and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticised because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.”  If your views are outspoken and different enough, you’ll even be labelled a troublemaker (not to say some people aren’t – let’s talk sometime about what constitutes a genuine troublemaker).  In short, don’t give up your pursuit of individualism and artistic noblesse for any amount of name-calling.  BE YOURSELF.

LET THE SILENCE BE DEAFENING.  Not all noise is good noise.

Between Facebook and blog posts and news and movies and work and …well, it’s not only hard but nearly impossible to force time for reflection, and that quiet is so necessary for a creative to gather, understand, and unravel their thoughts for the page or canvas, poem, song, piece of artwork.

If you can’t hear the birds outside your window in the still moments of the day, it’s time to push off the intrusions … and sit.  Listen.  Let the thumpings of your heart and a soft-pink sky above bring you back to why you write.  Love the stillness.

BE A LEARNER  of truth.

Hold opinions only lightly.  Seek “experts” only as much as “experts” are experts.   Everyone nowadays claims some expertise, especially in the writing world, but few truly are.  ”I’m a good editor; you can trust me.”  ”Do your thing with your book my way and it’s sure to succeed.” And having 20 books published tells me only that someone is prolific and their work is marketable – it doesn’t say to me expert.  Or worse, lasting.  Truth isn’t subjective, but the way we interpret truth often is.

Should I learn the craft of writing?  Of course.  Should I listen to others? Of course.  But DON’T let it stop there or take everything you hear as gospel truth without filtering it through your own salesmanship-meter.  Let’s not be naive.  Some people are selling something, whether opinions, agendas, methods, their books, whatever – and some are very good at selling.  Learn to tell the difference.  And learn your own heart well. Sometimes what we need is a far sight different from what others are offering.  Be a learner, though not necessarily a follower.

PRINCIPLES always trump SPECIFICS.

This is the “rules vs guidelines” concept, though the two shouldn’t have to be at odds with each other.  It’s the “know the rules backward and forward so you can know when to break the rules” idiom.

Knowing the principles of certain aspects of life, or communication, or writing prepares one far better than any amount of specifics will ever do.

Specifics are essential.  Higher education can be a tremendous benefit, and I recommend it to everyone.  Reading, classes, continuing education – all important for any number of applications.  But even those with little education can learn the principles of good storytelling, while sometimes those with a Ph.D. in Creative Writing may not be able to pen something altogether convincing.  It’s deeper than all that, isn’t it?

IN CLOSING – Why do I often give writing inspiration rather than writing specifics?

Because so much is subjective in the writing world, in life in general. I’ve learned it the hard way, after years of writing like I thought others wanted me to write, or moreso, what they wanted me to write, and I nearly lost my writing soul in the process.  The same in living: I’ve too often checked my brain at the door, whether it be in a group, in a religious service, while listening to advice.  Lose your individuality, your own ability to think for yourself and be who you are, and lose your soul.

When I edit a book, I ask myself, “Am I enjoying this book?  Would I read this book if someone gave it to me?  Where would I stop reading – 3 lines in, 3 chapters in, at the end?”  The intuitive nature of what makes a good book, what reads well, falls under the stream of “writing inspiration,” I think.  And though I do engage standard editing tactics, more often I trust my own taste.  It has served me well thus far.

What do geniuses, savants, and writers of immortal stories – stories that have stood the test of time – have in common?  They don’t mind being themselves, and they do what it takes to make them happy in that assertion.

Writing
,

5 WAYS TO SPOT EVANGELICAL WRITING (And What to Do About It)

April 17, 2013 by Chila Woychik 8 Comments

Over the past nearly 4 years, I’ve received hundreds of equeries, chapters, and manuscripts.  I’ve read ’til my one good eye felt like this – a staring and patched mass of strained retinal tissue:

The All-Seeing Eye of Chila

And my head felt like this – BANG BANG BANG:

When I get one of /those/ mss ...

I’ve read and liked, read and disliked, read and pondered, read and puked, and read and laughed so hard my stomach hurt.  I can’t imagine how fun it must be to be an editor for a much larger press, but then, maybe the stress would get to me and I’d hate my job.  That would be unfortunate indeed because I love my job!

I’ve always seen myself as an educator of sorts, and this time with high hopes that the evangelical community especially will shake the fog from their mental machinations to become what they should:  accurate portrayers of excellence, especially if they claim to follow THE God. Toward that goal, I offer the following observations. These are based on a pattern that’s come down the pike during these past 4 years:  a wave that comes over me when I click on that manuscript attachment and feast my eyes on those first few words.  Did you know that by the third or fourth line of a new submission, this wave turns into a knowing?  It says to me, I’ve walked this way before.  Basically, I know this book was written by an evangelical. Or not.

But this isn’t a rant, per se, so instead of talking only about why most evangelical manuscripts don’t soar, let’s consider how to improve the average evangelical-written piece. Strap in.

1)  Writing must be strong in voice, and clear and unmuddled in presentation.  It should be unforced in its structure and idea-formation.  In the evangelical writing I’ve seen – both in manuscripts that have come in to Port Yonder Press and books by evangelicals on the NYT bestsellers list – nearly all have been deficient in this regard.  I’m not sure how to describe it other than to say they:

  • lack in substantial ideas beyond the overused basics
  • have a forced-feel to the writing style (i.e., lacking in natural thought flow)
  • are cut-off from honest observations of the human condition
  • and as a result of the above, are deficient in that élan vital that marks a fine piece of writing. Instead, they too often come across as mass market paperback pieces of juvenilia.

I do understand that the evangelical community has, for all practical purposes, shut itself off from the rest of the larger writing community, and this, in my opinion, results from fear of contamination, but that’s for another day. But what this does is produce ingrown writers and writing styles, and it certainly doesn’t foster greatness.  And as long as this trend continues, the evangelical community at large will churn out second-class writers, no matter how many large and small Christian publishing houses crop up and how many imprints continue to suck in writers of that persuasion.  A positive “testimony,” right?

TIP:  read and learn from the very best, regardless of their religious persuasion.  Writers simply must read those better than themselves, and unfortunately, very little “evangelical” writing is “the best,” regardless of the award contests they birth and propagate within their small communities.

2) Imperfect people – this is who we are.  But I’m talking about more than just penning “realistic characters.” There’s an undefined humanity that gets left off the page because, I think, evangelicals have too often shed that “undefined humanity” themselves, replacing it with a blindered and cloistered spiritualism that aches to be untouched by the larger world around us, and which, by the way, God never requires.  But it comes off merely as isolationist, and produces a reserved-for-heaven mentality (i.e., unrealistic), while still living in this very unheavenly world. The cognitive dissonance of such comes blasting through, though, on the written page, in the lives of church-going people, in the lives of the innocent children who see the glaring inconsistencies.  Is it any wonder the evangelical church is losing its youth?

It’s hard to have characters do and think in ways we don’t, isn’t it? ONE SIMPLE TIP:  don’t have your characters engage in spiritual “ponder-fests” where instead of acting on external stimuli in believable ways, they run through a litany of mental Scriptural admonitions and then, and only then, decide on a course of action. Let them use common sense and act like real people.  Again, this doesn’t have to mean they lash out or swear or whatever, but they shouldn’t always do the perfect thing, either. They aren’t perfect, or shouldn’t be.  Give us unexpected, but totally believable, people-responses.

3) Reviewable by the masses.  (This may be the most important of all, at least initially.)  Your writing will need to garner positive attention from those who don’t know you, those outside your social and religious affiliations. Insider, friend, companion reviews are not an accurate measure of book quality, yet this activity is especially prevalent in the evangelical community.

TIP:  Do you want your writing to be truly recognized as something worthwhile?  Then write it with the view of reaching more than the 5000 people who read the evangelical books the CBA puts out; think BIGGER.  And get it reviewed by ForeWord, Publisher’s Weekly, Midwest Book Review, and others.  They won’t pull punches, and you’ll discover just how good, or bad, you really are.

4) Universal in themes and scope.  I love the fact that the world contains more than good and evil, black and white.  Our lives are complex and multi-faceted. Further, I love America, our opportunities and vast expanses of beauty, but I also realize we’re only a small part of the larger world.  My Christianity is based on concepts and ideas I’ve explored, discovered, then embraced. But it doesn’t roboticize me. I’m still a living breathing person with a God-given mind, and my guess is that he expects me to use it, whether I live here or in another land far from our own. Universality is just that:  it’s themes and understandable concepts which are easily accessible by anyone – it’s having a story than reaches across political and societal and religious boundaries to speak to the heart of the person in concepts they readily grasp, and without distracting via authorial intrusion (pushing a belief, etc.). This doesn’t mean you can’t have characters of belief, but their beliefs should be subservient to the story-at-large.

TIP:  Focus on universal themes and real locations outside the little land we call home.

5) Fiction that is fiction.  A story should be something that comes to a writer from deep within their imagination, formed likely by life experiences and perceptions, but always springboarding off the wonder that takes the reader to different times and places with new people who have their own personalities like the real live people we know and care about.

Characters and storylines based on an author’s desire to get their own beliefs accepted by the reader is an insult to that reader’s intelligence, not to mention an invasive tactic comparable to a religious cult or political group soliciting donations, but revealing their affiliation only after the donation has been dropped into the little yellow can.

TIP:  Remember that a story is a story is a story – it’s not an agenda, a gospel tract, a moral, a message, a lesson, a way to reach, etc. – and believable writing revolves around great storytelling.

In the days ahead I hope to provide further solid thoughts on this, why evangelicals are usually at the bottom of the heap, writing-wise, and how they can change that.

Publishers, readers, and even Mickey, will do handstands when they begin to get books by Christians that are seriously able to compete in the marketplace, in writing style, in ideas, in universal appeal, in power and observably credible plots and characters.  I’m doing a handstand already – just thinking of the possibilities!

Mickey is happy!

This post has been about my observations on evangelical writing, but I’m sure you’ve come across some of the same things. What have you seen, and what do you think will help evangelical writing in the long run?  What will eventually change the tide, and can it be changed or is it too late for that? Is American Evangelicalism’s reactionary attitudes toward change too deeply ingrained, in individuals, in the movement as a whole?

As always, keep your comments kind and civil or they’ll be deleted.  Looking forward to your thoughts!

~Chila

Writing
,

OH YE HYPOCRITES WHO NOW DECRY THE MEDIOCRITY OF CHRISTIAN FICTION (“What Chila Said Way Back When”)

April 4, 2013 by Chila Woychik 13 Comments

Yep, you know them. You’ve read their nasty comments on either Facebook or their own blogs.  Those. Them.  The ones who “unfriended” and “disassociated” and griped and complained about me calling evangelicals to task about shoddy, unrealistic, wordy, weak fiction passing as some kind of God-material … and I did so years ago – 2.  3.

Remember the BIG BROUHAHA after this post?

Remember the nasty comments I refused to approve, but did see fit to add this post full of positive emails rec’d?

Remember the nastier comments that went around a certain largish writing group email “loop” (Christian, no less) because of my refusal to allow their nastiness through?  It wasn’t just disagreement, mind you, they were rude, attacking, vitriolic replies – as I mentioned somewhere else – as if I were the heretic bringing down the entire world of Christian evangelicalism on my belief that /most/ Christian fiction is Just. Plain. Lame.  And I still believe that.  But the questions surrounding this scenario still remain:  is that all it takes to bring your beliefs crashing down around your head – to be told you may not be God’s greatest gift to the writing world, he may not be guiding your hand and mind, & you may not even be “witnessing” to the degree you think you are?  I mean, Christians “witnessing” to other Christians?  Okay.  What am I missing?  I’m not talking “encouraging” here, but “witnessing.”  Isn’t “witnessing” something we do to those we hope to persuade to turn toward God, have some kind of “conversion” experience?

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t see something somewhere now (from those who used to diss me for my strong stand on this subject) about how evangelicals need to improve their writing, how they need to read mainstream books – read widely, how they need to go out beyond their little circles and actually get involved in the bigger real world out there, how editors need to push and push and push for excellence.

I could have told them that years ago.  Wait.  I did.

And now they march blithely around, their noses turned high, their head up their … no, I won’t say that – spouting off like they’d just taken the course, “What Chila Said Way Back When.”

Some will say I should just be glad they’re finally “getting it.”  No, I’m mad as hell.  Not one, and I mean NOT ONE, has come back and said, “you were right all along, and please forgive me for being such an ass and not seeing it sooner.  Moveover, I’m sorry for causing you the grief I did in the meantime.”

But no. That would involve true Christian humility.  (And … oh, God! She used the word hell up there.  Disregard my responsibilities because, because, she used the word hell …)  

Now I’ve seen it all, and I’m still fed up with it,

~Chila

PYP, Writing
,

SEEKING AMAZON BOOK REVIEWS? DON’T ASK YOUR FRIENDS (5 Suggestions of What *to* Do)

March 28, 2013 by Chila Woychik 3 Comments

Beside the fact that Amazon is cutting down on “friend-reviews,” why not?  (See the NYT’s article:  Giving Mom’s Book Five Stars? Amazon May Cull Your Review)

Why shouldn’t we ask our friends to post their positive reviews of our books?   I did. I asked a few close writing buds if they’d be willing to leave their comments there – after all, they gave me glowing reports via email, so why not share those reports with the world?

Consider two questions posed in the aforementioned article:

  • Does a groundswell of raves for a new book mean anything if the author is soliciting the comments?
  • Is a review merely a gesture of enthusiasm or should it be held to a higher standard?

And these comments:

  • In some cases, the ax fell on those with a direct relationship with the author.
  • In explaining its purge of reviews, Amazon has told some writers that “we do not allow reviews on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product or a directly competing product. This includes authors.”

One fellow put it this way: “There are so many fake reviews that I’m often better off just walking into a physical store and picking an item off the shelf at random.”

BOOM.  But then, I’m generally only leery about books from small presses, because when a book has hit it big and has hundreds of reviews, I’ll start at the bottom (1 star) and work my way up.  That way, I get what I feel is a representative pulse of that book.  With smaller press books & self-pubbed books, the investment has generally been small, the “circle of friends” is usually smallish, and I tend to see the same names reviewing the same author’s or press’s books over and over again.

To illustrate my point, I recently read Amazon reviews of a number of both small and larger Christian press books & authors, and know what I found?  I found groups of reviewers saying just about the same thing, giving 4 or 5 stars, and many of the reviewers seemed to float between other Christian books by the same author or publisher.  Do mainstream small presses do the same?  Could be.  But either way, I know for a fact that the evangelical community is very closely knit. Soliciting “enthusiastic reviews” instead of knowledgeable, objective critiques, will only add to Evangelicalism’s reputation for lack of true objectivity where writing is concerned.  Is this the image we really want to portray?

To further illustrate, my own little book of lyric essays and poems mentioned above – the one I sent to betas – I also sent to Midwest Book Review.  I know absolutely no one at Midwest Book Review.  Strong writing affirmation came when MBR’s managing editor not only gave me 5 stars but chose my book as December 2011′s Reviewer’s Choice Book of the Month.  Now, I dearly appreciate the kind words from friends, and most of my friends I believe to be rather objective, but MBR’s recognition surpassed all of those put together.  They loved my book!

Another thing I often do is pass over the rather bland “I really liked this” type of no-brainer reviews and seek out those which go into specific details about character and plot, pacing and emotion.  This tells me at least 2 things: the reviewer has 1) probably read the book pretty carefully, and 2) has come to some kind of conclusion about why he either likes or doesn’t like the book, and that conclusion seems to be based on some sort of evidence.

Let’s face it, friends aren’t always objective.  They probably love us, hence the reason we’ve pulled them into our sphere of “friends.” I know they promise they’ll be fair and not give us 5 stars unless we deserve it, but is it realistic to really believe that?

SUGGESTIONS:

1)  If asked, refuse to give anything but an objective review, even to your best friends, and if the review is less than glowing, there’s nothing wrong with showing it to the author first and getting their okay to post it.  You’ll be a better friend in the long run if you help the author grow rather than flatter to please a friend.  Better yet, encourage your friends to seek reviewers / endorsements outside their “safe zone.” [In fact, when I told my beta readers to "give me their thoughts" via email, I also told them I wanted total honesty - and all that before they even posted a single review.  Would I tap into my betas again?  Probably not.  But this is the 2-edged sword:  in small press circles, we often only have a few options.  That's why I've pretty well convinced myself that POD is probably not the best option for a very good book. Readers have to have access to books before they can read and review them.]

2)  Penetrate the larger writing market, if you’re one who tends to stick with a few safe writing buds.  Seek out reviews from those you don’t know, those who don’t “believe” like you believe, those who have strong literary tastes.  How?  Get out and shake the trees, make contacts, offer free ebooks, whatever, to find those who don’t have a stake in you as a friend or your press as a potential means to authorship.

3)  Learn how to review and learn from your reviews.  Check out bestselling mainstream books, top Amazon reviewers, NYT book reviews, etc., and see what reviewers look for, how they think, what’s important to mention.  You may find that most of your past book reviews tend more toward friendship-flattery than constructive critique.

4)  If there could be some confusion about religious content, make sure your publisher marks both the book and the Amazon blurb with the words “religious content” or “Christian content.”   I usually go one step further and mention whether the content is offhand, mild, moderate, or strong.  And of course, if it contains potentially objectionable material of other sorts such as profanity, violence or adult themes, let’s say so.  Better to get it out in the open than whinge when we find someone has dropped us a star or two for non-disclosure.

5) Make sure your book has been meticulously edited – content, line, proof – before you allow the publisher to bring it to the public.  This usually isn’t a problem for the larger presses, but can be very much an issue with the smaller ones.

Of course, there are always exceptions.  A few of us might have friends who can be both honest and give serious critiques at the same time, but most of the time we’re playing off each other’s pats on the back, and that defeats the purpose of true learning and growing as a writer. Further, it does the book purchaser a great disservice.

So do I really believe our friends shouldn’t review our books? For the most part, yes, with provisos:  if the author doesn’t seek out those friend-reviews, if the reviewer can be sincerely objective, if the reviewer knows how to deconstruct a book for the purpose of constructing a critical (as in, accurate and unbiased) review, then maybe, yes.  If a friend insists on leaving a review, maybe they would also consider using an unrecognizable pseudonym so as not to seem to perpetuate the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” mentality of book reviewing.  Such reviewing is underhanded and does nothing but turn the reader off – they might purchase that book then wish they hadn’t.

Your thoughts about getting or giving honest book reviews?  And I know you’ll follow the guidelines of civil conversation:  be kind, stay on topic, consider what’s already been presented and don’t take words / thoughts out of context, remain objective and factual rather than emotional and combative, be a learner rather than a know-it-all.

Thanks for stopping by!

~Chila

PYP, Writing

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL P.O.D. PRESS OWNERS / EDITORS (10 Suggestions)

March 25, 2013 by Chila Woychik 6 Comments

Greetings!

From one small POD press owner to another, we have  one of the best jobs in the world, don’t we?  We get to read queries from the four corners of the globe, settle on a few great ones, then shine up those pieces of brilliance and push them out into the world, too often to find their own way.  Yes, that’s the downside, isn’t it?  The lackluster marketing we offer.  But at least we’re free agents, and in many ways not nearly as bothered by economic downturns as the larger publishers might be.

But in the meantime, with the proliferation of small POD presses, and more cropping up daily, let’s remember and remind each other of a few things, okay?  My goal isn’t to tell you how to run your own business – I’ve had too many people try to do that to me – but may I offer the following suggestions?  (Do note that there is some overlap in a few of the points.)

1)  Better to contract a stranger with a great manuscript than a friend with a lackluster one, especially if our editing skills are likewise lackluster.

2) Better not to promise an author the moon marketing-wise when we can only honestly assure them of a dimly-lit star in the distance unless they’re committed to working their butt off in the process.

3) Because we don’t put out $5-10,000 for “short runs,” small press distributorship, warehousing, etc., it doesn’t mean we should grab books simply because of the warm fuzzies we get when someone trusts us enough to send us a query.   Intensive scrutiny should be our rule of thumb.  More books rather than fewer better books?  Let’s not go there, please.

4) Learn to tell friends, “I’m sorry, but I just can’t take your book right now.  I can give you a few pointers, but then I’d suggest you talk to XYZ mainstream/accomplished editor and then get back with me in 6 months and I can take another look.”

5) Treat contracts like gold or pieces of chocolate in a world of chocolate-deprived humans.  The more we flood the market with “average” books (carob masquerading as chocolate), the worse reputation “POD” gets, not to mention small presses in general.

6) If you’re a Christian, unless you put out the very best books available on the market, please don’t tell anyone of your religious persuasion, and DON’T advertise it on your website.  Let’s not indict Jesus for our haphazard approaches to publishing.

7)  I know self publishing is huge right now, but it might be better (in most cases) not to suggest self-publishing to friends who can’t find a really good traditional, even POD, publisher.  It’s simply perpetuating the “problem” of probably 90% of all self-published books out there – mediocrity.

As an extension of this:  did you know that some consider POD presses to be “self-publishing presses” because of the ease of getting books to market using this method?  It’s easy, quick, and cheap.  Anyone can get an ISBN, set up a business model, and become a POD press; no great outlay of $$.  So, yes, better to act like a larger press than a self-publisher; let’s gain the excellent reputation we want to be known for.

8) Learn. Grow. Learn. Grow.  Learn. Grow.  I suggest we prod one another to be lifelong learners, readers, writers, and especially editors intent on ratcheting up our own skills so our books will reflect that.  In other words, if we release a book with crappy editing, a crappy cover, whatever, we need to be honest enough with one another to say so, and to ask each other to hold us accountable.  We don’t have to set friendship aside for the sake of honesty.  They can walk hand in hand.  As always, much depends on how we do  it.

9) Just because we like a book, or author, doesn’t necessarily mean we should publish that book or author.  Better to maintain strong impersonal objectivity if we’re serious about doing a good job at our job.

10) Know what a great book sounds like. Be an excellent judge of what a good book is. Read award winners, classics, and those books which are truly a cut above.  Unfortunately, many times this will not include the self-published books of your friends and acquaintances, or, sadly, even the books from other small presses.

Can we do this?  Can we not only walk beside each other on this journey, but can we hold one another to the high standards necessary to make a name for our presses and our books/authors?  It doesn’t have to be an uncomfortable situation.  I see it as a friendly companionship in likemindedness which will benefit not only us, but readers and authors, not to mention the larger body of American literature we leave for our descendants.

~Chila

PYP, Writing
,

ACTUAL EDITING EXAMPLES FROM A CURRENT PROJECT (Sylvia’s Secret)

March 21, 2013 by Chila Woychik 6 Comments

You can’t imagine how excited I get when I receive a manuscript that has great inherent potential.  Such was the case with Sylvia’s Secret.  Maybe that’s because author Scott Evans does this all day long:  teaches creative writing, or maybe it’s because he’s worked his craft for years and now it’s a little more natural to him.

Why is Sylvia’s Secret a favorite manuscript thus far (but then I say that about every single manuscript I edit/publish)?  For one, I adore the person it’s based on, novelist and poet Sylvia Plath.  Next, it addresses important issues like depression, from which Plath suffered.  Additionally, it’s cohesive, it has direction, and most importantly for readers, me included, it depicts the human condition honestly.

So what were some of the editing elements I addressed?  The primary ones are listed below, but I’ve taken the liberty to pare down my notes to what might be most beneficial.

Redundancy. For example, in the first chapter, Scott tried to develop a Plath-like feel in his writing, but his repeated “sets of three” device became distracting.  Here’s what I mean:

Maybe he was keeping his distance, but watching her, stalking her, ready to fly[O1]  into a jealous rage

 [O1]This sort of repetition now begins in earnest, in various forms, for the rest of the chapter.  After chapter one, it is seen seldom if ever again….

…watching her, keeping tabs on her, making sure she didn’t get too close to the truth

By the time Ted appeared, Sylvia was in a rage, furious, vengeful, hateful.

…someone else, someone with a Mein Kempf look, someone who had staged her death.

There were at least a dozen examples of such in that chapter, so we took care of most of them, leaving in those which fit best.

Along the same line, there were redundancies of thought and action. For example:

Joe searched his eyes in the mirror[O1] .

 [O1]See comment below.

Then a couple of paragraphs later:

Joe looked at himself in the mirror …

 [O1]With this one and the one above being so much alike, let’s rework one or the other

There were several (4 or 5) references to melting snow making the streets or walks slushy and brown.  We reduced those down substantially, especially since an “ugly brown slush” lives on in the memory after one reading, let alone more than that.

Cliches.  Scott didn’t use a lot of them, but several were too obvious and we took care of them handily.  Examples:  ”bile rose in his throat” (use “he felt sick”),  clutching a metal bar “for dear life” (say “tightly”), “spun on his heels” (use “turned”), etc.  A note about cliches:  rarely are they intentional.  If they are, for instance, if a character tends to use them a lot, great. But in narrative they add nothing to the story but the feeling of “I’ve read this before.”

Filter words.  This “problem” was more invasive and took quite a bit of time to rectify.  Filter words in themselves aren’t that noticeable IF used in moderation, but it’s easy to fall back on filter words when to say something better, clearer, would take more time.

Minor discrepancies.   A nurse that seemed to be at the hospital all the time (let’s have her work a double).  A couple of times when a reaction was not strong enough given the situation at hand. A few places where more description needed to be added.  A meal that was ordered and eaten, but never actually “showed up,” etc.  These were easy fixes.

Creating a crossover work from a strongly mainstream work.  Scott’s initial efforts focused on writing a true to life piece of fiction, true in its entirety, and he did a fine job of it.  But then we began asking ourselves, is the literary market the only market we’re targeting?  Or would we like to reach a wider spectrum of readers with such a good story and important message?  We decided on the latter.

Since Sylvia’s Secret contained no graphic sexuality but several strong sexual statements, we looked at each of those and decided which we wanted to remove and which to reword.  Next we worked on language.  We all know the state of the English language today.  Words that were seldom heard several decades ago are now quite commonplace in the media, in books, in general conversation. We slashed and softened, and I emphasized the fact that “bad” language, just like “good” (i.e., “religious”) language comes across best when used sparingly, or, as I like to say it, it becomes “representative” language rather than immersive language.  This is especially true for crossover works.  In other words, a character doesn’t need to either swear or preach two dozen times in a given chapter for the reader to understand that he/she either has a foul mouth or is simply very upset, or is a person of faith.  Representative language keeps us from the drab redundancy of “too much.”  The English language is broad and deep, and relying on the same words or ideas, over and over again, detracts from rather than adds to a book.

I’ll still give this book a strong PG13 rating for language and themes, but it’s a far cry more suitable for a teen now than it was to begin with.  All but the most sheltered teens no doubt often hear the same words they’ll find in Sylvia’s Secret, but they’ll likely hear them far more often from their circle of friends than from this book.

In closing, this fine manuscript didn’t need a lot of top-end work.  More of my time was spent on line edits than anything else, making sure it could be seen “unfiltered,” and was geared toward our intended audience.  The bigger time factor here than even that was trying to work this in the months following last summer’s concussion – I lost fully 4 months of “trying to edit.”

I hope these examples helped in some small way.  Feel free to ask specific questions, if you wish.

Port Yonder Press expects to release this important book in early May, and we hope you consider supporting small presses intent on excellence by purchasing a copy.

~Chila

PYP, Writing
,

STUCK IN YOUR STORY? Try A Reversal …

February 26, 2013 by Chila Woychik 1 Comment

I’m reading through “The Portable MFA in Creative Writing,” a book full of great ideas for several genres.  One such idea for fiction is story reversal.

Sometimes a writer gets stuck in a manuscript, wondering where to turn. A good exercise is to turn around, hang a U-ey, reverse direction. Ask: What did my protagonist believe in the story’s opening? How can I make that exactly the opposite by the end? What did my protagonist value? How can I have her destroy that thing? What are the circumstances of my protagonist? How can I make those exactly the opposite?

Reversal is a plot element that goes all the way back to the beginning. Remember Oedipus searching for the person responsible for the plague and then discovering that it’s himself? In contemporary stories, you’ll find reversals in abundance. At the beginning of Tim O’Brien’s “The Things They Carried,” Lieutenant Jimmy Cross values nothing so much as the letters he’s received from a girl back home; by the end, he burns those letters.  In the beginning of Tom Perrotta’s “You Start to Live,” Buddy sits in the back, Laura Daly drives; by the end, their positions have reversed. In Angela Patrio’s “Sculpture I,” a young woman with a negative self-image moves to a country where she’s compared favorably to Julia Roberts.

If your story is stuck somewhere in the middle, try reversal, and go the other way.  The trick, finally, is to make the reversal less a mechanical thing and more an organic outgrowth of the story, of why the story is being told. But forcing reversals on stalled stories is good practice for when the real thing comes along.

I agree. And how does that jibe with making our story known in the first few lines, like I sometimes suggest? I do believe it’s possible, of course, but it will take forethought and adaptation, I think.  This whole idea can also possibly be referred to as “character growth,” and that could be appropriate to some degree, but the growth will likely occur because of the reversal, rather than a reversal because of growth.

Story reversal? Do you have a story line that might benefit from a story reversal?  Feel free to discuss it here.

~Chila

PYP, Writing
Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,334 other followers

%d bloggers like this: