Reblog: Angella Graff, From the Editor's Corner

I'm reblogging this because, after I read it earlier today, I just couldn't let it pass me by without sharing it far and wide. There's just so much to this.

This comes from editor and colleague Angella Graff,  who is an amazing author and my spirit animal.

--------------

Being in the indie market, self-published authors have one luxury most authors in the Traditional Publishing or even Small Press market don’t have.  We choose when our book is going to be released.  It’s part of the Power is in My Hands draw of that publishing market.  As an indie author myself, I love it.  I’m not bound by contract or dates, and when my book is ready to head to print, within twenty-four hours, it’s available to the public.

But it also comes with drawbacks, some of which I’ve seen in droves coming from the indie market.  I’ve seen it first hand as an editor, and as a networker to a lot of my indie friends. Publishing too soon.  I can’t tell you how many manuscripts I’ve had to reject in my editing inbox simply because the author requests an editing job done for a release date two or three weeks away.

When you’re an indie writer, the ball is in your court, one hundred percent.  That also means you’re obtaining all of your services freelance.  Book covers, editing, formatting, marketing, etc.  And all of those things are necessary to bring a professional, worth reading, book into the market.

Traditionally published books often have release dates years out and those going straight to ebook, if they’re lucky, maybe six to eight months.  There’s a reason for that, and the reason is– those necessary elements to making your book professional take time.  Freelance editors, at least the good ones, are often booked up months in advance.  My own personal queue is fully booked through June, and I’m not even accepting new authors right now.

So the very idea an indie would choose a release date just weeks away from when they begin to send out editing inquiries is beyond me.  I don’t understand what the rush is.  I know, you’ve poured your heart and soul into this book, and everyone who’s read it so far loves it, and you can’t wait to release it out into the wild.

Believe me, I know the feeling.

But good work isn’t fast, and fast work isn’t good.  Neither is cheap work, or rushed work.  If an editor tells you it’s going to take four weeks to finish your manuscript, take pride in the fact the editor is using their precious time to give your book full and absolute attention.  You need a buffer, you need time to not only apply the edits when they return, but to finish re-writes, to perfect those tiny nuances of the book before you hit that publish button.

I find a lot of indies think the editing process is finished the moment the book is back in their inbox.  They just hit accept all changes and that’s that.  If you’re doing that, you’re doing your book a massive disservice.  A lot of times when I do copy editing, I will offer content notes.  I can’t help it.  Yes, I’m being paid to look at grammar and spelling, but I’m still reading the book, and if something stands out, I will mention it.  I can tell you with certainty, I’ve never edited a book, even just a copy edit, that couldn’t use a few plot or character changes.

I realize, for some indies, this is hard to hear.  Indie authors are some of the most sensitive I’ve ever come across.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing, or a harsh criticism, it’s just a fact.  I’ve had scathing emails in my inbox when, after being paid to do a full critique, the author was unhappy I didn’t find their book to be anything other than absolute perfection.

Trust me, as an author myself, I know the sting of critique.  I pass on a book which I believe to be the very best I can do, and when I get back comments telling me where I’ve failed, it hurts.  But I take it in stride, and I give myself time to make the necessary changes to my work, because despite my desire to have my first draft be absolute perfection, I know it won’t be.  I know changes are necessary.
I don’t want to rush my work out.  I want to spend days pouring over my text and making sure I am one hundred percent satisfied with what I put out into the market.

To tell you the truth, most good editors– and by good I mean editors worth hiring– won’t comply with release dates.  At least, not unrealistic ones.  I will always ask when they plan to publish, and if the answer is anything less than eight weeks (barring a previous agreement and my queue being completely empty), the answer will always be no.  Always.  Even with a manuscript assessment, I can’t fully predict how long it will take me to finish an entire book.  Without psychic powers, I also won’t be able to predict the little curve balls life throws at me, and it’s important to remember your editor is human.  Sometimes things happen, and it will delay your book.

My advice, use the fact that you have total control over your book and don’t choose a release date until your edited manuscript is in your grubby little hands.  Then give yourself several weeks of cushion to apply your edits, to go over it line-by-line.  Use those weeks to line up release promos and book tours, and build up anticipation and excitement.  Don’t rush.

In the end, you’ll thank me for this advice.

Trust me.

Side note: We have a lot of fun discussions on my Facebook fan page. I also sometimes use it to crowdsource future posts. So if you want to keep in the loop, or even be mentioned on TPF, make sure to give my Facebook fan page a like and follow my updates!

Follow @delenasilverfox

Writing a Blurb Made Simple

This is a post that made its debut over at the Naughty Pages of the Phoenix, and I think it bears repeating. Plus, the links work in this one.

If you’re like most writers, the words “write a synopsis” make you feel a bit pouty and rebellious. Kind of like writing a synopsis, but maybe not as bad. If you’re like most writers, writing a blurb makes you get a little whiny.

Writing blurbs making you
a tad crazy?

Admit it. It kinda makes you want to throw a tantrum like a sissy la-la, doesn’t it? It’s okay, there’s no shame here. It’s just you and me.

Between you and me, I love writing blurbs. Love them! It’s the very first thing I write, actually, followed by writing my synopsis, which you can check out here: How To Write a Synopsis Made Easy.

So what is it about writing blurbs that I find so easy? Simplicity.

First I’m going to tell you about a writing technique that I will praise until the cows come home. Most people who have known me for any length of time have probably heard me talk about Randy Ingermanson’s Snowflake Method. I get absolutely no compensation for sharing his tips or products; I just love what he has to share.

If you can afford it, I very highly recommend getting his program Snowflake Pro. Everything about the Snowflake Method you need in one easy-to-use little program, with some seriously kickass extras that are actually useful.

You can use the Snowflake Method whether you’re just getting started on your WIP or you’re halfway through. It works just as well for pantsers as it does plotters.

The idea is you take your entire story and condense it into one line, ideally 15 words or less. Lesser is better. If you can’t take the main idea of your own book and boil it down to a simple sentence, might I suggest asking yourself if you know what, exactly, it is you’re writing about, and why.

Brutal? Maybe. But we all know that you can’t be a nancy ponce and call yourself a writer, so buck up and hear me out.

After you take that first line, expand it into a five-sentence paragraph.

This is where we delve into the dissection of a story and the basic three-act structure. You have the beginning, and Plot Disaster #1 happens at the end of Act I. In a character-driven novel, the character’s choices and actions bring about Disaster #2 in the middle of Act 2 (this is usually considered the high point, as well). More character choices and action, plus some plot influence, brings about Disaster #3 at the end of Act 2. Everything comes to a head, forcing Act 3, which has the resolution and denouement.

How does that look in your paragraph form?
Your beginning: Sentence 1
Plot Disaster #1: Sentence 2
Characters making things worse, result in Disaster #2: Sentence 3 (usually it seems all is lost at this point, and your reader should be asking themselves, “Wow, how are they ever going to get out of this one?)
Character choice/action + some plot influence brings Disaster #3: Sentence 4
Resolution, falling action, ending: Sentence 5

Now you have a fantastic blueprint for the rest of your story. And don’t look now, but with a little tweaking, you have yourself a blurb.

Here’s an example from my latest MS, Devil’s Bitch, which will be released later this year:

Norelia, Imperial heir and zealous second-in-command of the Endless Army, is cornered by a wager against her father, the Emperor. The stakes? To marry the winner of the next Summer Games in order to ensure the continuation of the Imperial line. Confident she will win the Games and the wager, she is devastated when a mysterious contender named Reoth defeats her and claims not only the title of Champion, but claims Norelia as well. A misplaced note reveals Reoth and her father placed wagers on Reoth's ability to "tame" her, proving it was all a game after all. When her father is killed in a surprise invasion, the Empire stands on the brink of war and Norelia is thrust into the center of it with Reoth, a man she'd sooner kill than trust. As Reoth admits knowledge regarding who is behind this invasion, Norelia must determine where his true allegiance lies before the Empire, and her heart, are destroyed forever.

You’ll notice I tweaked the first three sentences to be more engaging as a back cover blurb. However, I assure you my plot-points paragraph has five sentences following the exact process I’ve described for you.

So go and give it a try! Once you get the hang of it, I hope you find it as useful as I have. And come back and leave a comment with your own five-sentence plot-points paragraph. Share your blurbs with me. I’d love to hear how this works out for you!

Ciao!

***

Side note: We have a lot of fun discussions on my Facebook fan page. I also sometimes use it to crowdsource future posts. So if you want to keep in the loop, or even be mentioned on TPF, make sure to give my Facebook fan page a like and follow my updates!

Follow @delenasilverfox

For Writers By Writers | The Road to Hell is Paved with Adverbs

On Writing

Anyone who is a fan of Stephen King's fiction might've read his book On Writing.

If you're a writer and you haven't, shame on you.

'Kay, not really shame, but seriously, why not? One of the most well-known and loved writers of our time has put together a book on your craft. Why wouldn't you want to get your grubby little hands on it at the first opportunity and devour what's inside?

In it, he says the road to hell is paved with adverbs. In fact, he compares them to dandelions:

I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they’re like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day . . . fifty the day after that . . . and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is totally, completely, and profligately covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it’s — GASP!! — too late. --Stephen King, "On Writing"

On Editing Adverbs

Of course, I don't believe it's ever too late. If you're determined, and you have a dedicated editor, you can weed your entire literary lawn of all but the most necessary of adverbs. If they're ubiquitous in your writing, prepare for a lot of pain and a massive re-write, but consider it lesson learned. Like an intense workout leaves you sore, think of it as growth.

Growth through pain. Learn to love the pain. And let it be a Pavlovian kind of motivation to stay the frack away from adverbs and actually write something real.

Why are they compared to weeds and the paving stones of Hell's Road? Because they're signs of lazy writing. Of juvenile writing. And --worst of all-- of timid writing.

Rumor has it F. Scott Fitzgerald said of adverbs, "Don't use adverbs so often because it makes you look like an amateur jackass, loser!" but so far I haven't been able to substantiate that. It makes me laugh, though.

Every time I see an adverb, I want to ask the writer why on earth I'm even reading their work. They're not bothering to give me a story. They're showing me nothing, and telling me everything. When I pick up a book, I want to watch the story unfold in my head, not listen as someone gives me a secondhand account. Isn't "show, don't tell" one of the most basic rules of storytelling?

How Not to Use Adverbs

"She got into the car seductively."
"He got clumsily to his feet."
"...she said threateningly."

[insert eye roll here]

What does "seductively" even look like? What is "clumsily" to me? Or "threateningly." What does that look like? What's on their face? How are they holding themselves? What came before and after that adverb? For crimeny's sake, what are these people doing? Show me that instead, because I don't even know what your adverbs look like to you and --as an avid reader who is happy to give my money to writers in exchange for my valuable time well-spent with a damn good book-- I really don't care.

There is Hope! How To Fix It

What about:
"She nipped his bottom lip and gave him a knowing smile. Saucy minx, he thought, as she slinked into the passenger seat, careful to give him a tempting flash of leg as she settled in."

"He reached for the counter to steady himself. His bum leg protested, like it always did, at being asked to work. It seemed to think it was here for decoration. He hoisted himself to his feet, staggering a little and wishing like hell she wasn't here to see this."

"She banged her fist on the desk. 'Damn it, Johnny! One more word and so help me...'"

See the difference? Stephen King talks about context being important, about showing what's happening around that adverb to give the words color and texture. From the examples, which ones actually get the point and picture across?

With strong context and good description, a writer can see adverbs for the clunky, extraneous paving stones they are. As the life-sucking weeds in the beautiful garden of your writing.

Kill your darlings. Show what's going on. Dare yourself to put your foot down and write like a boss.

You love writing?

Show it.

***

Side note: We have a lot of fun discussions on my Facebook fan page. I also sometimes use it to crowdsource future posts. So if you want to keep in the loop, or even be mentioned on TPF, make sure to give my Facebook fan page a like and follow my updates!

Follow @delenasilverfox

For Writers, By Writers | 5 Ways Writers Turn Commas Into Sociopathic Sentence Serial Killers

If I had to choose just one of my many Punctuation Pet Peeves as the end-all of my peeves, it would be the complete and shameless way people hack sentences to sad, incomprehensible pieces through their wanton use of the comma.

Sacrificial aftermath at the altar of poor punctuation:
Where commas are forced to do violence
against unsuspecting sentences.

Poor little comma. Its use is supposed to be like a hint of rouge on the cheeks to highlight cheekbones and mimic the maidenly flush of youth and exuberance, not laid on thick as a whore's lipstick.

And it's definitely not supposed to be used like a butcher knife!

Here are 5 Ways the Comma is Misused, or How To Use a Frickin' Comma

1.) Introducing descriptive clauses preceding the noun
Okay, so if you don't know what a clause is, let alone a descriptive one, shame on you. This is basic grammar. If you're going to be writing things like, y'know, sentences, then you definitely should know the different parts making up sentences and how to identify them.

Proper grammar and parts of the sentence are different posts. I'll get to it. For now, let's focus on the comma.

1. "She wore the only hoodie that was clean."
2. "She wore the only hoodie, which was clean."

Looking at them, you can easily see what each sentence means. But how to construct it? Too often I've seen, "She wore the only hoodie, that was clean," and it's so aggravating! Likewise, I've seen, "She wore the only hoodie which was clean." ARGH! So what's the problem?

"Which" is used with nonessential description and requires a comma. "That" is used with essential description. The point is, if you don't absolutely need the detail following the comma, it's a nonessential descriptive clause and you can theoretically drop it and put a period in its place. "She wore the only hoodie," works fine on its own because you don't need to know that it was clean. Mentioning that it's clean is just a nice detail.

However, saying she wore the only hoodie that was clean lets you know that there are plenty of other hoodies. The fact this hoodie is clean is essential to let the reader know it was one choice among many, and this was the deciding factor. In this case, it does matter the hoodie was clean.

2.) Commas before essential identifiers, clauses, and phrases

Example:
Many women want to be beautiful like the actress, Audrey Hepburn.

Now, we all know the sentence isn't addressing Ms. Hepburn herself. In a sentence in which you're addressing a person, yes, a comma comes before their name.

The comma here says that either you're talking to Ms. Hepburn (although, if you are, where the hell are your quotation marks?!), or that the qualifier is unimportant and can be dropped. If it's dropped, which actress are we talking about here? The qualifier is essential to make the sentence work, so the comma implying it is unnecessary is wrong. It's very necessary. It lets the reader know which actress many women want to resemble.

Correct: Many women want to be beautiful like the actress Audrey Hepburn.

3.) Commas used as a parenthetical expression

I see varieties of this everywhere. Seeing it misused is like chewing foil.

You can have a parenthetical expression without actually using parentheses, did you know? A parenthetical phrase is a phrase or clause in a sentence which adds value to the sentence, but is not necessarily vital to the main idea.

Example:
"Every day at 12:30, whether she likes it or not, I put my daughter down for a nap."

The parenthetical expression is "whether she likes it or not." You can test it by dropping everything in-between commas. "Every day at 12:30 I put my daughter down for a nap." The main idea is my daughter's daily nap at noon-thirty.

How to do it wrong:
"Every day at 12:30, whether she likes it or not I put my daughter down for a nap."
"Every day at 12:30 whether she likes it or not, I put my daughter down for a nap."

I blame vernacular and the 21st century's evolution of chatspeak. Everything from text messaging to Twitter to chat programs, shorter is better. It also affects how we hear the rhythm of words in our head. So how do you tell where to put the comma?

Try this example:
"The dog owners who couldn't get their dogs to learn the new trick stayed late for extra training."

It's a bit to take in, isn't it? So where's the parenthetical phrase? Is it talking about all the dog owners, or only those who couldn't get their dogs to learn the new trick?

If you're talking about all of the dog owners, your phrase needs two commas: one before, and one after the phrase to set it apart as additional description.

"The dog owners, who couldn't get their dogs to learn the new trick, stayed late for extra training."

How to do it wrong:
"The dog owners who couldn't get their dogs to learn the new trick, stayed late for extra training."
"The dog owners, who couldn't get their dogs to learn the new trick stayed late for extra training."

When reading it, I don't care if you naturally pause in only one place. There are two commas. Period.

4.) Separating components of a compound predicate

Writers these days are very fond of having their poor characters do too many things all at once. They fly down the stairs while throwing on a sweatshirt and talking on the phone. They lean forward and sigh and marvel at their lover's incredible necking skills. They get up, put on shoes, and open a door. All at once. I've seen it.

Makes for some really awkward reading. Have you ever tried to get up, put on your shoes, and open a door all at once?

"Well, Delena, they're not really doing it at the same time. It's in the order listed."

Yeah, I agree with you. The assumption is that they're doing what's physically possible. However, how it's written tells a different story, and oftentimes it comes down to how a writer's forcing the poor little comma to butcher a sentence. It's like those Facebook memes about telling Grandma to come eat, and inviting people to come eat Grandma. It's all in how you punctuate.

Example:
"She loved going to the park and chatted the whole way there."

The single subject ("she") has two predicate verbs ("loved" and "chatted"), and the verbs are separated by a conjunction ("and"). There is no comma unless the subject is mentioned a second time.

Okay. One of the broadest rules of thumb is to take what comes after the comma and either drop it or --in the case of a compound sentence-- replace the comma with a period. If your simpler sentences work properly, your comma usage is also correct. [This is, of course, a very broad assumption! As with anything, particularly grammatical rules (<--see my parenthetical expression there?), there are exceptions!]

How to do it wrong:
"She loved going to the park, and chatted the whole way there."

We're taught to put a comma before "and" when listing things, and it somehow bled over into treating compound sentences like lists of items. I shudder at the practice. Why it's wrong: If you take the second half of your conjunction, "and chatted the whole way there," you cannot make this into a sentence by itself. Except in the rarest case (we'll get to Beginning Sentences with And, But, If, and Other Conjunctions in a later FWBW post), "and chatted the whole way there" would be a fragment.

If you're dead set on using a comma in this sentence, insert the subject a second time:
"She loved going to the park, and she chatted the whole way there."

See? Now apply the test. Drop the comma and add a period: "She loved going to the park. She chatted the whole way there."

5.) The Dreaded Oxford Comma

This one is where I put on my harsh Grammar Nazi face and shove my snooty nose way up in the air. The Oxford Comma, A.K.A The Harvard Comma, A.K.A The Serial Comma.

You've seen this one. You've used this one a lot. You've also likely done it wrong.

Okay, so here's the debate between The Associated Press Stylebook, and the Chicago Style manual and American Psychological Association formatting and style guide: the Associated Press says it's perfectly fine to omit the comma between the final two items in a list. Chicago and APA say it's totally not fine.

Here's why I agree with Chicago and APA:
"Today I went to the toy store, the grocery store, the bank, my landlord's office and Olive Garden."

Okay, so you know that I went to five places today. If I said, "Today I went to my landlord's office and Olive Garden," you'd know exactly what I did, and most likely the order in which I did it all. Associated Press says this is perfectly fine, since the agreed assumption is that I did all these things in a specific order.

Chicago and APA say no, that sentence says I went to three places and then went to two places simultaneously. The "and" without a preceding comma in a list implies the two items joined by the conjunction go together.

Here's one that's a little more muddled:
"I bagged kiwis, bananas, beets, grapes and nuts before I left."

Okay, so did I bag all those foods individually, or did I put grapes and nuts in the same bag before I left? To be honest, there's no way you can know for sure. You can only assume. And we all know what assuming makes us, right?

So which is it? Based on the way the sentence is constructed, there's no way to know. You can point to it and say, "No, you bagged grapes and nuts separately, otherwise there'd be an 'and' before 'grapes.'"

Well, no. Not if I bagged grapes and nuts together.

See the problem? It might not seem like a big problem, but when your job as a writer is to paint a picture, communicate, and convey meaning, you've done nothing but confound your reader. That's a no-no.

So be clear. Embrace the Oxford Comma. I'll even let you call it the 'serial comma' if you really want to.

-=[~]=-

So there you go. Five ways writers force innocent little commas to become mass murderers of beautiful, unsuspecting sentences. 

And for those of you who still say that comma usage is subjective and since every editor's different there's no real correct way to use commas, I'd say you're right. 

Except that you're wrong. There definitely is a correct and an incorrect way to use a comma. Sure, there is some creative license for comma usage in certain instances, but "creative license and subjectivity" is not a get out of jail free card. I've just listed five incorrect ways commas are used. I promise you, there are more out there. And you're probably doing them, too.

Follow @delenasilverfox

For Writers, By Writers | Writing Basics

Writing is hard work. Rewarding, yes. Creative, yes. Liberating and expressive, definitely.

Easy? Um, no.

The bitch of it is, there are tons of books, magazines, online articles, lists, workshops, programs, videos, and everything else people can think of that try to teach people how to write. But not everyone can write.

There. I said it.

The real reason not everyone can write is that not everyone has the ability to write well. Nobody has it, but everyone can learn it. There's a science to writing. Nobody's born knowing how to write. Those with the inner fire, that drive, that incessant need, go out and learn how to write to the best of their ability. They have the voracious need to learn more, always more.

Do you have that kind of hunger to write?

Now, don't get me wrong. Will everyone be able to learn how to write like Chaucer, or Jane Austen? Hell no. Maybe their writing will be more like J. D. Salinger and have more swear words than The Catcher in the Rye. Maybe it'll read more like Charlie Gordon's journal entries in Flowers for Algernon, which would be wonderful because, despite his butchery of the written word in the beginning and end, Charlie's prose was genuine, flowing, and heart-wrenching.

Should you aim to write like them? Well, yes and no. I'll get to that later.

The above picture speaks of resistance. What separates the writer hopefuls from published authors is more than just planting your butt in a chair and plunking away at the keyboard until a finished MS is born. Any hack can scratch out a finished MS.

 *coughNaNoWriMocough*

Yeah, yeah, plenty of people love NaNoWriMo and say that just finishing a MS is a huge achievement. For me, getting out of bed every morning is a huge achievement, but nobody gives me a medal for it. Why not? Because the real work comes after that MS is done, and that is what separates writer hopefuls from published authors.

And what's the real work?

Know your tools. Know them, and use them. A lot.

Know your writing tools.

Just like the first simple tools that separated our progenitors from the rest of primitive life (cue 2001: A Space Odyssey music) our writing tools are what separate the serious writer from the hobbyists with delusions of grandeur.

Now, I'm really not trying to alienate anyone. But have you noticed that there is just something different from the serious writer versus the writer hopeful who talks a great talk but somehow can't get that first MS accepted? Or, God forbid, the wannabe who talks about getting published but hasn't even submitted?

So...why the resistance?

The first writing tool that should be in your toolbox is Being.

Yes. Being. It's as much a fundamental characteristic as anything else about you. It's what makes you, you. This is the absolute, unwavering, fundamental knowledge that you are a writer. Before you use any other adjective on yourself, "I am a writer," should be it.

I am a writer.

Not, "Well, I write some on the weekends," or "Yeah, here's some of my poetry/a short story/some ideas for a book I have." Not any other tepid statement that holds back from that solid claim. It might feel presumptuous. So what? Even if you have nothing published yet, take it! Who cares about feeling embarrassed if someone points out that you're not published, so it's just a hobby at this point?

Fuck that shit, and take it! Own it.

Did you know the San Francisco Examiner told Kipling that he didn't know how to use the English language? C. S. Lewis was rejected over 800 times before he sold anything. One publisher told Nabokov that Lolita was "overwhelmingly nauseating, even to an enlightened Freudian." Ouch. Dune, one of the most stunning examples of science fiction in history, was rejected 20 times. And 17 publishers passed on Cabot's The Princess Diaries.

No one would argue that those were writers, yet at some point...they weren't.

So in this new series I'll have for you every third Monday of the month, For Writers By Writers, we start with Writing Basics. The first item is Know your tools. And your first tool is Being. Know what you are.

And what are you?

Follow @delenasilverfox