History is a Bitch - a weblog by Jeanne Kalogridis

Why I Heart Indie Writers

2011-03-29T20:16:53Z

I was thinking about the brouhaha over at Big Al's Books & Pals blog concerning the now-infamous Jacqueline Howett, who wrote THE GREEK SEAMAN. If you missed it and you're in the mood for some eyeball-pinwheeling excitement, click here.

Welcome back. Still dazed? Here, let me get you a chair. Sit down and catch your breath.

I'm sure that the unpleasant incident has spawned hundreds of blog entries about professionalism in publishing. But I'd like to use it to talk about something much more upbeat: the fact that I've been extremely accessible to other writers and readers on Twitter for almost two months now, and have only met one soul who was a bit clueless, but only because he hadn't done his homework. (Steven Umstead can tell you I was quite the ignoramus when I first landed on Twitter--shut up, Steve, and keep the dark secret about the crazy old writer lady! :D)

]]> The amusing thing is that all my indie friends recoiled from Ms. Howett's over-the-top behavior more than I did. Having been in the writing profession forever, I've seen lots and lots of temperamental types and plenty of bad behavior.

It's the occasional temperamental/insane type that some print-published authors remember. Unfortunately, there are always one or two of them at almost every sort of convention, and I have more than a few harrowing memories of being confronted and physically frightened by such individuals.

I can't speak for other authors, but I suspect that this fear of danger or unpleasantness is what makes some authors avoid rubbing elbows with their fans.

But here's my philosophy: 99.9% of the readers/writers I've encountered over the course of my career have been absolute sweethearts. Many of them are now long-time friends. I really like them--because, for one thing, they share my love of a good book. They READ.

And I really love indie authors, because they're not resting on their laurels, the way too many print-published authors are. They're out there trying to learn as much about writing fiction as they can. Most of them are able to disengage their egos and learn the importance of rewriting. Can I repeat it here? WRITING IS REWRITING. I have to work hard at it. There's no point in trying to become an author if you aren't willing to sweat blood.

But you, o professional indie community I've found on Twitter, you guys love to study the craft. You love to talk writing. You love to read and learn. You are uber-polite and helpful. How can I NOT adore you? How can I NOT feel like I've stumbled onto a treasure trove?

Before I first warbled on Twitter, I felt very isolated. I've been writing 30 years, and as Stephen King says, there's no way you can sit down and write every day for 30 years and not get better at it. I started out as a teacher, however, and I miss it terribly. In fact, I was recently considering teaching creative writing at a local university, but realized there was no way I could teach and meet my deadline obligations.

Now I'm having the time of my life chatting with friends on Twitter about the craft of writing. I still don't have the time to teach or read manuscripts, but I feel better. I get to talk about something I love with other people. (My DH's idea of a great read is a treatise on economic theory. He doesn't do fiction. And frankly, my dog isn't all that interested in hearing about it, either.)

There's only one part about this that makes me sad: I like to help people, and unfortunately, the problem is that I get several hundred requests (or more) every year from people looking for someone to help them "break into" publishing. Imagine this, dear indie writer: You're a normal person, a teacher, say. You get laid off, so you decide to write a book during your "free" semester. You work all by yourself, too shy to go to conventions or to befriend other writers. You study all the books on writing you can get, work your bottom off to write a good, exciting manuscript, send it off one day, and--amazingly--it sells over the transom. Unagented.

Suddenly you're a commodity. Suddenly everyone wants to be your agent. Suddenly your in-laws, your friends, your cousins, your cousin's friends, all whip out manuscripts. You start to become reluctant to admit what you do; from that moment on, most of the people that meet you will see you only as a means to getting published themselves. I've had neophytes try to shame me into it: "Certainly someone helped you get your start."

Um, no.

Or, worse, your very presence in the room will make some people feel inadequate or nervous. (Since I started life as a severe social phobic, this always makes me feel bad for the other person.)

But here's the bad news: It doesn't matter who you know in publishing.

Did you hear that?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU KNOW IN PUBLISHING. BEFRIENDING AN AUTHOR ISN'T GOING TO HELP GET YOU PUBLISHED.

At best, it might get you some really helpful pointers on how to improve your fiction. If the writer REALLY likes you, you might even get your manuscript partially edited. But in the end, with publishing, THE WORK SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

That's it. That's the secret to publishing. Write a good book, one that's exciting and makes the reader want to turn every page, and you'll get published.

So...the wise indie writer knows that THE most important thing s/he can focus on isn't Twitter or social media marketing or networking. (I'm NOT saying they're aren't important, they are...they're just not THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING.)

It's the quality of the work that matters. It's the work that sells. Not you, and not the amount of marketing you've done. The reader doesn't give a fig about your ego; she cares only about the words on the page. Therefore, take the most care not of your image, but of your writing. Develop a callus when it comes to accepting valid critiques of your work and when it comes to editing yourself.

NEVER SETTLE FOR OKAY. Okay doesn't sell. Keep striving, and most importantly, keep on writing!

Are you on Twitter? Do you like to talk about books, writing, techniques, craft of writing, etc? Come hunt me down. I'm @jkalogridis. Don't care who you are. If you love writing, feel free to say hi. I'm tame and don't bite.

Running at the Image

2011-03-15T15:54:19Z

Yes, yes, I understand that this blog has been dark for three years, and yes, yes, I fell off the face of the planet. But the important thing is...

That in the meantime, I've discovered Twitter and have had a blast chatting with other writers, indie and published, about the craft of writing--one of my favorite subjects. And so I'm going to be devoting a good deal of time to talking about how to write. I'd like to think that after thirty-four novels, all published by the biggest houses and all but one of them still in print, that I've picked up a few tricks along the way. And I'd like to share them.

Since many of the writers I've come across are just starting out, I thought I'd talk about a problem that I discovered in my own writing when I was new to the craft, one that I think is common: a failure to run at the image.

What do I mean by "running at the image?"

]]> I use it to mean avoiding abstraction and insufficient detail when writing a scene--in other words, to give the reader a level of step-by-step detail so that s/he can share the same image that's in the writer's head. I also use it to mean avoiding filtering the action through your point-of-view character's head.

First, I must cop to the fact that I discovered this term while reading the late John Gardner's THE ART OF FICTION
Gardner uses a very effective metaphor: Fiction should be "a dream" from which the reader doesn't like to be awakened. In order not to wake the reader up, it's our job as writers to give the reader a vivid, continuous dream. Here's what Gardner has to say about vividness and continuity:

A scene will not be vivid if the writer gives too few details to stir and guide the reader's imagination; neither will it be vivid if the language the writer uses is abstract instead of concrete.

Example: Let's describe a scene where two snakes are fighting. And let's say that I wrote the following:

Turning, she saw two slithery creatures attacking each other with hostile maneuvers in their inhospitable abode.

Okay, dreamer, what do you see in your mind's eye when you read that sentence? I don't know about you, but I'm immediately put off by the term "two slithery creatures." We could be talking two Cthulhus for all I know. So right away, I've awakened a cranky reader whose attention--which should be on my story--is now focused on trying to figure out what the heck the writer is talking about. Can you SEE this image?

If you can, you're not reading--you're fantasizing, and more than likely, your fantasy and the writer's don't match. At some point, you, the reader, will discover that fact when the writer says something later that completely contradicts the image you have in your head.

Hostile maneuvers: What do you see there? What the heck ARE these slithery creatures DOING? And what on earth do you see when I say "inhospitable abode?" These are fancy words, and I'm first to admit that I'm as enthralled by fancy words as much as the next writer. But these words aren't pulling their weight.

Very often, I'm tempted to resort to Latinates--words of Latin origin. But as Gardner points out, these words often don't evoke vivid, concrete images in the reader's head the way a good old Anglo-Saxon term will. Let's rewrite that sentence about the snakes.

Turning, she saw two snakes fighting in among the rocks.

Can you see what's happening a bit better? Good! It means we're evoking an image. In fact, we're running up to it.

Now, why don't we run even more directly straight at the image, and remove our third-person point-of-view character (she) as a filter. Let's dive at that image!

She turned. In among the rocks, two snakes were fighting.

Ooh, we're starting to get somewhere. Now, the reader is actually imagining the same thing the writer is! And if the writer gets used to doing this, s/he can start to take pleasure in crafting the most vivid scene possible.

She turned. In among the rocks, two snakes whipped and lashed, striking at each other.

The writer can take it from there. You can bring the rocks more clearly into focus--are they smooth, jagged, dusty, in the shade or harsh sun?--and spend some time choreographing the snake fight so that we see it in glorious detail along with you.

Another metaphor (mine) is that the writer has a little camera in his head, which records every image his point-of-view character sees, step by step, instant by instant. And the continuous part is important. But since I have a book to write, I'll save the discussion of the necessity for continuity at a later time.

Keep reading and keep writing, friends!

Earth-Pulverizing Announcement

2008-08-25T14:49:16Z

Remember that book called THE BLOODIEST QUEEN? That became THE MEDICI QUEEN when it was pointed out that my UK and Australian readers would guffaw at the "Bloodiest" bit?

Well, after much deliberation, I came up with another title with a bit more pizzazz than THE MEDICI QUEEN -- one which shows Catherine's deep involvement with evil forces. The result?

THE DEVIL'S QUEEN. It'll be out spring/summer 2009, and I'll give an update as soon as I know the month.

P.S. That, plus I've heard my dear friend John Allen is running for President. I'm anxiously awaiting his text message to learn which lucky soul he's chosen as his running mate.

Still More Recommended Reading

2008-05-02T13:27:50Z

When my agent, Russ, first suggested that I try my hand at a historical, he mentioned that I ought to study an author who happened to be represented by my foreign agent, Danny. That author was Noah Gordon, who wrote a fine novel which became a bestseller in Europe, though not so much here: THE PHYSICIAN, set in the 11th century. THE PHYSICIAN is the story of young Rob Cole, a Londoner who is determined – after the loss of his mother – to learn all he can about healing. It’s a richly detailed look at the healing arts in the early middle ages. I highly recommend Gordon’s books.

Reads, Eats & Sleeps

2008-04-29T14:06:06Z

I’ve finally gotten around to reading my favorite blogs again (I took a no-blogs, no-Sudoku, no- crossword-or-logic-puzzles vow for the last several months of writing THE MEDICI QUEEN), and Notes from the Copy Editor mentioned the following upcoming title:

LITERALLY, THE BEST LANGUAGE BOOK EVER: ANNOYING WORDS AND ABUSED PHRASES YOU SHOULD NEVER USE AGAIN by Paul Yeager

Well. I suppose I’ll have to preorder it, as it’s due out the first week in May. It follows in the trail blazed by Lynne Truss’ magnificent Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Whereas Truss’ book focuses on punctuation, this one is for aficionados and protectors of the proper use of specific words.
If you – as I do – find joy in passionate discussions of the semi-colon or connotations, this one might be for you.

Book of the Month

2008-04-21T12:42:09Z

Speaking of Dan Simmons, I just finished his novel, THE TERROR. The title suggests a horror novel – and the story is indeed very dark. But it is wrapped in an elegant historical novel, titled after the name of a nineteenth-century British ship which became trapped in frozen polar waters. Simmons’ ability to capture the sights, sounds and smells of the Arctic and the ships and crews that braved its seas is breath-taking. I was completely absorbed by the story, the setting, the characters, and the precise, stunning details.
His next novel, DROOD, focuses on Charles Dickens’ friendship with Wilkie Collins, the nineteenth-century author whose mystery THE WOMAN IN WHITE is considered a classic. His website states DROOD will be published in January 2009, although publication dates sometimes shift. I’ll be waiting…

One of my favorite authors

2008-04-17T13:13:47Z

Recently, I had the pleasure of stumbling onto Dan Simmon’s website. It includes the usual list of the author’s works, as well as a forum and a series of essays called Writing Well. The latter are so well-written and entertaining that I’ve linked to them for you here.

One of my favorite passages from Simmon’s essays includes the theory of developing a story (I think it’s a perfect description of what occurs when I write a novel):

]]> Harlan Ellison once described to me his idea for the gestation period for a story – or any piece of writing: Harlan suggests that it’s like having this little motor, flashing-light thingee that you’ve created, but rather than putting it on show, you just pitch it into the swamp of the unconscious that every real writer depends upon. Down there under the algae scum in that swamp, the little idea-machine – useless by itself – begins to connect to other things already already lying in the dark. Writers are the ultimate scavengers. As Henry James (a friend of Harlan’s from the old days, I think) once said – “A writer is a man on whom nothing is lost.” Walking along the boggy shore, the writer finds new things to toss in – a human skeleton, a 1948 Buick V-8 engine, a worn Stetson, a 3-gallon vat of carbolic acid, part of the wooden case for a 1932 Philco floor console radio, some used junkie hypodermics, a chewed-red deer’s leg separated from the carcass, iPod earbuds – and all the time your original flashing, blinking thingee-idea is down there melding, joining, connecting, growing. Finally, often when you least expect it, this . . . THING . . . pulls itself up out of the swamp scum and comes lurching and dragging its parts and killing blades through the primordial ooze and onto dry land.
That’s when you can start writing about it.

Exactly! I’ve been speaking to a lot of reading groups across the country, and am invariably asked whether I know, at the beginning of the novel, how it’s going to end.

The answer is sometimes yes, in a general sense – but always, along the way, I gain new insights into the story and see many connections I would have missed if I hadn’t been living with the characters and story events for so many months. I won’t put any spoilers here, but suffice it to say that I did not see the ending of THE BORGIA BRIDE coming, nor did I see the major plot twist at the very end of I, MONA LISA. I am always delightfully surprised by such insights – which seem to come, interestingly enough, after nine months spent with the material.

Ah, Well

2008-04-15T22:16:23Z

My editor, Charlie, loved the book I turned in -- hooray! Just as delightfully, there are almost no editorial changes to be done -- double hooray!

The title, however, has been changed from THE BLOODIEST QUEEN to THE MEDICI QUEEN because the marketing folks are frightened that my gory title might scare off prospective readers.

Gee whiz. It is, after all, a book about a massacre (the St. Bartholomew's Day one, to be exact). And I would have thought, by now, that my readers have figured out that I like things, um, dark.

But the marketing folks also insisted on changing my title from PAINTING MONA LISA to I, MONA LISA, and I've had a number of US readers tell me they preferred the latter title, because it was far more descriptive of the book's content.

Further update: THE MEDICI QUEEN will be released in hardcover first, instead of trade paperback (translation: They really, really like the book and have faith reviewers and readers will, too). This has pushed us back a bit from a Winter 2009 pub date to Spring/Summer 2009, so that lots of reviewers and distributors can get advance reading copies.

In the interim, the author is catching up on some long-deserved reading of her favorite authors -- one of whom is Dan Simmons. More about him soon...

I Can't Believe I Wrote the Whole Thing

2008-04-07T15:45:45Z

It's all over but the shouting, folks -- at least until I hear back from my editor, whom I utterly adore. I e-mailed the manuscript to him twenty minutes ago.

As of this instant, THE BLOODIEST QUEEN (whose US title might change to the UK title of THE MEDICI QUEEN) is scheduled for publication by St. Martin's in Winter of 2009 -- as things progress, I'll learn whether that means January, February, or March '09.

More to come this week. Thanks to all of you for putting up with my long absence.

Still Not Dead

2008-03-25T23:13:51Z

Okay, I said the book was due the fifteenth of March... but the finished manuscript runs very, very long -- 900 pages. I'm still working to cut *three hundred* of them.

I'm blind, I'm crazed, but I'm almost done.

Give me a week or two, my darlings, and I'll be back.

Not Dead

2008-02-22T16:00:44Z

Sorry for the lack of postings, dear friends. I'm in the frantic throes of finishing The Book That Would Not Leave, which is due the fifteenth of March.

The not-quite-finished manuscript runs over 200,000 words and will be cut down to 150,000. I'll check with the editor to find out whether the cut pages can be put up on the website for curious readers.

To Be Read

2008-01-12T15:05:33Z

On my nightstand, waiting to be read:

LAURA BLUNDY, a Victorian-era dark historical by Julie Myerson (a peek at the first page has already convinced me that I'll love it)

ANGER, by Thich Nhat Hanh (I recommend all of his books)

GOULD'S BOOK OF FISH, a historical novel by Richard Flanagan (recommended by the NY Times Book Review)

THE WISDOM OF YOGA, Stephen Cope

Since I'll have little time to read until March, these are currently gathering dust, but I've promised myself that this year, I'll read a lot more fiction.

Reading recommendations, anyone? Comments?

Twain's Ten Rules of Writing

2008-01-07T00:00:53Z

"I have been an author for twenty years and an ass for fifty-five." -- Mark Twain

Mark Twain has always been one of my favorite authors; I got hooked on him back in tenth grade, when I played Twain in a skit for Mrs. Dodamead's English class. (Alas, she wouldn't let me light that cigar, but I spent a year toying with Swisher Sweets...)

So for those of you who wish to know the rules I l write by, here they are, both large and small, as Twain designated them:

Large rules:
1. A tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere.

2. The episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help develop it.

3. The personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others.

4. The personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there.

]]> 5. When the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say.

6. The personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.

Little rules:
7. An author should say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.

8. Use the right word, not its second cousin.

9. Eschew surplusage.

10. Not omit necessary details.

Most people know that Twain was an abolitionist, but most don't realize that he was also a vegetarian, paranormal research enthusiast (after having an eerily predictive dream about his brother Henry's death), and anti-imperialist.

I don't remember much about what I said in that impromptu English class skit, but I do recall one quip that stuck with me. When asked by an interviewer, "Mr. Twain, what did you find to be hardest about writing HUCKLEBERRY FINN?" I answered instantly, without flinching: "Selling it to a publisher."

Holiday Greetings

2007-12-26T22:32:30Z

I thought I'd crawl out of my cave long enough to wish everyone a lovely holiday season and boffo New Year. We haven't taken new Christmas photos yet, so here's one from 2006, which omits young Django the wonder pup and features our dear, departed Hershey. And George and Sweetie Pie and yours truly.

My New Year's resolution? Why, to post more often, of course.

Happy Birthday

2007-12-17T16:52:54Z

To me.

Please send cake.

(John, I *loved* the card.)