Literary Agents Aren’t the Writer’s Enemy – Lower Personal Standards are.

Unpublished writers are always lamenting that Literary Agents are the enemy, intercepting their gifted pieces and preventing exposure to a major publisher. They are the Evil Empire of the Literary agents (EEL for short), absorbing power from the dark side. Maybe that is why we print manuscript on white paper, to counter the effects of the literary dark side.

While in today’s publishing market the literary agent is the gatekeeper for most publishers, any writer who thinks the problem through realizes that the gatekeeper is on his side.
The economics is a simple problem with an obvious solution. A literary agent makes money when he sells literature to a publisher. He receives a percentage of the royalties due the author. If he sells nothing, he makes nothing. If he sells a best selling book, he’s in the money ala Dan Brown and his agent. So it behooves him to FIND SALEABLE works. That is in fact what he lives for, works that are so superior they could sell themselves with little effort from him. That is a rare gem in deed, but he or she will settle for a work that can be marketed to a publisher with a reasonable expectation that it will sell successfully to the public, making all three money. Money makes publishing happen, period. A few years ago a book on identifying road kill in its native form, completely flattened, became a best seller. The subject is not important, the market is.
The alliance of the dollar creates bedfellows out of the writer, the publisher and the literary agent. Has there ever been a stranger ménage a trois?
Because the agent is the first step toward publication, it might be helpful to understand what makes an agent think that a manuscript is good/great. The first sale of the manuscript is between the writer and the agent. The sale involves both the manuscript and the writer (your personality could prevent a sale, make sure the agent has no reason to be annoyed with you). When a literary agent represents your manuscript, it is both your and his reputation that is on the line. To paraphrase an Indiana Jones movie: he will choose wisely and carefully.
The choice starts with submission to the right type of literary agent. While some agents are generalists, most have a special interest and thereby, specific contacts with editors who favor certain types of stories and genres. You should research your target literary agents and not waste the time of those that would not be interested in the next Hemmingway because they specialize in Slasher fiction. You must also research the format of submitting the query. Does the agent take e-mail queries? They are easier to send and delete. Do they accept unsolicited submissions? Do they only accept snail mail query letters? Is the agent not accepting new clients at this time? If you send the manuscript via e-mail attachment, what format (RFT, Doc, Docx, etc.) is acceptable to the agent? REMEMBER, pleasing the agent is paramount, they have the keys to the kingdom of publishing, you cannot enter without them as an escort. In the past that was not true, but today that rule is written in permanent marker and signed in blood.
You should make sure there is not a mistake in your query letter, whether they be typo’s or factual errors, ie address Francis Bacon as Ms. Bacon. One mistake and the agent might toss the letter. You must be docile and accept that their rule is absolute, do nothing to piss them off.
Write the query letter as a representative of the book, which might include using the same tone and voice or explaining the premise in such exciting terms that the agent can’t help but be interested. REMEMBER, you are marketing and selling your novel, no one can know how great it is if you do not tell him or her.
The second and smaller part of the query letter should state why you have the special ability to tell the story. What qualifies you above all others for this manuscript? Sell yourself. I meant that in the nicest way. You’re not a hooker.
Make sure the manuscript lives up to the hyperbole of the letter. Is that an oxymoron or a paradox, either way “x” marks the spot. If the manuscript is probably not going to find an audience (sell the hell out of the first printing) then it probably will never make it off the slush pile. The numbers are simple for a hardcover 20,000 copies makes it a mild success, and for paperbacks 50,000 copies, the more the better.
And remember that publishing a manuscript is a never-ending effort. Even when the publisher accepts it, there will be re-writes, editing decisions, choices concerning the cover, and an all out effort to publicize the book in any manner legally allowed (monetary constraints not withstanding).
So after writing a manuscript that the agent thinks meets the standard to allow it to be published with a happy monetary result, the work has only begun and the writer transforms into the publicist. That is the Happy Ending.

where have you been?

It has been a few months since I last posted other than Outlaw Words. I've been around the world and back again. The Philadelphia Writers Conference in June was the first time I pitched my book, Aphrodite and the Frog King. A literary agent asked to see the first three chapters, but after reading them decided that they were not her type of book. So back to the drawing board.

I took a vacation out West to the National Parks at Grand Teton, Yellowstone -- did not see Yogi -- and Glacier. There is nothing in the world as spectacular as the Road to the Sun through Glacier National Park. 

August found me reading two pages in two minutes at the Backspace Writer's Conference. Once again I was lucky enough to interest a literary agent. This time with my writing and not just the concept of the book. The manuscript is in his office at this time.

Comparing the two conferences, PWC was more about the mechanics of writing with workshops. I took a short story workshop that was excellent. The BksWC was more about how to get published and presented many successful author who were more than willing, to spend time with anyone to help make their goals more obtainable. 

Both conferences delivered what they advertised. 

My writing has advanced significantly over the summer.

Next posting I will report the speech of Mark Travani at Backspace. As a editor he delineated in simple terms what a manuscript must contain to be reviewed and published. 

Read constantly, think writing, write every day, constant improvement, satisfy yourself.  

Outlaw Words -- Just

“Just” is an adverb, which is bad enough pedigree, but it is a step-adjective too as its mother remarried sometime in the 18^th Century. The home situation made “just” confused, giving it a split personality and a diminished ego. It wants to please everybody and became an “easy” word. It just can’t say no. You can find just out hitting the bars looking for Mr. Write, but finding meaningless relationships, one word stands, a string of tawdry collections. Don’t become another author notched in its headboard, or worse yet, need treatment for an STD, Speaking Too Dumb. Just plays loose with time, so it’s always available to screw you up.

As an adverb it can mean now, or recently or the immediate past. It does not know what time it is, how can we expect it to tell us anything? Just is never on time, or on the money, but the slut keeps company with trash clichés like that one. It is a distant relative of the well-known outlaw “only” (from the first column) although it assumed an alias and dropped the family surname “ly,” so it could sneak around.

So many personalities, being everything to everyone, just adds nothing to any passage, as in “just in the nick of time.” What does it add to that nick of time? Nothing. Just comes on to everyone and molds to its company, the sycophant.

It can mean exactly as in “this is just how you do it,” but just is so vague that it can never be exact. It’s a fuzzy – not a fussy – word, and it infects the sentence with fuzziness. How can it be exact or even relatively accurate? “I’ll meet you just when the sun sets.” Does that mean when the sun touches the horizon, or is half blocked or completely gone? That’s exact? Just knows nothing so it can’t tell you anything. The literary equivalent of a the dumb blonde moll. 

Writers use it for emphasis, as in “do it just for me.” Does that mean for my sake, or in my name, or for my benefit, or in my stead, or so that I solely see, or whatever. It’s just too fuzzy, too confusing and where was I? I’m just fed up. 

Just is so confused that it needs some help from a psychologist or psychiatrist. Look at all its personalities: just, justly, just about, just like that, just so, just now, just this moment, just for me, and just anytime. They cover so much territory that just can fit in to any sentence and not change a thing. And that is just the problem. Just brings banality, not uniqueness. It’s a false friend. “Just” is confused with its multiple meanialities. It could star in a Betty Davis movie.

But years of therapy won’t help this poor be knighted Hindu. As an adjective, just brings in more meanalities for the word-doctors to treat, gaining its just desserts. A long stay under therapeutic evaluation, so that it cannot harm anyone’s prose. Adjectives, in general, are stronger than adverbs, but this recalcitrant word wants to stay weak, even in adjective form, as if it were addicted to modifying verbs to weaken their resolve “he justly swung the axe to free the maiden.” Then it picks on its own kind by modifying other adverbs, the cannibal.

As an adjective it can mean fair, or morally correct or reasonable. Why doesn’t it do the just thing and seek help in a sanitarium where it can be removed from our writing. Let another person become responsible from releasing it on the unsuspecting public, its just incurable. 

Writing Outlaws -- Words and Phrases that should be put away

Strunk and White lists words and phrases that are often misused. This is an important chapter of their book. I want to write about words that are not misused, but rather, overused to the point that their meaning is lost. They may be common or have multiple appropriate meanings, but to better communicate the writer should swap them out for words that have innuendoes that add meaning to the writing. These words are shallow and they infect our writing with shallowness, preventing complexity that adds interest. These words are chameleons that blend in with any surrounding. We want words that stand out and stand for something, words that have meaning. Every word we write should add to the picture, like that individual brushstrokes of a master artist. The words are Jackson Pollack droolings that are hit and miss, and random.

The bandit for today is “only.” It is a word that comes from a dreaded family called adverbs. They only exist to torture your noble nouns, and vigilant verbs. You can tell by the family name “ly,” that only is meant to be wantonly weak. So by pedigree you should have an aversion for the wimpy word.

It can mean merely, lone, exclusively, simply, barely, no more than, or it can refer to occurrence such as “it only happened yesterday.” It can describe a number or amount, “it is only three feet deep.” It trivializes situations as in “the rescue only required guts.” Or “he was only a farmer’s daughter.” That might be an eye catcher, and a good use of only, maybe. Or it could be that “he was the only one left standing.” Only is a jerk of all trades and a master of only one, or maybe none.

I personally want to use it only when I have to. So I want to put it away where it can’t hurt my writing. I rarely parole it from the holding cell. I think you should banish it too.

If you have any words to nominate for incarceration please forward them with the reason why to  newsletter@monmouthwriters.com.  

A Person of Substance ... Oh really ... A Pusher???

Every book written on how to write novels includes a section on point of view. Third person, first person, don't wander in second person to long or you'll lose your readers. Person is the camera through which a scene is viewed, changing perspective. It creates closeness and intimacy or telescopic viewing of characters in another land.
But person filters the light that is recorded by the camera. The same view reported by different people is described differently. Is there a Japanese movie like that about Samuri? You know there is I just can't spell it.
I am not concerned with the language style of the narrator, proper versus vernacular, that's a character issue. I am concerned with the perspective and perceptions of the narrator. Is he observent or is he misinformed and lazy or sloppy. How much can the reader rely on his reporting, insights and conclusions. The writer misses an opportunity to create suspense or tension if his narrator is rock solid every time.
How easy is it to involve the reader when he is looking to evaluate the narrators statements. In the Great Gatsby is our narrator reliable or biased? Does he harbor any emotions that affect his analysis? Of course, and that is what the reader has to evaluate throughout the book. Is Gatsby as he is presented.
Good literature involves the reader. It is not just involvement as in caring for the characters, but it is involvement in the world the characters inhabit and form. They become real and we live with them for a time. Why cry at a sad ending unless you picture yourself in the scene.
Point of view allows the writer to filter the reader's information, and to make him question whether the narrator has all the facts? Don't you hate when someone has a secret and they won't tell you. Do you get involved to find out what it is?
Archie in the Nero Wolf series is accurate with what he knows. He's down right bland as buttered bread. He rarely even understands everything involved in the mystery. We try to beat him to the answer. We trust the information he gives us, but we know there is more.
Humans are incomplete, and inaccurate, so in creating realistic characters let human flaws add interest and character to your narrator, a side product is reader involvement.
If you want to hook the reader, pick a narrator that can be misled, or has a bias or is just lacking in intuition enough that he is a poor source of information, and let your reader do the leg work. It gets 'em every time.

where do we start?

How do you prepare to write? Are you an out liner, who carefully writes out the flow of the storyline? Does this inhibit the characters running freely, limiting your choices of conclusions? Are you a scene collector with a story / plot board? How many pushpins hold the scenes in place? How often do you shuffle the cards or excise and trash a scene? Or do you just wing it? Letting the characters run around to whatever end your mind allows? What part of the spectrum do you live in from laissez to anal-retentive? What works for you and why does it work? My first book is finished without an outline and I'll be damned if it isn't harder to write one after the fact than prior.

the writing on the web

Using a WYSIWYG to post information to the web makes writing easy to do. Has it become to simple to be heard and does this cause a overwhelming volume that obsecures the best in a horizon of mediocrity.

Why do you write?

I am enthusiastic and loquacious to the point of annoyance, at times. I love to imagine what if and meet the people I create while following that lead. But maybe, it is the God syndrome of Physicianhood. It's my world, therefore everything goes just as I say it should go. Now that does not mean I am not surprised by some of the things my characters do; it just means if I don't like it, if it doesn't fit in the story, they don't do it. When I write a story or a novel, I meet new people every time. I don't always like them, but they interest me. I become young and naive again or old and wizen with wisdom.