Unleaded - Fuel for Writers

WWW: Avoiding the Obvious Mistakes

DLThurston — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:45:02 +0000

I’ve talked about Sara Megibow‘s #10QueriesIn10Tweets before over on my blog. To give a quick summation for those who don’t follow her, she’s a literary agent who sits down once a week with the next ten queries in her queue and tweets acceptances or rejections. She doesn’t talk details about any of the pieces, just what they did either right or wrong. For anyone, I stress anyone, who plans to query a novel at any point in the future, this is absolutely required reading, even if your genre of choice doesn’t match her wish list.

Last week she did something different, posting seven fictional queries, providing more detail than she’s willing with actual queries to demonstrate just what people do wrong. It serves as seven very specific examples of what not to do when writing a query, and what to actually do right.

Make sure the characters are interesting.
Pitch the story, not the theme/moral.
Write comprehensibly.
Focus on the story, not overly specific details.
Write in English, minimize jargon from your world.
Make sure there’s a unique hook.
Query what the agent reps.

It’s amazing that a writer can rise above the pack just by getting #3 and #7 right, both of which should go without saying. The other five points boil down to one simple fact: when you’re writing a query you have a very limited number of words to get an agent or editor interested, and you’re writing to someone who potentially processes a lot of queries on a daily basis. You’re potentially sunk on your first sentence. You certainly have no more than a paragraph. Don’t let the story get in the way of itself. Focus on what’s unique about the story. You wrote it, you should love it, the goal is telling someone else why they should love it to. I’m going to repeat my three query promises that I’ve made before, because I think they’re important:

I will spell check, grammar check, and even have someone beta read my query letter before I send it.
I will pitch my plot. I will keep my readers in suspense but understand an agent needs to know what he or she will be representing.
I will research agents. I will read their websites, make sure they rep what I’m writing, and not bother the ones who don’t. I will include attachments only when and where requested.

Makes it sound so easy.

Yes, I write these posts about how easy it should be to write queries to psych myself up for when I write my own later this year. Yes, I know it’s not actually that easy.

Writing Inspiration – Automata

DayAlMohamed — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:43:47 +0000

A lot of this week has been busy with work, work, work but I did take some time to dig around for research items to support my interest in steampunk. The truth is, there is something more fascinating about all the REAL items that really did exist than almost anything I could make up. I spent far too many hours on YouTube watching these videos. And then proceeded to have nightmares when I went to bed. But it isn’t any less fascinating for it.

The Cleopatra below is awesome and a little freaky with the 70′s dream-like video.

Next is a collection of classic automata and is the first half of the documentary where Cleopatra appears.

This video is from a museum in New Jersey with some great stories behind their automata.

And YouTube has so many more. These are the ones where I began my online roving and they interconnect well to give a feel for the “eerie factor.” Hmm, maybe this’d be better inspiration for horror.

Update: Wednesday night we’re going to see Hugo which we heard actually had some of these classic automata in the film.

WWW: The Devil in the Details

DLThurston — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:05:12 +0000

Has everyone seen the trailer for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter yet? No? Go, now, watch, then come back. These things are so much more important that my silly little blog posts.

Everyone back? Okay, good. I’ve got to say that looks like a hell of a lot more fun than I anticipated, like there’s actual some budget behind the movie and they’re not just banking on people coming out for the ridiculous concept behind it. But did you see the same thing I did? Watch it again, see if something stands out. Or, since this post is rather short and you can already see the screenshot I’m about to post, just look at it and tell me what’s wrong.

That’s Washington, DC. I live in the burbs of that city, and it’s a fantastic part of the country to live in. That’s the Washington Monument in the middle, to the left, past the Reflecting Pool, is the Lincoln Memorial. I don’t know exactly what this shot is doing in the trailer, whether that shot is just an establishment of place and time before a major flashback, or a flashforward at the end, or if it’s even in the movie at all. What I do know is that the Washington Monument wasn’t completed until the 1870s. The Lincoln Memorial was certainly not even in planning stage’s during the president’s life. Seeing both immediately ripped me out of the trailer, no matter how beautiful of a shot it is.

I’ll give the movie makers a break. They’re probably not behind the content of the trailer, and there are other scenes in the trailer that show a much more era-appropriate DC. Here we see the second Capitol Dome still under construction, as it was when Lincoln was inaugurated.

So I’m not here to crucify the movie, I’m here to make a quick and easy point. One I’ve made before, and one I’ll make again. Get the little things right. This can be especially true in Alternate History, you need to get the things that don’t change right, or people won’t be with you for the things you do change. At no point in this trailer did I rebel against the much larger historical inaccuracy of Abraham Lincoln fighting vampires. It was only the small thing, the one second shot of a completed Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial in a trailer that’s otherwise set during Lincoln’s adulthood.

Want some other things that Alternate History often does wrong? Head on over to a fantastic Daily 10 about just that on io9. And do remember: most Steampunk (which several of us on this blog write) is just another form of AH.

Leveling Your Critiques

Jennifer Brinn — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:16:50 +0000

One thing I haven’t touched on about critiques is the fact that different critiques are needed depending on the phase the manuscript is in. I’m not talking about the moon cycle or whether the story before you is YA or not (ha! YA, teenagers, phases….er, yeah, I’ll shut up now). What I mean is at which stage in the process the writing is at. We all want the feedback to be as helpful and useful as possible. It makes sense that a first draft has different needs from something that has gone through a few rounds of edits already. You also don’t want to slavishly circle every single comma splice and apostrophe error if there is a real possibility that entire scenes may be rewritten from scratch. Communication between submitter and critiquer are key to this.

In the Cat Vacuuming Society Writers Group, we use Critique Levels to help get across what is needed. It isn’t a perfect system, nor is it meant to be. It doesn’t trump what’s actually needed either — the submitter may think they only need a final polish but in reality there are flaws in structure that must be addressed. It also isn’t an exhaustive list–just because something isn’t spelled out below, it doesn’t mean it isn’t looked at, because all the parts of a story are to be examined.

Level One (aka “Does this make sense to people who don’t live in my head?”)

The Level One critique is primarily for first drafts. This can be first draft of a scene in an otherwise polished work, or for the rough cut of an entire story. The point of focus here is on the bigger picture: does this work? Key areas to look at are whether the pieces, when put together, make a whole. This can sometimes be as simple as identifying missing elements (“who is supposed to be the protagonist?”) or as complex as breaking down the structure or narrative choices (“The first-person point of view you’re using clashes with the epic scope you seem to be going for.”).

Things to look for in a Level One critique:

Can you identify the narrative structure? Is is meant to be in acts (three, four, or five act structures are common in fiction)? If it is an unusual structure, what does that bring to a story? Is it working?
Can you clearly identify the protagonist, the antagonist, and the conflicts of the story?
Is the setting defined? Does it have a sense of place?
Were there any major areas that were missing? Think about characters (primary, secondary, even spear-carriers), plot, pacing, description, dialogue — what stood out as particularly well done or absent?
Can you state what you think the theme was?
Was there a distinct beginning, middle, and end? Do these all happen at the right points? Could the story start earlier or later? Is the ending satisfying and inevitable?

The important thing is to not get bogged down in details–note the important ones (“I can’t picture your main character at all!”) without worrying into the nitty-gritty (“I can’t imagine what size shoe she wears!”). Those details are crucial later (well, maybe not her shoe size) but in a first draft those things may not be set. And nagging the author on those comes later.

Level Two (aka “I’ve got the bones right, now let’s start digging into the flesh!”)

Once the bigger elements are present and arranged, it is time to get into the meat of the story. You can’t properly help bring a character to life or build the tension into a plot if neither existed in the first place. This is where the Level Two has its fun. The scaffolding is there, now let’s build. (Yes, I am trying to see how many versions of this metaphor I can use, why do you ask?) However you look at it, Level Two is where the magic tricks are really taken apart and examined, so that the author can really cast the illusion at the end. Level Two assumes that there has been at least one thorough revision done (not just a quick editing pass to clean up), or the draft is from a detailed outline that addressed the kind of issues Level One deals with.

What we look at now are things like pacing, voice, description, and tension. These elements work together to bring out the story as it was intended, getting it closer to the perfect version inside the author’s head. At Level Two it should be a lot clearer what kind of story the author was aiming for. You should know from this read whether it was meant as a mystery or a romance, if the spec fic elements are necessary to the story or are set dressing, if there’s a big theme driving it all, etc.

Things to look for in a Level Two critique:

Everything from a Level One critique. Seriously, really examine the big picture again. You can’t really assess Level Two if there are major Level One issues still hanging around.
If you’ve seen the story before, compare the two versions. Does this one fix the problems from before?
Voice and point of view: are they clear? Do they serve the story? Do they enrich the story?
Character: are the motivations coming across (primary and secondary characters)?
Descriptions: Do they enrich the story?
Pacing: where does it drag? Where does it flow?
Dialogue: do the characters speak differently? Does it serve the story? Does it aid in tension, character development, and plot movement?
Any other element that isn’t pulling its weight?
Should sections of the story be in different places entirely? Should some scenes/characters/plot points be merged, deleted, or changed to strengthen the story?

Many stories could use multiple passes through on Level Two as each revision may strengthen some elements only to reveal where others are lacking. While again, the focus is less about the details than the overall picture, the Level Two pass is aimed at how those details affect the big picture. You may tackle things like filtering, anachronisms, vague phrasing, and the like here but sometimes they are just the surface symptoms of the larger problems. Filtering may be an author’s tendency to step away from the tight POV when the author is uncertain of the character’s motivations, for example. Vague phrasing that leads to blank scenery can only be fixed when we realize that the author had avoided nailing down what the architecture of the building–because the author hadn’t decided on a culture background for the characters.

Level Three (aka “The Devil in the Details”)

This is where we get to go all red-pen kamikaze ninja on the manuscript. This is the time for helping catch all those sneaky typos, those narrative tics, the vague grasp on why semicolons exist–at the same time looking critically at word choices. Level Three is the ruthless level, where you must defend every darling–because if they don’t hold up here, they are just dragging your story down. Some authors think of this sort of critique as a polishing pass, and in many ways it is. It isn’t just a spray with Pledge and swipe the rag kind of pass, however. This is sometimes the hardest critique, to do or to receive. This where you go through and examine every stylistic choice.

Level Three checklist:

Details, details: anything that’s vague, non-specific, or lacking in detail should be flagged.
Any POV and voice violations?
Stylistic tics: These are words or phrases used too often by an author. (For me, it’s the words “only” and “that.”)
Dialogue: mark unnecessary tags, excess dialogue filler, etc.
Clunky phrasing, awkward sentences, and the like.
Be wary of places where structure of sentences and paragraphs is too similar.

I’m sure you can come up with more things to watch for as well. Level Three is tricky, and it can be hard to pin down all the many things to look for, but you know them when you stumble on them in the manuscript.

Go forth and critique well!

WWW: ABC

DLThurston — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:45:57 +0000

It’s my favorite piece of advice from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, as delivered by Alec Baldwin. ABC. A, Always. B, Be. C, Crafting. Always be crafting. At least I think that’s how it goes.

See that man to the right? That man is LL Langstroth, American bad-ass. Lorenzo L Langstroth, which I assume is Lorenzo Lamas Langstroth. Who was he? Nothing less that the father of modern American beekeeping, in more ways than once since he was a man of the cloth. He realized one important thing: that bees need a certain amount of room in a hive. Complicated? No. Brilliant? Absolutely. He developed a new type of hive with a movable frame.

I learned about him last night. My wife and I are taking an apiary class. After the initial disappointment that we’re not actually learning how to keep apes, I settled in and learned something about the history of beekeeping, and that’s where I learned of Lorenzo Lamas Langstroth. Born 1810. Died 1895. He died in the pulpit mid sermon. Because that’s the kind of badass he was.

Why do I like him? Why am I talking about him? Look at those years. Born 1810. Died 1895. Perfect years for Steampunk. Self made inventor who came up with something no one had thought of before? That’s Steampunk all over, the tinker, the builder. By the end of the class I had a Steampunk apiary forming in my head. I still need a plot, but that’s not the point.

The point is: ABC. Always be crafting. Stories are out there, and you never know when one will broadside you. Be open for them. And then write them.

Pints of Interest that are strange but true!

NRBrown — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:11:37 +0000

I often do this on my own blog site, so I thought I would do it here too. A few random links to things that might offer some nice inspiration…or a least a few moments of distraction.

1st: Scientific American puts out a “Strange but True” blog…Check it out and see things like:
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

2nd: What is better than dufus criminals? Yeah, so get over and take a look at Strange but True Crime , where you can see:
Cops chasing you? Call 911.

And 3rd from the “Strange but True Website”

There are 18 different animal shapes in the Animal Crackers cookie zoo!

Your body is creating and killing 15 million red blood cells per second!

Until the nineteenth century, solid blocks of tea were used as money in Siberia!

When glass breaks, the cracks move faster than 3,000 miles per hour. To photograph the event, a camera must shoot at a millionth of a second!

One ragweed plant can release as many as one billion grains of pollen!

No piece of square dry paper can be folded more than 7 times in half!

Writers and their Drinks

DayAlMohamed — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:35:47 +0000

I’m to have done penance this weekend for last week’s non-posting (and my apologies to readers out there). And yet again, I am less than punctual. Actually, that whole “being late” thing seems to be a habit. So I am shamelessly filling up the space today. But not with just any post, a DRINKING post! Huzzah!

I won’t admit anything directly, but it may be because fellow Unleaded Writing author N.R. Brown recently purchased a Mr. Beer from Woot.com to follow in her family’s footsteps. Okay, I am not referring to her cousin who is an award-winning brewer, but the tales she has told about her notorious grandmother and great-grandfather and their illicit alcohol smuggling and “rum running” during Prohibition.

It seems like writers have always been associated with alcohol. Raymond Chandler and the gimlet, Earnest Hemingway and the mojito; Dylan Thomas’ beverage of choice was wtraight whiskey, as much as he could handle. Unfortunately, in 1953, he died after taking 18 shots of the stuff. So I thought, why not give us all a little test and see how well we know our authors and our alcohol.

And so to test all of you alcoholic-writers-to-be out there, I crafted a quiz for you:

Speed Match Writers and their Preferred Drinks Game

The current and easy-to-beat high score is 40 seconds by Veni. Let’s see who can beat her!

And with that little challenge, let me close with a lovely quote from the original Queen of Snark, Dorothy Parker:

“I wish I could drink like a lady
I can take one or two at the most
Three and I’m under the table
Four and I’m under the host”

“The Collaborator of Bethlehem” by Matt Beynon Rees

Dana Gunn — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 04:39:25 +0000

This month I decided to take a slight departure from my usual reading fare and venture into a murder mystery. I am no stranger to the genre as I am familiar with Agatha Christie, of course, and the Hamish Macbeth series by M. C. Beaton is a favorite of mine. “The Collaborator of Bethlehem” by Matt Beynon Rees is a murder mystery based on current events. It was this fact that drew me to the book.

“The Collaborator of Bethlehem” is the first in a series where “Omar Yussef” an aging Palestinian teacher is the main character. Just before the first chapter starts, a disclaimer states that all the crimes in the book are real, even though the names have been changed. This truly does set the tone for the entire book. The story begins with Omar Yussef having lunch with one of his former students and shortly after establishing the characters, the violence commences.

Omar Yussef is an artfully developed protagonist. He is neither the typical hero nor the typical anti-hero. He is an aging man who feels older than his age and at times acts like it. The book centers on the murder of a Palestinian and the wrong person is accused of being an Israeli collaborator responsible for the murder. Omar Yussef involves himself to find the real collaborator and begins playing the role of detective while simultaneously attempting to save his job teaching history at a UN sponsored school for children in the Dehaishe refugee camp.

Consistently, Omar Yussef encounters religious and cultural differences, and much find a way to work around and within those circumstances. Much of the book describes how Omar Yussef feels himself defined by the successful students he has taught throughout the years. Many of those students are still in Bethlehem giving him many opportunities to reinforce this belief. However, he has an epiphany before the end of the story which will shake the very foundations of his belief for much of his teaching life – and comes out better for it.

Matt Rees has painted a beautiful picture of Bethlehem and he has painted a horrific picture of Bethlehem. The people who live there and just want to live are presented in such a way that your heart immediately goes out to them when their lives are touch by the violence that comprises the horrific side of life in a city that is under the influence of an Israeli army and Palestinian rebels. The rebels are not always shown to be the boogey-man but the ones that are portrayed in such a way evoke feelings in the reader that makes you root for their downfall.

I have been intrigued and stimulated by this book. Matt Rees has produced a powerful first novel and I applaud his efforts. “The Collaborator of Bethlehem” definitely gets five flags from me.

WWW: But…but…but…

DLThurston — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:04:33 +0000

It’s rather later in the day than I normally do my WWW posts. That’s because I forgot it’s Wednesday, and really it wasn’t until Day pointed out that I was about to be King of the Blog that I remembered. What ends up being funny: I wouldn’t have become King of the Blog until she said I was about to be. Sad trombone.

So I asked my wife, freshly home from work, what I should write about.

“Buts!”

What the hell, here goes.

“But” is one of my biggest writing tics. I’m sure we all learned about conjunctions as school children. My teacher always used the mnemonic FANBOYS. For, and, nor, but, or, yet, still. We were told not to start sentences with these words. It weakens the sentences. It’s just one of those things we’re not supposed to do. There are other words outside the seven classic conjunctions that fall into the similar “don’t start” category. Words like “because.”

“But,” I hear you ask, “aren’t rules meant to be broken?” Oh sure. Part of being a writer is knowing what rules to break, and when to break them. All art works that way. However, there are rules that can be broken, there are rules that shouldn’t be broken, and the more I read my own writing and see when I do this, the more it falls into the category of rules not to break. There are probably still times, but not nearly as many as I tend to use, and potentially not nearly as many as you’d like to use. Dialogue can always be looser, but not as loose as spoken language tends to be.

There you go. As requested by my wife, a post about buts.

I think that’s what she meant.

@DL_Thurston is King of the Blog

admin — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:22:54 +0000

I know, I know, today is for WWW – DL Thurston’s Wednesday Writerly Words. Unfortunately, this week has been a busy one and yours truly and my friendly neighborhood writer-partner, have not posted earlier in the week. Ya’ll might not be aware of it, but similar to the shouting of “King of the Lab” which can be heard on the television show, “Bones” for the technician declaring superiority over his fellow beings, we have a “King of the Blog.” And that would be DL Thurston when his WWW posts show up one immediately after the other. In short, the rest of us slackers hadn’t posted in a week.

Now being the sad sort of person that I am and considering that he gets a prize as well as “King of the Blog” every time the rest of us are bested by our own lack of writing prowess, I am taking this opportunity to try and snipe his posting today JUST to prevent his reign. *checks watch* I should just make it.

Of course, I guess this just makes him a bigger King of the Blog…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tk-m61ANEw]

King of the Blog video from Bones

(Note: In penance, I will be doing additional posts this upcoming weekend so stay tuned!)