Keep the Doors Wide Open

A popular post from September 2009

by Annette Lyon

I imagine if you talk to virtually any published writer, they'd tell you straight out that their publishing life hasn't turned out exactly like they expected. Twists and turns and unexpected bumps happen along the way.

And so do massive shifts . . . like taking on a new genre. Or changing publishers. Or parting ways with an agent. Or finding success where you least expected it.

For example, when I first began seeking publication, it was with a YA fantasy. But I first got published with a contemporary romance. The shift happened after chatting with a friend at a conference and realizing that I had stories to tell that her publisher might be interested in. Several rejections (and one acceptance!) later, I was one of their writers.

Another shift happened when, two books later, **SURPRISE!** I found myself writing historical fiction. At the time, it was a shock to me. Now, that genre is what I'm best known for, and people laugh when they hear I didn't always plan on writing it.

And now? My next book is contemporary women's fiction (not a romance), and, on my publisher's request, I'm working on a (get this!) a COOKBOOK.

Sure didn't see that one coming.

I recently thought through the stable of PEG editors. Each and every one of us has had major shifts in our careers.

Lu Ann slaved for years on YA manuscripts and suddenly found her big break ghost-writing a memoir for the Herrin Twins' mother. She has since been hired to write a second and then a third memoir. Not what she initially planned on, but she's published and continuing to be published. I still think she'll get her own novel out there some day, but what if she'd said no to that first memoir? She'd have missed out on several fantastic opportunities (and the royalty checks that go with them!).

Heather began writing a bunch of different kinds of stories, not sure what genre what she wanted to focus on. I remember one book set in the Puritan era and another that was more of a mystery/suspense. She's since found huge success targeting the historical/religious fiction market. She didn't plan that right out of the gate.

Julie's first two books were with one publisher. She changed publishers midstream and suddenly vaulted into the spotlight with an amazing novel that got her massive acclaim. And then she had to switch publishers again. Talk about a roller coaster ride. Now she's got a new book out (yay!) plus an agent for her YA fantasy work, and we may well see her her science fiction books on shelves in the near future.

Josi got a name for herself writing books with "meat" dealing with serious issues like molestation, prescription drug abuse, and Internet predators. By a giant quirk of fate (that maybe she'll tell here sometime), she ended up writing the beginning of what turned into a culinary mystery, which has now turned into a culinary mystery series, and now she's got two novels for that series out with more to come. Again, didn't see that coming.

I could go on with more examples showing several of our other writer friends who aren't part of this blog and how they've had to morph and change with the industry, their publisher/s, their editor's demands, their audience, and so forth. Things change.

The point is that as a writer, if you 1) hope to be published and 2) hope to keep being published, you have to be willing to bend. Granted, you don't want to write just for the market, just what "will sell."

Don't sell out. Of course not. But be flexible. I couldn't write what Heather or Julie or the others do, but I can write a variety of different things that I am personally good at, in my own way.

I need to be willing to put my toes into different waters and try them out. I shouldn't be afraid of something just because it's different and I might be scared of it. (I was terrified of historical fiction the first time!)

Try it out anyway. Because guess what? See that new puddle of water? That might just be your big break. You never know.

As for me, aside from the contemporary women's title coming out next spring and the cookbook, take a wild guess what my next novel will be?

Nope, not another historical.

My editor suggested I pull out an old murder mystery I wrote years ago and revise it.

Bet you didn't see that coming. Frankly, neither did I.

Publication Timelines

A popular post from May 2009

by Heather Moore

Admit it. When you wrote your first book, you thought you'd find a publisher within a few months, and your book would be out before the year was up. Right? Now that you know better, here is the real story:

27 months . . .

My first book that I got published took 6 months to write, 2 months to edit, 10 months to hear back from the publisher, 9 more months to be released. Total time: 27 months

When you show up at an author’s book signing for his/her latest release, you should ask, “What are you working on now?” Chances are they are writing a book that will come out after the book that they just submitted or had accepted. Clear as mud? The reader sees the new release as the fruits of an author’s labors about 1-2 years after the book was actually written.

Often, when I’m at a book signing promoting my newest book, I’m in the throws of writing the next thing.

A sneak peak at my projected schedule:

*2008
July-November: Writing Historical Book “B” (sequel to “A”)
November: Historical Book “A” is released (written in 2007)

*2009
January: Book “B” accepted
January-July: Writing Non-Fiction Book
July-November: Writing Book “C”
Sept/Oct: Book “B” released
Waiting for news on book “Q”
Will start a sequel for book “Q” if it’s sold

*2010 Projection
Spring: non-fiction book released (if accepted by publisher)
Fall: Book “C” released (if accepted by publisher)
Fall: If “Q” book sells in 2009, it may come out 2010 or 2011


Currently I have book “Q” with an agent. I wrote the book Spring/Summer 2006. I handed it off to readers Summer/Fall 2006. In January 2007, I had an agent’s interest but she didn’t like the ending. I did mass revisions and finished them Summer 2007. The agent never responded back. At the beginning of 2008 I found another agent. A year later in January 2009, the book was “approved” for shopping (after more revisions). Five more months have passed. This might be a record. 36 months total . . . and counting.

Now, just for fun: The book “A” that I wrote Summer/Fall 2007 and was released Fall 2008, guess when I received the first royalty check? February 2009.

Is This a Kissing Book?

By Julie Wright

I was a guest speaker at the LTUE symposium a couple of weeks ago and oddly enough, was placed on a panel dealing with romance in the science fiction and fantasy markets.

The room was full. People wanted to know how to include good romance in their novels and what consisted of good romance. I was surprised. I didn't think anyone would show up to that panel.

What made the panel extra cool (aside from the fact that I was on it) was that Tracy and Laura Hickman were on it with me. These are people who are universally acknowledged as brilliant writers. They've won the accolades of generations worth of readers. In short, they know what they're talking about.

And the discussion went to the basic human need to be part of a companionship. Humans need love. They need to give it and receive it. And all things at their core come down to that one amazing word: LOVE.

It is no wonder that an infant deprived of affection will literally perish from a syndrome called "Failure to thrive." At the beginning of the last century, the mortality among children under two years of age, living in orphanages in Europe and in North America, was almost 100%. These children were being well taken care of physically. They had all the food and health care they needed. Yet hundreds of those babies died. At that time, they feared touching the babies would spread germs and infection. That was changed in 1920 by a pediatrician who made a rule that all babies get a certain time allotment for "mothering" every day. The mortality rate dropped dramatically. The babies only needed love in order to survive.

Love is so wired into our basic needs that we will die without it, much like we will die without oxygen and food. So, should your book have an element of romance? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends if you want to relate to your reader at a very basic emotional level or not. Part of your job as a writer is to make certain your readers can relate to the characters. If you have aliens, you can't make them so alien that the reader cannot connect with them, or you fail as a writer.

At the beginning of Princess Bride, the young sick boy interrupts his grandfather and says with a great deal of accusation, "Is this a kissing book?"

When Grandpa gets to the kissing part, he stops reading, but is encouraged to continue by the same child who had already declared he wanted nothing to do with kissing. Why the change?

Because even at his young age, and feeling a little hesitant to step into something that might brand him as a sissy, the child recognized that true love really does conquer all.

And I'm not saying you have to have kissing and sex in your novel--I'm saying you need love. That love can come from a relationship between a man and woman, a mother and daughter, two best friends willing to die to save each other--it can come from any relationship where two humans let go of their own pride long enough to find something worth living for.

You might find yourself saying, "Well, this is a historical book." What? People didn't love each other historically? Or maybe you're writing a war novel. Do you think people give up their basic needs just because they are in a war?

Even the Grinch needed his heart to grow in order to find his happy ending.

No, you don't always have to include romance (in the strict sense of boy meets girl), but if you want your book to strike that perfect chord of poetry where you have spoken to your reader in a language they will always understand, you'd better make certain to remember Love.

Two Books Head to Head

by Annette Lyon

Many of my posts come directly from whatever I'm currently reading or editing, and today is no different. I've been through a lot of historical fiction lately, so without naming names, I'm going to compare two novels and what they did (and didn't) do right.

Plot & Character over Period
Novel #1 has an intricate plot that relies heavily on actual historical events. But even though these events are dramatic and real, the point of the story is actually the characters involved and how they react to the situations they're thrust into.

In other words, in spite of the historical detail (and how involved real events are in the plot), the time period is secondary. I doesn't really matter when the story is set, because the characters are real, universal, and riveting. I had to find out what they would do next and what would happen to them.

Novel #2, on the other hand, has a time period that overrides the plot. Lots and lots of events are thrown onto the page seemingly just because they happened then. Yes, they (usually) impact the main characters at some point, but too often the time period comes first, the plot second.

And the characters? For starters, there's too many to keep straight. For another, few are interesting enough that I'm compelled to keep reading. I don't really care about them. It's a book more about a particular year in history than a story about characters who feel real and face real crises.

A novel should always be about the characters. We shouldn't have to care more about the year than about the hero and heroine in order to slog through the book.

The irony with this comparison is that of the two periods, Novel #1 has (by far) the more intricate story as far as weaving in the history. Tons of dates, places, people, and events from real life are woven into a complicated plot. But again, the characters and story come first. The story is about how the hero and the heroine handle the conflicts. The history is there enhancing the story, not making it.

Accuracy
Novel #1 was obviously heavily researched. So was Novel #2. Some of the details in both books make that very clear.

I caught one tiny thing in Novel #1 that made me pause and wonder if it was accurate. It was so small that I don't remember what it was anymore. Novel #2, however . . . I can list off several things I know (and I'm sure many other readers know) are downright wrong. It's as if the author researched X and Y and then just assumed Z.

But Z didn't show up for another fifty or sixty years. And in another case, Z didn't show up in history until even later than that. You can't assume.

Research vs. Showing off
With Novel #1, the historical details never got in the way of the story. They were there as the backdrop of the stage the story plays out on. If we heard about a car or a hairstyle or a piece of clothing or a meal, it was described in a way that made it clear that this is simply the way things were back then. These details set the scene and make the story come alive.

Novel #2 . . . well, a lot of details feel as if they were thrown in for the sole purpose of waving a flag to get attention and yelling, "Look at me! See? I DID RESEARCH!!!!"


To be honest, I'm still trying to finish Novel #2. While I'm not a fast reader, Novel #1 was longer than this one, and I finished it in half the time #2 has taken me to get 2/3 of the way through. That alone says volumes.

Whether you write historical fiction or not, many of these same principles apply. The Hunt for Red October wouldn't have been interesting if we spent too much time learning all about Tom Clancy's research into submarines.

House wouldn't fun to watch if they spent too much time explaining all the medical terms.

The characters and the plot come first. Research is important, but don't let all the facts you dug up get your story quagmired in boring mud.

Oh, and be sure to look up Z. Just in case what you assumed about it isn't really so. It happens.

Copyright & Plagiarism

by Annette Lyon

Reader question from Terry:

Can you, or do you need to copyright short stories to put on a blog?

***

A disclaimer: The information here is based on my industry experience, but I’m not a lawyer. For legal advice, be sure to consult an attorney familiar with the publishing industry.


The short answer is no, you don’t need to copyright short stories on your blog.

The somewhat longer answer (which will also diverge into another area):

Once you write a story and it’s in any tangible form (saved onto your computer, scribbled in a notebook, typed out, on your blog, written in crayon on a napkin), it’s already under copyright protection by law. There is no need to register your work to have that protection.

When you get a book published, the publisher takes care of actually registering the copyright, which makes it nice and official so everyone is aware of your copyright. You get the © and a date by the mark so everyone knows how long it’s been under protection (generally the year the book was actually published, not when you wrote it, even though, yeah, it was already protected then).

Since publishers and agents know the generalities of copyright law, they aren’t going to try to steal your work. That would take a lot of effort, frankly, and they’d rather just be ethical, sell your stuff, and get both of you some money.

As I’ve mentioned before, putting that little copyright sign next to your manuscript’s title smacks of amateurism and paranoia. It doesn’t hurt, however, to put a copyright notice on your website or blog as a gentle reminder to readers that your work is under protection, just a small, "Content Copyright 2008." In this electronic age, it’s ridiculously easy for anyone (not editors and agents, but casual readers) to cut and paste and republish without permission or attribution.

If you’re genuinely concerned about someone stealing your work, you can do one of two things to prove your work existed when you say it did.

Register your work with the U.S. copyright office. Not hard to do, but it does require paperwork and a fee.

OR

Mail yourself the manuscript. Then don’t open the package. That way, if Joe Schmoe comes along three years later and steals your work, you have physical proof on your postmark as to when your version existed—and that yours pre-dates Joe’s by a margin.

And here’s where the topic expands:

If Joe writes something that rings a bell—it has a similar concept, maybe—that may or may not be a violation of your copyright. His version would have to have a lot of similarities. You cannot copyright an idea, just the expression of one.

He might be plagiarizing your work. Or not. It would be depend if Joe uses your actual words, regardless of whether the story is the same. An author can be guilty of plagiarism if you’re lifting or just slightly altering someone else’s words. Paraphrasing without attribution is often considered plagiarism too.

While violating copyright and plagiarism are both unethical, they are not necessarily the same thing.

Say, for example, that a writer silently ripped off Jane Austen. She wouldn’t be guilty of violating copyright. No court around would find an author guilty of that, because Austen has been dead for so long that her work is in the public domain. (This is why you can find a dozen different houses publishing her books—they can do it without paying anyone royalties.)

However, if the author were to try passing off the copied Austen sections as her own, that would be plagiarism. Sometimes the two overlap, but sometimes they don’t.

When working on my last book, I was sure to tread carefully. The story is a retelling of a Shakespeare play, and some scenes are—deliberately—similar to the Bard’s.

During the drafting phase, I had a writer tell me that I could use anything from the actual play. Lift whatever I wanted, he said. Shakespeare is very much in the public domain, so he’s centuries past being protected by copyright.

The whole idea of trying to pass Shakespeare’s lines as my own didn’t sit right with me. I couldn’t put my finger on why until later: that plagiarism and copyright don’t always fall under the same umbrella. Sure, I could lift some lines and be free of copyright issues. But I’d still be plagiarizing.

As I wrote the book, I made sure not to directly quote Shakespeare, but because some scenes do mirror the originals, I made sure to make it very clear to everyone that my book was an adaptation of good old Will’s work. That way I’m not trying to take credit for someone else’s words and ideas. The similarities would be seen as what they really are (an homage to Shakespeare) and not as an effort to pass off his ideas as mine.

I made it crystal clear everywhere: My publisher knew. I posted the “adaptation” information on my website and (repeatedly) mentioned it on my blog. I advertised the book that way in press releases (“Shakespeare Meets 1860s Salt Lake City”). It's even mentioned in the acknowledgments so readers would know going in.

Unfortunately, some writers do try to pass of other people’s work as their own, as romance author Cassie Edwards recently learned the hard way. And no, inserting speaker tags and otherwise changing up someone else’s words just a little doesn’t keep it from being plagiarism.

Since I’m a historical novelist, Edward’s situation provided a good reminder for me. Not only should I track my sources to protect myself, but I need to also be sure to use them the right way—as just that: sources of information, not a place to fall back on when explaining something. It needs to be my words, my voice, my expression. Not theirs.

That applies to all writers, regardless of whether you’d technically be violating copyright, because plagiarism is just as serious, and if you want your readers’ or your publisher’s trust, you have to make sure what you’re writing are your words. And if you’re using someone else’s words, say so up front, giving credit where credit is due.

Weaving Fiction from History

by Annette Lyon

Some of the most beloved novels of all time are historical fiction, written well after the period described in them. Think Gone with the Wind, A Tale of Two Cities, and Les Miserables.

These books (and many others) have much in common, including the fact that when you read them, it feels like they were written during the time they were set. The time period is accurate and real.

How did Margaret Mitchell, Charles Dickens, and Victor Hugo do it?

A Dynamic Time Period
They didn't write about any day in any year. They wrote about a time in which there was turmoil and conflict (great building blocks for a story!). Those time periods are also ones in which readers can readily identify. Saying "1860" is far more generic to a reader than "The U.S. Civil War." Immediately we have an image in mind, complete with inherent conflicts, a setting, and much more.

Research
These authors most certainly read up on the time period they were writing about. I don't know if it's true, but rumor has it that Dickens read a couple of hundred books on the French Revolution for A Tale of Two Cities. While I don't think you need to go that far in your research, read and dig around enough to know what you're talking about and be able to present the era in a way that's believable and real.

Story over Research
If there's one key to writing great historical fiction, this is it.

Keep your knowledge of the period in check. Yes, Dickens and the others knew boatloads about the Civil War or war-torn France, but they didn't flout it. They used whatever bits and pieces helped bring the STORY alive.

And that's the key right there. Story must take precedence over research. A chain of facts does not make a plot.

It's tempting to cram into your book as many of the details, facts, and figures you've learned. Or at the very least, cram more than you should. Chances are that less than 10% of what you research will end up in the book. But it's that 90% or so that you can draw on that allows you to create a rich environment for your characters to play out their stories in.

Beware the danger of making your story into a giant history lesson. Remember at all costs that the historical details are NOT the story, that they are there solely to ENHANCE the story. Yes, they may play a big part of the story and provide many of the conflicts. (But now we're back to the history being there for a reason: creating a rip-roaring story, not for setting the scene.)

I like to think of the time period as the hanger on which the story is draped. It's definitely there. It makes a big difference in how the story and characters work. But it's NOT the story in and of itself. In some respects, Gone with the Wind could have been written about several different wars, because it's the characters who create the story, not the war itself per se. (Remember how Goodnight Saigon, based in Vietnam, is a retelling of Madame Butterfly? MB certainly wasn't written during the 60s, but the underlying story is timeless.)

Any time you find yourself throwing in facts for the sake of telling more than your reader needs to know, pull back. Don't over explain elements from the past; it doesn't sound natural. If you use terms that might be unfamiliar to modern readers, find a natural way to work an explanation into the text.

For example, I had a reader for my upcoming historical novel indicate that he/she didn't know what a tick was and that I should explain. It would have been ridiculous for me to stop the scene and go on about how before mattresses, people filled large fabric "pillowcase" type things with straw, and they slept on those, and that's what a tick was. That would have been an intrusion to the narrative.

Having my characters stop and talk about it would have felt equally false. Why on earth would one of my two female characters describe a tick when they both know full well what it is? People don't chat over things they already know about. (It's what I call the, "As you know, Bob" mistake in dialogue.)

Instead, I simply had a character refer to the person who would be sleeping on the guest tick and that they'd need to get it filled with straw before she arrived. Natural conversation, but the information that the reader needs to know gets across.


Historical writing can be rewarding and exciting. Just don't let the history get in the way!

How Much Do I Research?

by Heather Moore

Whether you’re writing a historical novel, a contemporary novel, or a non-fiction how-to book, you need to do your research. You don’t need to be the expert, but you need to be as careful and as thorough as possible. Let someone else be the expert, and you can use their decades of research in your book.

Keep a list of sources, then cite them in your author notes. Some authors include resources in their acknowledgments. If you are writing historical fiction, you may need to include a bibliography. If you are writing non-fiction, you must include a bibliography. More and more contemporary novels have included resources in the author notes or the acknowledgments.

When I write historical fiction, I use a footnote system. Eventually I delete the footnotes and turn some of them into chapter notes. But I always keep the original version with the footnotes, so if I ever have to backtrack, or an editor questions the validity of a point, I can immediately locate my research. When I’m writing, I’ll highlight a word or a sentence that I need to follow-up with more research. That way, my writing isn’t slowed when I’m in the middle of a scene.

Some authors do all the research before they start to write the first sentence. And some might do just enough to get the story going. Researching can be two-fold. It can bog you down and eat up your writing time. Or it can inspire a plot, sub-plot or formulation of a scene. Find a balance. If you spend an hour on research, plan to spend the same amount of time on writing.