Love Your Editor #1: Early Feedback

Sometimes writing can be scary. But we write anyway.

Otherwise, your imaginary friends can really make you question reality.

2013 was a wild and wooly year for me for many reasons, both personal and professional. In the end, the details are mine alone; but it is sufficient to say that it was definitely a year of growth and change.

One of those big “growing moments” as a writer came in mid-December, when I did something I’d never done before: I took a completed, self-edited manuscript and handed it off to an editor for scrutiny.

I knew she would agree with me on the errors and issues I knew about.

I knew she would spot errors and issues to which I was utterly blind.

I knew her scrutiny would make my tale stronger, more vibrant.

BUT…

I had no idea how to-the-marrow, precise, and brutally insightful her assessments would truly be.

Sometimes I highlight whole sections and delete them. And start over again.

Sometimes multiple times, until I get it right. 

Then I feel halfway decent about what I've done.

And then I need an editor.

At the time I'm writing this, I have not yet received the full edits back. But she has contacted me three times in the last couple weeks with questions. The first two times, they were questions with the intent of helping her better understand the overall vision and trajectory of my tale.

The third time, however, I got a few “Have you considered….?” questions. As in, “Have you considered making character X more ignorant of [plot point A] and [plot point B] so that she can be more relatable/realistic?”

Of course, making X more ignorant of A and B changes a lot of things about her as a character. A LOT.

But just listening to my editor’s concise, penetrating questions made me realize her ultimate goal is to make my story the most powerful, well-formed, impactful tale it can be.

Sometimes abominable amounts of coffee are needed to help me through a mad writing session. 

Can't wait to see what the editing marathons will be like. o__O

On a surface level, I already knew that I needed an editor. I’ve read the blog posts, seen the tweets, followed editors, agents, and other publishing gurus. I’ve talked to authors who’ve walked this path before. So from an academic standpoint, I already knew it would be immensely helpful. I wouldn’t have doled out my hard-earned cash (read: squeezing blood out of stones because I was immensely short on monies) to hire one.

To know a truth experientially, however, is another thing entirely.

Just the little bit of feedback I’ve received so far has been enough to show me that no matter how gorgeous I think my idea is, how in love with my characters, how passionate about the storyline, how self-critical I am about my own work – I cannot see all the flaws.

In fact, some narrative flaws were so oddly positioned that I saw them as strengths.

Some narrative strengths had lodged in my perspective so crookedly that I saw them as flaws.

Character X, for instance, is one I’ve struggled with immensely as I endeavored to write her in the most dynamic way. By the time I handed off my manuscript for editing, I was so frustrated that I was 100% positive she was a weak, flimsy character. I told the editor so.

“I need help with her,” I said.

“I’ll give her a look,” said the editor.

When she contacted me later with her questions, the editor’s verdict on X stunned me.

“She’s too superwoman,” she said. “Too complete. She needs to grow and change with the story. Have you considered….?”

Then came a couple broad suggestions. My editor needed to know if I was willing to compromise on some things, because my willingness would impact the specificity of her suggestions to both the character, and the overall work. Her initial suggestions, however, meant doing heavy renovations to X’s character: her awareness of self, her personality, her personal history, everything.

And of course, those suggestions impact how other characters respond to her, and how she responds to them. In short, those “few” edits will drastically impact the whole book.

And you know what? She’s entirely right.

X needs to change – and the rest of the cast with her, if necessary. Even if it means reconfiguring certain aspects of the plot.

And when all else fails - do it old school. At least when it comes to storyboarding. 

Sometimes writing it longhand is therapeutic too - mostly because the interwebz 

is not lurking behind your word document, mocking you.

Why am I sharing this with you? Because this is part of my journey as a writer, and I figure at least a few of my blog followers are in same or similar positions as yet-unpublished authors.

I also feel that, if I take time to articulate where I am in this process, it will help me become a stronger writer – both in my craft, and my ability to take constructive criticism.

What I would like to do over the next few months is post some “Love Your Editor” blog posts (as time permits, as I still have multiple jobs). I would like to share some of the feedback I’ve received, and how that impacts me as a writer and, of course, the story I hope to one day publish.

Today is the “Early Feedback” episode because (as I said) I don’t have the full edits back yet. But I should have them soon. And when I do, you’ll hear from me now and then about how I’m ingesting and responding to this very new (for me) stage of the writing journey.

I hope you’ll follow along. J

What about you? Where are you in your personal writing journey?

Have you had any experience with editors, good or bad?

Let me know in the comments below!

And as always – thanks for reading!

Agent Tweets #8: 2-in-12,000 Shot

Editing is the bane and the blessing of a writer's existence - a bane because it is so frustrating and time-consuming; a blessing because if managed properly, it puts a writer's work out front as the shining gem of storytelling that it is.

More importantly, editing is the key to getting noticed.

If I repeated every tweet I've seen on this topic, this blog would be about nothing BUT editing. Even so - there were six recent tweets about editing that really stood out (Ha! I'm an agent for agent tweets...there's some irony in that...).

TWEET #1:  

I get 800-1000 submissions a month and maybe take on a couple new authors/yr 

Eye-Opener: I'd lie if I said my eyes didn't widen just a wee bit when I read this one. The 800-1000 submissions per month I totally understand; but out of a potential 12,000 submissions per year - only two are taken on?

Yoiks. This means if I want to stand out, I need to make sure my manuscript is in the best possible condition before sending it in.

TWEETS #2 and #3:

Finish your ms and edit and polish it before querying. 

You can't expect an agent to help you finish writing it 

Sloppy, typo-ridden final manuscripts just reek of unprofessional entitlement to me. 

Your editor is not your MAID 

Hard But True: Both of these tweets back each other up with the same reality: you can't expect an agent to be so wowed by your story that they'll overlook typos or loose writing, and just "let the editors fix that later." As we discussed earlier in our Agent Tweets series: the query letter - and then the manuscript - is more or less part of a job interview. Editing is the way you dress it up right for the interview.


Yes, yes, I hear you wail. I hear this all the time!!! But how much editing is enough? There is such a thing as spinning your wheels for too long.


I completely agree. Sometimes you need to know when to stop tampering and just send it on.


So how DO we know when enough editing is enough? Here are a couple agent responses:

TWEETS #4 and #5:

You shld finish the ms, edit it, polish it, get some1 else to read it, re-edit, sit on it a wk, re-read it & THEN query

One of the best and most underused tools for polishing your query is TIME. Let it sit for a week. Then review & revise

Time is Your Friend:  Though the second tweet specifies "query" and not "manuscript," the principle is the same for both tweets ~ to really get a polished manuscript, you need time - not just to work on it, but to walk away from it for a while. Get some emotional distance from it. Then go back and edit. This is what is generally called a "cold read" and it is hugely valuable to writers, enabling them to become more objective about their own work.


Notice that both tweets hint that editing your manuscript comes in repetitive stages:

Write - Edit - Polish - BetaReader - Wait - Edit - Polish - BetaReader - Wait - Edit...

Most published authors that I read and admire generally advise going through these "layers" a minimum of three times before sending out that first query letter. Remember: agents want the manuscript finished and at its glossy best when you query, so that when they make that full request there are minimal hitches in the proceedings.


Okay.....so how horrific are these editing stages we're talking about?

TWEET #6:

Sometimes #editing has to be drastic, entire scenes and sections lopped off. What's left will be stronger for it./ Every #word on the page must have reason to exist; it should add to the story or your piece./If you, yourself, feel a loss over a word or line cut from your story or piece, then it needed cutting. 

Bruised Egos:  None of us like to be told that some interlude of which we are very proud isn't worthy of the whole story. But therein lies some advice that is also some of the oldest, and difficult to accept, which the above tweet touches on neatly: If you or I are deeply attached to any character or scene, or prosy description, because we feel we "did so well" at that point --- chances are it shouldn't be there, because we're just showing off.

Bottom Line: "Editing" is not merely a matter of correcting grammatical and typographical issues. It involves removing those bits that burden the tale unnecessarily, and hold back your manuscript from being its best - from being a two-in-twelve-thousand chance of catching an agent's eye, and finding your way to the publisher's desk.

Agent Tweets #7: Got a plan?

Welcome to my weekly series that highlights and responds to 

publication-centric comments from agents and editors, gleaned from Twitter. 

As always: I do not name agents and editors quoted in these posts. The quotes 

listed here are indicative of the spectrum, and just happen to be 

the most compellingly worded variations.

This week's installment should be a "d'oh" kind of post for those of us who are looking to query for an agent, sooner or later. But now that I'm nearing my own self-imposed deadline to look for said agent, I am finding I need to review those "d'oh" memos. One can never assume that the obvious will dawn on an eager wanna-be-published writer when they're in the throes of querying. (I know that's true for me.)


Here's a scattering of agent tweets I've seen on this topic lately:

         Selling SF is different than selling literary fiction. Markets are different, editors are different 

Why shld you read from pub before sub'ing? To know if your story fits, to check out their quality, their editing, their formatting//What if you're submitting to a place you'd be horrified to have your book associated with or that doesn't do quality work?// Throwing it at the wall to see what sticks isn't a good publishing plan for any author. Do your research!

Why this matters: Let's put this in practical terms: If your desire is to teach, would you apply for a job as a deoderant tester? If you are gifted in mathematics, would you actively seek a job as a makeup artist? Would an experienced prison warden actively look for a way to work arranging choreography for the Bolshoi Ballet?


Of course not. (Not unless you're looking at one of those as the potential lead-in for a great fiction piece, in which case - be my guest.) 


Further, there's the point made in the second tweet: what if you show up for work to find you've landed with a bunch of prissy neatnicks when you're the tomboyish mountain girl, or a bunch of hard-nosed thugs when you're the prima donna? Remember that if you land a job with Agency X, then their website, and other workers associated with them, become part of your collective public image. You need to know before signing your contract whether you're OK being known as part of the Neatnick Wilderness Thug Girly-Girl Collective before you send those business cards to the printer.

The same applies with whom you query. Consider it as a job interview for your book. If that is so, then your query is your job application, so you want to make sure it goes to the right office, the best prospective employer. 

Photo Source

To help narrow down the possibilities of whom you should (and should not) query, I would highly recommend Chuck Sambuchino's 2012 Guide to Literary Agents. Not only is it full of great listings, but also contains a very informative FAQ section at the beginning that gives more clarity to submissions, what to reasonably expect from an agent (even after you get signed), the question of critique fees, and the rest. For those of you who have Kindles, this book is also available as an e-book for only $9, as opposed to the usual $20. (Nice deal if you ask me --- that's how I came by a copy.)


Of course, once you think you've narrowed down who you want to query, make sure you go to the next level of preparedness, and do the following:

     * Go to the agent's website. Again - if we're talking about potential employers, you'd want to know a little about who they are, what makes them tick, and the kind of books they have represented in the past. Also: If you've been "handed" a link to follow, doing your homework and finding a rather unprofessional website can be your first red flag that it isn't a reputable agency for your manuscript. (I've seen a few of those. They're creepy.)

     * Double check submission guidelines. Sometimes agents will tweak what they are looking for, which means certain genres can roll off or on the menu at different times. Don't assume that an agent always is looking for paranormal romance, or high fantasy, just because they have in the past. Publishing trends are constantly shifting, and unless an agent sees themselves as serving a very narrow and specific niche (I don't know of any like that - do you?), then they will generally close or open submissions to certain groupings of literature according to what they are certain they can sell.

     * Don't overlook "annoying" submission requirements*. You're sending your query to its first job interview. Make sure you tuck in its shirt, zip its fly, and wipe its nose nice and clean before you send it in. (Or, put more practically, make sure your query is in the correct format, and within the specified parameters. If the agent says "Send the first three pages in the email - no attachments" then do just that.)

*Topic of a future Agent Tweets post.

Do you have a favorite online source for writers wishing to narrow down the field of agents?

If so, let me know in the comments?

AT: Hard Yet Encouraging Truths, Pt 1

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Agent Tweets, a weekly post that highlights and responds to

 publication-centric comments from agents and editors, gleaned on Twitter.

NOTE: I will not put up the names of said agents and editors, so don't ask who they are. 

The tweets posted here are indicative of what I am seeing across the spectrum.
These tweets happen to be the most compellingly worded variations. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

A few weeks ago I announced my intention to roll out this weekly review of revealing tweets from editors and agents, and received a tremendous amount of feedback. Based on your responses to the topics presented, I decided to begin our AT journey with the topic: "Hard Yet Encouraging Truths" for writers. I'm glad, because I think all of us not-yet-published writers could really use some encouragement right now - even if it stings a bit in the application.

So let's cut to the chase, shall we? Here is the first installment of at least two "Hard Yet Encouraging Truths" episodes for the would-be published author.

Hard Yet Encouraging Truth #1: Sometimes you still hook ‘em – even if you still get a rejection.

Sometimes when I am reading a ms, I know it will be a no but I still feel compelled to keep reading & see how it ends.

There really are times I stare at a query, totally on the fence, torn between rejecting and requesting. Make your query the BEST you can.// I just don't have the time to request everything that sounds "pretty good." I want projects that get me SUPER excted!

I find these two tweets to make interesting bookends. The second one addresses the query; the first one addresses the manuscript itself. This means that would-be writer #2 got as far as the query process and almost got a request for a full manuscript. Would-be-writer #1 did get the request for a full, and then the effort sagged.

Why this is hard: There's probably nothing more frustrating than knowing you "almost" had an agent hooked (which is probably one of the reasons behind form rejection letters).

Why this is encouraging: Both tweets indicate the book ideas were good, even excellent - just not compelling. But the very indecision of the second agent, and the fact that the first agent felt curious enough to read through to the end of an "okay" manuscript - such responses hint at manuscripts that, with a little hard work and meticulous revising, could go from "pretty good" to the "super excited" quality work they're looking for.

Bottom line: How to improve the manuscript itself is fodder for a thousand other posts, on this blog and elsewhere on the web. But the query? The secret to overcoming that obstacle lies in the second tweet - the urge to make your query the best it can possibly be. For more hints on how to manage that, you can visit Query Shark, Query Tracker, or this thread in which twenty potential queries were critiqued openly by an agent. (NOTE: This link will take you to the first entry; use the side menu to access the others.)

Hard Yet Encouraging Truth #2: There is life after failure.

Sometimes it takes a while to discover the story you're trying to tell. Sometimes it takes an entire failed book. Sometimes two. That's OK.

Persistence isn’t an issue when you’ve just started - it's needed after the 20th & 200th rejection

If you're struggling with rejection, repeat after me: I have what it takes, and will not be discouraged. People are rejected for many reasons//And as an an agent, ONE THIRD of my clients were rejected at one point.... by ME. They revised and wowed me with their work.


I'm rejecting a lot of really great manuscripts this week. Just because it isn't The One for me doesn't mean it won't find that perfect home

Why this is hard: Two failed books? 200th rejection? What? ....ouch. Just....OUCH.

Why this is encouraging: No one likes to be told up front that you might have to submit multiple bad books before unearthing your winner. Even more unsavory is the idea of getting 200 rejections without a single offer. Yet none of these agents (four different ones, by the way) say to give up after multiple flops, or 200 rejections. The fourth tweet, specifically, indicates that rejections are sometimes a matter of preference or situation - that they really are great manuscripts, but just haven't yet found the right home.

Bottom Line: The third tweet, I think, is the key. Therein lies buried four important steps for pushing past failure (real or perceived) and on to success:

     (1) Don't lose your vision, and don't get discouraged. This is easier said than done, but those who persevere are the ones who eventually see their work in print.

     (2) Remember that many factors may have played into your rejection. A rejection does not necessarily mean your work is inherently bad. It may be that it is an "out of season" text (more on that for a later Agent Tweets report). Perhaps that agent just signed someone else with a similar idea. There are other reasons, I'm sure. (NOTE: For more insights into the agent mindset, I would recommend following @agentgame on Twitter - they are an agent's assistant, but they often tweet valuable insights on the book agent industry.)

     (3) Rejection is an opportunity to grow, not to sulk. If I posted all the tweets about ill-mannered writers who responded to rejection emails with profanity-laced fury, you'd be reading from now to Easter. Dabblers throw temper tantrums. Writers recalibrate and act accordingly. And then they get published.

     (4) Sometimes you may still be accepted by the same agent - if you bide your time and do what is wise. Please note that agents generally will state specifically if they'd like you to revise your work and then resubmit. Make sure that you check submission guidelines for any agent you query.

Questions? Comments? Insights?

Feedback is appreciated!

Writer Feedback (Need some!!)

                             

No - this post is not about cooking. (Although I may do a couple of those along the way. You never know.)

Remember those "what if" games you played when you were kids? You know, the ones where your friend asked: "If you were any animal, what would you be?" And you said: "A wombat - of course!" (Or a blue-footed booby. Or meerkat. Or whatever animal had caught your fancy.)

Well...if I were an appliance, I would most likely be a toaster. I tend to go with my gut response to a lot of things, which can sometimes be an amazingly bad thing, or astonishingly good thing, depending on the situation.At other times, I'm a crockpot. I stew on things a while, mull over all the finer variances, and then give a final verdict (or final product) after an extended length of time.

Lately I've been doing the crockpot routine, so to speak. The idea in question? I've been "mulling over" an idea for a regularly posted "series" on my blog. The inspiration came from the time I've spent on Twitter, poring over the rather insightful, and often very specific, tweets from the agents and editors I follow. As I came across different nuggets, I'd think: "Ooo! Need to remember that one" - and tucked it away in a Word file to peruse later. The document got longer...and longer....and longer.

Moreover, a pattern soon began to emerge. Yes, most of the tweets had to do with (a) queries,  (b) dos/don'ts of writing and (c) overall publishing industry. That's no surprise; if you're a wanna-be author, you're gleaning little nuggets for yourself. But a far more intricate pattern emerged within the pattern, that I did not see until my Word document had grown to four or five pages. I broke my "nuggets" into smaller and smaller categories, with more specific titles. I found myself wondering how I was going to properly assimilate all this wonderful information - not just the pithy sayings themselves, but the inferred logic of what they really mean, when you get down to it. Then I wondered if perhaps others might want to read and ponder the same things. 

So - I'd like to do a series of "agent tweets" posts beginning in January, about once a week or so. My problem? These are all such great statements and insights from those who scrutinize our queries, and then our manuscripts, that the statements have a very wide, yet nearly circular pattern to how they're connected.

In short: I'm not sure where to start. Which topic? At which end of the elephant? (Or wombat?)

This is where I need your help. Below I have listed the various categories into which I've divided the tweets. I would like to know what YOU would consider (a) worth your time clicking back over to read and (b) which topic you'd like to see first.

Please take a look at the list below, and tell me which ones really stand out to you. And if you think any of these are pointless, even intuitively obvious - please tell me! I don't want to spend my time on some topic you've heard discussed ad nauseum.

At the same time, I think some of these topics will never (or ought to never) grow old....

Categories of agent/editor tweets I've compiled:

Time It Right
Hard (Yet Encouraging) Truths
Blunt Honesty
In Season/Out of Season
Beta Readers
Mind Your Attitude!
Ready? No, really....are you??
General Requests and Advice
Writing Do's and Don'ts
Queries: TMI or NMI (Too Much Information or Need More Information)
Query Uh-Ohs: Logistics
Query Uh-Ohs: Content
Query Uh-Ohs: Format
Using Social Networks
BAD Ideas
Kindles
Be Honest
This Screams "Bad Writing"
Know Your Limits

NOTE: I have no intention of pointing out which agent or editor made which comment, for several reasons. Besides, what I've gleaned is only a cross-section of tweets, but they are all regularly recurring themes that I'm seeing on Twitter over....and over....and over.

I figure we who intend to submit our work ought to sit up and pay attention.

What do you think? Anything grab your attention? 

All of it? None of it?

Thank you for your feedback! 

Everything will help me make this blog a more 

user-friendly place.