How Publishing Works

     My mind has been on the topic of publishing recently, so I thought that it would be a good time to blog about it. I've been doing some research about the publishing world and what it involves. What I've found on the internet is a lot of article and videos giving your "10 Tips on getting published" which is not exactly what I was looking for at the time, but some of these article were interesting.

     Part of the problem was that many of the articles and videos I found were actually about self-publishing, which is an entirely different ball game than traditional publishing. For one thing, instead of the publisher footing the bill, you, the writer, have to pay the expense up front. That might be thousands of dollars out of your pocket to see your book on store shelves in the hopes that some people might pick it up and purchase it.

     In self-publishing, the process is involved for the author. After the book is written one of the key differences is that, as a writer, you will not have the benefit of an in-house editor, one of several people hired, full-time, by a publishing house to look over your book for ways to improve it. If you want to improve it in self-publishing you either have to do it yourself, find friends and family, or hire an editor. This will be the first expense.

      After that, you'll have to design a book cover. You could do this yourself or find someone to do it for you. Again, this could get pricey. Then it's a matter of formatting your book. This part means that you'll have to make sure the spacing is right on the pages, and the fonts are the ones that will read easily. Being sure you have your cover pages, page numbers title pages, and other details like this are all part of formatting. Once you have it formatted, you approach a company who works with you to get your book self-published, if you want to work with a company. They’ll get your book put together and printed in the quantity you order.

     The reason that so many of these online articles and videos put forward the idea of self-publishing is that it is a faster method to publish than the traditional method. In the traditional method, you have to submit a book proposal or send your manuscript to a publishing house. Then it's a wait of up to eight weeks until you hear back from them about whether or not they are interested about taking on your book or not. 

     From recently reading an article by Chip MacGregor on his website, I learned that the process isn't as simple as the Big Kahuna taking a look at your book's title, flipping through the first chapter and saying "I don't like it. Wait two weeks and send them the form letter." There's an acquisitions editor who looks at it, an editorial committee who takes a gander, then a publishing committee who looks at it if it gets past those guys. If it gets through all of those groups, then the editor runs a profit and loss sheet to get some ideas about how well the book might do if they publish the book.

      People often get the idea that publishers get the manuscript then sit around on it, burning time before deciding arbitrarily to send out a rejection letter. But this article made it more clear to me that there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes even before a writer gets an offer to publish their book. Though it might be weeks before they hear back from the publisher, the people working for the publisher might be deliberating and running numbers for weeks on their book to see how well it might do before they tell the writer anything about what they intend to do.

      In any case, whether one intends to self-publish or go by the traditional method, it’s been an interesting process to learn more about both methods and what they entail. The self-publishing method will have you pay up-front, but you keep all the rights to the book. However, if you go by the traditional method of publishing, you will be paid to publish your book, and will have a team of people working to be sure that it gets put together and to see that it gets a good chance to sell in stores.

MacGregor, Chip, “Ask the Agent: How Does a Book Get Selected by a Publisher?” MacGregor and Luedeke, MacGregor Literary, 4 – January – 2017, http://www.macgregorandluedeke.com/blog/ask-agent-book-get-selected-publisher/

Fiction Series

     One of the things on my mind recently has been the idea of writing for a series of books as opposed to a novel with no intended sequel. Writing a series of books instead of a single novel changes the game which we writers are playing. The particular kind of series I'm thinking of are not like the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, or other long-running, episodic books. I'm thinking of series usually running between three and seven (or more) books with a tightly-woven story line as opposed to a series with a separate plot for each book.

     When approaching the idea of writing a series of books, we have to think about long-term consequences. The scoundrel that our adventurer pestered in the first novel may come back with a band of cutthroats later in the series. The pair of diamond earrings the professional thief took in the first story may be a precious heirloom that the noblemen will stop at nothing to get back. The story arc of the characters will be longer as their relationships develop and become deeper as they are thrust further into each other's lives.

     So far, the novels I've written, am writing or am planning are all single novels, but it occurs to me that I may eventually find myself writing a series. The questions that naturally come from that assessment begin to approach. What does that involve? What kind of planning would I have to do before starting a series like that? Do I have to have the entire cast of characters figured out already or do I just have to have a few substantial ones, the hero, antagonist, love interest, and a friend? (I read about that list of relationships somewhere recently.) Do I focus on the book that I'm writing now, or do I plan out the entire series before I start the whole thing?

     When I was fourteen I learned how to juggle. I found some tennis balls and with much throwing, some catching, and much more dropping, I eventually got a feel for how to keep the balls in the air. It wasn't like in the cartoons, where they all follow each other in a circular patter (what jugglers call a 'shower' pattern, but a figure-eight 'cascade' pattern. When I learned to juggle, I learned that it's a game of multi-tasking. You've got to focus on the ball in your hand, catching in and throwing it back into the pattern. But you also have to be aware that you have two other balls in the air, and you've got to know where they are so you can know when they're going to land. When you're juggling, you can't follow one ball with your eyes all the time, otherwise you'll drop the other two.

     So what does juggling have to do with writing? Simple. It's about principle - multi-tasking. The ball in your hand is your current project. While the ball is in your hand you focus on that one and work on getting that draft finished or revised or whipped into shape to send to your beta readers or to the publisher that you hope will take the hook.

     At the same time you stay aware of the idea that you still have 2 or more books that you may be writing, and a long-term story to deal with. From what I've heard of some publishers, some will sign an author with a written book and an outline or summary of the series. If you are an author who is looking into getting published or writing a series, do some research, see what's out there; what publishers put out novel series, in what genres? What authors do they sign? Do they take unsolicited manuscripts? (Books publishers haven't asked for. Some publishers will the manuscript back without opening it, so be sure you know what the publishers are looking for and if they take unsolicited manuscripts, or if your manuscript is solicited.)

     The other thing I have read about series is that publishers are eager to pick up a series of books rather than a single novel. This is for a number of reasons. First, a series of books with have natural momentum. When the second book is published, it will be advertised as the second book, drawing attention to the first book. People who know about and like the first book and hear about the second will keep their eyes open for it. This also means that the publisher is, essentially getting a two (or three or four...) -for-the-price-of-one. If the publisher has one author contracted to write multiple novels, they have to work less to find another new author or novel.
    
     After considering a few of the different things involved when writing a series of novels, what is the conclusion that we come to as authors? We know that every novel we write has to be self-contained and have a proper story arc- Beginning, Middle and End. Acts I, II, and III. We know that a story-line and characters will have to be consistent throughout the series. We'll have to keep the long-term goals and consequences in mind.

     My conclusion is that writing a fiction series would be very rewarding. To see a story come together on a large scale as characters' relationships deepen, sever, heal - these will drive your story forward and, if used properly, and send your series soaring forward into the unknown.

Setting

In writing fiction, setting is a tool which I think can be easily undervalued. Setting is any means whereby the author gives indication about the space in which the events in the novel take place, whether this is a single room, across the globe, or in alien galaxies.
          

  As I’ve studied writing over the years, I’ve found that authors have a lot of advice about setting the scene. For example:

·         Don’t interrupt the story to tell the audience where they are

·         Find creative ways to set the scene – straightforward telling gets old after a while

·         Don’t start a novel talking about the weather

           Now as long as you have authors, novels and publishers, you’re going to have writers who break the rules. There will be writers who interrupt themselves to give you a tour. This is a bad idea, since you want the reader turning the pages as they follow your story – not trying to pick up the lost thread when you find it again.

Sometimes describing the scene as it is will be the most efficient way of getting information to the reader. But this is probably not going to be very interesting. If you can show them what it is as your protagonist or antagonist goes about their work – in short, multitask – you can give them the essence of the setting and keep them interested in the story at hand.

Talking about the weather is cliché, and I don’t recommend it unless it is important to the story. If, for instance, that twister Jeb and Earl are talking about is the same twister that Dorothy was sucked up into last week when she claimed to have seen munchkins, and men made of straw and metal – then yes, I’d say this would be a good place to talk about the weather. If, however, you take a good 500 words to tell us that the sun was shining, pare it down and keep the plot moving forward. Remember, conflict drives the plot forward.

One question buzzing around your head may be whether setting the scene is necessary. In answer, I’d like you to take a look at the passage below.

“Tara glanced over her shoulder down the dirt path. There was nothing there.  Turning her attention forward, she strode onward. Tara knew that she had to find some shelter before the night was out. The woods could be dangerous at night.”

            Not necessarily very exciting. We have a woman wandering through the woods alone at night. This passage is simple reporting, the author is letting us know what happened. But the intention is that the scene is supposed to be tense, if not foreboding or frightening. Let’s see if some details can’t give some life to this piece of prose.

“Tara glanced over her shoulder down the dirt path. The moon shone from the heavens, dousing the earth in a weird, otherworldly light. There was nothing there. Turning her attention forward, she strode onward, feeing the gravel bite into the bottom of her soft-soled sneakers. She couldn’t see far into the trees on either side of the path, and they pressed in towards her, stifling her breath. A piercing howl sounded and she stifled a scream. The echo sounded all around her, refusing to settle in one spot. She didn’t know what a wolf sounded like, but this sounded otherworldly. Tara knew that she had to find some shelter before the night was out. The woods could be dangerous at night.”

            Hopefully this second example proves my point. While the first paragraph reported what happened, this second paragraph drew the reader in. What any author is striving for, when they write, is to get the reader involved with their book. How do we do that? We aren’t reporters or we would be looking to write for local columns. Writing fiction is something different. The key to engaging readers is that whether they like the protagonist (Hero) or not, they must feel some kind of sympathy for him.
           

 Giving the reader tangible details is always a great way to draw them in, if used in moderation. In the first paragraph, the woman looks over her shoulder. But if we don’t know what she sees, the usefulness of this information is limited. We might think she’s a little nervous, that’s all. But in paragraph 2, we start seeing talk about “Weird, other-worldly light”. Even though they can’t see anything dangerous yet, the reader’s internal radar begins to ping with danger signs. Something isn’t right. What’s worse, the reader doesn’t know what isn’t right yet, leaving him in suspense.
           

 The other important thing setting does for a novel is that it gives the reader emotional context for the story. To be clear, the setting is more than the physical surroundings. It’s the description of the physical surroundings as well. I could mention that the protagonist is standing in an empty room and move on with the story. But that isn’t specific enough for the reader, unless I want them to be unsure about what to feel.

If I mention light filtering in through old glazed windows and thick dust on the floor, I could give the reader a sense of forsakenness that the room might have. If, however, the windows are boarded over, large holes in the floor, and one door which is now locked by an unseen enemy, you may well guess that this is supposed to be a place where the characters are going to feel terrorized.
           

 It’s important enough that I’ll say it again: specific, tangible details will draw the readers into the story, if they are used in moderation. Drawing attention to specific elements will provoke reactions by the characters and the reader.

Conflict drives a story forward. Characters are the agents whereby the plot is enacted. But without a setting on which to act out this story, the characters are standing on a blank canvas, acting out their scene in pantomime – though they speak and move their actions may not have much depth without a space to perform in.

Classics

One of the ideas I've held onto for a while is the idea that to become a great writer I should be reading great literature, the Classics. And this isn't untrue. Reading well-written books will certainly benefit me, giving me inspiration for how to write my own stuff as well as letting me pick up little gems and stylistic traits that writers of the have.

I have recently challenged this convention for myself and made a decision. If a book is known for being great, and is great for the talent of the author, the time it took to put the book together, the skill with which it was written, and the deft hand by which it was edited, I have no reason to disagree. But because a book is great in the eyes of those who know and study literature, does this mean I should necessarily read and study this book because it is great?

With these thoughts in mind, I was at a bookstore about a month ago, and I saw a copy of a classic, well-loved by many and well-known by more - Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Now I've seen film adaptions of this before, and I enjoy the story and the characters. The fiery clash of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy is entertaining.

As I dove into this book, however, I realized more fully that Pride and Prejudice is a historical novel. I have a bad track record with historical novels. I read bits of the book on and off for about a week, a week and a half.

And with reading history in general.

So, after a visit to my library, I picked up a copy of the first book of the Michael Vey Series by Richard Paul Evans. I consumed the book in less than 48 hours. Just today I finished reading it a second time.

So what makes the difference? Is it 'wrong' that I read a YA sci-fi novel and not a Great Work of
Literature?

No.

Books of fiction are written for our enjoyment and our entertainment. I've been studying writing for a while now, and as I've read articles and book about writing, there are lots of people who like to give lists of the most important rules for writers. Many of these arguments approach writing from different directions.
"Stick to the three act form."
"Don't use the passive voice."
"Show, don't tell."

But beyond these, there is something even more basic that must be met. A book could be well-written, but if it breaks this rule it will have failed in its basic purpose. I've boiled this idea down to four words.

Don't Bore The Reader.

As I said, people come to books to be entertained, to escape from their world that they're living in. The primary purpose of books is to provide an escape. A synonym of 'Entertain' that we use sometimes is the word 'Amuse', as is "Go amuse yourself." The word has two parts to it - "A-" which is a prefix to suggest the opposite or contradiction of something, and "-muse", which means "to think." If we put the two together, 'Amuse' might mean, in a sense, to stop thinking.

And that's exactly what we look to do sometimes. We're tired of decision-making and problem-solving. We want to see how someone else - the underdog that we're rooting for- solves the next problem that is set against them as they try to accomplish things that we dream about.

This is why, I'm sure, I struggled to get through "Pride and Prejudice" and soared through "Michael Vey". When we read a book we look to escape, but it's easier if it's escaping to something we know. I don't connect nearly enough with 19th century British culture to find the plights of Miss Bennet and Mr. Darcy as engaging as Michael Vey.

So while you're consuming media, whether the latest novel, blog post, youtube videos, or entertainment in other forms, don't get caught up in the game of the "Next Greatest...". After all, "Classic" isn't a title that will stick if quickly bestowed on something. It's earned with the test of time. So let's leave that naming process to the literary scholars.

Archetypes

If I say 'Archetypes' I'm sure you know that I'm not talking about architecture. An archetype is something that is used to characterize, well, characters. Archetypes are typical examples of things, in this case characters. They help us to understand how characters function in their world, and how they relate to each other. They are a kind of quick reference guide.

Character archetypes go almost as far back as storytelling - the damsel in distress, "all brawn and no brains", the sneaky, conniving one - these and others make up a roster of characters found in all kinds of stories. Despite negative connotations, some put with these 'stereotypes' and 'label'. But the first step in understanding anything is knowing what it is, so names are the game.

These archetypes appear in an old kind of Italian theater, Commedia dell'arte, translated "Comedy of the profession". Commedia is an old kind of improvised theater from the 16th-18th centuries. Besides the use of stock characters, masks were used to differentiate characters from each other. Each character had his or her own characteristics, such as a large brow, a long nose, or other distinct traits that each possessed.

For example, one of the characters is Pantalone, a miserly, self-serving merchant whose love of money is his motivation. Others are the Zanni (from whose name we get our word "zany"); Arlecchino is one of these, the servant with an enormous appetite. These are a few of the charactes that make up the cast of these Commedia productions.

While the material from show to show may change, the characters will be consistent in their behavior. Arlecchino will always choose food first, to feed his insatiable appetite, as Pantalone chooses money.
But how do these archetypes apply to writing? Can they be used to any benefit for writers? Archetypes can be a great place to start for building a story from the ground up. as the story develops ad the characters become entrenched in the plot, they will certainly deviate from the typical examples of their archetype. Every character is different and each one will be shaped by their circumstances.

A good example is the rich philathropist, perhaps. While two of a kind may be similar, their circumstances may change them drastically. Remember, it's only when something goes wrong that the story begins. Readers don't read about a walk in the park. Let's take, for example, Tony Stark from the Marvel films. From the first time we're introduced to him, we don't see much of his past life. Again, the story hasn't started yet. But whatever relative bliss he was living in is interrupted when he is confronted with the violence that his company's weapons are used for. As his story progresses, it becomes clear that he is haunted by this knowledge and he sets out to seek peace, fueled by regret.

This could be a very different story-line than many others considering the character's backstory and position in society. Tony Stark could have about anything he wanted out of life, but his experiences drive him to make choices that threaten his life and put him in situations facing over-powered villains looking to abuse or misuse the kind of technology that he is using to try to promote peace.

And now, in two paragraphs, we've gone far from the rich philanthropist whittling away his days with parties and charities. Archetypes are useful for understanding character. They can give us a good grounding as either readers or writers to understand stories. But as far as being used to write with, they can only go so far. So the writer must work to flesh them out as they enact the story he sets forth.

How we write

     I've been doing some work recently, and picked up a few books on writing. Almost anyone who has set out to write a novel is familiar with the argument - to outline, or not to outline? The slang I've heard for this is "Plotters and Pantsers".
   
     On one side you have the 'Plotters' (those who set out to outline the entire novel before they begin) on the other, the 'Pantsers' (those who start with only a vague idea of where they want the novel to go.) The Plotters would say "I couldn't 'pants' it! How could I write a book if I don't know what's going to happen?" The Pantsters retort with "I don't wanna outline my book! That just ties me down."

     In almost any discussion or book about how to write a book, with plotters or pantsers, I've heard the same arguments -

"A novel has a beginning, a middle, and an end.",
"A book is written with three acts."
"A book has an introduction, rising action, a climax, and a denoument."

- and so on and so forth. While all of these are true, I'm here to disagree.

    This is not how to write a book.

     Now before all of you writing students and literature buffs get yourselves upset, keep reading. As I said, these previous statements are true. But they are NOT how to write a book.

     These arguments are how you Analyze a book. Let me explain.

     When someone talks about the structure of a book, they're talking about a book that has already been written. When a book is finished, if it follows some of the basic structures of storytelling, it will naturally have a setup, a development, and a finale.
    
     But writing a novel is a lot messier than that. At least for some people.
    
     Some writers (like myself) have little to no idea what's going to happen in their book, except for a few key plot points. But they know that things will have to be set up, that things will have to get harder for the protagonist, and that they will have to wrap up the book in a satisfactory fashion. When starting a story no one says "Hm, what kind of structures of classical struggles in literature can I use as a basis for the next scene in my novel?"
    
     At least not many of us.
    
     ... at least not me.
    
     What happens is a writer says something like "OK, my hero is trapped at the bottom of an old well that's filling up with dirt, and he can't escape. His girl's gone, so he's distracted, but he has to find a way to stop the mad scientist from throwing the country into a panic with a mutated virus." (Cooties are a thing, apparently.) "How do I get him out of this mess?"
    
     When a writer follows the natural progression of their story, they're not thinking about the structures of successful novels, they're working to tell a good story.

     So if you're trying to figure out how to tell a story, studying books on writing can be helpful. Learning about the structures of fiction, how it's put together and how successful fiction works, is great. But don't let the analysis of fiction become a recipe. Let it be something that helps you understand how fiction works so that you can be free to write the way you do.

Beta Readers

Hey Guys,

     I know that my posts here can be a bit sporadic, but I have an exciting update. I know I posted a while ago that I finished the first draft of my first novel. This a huge step forward for me. Most of my experience in writing has been for fun. I wrote for the local youth fair, short stories, or for fun.
     Late last year, as I said, I completed my first book. Now I'm going to be in the process of revising it. I've reached a critical stage, however, and I'm going to need some help. 🙂
     Now I'm looking for beta readers. I've already had some sign up to help me, and I appreciate those who have. If this is something you are interested in, find me on Facebook and comment. You can search with "Jackson Kerr fiction" and it will be a page with the same pictures as on this blog. There you can message me or comment, letting me know that you're interested in being a beta reader.
     If you haven't been a beta reader before, or don't know much about it, being a beta reader involves reading through the book and giving feedback about the story and characters, as opposed to editing. If you have other ideas or thoughts about this, feel free to share.

Thank You!