Continuing Education For Authors

Over the weekend, I submitted a piece for a writing book. I included my thoughts, opinions, and advice on such topics as writers block, pantsing vs. plotting, and editing, as well as on staying educated about this fabulous profession known as making up stories for a living.

Writing, as with any job, requires that authors stay up to date on styles, trends, and technology, and that they constantly work to improve their technique and craft. To compare writing to other professions: Architects don't graduate from college and never take another class, or never invest in industry journals and further education as a means to continue learning. Some professions even require a certain number of classroom hours every so many years for a professional to maintain accreditation or certification. Authors who want to maintain an edge need to continue their education, as well.

How? Writers can attend workshops, conventions, or take creative writing courses. I took two long-term writing courses at the Long Ridge Writers Group, one in writing for short stories, and one for writing novels. These two classes were invaluable as a means of learning what it takes to be a bona fide author. While they focus primarily on what it takes to get in print with a big publishing house vs. how to self-publish, I believe that writers must learn to walk before they run. And walking involves learning the industry and what it takes to get published the traditional way before running off to self-publish. Those who simply say, "I want to write and self-publish a book," but have no basis for what it takes to be traditionally published, miss a huge chunk of knowledge that can make their writing the best it can be. In short, just because writers can self-publish now and circumvent the traditional route doesn't mean they don't need to know how the industry works and how to write. Courses, classes, and workshops help fill that gap.

Another way to maintain a writing edge is to read books on craft. There are books on all facets of writing, including showing vs. telling, how to write a book in a month, how to build a series bible, how to edit, and how NOT to write a novel. Below are some of my favorite books on writing. Go through each and determine which would best suit where you are and what you need to learn right now. A couple of the books at the bottom of the list are stellar and have average ratings that float just under 5 stars on Amazon.

• Self-Editing For Fiction Writers (this is a must-read multiple times, as far as I'm concerned)
• On Writing by Stephen King (THE book all authors should read over and over)
• How To Write a Damn Good Novel II
• The Art of War for Writers
• Write Away (this book is more advanced, but excellent!)
• The Curious Case of the Misplaced Modifier (a quick read that addresses not only misplaced modifiers, but passive voice, weak/vague -ing words, weak verbs, and much more. Excellent book.)
• How Not To Write a Novel
• Showing & Telling
• Writing Tools (I've only skimmed this one, but can't wait to read it. The Contents pages include excellent topics)
• It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences.
• Writing Well (this one is pretty hard to find, but if you can find it, it's worth grabbing. It breaks down writing to its simplest forms. Great book for beginners and professionals alike).
• Write Your Novel In a Month
• The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes
• On Writing Well
• Keys to Great Writing
• Stein on Writing
• Fiction Writer's Workshop
• How to Grow a Novel
• Merriam-Webster's Vocabulary Builder (because every writer should improve their vocabulary)

By no means is this list all-encompassing. I own each of the above books, but own many more that I left off the list. The point is, there are hundreds or even thousands of books on writing craft that you can buy to help you improve your writing. You can spend hours on Amazon going to the additional books they recommend when you pull up a new book to view.

When I read one of these books (or even just a chapter in one of these books), I often come away inspired or with tons of ideas. If you're stuck in your story, try picking up one of these books for a while, and watch the magic happen as your mind starts to come back to life. Soon, you won't be stuck, anymore, and you'll be writing like a pro again.

Happy Writing!

-Donya 

Passive Voice vs. Passive Verbs - There is a Difference

As a writer wanting to learn more about passive vs. active voice, it's pretty disheartening to buy a book that is supposed to address just that, only to find out the book has mistakenly identified weak verbs as passive voice. But that's exactly what's happened. Which set me on a mission to differentiate the following terms from one another:

• Passive voice
• Active voice
• Passive verbs
• Active verbs

First, let's clarify what passive voice is. Passive voice occurs when you shake up the subject-verb-object order of a sentence—the acted-upon is in the actor position, and the actor is in the acted-up position (if the actor is mentioned at all). [quoted from The Book on Writing by Paula LaRocque.] Examples:

Active voice: The boy hit the ball. (subject-verb-object)

Passive voice: The ball was hit by the boy. (object-verb-subject)

Passive voice: The ball was hit. (object-verb. No subject.)

Okay, pretty simple, right? Here's where the passive/weak line blurs. See that "be" verb, "was"? You might have learned "be" verbs as "linking verbs" in school: am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been. These verbs are also known as passive verbs. Oh holy hell, right? Now we've got passive voice and passive verbs. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Many writers think that any time a passive verb is used, passive voice automatically results and should be rewritten into active voice. They have mistakenly been taught this concept, and they have mistakenly continued to teach it to others (me included), until massive amounts of writers now wrap themselves around trees in order to eliminate the word, "was" because they think it's passive voice, when all it really is is weak writing.

So, let's call passive verbs weak verbs and active verbs strong verbs. If you do that, you won't be as likely to confuse passive voice with simple weak verb usage. Here's the new and improved list of terms:

• Passive voice
• Active voice
• Weak verbs
• Strong verbs

Much better,right? Okay...onward we go.

Eliminating all "be" verbs is not only impossible, but silly. As I just pointed out, "be" verbs aren't always passive. Most of the time, they are just weak. And more often than you might think, weak verbs are acceptable, because sometimes you don't need a stronger verb. Sometimes you simply need to write, "I was sick," not "I succumbed to the flu," which would come off as too formal, depending on context. Let's look at some examples of active voice that is weak vs. active voice that is strong. Note the italics, which point out the weak or strong construction. Again, all the below sentences are written in active voice, despite the "be" verbs.

Active but weak: Micah was fit to be tied after being accused.

Active but strong: Micah fumed at the accusations.

Active but weak: Trace was ready to be flogged.

Active but strong: Trace sank to his knees, head bowed. The hair on his arms prickled, and he licked his lips. Any second, the strike of leather on his back would relieve the ache in his chest.

In the examples, weak verbs (not passive voice) were replaced by stronger verbs. The weak sentences were still written in active voice, but they suffered from weak construction. By replacing the weak verbs with strong verbs, we strengthened the sentences while keeping them in active voice.

See the difference between passive voice and weak verbs?

What made me begin to question the concept of passive voice (because I had been taught the incorrect way to identify passive voice and generalized "be" verbs as always passive) was judging entries for my local RWA chapter's annual contest. As I pointed out what I thought was passive voice in some of those entries, I began to question whether I was right. I don't know what it was, but something didn't make sense. So, I began to dig for more details about passive voice, and stumbled upon Paula LaRocque's book, The Book on Writing, where she clearly differentiates between passive voice and weak verb usage. A-ha! That's when I realized I had been taught wrong.

Weak verb usage does not necessarily mean passive voice. This is important to me, because as I continue to judge and critique others' work, I want to make sure I'm providing quality, concise feedback that not only helps but teaches. And I can't do that if I'm not using proper terminology. There is a difference between telling someone their writing is passive vs. weak. A big difference. And while "be" verbs may not always indicate passive voice, they usually indicate generally weak writing that can be improved with stronger, more precise verbs.

Oh, and don't forget: There is a place for passive voice and weaker verbs. You can't completely eliminate both, and you shouldn't. But you should certainly watch out for both and eliminate them when you can, and when it's appropriate.

Happy Writing

Passive vs. Active Voice - The Most Effective Tip I've Ever Read

If you're a writer, you've likely heard over and over that passive voice is detrimental. You want to write actively, not passively. But what if you don't know what passive voice is from a hole in the wall?

I read a lot of writing books so I can hone my skills. The latest book is The Curious Case of the Misplaced Modifier - How to Solve the Mysteries of Weak Writing, by Bonnie Trenga.

The first lesson in the book was about detecting and correcting passive voice, and this was probably the best example of attacking passive voice I've ever seen anywhere. Let's break it down:

There are three clues you've used passive voice:

1. You've used a form of the verb to be (am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been).
2. You've used a past participle (the past tense of a verb: washed, stolen, ripped).
3. You've used the word by.

That last one is a dead giveaway in my opinion, and I'd never heard that the word by was a passive identifier. At any rate, let's continue with the lesson.

NOTE: the word had was not specifically called out as a dead giveaway for passive voice. Some people have tried to teach this to be the case, and preach about eliminating all occurrences of the word had from your manuscripts. I have a friend who was told to do this, and God love her, she was in fits over it. You can't eliminate the word had 100% of the time. I've tried. But as a writer who uses past tense as the present (Micah looked at Sam with love in his eyes. He welcomed her into his world, ready to be her mate and a father to her children until the end of time.), when I need to dig my characters further into the past, the only way I can do that is with the word had (Micah had welcomed Sam into his world six months ago, and now she was his forever.). To eliminate had altogether would confuse readers as to what time period I'm referring to, present or past. Sometimes had must be included. It is not automatically passive. An example of had as passive: A good time was had by everyone. Active: Everyone had a good time. See, had is in both sentences, but one is passive and one is not. The active sentence may not be the most interesting sentence, but it is active.

Back to English 101, an active sentence is one in which the subject performs the action and the object receives it:

The cat attacked the dog.

Subject: cat

Action: attacked

Object: dog

If you turn the object of this sentence into the subject, you create passive voice:

The dog was attacked by the cat.

Ouila! Instant passive voice. Do you see all our clues in that sentence? We have a form of the verb to be (was), a past participle (attacked), and the word by. In this sentence, you have taken the action away from the perpetrator and loaded it onto the recipient.

In school, I remember lessons in English class where we were taught to invert our sentences to make them more interesting. Obviously, these lessons weren't directed toward clear and concise writing, because with just this one quick lesson in Ms. Trenga's book, I learned that inverting a sentence to put the object first is a big no-no in the writing world. This is the most effective tip I've ever read about identifying and correcting passive voice.

Here's another passive sample:

The football was kicked by the punter.

How could you make that passive sentence active? Let's flip it around and attribute the action to the subject:

The punter kicked the football.

Sometimes a passive sentence will contain all three of our passive elements, but sometimes not. The only element that will always appear in a passive voice is the past participle. Let's look at a few more examples.

Passive: The radio was turned on to drown out Tom's snoring.

Here, the word by is missing, but this is still a passive sentence. Additionally, a subject is missing, which is one of the bad side effects of passive voice: it allows you to eliminate the subject. We don't know who turned the radio on here, do we? The radio sure didn't turn itself on, right? This makes the sentence unclear and vague, as well as passive, and writers should always strive for clear writing, so by eliminating passive voice, clarity will naturally follow. 

Active: Kimberly turned on the radio to drown out Tom's snoring.

Here's another example from the book, and this gets a bit trickier:

Passive: Driven to the crime scene, the psychic led police to a viable suspect.

We don't have the word by or a form of the verb to be, but this sentence is still passive. Furthermore, it is extremely vague. This sentence could confuse readers. Did the police drive the psychic to the crime scene, or did a vision lead her there? Making the sentence active clarifies this.

Active: After a dream drove the psychic to the crime scene, she helped police identify a viable suspect.

Why You Should Avoid Passive Voice

Besides the ambiguity it creates, there are three other reasons for eliminating passive voice:

1. Passive voice allows you to omit the subject (thus contributing to the ambiguity)
2. Passive voice forces you to use lots of weak verbs (was and were, etc.)
3. Passive voice is wordy.

Here's a sample to illustrate all three points:

Someone who looked like the suspect was rounded up, but he was released after his alibi was checked out.

(no subject, lots of was verbs, and wordy)

Here's the same sentence, only active:

The authorities rounded up someone who looked like the suspect, but they released him after checking out his alibi.

(we have our subject, authorities; we've eliminated was, and the wordiness has been replaced by clarity and a more visual representation.)

When It's Okay to Use Passive Voice

You can't eliminate all incidents of the verb form to be. I've heard people say that they need to eliminate all occurrences of the word was, but that's impossible. Sometimes you need am, is, are, was, were, be, being, and been. The only time you should strive to eliminate it is when it is creating passive voice in conjunction with a past participle and the word by. Just because you write, What was he going to do? doesn't mean you're automatically passive because you used the word was. This could just be a character's internal dialogue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't become obsessive about eliminated all incidents of a given word just because some text somewhere said it could contribute to passive voice. It could, but that doesn't mean it does 100% of the time.

So, when else is passive voice okay? Well, when you've made a conscious decision to use it for effect:

1. You want to focus on the object, not the subject.

The piles of snow, which had aggravated Florida residents for days, finally melted.

2. You don't care who did what, it's obvious who did it, or you don't know who did it.

The department's new policy states that only candidates with police training will be hired.

3. You intend to omit who did what.

Mistakes were made in the investigation.

In my latest book, Rebel Obsession, I included intentionally passive voice in one of the early chapters because I didn't want to reveal one of my characters, yet. I wanted to keep him in the shadows for a few pages until I was ready to announce him. This is one instance where passive voice is okay to use, because it's being used for a specific purpose.

I hope this helps all you writers out there.

Happy writing!

-D

Make Your Readers Work? Really?

I just read a blog post where one of the commenters stated that his readers needed to work when they read his stories. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that he did his part in writing the story, but that he expected his readers to do their part by working to see what he wrote. Since the original post was about hurrying through the editing process to get to the next story (and thus let editing errors through to the finished product), the implication seemed to be that if this author had misspelled words and poor punctuation/grammar, then so be it. It was the reader's job to figure it out so they could understand the story and see it in their minds.

Ummm...no.

I find this attitude unbelievably appalling. An author should NEVER expect their readers to "work" to understand the story. It is the author's job to work so that the readers don't have to. The author is the one getting paid in this scenario, and as such, the onus is on the author to provide a quality product to meet the reader's expectations. The reader should simply be allowed to sit back, open their mind, and flow through an experience that is free from errors and clearly lays out the story for them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, an author's job is to provide a reading experience to those who spend their hard-earned dollars on his or her books, and the reader's job is to simply have that experience. Errors and poorly written passages impede that experience for a reader.

When I buy a shirt, I don't expect to have to sew on the buttons or attach the sleeves before I can wear it, thus doing some "work" before I can enjoy that which I have purchased. Should my Galaxy S3 have come incomplete without all the necessary programming for me to finish before I used it? When I buy a car, is it my job to air up the tires and put oil in the engine before I drive it? So, why should a reader have to take their proverbial red pen through your manuscript as they read it in order to understand it? Why should they have to trudge through poorly written dialogue and narrative to figure out the story? Why should they have to read a passage multiple times before figuring out who's doing and saying what? Does this author's customers not deserve the best story he can give them? Is it okay to simply rush through the editing process and send out sloppy, poorly written work simply to get to the next story as fast as possible so the author can make more money?

I'll tell you what happens when you make your customers "work": They will take their business elsewhere, and you will get the reputation of a being an unprofessional, selfish (only want the money) writer. Businesses that make their customers work that hard  and sell "lemons" go out of business pretty quickly.

Yes, I'm mad. When I read comments like the one this author made, it pisses me off. If an author is going to be that selfish and lazy, they have no business charging for their books, let alone writing them in the first place.

My suggestion for authors is to never scrimp and never go into writing a book with the attitude that it's the readers' job to work to figure out the story you're telling. If you expect your readers to work that hard, you do not have the right mindset of a true author and should consider hanging up the writing hat until you learn that it's an author's job to do the work, not the reader's. ALL the work.

Happy reading and writing!

-D

New Year's Resolution For All Writers - The Patient Edit

"I will never rush through an edit again. I will give my first draft a month to breathe, then edit it, then another month to breathe, then edit it again, and another month, and another edit. Then a final edit and a proof...unless it needs more edits. And I will be honest with myself and not accept my book as finished until I feel to the bottom of my soul that I can't make it any better. I will also encourage my beta readers to be brutally honest with me and not get upset with them. I will listen objectively to what they have to say and if they don't like something or think it's not working, I will take their critique seriously and look into the issue and make necessary changes to alleviate the problem they pointed out."

I've already made this resolution. I took this vow earlier this year, and I kid you not, once you go through this exercise once, as long as you're editing right and utilizing your critique group correctly (by encouraging them to absolutely shred your manuscript and be blunt-force honest down to the ugly, hard, no-holding-back-for-fear-of-hurting-your-feelings truth), you will NEVER go back to editing in a rush again.

[A word on beta readers: They are there to help you. If you argue with them and don't listen to their critique, they will stop being honest with you and will stop reading for you. They can see things you can't, because you are too close to your manuscript. They have distance, so they can see where the piece falls short better than you can. LISTEN to them, and DISCUSS with them, but do not argue with them. Make them feel a part of the process by trusting their judgment. If you do that, you will win their trust and their loyalty.]

Okay, that's my lecture on how to work with a beta group. :) Back to the resolution and why I am so passionate about encouraging other authors to make it:

Four months ago, I thought my latest AKM novel, Rebel Obsession, was ready. I set it aside for a two months and when I picked it back up to proof it, I was appalled at how flat areas of the story were, and how a few scenes didn't flow smoothly. So I edited it again and set it aside for about a month. In that month, I read a powerful book on Deep POV (I blogged about it). When I re-read Rebel Obsession again during the proof, I was flabbergasted at how passive the story still was. Using the techniques I learned in the book on Deep POV, I put the manuscript through an intensive final edit and shot it to my editor.

Instant success! Night and day difference. It took that fifth or sixth (I lost count) edit to FINALLY bring the story to life.

I am so unbelievably impressed now with how Rebel Obsession turned out. The editing phase on this one lasted over six months and went through so many edits, I lost track. It's not even the same book it was after the first draft was written. Hell, it's not even the same book as it was after the second edit. And I'm damn proud of it. The loose ends have been tied, the awkward areas have been eliminated, the mechanics have been cleaned up, the characters have been honed, etc. The story has come alive, and the characters have with it. And here I thought it was ready two months ago. Ha! Two more rounds of edits proved me wrong, making me a die-hard believer of the "patient edit," as I'm calling it.

So I encourage all writers to be patient and have faith in the editing process. Fully commit to it, and I promise, you'll never edit the old, fast way again. Oh, and never stop educating yourself on good writing. Read every book you can get your hands on pertaining to the crafts of writing and editing.

Best wishes for a Happy New Year!

-D

Go Deep! Deeper! YES! Deep POV Rules in Fiction.

I'm in the final stages of preparing my next manuscript, Rebel Obsession, to be released on January 15th. I've edited, given the book to my beta readers, edited, edited some more, and now I'm proofreading.

So, what's wrong? Nothing really, except that I went and read a new writing book called "Rivet Your Readers With Deep Point of View," by Jill Elizabeth Nelson. Excuse me while I hang my head and plant my palm over my face.

Why, why oh why did I go and read a writing book at this stage of finishing my manuscript? I'll admit that I was researching POV for a series of blog posts I want to write, but don't I know myself well enough by now to know that I'd be so motivated and inspired by the words of wisdom in this book, especially, that I'd want to go back to my manuscript and tear it to pieces as I thought of new and better ways to convey the scenes in the story? Apparently not, because silly me, I read said book, and now I'm in a mad dash to liven up areas of my manuscript using the new arsenal of knowledge this book taught me.

Not that the manuscript was flat. My beta readers loved it, and my editor said that Rebel Obsession is her favorite story in the series so far, but now that my mind has been stretched with this new knowledge of Deep POV, I can see where my story can be even better. Granted, I do have a tendency to write in Deep POV anyway, but this book taught me how I can go even deeper. And in this case, deeper is definitely better.

This small book—a handbook really, at the length of only sixty pages—teaches you all you need to know about this somewhat-elusive POV and writing skill. And, yes, most definitely, writing in Deep POV takes skill. I thought I was doing well before, but even I'm struggling to fully grasp how to change my shallow POV areas to deeper ones.

Okay, so what's the big deal about Deep POV and why should every fiction writer know about it and strive to utilize it in their manuscripts?


Here are the highlights:

By its very nature, Deep POV takes your narrative to "showing" rather than "telling," and as writers we all should know how important showing the story over telling it is.

Deep POV is more respectful of your readers' intelligence than Omniscient POV, where every little thing is explained to the reader from a distance, and which by its nature is "telling" rather than "showing."

Deep POV creates first-person intimacy when writing in the third-person, so hooray hurrah!

"Author intrusion," where the author consciously or unconsciously inserts an invisible narrator between the character and the readers, is removed by use of Deep POV.

What is Deep POV?

As quoted on page 17 of the handbook, this is one way to look at Deep POV: "The narrative should read like the thoughts going through the character's mind but without the need to italicize as in direct thought quotations."

Sounds simple enough, right? That's what I thought. I was wrong. There is an art to writing Deep POV, as I've found, and the skill has to be acquired through lots and lots of practice, as I'm also finding.

Another way to think of Deep POV is that it keeps the story/character/reader firmly rooted in the now. It's great for high action scenes and for taking a trip into a character's psyche during a contemplative moment; however, Deep POV is not where a character goes on "nattering" to himself endlessly about things that don't propel the story forward or that have nothing to do with the action taking place.

Okay, let's get to the nitty gritty. Maybe the following four sections will break Deep POV down in a more understandable way.

Phrases and Words that Scream "Shallow POV" as Opposed To Deep

Following is a list of phrases and words to avoid and/or rewrite if you want to pursue Deep POV. These words create narrative distance, putting a reader at arm's length as opposed to planting them squarely inside the character's head. Reader at arm's length = bad. Inside the character's head = good.

He/She thought...
He/She felt...
He/She knew...
...wondered...
...realized...
...speculated...
...decided...
...wished...
...etc.

In all the above examples, as Nelson points out in the book, a narrator is required in order to say that a character knew/felt/thought/wondered/etc. something. In our own minds, we don't think like that. We don't say to ourselves, "I think the wall looks dirty." We think, "The wall is covered with dirt. Who did that?"

More examples, borrowed from the book:

Shallow: "She wondered how she would get through the next day."
Deep: "How could she possibly survive the next day?"

Shallow: "I wished I hadn't said that."
Deep: "If only I hadn't said that."

Shallow: "He thought a good bath wouldn't hurt the dog."
Deep: "Whew! A good bath would do this dog a world of good."

See how we transport more fully into the character's head with the deep examples? Don't you feel more involved? Maybe even more emotionally vested? Because you can identify with the Deep portrayal better than the Shallow one, because Deep is how we, ourselves, think.

I'd like to add a couple of other phrases to the above list:

...in the air
...filled the air
...couldn't help but to...

Shallow: "Noxious fumes filled the air."
Deep: "Was that sulfur? Her nose scrunched and she pinched her nostrils closed with her thumb and index finger as she held her breath." [it's pretty clear the fumes are indeed "in the air." There's no need to tell us that.]

Shallow: "He couldn't help but to wonder how Jessie was coping."
Deep: "How was Jessie coping?" [Notice that "couldn't help but to" naturally wants to precede one of our to-be-avoided terms, such as feel, wonder, think, realize, wish. So, by removing the offending phrase, you also remove teh offending term and make the sentence fall into deep POV. Additionally, the deep example automatically implies that he is wondering and that he couldn't help himself from doing so. There's no need to tell the reader those things.]

When you see these phrases, you're telling, not showing. You can go deep to remove most, if not all, occurrences of these phrases and more effectively engage your reader.

The Five Senses...If You Tell Us the Senses, You're Not Deep Enough

Here's another list of phrases/words to remove from your manuscripts if you want to go deep:

He/She saw
He/She tasted
He/She heard
He/She smelled
He/She could see, taste, hear, smell

These are called sensory tells. Key word: tells. Guess what you're doing when you use them. That's right, you're telling. When you use these in your story, you're inflicting narrative distance again, pushing your reader away from the action and the character. Think of it like this, when you drink spoiled milk, do you think, "I'm tasting spoiled milk."? No, you probably think, "Ew! Yuck! How old is this milk?" That's how you want to think when you're writing Deep POV.

Shallow: "He heard a car pull into the driveway and froze."
Deep: "A car pulled into the driveway. He froze."

You don't need to tell us (tell) that the character tasted the milk or heard the car. Just show us the character tasting the milk and hearing the car. By going into Deep POV, you naturally do this. Does that make sense?

Avoid Naming Feelings and Emotions If You Want to Go Deep

Much like in the phrases above, naming emotions and feelings for your characters also puts readers at a distance and interjects a narrator's voice.

Shallow: "Tony closed his phone, frustration and fury surging through him."
Deep: "Tony slapped the phone shut. If steam could escape his pores, he'd be a toxic cloud."

See the difference? Nelson does a good job showing us in this example from her book exactly how we can portray frustration and fury by taking us inside the character instead of just telling us the character is frustrated and furious. Did you catch that? Telling. A narrator tells us that Tony is frustrated in the shallow example, but Tony himself shows us how he feels, which conveys his frustration naturally, in the deep example.

Another example from the book:

Shallow: "Hot jealousy flashed through me."
Deep: "Heat boiled my insides. If that wimp could win a trophy, where was mine?"
Any and all emotions and feelings can be inserted for "hot jealousy." Joy, happiness, sadness, anger, despair, terror, fear, aggravation, boredom. Happiness flashed through me, sadness flashed through me, terror flashed through me. *YAWN-boring* But when we go deep, each Deep POV, showing method will be unique: "The moment I saw Jeff emerge from the burning house, my body relaxed and I looked to the heavens, tears trailing down my cheeks. He was safe. My husband was safe. Thank God." "The air grew heavy and my body wilted as if the act of staying upright was too much work. Someone was talking, but I couldn't hear them. Jeff? Dead? He hadn't survived? Had I heard the officer correctly?" "My skin prickled and I searched the darkness, my breath locked inside my throat. 'Who's there?' Someone was watching me. Someone evil. I could feel it."

The lesson to be learned here? Remove the name of the feeling or emotion and replace it with a description of how, in your mind, your character would experience that feeling or emotion.

Prepositional Tells - Ditch 'em

A derivative of the previous section is the prepositional tell, where a preposition precedes the naming of an emotion, attitude, or thought. Examples: "...of happiness," "...with excitement," "in need."

As with the previous section, remove the prepositional phrase and replace it with a deeper description from within the character's POV.


Is going deep easy? No, but it's not hard, either, and it gets easier the more you do it. Using Deep POV takes work, and my suggestion is to write your first draft without even thinking about it and go deep in the editing process.

The purpose of the draft stage, where you're writing your manuscript from scratch, is to simply dump the story and scenes from your head onto paper (or computer screen) anyway. Writing takes place in the right brain, so when you're writing, you shouldn't be worrying about editing, which takes place in the left brain. Write first, edit later.

Furthermore, a first draft should never, NEVER, ever be what you publish. In fact, the first draft should only marginally resemble the finished product if you're editing correctly. Unless, of course, you're a professional author who's been writing books for the big leagues for twenty years. But then, if that's the case, this blog isn't for you. :)

Once you've brain-dumped your manuscript in the draft, you're ready to edit. Manipulating and correcting your manuscript is what edits are for. This is where you will go through and find all the offending shallow phrases pointed out in this post and correct them to be deep. As you do this more and more, you'll get better at including Deep POV in the draft stage so that it becomes more of a natural way for you to write. But reaching that stage could take years...although it will be worth it.

Be patient and never stop improving your writing.

Happy Reading and Writing!
-D

Note: Examples and terminology used in whole or part from Jill Elizabeth Nelson's book, Rivet Your Readers With Deep Point of View.

Scene vs. Summary - Showing & Telling - Part I

Authors hear a lot of "Show, don't tell," but do they really know what that means? I'll admit that while I do know what it means, I struggle to explain it to others. Well, not anymore. As part of my birthday/Christmas gift to myself, I ordered a batch of writing books, including one called Showing & Telling, by Laurie Alberts:

What I've struggled to put into words, Ms. Alberts makes simple, and this book is so inspiring that I've decided to write a series of blog posts based on the concepts outlined in the book, starting today with the introductory matter. I would highly suggest that if you're serious about your writing, you pick up a copy of Showing & Telling and follow along...or not. I mean, if you buy the book, you'll be golden and won't need my synopses. :)

First, good writing uses both showing and telling. The trick is in knowing when to use which and how to use them (which, as this blog series continues, should become clearer, especially if you buy the book). What an author should strive for in a story is balance between showing and telling, or scenes and summaries, which are the two basic components of writing. That doesn't mean you need equal amounts of both. No. In this case, balance means knowing when to chill on a scene and give us some summary to keep us connected between scenes and to give us a dose of your character's distinct voice.

Scene vs. Summary
This is just another way of saying Show vs. Tell. In fiction and some nonfiction writing, such as memoirs, you have two means of story-telling: scenes and summaries.

Scene: Scenes allow us to enter the action and feel the emotions of the characters. They take place in the moment, within the scene. Scenes are essential for breathing life into your work. This is where you show the action to the reader. Think of a movie, which is built completely out of scenes (unless you have a narrator who pops on once in a while, such as Bella in Twilight or Deckard in Bladerunner). If the actors just sat in chairs and told you about the scene, that would be pretty boring to watch, right? But they "act" out the scene, thus dramatizing it. That is how you need to think when writing a scene in a book. Think about "action" and how actors would show that action on the big screen.

Summary: Summaries are the material between the scenes and contain background exposition, character thoughts, reflection, or even—gasp—an actual summary of events that occurred over time or long ago. In summary, time is compressed. You're not experiencing it in the moment as you do in a scene. Summaries give context to scenes, meaning that scenes can stand on their own without the summary, but the summary enriches the scene by providing more information the scene doesn't offer. Lastly, summaries are often where distinctive character voices are created. By delving into past events and going inside the head of the character, we learn more about that character than what a scene can show on its own.

Example:

Scene: Pinned to the bed, Micah's hands holding her arms down, Samantha gazed up into dark navy pools of heat that stared at her hungrily. Her heart raced, pounding with such force that she could feel the pulse of her carotid at the side of her neck. Micah's gaze darted to the same spot, almost as if he'd read her mind, his eyes narrowing as his tongue barely darted out to wet his lips.

In that scene, we're in the moment. We are living each step as Samantha lives it. Seeing it as she sees it. Now, let's look at a couple of summaries that could shed light on what else might be going on. Remember, summaries add context to scenes and enrich them.

Summary #1: Who was he? All Samantha knew was that his name was Micah. When he had barreled out of that alley and grabbed her, his friend had called him by name. The other man had come after them, shouting in some strange language that sounded Russian but not quite. Romanian, maybe? Micah had turned and snarled—actually snarled at the guy. What the hell was up with that? And why was he now staring at her throat like it was his next meal? 

Okay, so maybe my example isn't the best in the world, but the point is, in the summary, we're no longer in the moment. We're back in time. Maybe only a few minutes or a few hours back in time, but back in time we are. This summary enriches the scene by giving us more information, and we getting a clearer sense of Samantha's "voice," as well. [Note that at the end of the summary, I pulled you back into the moment of the scene by use of the word "now." We'll talk more about transitioning from summary to scene in future posts.]

Summary #2: Earlier, Micah had teased her relentlessly, playfully restraining her arms as she'd made dinner. He'd become more dominant like that lately, holding her hands behind her back as he assaulted her neck with his mouth, pressing her back against the wall as he kissed her. She should have seen this coming. Micah liked being in control in the bedroom, didn't he? And he certainly liked that she liked it, too.

This gives us a whole new idea about what's happening in our scene, doesn't it? Now, we no longer see that Samantha is in danger. Nope. We see that she and Micah have known each other for a while and that things have been building up to this moment...and she likes it. We still get a sense of her "voice," and we obviously are not in the moment in this summary.

And if we're not in the moment, we are not in a scene. We are in a summary.

Pretty easy, huh? I had never heard anyone put showing and telling in such an easy-to-understand context before. Show or tell. Scene or summary. Those are the basic components, and you need both to bring a story to life.

Think of scenes as the muscles and bones of a body, and summaries are the connective tissues. Without muscle and bone, the body is nothing. However, without the connective tissues, which connect the muscles and bones to one another, the body can't move. But there is far less connective tissue than muscle and bone.

In Part II of the series, we'll begin looking at Showing: Making Vibrant Scenes. We'll also look at the purpose of scenes.

Until then, happy reading and writing!
-D

P.S. Yes, I am still working on a short series of posts regarding POV (omniscient, third person, etc.)

Is Head Hopping in Books the Same as Watching a Movie?

The other day, I posted about head hopping. One of my readers commented that head hopping wasn't all that bad and compared it to watching a TV show or movie, alluding that head hopping goes on all the time in movies and TV shows, so why not in books? I've been thinking about that comment every day since, trying to reconcile head hopping to watching a movie. I've even googled it (I didn't find anything substantial).

Being that I'm interested in all sides and want to look at all angles, I took this reader's comment seriously and have dug into this concept in an effort to either put merit behind it or debunk it, in a manner of speaking.

Before I continue, I will say that after reading other blog posts about this subject, I think a lot of people, authors and readers alike, misunderstand what head hopping really is. Head hopping is not when an author uses a break (either a scene break or a chapter break) to change from one character's point of view to another. That is simply referred to as a POV shift. Head hopping is where an author does NOT use a scene or chapter break and instead jumps from one character's POV into another's without warning the reader, oftentimes mid-sentence or mid-paragraph. Call it whiplash.

[NOTE: For those who try to say they're not head hopping but writing in omniscient, think again by reading this post by Jami Gold.]

I've always been told I think too much, but 1) I can't help it, and 2) how can someone think too much when we only use 10% of our brain power to begin with? and 3) I love thinking and debating sides in my own mind, which is why I'm thankful for the reader's comment on this subject.

I've heard this head-hopping-is-okay-because-they-do-it-in-the-movies argument before, and it has never sat well with me, stewing on my mind as I've tried to figure out what doesn't make sense about it. So, anyhoo, now that I've thought about this and read a bit more on the subject, and tried to give it an objective mind-scouring, here are my thoughts on how head hopping in novels is not the same as watching a movie:

To begin with, when we watch a movie, we are receiving input to one of our senses that doesn't get to partake as deeply when reading a novel, our sense of sight. While reading, we see the words, but that's as far as our sense of sight goes. With movies, our sense of sight is allowed to feast in a way it doesn't get to at many other times.

Following is an example of how powerful visual images in movies are:

A couple of years ago, I caught a scene of the movie, No Country for Old Men, as I was flipping through the channels. I ended up watching for about fifteen minutes, and I think only two lines of dialogue were said. Fifteen minutes of nothing but images on a screen, no dialogue, and no music. However, I knew exactly what was happening. I had never seen the movie before, and have yet to see the whole movie today, but through visual cues alone, I was totally transfixed and was able to figure out what was happening.
Why? Because the medium a film uses to convey the story is mostly visual images. Powerful visual images that show the reader exactly what to think. There is no guesswork. There is no need to ask, "Who's talking?" We see who's talking. We see who's taking off their shirt or loading the gun. We can deduce by the acting and film direction what the story is. But, if you take away the visual images and rely solely on just the dialogue and the sounds of that scene I just mentioned from No Country for Old Men, you'll have no clue what's going on.

With novels, the medium of communication is words, not visual images. Try doing in a novel what No Country for Old Men did in that scene, and take away the primary medium of communication (words). Try using no words whatsoever, only blank pages, to convey to your reader what is happening, and see how successful the book is. As with a movie where the visual images are taken away, readers won't have a clue what's going on if you give them blank pages, or even mostly blank pages with just a couple of lines of dialogue on them.

My point? Simple. My point is that readers read your words and create the pictures in their minds from what you tell them. If you can't paint clear enough word pictures, they will lose interest. We, as authors, must convey through the written word what is happening, because we don't have the luxury of visual images and movies in our books. We must paint that picture in our readers' minds through words alone. Otherwise, readers will not be able to see our stories, and they will not engage. Additionally, if you lose them through poor storytelling or poorly structured scenes, they will not engage, and a disengaged reader is bad, bad, bad, because they're the ones who don't finish your book and may never buy another one. And, like it or not, hopping from POV to POV is disruptive in the written medium, especially if it done poorly (see the link I've included below for more information).

As I was researching this topic for this post, I came upon a blog post written by Jami Gold, and she hit the nail on the head in more ways than one and said it better than I ever could:

Jami Gold - Why Is Head Hopping Bad?

After reading Jami's post, I found myself saying, I agree. Before I learned what head hopping was, I didn't consciously notice it, but I did subconsciously, and I remember being uber-aggravated by it more than once. I remember reading books where I got so lost in who was doing and saying what that I gave up trying to figure it out.

One of Christine Feehan's books did that to me, and I remember going back and re-reading several pages at a time more than once to try to figure out who was talking and doing the action. I never read another Feehan novel after that, because that one frustrated me so badly that I didn't think it was worth the trouble. I'm not even sure I finished that novel, but I do remember being extremely irritated. At the time, I had no idea what head hopping was, but I clearly reacted to it in a negative fashion. So, I agree, a reader doesn't have to know what head hopping is to be frustrated by it.

My other observation about head hopping in movies is that I really can't see how it's possible. We are the fly on the wall watching those characters on the screen as the action unfolds. We aren't inserting ourselves into one character's head and then into another's and another's and back-and-forth we go. We are made aware of only what the director or writer of the film (because, yes, movies start off as written scripts) wants us to know when they want us to know them. We are led by visual storytelling, not word storytelling.

Additionally, movies do have scene breaks. Equate them to chapter or scene breaks in a novel. Both movies and novels flow from one scene to the next and so on. And when those scenes break, oftentimes, a different character's POV becomes more dominant than another's, both in books and in movies. John McClane in Die Hard is likely the dominant POV character in the scenes he appears in, but he still interacts with other characters in those scenes and can deduce by their actions and words what's going on. But that is not the same as head hopping. Dialogue with those characters is not head hopping, nor is watching another character unbutton her blouse or answer a telephone call, which is more a result of POV, not head hopping.

In fact, we lose more POV and inside information in movies than in books, which, if head hopping were taking place, would not be the case. This is one of the biggest complaints of books-turned-into-movies. How many times have you heard someone say, "The book was better."? They say it was better because they were able to see more of what was going on inside the character's or characters' thoughts in the book than in the movie.

So, you can look at this a couple of ways: If you believe head hopping is going on in movies, and yet books are more often than not better-received than the movies they're made into, then obviously head hopping doesn't work very well. Or, head hopping really isn't taking place in movies, and the clearly defined POV shifts in books work better to tell the story.

Let's look at Twilight as another example, because it is both a book and a movie, too, much like No Country for Old Men. The book was written in first person POV, from Bella's perspective. In the movie, we get to see her POV come to life, and we get to see the action, whereas with the book, we could only imagine it.

So, is the movie still in Bella's POV or not? Are we, in fact, head hopping in the movie, whereas in the book we were firmly fixed inside Bella's head?

No, I don't think we are head hopping. What is happening is that we are seeing in the movie what Bella saw in the book. We aren't hopping into Edward's head and changing POV in the movie. We are merely seeing the action how Bella saw it, hearing the conversations with Edward and Jacob and everybody else the way Bella heard them. That is not the same as head hopping, otherwise Edward would give away to the viewers immediately that he is a vampire and we would never get to the big scene in the woods where she finally announces that she knows what he is and he says, "Say it. Out loud." Pause. "Say it!" then goes on to call her his own personal brand of heroin after the cat's out of the bag about his vampirism. If head hopping was going on in the movie, we'd know all about Edward early on, and the climax of the big announcement would be more or less a tiny squeak of insignificance.

There is a scene in the movie where we get to see the trio of bad vampires kill Charlie's friend, but again, that is not the same as head hopping. Bella couldn't see this scene in the book, but she was made aware of what had happened by talking to her father and Edward, so we were able to find out in the book from her POV that this had happened because Edward and her father told her. In the movie, we actually get to see that scene rather than just read about it through conversations with characters who know what's going on.

Christine, by Stephen King, is another book-turned-movie. Written from the first person POV of Dennis, Arnie's best friend, there are certain scenes in the movie that weren't "really" in the book, because Dennis wasn't present during those scenes. But the author's vision can come to life and take a few liberties in film, showing viewers what had actually happened in "real time" through visual images rather than through conversations between characters "after-the-fact," which is how it's usually done in books. However, once again, this is not the same as head hopping.

So, does head hopping really happen in movies or not? I don't think it does, and I don't think using that as support for head hopping in books is a good argument. Furthermore, comparing film techniques to book techniques is like comparing apples to oranges. Both films and books are ways to entertain people, but each goes about creating that entertainment in two very different ways. What works in movies won't work in books and vice versa, because each uses extremely different media to entertain.

In five or ten years, the rules might change and head hopping could be all the rage in fiction, but I'm not betting on it at this point, simply because I firmly believe it takes real talent to pull off the head hop without disrupting the reading experience for the readers. But that's just me. If head hopping becomes the vogue thing to do, I doubt I'll be able to do it. Like readers who love to seep themselves into a good book, I love seeping myself into the POV character I'm writing from. It's fun, and I use POV as my "twelfth man," as I wrote about in my last post, working POV like an extra character to elicit specific reactions from my readers and to reveal things in a logical sequence for the best effect.

Opinions? Thoughts? Can anyone show me an example of head hopping in a movie (I'm an avid movie-goer and can't think of any where actual head hopping occurs)? If anyone has other knowledge that I'm not aware of, I am greatly interested in seeing it. Thank you.

Happy reading and writing.
-D

Point of View - An Author's "Twelfth Man"

In football, the fans in the seats are referred to as the "Twelfth Man." Each team is only allowed eleven players on the field at one time, but the crowd becomes the twelfth. A well-trained crowd, such as the one Peyton Manning trained here in Indianapolis to be quiet when the offense is on the field and to get rowdy when the defense is, can create turnovers, cause penalties, and even help the home team score a touchdown. They are a critical factor in every game, which is why home field advantage is so coveted. The home team feeds off the energy of the crowd, and the visiting team has to overcome the noise of the crowd to prevent turnovers and penalties. You football fans out there know what I'm talking about.

Much like the twelfth man in football, point of view serves as the "twelfth man" in your book. Point of view, when used skillfully, can become a character in and of itself, and it can bring the entire story to life. Point of view is what allows your readers to immerse themselves into the story. It allows readers to feel what the characters are feeling, to see what they're seeing. Point of view (POV) is what brings tears to your readers' eyes, makes their hearts race, and makes them curse the bad guy. It is a living, breathing entity that acts as an extra character to make things happen that otherwise wouldn't without it.

In short, POV is a vital weapon in your writing toolbox.

In my last blog post, I talked about head hopping, which is directly linked to POV. If you didn't read that post, you might want to take a moment to do so. Head hopping involves jumping from one POV to another to another without showing the readers where that shift in POV is occurring. You show this POV shift through the use of blank lines, asterisks, chapter breaks, or some other "marker" that serves to inform your readers that a change in POV is taking place, but without that "marker," the reader doesn't know the POV is shifting, thus a head hop.

The problem is that I think there are some major misconceptions and misunderstandings about what, exactly, POV is. For example, as I stated yesterday, I used to be a head hopper. And I used to be the worst kind, because I didn't even know I was doing it. I didn't understand what point of view was or how to write using clear POV. I didn't understand the concept of head hopping, and I had even taken some pretty hefty writing courses. How did I not fully understand POV and head hopping with all the training I'd had? I "sort of" grasped the concepts, but I was more or less throwing darts in a dimly lit room, hoping I was hitting the target. But I didn't give up, and I continued to read and study until finally POOF! I got it.

Was point of view and head hopping simply my kryptonite? My nemesis? Every writer has at least one area they really have to work on, so is POV mine? Or, is the concept of POV simply that confusing and hard to understand? In my post yesterday, I mentioned that I have talked to other authors who seem to hold the same confusion over POV that I used to have. They have been told so much about the different types of POVs they can write in that they're a mental mess over whether they're writing first person, third person, omniscient, close third person, limited omniscient, and so on.

So, here goes. I'm going to make this super simple for those of you who struggle with POV and how to use it:

There are three main types of POV in writing, and only two that dominate in fiction:

1. First Person (I need to go there. I saw him pull a gun. When he yelled, I trembled and ducked my head.)
2. Second Person (This is not a POV used in fiction. It's used primarily in nonfiction, where the author is addressing "you," the reader, so you can scratch this from your fiction arsenal.)
3. Third Person (Trace tried not to grin when Micah opened the box and pulled out a revolver. He knew how Micah felt about guns, preferring his blades to a bullet any day. And if Micah did use a gun, he preferred his semi-auto with the wide grip. But the way Micah's lip curled and his nose crinkled broke Trace's resolve, and he threw his head back, laughing loudly. Trace felt for Adam the next time Micah saw him. He really did.) [Note that every character was referred to as "he" or by name. Even the POV character, Trace, is referred to in that way.]

Screw omniscient and close third person and whatever other fancy POV names you've heard. First person and third person. That's all you need to know right now. Those two POVs will suffice in every story you want to write, and they're the safest place for new authors (and the majority of indie authors) to live.

NOTE: In stories, we refer to character POV, meaning, "What character's point of view are you writing from?" Stephenie Meyer wrote Twilight in first person POV, but her first person POV was Bella's, not Edward's or Jacob's. I write in third person POV in my stories, and I write third person from the points of view of Micah, Samantha, Traceon, Arion, Severin, etc. So, POV is a two-parter: 1) Will you write first person or third person? and 2) Which character will be your narrator, or point-of-view character, for the story or a particular scene?

FIRST PERSON
The benefit of first person POV is that it allows your reader to become deeply ingrained inside the main character's head, which allows readers to see and feel the story more actively. The pitfall of first person is that you are relegated to one character's POV for the whole story. You can't go into another character's thoughts, because then you have broken the first person POV rule: How does character A know what character B is thinking? You would use first person if one character's POV is all you need to tell the story, as well as if you are comfortable writing first person, which some authors (me, for example) are not.

Example:

I held John's hand as we walked slowly back to my dorm. I was nervous. Would he kiss me when we got to my door? Or would he simply walk away?

Suddenly John stopped. Right there in the middle of the sidewalk. When he turned to me, he saw the way my eyes sparkled and stared down at my lip gloss-moistened lips, wondering how they would taste. 

Obviously, we are NOT in John's POV in this excerpt. We are inside the thoughts of whoever he's with. Let's call her Julie. Would Julie know that John was seeing how her eyes sparkled? Would she refer to her own lips as lip gloss-moistened? Would she know that John was wondering how her lips would taste? No. In Julie's POV, she would probably think something like: When he turned to me, the way he stared first at my eyes and then my mouth made me frown. Did I have something on my face? Was there dried mustard on the corner of my mouth from the hot dog he'd bought me earlier at the carnival? Why was he staring so intently at my mouth? Would I taste like dried mustard if he kissed me right now?

See the difference? If we're writing from Julie's POV, all she can do is speculate about what John is looking at and why, as well as what his thoughts are. When you're writing in first person, you can't hop out of Julie's head into John's unless she's psychic or a mind reader.
Think about in real life: When you're standing in line at the grocery store, do you know what the guy in front of you is thinking? No. You can use visual cues to make an educated guess, for example, if he turns and scowls at the twenty items in your basket and then glances up at the sign that says "Express Lane - 12 Items or Less," but you can NOT know exactly what he is thinking. In the first person POV, this might be written as, "As I stood flipping through the latest gossip trash, I glanced up at the man in front of me. He was glaring into my basket, his head bent down in an almost accusing nature. Pointedly, he looked up at the sign over the register. 'Express Lane - 12 Items or Less.' Then he turned back and scowled at me. Apparently, the guy was the Gestapo of express lanes, and I could feel him mentally flogging me for committing a cardinal sin of the express checkouts everywhere. Setting my jaw, I felt like saluting the bastard with my middle finger, but kept my composure as I offered a stiff smile and squared my shoulders, not to be bullied by his passive-aggressive abuse."

I didn't have to fall into the Gestapo's POV to convey his thoughts and feelings. The POV of our first person narrator was able to do that.

NOTE: These examples show you how you can use your "twelfth man," POV, as a tool to create suspense, drama, characterization, and even comedy. I bet you even smiled at Julie's dried mustard musings or our checkout vigilante's middle fingered salute, didn't you? And wasn't Julie's POV so much more interesting than John's because of her mustard obsession, because she has no idea what John is seeing and thinking. That's how POV can become a living, breathing counterpart to your characters.

THIRD PERSON:
In third person, you are now writing a character's POV from a little bit of a distance, but through their eyes. The benefit of third person is that it allows you to step into the minds of multiple characters within one book. The pitfall is that it puts a measure of distance between the reader and the character. If multiple POVs are crucial to your story, this is the choice you must use, whether you'd like to use first person or not.

Example:

Julie's POV
Julie held John's hand as they slowly made their way back to her dorm. She was nervous and wondered if he would kiss her once they reached her door or if he would simply walk away.

Suddenly, John stopped and pulled her to him. His gaze ranged her face, from her eyes to her mouth, and for a moment she wondered if dried mustard was stuck on the corner of her mouth from the hot dog he'd bought her at the carnival. Just her luck if it was. She always had bad luck like that.
God, he was going to kiss her. She could tell. It was in the way his eyelids half-closed and he gazed at her mouth. Please, please, she didn't want to taste like dried mustard.

When his lips pressed against hers, all thought stopped, and it was just the two of them, kissing under the light of the full moon.

John's POV
Julie's hand felt good in his. Small, delicate, even kind. How did a hand feel kind? He didn't know, but hers did. And her palm didn't get all sweaty like other girls' hands did. She was perpetually dry, even though he could sense her nervousness.

He liked that she seemed nervous. It made him feel more chivalrous for some reason, as if she were a shy rabbit ready to skitter away even as he held out a carrot, hoping she would take it and snuggle up against his hand.

More than anything, he wanted to kiss her. He had wanted to kiss her all night, and to hell with caution, he couldn't wait any longer. Stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, he turned toward her and pulled her close, catching the way her eyes sparkled under the nearby streetlamp before letting his gaze drop to her heart-shaped mouth, pink and moist from the lip gloss she had applied earlier. Would she taste like strawberries or watermelons? Perhaps cherries? He needed to find out. Lowering his head, he let his lips embrace hers, drawing in the faint taste of...yes, watermelon.

See how much difference a change in POV makes?

This is where it gets fun. Whose POV do you use? Well, you use the most important one to the scene and/or overall plot. If Julie's neurotic behavior is what is most important, you would use her POV, but sprinkle in bits of John's through dialogue or through Julie's observations of his behavior. On the other hand, if John's romanticism is more important, you would use his POV and may not even need to delve into Julie's.

This is where the work of being an author comes into play, and it's why I get a little frustrated with authors who say, "Both POVs are important, so I'm just going to use omniscient or head hop. Maybe both." Both POVs may be important, but you can convey both POVs without head hopping and by sticking to the "one POV at a time" rule, as I've demonstrated in a couple of these examples. It just takes a little more work, but nobody said writing was easy. You do have to work at it. I've written plenty of scenes where multiple POVs were relevant, but instead of head hopping, I looked at each character's POV in turn, one at a time, without letting the action and chronology of the story suffer, while still conveying everything that needed to be conveyed to the reader and moving the story along. Yes, it required forethought and a little cognitive input from me. Yes, I had to rewrite a few scenes into another character's POV during edits when the original scene didn't work. Yes, I had to work at this. But that's what I have to do to make sure the story is reader-ready. It's what all authors should have to do if they care about their readers.

Furthermore, you don't want to "spill all" immediately and from every character's point of view all at once. You want to draw out the action and keep some suspense. Using POV skillfully helps you to do that. By keeping one character's POV silent, you can use another's to get the reader thinking about what's going on inside that other charcter's head. Is he the killer? Is he a witness? Did he sell the murder weapon to the killer and is afraid to speak up? Does he have a shady past that puts him in jeopardy? If we go into that character's POV, we'll be giving some of that information away, and that could be detrimental to the story. And if you use omniscient POV but keep the murderer's POV silent, readers will see the ploy and get a bit upset about it. I guess Agatha Christie did this, and it didn't go over, so she abandoned her omniscient POV experiment and returned to a more basic method of writing.

So, yes, writing POV is an art, and it can make or break your story.
I want to say to the authors who take the easy way out and head hop instead of utilizing strictly one POV at a time: You are missing a fabulous writing tool by not employing and using POV to help you tell your story. This is your twelfth man, for God's sake! Use him to build suspense, drama, conflict, and to let the reader in on the joke when the punchline is relevant! By skillfully utilizing POV shifts, you can have a powerful influence on your readers' reactions and can create a much more dynamic, multi-dimensional story that pulls your readers along like a current in a river, making them practically salivate to see what's going to happen next.

Most authors just don't know any better, though, like me when I was struggling to grasp the POV concept. They don't understand it, so they don't know how to use it. That's not their fault. They just need more practice and guidance. They get themselves tangled up in all the advanced literary jargon and confuse themselves, which is so easy to do. But this is why I try to post on my blog what I've learned, so that I can help those who want to be better writers achieve their goals.

When it comes to POV, keep it simple: use first person or third person, and stick with one character's POV at a time. See the world and tell the story through one character's eyes until it's time to switch to another character's. Once you master this method, you can experiment with more advanced POV methods...or not. You might find this is sufficient and perfect for your needs. Either way, with practice, you'll get there.

Happy reading and writing!
-D

The Head Hop - Being Talented Enough To Pull It Off

In fiction, the majority of editors and authors will tell you that head hopping is a major no-no (and this blogger consulted with some industry experts to corroborate that position and had excellent feedback regarding why head hopping is not reader-friendly and should be avoided. You should read that blog article if you're interested in learning more about the concept.).

Head hopping is one of the best ways to lose and piss off your readers, because they will struggle to follow along with your story and might even give up and toss your book aside, labeling you as a writer who doesn't know what you're doing, especially if the rest of your manuscript is sloppily written. In short, if you're going to head hop, you would be well advised to make sure you know what you're doing and are talented enough to pull it off. It takes years of practice and work to master this skill, and that's only after you've mastered writing for story, sentence structure, story structure, punctuation, showing vs. telling, character development, and grammar, among other writing skills. And even then an author might not be able head hop effectively.

My point being, you have to have an expert handle on your writing mojo to master the art of the head hop.

If you don't know what head hopping is, it's when you write in multiple characters' points of view (POVs) without breaking between POV changes.

Example:

Micah thought Samantha looked ravishing in the black, gossamer gown he'd given her for her birthday. How many times had he asked her to wear it, and yet she had coquettishly declined each time.

Her slight curves beckoned for his touch, and her green eyes sparkled as she smiled and shut off the bathroom light, leaving only the lamp behind her to cast her inviting silhouette into shadow that showed through the thin fabric.

He licked his lips, sensing her mood.

Samantha knew what she was doing to Micah, and with the way his gaze raked her body, it was clear her plan to surprise him had worked.

Maybe now she would be able to put that sexy smile back on his face. He had been coming home from work in much too brooding a state as of late.

Did you see it? I started the passage in Micah's point of view, but in the fourth paragraph, without warning, I jumped to Samantha's. Imagine if Micah's POV had gone on for several paragraphs or even pages before the beginning of this short example. You would have been good and seeped into his mind, following his thoughts, seeing everything from his eyes, and then out of nowhere, you're no longer in Micah's POV, you're in Samantha's. It might even take you a couple of paragraphs to realize the change has been made, and then you'll have to stop and backread to figure out where the new POV started, then shift your mind into Samantha's and beginning reading again.

Imagine if this happened over and over, and you had to stop reading, backread, and restart each time it happened? Can you understand why head hopping can become extremely frustrating to a reader, let alone disrupting to their reading experience? Because who wants to constantly be shattered out of their reading experience by these abrupt stops and starts? I don't.

I'll make a confession. About two years ago, I was a head hopper. I really struggled to understand the concept of point of view and will admit that this was probably THE hardest skill for me to learn. It took years for me to completely understand point of view, and until you understand POV, you can't understand head hopping. After years of working hard to understand POV, I finally figured it out after my first short story was published in an anthology. The light bulb went on and I suddenly "got it." It took years, lots of studying, and lots of research, but I understand it now. In talking to other beginning authors, it's become clear that I'm not alone. A lot of beginners don't "get it," either, when it comes to point of view. They want to call their POV omniscient and close third person, yada-yada-yada, and then the next thing I know, they've got themselves so confused (and me, too), they don't know which way is up. Poor things, and God love 'em for trying, because Lord knows, it can be confusing. My heart goes out to them, because I was once in their shoes, and somewhere along the way they've fallen into POV purgatory. I'll talk more about POV in my next blog post and see if we can't pull these poor innocents out of the muck, but for now, just know that until you understand POV, you shouldn't even go near head hopping.

I've had some indie authors get pretty upset with me during discussions about head hopping, because I think, at least at the indie level, there is a lack of understanding about POV and the head hopping concept (as referenced in my previous paragraph). In my opinion, which is based on a ton of research and studies with published authors and editors in two lengthy writing courses, authors should be clearly conveying to readers where the POV shifts from one character to another by inserting a blank line, asterisks, or even a chapter break. The argument of those who disagree with me is, "It's the author's book. They should write it however they want." My counterargument would be, "No, it's the reader's book. The author is simply writing it. As such, the author needs to make sure they write it in a way that allows the reader to easily follow along and in a way that doesn't disrupt their reading experience." When an author can't even grasp simple grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as sentence and story structure, it's safe to say they will not have the talent to pull off head hopping, and in the conversations I've been involved with where an author is defending another author's right to head hop if they want to, that has been the case.

Ultimately, it's the decision of the author, so I bow out of discussions pretty early where it's clear the author's mind has been made up that they will arbitrarily change the POV from paragraph to paragraph if they want to. I've read scenes like that in books, and I get so frustrated that I either skip the entire scene or toss the book aside, because I can't keep up. On occasion, I will power through and will go back to read and re-read over and over until I can figure out who's talking so I can understand the action. Sometimes I can piece it together and sometimes I can't. Either way, as the reader, I shouldn't have to work so hard to follow a story, which should flow easily and seamlessly in a way that I can follow along and immerse myself in the plot.

However, there are authors who can pull off the head hop. They are talented enough not to lose the readers, and they can head hop almost from paragraph to paragraph.

Sylvain Reynard is one of these authors. I'm currently reading his book, Gabriel's Inferno, which a friend recommended to me, and I'm just blown away by his talent. From what I understand, he started out more-or-less as an indie author, but true to cream rising to the top, he has been noticed by the big publishers and has made the jump to the big leagues, and rightfully so. It's not often that I find an author who head hops with such ease that I barely notice it. But, as I've said, head hopping smoothly takes talent. And talent seems to be something Mr. Reynard has in spades.

Not only does he head hop, but he seemingly breaks all the rules of fiction writing, using an abundance of adjectives and adverbs, as well as big words I would normally need my dictionary to look up, and creating an obnoxious character, who, by all rights, I should hate.

However, Mr. Reynard's talent is so incredible, he's able to head hop smoothly, to the point that my reading experience isn't disturbed in the slightest and so that I can remain deeply immersed in the unfolding tale. The excessive adjectives and adverbs are barely noticeable and contribute to the visual image created in my mind. The big words are clearly represented and defined from the context of the sentence or scene, and I find myself falling in love with the obnoxious character for the subtle, you'll-miss-them-if-you-aren't-paying-attention hints as to just how vulnerable and likable he is under his thorny armor. My heart goes out to this obnoxious man, Gabriel, and my inner cheerleader is waving her little pom-poms: Gimme a G! Gimme an A! Gimme a B!...

At any rate, this blog isn't necessarily about Mr. Reynard, despite his genius and talent in the fiction realm. It's about head hopping. I'm only focusing so much on Reynard, because he is the kind of author all indies should aspire to be like, and because he has mastered the head hop where 99 out of 100 authors who try to, can't. It's obvious he works hard at his craft and meticulously hones each sentence, not rushing his books in an effort to build a back list fast so he can make lots and lots of money at the expense of quality and reader trust. No, Mr. Reynard comes off as the type who savors each scene, crafting and weaving them together so that the story unfolds bit by bit, drawing me further in.

Furthermore, it's clear that Mr. Reynard understands grammar, story structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and can spell. It's clear he edits and proofreads his work ad nauseum. In other words, it's clear he knows the rules of writing, which is the first requirement to breaking the rules. Only when you understand how to walk can you learn how to skip or shuffle your feet. But when you try to skip before learning how to walk, you'll fall flat on your face.

And therein is the lesson to be learned here. An author must first learn the rules of writing, whether they intend to later break them or not. Until they have grasped the basics and all the rules the basics entail, they can't successfully break them without repercussions.

I think this is the biggest issue indie authors should concern themselves with if they want to be successful: Learn the rules and practice them until they know them inside-out. Too many try to move into the advanced class before finishing the remedial one. Think about school and jobs. You don't start off in fifth grade, do you? You start off in first grade and learn everything you need to progress to second, then third, then fourth, then finally to fifth. If a child skipped and started right off in fifth grade, they would be lost. They have to learn all that comes before to succeed at the higher grade levels. Same with a job. I didn't get hired on as an executive assistant straight away. I progressed from receptionist to administrative assistant and finally to executive assistant, learning more from each role to prepare me for working as the right hand of the president, director, or owner. I needed the basics before I could progress to an advanced level.

Same with writing. Authors must know the basics before they can write at an advanced level. In other words, head hopping (as well as other advanced techniques) need to be honed before they are employed.

Just to note: In comparison to Mr. Reynard, I'm also reading a Nora Roberts book, and in it, she also head hops. Sorry to say, her head hopping isn't as seamless as Mr. Reynard's, and I wish she would take a lesson from the latter, because when she does it, it jolts me every time and I have to take a second to mentally shift gears into the new POV. So even well-written authors struggle with the head hop, not just those who are starting out.

With all that said, if you're an author and want to see how a talented author works the head hop, pick up Gabriel's Inferno. Be warned, it is a long book, and it is not the typical erotic romance. About 1 in 7 readers who reviewed it hated it, but the 6 out of 7 who liked it, LOVED it. But it's a great example of someone who understands the craft of writing very well, and for that reason alone, I think it should be required reading for every indie author.

Happy writing and reading!

-D