Turning Obstacles Into Cheerleaders

Imagine this scene - You want to produce a play or write a book or paint or learn how to tattoo or make jewelry....something that is fun and rewarding but hardly super lucrative. Maybe you want to be an editor or play some role in the game design field. You'll be happy, you'll have fun, but you won't be swimming in a money vault anytime soon. And maybe upon the announcement that you're going down this new path, a whole chorus of voices is going to pop up and express their disappointment, or their doubts or their fears or guilt that you're doing something "not on the plan". Hearing these voices, seeing their faces, realizing that while you're doing this creative thing you aren't at some other job, or you're not working with a whole lot of security or wealth options,  you get scared and call yourself "stuck" and don't do anything.

That scene, in some way/shape/form happens to everyone who wants to deviate from the path other people have laid out before them, and everyone who wants to do their own thing, be they recent college graduates, new parents, new creatives or newly awoken from the Matrix. 

Lots of people feel "stuck", which is just another word, a more muted word for "afraid". 

It's time to get unstuck. 

Now I can talk about this because I've been stuck before, and was often stuck for years on end, so it's not like I'm speculating here. I'll spare you the grim personal details (they're more boring than melodramatic), but really it just comes down to some fears, which I'll talk about first, then I'll talk about the solution I found -- it may not be your solution, but maybe in my sharing it, you'll find your own solution.

So here now are some of the fears that get you "stuck":

Fear of Rejection -- Whenever we do something that goes out into the world and other people have the opportunity to see it, it is possible that some people may not like it. And from that idea of "some people", we explode and expand it to all people, so basically "everyone" hates that thing you did. You start thinking to yourself "No one's going to like this/ buy this / enjoy this / watch this / read this, so why the hell do I even bother doing it?" And then you don't do it. 

Fear of Exposure -- If you're doing something, maybe a group project on a job, or maybe something with some partners, or you're doing something with a hint of competition, you might run the risk of "being exposed", which is a nice way of saying "People are going to figure out that I'm not as good at this as other people. They're going to see I suck." so either you don't contribute or you pipe down about your contributions and play a bit part. You hold yourself back, sometimes going so far as to say that if you didn't, people would see how much better you are at this, and think you're an arrogant jerk. 

Fear of Disappointing Others -- If you go do this creative thing, there's a possibility your spouse/significant other/children/co-workers/friend(s)/loved ones/parents may not like it. They may scoff and tell you that with every step you take away from some other course of action, you're failing them. So, in order not to avoid letting these people you love down (because you're not supposed to let them down, right?), you don't do the thing you want to do.

Fear of Failure -- Sure you might go do something, but you might suck at it. Your products may not sell, people may hate you, they may sue you when your creation doesn't do what they thought it would, they may chase you out of town with pitchforks and fire....so to avoid the inevitable fall of Camelot, you don't undertake that creative endeavor. 

I'm sure there are loads more fears out there, but these are the ones I can speak of from personal experience. But, if you're following me on Twitter or reading this blog, you've likely noticed that I am currently not-stuck in any facet of my life. Now before you get mad that there's some sort of sorcery afoot, let me tell you that there's two things I'm doing:

a. I'm not giving up

b. I'm turning obstacles into cheerleaders.

I think we can all understand not giving up. I'm a stubborn, obnoxious, bristly person at times, and when I lock onto something (a project, a goal, a desire) I do not easily let it go. And often I remove the chance to give up by running down the goal at a jillion miles an hour so there's no hope of me slamming on the brakes and giving into the above-described fears. When there's something you want to do, you just can't give up. How else were you planning on getting the results you want?

As for that second bit, I can't take credit for it. I learned it from an Australian DJ once. So just imagine item (b) with an Australian accent. (for the curious, it's something like 'Opstackels inna chairliters, mate') It refers to the idea that when you're surrounded by a crowd of doubt (real or imagined, actual people or just thoughts), you can turn that negative into a positive -- you can make those fears into motivators.

Sure the easy way is to take on the fear as a challenge and say, "Oh yeah? Watch me!" and then you sort of compete against your fear, proving it wrong as you go forward. There's nothing actually wrong with that, but it's way draining to sit there and have to prove something to the people you love or the faceless "audience". 

I say skip the competition. Involve those that hate or dismiss in your efforts, or cut them out entirely. There's even a John Rule (#6) about it: "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."

Okay, not everything's a joke, but you can just swap out "joke" for "success", because to them, the possibility of your success may be a joke. If people are really committed to disliking your work or your efforts, no amount of success-in-their-face is going to dissuade them. You could offer favors, barter, beg, give them whatever profit you make, you could give them the moon and stars, and they'll still not like your stuff. Hell, some people won't even LOOK AT your stuff and they'll dismiss it like you just pooped on the Thanksgiving turkey.

Turning an obstacle into a cheerleader isn't magic, or a trick or even manipulative. You don't even have to talk to that obstacle at all for this to work. You just need to do the following:

i. Complete your project

ii. Be excited/happy about your project

iii. Share your project with interested people

iv. Repeat i - iv.

Rather than deal with the haters, the doubters and those who would guilt you, find the people who would support you. (You may call them "friends"). If you can't find someone to support you (now admittedly I'm assuming that your creative endeavor doesn't include making sacrifices to pagan gods, kidnapping babies from hospitals, robbing the elderly or kicking puppies), I'll support you, just send me an email with 'Support Me!" in the subject line (seriously, try it out.)

Let's look at the steps.

i. Complete your project - This will abolish that fear of failure, because if something's done, you haven't failed at it. You did it. It's the total opposite of failing. 

ii. Be excited/happy about your project - This will nuke that fear of exposure, because if you're happy, there's nothing to expose. What are people going to do, be happy with you? Your excitement is a powerful infection vector, and your job is to share your Outbreak monkey with the world. 

iii. Share your project with interested people - This will crush the other fears because people who like the thing you do aren't going to reject it (or you) nor will they be disappointed because you're giving them something they like. Key here is "interested", so it helps to know a little about the sort of people you want to see your completed project (this is also called 'knowing your audience').

iv. Repeat steps - Originally this idea was "Repeat as needed", but "needed" says to me that you don't always want to share cool things with cool people, and I've never met a situation where cool people didn't want cool things. Also, by repeating these steps you're creating a new path of thoughts in your brain (that thing you're in charge of) and training yourself to accept a new philosophy, one built on being happy and loving yourself for your successes, not living in fear of not-succeeding. 

If you do these things, and you don't half-ass them, the things (the doubts, the people) who oppose (or who you believe oppose) you will transform into people who support you. I didn't believe this at first, and thought  I had just found a Jedi Mind Trick (this is not the failure you're looking for)...but really what I had stumbled into was a universal truth.

Here's the universal truth, as I've found it -- Your loved ones just want you to be happy and successful. They're going to have their own views of success, as tempered and developed by their experiences, but their experiences aren't your experiences, so they're going through this with you (sometimes for the first time) too. If you show them the positives (the happiness, the success, the pleasure), they'll support you. The people who bitch or dislike what you're doing? They just wish they had the courage to do the same, or they're mad because your success (even your efforts) has challenged their world view that you-can't-succeed-and-be-happy-it's-one-or-the-other. And since people don't like getting their views challenged, they fight back.

So for me, it was my family and my relationships. I thought that if I really committed to doing what I wanted to do, they'd hate me for it. Now, yes, some of those relationships did hate me for it (because I didn't have to commute to work, and because I didn't/don't deal with projects that aren't interesting, because I'm going after my dreams rather than sitting in a crappy job or that I'm doing, rather than thinking/wishing/envisioning, what I want). But my family, they just wanted to make sure I had enough money to get by in the world and that I wasn't killing myself a minute at a time in some depressed state. 

And every other fear lived in my head. I fostered these thoughts by being sort of a dick to people and making really bad choices that led to crappy consequences because I was more interested in appearing "the way other people do" rather than just being me. Now, looking at everything, it is SO MUCH easier to be me, and I'm way happier.

Does this system eliminate all the obstacles? Nope. I still run into bills that need to pay, clients that need to pay me, weird situations that I can't fix, and roadblocks to awesome that are out of my hands (like seriously, I can't do anything about the factory in Singapore going on strike and therefore not producing ink). But I'm able to get past the obstacles because I'm doing what I love, so as long as I can do that, I get sort of Teflon-y and everything slides off. 

No ink? That's cool, I'll just work on the digital version.

No extra cash to take a lady to dinner? No problem, let's just stay in and cook. 

Company X didn't send me a check? Company A, B, C and D did though, so it's alright.

I leave you with this. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

and 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bta00Hp4gho

Happy writing.

What Not To Say To An Editor, Part 2

Last week, I wrote Part 1 of this series. This is Part 2.

For the people just coming on board now, I'm an editor. (It's not my only job, but it's a good one) And what I'm detailing here are things you shouldn't say, write or mention in your correspondence with me (or other editors, but I'm speaking mostly from personal experience). The following statements are BIG HUGE RED FLAGS that will often lead you to rejection, suspicion of being creepy, uncomfortable work situations and becoming an example of what not to do.

Take note, good readers.

"I'm not sure you're worth it." This has only been said to me four times, and each time was a new experience in uncomfortable and bad times. If you (prospective client) and I are talking, and you heave a sigh (which is totally visible when you type, if you're curious) and then drop that bomb on me, I used to freak out and then spend inordinate amounts of time justifying why we should be working together.

When I was struggling for work and was way too busy helping other people without actually succeeding, I was always working uphill for paychecks, wondering when I'd be able to have some money in my pocket. And that absence of cash (which admittedly is a good thing to have on hand, say when you want to go out on a date or buy a burrito or purchase a video game), really turned me into a doubt factory. I doubted whether or not I was good enough to do this job, if I should get a "real" job, if I should just give all my time and energy to this relationship so that someone will love me, etc etc. Basically, being poor and thinking that having money equaled success (newsflash: it doesn't, sorry Gordon Gekko) made me think I wasn't worth much of anything -- so I'd always have to prove that I was good "enough" to a person / place / relationship / job / client / ice cream sundae so that I didn't have to walk away in shame and hide myself in a cave or something.

The point is -- that's a shitty attitude to have. And if you or I spend our time forever justifying whether or not we're worth it to other people, we're not going to have the time or the energy to actually do the things we wanted to do in the first place. (Side note - sometimes those people you're trying to be good enough for just aren't worth it. For realsies.)

So, if you say "I'm not sure you're worth it." what you're really saying is "I'm not sure I'm/the work/your potential to change my work is worth the commitment to improving, since I'm really scared about doing this because it might succeed or it might fail and discovering that really makes me uncomfortable since it is not what I am used to."

You're worth it.
Your work is worth it.

"I've been editing on my own for years, what good is your help?" I've been doing a lot of things myself for years. I built the desk I'm writing this on. I just ate some food I made the other night. But you know what's nice? Not having to do that. Letting someone else take care of a task for you is nice, and gives you more time to other things (like bathe and knit and golf). Also, if you come look at this desk I'm writing on, it's not a bad desk, but doesn't even come close to the super-desk in the other part of the office that dates back from Ellis Island and the 1880s. That thing weighs in the hundreds of pounds and was built with more skill than I thought a man could have. I trust that construction and that work far more than I trust my own, and likewise, you should trust people do the job they're good at. Anyone can screw together an IKEA desk and it'll be serviceable, but for really awesome work, go to a professional.

"If you edit my work, it won't be the same. I'll lose the voice/tone/feel/structure/vibe/sound I want." Let me just clear up a misconception about editing. What I do is make YOUR work clearer and stronger. Editing is not me coming into your work and changing it the way I want it, editing is refining your work so that it can be enjoyed by others the way you intended.

What happens when you hand me work is that you and I talk. And we figure out what you're trying to do in the story or the chapter or across several pieces of story or whatever, but basically we map out what's going on, and how you want it to be seen/experienced by the audience. Then I go back to my lair and educe that desired experience from the text. Yes, that means I might chop up sentences, delete whole paragraphs and suggest that entire characters get the boot. So, you're right, it won't be the same. Things will have changed, but that's on purpose - the changes are there to help you get your point across, get your ideas out there and get that voice/tone/feel/etc etc broadcast.

"Can I pay you a little up front and then more when I sign my book deal?" Now if this were fifteen years ago, and book deals still had large sums of cash attached, I'd say yes. But, in today's industry, and with traditional book publishing not being the cashcow it used to be, my answer is NO.You can pay me over time if you absolutely have to, or you can pay me when the job's done like everyone else. I don't want to wait for your ship to come in weeks/months/years from now and you just happen to get around and write me a check. Pay your editors, support us, and help us help you.

"[INSERT TITLE OF BOOK OR NAME OF WEBSITE HERE] says that I should get an agent and then let them handle the editing, so I like, don't need you." Ahh, the agent quandary. Here's where things get a little murky. Not because I don't know an answer to this, but because there are several answers and people don't always like them. Here we go:

a) Not every book needs an agent, it depends on what the author wants to do with it (if you're self-publishing and only need like 40 copies for example, then no, you don't need an agent).
b) Not every agent is (gasp!) a good editor (likewise not every editor is a good agent).
c)Not every book and/or website is going to be useful for you. (Be discriminating. Educate yourself with a variety of sources then make your decisions.)

There's also a fourth element here: That in order for an agent to pick up your manuscript, it should be in the best shape of its life. That means free of glaring errors, formatted correctly, and engaging with the best story and characters possible. Getting an editor to help you make that happen goes a long way to securing the agent and all those other steps down the line.

"My work is perfect, and I don't ever need an editor. I don't change a thing, and I just send it straight to Amazon. You can buy my things here, here and here - (and the rest of the email is basically a sales letter)." I'm very happy for you. Honestly, I'm glad you've distilled down the formerly scary publishing process to a few mouse clicks after you spend a few afternoons writing.

(I should point out that the above quote came paraphrased from an email that also included a sentence "I don't know what's so hard about being prolific, I already have several books published in under XYZ years." - and yes I got permission to tell you this.)

Publishing your work shouldn't be so scary that you're discouraged from doing it, but it shouldn't also be so simple that there's no talent or craft required to do it. And if you do as much reading/trawling/searching through Amazon as I do, you may encounter a lot of self-published authors with a dearth of books....and a matching stack of 1-star reviews, that often include comments about poor story structure, weak writing, bad grammar and being a general waste of money. Hiring an editor can prevent a great deal of this before it happens, the caveat being that in order to avoid ignominy as the one-star-Amazon-author, you have to exercise your brain and talent muscles to produce work and get it edited so that it's in a better than first-draft-shape.

And for the record, no one's work is ever 100% perfect on the first draft. It's just not. Expect it to grow, change and evolve as your tastes, skills and other factors (like a reader or time) influence it.

I hope you've found this helpful.

Happy writing.

When You're Busy, But Not Succeeding

Who wants to start off this week with a deep thought?

I spent a mighty long time being busy but not succeeding. And by "mighty" I mean "most of my career to date". And when I say "most", I mean "Everything before last Thanksgiving".

How do I know this? How can I say this? Because I'm looking at my bank accounts after paying all the people I need to pay and there's still money in it. Which, if you have known me in the last three to five years, wasn't always the case. Money came and went, but it was never steady, and I just accepted this as a condition of the type of job I do - that sort of nomadic existence moving from client oasis to client oasis in a vast desert of it's-hard-to-make-a-living.

So, being a reasonably smart guy, I saw the connection between money and work. If I had more clients, I'd make more money...so what I need is a lot more clients. I filled up my schedule and took on a lot of clients. This sounds great, right?

The Freelancer's Dream
It would be, if all the clients required the same type of work, paid the same amount of money (and on time) and all took me the same amount of time to do that work.

Note - the above sentence is often called "The Freelancer's Dream".

What I had though was not the Dream. I didn't have the Nightmare, but I did have a lot of clients and jobs and things that paid erratically, inconsistently and didn't actually make me feel like I was succeeding. Sure, clients got stuff they wanted (websites, sales copy, etc), and I got a check....but it wasn't success.

And it wasn't success for a few reasons:

1. I didn't think I deserved the job, so I way cut down my rate. Like ridiculously. Like 40+ hours of work for a single $200 check that I took up front. This, I thought gave the impression that I was easy to work with, but it in fact turned me into a doormat. What I learned: If some people can't afford me, (and not everyone is going to, and no I can't go out and help EVERYONE, despite urges to do so), there will be people out there who can afford me, and I shouldn't lowball myself, ever. ((Still working on that believing in myself part))

2. It wasn't very challenging work. I got paid to do things I'm good at. I know, that sounds wonderful, and it's sort of the point of a job, but if you look at the work I'm doing now and compare it to the work I did then, there's a HUGE change in both the quality of my work and my happiness. What I learned: I do better with a challenge. I'm more satisfied by a challenge, and more satisfied by the reward of saying and knowing that "Wow, I had a hand in making XYZ a great product."

3. I took the work for the wrong reasons. This revelation didn't occur to me until a month or two ago, when I was saying yes to more work and more opportunities and really "putting myself out there". I used to take work because someone suggested I go help that person out, or because I felt guilty because this person knew that person and somehow it reflected poorly on me if I didn't do the job. What I learned: The best reasons for taking a job is knowing that I can make a difference for someone and that I will enjoy doing it. Yes, there are going to be jobs I like more than others, just as there are companies and people I prefer working with over others, but the best reason for work isn't wealth accumulation - wealth is a byproduct of happiness and success.

John's Formula
I'd prefer not making this section grossly metaphysical, mystical or new age-y. I just want to share with you my view on how I judge my wealth and my success and how busyness doesn't factor in.

Wealth = 

Happiness + Success + 

Future Doors Opening + 

The Best/Right People Around Me

The order doesn't matter, but for me, I say wealth isn't just a fat bank account, wealth is the sum total of all I got, all I get to do and all I will get later, combined with people around me who want not to take their slice of the pie or claim credit (because it's not about percentages or proof, it's about just having it) who make the experience all the more satisfying because there's a celebration rather than a finger-pointing hootnanny or a pat-me-on-the-back-too shindig.

Do I have the best people around me? I do now. I didn't always before. And occasionally I let other people tell me who were and weren't the right people or what was or wasn't the right job, even though this is my life, my career and my path to tread.

For those who want me to break down the above formula here you go.

Wealth (Life wealth, not financial) = Being Happy + Being Successful (seeing the fruits of efforts, tangibly, financially and personally) + Having Opportunities to Repeat This Happiness & Success Later (like being brought on to do more work, or one job turning into multiples or meeting great new people with the promise of meeting more great new people) + Having Fun, Intelligent, Practical, Rockstar Princes, Princesses, Hooligans, Geniuses and Lunatics Around Me.

Note - if you think I mean actual insane people, I don't. I mean the crazy-like-a-fox people.

The End Result
I used to be busy, and wasted SO MUCH time running around from underpaying task to underpaying task to relationship where I wasn't invested to activity I couldn't give a shit about.

Now I'm working on what I want, at a pace I dictate, doing the jobs I've always wanted to do, and am so very invested in so many parts of my life (that I didn't even realize were previously there).

I encourage everyone reading this to take time to really sit down and ferret out the reasons they're working as hard as they are, and if they still feel "stuck", and look at what they wish they could do, and how they can make time for it. You can do the things you want to do, whatever they are, even if you just start doing them a little at a time.

Make yourself happy, success comes from happy.

Rock on.

What Not To Say To An Editor, Part 1

One of the more popular series of posts on this blog is the What Not To Send An Editor.

What I want to start today is a new series, What Not To Say To An Editor. Previously, we talked about stuff I get in the mail, now let's talk about the things I hear, get told and read in emails.

Now before some of you cry foul that a guy who has problems with his tone shouldn't be talking about sounding professional, I'm not chastising you specifically, I'm just pointing out red flags that I see in emails.

"Thanks but I'm not interested in having my work edited." This comes after I get an email asking what I do, and possibly after the email where I say how much what I do will cost. What this tells me is that you don't want other people to see what you're creating for any number of reasons (some discussed below), and that possibly you think your work doesn't need to be edited. Generally, if you think you don't need an editor, you do, often badly.

"I don't want to give you a copy of my work, you'll steal it." No, I won't. Here's why - I've got my own work to deal with, and don't really have the time to go around shopping your work as my own. This is particularly true if your work is fraught with errors and problems and things that need fixing -- why would I put my name on something that isn't the best? (And if you think I'm going to spend the time fixing your material, not get paid for it and then turn around and claim it's mine, you should probably consider how much effort that is without any sort of paycheck.)

"I don't need an editor, I've had my friends look this over a few times." I'm glad you have friends. Are any of those friends trained in writing theory and craft? Do they have experience in helping improve your writing, word by word if you need it? Are they unbiased? It's great to have your friends read your work, but to help the work develop, you need someone critical and unbiased. Like an editor.

"I've already given the story out to beta readers, and they're totally helping." Okay, I'm going to repeat what I just said about friends and add to it that if you're giving a reader a story in fragments or a story incomplete, you're robbing them of the total experience of the story and hurting yourself by not working hard at your craft. This is magnified if you're letting the reader dictate how the story should proceed or end, since the story is yours, not theirs. If they want to tell a story, they should be writing.

"I don't need you to tell me what I'm doing wrong." When I hear this sentence, I usually have to walk away for a second, because what immediately follows is the person saying that editing is basically what your high school English teacher did, and she was a real bitch, so you don't need that again in your life. The problem is that I AM NOT AN (YOUR) ENGLISH TEACHER, and it's my job to help you write better, and that means we'll be talking about what you're not doing well and what you can do better. If this was a gym, would you not want the trainer to tell you you're lifting the weight incorrectly?

"Don't you just press F7 in Word? I can do that." Sure, you can do that. I think I could train my dog to do that. But that's not all editing is. Editing is the process of evolving the story through technique and construction. Editing is part of the story telling process because it helps clarify and strengthen the material on the page. Pressing one key might take care of typos and some (it's not perfect) generic grammar, but you can do a lot more to help a story stand up and be noticed than just spell all the words correctly.

"I edit my own work." Yes, that's what every author should do. We should go through our work and look for the parts we need to tweak and look for the big glaring errors that jump out at us. But, we also have blindspots - scenes and ideas that we're attached to, or feel bias towards, so even if they don't help the story, we keep them in, because we like the work we've done. (I should point out, we like ALL the work we do, but like Animal Farm, some work is cooler than others). The best way to correct the blindspots is to hand the work over to someone else.

"I heard from XYZ person that you didn't edit their stuff, I think that makes you a jerk." The reason(s) I didn't take XYZ on as a client are none of your business or your concern (in much the same way you can't really comment as to how I spent my Wednesday evening - you weren't involved, you weren't there.) If my decision not to work with someone leads you to think I'm a jerk, that's a you-thing. Your mind, your thought, your decision. If that decision you made means you also decide not to work with me, that's fine too, I understand - there are other editors in the sea.

"You're so expensive." If you look at the pricing guide put out by the Writer's Market and then look at my prices, I'm just a little north of the middle of the road given the type of work I do. Why? Because I've been doing this half my life. Because I've built myself on delivering good results quickly. Because I'm good at this. Because it's a job and this is how much it costs. Just like when the sink clogs, the washing machine goes kaput or the car starts making that weird sound, you can try and fix it yourself.

(This one time my dad tried to fix the dishwasher when I was growing up. We ended up re-doing the whole kitchen (new appliances AND floor AND cabinets) that year).

Don't skimp on what's important to you. If you care about this story, make sure it gets the care and help and support it needs to be the story you meant to tell.

And yes, this will be a series of posts. Stay tuned for part 2 which gets a little more technical.

Happy writing.

Writing/Gaming - Show versus Tell

Time for a classic debate. Time for some good ol' fashioned barroom brawling over what-to-do-when-and-what's-better. Time to roll up our sleeves and get really INTO our work.

Today we're talking Show versus Tell.

I haven't brought this up on the blog before, but I think it's time. Now I'm going to come at this first for the book people but then for the game people, because while many of those elements overlap, the game design aspects have a spin on them that changes the nature of the debate. Let's introduce the sides of the debate...

Show 
This is more explicative, and treats the reader as more of a current viewer of the story. Also, this gives the reader the sense that the story is unfolding AS they read it, which helps make them feel like they're more a part of the story, and they enjoy it more, so they read more, so in theory if you've written more, they'll buy more. This is also a slower approach to developing characters, scenes, settings, and actions.

Were I to show you what I'm doing now, I have the option of treating your eyes like a film camera and zoom you all the way in to show you my fingers striking the keys on my awesome ergonomic keyboard. Or I might show you the room I'm writing in, describing it as the stunt double of a book and game store right now. Or I might start you in from above the scene, and sweep you into the office via the window, past the curtains and in over my shoulder to watch me write this sentence.

Regardless of how I choose to do it, the important thing is that the action and the character and nature of what's going on is unfurling around you in a relative real-time. I'm showing you that I'm writing this, because...that's what I'm doing now. I'm showing you the laundry basket of clothes I need to sort together for this weekend, because it's relevant to the distracting thought I'm having while I write.

Remember Rule #1 - Writing is the act of making decisions. And I, the author, am deciding to give you a view of the action AS it happens, so that you feel like a part of it, so that you can take advantage of all the details I'm providing, so that you have the most complete picture on your mental canvas.

Showing can consume more space, use more details, take more time and tax a writer more (because there's more work to do) than Telling, but the payoff is greater. Even on a egoic sense, through good use of Showing I can show-off (see what I did there?) my ability to write pretty sentences or describe things really well or demonstrate just how much "in charge" I am while you're reading.

Tell
Telling is more direct, but it does require the assumption that the reader trust the author. The author is giving specific details and specific explanations of details so that the reader knows what went on and what is on-going. It's a little more clinical, but also more subjective (if the voice doing the telling is biased or unclear or not omnipresent).

If I were going to tell you what I'm doing now, I can start in any fashion I want - If I want to set a tone that I dislike my work or my day or whatever, I can tell you that detail while I tell you what I'm doing. I also don't have to describe or paint any picture outside the relevant facts to what I want - When I tell you that I'm really sort of worried about X because of Y reason, I don't need to involve the awesome description of the wind chimes out the window if I don't want. (Remember, decisions)

Also, telling compresses time. It's fast-forwarding through actions you may not want to dive into, it's speeding through the lulls in action. This is particularly true if you go so far as to tell me that time has passed. (Two months went by...)

Telling allows the world to pass by, change, develop and grow outside of the bubble of the story, which we can cut back to when the action/story/drama/stuff resumes.

So What's All The Fuss About?
People, books, careers and media outlets make a huge fuss over showing and not telling. Yes, it's a problem. Yes, it's something a writer should be aware of. Yes it often requires a writer work harder to paint the picture for rather that telling me about the picture they're seeing.

Telling when you should be showing IS NOT a sign of a "wrong" writer. It's a mistake, for sure, but it's not enough to ban you from all forms of communication and shun you to some weird leper colony.

Like so many things, there should be a balance between the two -- you shouldn't be all one-or-the-other, and I'd be a little leery of anyone who advocates so strongly to exclude one side too often.

There are going to be things you tell, and things you show, and it's important that you figure out which is which in your story.

What Can I Do?
If you're expecting a checklist here, there isn't one. I'm sorry. But since we're all telling stories differently, the checklist is too circumstantial. But what I can tell you to look for are some key elements:

1. How close (or far away) do I want the reader to be in this scene? Do I want them over the shoulder of a particular character? Do I want them floating above the entire scene? Where do I want them focused?
2. What's important in this scene? Is it one character more than another? Is it the environment around them? Is it some tension that's conveyed without speaking?
3. What comes AFTER this particular scene? Where are we going from here? Do I have to ratchet up the emotion/action to get things rolling forward? How can I help this scene go into the next one?
4. What do I want the reader to take away from this scene when they're done? Should they have gained plot-critical information? Should they get some character-developing info? Are they just going to read that same description about the same chair over and over? Is anything new here?

In a later post I'll likely explore specific examples of each. Right now, authors, tell your stories. Get them all out of your heads, past the scratch notebooks and into some drafts. Just produce material for now. There's a whole other round of editing and developing that can happen AFTER you get the story out. But that's later....go tell me the story first.

Authors, happy writing.

Gamers, you're up.

For you, this debate has all the elements discussed above with the added issue of mechanics.

Because a game has to on some level be instructional, and teach the players what they can do, mechanics have to SHOW you HOW and TELL you WHAT.

Show me (the player) how to adjudicate different situations. Do I roll dice? Which dice? Show me the examples.

Tell me how to handle combat. Is there one mechanic I apply repeatedly? Are there steps? What am I allowed to do? What can't I do? (And why, don't forget the why).

There's still a blend required, still a balance to strike in the economy of show-and-tell, but you can use the mechanics as a lens and a bridge to walk the reader/player through the base of the story so the players can expand it as they see fit -- and yes, you do have to let them.

(Note - I really thought it would take me longer to say all that, but I'm satisfied.)

Happy writing.

Writing/Gaming - Roles!

So somewhere on the internet right now, a lot of people are very very upset about the loss of "roles" as a component to the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Oh right....yeah...disclaimer time....


DISCLAIMER! This post is going to start off a little nerdy, but I promise you, it'll get back on track shortly, just ride the dork-wave back to shore. 

Now in the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, there are these things called "roles", which were card-based pieces of organizational material that helped players figure out what their characters could and couldn't do. (Yes, gamers, I'm way simplifying that for the reading audience, but today's post isn't ALL about gaming.)

And that is a terrible idea.

Your Character Is Not A Note Card
Let's try an experiment. Go get your favorite book and go get a note card. If you really want to, go get the HUGE note card that your grandmother used to keep track of what pies she had to make for which social event, you know, those big huge ones that are practically half a page unto themselves.

Now, label the note card with the name of the book's protagonist, or your favorite character or the antagonist or whatever - just write down a character's name. And then all over that note card, I want you to write down all the relevant NOT-BIOGRAPHICAL facts about the character. This isn't a space for a history of their life, this is where you can write down a list of their attributes and qualities, write down their skills and what makes them awesome, write down any relevant story actions (like "saved a cat out of a tree" or "totally defeated the bad guy in Book 2").

It doesn't have to be pretty, it just has to be a list. Here, I'll do one too with the first thing I grab off the shelf -- The Complete Third Season of Night Court (what, you guys don't have DVDs on a shelf in your office?) And from that cast of characters (which I own strictly for research purposes, I swear), let's look at Harry Anderson's character of Judge Harry Stone.

Judge Harry Stone

He's a Judge

Comedic

Caring

Tall

Likes magic

Only child, broken family

Unlucky in love

That list has left my indie-gaming-senses tingling, because from that list (which I know is totally incomplete), I can generate a lot of Aspects (FATE), points (GUMSHOE) and verbs (Technoir).

But by no means did that list of seven lines sum up the character that is Harry Stone. And at no time should anyone think that a well-defined character can be completed summarized by half a note card. Yes, sure, we can do our best to find the right words that cover the most real estate of who the character is and what they stand for, but at some point, we cross a threshold of who they are and what they do.

You Are Not Your Khaki Pants
One of my great peeves in writing and gaming is that people have characters and define them by what they do. "Oh, he's a wizard, so he's some sort of Gandalf clone with a great sagely beard and staff." or "He's a detective, so he has to be a boozy, plodding womanizer."

This is where roles are more harm than good.

There's nothing wrong in summing up what a character CAN do in a few words or sentences - it's nice and helps other characters know how best to coordinate and collaborate. But there is a difference between "can" and "only".

If you've got a character with one particular skill, let's say they're the best chef in the county, are you only going to put them in situations where cooking is what gives them an edge? How many times are you going to imperil them with a mega-dangerous chili cook-off?

Just because a character has a go-to skill, it doesn't mean they have ONLY that skill. Come back a minute to the best chef in the county. Sure, they make a mean lunch, but cooking also means they know how to boil water, work a knife and prepare lots of different dishes. "Cooking" is a broad term for a whole suite of skills.

So too must the role of the character be bigger than their best or strongest skill and attribute. It's that fixed thinking that they're all one-trick ponies that developed the great cliches and tropes of our time:

Barbarians are stupid, fur-wearing, berserker thugs.
Blondes are stupid.
Women are secondary citizens, good only for birthing babies
Librarians are dotty old ladies.
No McFly ever amounted to anything in the history of Hill Valley.
Clerics are just walking first aid kits.
All detectives need to have a drinking problem
Brown-skinned people are property and inferior.
Every cop is either on the take, or they're the only good cop in a world gone bad.
Wearing a hoodie makes you a criminal.
To work in a cafeteria, you must have at least three moles with hair on them.
Bad guys will always tell you their plan just before leaving you cornered in an easily-escaped trap

When crafting a character, it is paramount that you get away from these thoughts and craft a character that exists OUTSIDE of these structures, not in defiance of them (because a defiance-built character is just a one-trick pony in the opposite direction).

So What Is My Role?
Gamers, your role is to participate at the table. Gamers, your character's role is to make the game enjoyable for the people to your left and right.

Writers, your role is to produce the best story possible and practice your craft to the best of your ability.

That's it. No pigeon-holing. No limitations. No restrictions based on personality, preference, or philosophy.

Gamers: Don't let your characters be pigeon-holed by anyone, anything or any arbitrary or capricious sentiment. Note: This is NOT permission to act bat-squeak insane all the time, but this is a permission slip and big thumbs-up to acting how the character would, based on philosophy, desires and interests.

Writers: Don't let the characters lapse from your creations into the commonplace templates of your literary forebears. Let them stand out, in their own ways, as you intended.

And with that definition of 'role' in use, that can never be taken out of a game. (Just like it never should have been adjudicated in the first place.)

Happy writing.

Writing Theory - The Circle

Today, we focus on some writing theory. You may have seen this elsewhere, or seen it in pieces, but I rather like this method (it is not my own), and thought some of you could benefit from it.

For this, you'll need:

• 1 legal pad (or blank piece of paper)
• 1 pen
• 1 name for a character 

Now, draw a circle on the paper.

Now draw a plus sign in the circle, to create four quarters. (Divide the circle in half vertically then in half again horizontally)

Now number the ends of the plus with 1, 3, 5, and 7

In the middle of the quarters, number 2, 4, 6, and 8

It should, basically, look like this:

This is a cycle, and we're going to go through the numbers clockwise. By the time we're done, you're going to have a  good idea about the development of your story.

Note: This applies to all kinds of fiction - from screenplays to novels to big epics to cave paintings - anything where you have a character and a mission to do something.  

Let's get started.

1.CHARACTER

 You're going to start this off with a character. I like to use protagonists for this, but it's also possible you use an antagonist for this, depending on your tone or your objective. You want to stay away from using secondary characters here, because they don't really need so much attention. 

The character starts at the top of this chart as we find them at the beginning of the story. Understand that the state we have the character at Position 1 is NOT going to be the state we find them in after Position 8. 

Also understand that if you go through this wheel several times (say it's one character over a series of books), that each Position 1 is relative to the start of the respective book, and it's not always going to be the stripped down Book-1 version. 

2.NEED (AS EXPRESSED IN PLOT)

This is the conflict or problem the story has put forth to challenge the character. This isn't so much their internal desire, this is more like the plot of the book. For those people writing series, try and keep this to one book at a time -- being too broad here really waters down the efficacy of the subsequent numbers. 

If your story has twists or big reveals in it, then Position 2 is where you document the most complete and most knowledgeable plot of the book -- after all the twists, after all the misdirects, whatever the challenge is, goes here.

So, for something like The Usual Suspects, the plot isn't so much "To let Kevin Spacey get away with it", it's to "have the detective/audience understand what happened" 

For something more linear, like Donkey Kong, it's "To have Mario rescue his girlfriend (Who wasn't Peach) from a gorilla."

3.GO (TO THE UNFAMILIAR) 

It doesn't have to be literal, this isn't quite Campbell's overdone Hero's Journey, but the idea here is that you take the character and put them in an environment/situation that they're not used to. An environment/situation different than what they're used to from Position 1, and as we learned about in Character 101, this should be  filled with challenges big and small for the character. 

The comedic route is to make this an issue of extremes - the milquetoast suburbanite in the ghetto, the rugged outdoorsman in the big city, the disconnected pair of lovers in the wilderness, that sort of fish-out-of-water element plays well comically provided you stretch it far. 

In more serious work, this represents a larger context for the character - the character leaving their familiar confines for new and larger surroundings. It provides a sense of expansion and intimidation, while also offering hope that along with the challenges come rewards. 

4.SEARCH 

Here, the character is going to struggle. Not to their lowest point of their progression, hope isn't entirely vacant here, but they will be tested. They will have to adapt to the new environment, and initially that process won't be comfortable. Over time though, they'll become more comfortable and more accustomed to the new environment so that they can expand their comfort level and possibly develop satisfaction in themselves for obtaining new skills.  

Position 4 is about the act of the quest, the progression from starting-point to further-along-point and the improvement of the character along the way. This is NOT about the specific item or knowledge that will make them better, because...

5.FIND/DISCOVER 

Position 5 is all about the item or knowledge they need to improve. For the stranded castaway, it's the making of fire. For the nervous lawyer in court, it's the discovery of the witness or a legal precedent that will change the tide in their favor. 

Critical here though is the idea this: In Position 4, they didn't know the "thing" existed, in Position 5 they find out it exists and....

6.TAKE 

In position 6, the hero goes and gets it. He makes fire, she finds the legal precedent, the boy pulls the sword out of the rock. Ideally, Position 6 is made possible because of the confidence gained in Position 4 and the character benefits from the knowledge or awareness in Position 5. This is a pretty "hooray" moment for the character, and can very easily be the climax of the whole story if you wanted it to be, but often this can just be a moment of hooray on the path of the story. 

In RPGs, this is the item gained in a dungeon crawl, or the loot from a boss fight. 

7.RETURN 

The character is confident (Position 4), aware (Position 5) and armed (Position 6), and now they can go back to the environment (Position 3) and complete the plot (Position 2).

Like Orpheus, this is the character's emergence from the trials thus far back to the environment he calls home. In some stories, this means they'll go all the way to the village he was kicked out of or they'll just go back to their "newer" home because they've matured/grown/developed independence from their old ways, and possibly can't go back (either metaphorically or literally).

This can be a whole part of the story, like a return to areas previously thought dangerous now made easier because of equipment and experience gained, or it can be as simple as transitioning the story back to the bigger world. 

8.CHANGE. 

Lastly, the character is able to take on the plot, and (depending on how you want it to play out) possibly succeed. To reach this point, you had to go through all the preparation of previous positions (alliteration!). Without the equipment/knowledge acquired in Position 6, without the struggles and adaptation to a tougher environment of Position 4, they wouldn't be as ready to take on the plot as they first heard about it back in Position 2.

How would Harry defeat Voldemort without any of the knowledge from the middle of the series? (Sure you can argue that all he needed was 'Expelliarmus' and Horcrux knowledge, but he had to gain those at some point.)

How would Indiana Jones be able to find the Grail without going through the harsh lessons of his youth? 

How would James Bond be able to defeat...whoever he defeated if he didn't have the invisible car? (Seriously, dude had an invisible car...and fought someone on a glacier or something. I kinda blanked on some of the Brosnan films)

The point here is that the character has come full circle in some senses, but is on a whole new circle as well. Yes, there's the plot to contend with still, but there's also a visible set of benefits and consequences gained from previous actions. The character has matured, our understanding and appreciation of them has deepened and the story can move forward, through the plot and into resolution. Or even into subsequent stories, if you want to repeat the cycle with a whole new plot, and build forward. 

If ANY of this is unclear, let me know. Leave a comment, write me an email, catch me on Twitter.

Happy writing.

Party Balance, Narrative Weight - Gaming/Writing

Today I'm going to try and explain a gaming concept that closely mirrors a writing concept. I can't say they're synonymous, but they're pretty close. Game designers and players, this one's mostly for you.

There's a sense, I think due in part to more recent editions of products as well as a great deal of MMO-play, that an adventure/episode/campaign/game should be forever balanced or scaled to the party, that is to say a 4th level party should almost always encounter things within the range of 3rd to 5th level (3rd level presenting no obstacle, 5th level to challenge them), because that's what a party can "handle".

I completely disagree and find this a cowardly way to create play opportunities. I say this quite strongly because I'm a player in a group that is currently at odds with the idea that a party of more-or-less 4th level characters is having trouble with essentially an apex predator in its natural habitat. Because we're not able to kill it quickly and celebrate gloriously then boo-hoo the game must be broken, or our GM must be an idiot.

This all smacks of selfish, spoiled play. And to go further and lob accusations that a GM is engaged in a game of "anything you can do, I can always do one better" is entirely the wrong attitude to take when your character struggled in a fight moments previously.

My opinion: It is the role of the GM and the players to work together to tell a story. The GM presents the plot, and the players offer characters and actions (hopefully) in line with the plot. The game, whether a single session or a campaign is a result of BOTH these things coming together. When one side believes they're carrying all the weight (a GM who has to pull teeth to get things moving, or players who just roll dice and deal damage, giving no interest in story), then play stops. And when play stops, it's a good chance to evaluate why and what can be done to make the process better.

Note: I didn't say 'empower' the players, because no one side of the table is subordinate or superior to the other. The whole table is in this together.

'Balance' is a tricky concept to handle in a game. Mechanically, you have to appropriately seed the possibilities of actions and reactions so that things work with almost a Newtonian elementary precision. Narratively, the story has to offer challenge and incentive for future challenge so that rewards may be had.

But, if you're looking to create either a realistic or immersive world, you have to chuck balance out several windows. The world is not balanced. Balance is not the focus of worlds that present great danger or texture. There will be times when players are out of their element. A game should seldom be locked into zones where low-level creatures cluster, then they may head down a road to where there are tougher creatures, and the further still live the stronger beasts. This is the legacy of MMOs, creating pockets of gameplay that emphasize a need for mechanics over story. It is unlikely that a low-level character will ever have a reason to wander to the dragon's lair, because they'll know they'll not survive - so they just won't do it. Although still an option, the game restricts the likelihood of it occurring by incentivizing alternatives - closer zones offer more immediate rewards without the problems of character death.

However, looking at fiction, the opposite is true. The "low-level" character embarks upon a huge quest where failure exists and seems likely, but through the application of skills and equipment, succeeds in the face of great danger: The peasant kills the giant, the squire eliminates the dragon, the farm boy blows up the planet-exploding superweapon.

At the heart of fiction lies something called "narrative weight", which is the idea that some portion of the character-pool (a single protagonist, a group of heroes, etc) is doing whatever is necessary to move the story forward from plot-point to plot-point, while the rest of the world keeps turning or while other characters go about their day/lives. The 'weight' refers to the decisions/reactions/consequences made at Point A that drive the character(s) to Point B. Often this can be traced down to a single character's action or decision (the one party member who needs rescuing, the one who commits the rest of the party, the one who charges into battle, etc), and it can be said that this one character carries the bulk of the weight.

What's funny is that when a single character carries more weight than others in fiction is that no one ever stops to question the balance. It's only in gaming, where egos bubble up, that people worry about balance, because there exists the chance that they're not getting heard or rewarded.

Example: You can argue that Lord of the Rings is as much Frodo and Sam's story as it is Aragorn's.The other characters serve a function, but it's usually to assist one of those two branches in the narrative. Were this a game, this would be unbalanced, since the the mechanically disadvantaged characters (the hobbits with no combat skills) are 'superior' to the wizard, the ranger and the fighters (the combat-capable characters).

This is the danger of 'balance' - it requires that the game be about who has mechanical rather than narrative advantage, because the party only moves forward when the mechanics make it reasonable, rather than possible.

And gameplay should exist more in the possible rather than the reasonable (since it's a subjective assessment), because that's ROLEplay rather than ROLLplay.

If the goal of playing is to create a collaborative story, then there needs to be a synthesis of mechanical potential and narrative merit. Sure, the party can stroll through the fields until they reach the dragon's lair on day 1. They have that option. If it makes for a good story, let them do it. If however the point of playing is to roll dice, feel superior to imagined scenario and gain stuff, then they should probably be dissuaded from moving forward and instead roam the fields and kill a billion mice until they gain the strength and prowess needed to make the dragon less of a foe, right? Which one sounds more fun?

I play a lot of level-less games, because without the emphasis on accruing improvements, it's a chance to focus on story and let that build and reflexively shape the character. My characters are not a pile of numbers that translate into which-die-do-I-roll-to-beat-the-imaginary-beast, there are feelings and ideas I'm trying to express beyond hitting things with sticks.

So what's a designer/GM/ST/DM to do? Take another note from writers. Just tell the story. If the party keeps hitting first and asking questions later, then perhaps its time there are consequences for those actions. A group of adventurers roaming the land killing creatures / endangering the peasantry is just a different flavor of danger to a nobleman's land, right? Will the players balk? Possibly. But if you're trying to reduce rollplay and insert even a smidge of roleplay, there aren't many easy balk-less solutions.

I appreciate you reading this long rant. We'll go back to more proper writing theory next post.

Soundbites and Language

"...a noir taste like we haven't seen in years."

"The impressionistic language dazzles."

"Raw and edgy, this doesn't disappoint."

This is the sort of language you see in reviews and on back cover blurbs. It's a quotable line, and something that hopefully attracts attention, if they're phrased correctly. The theory is that the sound bite is a perfect miniature of the whole, that in one quote, you represent all the flavors and elements of the whole.

The problem is that some of the flavors and elements of the whole aren't really great representations of the style, theme or even the author, but they make for dazzling copy, so they get used in quotes and the PR machine and somehow it's okay.

But it's not okay. Just because a review or a quote puts a word-label on something does not mean the item IS that thing. Anything can be mislabeled, mishandled or misunderstood. Now while so far in this post I've talked about the publishing side of the coin, it is also possible that from the authorial side things are misunderstood as well.

What follows are a few items I want to make clear, from both a reader and editorial perspective.

1. Profanity is not proof of hardboiled/noir anything. Yay for swearing. I enjoy a good string of expletives as much as the next guy, and anyone who can curse like a truck-driving sailor on shore leave will always be welcomed into conversation, but it's not a style. It's a string of words that, like adjectives, should be used for maximum impact and effect.

When I was away from home after high school, when I realized I was free of "the man" and had no sense of discipline or boundaries, the first things I wanted to do were all things I couldn't before. Smoking, cursing, drinking, eating whatever I could whenever I wanted, carousing...all the typical adolescent rebellion tripe. And I remember conversations I had when I came back from being away where it seemed as though everything third word rhymed with "trucking" or had something to do with defecation. (See what I did there?)

Was I expressing myself? Sure. Was it effective? It was not compelling more people to listen to me, no. It was not intriguing people to see the college student rattle off eleven curses while ordering an omelet. It didn't do anything to make me more bad-ass or more attractive. Too much cursing is not style. There is an art to language, and while provocative language is one technique, it shouldn't be the only technique, whether we're telling the story of a leg-breaking tough who discovers a dead dame, or whether we're reading about a police station in the grip of a crazed serial killer.

Profanity without purpose are words ripe for deletion when you need to trim fat.

2. The purpose of a book is to tell a story, not drown us in levels of craft-work. This is something I'm very guilty of. And for this, I blame my education. A host of teachers showed me all the different kinds of writing and English-major-y bits (I mean allegory, metonymy, catachresis, foreshadowing, parallelism, semiotics, etc) and I was so eager and happy to dust any and everything I wrote with all these big flashy concepts. This is great IN school, where a professor may actually tell you to use these things because you're getting a grade on how well you specifically use it, but out in the real world of writers and audiences, the great majority of your readers aren't going to care that within Chapter 6 you've created a deeply moving hendiadys (google it) buried within a turn of phrase that is a reference to the plight of the American Indian prior to 1890. No, instead they're just going to see the weird line of dialogue from a character.

2 sobering facts that I still find myself dealing with from time to time:

1. The vast majority of readers isn't aware of all the terms and usages and fiddly bits of language.
2. The vast majority of readers doesn't care about the terms, usages and fiddly bits of language - they want a story.

So for all the great exercising of years of English classes, it's not wasted on the readers, as I'm sure some of them will find, appreciate and digest the nuances, and the studies did make me more capable and diverse as a writer, but I'm not telling stories to practice what I learned in the spring semester of my junior year twice weekly before lunch. I'm telling stories because the characters have something to say and ideas to express as they gnaw their way out of my imagination onto the page.

In short - people are not going to know the hard work that went into the outlines, drafts, and revisions - they're going to see the end result. They may also miss the finer points of your writing prowess because they're engaged elsewhere by story, character or development. Don't hate them for it.

3. If the act of writing has a point, then it's to write to completion not perfection. Some days it feels like I'm forever writing and rewriting the same paragraph, page or chapter. I'm doing all this rewriting because I want, I feel like I need to have each sentence be 'perfect', because that's the only way someone will like it.

But then when I've handed out the first 60 or so pages of what I'm writing, the feedback I'm getting isn't "this is imperfect, you suck, go sit in the corner" it's more like "This is awesome, I want more please" and that's a hard thing to wrap your head around when you grew up feeling like everything you did wasn't good enough and as an adult you question your abilities pretty intensely.

Over time, and with the help of great people, I'm getting better at seeing my work in more appreciative and healthy ways. Sure, it chews a hole through me when it needs to be done, and I should make it more of a priority when I have great swathes of downtime, but I'm not chasing perfection here - I'm telling my story my way, the best way I can.

And that's where the perfection is - in telling my story my way. Not in the constant obsession of perfect grammar, immaculate syntax and brilliant use of obnoxious literary terms.


I will admit that I sort of rambled through this and lost a little steam while writing, but this is definitely a set of topics I'd like to revisit later. 

Happy writing.

Question Asked & Answered - How can I help you help me?

I occasionally get asked questions with answers that should be shared with other people. This is one of those times.

Andy asked, "I'm writing a manuscript (disclosure - I will one day have it done and send it to you), until it's done, what are the best things I can do (editing, preparation, etc) to make your future job easier?"

This is a common question. And I know a lot people who edit-as-they-write, either over the course of each sentence as they write it, or at the end of a spurt of writing when they can sit down and go through the day's pages. I'm not always sure which is "better", since both can be either helpful (in catching simple mistakes) or detrimental (they're stall tactics to keep you from finishing or they're just ways to heap a sense of failure onto your shoulders), but assuming that whatever you're doing is working for you, there are other things you can do to make my life (and whatever editor you work with) easier.

Behold, a list.

1. Check your spelling. This is the easiest step, and probably the one most avoided. The majority of programs now provide you with very happy red squiggles under a word for a reason, and even if the dictionary is inaccurate, take the time to make it accurate. It's one less obstacle to overcome and one more 'check mark' in the professional column for you.

2. Ask questions. If you're going to blind-submit to me (which is totally an option, but I can almost guarantee you it will be an exercise in patience for you), or if you're planning on submitting work, make sure you've asked some questions. What questions? These:

1. What format would you (the editor) like to receive the manuscript in?
2. How would you (the editor) like to be paid?
3. In what format will I (the author) receive feedback?
4. When can I (the author) expect that feedback?
5. What sort of comments should I expect to see as feedback?
6. Is there some sort of contract or agreement we make/sign for this?  

Yes there are loads more questions, I just gave you the first 6 that popped into my head as the first 6 I usually see or reply to. By asking these questions, and actually paying attention to the answers (more on that in a minute) a relationship between author and editor is built and the product of that relationship will be (hopefully) an improved manuscript.

3. Follow instructions. The majority of rejections and ignored manuscripts occur not because the work wasn't any good, but because the submitter didn't follow whatever directions necessary when sending the submission wherever they sent it. If you can't follow directions, then the editor/author relationship is not going to go well. This is not said so that you think all editors are dictators bent on ruining your work, but so that you're aware that the reason there are submission guidelines is often NOT arbitrary and often VERY important.

Now if you don't know what you need to do or need to send for a submission, ask. It may take extra time (an extra email, for example), but it will be worth it.

For example, here are my guidelines:

1. Digital submissions preferred, older Word formats especially welcomed.
2. No Mac .pages or similar. Also, no PDFs. 
3. If you have to print it out, DO NOT bind your manuscripts.
4. If you have to print it out, DO NOT expect your printed manuscript returned to you in the pristine state you send it.
5. When you send your manuscript, include in your email at least 2 ways to contact you (phone, social media).
6. When you send your manuscript, include also the word count, title and genre.

That's it. Why do I ask those things? Here's why.

1. I have several old computers that I work from. They do not all have the newest version of Word installed.
2. I no longer own a Mac (it's on the list to-be-bought)
3. On a print manuscript, I go through and write on/all over the pages. I need access to the individual pages.
4. I write on things. A lot.
5. I need to know how to reach you, and don't like playing just email or phone tag.
6. I need to know what you're planning to do with the manuscript, because that helps me know how to help you improve it.

(Fred Hicks really turned me onto this idea of transparency, and I'm really making an effort to be better at that, in addition to my on going efforts to mind my tone and be a good representative of myself, my business and my clients.  It's an addictive, positive thing.)

4. Pay. There are bills to pay. This is my job. Writing your book may not be your only full-time job, but editing IS my only job. Prompt payment is appreciated. (Note: I know times are tough, if money is tight or could become tight, the best policy is to TALK ABOUT IT, and make it a non-issue. I personally am a lot happier and more comfortable knowing that it might be an extra week or two for that check to arrive if I know in advance.)

5. Respect is a two-way street. When I take you on as a client, even if we disagree over something in the manuscript (like I think you should change a verb or flip something around and you think I should go lick an outlet), I'm not going to jump online and air our problems out for people to hear. Likewise, in the event that the money gets tight, or it's been a while since you cut me a check, I'm not using this blog to out you as some kind of non-paying ne'er-do-well. I respect you, and protect our relationship. Do the same for me.

6. Understand that I am going to talk about our successes. When things are rocking and good, I'm going to talk about it. I'll hop on Twitter and talk about the great day or how much I enjoy the work we're doing. And when the manuscript becomes a book and people can go buy it, I'm definitely going to talk about it.

Example: See this? I worked on this. It's awesome. And you should buy it, because I know of no other story where a spunky heroine waps a raptor with a wrench.

The same is true for any promotional work you do, or any crowd-sourcing efforts. I will back your Kickstarter, tell my friends and family about the project(s), and generally drum up good buzz. It's a good thing. I'm not doing this to call you out or put you on the spot, it's what I do to help OUR project succeed.

7. Do your best. A lot of people think an editor's job is to take whatever tangle of words you put on paper, in whatever form, and build a successful book/game/website/presentation/whatever from it. True, yes, I can do that, given enough time and with enough planning. But that's not what my job is - if it was, I'd just be writing FOR you, which I'm so not doing. Now, I'm not going to be petty and say "If you don't do a good job, I won't either", because that's exactly the behavior I'm looking to avoid, but I cannot stress that if you want me to take you seriously and professionally, then you need to do your best. Write your best, even if that's not perfect. Put together the best story you can. If there are imperfections or holes or problems, admit them up front so we can work on them. Don't half-ass this. Don't quit either.

If you do those seven things, the editor/author relationship thrives. And I agree with the prevailing sentiment that the relationship should be a collaborative one, not one where the editor goes for the jugular and breaks the writer down no matter who they are. That's not healthy. That's not writing. That's power-tripping. And it smacks of not-actually-knowing-what-the-craft-and-point-of-writing-and-editing-is-ness.

What Not To Send An Editor, Part 3

Previously (here and here) I've talked about what you should not send an editor or an agent. That list continues today. Let's rock this list like it was organized by a rock star librarian.

1. Please DO NOT send a query letter or manuscript written by hand. This has two effects: If your handwriting is tiny and scratchy, you may look somewhat crazy. Also, this makes you appear like you're afraid of technology. The problem is that if you've sent me a hard-copy (for example) we would have had to correspond, and that's usually by email.

2. Please DO NOT send a printed/bound softcover version of your book. Yes I know there are GREAT services out there that allow you to produce a book with minimal investment. And I'm glad you made use of them. The problem is that you didn't send me a manuscript (which I work on), you sent me a book, which is not the same thing.

3. Please DO NOT send photos of your children/pets holding signs saying I should read your work or take you on as a client. When I get a stack of photos in the mail, I usually look for the ransom demands or the photo that includes the line, "Or else I'll be beaten" and then consider calling the police. Do not play on sympathies to get your work advanced.

4. Please DO NOT include rejection letters with your work. Okay, you've been rejected. But sending your emotional baggage along with your work is not the best way to start a relationship if you want the relationship to be healthful and helpful. And for the record, I shred those letters, especially if you've added commentary like "Stupid bitch" or "Damn faggot" in the margins after I write the original sender a note.

5. Please DO NOT offer me favors that are in fact threats on other people. Do not tell me you're "going to take care of X person or Y person" for me if I take you on. I might not like X or Y person, they may not like me...but that's not really for you to worry about (this is especially troubling if you happen to mention people I've dated, who I KNOW don't like me now). Basically, threatening others to incent to me work with you is not happening. I just call the police.

6. Please DO NOT include hateful things about my friends along with your manuscript. (This is not me reverse bragging, I do have a point here) I know a lot of celebrities and semi-celebrities. Yes, many of those people may have different sexual, racial, religious, political or alcoholic preferences than you do. You don't have to disparage them (or their opinions, lifestyles or beliefs) to prove you're a tough person. It won't encourage me to respond.

NOTE - If you're going to question my sexuality or habits (insisting that I must enjoy the company of same sex partners or that I am in fact a person who has sex with female parents or that I lack 'racial purity' if I don't take you on as a client) you're absolutely not getting a response.

7. Please DO NOT include "things you think I might like" along with your submission. I am a nerd. I do not hide this fact. Lately, I've stopped hiding the fact I enjoy really good food. And I remain an ardent Xbox enthusiast. If you want me to work with you, just send the work. You do not need to go out of your way to include new Xbox games, thumb drives, pens, mugs, catalogs for bathrobes, sex toys or whatever else "you saw and it made you think of me". Let's just talk about work, shall we?

NOTE - I will likely not send the thumb drives or pens back. 

8. Please DO NOT send daily follow-ups. I receive mail everyday. I do my best to take about 2 hours to go through my mail and sort from it packages and manuscripts and all kinds of not-bills from it. After paying the bills, everything else gets prioritized and either delegated or answered. I do this DAILY. The mail here locally is known to be slow. I cannot predict when I'm going to get your package, let alone what specific time of that day I'm going to have time to sit down and respond to it. Calling me EVERY DAY after you've sent it is NOT going to encourage me to move faster towards your material. (You should though follow up about 3 to 4 days later with anyone you've sent material to but not heard back from).

9. Please DO NOT send "art" along with your manuscript. I put art in quotes because I'm not talking about book covers or graphic files. I mean the map of your fantasy world made out of cheese or the sausage shaped like your protagonist. If you want to hook me into the "feel" of your work, let your pitch, query and manuscript do the talking.

10. Please DO NOT send feces, urine or other bodily fluids. Seriously. Just don't. Ew. (This did not happen to me, but rather to an industry friend of mine, and she will be closing up shop for a few months because of it).

The moral of the story? When someone (an editor, a publisher, an agent, somebody) says "Send me X", that's all you send them. And if you're confused what 'X' is....ask.

Happy writing.

By request - Query and Summary Letters

Dee Solberg asked about query letters and summary letters, in terms of their construction and how to navigate the apparently bizarre demands from one publisher to the next.

A word first about those demands - they've never struck me as bizarre. Just like going from one store in the mall to another has never bothered me about where they put the registers or whether or not they wear name tags. Every place is different, and entitled to make up their own methods for accomplishing the same end goal - which in this case is getting your work published.

Now, a tangent: Do you know why those needs are so different? Mostly for two reasons - First, to see if you follow directions (you'd be shocked by the number of people who don't) and second to see if following directions discourages you from going forward. Publishing on the whole, is a test of endurance, (writing is the test of skill) and there are many stages of hurry-up-and-wait as well as stages of I-cannot-believe-I-have-to-rewrite-this that turn publishing into a very intense pursuit. I would also like to point out that you (the author to-be-published) should avoid taking this time to start developing the philosophy that you're competing with other writers. This is not about scarcity or about some game of book-musical-chairs. There are PLENTY of chairs and the music NEVER stops playing.

So what's step one? Where do I begin?

Step one is something that doesn't go down easily, but if you commit to it, life gets exponentially better. Step one is 'make sure the project is complete'. I know, some people reading this are going to grab this magazine or that website over there and point to examples that say flat-out you can query a partially completed 'thing'. Yes, you can. You possess the ability to package pages together and get it sent to a destination. That is an option.

But doing that, moving ahead to acquire all the bells and whistles of publishing (the elements often thought to bring legitimacy: an agent, a publisher, a partridge in a fruit bush) without finishing your work puts you on someone else's schedule. And that new schedule likely is unaware that your children may have sick days, school plays and sports practices. Or that your spouse might decide to rewire the house and leave you powerless on a Saturday afternoon. Or that you have two jobs and a mortgage and the phone bill and the credit card and you want a vacation and what about the grocery shopping.....etc etc.

By finishing your work ON your schedule, you make their schedule INFINITELY easier, no matter who the "their" is.  Take the extra time (which shouldn't be a problem if you've disciplined yourself to a good writing schedule, right?) to make the project the best it can be before it leaves you, and everything thereafter is much simpler.

Okay, I did that, but what's up with queries?

I do a lot of workshops about queries. Here are the basics.

• Start where the action of the story is. I don't mean action like where the first emotion is felt or where the first verb is, I mean start telling me the story at the good parts. The parts that are going to make me want to hear more about it. Practice this - summarize your favorite movie. Now out loud, talk about it. Those scenes and facts you're saying? Those are the things that show where the action/meat of the story is. 
• Find out how many words the whole thing has. Put that number and the title (which you'll put in ALL CAPS) in one of the last two or three sentences at the bottom of the page. 
• You have between 200 and 300 words (I aim for around 225-240 max) to seduce the person into reading the manuscript. That's the job of a query - to entice the reader to go to the manuscript. Not give away the story. Not bore people to tears. Just excite the person into wanting more information.
• Do not give away the ending. If you tell the whole arc of the story, there's no reason to read the manuscript. Remember, you're supposed to be seductive. Telling the reader how this is going to end is not seductive. 
• This query is about your story NOT you. I'm now beating a dead horse, but the query letter is not the place to list all your great publishing or personal successes. (The document for that is called a resume) The query letter is about this story, and its merits, not the struggle you went through to put it together. I'm sure it's a very harrowing tale, but it's completely irrelevant to the quality of the story or a reader's interest in making the jump from query to manuscript. 

That's the basic template. You get those pieces set in your query, whatever other demands come down the road at you are cake. 

And what about story summaries? 

That's a different animal. Here you want to treat the page like a candy bar or a cake - and that having one piece (the summary) makes you want to have other pieces later. Like ten seconds later. Or at midnight. Or for breakfast the next morning. 

You still start where the action is, you still need to know how long the whole manuscript is, but now you have about DOUBLE THE WORD COUNT (400 to 600, I like a cap of 550) to demonstrate in tiny version what happens in the big version. 

Think about movie trailers. That's a small piece of a larger cake. You now get to do that by writing. Look at your outlines, your notecards, your bullet points. Identify the big action beats, the funny beats, whatever beats make you proud of your creation, and find a way to string them together. The magic here lies in how you make use of the words and ideas available to you. 

And in non-fiction?

For the love all that you hold dear, DO NOT drown the document in headings. Not everything needs to be broken out and explained. Do you know how that comes across? Like the sniffly desperate kid in your class who used to eat paste and who just had to keep yapping and explaining. (In my elementary school, his name was Chas or Charlie or Chuck or something)

Likewise don't go the other way and have two or three headings and then big blocks of text underneath them. That looks more like you just don't know what you're doing and you're desperate. 

Instead, try this. 5 headings.

1. About the book (the length, the genre, etc)
2. The Characters
3. The Plot
4. The Author (that's you!)
5. How You Plan To Market This

If you're writing a book that lacks characters or plot (hi cookbook authors!), then change into "Reasons For This Book" and "Recipes". The point is that you don't need a TON of headings. You just need organization. Critical here are items 1, 4, and 5. Especially 5. 

Why is 5 important? Because the more you know about how you're going to get that book into other people's hands, the easier that will happen and the better it will be for everyone involved. If that means you need to educate yourself on how to market or publicize, do it (Here's a starting point, come ask me questions! Email or Twitter). Also, the heady days of disposable income are for the moment gone. So take the initiative and make something happen with your work. 

Any other advice? 

Yes. Two things.

I. There's no one road to this goal of yours. Even if you and I do the same research about the same topic and go to the same people to ask the same questions and query the same book, we're going to get different results. There is no one way to get published. There is no "right" way, there is no "wrong" way. One way is NOT better than another. What matters here is the answer to the binary question - Published? Yes/No. Having said that though, remember that publishing is NOT legitimacy. Getting published does not make you a better person or a superior one or smarter or kinder or more loved or anything like that. It's just something you did, like yesterday when I did laundry. There are lots of ways to accomplish it. 

II. There comes a point where you have to stop asking for help and start doing it. Lots of people and books and websites offer great advice. And you can spend many many days/weeks/months/years searching through them all - but NONE of them have the one magic bullet answer for you. It's the sum total of what they say, what you choose to take with you and choose to leave behind that shapes you. 

Yes it's great to ask for help. But there is such a thing as asking for help about a thing IN PLACE of doing that actual thing. This industry, this craft, this art, is PACKED with people who bloat the lanes and passages with poor habits, wrong intentions, poor writing and unhelpful attitudes and advice. This industry is thick with people who aren't going to ever get past the "talk about writing" phase. 

What separates the successful from the unsuccessful is yes, in part talent. But also the fact that the successful actually wrote. And got edited. And re-wrote. And published. And repeated this whole process. 

If you're doing this to be successful, that's the path.

If you're doing this to prove other people wrong, you're going to be disappointed.

If you're doing this to prove your own self-worth, you're going to be SUPER disappointed.

If you're doing this to be rich, you're going to be doing this a long time.

If you're doing this to be more famous than other people, you're going to be disappointed AND doing this for a long time. 

Dee, I hope this answers your question somewhat.

Happy writing