Short Cut Dangers

[Author's Note: This post addresses not only my writerly view but also my world view. As in, a belief that informs my daily life.]

Today it occurred to me that there ought to be a warning sign for aspiring writers: Do not take the short cut.

It's not that short cuts do not exist. They do. In fact, there are many, it seems, who can attest to this fact. And it's not that short cuts in and of themselves are bad. They're not; they simply exist. And it's not that in a fit of mad querying I've turned slightly green at those who've found the short cut, bypassing the long line of weary travelers, and attained the golden crown of publishing. I haven't; at least not yet.

It's just that I believe in the power and energy of the long way, the narrow path, the school of hard knocks, the lesson of the journey over the destination.

That deduction could be a cop-out. Or an excuse. Or justification for yet another rejected query.

But it's not.

In a Literary Lab post on Pain, Gain, and Avoiding Both, Scott G.F. Bailey writes,

"...the longer-term benefit is that we become better writers when we struggle and suffer and fix our mistakes. Usually, we learn enough to not make that particular mistake ever again, which saves time and effort the next time we sit down to write."

Of course, to take his quote out of context, not only does the struggle improve the writer-in-training but it also improves the character-in-training. As in the character of a man or woman's soul. And how noble is that? (After all, for what other purpose do we wander here on planet Earth?)

What prompts this introspective contemplation? A look backwards, actually. Where was I a year ago? Two years ago?

• A comparison between my first (two-page, single-spaced) query letter and today's (three paragraph) leaner, tighter, meaner version.
• A comparison between my first tedious and meandering synopsis and today's streamlined and focused version.
• A comparison between my first big-on-idea, short-on-connecting-threads novel and today's completed (60,000 word YA urban fantasy) novel.

Does it mean I've arrived? Heavens no! I'm still on this journey. But when I realize the amount of knowledge I've gained, the skills I've acquired, and the mental synthesizing of great gobs of publishing voodoo, I'm -- quite frankly -- moved to amazement.

Thus, I have to say that I'm thankful for the journey. And gratified beyond belief that I didn't find the short cut. After all, it would be so bloody embarrassing if that first attempt at spinning YA brilliance had been published.

Book Roast: Taking Reservations

When some of the biggest names in the publishing world blog, writers not only listen, drool, and work fiendishly on their query letters, but they also peek at the Net World that the Agent/Editor/Scotch Drinker in question links to. At least this one does.

Among others, Bransford and Moonrat have given a shout out to Book Roast. Not only does the site review books and then invite authors on board to answer questions, but they give away free copies of the books. So it's like a free promotional for authors AND a sneak peek preview for readers.

This would have been posted much earlier, but I got lost reading some of the excerpts posted on the site. My only complaints are that I'm not seeing a deadline for entering each contest (By nosing around, I think you have to actually comment on the day of the author visit) and the fact that November & December seem a bit skimpy. But then, holidays are demanding.

And authors? They're taking reservations. Jump in and get roasted.

Wisdom Squared

Gavin of Mechanical Hamster linked to an Oliver Postgate (1925-2008) May 2003 article that made me ponder, growl, snort, and shake my head all in about three minutes' time. By the end of the piece, I felt like an old fogey, just about 'up to here' with all these young whippersnappers who are ruining the bidness.

What's the problem? The sacrifice of the story for the sell. Or method over content. Or empty snazziness for a jolly good story. However you want to put it.

Even Anthony was grousing about this very subject (though on a tangent...as usual...)

So how do I reconcile Deaver's "study the market" with Postgate's "be true to the story"?

In my own head, I can marry the two. It feels natural, much like the process of elimination. But am I fooling myself? is it merely justification? how do you meet commerical needs and still tell a good story? or do you?

The Struggling Writer Files: What You Can Do

Conflict simmers along quite nicely when large bodies of intent, replete with significant gravitational pulls themselves, can squint down their individual pathways and envision the coming collision.

Take this one, for example: struggling writer (actually, fill in this blank with any writer, struggling or not) glances up from precious work-in-progress to note several items of import...

• The economy is faltering.
• Book sells are down.
• The US trade book market faces a rough immediate future.

Panic flares in multi-hued edges; what if there are no buyers for my book? What if books are banned because they use precious resources? What if amazon.com pushes through legislation requiring all texts to be read via kindle?

Oh, wait. Writers don't think about things like that. What was I thinking? However, on the off chance that things like this do prickle along your subconscious while you're doing a find for all -ly words in your manuscript, I have a truly scintillating piece of advice.

Go forth and buy books. It's your civic duty. Actually, it's you single-handedly saving the publishing industry. After all, shouldn't we writers support the very companies we want to someday work for?

Agents 201: Do I Need an Agent?

Part II of III on understanding the world of agents. The content for today's post has been gleaned from the ever-so-gracious Jody Conrad, author of When Goliath Doesn't Fall.

Are agents necessary? Having a reputable agent represent you is like having Coca-Cola represent your unknown, brown, chemical syrup. Without an agent's well-respected name representing you, the the chances of a publishing house seeing your brown liquid as anything but brown liquid are slippery at best.

Authors can get published without agents, it's just sometimes more difficult, especially for a first-time-author, to get the attention of a busy publishing house. It's easier for a publishing house to rely on the trusted name of an agent they already know sends them good referrals.

Agents do three things:
1. Help you get your foot in the door of the publishing world.
2. Negotiate the finer points of a book contract (i.e. % of advance, basket-accounting, etc).
3. Provide market tips and strategies, keep an eye out for further placing your work, and give general encouragement.

Why is it so hard to find an agent? All that said, agents are sometimes just as hard to 'win-over' as publishing houses. They have to really believe in your work to take you on because taking you on means they are endorsing your kind of writing which, in turn, reflects on them. Too, besides a percentage of your advance, they only get paid if your book does well; a risk for them. So, they weigh whether your writing is worth putting their time and effort into tweaking, representing, and pitching to publishing houses. In essence, their agency's name is on the line.

When you keep that in mind -- that an agent takes a risk by associating with you, an unknown -- it starts to put things in perspective. And a bit of perspective is like a twist of lemon: it keeps things real while giving you mouth-watering insight into the life of others.