Errors - Whose Responsibility Are They?

An interesting question regarding how to judge a book when it's full of errors was posed this morning on an author board I'm a member of. You see, many members of this group, including me, are judges in a huge annual writing contest, and one of the things we're up against is who should take the blame for typos, spelling errors, and punctuation errors. Should we dock the author and reduce the score, or do we look the other way under the premise that it's the editor's fault, not the author's?

I bet U Turn is getting tired of hearing "no."

To Dock Or Not To Dock?

To answer this question, I think we need to look at the types of errors being made, as well as the volume.

First of all, we all make errors. I've never read a book that didn't have at least one error in it. Most have several. But as long as there aren't too many mistakes, and the reading experience isn't severely impacted, it's easy to look the other way.

Is this message only for the guardians of parents? And what are "ate's?" And time's what? This poster is a hot mess.

Where we run into a problem is when there are errors on every page. And not just errors, but glaring errors. Errors that make your skin crawl because they're so absurd that even a bad editor should have caught them. Errors that muddle the message and confuse the reader as to what is actually being said.

Yeah, those errors need to be docked. There's no excuse for them, and they've impeded the reading experience so severely, you have no choice but to deduct points. 

Additionally, I recently read a book that contained a ton of errors, but what was weird about them was that the author made those errors half the time, but wrote them correctly the other half. For example, she punctuated dialog tags correctly with the comma half the time. The other half she punctuated the dialog tag incorrectly with a period. Maybe an example would help:

Correct: "I want to go home," she said.

Incorrect: "I want to go home." she said.

She did this throughout the entire book. And she made this same kind of half-right-half-wrong error with other punctuation, spelling, etc. I was like, "She knows how to write it correctly, so why is she writing it incorrectly half the time?"

I had to dock points for that.

Who Do Errors Reflect On?

Let's look at a few examples:

"We are committed to 'excellense'"? Apparently, you're not.

"Were" opening...? I guess you're not now, huh?

 

If you're going to preach about our "lanaguage" to those who don't speak it, maybe you should learn it first. 

Like it or not, errors reflect on the person or business who made them public. The business who is committed to "excellense" just showed they're not that excellent. Dunkin Donuts' sign reflects on the business, not the person who printed the sign. And, yeah, the patriot in the minivan just shot him- or herself in the foot. 

In other words, in each of the above cases, not only was the message diminished by the errors, but they reflected on the person or public entity who represents them.

In the book world, that person is the author.

Who is Responsible for the Errors?

Like it or not, when it comes to errors in books, the author is ultimately held responsible. Not the editor, not the publisher, not the proofreader. The AUTHOR.

Think about it. When you're reading a book that's full of typos, do you say, "Ugh! That editor needs to learn how to edit," or "Ugh! This author needs to learn how to write."?

Maybe you're the one in a hundred that honestly blames the editor, but I've seen enough readers complain to know that 99% of the time, the author is blamed for typos, punctuation errors, misspelled words, and even bad formatting (which is WAY outside most authors' realm of responsibility, by the way). These readers aren't blaming the editor or proofreader. They're blaming the AUTHOR.

Don't dig your own grave with bad editing.

I once published a story with a small press. The publisher edited it in-house, but they never ran their edits by me for approval. When the story was published, I found that they had completely changed entire sentences, punctuation, and even the spelling of certain words, and in doing so, they created a lot of errors in my manuscript. Also, the book was for an American audience, but they formatted to British standards (colour instead of color, flavour instead of flavor, etc.). If you're writing for an American audience, you need to edit by American standards.

At any rate, I was furious. Luckily for me, I am extremely well-versed on punctuation and spelling. I edit as well as I write (with one exception: compound words. They are my nemesis). So, when I send my manuscripts to my editor now, it's really more about getting a second set of eyes on my story, so she can find the mistakes my author's eyes glossed over. And she's awesome sauce with compound words, so whew! Thank goodness for that. But my point is, I know an error when I see one.

So, back to this inept editor who marked up my manuscript with errors. Her mistakes reflected on ME. My name was on the book, not hers. As such, I was the one who stood to lose readers, not her. Because let's face it, there are a lot of savvy, educated readers out there who will ditch an author for a lot of things, including typos. That is the reality, like it or not. You can bitch and scream and try to "educate" those readers about whose fault those mistakes are, but it won't work. Those readers will still blame the author. It's a fact of publishing life we authors have to accept and strive to minimize in any way possible.

For me, the way I minimized the problem was  by never publishing with that publisher again. If this was the care they were going to give me, then thanks but no thanks. My reputation as an author is too important to me to let them foul it all up. And if they were going to be the cause of me losing readers, they needed to be cut loose. Ba-bye! I need a team around me that understands that this is MY work, MY reputation, and MY livelihood they're influencing. Those who take care of me, I will take care of in return. Those who don't...I wish you well, but see ya.

And therein lies the crux of this post. Authors need to take greater responsibility for their work, as well as greater control of the editing process, even when they're with a publisher. After all, it's the author's name on the book cover. As such, it's the author who has the most to lose from bad editing. Take the time to read those edits and not just trust that they're right. And if your publisher publishes your work without getting your approval on edits, it's time to find a new publisher.

Going back to the initial question then, how do you judge books with errors? My thoughts are, if a book is full of errors, no matter whose fault they are, judges should judge accordingly and deduct points if those errors are prolific and negatively impact the story and/or reading experience. Because, like I said, ultimately it's the author who's responsible for their own work.

Agree? Disagree? Feel free to weigh in in the comments.

Happy Writing!

-D 

365 Ways To Be A Better Writer - Week One Recap

I hope everyone is ready for Winter Blast 2014. As I'm writing, the snow has arrived here and is coming down pretty heavily. And what better way to spend a snowy Sunday morning than to hunker down indoors and recap this week's writing tips on how to be a better writer.

I won't always do a weekly recap, but since this series is still so new, I thought it appropriate this week.

We started the 365 Ways with last week's blog post on creating a 5-Year Plan. Since I already spent ample time on that topic, I won't rehash it here. The other topics I hit this week are:

1. Know yourself
2. Read "On Writing" by Stephen King
3. Editing
4. How to start your story.

Let's look briefly at each one:

Know Yourself

They say to write what you know, but you also have to write what you love. And to write what you love, you need to know yourself. For example, if you have no interest in vampires, you don't want to write a vampire novel. If you don't like reading romance, then don't write romance.

Right now, male/male (m/m) romance is super hot in the romance world, but authors who aren't comfortable with homosexuality shouldn't write a m/m romance simply to cash in. Same with Fifty Shades of Grey. I recently read an erotic romance written by a gal who admitted that she isn't comfortable writing sex scenes and only wrote the book because she wanted to jump on the Fifty Shades bandwagon. The problem was that I could tell as I read the book that she was not comfortable writing sex. It was glaringly obvious and detracted from my reading experience. What could have been a fabulous erotic romance came off as only lukewarm. Know yourself first, write what you love second, and then write what you know.

Also, know when you do your best writing. I'm a morning writer. I seem to be more productive before 2:00PM, the earlier the better. I used to get up at 4:30AM and get 2,000 words written by 6:30AM. Other people are more productive late at night. Still others write well in short spurts. This is individual to each author, and only you know when it's best to write for you. Also, do you prefer music or silence? A warm beverage at your side? A dish of m&m's? Once you know when and how you do your best writing, you'll soar.

Read "On Writing" by Stephen King

This is pretty self-explanatory. I will say that this was one of the first writing books I ever read, and many of Mr. King's advice has stuck with me almost verbatim. I'm not a big fan of Stephen King's fiction, but that doesn't mean he doesn't give excellent advice. He does. Read this book over and over and over until you've nailed his advice. He knows what he's talking about. I always say that if you want to be a bigtime author, you need to emulate a bigtime author's behavior when they're writing.

Editing

Too many self-publishers publish too quickly. They get impatient. They finish their rough draft and do a cursory read-through, and that's it. They might have a friend do a quick proofread or "edit" (I've seen some of these "edits" done by friends, and I'll just say, DON'T USE YOUR FRIENDS TO EDIT unless they are professional, trained, and educated editors), but that's it.

That book is your baby. The writing within it is your reputation as an author. Would you really treat your baby that way? Is it smart to sacrifice your reputation for a quick dollar? No. So, this is my advice: Write your first draft, put it away for a month or two, pull it back out and re-read it, and if you don't immediately vomit from how bad it is (and you might) start editing and rewriting it. After each edit/rewrite, set it aside for a few weeks, then come back to it and do another edit/rewrite. Do this about five times, maybe more. Send the story to your beta readers with the explicit instructions that you want them to shred your story to pieces (I'll be talking about beta readers later in this series of blog posts, so stay tuned). Once you get your beta feedback, do another round of edits and rewrites. [By the way, I usually send out my first or second draft to my beta readers, but I have thick enough skin to take the beating my betas will give me based on one of my early drafts. Most authors don't have thick enough skin to take this harsh criticism, so I'm recommending you send out a later draft. Of course, if your skin is thick, and you trust your betas to be excruciatingly brutal like mine are, then send them your first draft. It could save you a lot of editing and rewriting on things that will end up not mattering.] After you've addressed your beta feedback within your manuscript and are happy with the story, hire an editor. An actual trained and educated editor who comes with some credentials. Let the editor do their thing, and then implement his or her changes. Give the story one final proof (I do a proof, and I have someone else who also does a proof), and THEN you can publish. 

True story about the importance of editing: Several months ago, I saw that an old friend of mine had published a book. I visited her wall. Less than a month prior, she had posted that her book was "about" halfway finished, but that she wasn't sure just how long the book would be, because she was flying by the seat of her pants as she wrote it. Okay. Stop. Think about that. Less than a month before she published her book, she was "about" halfway done with the book...which means that she finished the book probably a week or so before she published it. Yes, I went to the book listing on Amazon, and yes, I "looked inside." What I found was astonishing. It was obvious she hadn't done any editing or proofreading at all, and what I read was filled with not only errors, but too much "fluff" that detracted from the story and led to confusion. It was, in a word, awful.

Good storylines don't mean squat if the story is poorly edited (or not edited at all) and/or poorly proofed. No story is good enough to overcome poor execution. Edit, edit, edit!

How to Start Your Story

The best way to grip your readers is by starting your story at a point of change that leads to questions about what will happen:

1. Your pregnant heroine walks in on her husband in bed with another woman. (What will she do? Will she leave him? Will she meet someone new? Will she be able to make it on her own?)
2. A mother is getting her kids ready for school when an explosion shakes the house. (What caused the explosion? Will she be able to save her kids? Will their crumble? If so, then what?)
3. Your middle-aged hero is unjustly fired from the job he's held for ten years. (Will he be able to find a new job? Why did he get fired? Will he sue? Will he get retribution against his former employer?)
4. Your heroine opens an envelope which contains divorce papers. (How long were they married? Do they have kids? Was he cheating? Was she cheating? Why are they divorcing? How old is she? Is she scared to be single again?)
5. Your hero is in a car accident and loses his leg. (Was it his fault? The other driver's fault? Is he hurt? How will this affect his life? His job? His relationship?)

Right away, your character(s) are under duress in some way. This is interesting. This is conflict and dramatic tension. These are the things readers want. They don't want to read three pages of your heroine washing her car as she talks about nothing of importance with her friend, who's helping her. Yes, I once tried to read a book that opened that way, and yes, I stopped reading after three pages.

You get maybe a page or two to grab your reader. If you don't grab them fast, you'll lose them.

The thing to remember about all these tips is that they're just that. Tips. They aren't the end-all-be-all gospel. Every writer has their own take and style, but every author has to start somewhere. Take from my tips what works, and leave the rest. And maybe something I've said might just spark you down a path you never would have gone otherwise. That's what it's all about, discovery new paths and methods of professional growth. I'm excited to help each of you find your own path of writing discovery and growth this year.

Happy Writing in 2014!

-D

Solving the "Had" Mystery - Is "Had" Really Bad?

A long time ago, one of my author friends beta read one of my manuscripts and gave me the feedback that I needed to eliminate the word "had." Apparently someone had told her that the word "had" is bad and should always be removed from fiction writing, so this poor gal was tearing her hair out to remove the word from her own writing, as well, which is impossible. I'll repeat that. Removing the word "had" entirely from a manuscript is impossible.

Still others will tell you that "had" is passive. I've been told this so many times that I actually researched the word "had" and passive voice pretty extensively to determine the rights and wrongs of usage.

Let's begin by defining passive voice. According to Grammar Girl (and every other writing reference I've consulted), passive voice is created when the object of the action is promoted to the subject position. For example, "I heard it through the grapevine" is active (subject-verb-object sentence format). To make that sentence passive, you would write, "It was heard by me through the grapevine" (object-verb-subject sentence format). Another way you can determine passive voice is to add "by zombies" at the end of the sentence. If the sentence makes sense, you have passive voice. If not, you have active voice. For example, "She set the book on the table by zombies" doesn't make sense, so "She set the book on the table" is active. However, "The book was set on the table by zombies" makes sense, so "The book was set on the table" is passive.

Additionally, many people think that just because a form of the word "be" is used (am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been), the voice is automatically passive. That's not the case. "I am alive" is active and uses a form of the word "be." Another example is "I am holding a pen," which is also active. "A pen is being held by me," would be passive.

To read more on this, visit Grammar Girl's site and the related article, Active Voice vs. Active Voice.

Now that we've defined passive voice and know what it is, let's tackle "had."

In writing, there are three basic verb tenses: present, past, and future.

Present: I live in Indianapolis.
Past: I lived in Indianapolis.
Future: I will live in Indianapolis.

By the way, all three of those examples are active sentences, not passive.

In addition to these basic verb tenses, there are several specialty verb tenses, as I call them. For example, There is present continuous, future perfect, future perfect continuous, past perfect, past perfect continuous, etc. I want to focus on past perfect and past perfect continuous.

Using the previous example:
Past perfect: I had lived in Indianapolis before moving to Florida.
Past perfect continuous: I had been living in Indianapolis for eighteen years when I moved to Florida.

First, let me point out that these sentences are active, not passive, despite the use of the word "had." Second, each sentence indicates a slightly different reference to time than the other. If you want to study this further, check out the Types of Verbs page on Englishpage.com. Along the left on the page, you can select the different verb tenses and study them, get more examples, and complete lessons to help you learn how and when to use them.

The point to remember here is that "had" is part of the past perfect verb tense and not necessarily passive.

For example:
Active: Donya had written many books before she won her first RWA Golden Heart Award.
Passive: Many books had been written by Donya before she won her first RWA Golden Heart Award.

So, how does the past perfect tense affect your writing? Authors usually write in one of two verb tenses: present or past. When you write in present tense, writing flashbacks is as easy as writing in the simple past tense. However, when you write your stories in past tense the way I do, if you want to insert flashbacks or refer to something that came before, you must use the past perfect tense or risk confusing your reader.

Here's a short excerpt from my upcoming Return of the Assassin. The story is in Gina's point of view at this point:

She closed her eyes and tried to push away Malek's memory, which was becoming harder to do. Malek was the male she had met—and then left—in Chicago. The male who had saved her when all she had wanted to do was die. The male who promised to be a whole lot of holy-hell-I'm-in-trouble if she let him.

Since I write in past tense, I had to use past perfect in the italicized verbs to indicate action that came before in the story. If I had maintained the simple past tense, the reader wouldn't be able to distinguish whether I'm referring to the present moment within the story or a past moment from before. Go back and re-read the paragraph without "had" and you'll see what I mean. Sure, you might be able to figure out some of the timing by the context, but it's my job as an author to make the reader think as little as possible so they can simply enjoy the experience of the story. This is just one paragraph. Imagine having 30+ chapters of simple past tense where you have to think about the context to figure out the order and timing of events within the story, trying to figure out what is flashback or past events, and what is the present moment within the story? That would get exhausting, and no reader wants to work that hard. It's the author's job to remove the work for the reader. Using past perfect is the solution to helping the reader understand the story.

Now let's say you have a multi-paragraph or multi-page flashback. How do you write that without italicizing the whole segment, which is becoming an archaic practice, in favor of weaving the flashback seamlessly into the story? I suggest you use the 3 in-3 out rule, as explained in The Best Writing Advice blog post on InTheGardenOfEva.com. I've copied the pertinent text directly from her blog:

If you write your story in the past tense, you have to use the past-perfect for flashbacks. The past perfect is the tense used to talk about something that happened before something else that happened in the past. I call it “the had tense.” For example, the past perfect is bolded below:

He walked into the bar and saw her standing near the pool table. The last time he’d seen her, she had stabbed a fork into his leg.

But the past-perfect gets old awfully fast with all those “hads.” The solution is to start off your flashback with the first three verbs in past-perfect. This makes your reader aware of what’s going on. Then switch to simple past, which is much more pleasant to read. At the end of your flashback, make the last three verbs past-perfect to get your reader “out” of the flashback.

If you read a lot, you've probably noticed as I have that fewer authors are using the italicized flashback in favor of the seamless, 3 in-3 out flashback. I use one of these flashbacks in Return of the Assassin, and while it felt weird and took a little finesse to work the verbs so that readers fell into the flashback easily and emerged from it just as easily, I like this method. And since more editors now frown upon italicized flashbacks that can be too jarring on readers, this is the way to go from now on.

So, see. "Had" isn't so bad. The word "had" has a vital place in fiction writing. It isn't a bad guy or an automatically passive villain. Yes, there are instances where "had" can be rewritten out for a stronger sentence, but that's not always the case. So go easy on your quest to rid the world of "had." He has a place, and his place is necessary.

Happy Writing!
-D

Telling Truth From Fiction

About three years ago, I met this gal who claimed to be an author. We were in a Facebook group together, and she sometimes posted in group chat that she had run off to talk to her publisher. I remember being so in awe. At that time, I had yet to publish my first book and was unemployed, working as a temp, and trying to figure out what to do about my dream to become published. So I grilled this girl with questions. She claimed to be published and said she was currently looking for the right deal before she published her next story. On a couple of occasions, she posted in our group chat that she had turned down another contract "from her publisher" because the "deal wasn't good enough." I was so excited to learn from her. I thought I was in the midst of royalty.

Imagine my disappointment when I later found out that this girl wasn't "published." She and a few others had written a story they posted on an online forum. That was the extent of her being published. And then I found out her "publisher" was really just a friend who was involved with e-publishing. At this point, I don't even think their was ever any discussion of a book contract, which is what she led us to believe.

So, basically, she embellished the truth so far that it became a lie. She made us all think she was only a step away from breaking into the big leagues. I still feel like an idiot that I believed her. I had viewed her as my mentor, and she lied to me.

Next story...

There was this gal who called herself an editor. She wanted to beta read one of my short stories. I sent it to her. When she sent it back, she had "edited" it. Only one problem: 95% of her "edits" were errors. For starters, she removed every incidence of a comma that separated two independent clauses that were connected by a conjunction, and she added commas between every independent/dependent clause combination.

Every grammar nazi reading this just snapped her red pencil.

 Of all her "corrections" to my manuscript—and there were a lot—I think only two were acceptable. The rest created grammatical or punctuation errors. Here's the kicker: this gal now promotes herself as an editor on Facebook and elsewhere, and any number of authors could be hiring her right now to edit their books.

What's my point? My point is that you never really know who you're meeting online and whether they are what they claim to be in their bio...or whether or not what they're saying is true...or even whether or not they're good for your publishing health (some folks are simply toxic and will bleed you, suck you dry, and drain the life and love of writing right out of you if you let them). Online, you enter into a silent, blind agreement to trust what the other is telling you is the truth until they prove otherwise, but sometimes that can be too late. And for authors or wannabe authors, it usually is.

For example, if you're an author searching for an editor, you don't want to learn after you've shelled out $500+ dollars that the person you just paid to edit your story is a crackpot who has no business wielding a red pen over your precious baby you spent months creating. I mean, when the author knows more about grammar, punctuation, content, and story structure than the "editor" does, that's a huge red flag. And you certainly want to know that the author you're seeking advice and/or mentorship from knows what she's talking about and not just blowing ego-boosting smoke.

So, how do you find the right people? The reputable people?

1. Patience. Yes, I'm sorry to say, it takes time to find the right circle of authors and editors to associate yourself with. I learned this the hard way, but am proud to say I'm now so happy and proud to be involved with the people I've become associated with in the last year. If you feel like you're being dragged down by someone or a group of someones, that's when it's time to move on. You're growth and potential are no longer being served.

2. Join reputable writing organizations such as Romance Writers of America or Mystery Writers of America and attend every meeting. I joined RWA in January of this year, and it's been one of the best decisions I've made for my writing career. You're around like-minded people in these groups, which operate like small businesses. You learn from them and have incredible opportunities to get involved in the writing community, and the more involved in the writing community you become, the better you'll be as a writer. And the people in these organizations will be able to refer you to reputable editors, publishers, and other authors you can learn from.

3. Pick up the Writer's Market books. The creators of Writer's Digest update these every year, and there are a few you can purchase. I like the Writer's Market Deluxe Edition and Guide to Literary Agents the best, but you can also buy editions for the novel and short story market, as well as a non-deluxe version. These books, while they can be dated with the speed the publishing industry changes nowadays, offer tons of advice and listings for professional organizations, contests, publishers, and agents. They can be a great way for you to research and find reputable industry professionals to connect, network, and consult with.

4. Attend conferences and conventions. What better place to meet the stars than at a book conference or convention? There are always workshops you can attend, and everywhere you go are opportunities to mingle with other authors, agents, editors, bloggers, publicists, publishers, etc. These are people serious about the craft and life of writing. These are the people you want to be associating with and getting to know. And everyone has a business card or material you can collect to reconnect with them later. I came home from RT in Kansas City this year with a whole bag of cards and informational material. These are excellent venues to tap into reputable industry professionals.

I would love to know what other ideas are out there for finding quality editors and constructive writing groups. Links in the comments are welcome.

Happy Writing!
D

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

What To Do When Your Novel Isn't Speaking To You

On Facebook yesterday, I saw a post by another author where she voiced her frustration over how she couldn't seem to trudge through her edits. She had been reading the same three paragraphs for three hours, unable to make any progress.

Man, do I feel her pain, as I'm sure all writers do. It's the nature of the beast to fall into periods of low or even non-existent productivity, and when that happens, it's easy to fall into a panic, seeing the time slipping away as your deadline looms ever-nearer. (NOTE: Even indie authors should assign themselves deadlines; otherwise, it's too easy to poo-poo away that slipping time with a wave of the hand and a flippant, "I'll get to it eventually.")

So, how do you handle these potential time-bombs of panic? When the story just isn't working?

Before I talk about how I handle them, I'd like to share where I think some of these low-or-no productivity periods come from.

I have learned from experience that when a story isn't "talking" to me, whether through the draft phase or the editing phase, or when I'm struggling with a manuscript, it means one of two things:

1. I am forcing too much of me into the story, meaning I've stopped listening to my characters and am trying to finagle them into situations that I contrived, not them. In other words, I have ceased telling the story the characters want to tell and am instead forcing the story I want to put into their mouths.
2. I am not understanding my characters.

For example, In Rebel Obsession, I struggled to like Miriam and portray her in a positive light. In the first draft, she came off like a spoiled, self-obsessed brat. Ugh. I wrung my hands and gnashed my teeth. What was wrong with her? And why wouldn't she talk to me? Every time I asked her why she was the way she was or what she wanted, she said, "I don't know." Double ugh! And then one day the light bulb went on. She really did not know. As soon as I realized that, she rejoiced inside my mind. I got it! I finally got it! That was the angle I needed to portray her from. Once I understood her, I was able to portray her correctly as a confused, rebellious character who was struggling to figure out where she belonged in a world where high expectations that she didn't want and had no idea what to do with were placed on her. She simply did not know what she wanted, because she had been sheltered all her life. Hence the source of her problems. She wanted to break free and figure herself out.

Long story short: As long as I am listening to and understanding my characters, the story flows out of me. But as soon as I start trying to force my will, the story shuts down.

This happened in my latest work, Return of the Assassin. I went into the preparation with this story holding high hopes. The characters had powerful stories to tell, and the passion between them was smokin'. And then I started worrying about word-length. My last book in the series clocked in at 115,000 words. The one before that was over 80,000. The one before that: 60,000. So, I decided I needed this book to be around 90,000 words or more. Next I began to worry about all the side characters. I needed to work Trace into the story, because fans love him. So, how was I going to make Trace a part of this book so that it worked? And then there was my new character, Maddox, Trace's father. I needed to work him in. Oh, and then there were the other new characters: Kieran, Tully, Searcy, Lorena, and Savill. And then I needed to make sure to mention Brak, another new character who is pivotal to the ending of the book, as well as future books. Oh, and let's not forget Apostle and Bishop, Grotek and Chane, and, and, and.....AAAAUUUUGGGHHH!

Before I knew it, Return of the Assassin had shut down. Not a peep for weeks. Panic set in: "OMG! Why won't the book talk to me? My deadline for the draft is the end of March, but the story won't even whisper right now! How will I finish it in time to release the book by September? Oh, despair, despair!"

Now we come to where I answer the question: What do I do when a story is no longer speaking to me? Maybe my methods will help some of you overcome the same writer's block.

In the case of Return of the Assassin, I set the book aside and worked on other projects for a few weeks. This let the manuscript simmer in my subconscious where I could work out the issues without really thinking about them. A couple of weeks ago, I picked ROTA, as I call it, back up and started trudging through it. I began editing even though the writing phase wasn't over, which is something I rarely do, because, in my opinion, a writer should never start editing before finishing the writing phase. It's too easy to fall into a self-defeating loop of continual edits and rewrites without ever getting to the end of the manuscript.

But in my case, I needed to figure out where the story had gone off track, so I started rewriting. But the more I rewrote, the more desperate the situation seemed to become. The characters just weren't talking, and I was becoming very upset. I mean, what I was rewriting was better than what was there before, and the changes strengthened the story by leaps, but I was suffering to pull the story out.

Then one morning, I was getting ready for work and said to my characters, "Okay, what's wrong? Why isn't this working?"

As I worked through a dialogue with the characters, they stripped me down to the basics of what was important in the story. Within twenty minutes, my problem was solved. My main characters, Malek and Gina, showed me how their story had become everything but their story. I would have seen this in edits, but it was so much nicer to see it now, so I could save myself a lot of time and aggravation.

So, my worries about word length? Gone. If the story comes in at 60,000, then so be it. I'd rather have a wham-bang, kick-ass story at 60,000 words than a so-so one at 120,000. Trace? Sorry, but he's out. I know fans love him and want him, but his book is next, and the scenes I wanted to include in ROTA that focused on him will better serve his book, not Malek's. He might get a tiny mention, but that's it. Kieran and Tully? Gone from this book. Searcy, Savill, and Lorena? They stay, because this story depends on them. Basically, I stripped out anything that had nothing to do with this story, and pumped up Malek and Gina into powerful leading characters, ripe with emotion and inner turmoil, who have brought me to tears numerous times as I write. As a result, ROTA is flowing again, and Trace's book is already off to a fabulous start because of all the Trace scenes I removed from ROTA. So it's a win-win, with a bonus: I will blow my completion date of March 31 out of the water by over a month, and will finish ROTA's draft within the next week, maybe two at the most. What that means is that I will be able to release the book sooner than expected, and that I can start Trace's book sooner than expected, too.

All because I pulled my ego, influence, and personal desires out of the equation and let the characters take charge. It's their story to tell, after all.

In summary, here's how to help get you back on track if you've fallen off of it (I use each of the following methods to help break me through plateaus):

• Make sure you're not forcing too much of YOU into the story. It's not your story. It's your characters' story. You are simply the vehicle to tell their story. It's your job to determine the best way to tell it so readers will love it, and that's it.
• Are you listening to the characters? If not, try listening and see if that helps.
• Are you understanding the characters? Again, really pay attention to what they're saying. You might be missing something like I was with Miriam.
• Are you worried about word length, secondary characters, and side plots? If so, forget about all that. Stop, breathe, and focus on what the main story for your book is about. Write about that. The word length will take care of itself.
• Breathe. Walk away and just breathe. Watch TV, read a book, go to a movie. Eventually, when you least expect it, the story will begin talking to you again...when IT is ready, not when YOU are. Be patient.
• Work on another project. Sometimes it's another project that wants your attention. If another story is talking to you, that's the one that needs your attention right now. Don't fight it and force yourself to work on a project that isn't speaking to you when another one is. You'll blow both.
• Maybe you just need a week off. Everyone needs a break, even a writer.
• Read a book on writing or a book outside your normal genre. I am reading a nonfiction book on running right now (Born to Run) that, every time I pick it up, I'm inspired to write. The author has a fabulous way of putting things into words that is a joy to read and inspires my own writing. Furthermore, I read a book on Deep POV last November that rocked my writing world so powerfully that I put Rebel Obsession through a special last-minute edit that totally altered the story in a fabulous way. My editor said it was a totally different—and much better—book after I made the changes.

Writing is work. It's not supposed to be easy. And like with anything we do in life, sometimes we are just not in the right frame of mind to write. We get into moods: I feel like seeing a movie; I feel like Chinese for lunch; I feel like taking a nap; I feel like going for a walk; I feel like taking a day off...and yes, I feel like not writing today, or this week, or whatever. And that's okay. Because in time, you WILL feel like writing again. And in time, the stories will begin talking again, too.

Does anyone else have other suggestions for breaking through plateaus? Please add them below in the comments.

Happy reading and writing!

-D

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

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.

The Purpose of Scenes - Show vs. Tell - Part 2

In my ongoing series of Show vs. Tell, I'm bringing you a run-down of Chapter One of Showing & Telling, by Laurie Alberts, where we dive in to the most basic component of showing: the purpose of scenes. Until you understand why scenes are used, you can't have a full grasp of the concept of showing your story.

First, we need to understand what readers want. Why do they read fiction? Why do you read fiction? We read fiction "to be transported out of our own skins into the lives of others—we read to expand our emotional awareness," according to Ms. Alberts. Scenes are the means by which authors fulfill this reader objective.

"To be truly engaged in the lives of characters, events must be dramatized rather than simply reported; for dramatic impact we must be grounded in place and experience the illusion of real time passing, which only occurs in scenes. We must live the moment along with the characters, especially moments of change." -Laurie Alberts

Remember from Part I of this series, Scenes vs. Summaries, scenes take place in the moment, whereas summaries refer to something taking place (or that took place) outside the moment. Scenes show; summaries tell.

Okay, so how do you use scenes to show? By understanding the purpose of a scene, which is covered in chapter one of Ms. Alberts' book.

The Purpose of Scenes
Scenes are used to:

• create an emotional connection between character(s) and reader
• dramatize events
• move action/plot forward
• introduce or intensify conflict (and we'll talk more about conflict when we discuss the different types of scenes, but conflict is THE single-most important element to moving your story forward)
• build suspense
• create change over time
• introduce or reveal character
• introduce themes
• establish mood
• provide resolution

Scenes make characters seem real, which naturally leads to an emotional connection with your reader. One of the best compliments I've gotten on my AKM novels is that readers feel so strongly that the characters are real that they fantasize about them, make up stories in their minds about them, and want to go to Chicago just to see if they will bump into them. I've heard this from a few of my readers, and when I receive a comment such as, "I daydreamed all day about Micah and Trace and couldn't even focus on folding my laundry," I know I've created an emotional connection between those characters and the reader. You can't fantasize about someone you don't envision as being real.

And why do my readers feel like Micah and Trace are real? According to Ms. Alberts, "The 'real' feeling comes from the reader going through the experience with the character as it's happening in time, complete with sensory detail." In other words, my scenes are so powerful and evocative, readers feel like they're in the scene with the characters, living it, seeing it, and experiencing it right alongside them. That is what you want to bring to your scenes.

Let's look at the rest of the items on the list after reading an example from Rise of the Fallen, my first AKM novel, since that's easier than trying to find a sample written by someone else, or retyping the one in Ms. Alberts' book.

In this scene, Samantha is tending to an injured Micah, who she isn't aware is a vampire. She just knows he is badly injured, excruciatingly thin, and has seen that he has been self-mutilating his arms by cutting them. She is about to treat a shoulder wound by cleaning it with alcohol, which is the "white heat" Micah refers to in the third paragraph that brings him out of his mostly-unconscious state:

-----

Micah had been in a semi-lucid state, aware of everything going on around him but unable to rouse himself. He had felt the woman cut off his shirt, had felt her sure, confident hands ranging his chest and torso before her gentle fingers caressed his face. She had talked to him, too. Well, not really to him, but sort of. Her voice was smooth and low, sultry. He just wanted her to keep talking. The sound of her voice was a balm, an audible salve to soothe his soul.

But then she had grown quiet and sucked in her breath. Micah touched her mind and realized she had seen his self-mutilation. Shame flooded him as his long-absent conscience reappeared, chastising him for what he had done. For some reason, he didn't want this woman seeing the damage he had done to his own arms.

And then everything shattered into white heat as fire stung his shoulder.

Intense hunger raged like wildfire. Micah couldn't recall ever needing to feed this badly. In an instant, his eyes flashed open and shot to the woman tending him. Terror erupted in her expression, but all he could see, think, feel, smell, and breathe was blood. Glorious, life-giving, hunger-sating, Heaven-sent blood. With graceless impropriety, Micah yanked her wrist to his mouth like it was a sandwich and he had gone way too long without food then bit down with unceremonious impatience.

When was the last time he had truly fed?

The woman struggled as he locked his hands around her arm and lurched upright with her wrist clenched in his mouth. Her blood flowed like a river of life into his belly, and he moaned in ecstasy even as he fought to restrain her. He had been too wrapped up in his need to feed to compel her into submission, and she grappled, squirmed, and struggled against him, gasping and protesting for him to stop.

Blood. All he could think about was drinking her blood. She swung at him with her free arm, kicking and trying to pull away, but he stayed with her, using one hand to deflect her haphazard punches, turning his body to avoid her kicks. All the while, his fangs kept her wrist locked in his mouth and her blood spilling down his throat.

He finally overpowered her and bent her back and down to the floor. Crouched like a man kneeling in prayer, his gaze ranged up her arm that stretched between them, linking her to him like an umbilical cord as she continued to struggle. His feral gaze locked onto the pools of clover green in her eyes as his chest and abdomen heaved lustfully. Blood lust. Strong and pure and all-consuming, it gnawed at him like a jackal on a bone.

The woman tried to cry out, but he slapped his hand over her mouth, stifling her scream, taking his fill of her blood as her body finally stilled beneath his.

It was only then that Micah realized she was crying. Tears streamed her cheeks as horrific sobs convulsed her chest. As his senses ebbed back into him, he gently lifted his hand from her mouth, keeping it close in case she tried to scream again.

"Please, please stop. Don't kill me."

Her fear smelled like sulfur as the words clubbed him. Kill her? He didn't want to kill her.

Where was he, anyway?

Micah's eyes flitted around the room and suddenly it was clear he wasn't in Kansas, anymore. What was this place? He had never been here before. Nothing was familiar. How had he gotten here? His eyes darted back to hers.

After releasing her wrist with a gasp, Micah fell back like he had just seen Jesus wagging a judgmental finger at him, and he ass-planted on her generic beige carpeting.

"Where am I?" he said.

-----

We start the excerpt with a brief summary that transitions us from Samantha's POV to Micah's, but once we get past the summary and into the scene, you emotionally connect with Micah's pain and humiliation, his hunger, and eventually, his dismay over his whereabouts. You can connect emotionally because the scene is rendered dramatically. I didn't just tell you what was happening. I showed you. The action moves the story forward by bringing Micah into awareness and introducing him to who will ultimately be his reason for living, Samantha. Suspense is built because now Samantha knows there is something very different about Micah. Hell, he bit her, for crying out loud. And drank her blood! What normal dude does that? And how will she react when everything comes out about who and what Micah really is? How will these two embark on a relationship when she's human and he's a vampire? I can't say this scene creates change over time, but it is the beginning of a changing point for Micah as he progresses from a suicidal state of mind to one where his survival becomes of the utmost importance. We're not introducing characters in this scene, but we are revealing a bit more about Micah and Samantha. The theme of never give up or lose hope, because hope could be just a step away is introduced in this scene. And, maybe it's just me, but I think mood is clearly established for both Micah and Samantha—one of fascination and intensity. The relationship between these two characters, as well as throughout the book, will be severely intense. No resolution has been provided.

Scenes won't encompass all the bullet points on the earlier list, but they will illustrate at least some of them. If you have a scene that doesn't fulfill any or only one of the above purposes of a scene, you might want to consider removing it, because that's a sign it's probably not necessary and the information can be better included elsewhere.

A word on theme, plot, and action, as defined by Laurie Alberts:

Theme is not plot. Theme is what the story or essay is about on its deepest level. The theme could be as simple as "look before you leap" or more complicated, depending on the story. Ms. Alberts uses the following example in her book: "It took an accident for Sally to discover that she wasn't cut out to be a kindergarten teacher and that she needed to keep searching for her true calling."

Action refers to the events that happen in a scene and in the narrative as a whole—this happened, then that happened.

Plot, however, is action with a cause-and-effect relationship—this happened because that happened.

According to E.M. Forster:

Action = the king died and then the queen died.

Plot = the king died and then the queen died of grief.

Next time I'll talk about the types of scenes, which may take more than one post, since conflict is one type of scene that's so important, it might need its own post just to emphasize just how important it is.

Until then, happy reading and writing!
-D