Category: Nonfiction voice
Posted on May 8, 2014 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on As the screen goes wavy again, or, what had already begun to bore Millicent by the time talkies rolled around
As the screen goes wavy again, or, what had already begun to bore Millicent by the time talkies rolled around
No time for a long-winded missive today, campers, but I could not let the occasion pass without posting a few words. What occasion rises to the mandatory observation level, you may well ask, eyeing both the lapse between this and my last post and the undeniable fact that Author! Author!'s older posts are still, alas, unhappily plagued with extraneous symbols? Participating in a species of conversation all too common behind the scenes in publishing circles.
It tends to run something like this: someone whose job it is to read submissions, all day, every day (except, of course, on those days she invests in skimming a few hundred queries at a sitting) quietly goes nuts while reading the 531rst submission of the month. Grounding her no doubt expensively straightened teeth to an extent that her former orthodontist would deplore, our Millicent — for yes, it is she, everybody's favorite agency screener — she vents her frustration upon a sympathetic friend while she is waiting in line for her latté.
"It's happened again," she murmurs into her phone. "Three submissions in a row in which the text asserted that what was going on was…wait for it…just like something in a movie!"
Having been savvy enough to call a fellow professional reader, she's sure to meet with sympathy. Calling me, however, might not have been the best choice. "I know, I know: it's maddening to see writers rush to use the same metaphor, over and over again. But you must admit, it isn't those three writers' fault that you happened to read their submissions back to back."
"Not their fault!" Predictably, Millicent burns her lip on her too-hot latt?. "Everybody knows that saying something happening on the page was just like a movie is bad writing."
I can't resist teasing her; we've had this discussion too many times. "It depends upon how the sentence using that tired old concept is constructed, doesn't it? I could imagine it being expressed very prettily."
"Fine. I'll send the next fifteen manuscripts that use it to you, so you can compare their delightful sentence structure."
She's laughing by the time we hang up, but I must admit, she has a point. As anyone who reads for a living could tell you — particularly agents, editors, and the screeners they employ, all of whom by necessity must read manuscripts one after another, due to sheer volume — nothing quite makes the mind scream like spotting the same phrase, concept, or metaphor crop up repeatedly, page after page. When those pages happen to belong to different manuscripts, the frustration can be even greater: after the fourth or fifth time in a week, even the most literature-loving Millicent can start to wonder if half of the writers in the English-speaking world gathered someplace secret five months ago, to agree upon what the clich? of the season will be.
Hey, there are fashions in writing, just as in anything else that requires taste to appreciate. And, just as in runway fashion, once an innovative author hits the big time with a unique offering, the pros are used to seeing dozens — nay, hundreds — of copycat submissions flooding their inboxes shortly thereafter.
At first, that can be exciting: it's no secret that publishers often attempt to capitalize upon the success of a bestseller by bringing out similar books in short order. Which makes sense, right? A certain group of readers have already demonstrated that they like that kind of book; why not offer them similar titles?
Actually, there's a pretty good answer to that: after what can be an astonishingly short time, however, the readership for a particular type of story can, well, get tired of it. Perhaps more to the point for those trying to break into print, the Millicents tasked with screening all of those remarkably similar stories can begin to find them a bit predictable.
And those Millies are not the only ones. "Another Twilight knock-off?" their bosses exclaim. "This one had better have an awfully different spin."
The rapid rise and fall of bestsellers and their followers is too well known in literary circles to raise many aspiring writers' eyebrows these days. Come closer, though, and I'll let you in on a little professional secret: that's not the kind of repetition that causes Millicent to fling aside a submission, rend her garments, and rush out the door for a coffee refill. It's seeing how many otherwise original, well-written manuscripts utilize precisely the same standard comparisons and hackneyed phrases as those that are neither prettily constructed nor particularly unique.
Seriously, it's kind of startling to spot on the page. A pro will be reading along, enjoying a good story well told, when she's abruptly confronted with a paragraph like this:
Ambrose staggered, stunned by the force of the blow. The world wavered before his eyes, as if he were watching an old movie and a flashback was just about to begin.
Nothing wrong with the writing there — so why might that last clause send Millicent's hand automatically reaching for a form letter beginning Thank you so much for your submission, but I'm afraid it does not meet our needs at this time? Could it have anything to do with the fact that an hour ago, she had just rejected a manuscript containing this gem?
Mignonette clutched her head, trying to make sense of it all. It was surreal. She felt as if she was in a movie.
Leaving aside the relatively rare editorial pet peeve regarding how often narratives describe perfectly comprehensible scenes as surreal — not nearly so often as they label a situation utterly devoid of irony as ironic, admittedly, but still, frequently enough to become annoying — is it really so hard to understand why the lingering memory of Mignonette's affection for film might color Millicent's perception of the freshness of Ambrose's reaction to the blow?
And a thousand writers' hands shoot into the air. Yes? "This is ridiculous, Anne," film aficionados everywhere grumble. "Why shouldn't two writers embrace the same comparison, if they write about it differently? Feeling like you're in a movie is a fairly common experience, after all; eschewing writing about it would be akin to declaring that depicting a character drinking milk an instant-rejection offense."
An excellent argument, grumblers, but part of the problem is that so many manuscripts don't write about it differently. Even in conversation, it was just like a movie is a clich? for a reason, after all: in everyday life, people tend to describe what you rightly point out is a common feeling in the modern world in a common way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the primary goals of developing an individual authorial voice not to express things precisely like everybody else does? And don't we writers pride ourselves upon presenting our readers not merely with a mirror held up to their own lives, accompanied by a transcript of what they already hear, but our own personal take on reality, phrased in a way that is like no one else's prose?
Do I sense writers of third-person fiction leaping to their collective feet, shouting, "Yes, by gum! Down with hackneyed phrases and concepts!" while those of you who spend your time crafting first-person narratives sat on your hands? I'm not entirely astonished: writers of first-person fiction and memoir frequently work under the principle that if good first-person narration reads as though an actual human being might conceivably have said it out loud, and if most people incorporate clich?s into their everyday speech, then loading a first-person narrative with clich?s is only being true to life, right?
Well, arguably. It can — and all too often does — result in a narrative voice that sounds not like a specific individual, but just anybody. Millicent is also confronted with this kind of opening many times a day:
Oh, my God, I can't believe it. I'm sick of this. The gall of some people! I'm so over it. I'm out of here.
Believable verbal expression? Oh, yes. But I ask you: what do those stock phrases actually tell you about this narrator? Or about the situation, for that matter?
Hackneyed phrases and concepts are, after all, generic. That's why polite exchanges so often bore readers: by definition, those phrases that everybody says in particular situations convey no individualized meaning.
Did I just hear some eyebrows hitting the ceiling? I kid you not: as delightful as courtesy is to encounter in real life, it can be stultifying on the page. Take a gander:
Kendrick held out his right hand. "Nice to meet you."
"Pleased to meet you, too," Ghislaine said. "Beautiful day, isn't it?"
"Yes, the weather is nice. Oh, here's Maurice. How are you, Maurice?"
They shook hands like old friends, as indeed they were. "Fine," Maurice said. "How are you?"
"Oh, fine. Ghislaine, this is Maurice."
Maurice shook her hand. "How are you?"
"Fine. How are you?"
Longing yet for death's sweet embrace? What if you had read similar personality-free conversations eight or nine times today?
Does that prospect appall you? Or have you caught up pitchforks and torches for some other reason?
"Oh, come on, Anne," polite people everywhere scoff, genteelly brandishing weaponry. "Everyone understands that these are stock phrases — but that's the point, isn't it? By having the characters spout courteous clich?s, the narrative is letting the reader know that these are nice people."
Perhaps, but surely, that's not the only way to demonstrate their many sterling qualities. If Kendrick complimented Ghislaine on her fetching frock, would he not come across as a pretty nice guy? If she were rushing back from her volunteer work with homeless children, pausing only briefly to exchange pleasantries before her shift at the leper colony began, might the reader not gain an inkling of her other-orientation? If Maurice had just experienced the loss of his beloved pet ocelot, would you consider her rude if he mentioned it?
Actually, that last one's not the best example, as Millicent would hasten to tell you. She could not even begin to estimate how many times in any given week of screening her tired peepers fall on a scene like this:
"How are you?" Kendrick asked.
"Fine." Maurice drew his sleeve across his eyes. "Except my beloved pet ocelot, Coriolanus, has just passed away."
"I'm sorry for your loss," Kendrick said. "Oh, here comes Ghislaine. Ghislaine, Coriolanus died!"
"Oh, Maurice!" she exclaimed. "I'm so sorry for your loss."
I could go on and show what the policeman on the corner, all seventeen of Maurice's coworkers, and his great-aunt said upon hearing the news, but you're sensing a pattern, right? I've said it before, and I shall no doubt say it again: just because people say something in real life doesn't mean that it will make good reading on the page.
Or, to put it another way: strong dialogue doesn't need to sound like everyday speech to work in print. It's needs to be more interesting than everyday speech.
If it's to impress Millicent with its originality and beauty, that is. After hours of too-polite dialogue, imagine what a relief it could be to read an exchange like this:
Ghislaine realized that she knew the man tugging on her arm. "Why, Kendrick, you look just awful!"
"I feel as if my guts have been ripped out." He managed a brave smile. "Haven't you heard about Maurice's ocelot?"
Her intestines squirmed with anticipated horror. "What's happened to Coriolanus?"
"Killed in a freak basketball accident. He was prowling along the top of the backboard, and a rogue shot knocked him to the ground."
"Oh, my God!" Ghislaine cried. "It's just like something in a movie!"
Oh, so close! Millicent was just settling in for a nice, interesting read, and the manuscript had to throw up a red flag. It might not be the final red flag for this submission — you would want to find out why there's an ocelot in this story, right? — but in most professional readers, Ghislaine's cri de coeur would at least elicit a roll of the eyes.
Were there other problems on the page, though, it might well prompt a cry of "Next!" Remember, it's Millicent's job to thin the submission pile. Her boss, the agent of your dreams, can only take on a few new clients per year; naturally, there's a heck of a lot of competition for those spots.
That being the case, is it truly sensible submission strategy to decorate your manuscript with that observation about how the ongoing situation resembles what one might expect to encounter on the big screen?
Do I hear some cries of despair out there in the ether? "There you go again," frustrated writers complain, and who could blame you? "You're just accepting Millicent's claim that everybody knows that the movie comparison is bad writing. At the risk of repeating the grumble from earlier in this post, doesn't it all depend upon the writing?"
Yes, of course — and no. You see, good writing doesn't exist in a vacuum; readers of every stripe tend to read more than one author in their lifetimes. They have come to expect the work of one author to differ from every other's.
And they're right to expect that: imagine how boring life would be if all well-written books sounded as though they had all been written by the same person!
In an agency, publishing house, or even within the context of a writing competition, good writing doesn't magically rise to the top of the submission or entry pile. To get to it, Millicent and her ilk read through everything else. Since a submitter cannot control the order in which his work is read, it really doesn't make strategic sense to rely upon the hope that his use of the movie trope — or any other commonly-employed comparison or phrase — will not pass under a screener's eyes immediately after somebody else's attempt to do the same thing.
Even the best of literary devices can start to seem overused with repetition after all. Think about Millie's screening day for a moment. What kind of pretty prose do you suppose greeted her over the morning's first latté?
She ran through the bleak forest, her long, red hair streaming behind her. Were those dogs she heard in the distance? Why had Fidelio placed her in this horrible position?
No time to wonder — those villagers with torches would catch up with her any minute now. If she'd been the monster in a Frankenstein movie, she couldn't have been in more danger.
Come on, admit it — you're starting to tire of the film references. And although I'm certain it doesn't feel that way, so far, only four of the examples in this post have contained it.
Yes, really. This comparison gets old fast.
Picture, then, how Millicent's weary eye must twitch upon catching sight of yet another iteration of the same concept. Especially if the next manuscript in the pile read like this:
Silvia couldn't believe it — this was all so surreal. She didn't even feel like herself: it was like she was watching herself on television.
In response to what fully a quarter of you just thought: no, Virginia, referring to television instead of a movie wouldn't lessen the negativity of Millicent's reaction. She would merely think that the writer of that last one didn't get out as often as the writer of the one before it.
She would have a hard time justifying sliding either page under her boss' nose, and not just because, like any experienced professional reader, the agent for whom Millie works may safely be assumed to have seen the movie/television/music video comparison thousands of times already. Like many publishing professionals, that agent may also feel a certain resentment towards movies, television, music videos, and new media for taking up time that right-minded people used to devote to reading.
But it didn't occur to our submitter to say that Silvia's surreal experience was like something in a novel, did it?
Still not convinced? Okay, I'm dropping all pretense: there's one other reason that Millicent might hesitate to overlook this particular red flag on the page. This next example is infected with a mild case of the phenomenon; see if you can spot it.
Ricardo ducked behind the nearest desk, gasping as if he were about to have a heart attack. What a great movie this chase would make! Except that no one would believe it.
Yes, this passage contains the dreaded movie comparison, but did you catch the secondary problem? Essentially, what a great movie this chase would make! is a review of the scene currently in progress: not only is the narrator telling the reader that this chase would be exciting on the big screen — the text goes so far as to say that the result would be great.
If Millicent and her kind cringe when they spot a hackneyed phrase or concept in a submission, they see red when they think a manuscript is indulging in self-review. "It's not your job to tell me how great you are," she's likely to snap at the manuscript. "It's your job to show me. And it's my job to decide whether you're great, good, or so-so."
The moral here, should you care to know it: it's a heck of a lot easier to impress a professional reader with good writing that's original than good writing that strays into overused territory, either in terms of wording or concept. Stock phrases and comparisons might sound right in the privacy of your writing studio — as well they should: people actually do talk in clich?s. But by definition, clich?s are not fresh; clichés are not original.
And trust me on this one: that clich? about how the current scene is like a movie ceased causing agents and editors to exclaim, "Wow, I've never seen that on the page before!" approximately two and a half years into the silent era.
Maybe it's time to give it a rest. Instead, why not startle and delight Millicent with an insight and phrasing only you could have produced?
It's worth a try, anyway. Keep up the good work!
Posted on May 27, 2013 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Do you mind if we talk about something else? Like, say, the times that try editors' souls?
Do you mind if we talk about something else? Like, say, the times that try editors' souls?
Or, to put it in more practical terms, if I promise to show you more properly-formatted pages while I'm at it, will you forgive my devoting tonight's post to a foray into a notorious editorial pet peeve? What about if I talk about several?
It's not as though there aren't dozens from which to choose: as I may have horrified you with depressed you into a stupor by bringing up mentioned in passing last time, those of us fortunate enough to read for a living are expected — and often rigorously trained — to notice patterns in writing. How often a manuscript uses the word blanched, for instance, or describes anything as being mauve.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with either word choice, mind you, when used sparingly. Surely I will astonish no one, however, if I suggest that your garden-variety reader might prefer not to see characters blanching at the sight of mauve objects on every other page. Adult readers, if you must know, tend to become bored by word and phrase repetition every bit as quickly as they lose interest in a slow-moving plot, dull explanation, or unsympathetic protagonist's plight. In order to spare the reading public that pain, editors strive to catch not only larger narrative issues, but also redundancies, whether they be of concept, image, or phrase.
And, bless our hearts, we are seldom shy about pointing them out, sometimes as early as the second or third time an author uses a pet word or action. "For heaven's sake, Mavis," we have been known to scrawl in manuscript margins, "Jeremy has blanched, went pale, and felt the blood drain from his face already in a 4-page scene — need he also waste the reader's time noticing his ashen face in the nearest mirror? What's a mirror doing in the middle of a forest, anyway? And while we're talking plausibility," Mavis would be expected to turn the page over here, to read the editorial scribblings on the back of the page, "are you planning at some point to provide the reader with some explanation for all of the mauve leaves on the purple trees? Is the water supply in this forest somehow tainted? Are the trees subject to some sort of lavender mite infestation? Or have you perhaps forgotten that the trees on the other side of the world you're describing were also on the mauve side?"
Given so much provocation on the page, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that one of the great long-term liabilities of reading for a living — or one of the great advantages, depending upon how one chooses to look at it — is that over time, the dedicated pro becomes decreasingly able to read anything without scrawling corrections in the margins. I'm not merely talking about manuscripts, synopses, and queries here, mind you, but all typed words on a page. The New York Times, for instance, once the standard of American prose, now seldom passes under my long-lashed eyes without picking up some entirely justified marginalia. Nor do magazines go unscathed: I'm looking at you, Radcliffe Quarterly.
Heck, I routinely take a corrective pen to menus, fliers, and wedding programs. One recent November, I had to be restrained bodily from correcting a grievous misprint on my ballot for a county election; the proper spelling would have confused the counting machine, I'm told.
But would that not have been preferable to asking the citizenry to select a superior court joge? Possibly to serve in mauve robes?
While in some walks of life, this level of habitual scrutiny might prove somewhat problematic, for professional readers like agents, editors, and contest judges (or, in this county, joges), it's a positive boon. So what if in some benighted professions, it is neither expected nor considered particularly sane to look one's coworker in the eye and say, "I like the content of you're saying, Ziggy, but the fact that you uttered the word exciting fourteen times over the course of a six-minute speech, insisted upon using impact as a verb, and failed to define a good third of your basic terms detracted from your presentation's effectiveness," without finding oneself cordially disinvited from all future meetings? Someone has to defend the language. And by gum, if that means rending our garments and wailing to the heavens, "You've used this metaphor twice in 137 pages! And phrased it almost identically each time, you…you?torturer," well, we're up to the task.
I see some of you blanching, doubtless at the thought of that manuscript you recently sent out to the agent of your dreams. Well might you turn pale, ashen-faced ones. If the same metaphor graced page 1 and page 241, a good editor would catch it. So is it really so much of a surprise that an even ordinarily conscientious agent — or, for that matter, Millicent, the agency screener — felt all of the blood draining from her face when that metaphor cropped up on pp. 1 and 5? Or — sacre bleu! — twice on page 1?
Half the good professional readers I know would not only have become impatient at any of these levels of metaphor repetition — they would have leapt to the conclusion that the writer was repeating himself so much on purpose. Clearly, this is an authorial plot to get away with lazy writing. As opposed to, say, an authorial failure to recognize that his pet phrase of today was also the pet phrase of three months, eight days, and sixteen hours ago.
How could you? You know how much such things upset Millicent.
Actually, you probably didn't, at least when you first began to write. Until a writer has enjoyed the incomparable pleasure of having her work dissected disemboweled subjected to professional critique, she tends not to have any idea of how closely an agent or editor is likely to read, much less a Millicent. As we discussed yesterday, the overwhelming majority of first-time queriers and submitters fully expect their pages to be read with, if not a completely charitable eye, than at least a willingness to look past little things like conceptual redundancy and an over-reliance upon a select group of particularly nice words. It's the overall writing that counts, right?
Can you hear Millicent giggling? From a professional reader's perspective, the very notion that repetitious word choice, recycled notions, or even frequent typos would not be considered part of the authorial voice being offered in a submission is pretty funny. A screener can judge writing only by what's on the manuscript page, after all. And is Millicent really so wrong to believe that a manuscript in which every inanimate object is apparently mauve-tinted might be indicative of a slight compositional problem?
Then, too, most writers radically underestimate how good a well-trained professional reader's memory for text will be. Remember, Millicent is usually in training to become either an agent, who would be expected to read a client's fourth revision and be able to tell how it had changed from the three previous drafts, or an editor, who might conceivably find himself telling a bestselling author, "By jingo, Maurice, I'm not going to let you do it! You used precisely that simile in Book I of this five-part series; you can't reuse it in Book V!"
Oh, you think I'm exaggerating, do you? Earlier today, I found my text-addled mind drifting back to a novel-cum-memoir I had read, I kid you not, in junior high school. And not merely because Memorial Day is a natural time to consider the noble calling of memoir-writing. A pivotal scene in that book, I felt, would provide such a glorious illustration of a common narrative mistake — both in manuscripts and in queries, as it happens — that I just had to drop our series-in-progress and track down the book.
Yes, yes, I know: sometimes, even other editors are surprised at how well I remember text. A few years ago, when my own memoir was lumbering its way through the publication process, my acquiring editor scrawled in my margins, "Oh, yeah, right — you remember a biography of the Wright Brothers that you read in the third grade? Prove it!" I was able not only to give him a chapter breakdown of the book, but tell him the publisher and correctly identify the typeface.
That's how little girls with braids grow up to be editors, in case you had been wondering. If anyone wants to talk about the estimable Katharine Wright Haskell, apparently the only member of the Wright family bright enough to realize that heaving the first airplane off the ground might be of more significance if somebody bothered to alert the media, I'm still prepared and raring to go.
So I had good reason to believe that my recollection of a fictionalized memoir ostensibly written by a childhood friend of Joan of Arc was reasonably accurate. A lighthearted burrow through the roughly two thousand volumes I carted up from California after my mother moved from my childhood home, so she would have to tote only the remaining eight thousand with her (long story), and voil?! The very pages I had in mind.
Care to guess whether I'd remembered the font correctly?
I'm delighted that I did, as this excerpt provides excellent examples of the kind of narrative missteps that Millicent thinks so many of you do on purpose, just to annoy her. For starters, it exhibits the all-too-common narrative trick of echoing the verbal habit of using and as a substitute for a period in first-person narration, in a misguided attempt to make the narrative voice sound more like everyday speech. It can work, but let's face it, quite a bit of everyday speech is so repetitious that it would be stultifying if transcribed directly to the printed page.
It also, you will be pleased to hear, beautifully demonstrates another classic memoir bugbear: telling an anecdote on the page as one might do out loud at a cocktail party, with practically every sentence a summary statement. (Hey, there's a reason that show, don't tell is such a pervasive piece of editorial feedback.) And, most common of all in both memoir and fictional first-person narratives, the pages in question much character development for anyone but the protagonist.
All sounds pretty terrible, doesn't it? Actually, the scene isn't badly written; the aforementioned garden-variety reader might not even have noticed some of these problems. Nor, unfortunately, would most aspiring writers prior to submission, for the exceedingly simple reason that far too few of them ever actually sit down and read their work beginning to end, as any other reader would. The writer already knows what's on the page, right?
Or does he? My guess is that in this instance, the writer had very little idea that what he was slapping on the page was even vaguely problematic.
But you shall judge for yourself. To render the parallels to what Millicent sees on a daily basis more obvious, as well as to continue our exercises in learning to know properly-formatted manuscript pages when we see 'em, I'm presenting that memorable scene here in standard format. As always, my blogging program is for some reasons best known to itself a trifle hostile to page shots, so if you are having trouble reading individual words, try holding down the COMMAND key and pressing + to enlarge the images.
Come on, admit it — while you might have excused all of those ands if you had heard this tale told out loud, they're a trifle eye-distracting on the page, are they not? Ditto with the word repetition — could this author possibly have crammed any more uses of to be, to get, or to see into these three pages? And don't even get me started on concept repetition.
I sense those of you committed to the noble path of writing memoir — or writing reality-based fiction — shifting uncomfortably in your chairs. "But Anne," you protest, averting your eyes, "this isn't the powerful negative example you led us to expect. I get what you mean about the sheer volume of ands, but other than that, there's nothing wrong with the narrative voice here, given that this is a memoir. Isn't part of the point of any memoir that the voice does sound like someone might speak? Is that not, in fact, one of the charms of first-person narration in general?"
Well, yes, but just as an event's having actually occurred in real life (and it's true, too!) does not necessarily mean that it will inevitably strike the reader as plausible on the page, first-person narration's reading like everyday speech does not guarantee readability. In print, narrative chattiness may work against the reader's enjoyment, because chatty people, like the rest of us, reuse words and phrases so darned much. Even talented verbal anecdotalists seldom embellish their tales with the level of detail that the most threadbare of written accounts would require. And funny out loud, let's face it, does not always equal funny on the page.
Which is to say: as delightful as our example above might have been tumbling out of the mouth of a gifted storyteller, as a story on a page, it's lacking quite a few elements. A sense of place, for one — is there a reason, the reader must wonder, not to give us some sense of what either the woods or the village were like? If both are left so completely to the reader's imagination, is there not some danger that a Millicent fresh from polishing off the manuscript before this one might automatically assume that those trees were mauve, and those villages occupied by the wan?
Oh, you thought I'd dropped that running joke? In a blog, I can get away with going back to that same well this often. How many times, though, do you think I could revisit the joke in a book before the reader got bored? Or Millicent became irritated?
While you're pondering those troubling questions, let's return to our example. How else does it fall short?
Well, as so often happens in memoir, we're just told that the action is happening here or there, rather than shown what those places were like. And lest anyone be tempted to shout out that old writing truism, "But it's stylish to leave something to the reader's imagination!, let me ask you: based upon the pages above, could you tell me where these people are with enough specificity that a reader would be able to feel like she's there?
"But that's not fair!" I would not blame you for shouting indignantly. "It's the writer's job to establish a sense of place, not the reader's job to guess."
Precisely what Millicent would say. She would object, and rightly, to this scene's providing her with too little description to enable her to picture Joan and her young friends operating within an environment. Nor are those friends fleshed out much, either in character or physical trait.
Heck, poor Millie doesn't even get to see the frightening Benoist: instead, the memoirist merely asserts repeatedly that he and Joan were getting closer, without showing us what that have looked like to a bystander. Like, say, the narrator of the scene.
Speaking of the narrator, were you able to glean much of a sense of who he is as a person? How about what his relationship is to Joan? Are you even sure of their respective ages? Any idea what year it is? Heck, if you did not already know that the girl would grow up to be the patron saint of France — actually, one of four, but Joan of Arc is certainly the best known in this country — would anything but the children's names tip you off about what part of the world these characters inhabit?
While I'm asking so many rhetorical questions in a row — another occupational hazard, I'm afraid; margins absorb them like a sponge does water — let me ask a more fundamental one: did you notice that although this excerpt is apparently about how the village's children reacted to Joan, there's practically no character development for her at all?
That's at least marginally problematic, in a book entitled — wait for it — PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS OF JOAN OF ARC. What, we are left to wonder, does she look like? Why doesn't she stand up to her playmates (beyond, of course, the justification of being "so girlish and shrinking in all ways") or, failing that, why doesn't she simply walk away from the nasty little beasts?
And don't stand there telling me that the narrator had no choice in the matter, because that's how it really happened. Yes, a memoir or fact-based fictional story should be true, but it also has to be both interesting in the page and plausible. Reality, unfortunately, is not always plausible; it's the writer's job to make it so on the page.
Which begs another editorial question: why can't a kid brave enough to face down the village madman's axe (or ax, depending upon where it falls in this passage; the error is in the book in front of me), a rather interesting thing for a person to do, come up with more revealing answers to questions than a simple yes? This is another notorious editorial pet peeve: almost without exception, the least character-revealing way for anyone to answer a yes-or-no question is with — again, wait for it — a simple yes or no.
Are some of you writers of the real blanching now? "But Anne," you gasp, clutching your ashen cheeks so heavily drained of blood, "people actually do answer questions that way! And isn't the point of written dialogue to reproduce the feel of actual speech?"
Well, that's one of the points of dialogue. Another is not to bore the reader to death, isn't it? And, if at all possible, it should be entertaining.
Just holding a tape recorder up to nature tends not to be the surest means of hitting any of those excellent goals. Why? Chant it with me now: most everyday speech is repetitious.
I can stand here and keep saying that as long as necessary, people. Again and again and again.
As we may see in the scene above, a character that keeps saying nothing but "Yes" isn't exactly thrilling the reader with deep insight into her thought processes. Or even into the scene itself: little Joan is not, after all, a hostile witness in a murder trial, but a child talking with her playmates. Wouldn't it ultimately be more realistic, then, if she sounded like the latter?
Speaking of realism, would it be too much to ask the narrator to explain why the villagers left an axe lying anywhere near the madman's cage in the first place? Might not the locals' efforts have been more productively expended making sure he can't get out than chopping off his fingers?
And yes, in response to what half of you just thought: this is precisely the kind of thing an editor would have gripped her pen angrily and inked into the margins of a manuscript. Not because she's mean, but because she's trying to help the writer give the reader a more enjoyable reader experience.
That's a noble calling, too, you know. But in the unlikely event that some writer out there might care less about the moral beauty of Millicent and her ilk's devotion to textual excellence than how to worm his way past it in order improve his submission's chances of getting picked up by an agency, let me hasten to add that the sooner a writer learns to read his own manuscript the way a professional reader would, the easier he will find self-editing. Not to mention being able to catch the Millicent-irritants that can prompt a screener or contest judge to stop reading.
In the interest of helping you fine people develop that ability, let me ask you another question about today's example: if you had previously known absolutely nothing about what the what the real-life Jeanne d'Arc achieved, wouldn't you find it at least a trifle too pat that her playmates choose to picture her doing more or less what she grew up to do — and to laugh at her about it? If the girl had suggested this role herself, it might merely have been not-particularly-subtle foreshadowing, but honestly, can you think of any reason to include this at all except to make the reader feel cleverer than St. Joan's playmates?
Millicent wouldn't be able to think of one. Neither would most professional readers; it's our job to deplore this sort of narrative ham-handedness.
"Just how ill-informed would a reader have to be not to find that first bit clumsy?" we mutter into our much-beloved coffee mugs. "Isn't it safe to assume that anyone who would pick up a book about Joan of Arc would know that she lead an army and was burned at the stake, even if that reader knew nothing else about her? And if your garden-variety reader knows that much, isn't it an insult to his intelligence to drop a giant sign reading Hey, dummy, this is foreshadowing?"
Was that mighty gust of wind that just whipped the cosmos the sound of half of the memoirists out there huffing with annoyance, or was it merely the first-person novelists sighing gustily? "But Anne," both groups think loudly in unison, rather like the remarkably collective-minded children in the anecdote above, "this is how I was taught to write first-person narration. It's supposed to sound exactly like a real person's speech. So why shouldn't St. Joan's unnamed childhood buddy sound like anybody else telling anecdotes out loud?"
A couple of reasons, actually. Yes, good first-person narration takes into account the narrator's individual speech patterns; no dialogue should sound like just anybody. Which is precisely the problem with all of those yeses, right? All by themselves, yes and no are generally presumed to mean the same thing, regardless of who is saying them. So, like polite spoken clich?s of the "Excuse me" and "I'm so sorry for your loss" ilk, they are too generic to convey personalized content.
Strong dialogue also typically reflects the narrator's social status and education, personal prejudices, and what s/he could conceivably know in the situation at hand. And then there are those pesky individual quirks and, yes, the century in which s/he lived.
So I ask you, first-person writers: just how does the narrative voice in this passage indicate that this particular anecdote took place not too long after the Battle of Agincourt in 1415? As opposed to, say, the 1890s, when this account was first published?
And if you were tempted even for a nanosecond to mutter in response, "Well, if the 1980s is when readers would have been seeing this dialogue, sounding like that just would have seemed normal," let me ask a follow-up question: if this scene were narrated in the voice of a pre-teen texting this to a friend today, would that make this scene ring truer to today's readers? Or would it merely read as though the writer either hadn't thought much about how Joan and her friends might have communicated with one another — or was presuming that today's readers were not capable of following any type of dialogue than their own?
Those of us who read for a living have a term for that kind of assumption: insulting the reader's intelligence. We often find ourselves scrawling it in margins.
How often, you ask, your faces a mask of pallid horror? Well, operating on the assumption that internal monologues have both always sounded pretty much like modern speech and don't vary much from individual to individual is as common a mistake in first-person narratives as having all teenage characters sigh and roll their eyes is in YA submissions. Yes, some people do think and talk that way, but must everybody? Should Helen of Troy formulate her innermost thoughts in the same way as, say, Eleanor Roosevelt, Louisa May Alcott, or Confucius?
There's a dinner party, eh? I'll bring the stuffed grape leaves.
Doesn't it make for more interesting narration if your narrator's speech bears at least some marks of time? And if she has some individual quirks of thought and expression?
Besides, if we are going to be true to the rules of first-person narration, shouldn't we be objecting to how often our narrator here professes to read the other children's minds — although, notably, not Joan's? I don't know about you, but I find that most of the time, my thoughts are located in my own head, not floating somewhere in the middle of a group of bystanders. Millicent, too, tends to regard her own thoughts as separate from other people's. The inevitable consequence: characters who think together tend to annoy her, unless their shared brains crop up within science fiction or fantasy context, where they can be plausible.
That cast a different light upon the narrative choice here, doesn't it? As an editor might well scrawl in the margin, are we supposed to believe that our narrator in this instance is a mind-reader, or that the local children were too simple-minded to be able to form individual opinions about what is going on in front of them? Is the narrator just not familiar enough with the individual characters to be able to guess how their thoughts might have differed, or, (turn page over here) since he's of a different social class than they are — not abundantly apparent in this scene, is it? — does his reporting that they all thought the same way a function of his views of their training in rational thinking? Or does it indicate the opposite, that he feels so close to them that he presumes that his beloved friends and he could only have thought and felt identically?
"Or, Mark," the editor might conclude, "did you originally write this scene in the third person, with an omniscient narrator that could plausibly read everyone's thoughts? If so, you can't legitimately endow your first-person narrator with that ability. Pick a narrative perspective and stick to it!"
In fairness to Mark, as well as all of the blanching first-person narrative writers out there, plenty of writers actually were taught to write first-person narration this way — in short stories in their high school English classes. And with good faith, too: in short bursts, run-on sentences do indeed come across as ordinary speech-like. In the published examples of this type of narration that tend to turn up in class, it's not all that unusual for the author's voice and the first-person narrator's voice to merge into colloquial harmony.
Or, to put it another way, Mark Twain tends to sound like Mark Twain, for instance, no matter whose perspective is dominating a particular story. That's part of his branding as an author, right, his distinctive narrative voice and humorous worldview?
Admittedly, adopting a chatty voice makes quite a bit of sense for narrative voice in memoir. The reader is going to have to like how the narrator/protagonist talks about her life well enough to want to follow the story for a few hundred pages, after all; we might as well get friendly. Yet in practice, the primary danger of relying on the repetitive phrasing, clich?s, and percussive and use to achieve realistic-sounding narrative cadence is precisely that it will put off the reader because as the pages pass, it can become, at the risk of repeating myself, rather boring.
Think about it: even if a memoir were being told as a collection of verbal anecdotes, wouldn't you rather listen to a storyteller with some individual flair for phrasing, instead of someone who just sounded like everyone else? No matter how inherently exciting a personal story is, a great telling can make it better reading. So can a narrative voice reflective of the time, place, and society in which that tale takes place.
But just try telling that to Mark Twain — who, as the sharper-eyed among you may already have noticed, wrote the scene above, in what he considered his best book. Although that retrospective assessment is a trifle hard to take seriously, in light of the fact that he published the book both under a pen name and in serial form. Actually, he took it to even one more remove: he wrote a preface under a nom de plume, presenting himself as the translator of a memoir written by one of young Joan's contemporaries.
Why go to all that trouble? Because by all accounts, he felt that the poor sales of THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER were largely attributable to his established audience's expecting anything published under the name of Mark Twain to be a comedy. Good branding has its drawbacks for a creative artist.
Take that, purists who would like to believe that writing with an eye toward market concerns is a product of an increasingly cynical publishing industry over the last twenty or thirty years. Twain and his publisher worked out that tactic in the 1890s.
But I digress. As a reader, how well do you think his narrative choices worked here, either as fiction narration or as the memoir narration it originally professed to be? In your opinion as a writer, how do you feel about those slips into the first person plural — is the reader carried along with the we perspective as a narrative choice, as we were in Jeffrey Eugenides' THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, or does it read like a perspective slip?
In today's example, do you feel that the mostly distinctly modern narrative voice, coupled with the almost entirely uncritical view of Joan, was the best way to tell this tale? Reviewers in Twain's time did not think so — they believed (and I must say I agreed with them back in junior high school) that a protagonist who never does anything wrong is a trifle on the dull side, as far as the reader is concerned. Twain's Joan never sets a wee foot wrong; even in her earliest youth, he tells us, she raised her voice in anger only once, and even then it was to voice a patriotic thought.
A taciturnity unusual in a rabble-rouser, you must admit. Also an unusual characteristic for someone who challenged social norms enough for anyone to want to burn her at the stake: Twain's narrator presents her as a quiet, universally beloved little girl. Butter, as folks used to say, would not melt in her mouth.
But is that how little girls with braids grow up to lead armies?
Twain evidently thought so. No matter how outside-the-box her observations or actions are shown to be (or, as we saw above, summarized to be), in this narrative, nothing she did or said from birth to the age of fourteen so much as ruffled the composure of the inhabitants of a querulous small village in wartime. Surprising, to say the least, in a young lady who by her own account had been engaging in frequent heart-to-heart chats with a couple of your more illustrious virgin martyrs since the age of twelve.
Perhaps the querulous small village where I spent my formative years was atypical, but I'm inclined to think that had I gone around snatching murder weapons from the clutches of local lunatics or holding confabs with deceased ancient Roman maidens, the locals might have had a thing or two to say about it. I'm also inclined to think that their observations would not have been entirely favorable, regardless of how winsome and girlish I might have been while disarming the maniac in question. It doesn't strike me as the type of endeavor best undertaken in a party dress.
I'm not saying that Twain is necessarily factually incorrect about any of this; naturally, his best guess is as good as ours on a lot of these points. The little lady lived rather a long time ago, so the issue here is less historical accuracy than dramatic plausibility. Still, just because something really happened does not mean it will necessarily come across as plausible on the page; as agents like to say, it all depends on the writing.
As an editor, though, I think it was Uncle Mark's job as a writer's to make me believe his take on this. Presuming you agree with me — speak now or forever hold your peace — I ask you: was this narrative choice the best fit for the story he wanted to tell? And if not, should Millicent accept this manuscript?
Does the fact that a good third of you just began hyperventilating mean that it had not occurred to you that whether a story is not only well-written, but attacked from an appropriate narrative angle is a potential rejection trigger? It is, inevitably. Wouldn't it have been nice if your last rejection letter had told you that, if Millicent or her boss thought that your first-person story would have worked better as a third-person narrative, or vice-versa?
Literary taste is, of course, to a very great extent individual, so only you can answer my question about Uncle Mark's narrative choices to your own satisfaction. Am I correct in presuming, though, that you are at least a tiny bit curious about how an editor currently holding down the literary fort in the U.S. publishing world might respond to the choices he did make? Glad you asked. Let the scrawling begin!
What am I hoping you will take from this, you ask, eyes wide with horror and previously rosy cheeks drained of blood? Not merely that being a brilliant writer does not necessarily preclude turning out a clunker of a first draft from time to time — although that's not a bad thing for aspiring writers to bear in mind. The popular conception of true literary talent's consisting of letter-perfect creative phrasing dripping from one's fingertips directly onto the page, with no further polishing necessary, each and every time, does not match up particularly well with reality. As any experienced editor could tell you, most of the books people regard as semi-miraculous productions of pure inspiration have actually been worked, reworked, and run past half a dozen critical readers.
And I mean critical readers. The kind who will remember what the author did in the same scene in each previous draft.
Remember that, please, the next time you're struggling with a scene that just doesn't seem to want to hit the page gracefully — or with much specificity. In moments like that, it can be very tempting to embrace the tack Twain did above, writing up the scene in summary form, with few vivid details, just to get the darned thing committed to paper as rapidly as humanly possible.
What makes me think that this was written quickly? Editorial instinct, mostly: I find it hard to believe that a humorist as gifted at reading out loud as I know Twain to have been would have killed the comedy — or bored the reader — with this much word repetition unless he was writing on a pretty tight deadline. Serialization tended to be submitted that way back then, you know, as Dickens would have been only too glad to tell you. Had Uncle Mark taken the time to revisit this scene and iron out its wrinkles, I don't think there would have been quite so many references to eyes — and, frankly, I don't think that he would have had his narrator faint at the climax of the scene. He was too good a storyteller.
But that choice certainly saved the author the trouble of having to figure out how the girl convinced the wild man to give up the axe, though, didn't it? Trust me on this one: experienced editors — and Millicents — see this type of narrative shortcut often enough to recognize it for what it is.
So what should a savvy writer do when faced with this sort of first-draft dilemma? Go ahead, give in to temptation; there is value in getting a full scene on paper. Just make sure to set aside time later in the writing process to return to that scene and flesh it out.
Unless you would prefer to have your future editor bark at you, "This is lazy writing, Ambrose. Didn't anybody ever tell you to show, don't tell?"
Just in case nobody has yet snarled that in the general direction of your manuscript: show, don't tell. Immerse your reader in sufficient details for her to be able to feel as though she is part of the scene, rather than leaving her to fill in the specifics for herself.
Oh, you don't think that's what Twain is doing here? Okay, rise from your chair, grab the nearest willing partner, and try to act out this interaction between young Joan and Benoist, based solely upon the choreography the narrator above chose to provide us:
She stood up and faced the man, and remained so. As we reached the wood that borders the grassy clearing and jumped into its shelter, two or three of us glanced back to see if Benoist was gaining on us, and this is what we saw — Joan standing, and the maniac gliding stealthily toward her with his axe lifted. The sight was sickening. We stood where we were, trembling and not able to move. I did not want to see murder done, and yet I could not take my eyes away. Now I saw Joan step forward to meet the man, though I believed my eyes must be deceiving me. Then I saw him stop. He threatened her with his ax, as if to warn her not to come further, but went steadily on, until she was right in front of him — right under his axe. Then she stopped, and seemed to begin to talk with him. It made me sick, yes, giddy, and everything swam around me, and I could not see anything for a time — whether long or brief I do not know. When this passed and I looked again, Joan was walking by the man's side toward the village, holding him by his hand. The axe was in her other hand.
Not much practical guidance for the actors there, eh? Other than all of that seeing (a word most writers tend to overuse in early drafts, incidentally), the actual movements mentioned here are pretty routine: one party standing still, the other moving toward her. The mover threatens, but we are not told how. Admittedly, a lifted axe doesn't have to move much to seem threatening, but did you notice how pretty much all of the sense of danger is conveyed via the narrator's dread, rather than through showing the reader vivid, terrifying specifics? And how virtually all of that dread is summarized, rather than shown in any detail?
From an editorial perspective, that lack of specificity distances the reader from what should have been a thrilling scene: by leaving us to fill in the details, the narrator abdicates his proper role here. It's his job to make us feel that we were there, or at least to show us the scene engagingly enough that we have that illusion.
Yes, he grounds us in his experience by telling us repeatedly that he is seeing this or that, and that these sights made him feel sick (and ultimately pass out). But great heavens, man, if you're going to narrate a story like this, isn't it your job to at least ask a bystander what happened, so you could share that information with the reader?
Don't tell me that once you've seen one axe-wielding madman, you've seen 'em all. As both a reader and an editor, I want to know what this particular madman looked, sounded, moved, smelled, and felt like. I want to know precisely what our heroine did that gave Benoist pause; I want to be shown how he crept up on her stealthily while apparently walking straight into her line of vision. And gosh darn it, I want to know how an axe of 1415 differed from one I might buy at the corner hardware store today.
Without those details, and phrased in fairly ordinary terms, this excerpt is indeed like everyday speech, in the negative sense, despite the inherently exciting subject matter. Substitute a memo-wielding boss for the axe-bearing madman, and this could have been an anecdote overheard in a coffee house after work, couldn't it?
Please don't limit your answer to a simple yes or no. I was hoping to learn something about you.
Distancing the reader from the action in this manner is an unfortunately common tactic in memoirs and first-person fictional narratives alike. Instead of showing the reader what happened through a fully realized scene, the narrator simply summarizes; rather than demonstrating relationship dynamics through dialogue or action, the narrator just sums up what was said. And by describing subsequent actions in the same words or in hackneyed terms (I believed my eyes must be deceiving me? Really, Mark?), the action may move forward, but the reader's understanding of what's going on does not.
Joan stood; Benoist glided. Then Joan stood while Benoist glided. Then she stopped — odd as the narrative had not shown her going forward. Then the narrator conveniently blacks out so we cannot see what is going on. Then the problem is solved. The end.
A bit mauve, isn't it? Well might you turn pale.
Seldom is this the most interesting way to convey a story, in my experience. Like having characters answer yes-or-no questions with yes or no, as opposed to more detailed (and thus more character-revealing) responses, the summary route closes off story possibilities. And by definition, repeated phrasing adds nothing new to the scene.
Neither, incidentally, do all of those thens: logically, they are unnecessary. Why? Well, in a story in which events are being presented in chronological order, the occurrences in Sentence 1 are presumed to have happened before those in Sentence 2, which in turn came before what's described in Sentence 3.
Thens, then, as we have seen them used in that last example, are logically redundant; most editors would advise you to reserve them for moments when what happens next is genuinely unexpected. Take a gander:
Joan stood; Benoist glided toward her with an axe. Then the Wright Brothers and their sister, Katherine, swooped through an opening in the forest canopy in a motorized glider to snatch the weapon away.
Admit it — you didn't see that last twist coming, did you? As a reader, didn't you get a kick out of that?
Remember, there's more to telling a story than simply listing its events in the order they occurred. Racing from its beginning to its end may not be the best way to engage the reader. You want the journey to be both memorable and enjoyable, right? And if the narrative can manage either to surprise the reader with an unanticipated turn of events, delight her with astonishing imagery, or intrigue her with beautiful phrasing — ideally, all three — all the better.
Before I release you to ponder the challenges of expanding a first-person narrative from the anecdotal level into a completely inhabited scene, I want to talk about another common faux pas: the further distancing effect of the narrative's reminding us repeatedly that the narrator is seeing, hearing, or observing this or that. Obviously — at least from a professional reader's perspective — if an action or object is depicted in a first-person narrative, the narrator perceived it; otherwise, she could not legitimately bring it up, right?
So when Twain's narrator tells us repeatedly that he saw Joan do this or Benoist do that, it's logically redundant. Of course, he saw it: he was standing right there. Why bother to remind the reader of that self-evident fact? Or, to put it as a garment-rending professional reader might, does the author think the reader is too brain-dead to remember who the narrator is and that he is present?
Oh, you don't want the pros to take every word you commit to the page that seriously? But it's how they show their respect for your eventual readers!
And for your literary gifts. Again: if it's on the page and the writer appears to possess even the slightest vestige of talent, Millicent is going to assume that you put it there on purpose. She's also going to believe, with good reason, that if a writer has set up rules for how the story is to be told — in this case, from the point of view of a childhood friend of Joan's, and only from his perspective — the narrative will follow those rules consistently.
This, too, trips up quite a lot of memoirists and other first-person narrator-wranglers. Once a narrative is committed to a single perspective, it cannot report anything outside of it without shattering the illusion of a limited point of view. Thus, when the narrator slips into the first person plural, informing us that we saw this or thought that, it's jarring to the reader's sensibilities.
And when, like Twain's narrator, he professes to know what we all are thinking…well, let's just say that maybe Joan isn't the only one who needs to be worrying about going on trial for dabbling in the supernatural. Unless the narrative establishes some means by which a first-person narrator could possibly have reliable insight into other characters' thoughts and feelings, he should really stick to his own.
If his thoughts and feelings are somehow different from every Tom, Dick, and Benoist who might be hanging around in the same place at the same time, great. If he can manage to express them in language evocative, memorable, and tailored to his individual worldview, though, even better. And if he can work in a little character development, perhaps through revealing dialogue, terrific.
Which is not a bad definition of memoir voice, if you think about it: a narrator with a strong personality and specific worldview recounting situations of significance to an overall dramatic story arc in language and from a perspective unique to the teller. If every sentence of your memoir — and, to bring this back to our series-in-progress, every sentence of your query's book description — does not rise to that level, you might want to think about revising it.
Millicent will thank you. So will your readers.
So Mark, darling, as much as I admire your writing in general and short stories in particular, if I were your editor — oh, you thought that editors don't live in the hope that this type of activity would be the first, best use of a time machine? — I would insist that you sat down and revised these three pages. Actually, I would do it because I admire your writing: your narrative voice, even in this rather serious book, is better than what we're seeing here.
And that axe you keep telling us you're seeing, narrator? Try to think of it as your editor, chopping away all of that phrasing and conceptual redundancy. Trust your reader's intelligence a bit more, please.
Do bear in mind, too, that while reality itself can be convoluted and devoid of point, readers have a right to expect a book based upon real events to be a good story possessed of an identifiable story arc. It should be dramatically satisfying. And if the real-life version is not, believe me, Millicent isn't going to be inclined to take that as an excuse.
No need to go pale about this. You can do it. But in order to pull it off successfully, you're going to have to be able to read your work not only like a writer, but also like a reader.
Oh, it feels good to be delving back into craft. Would anyone mind if I continued to keep standard format illustration on the back burner for a bit and made narrative voice my topic of the week?
Actually, that's a rhetorical question, come to think of it. Keep up the good work!
Posted on March 22, 2013 June 13, 2020 - No Comments on Oh, look, here comes Mozart, and other pitfalls of writing about the past
Oh, look, here comes Mozart, and other pitfalls of writing about the past
Hey, campers —
At long last, my site has come out of its unanticipated exile! Many thanks to those who kept checking in to see what was going on, and even greater thanks to those of you who took the time to check my blog's other haunts, on my Facebook fan page and Publishers' Marketplace. You might want to make a note of one or the other, in case this space inexplicably goes blank again.
And no, your eyes are not deceiving you, archive-divers: many of the images in previous posts do seem to have vanished, at least for the nonce. Busily trying to find out why. And wishing that my last series' conceit hadn't rested so largely upon showing you via inserted images what a properly-formatted manuscript page should look like. Not to mention rather wishing that I hadn't spent the last week and a half plotting to write an image-stuffed roaring return to this site.
No regrets are worth a tear, however. Life is for living. We shall press on.
But before we do, here's a post I wrote in absentia. Enjoy!
Make some room in the loges, please, those of you who habitually read my blog here — for some lamentably undefined time to come, you will be sharing the armrests with readers from my website and my blog's primary home. For reasons that amaze and perplex some of the best minds of our time, my site — and, I shudder to report, its thousands and thousands of pages of archived posts on matters practical and whimsical — went down a week ago. Until I can manage to cajole, blandish, or outright bribe the Server Gods into allowing anything other than the cruelly ironic motto "It works!" to appear on the site bearing my name and scrutiny, I shall be confined to expressing myself here.
Not that this is a forum at which anyone should be sneezing, of course. But darn it, even I miss my archives.
As it's safe to assume that not all readers will have known to follow me here, I find myself a trifle reluctant to launch back into our meaty discussion of manuscript formatting. I know, I know — to break off granular examination of such inherently dramatic subject matter is deeply disappointing to all of us. For kicking off my blog-in-exile, however, I thought it might be a bit more diverting to devote a post to a phenomenon with which all of us who love to read must be familiar: being disappointed by a book the friend or relative who recommended it just adored.
That's putting it mildly, in the case of Harpo Marx's memoir, Harpo Speaks!. My dear old white-headed godmother has been insisting ever since I was in diapers that it is, if not the best memoir ever written, then at the very least something that anyone gifted with even the vaguest hint of a soupçon of humor could not justifiably live a full, rich life without reading cover to cover, preferably in one sitting. She could not get enough of it. She wished it was longer — and at 482 pages in soft cover, that's saying something.
Admittedly, she had discovered the book as the only English-language volume in a sparse Moroccan library at a moment in the 1960s when crossing borders between countries in a VW van occasionally entailed waiting in a café for several days for one's travel papers to be approved and local sentiment against migrating hippies to subside. She read it cover to cover before being begrudgingly waved through a checkpoint.
I recall her having pressed it upon me when she and my godfather returned from their round-the-world trip a few years later. I believe my response took the form of "Goo."
My mother's recollection contradicts that, however: even at that tender age, she avers, I rolled my wee eyes and suggested the book was too long for its intended audience, as well as suffering from an insufficient level of environmental description and character development. If she insists that my first complete sentences formed a scathing critique of the startlingly lower narrative standards applied to celebrity memoir compared to, well, the other kind, I'm hardly in a position to quibble.
My godmother, however, was in just such a position, and maintained it with determination for decades. Undeterred by the book's being so heavy that I could not hold it open long enough to read more than a few lines until I had completed the second grade, she sent me no fewer than three copies in my elementary school years. She inquired, "How did you like it?" during visits in high school. She was at a loss to explain why I had so many other things to read at Harvard, and what did I mean, Harpo Speaks! wasn't relevant to my dissertation? Was comedy not universal?
If I'd had any sense, of course, I would have buckled down and devoted a few days of my adolescence to making her happy. I'd always known I would have to read the book eventually; there was never any chance of my merely pretending I had.
Actually, that excellent option did not occur to me until a few days ago, when I had reached page 287, when Harpo mentions in passing that he and his brothers shared an office in Beverly Hills — and then fails to say anything more about the ménage other than that actress, playwright, and screenwriter Ruth Gordon dropped by once. In a wildly literary family like mine, the call to read a book somebody else found wonderful ranks right up there with eating your vegetables, looking both ways before crossing a street, and thou shalt not kill. Nice people simply would not consider acting any other way.
So predictably, life cast me at the book's mercy. In recent years, my godmother became so frustrated at my entirely truthful plea of being continually up to my hipbones in manuscripts both published and unpublished that she hied herself to a bookstore and bought me one more copy. Wary of the potential for evasive action, she waited until I was bedridden from a car crash to deliver it. To maximize the potential of my liking it, she placed me under orders not to begin reading until I was in a good mood.
Like a nice girl — or an animal in captivity, depending upon how one chooses to look at it — I read the book. And all I wanted to do was edit the heck out of it.
I'm not talking about a minor revision here; I longed to chop off a hundred pages or so. To pose some pertinent questions in the margins, along the line of "Um, Mr. Marx, is there any particular reason the narrative is leaving so much to the reader's imagination?" Perhaps I could inquire whether there's any point to a particular scene other than the fact that Dorothy Parker is lurking in the background, uncharacteristically silent. And, above all, to point out what we have so often discussed here — well, on my website: just because an anecdote has always made 'em laugh when told aloud does not necessarily mean it will translate well to print.
I hear some of you snickering, and with some justification. Those of us who read for a living have been known to be substantially more violent about our reading tastes than your garden-variety (or café-variety) casual skimmer. Our throwing arms tend to be in better fettle for flinging tomes that irritate us across rooms, for instance. Our noses twitch at the briefest of digressions, sensing the red meat of easily slashable paragraphs, or even pages. We clutch pens in our white-knuckled fingers — the better to correct wayward commas, my dear — even when reading works by authors as long departed as Jane Austen.
Perhaps especially when reading Jane Austen, given her inexplicable fondness for placing thoughts within quotation marks, and her even less comprehensible habit of summarizing speech, rather than quoting it, within said quotation marks. When someone who spends her days pouncing upon textual anomalies — sometimes literally — happens upon a paragraph like this:
After listening to this full description of Mr. Elliot, Anne could not but express some surprise at Mrs. Smith's having spoken of him so favourably in the beginning of their conversation. "She had seemed to recommend and praise him!"
we are prone to wake from a stress-induced trance several minutes later to find that we have filled not only all available margins with commentary (often including the phrase what were you thinking?), but also the next page, the page after that, and, should we happen to be reading in a restaurant, significant portions of tablecloth.
We can't help ourselves, you see. Even now, after having read that paragraph dozens of times over a few dozen years, this Anne cannot but express some surprise that no editor of the period took Aunt Jane to task for that illogical construction.
So yes, my godmother was running a terrible risk in pushing her favorite memoir on me after I had spent some years in the editing trenches. Editors, agents, contest judges, and our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, quickly develop gimlet eyes for problematic text, simply because we read so much of it. Many a writer waltzing into the biz expecting a gentle, forgiving reading has ended up feeling as though he had opened the door to what he thought was a spacious stateroom, only to find it stuffed with comedians stacked on top of one another.
Okay, so that's not the most graceful of analogies, but you get my point, right? How closely professional readers look at a page often comes as a terrible surprise to writers new to publishing. We're paid to notice everything, and our response to it isn't always pretty. At first, rookie writers can feel hurt by the vigor and occasional ferocity of marginalia; it's not uncommon to take objective feedback personally. That comes of not realizing what anybody who works with manuscripts for a living must necessarily come to know: the point of editorial feedback is to help make the published book the best possible version of both the story and the narrative voice.
It's understandable, then, that when easily-resolved issues rear their not-so-attractive heads in a book that's been out for a while — especially one as well-reviewed as Harpo Speaks! was when it came out in 1962 — a pro's peepers might zero in on them. Yes, even a pro already quite familiar with the unfortunately long-standing tradition of celebrity memoirs being — how to put this delicately? — a bit quicker in finding their way into print than some other types of writing. As a result (or, equally often, because people can be shy about speaking the truth to the great), authors admired for their achievements in non-literary venues do not always receive the benefit of hardcore professional feedback, and sometimes, it shows.
I hear memoirists the English-speaking world over sighing happily, imaging the paradise that must be writing free of a critical readership, but honestly, it's seldom in the story's best interest to hear only praise. Reticence is not a virtue in an editor, particularly of memoir; being too nice to point out textual problems can hurt the eventual book.
And I'm not just talking about the species of minor harm that might bug only a hyper-vigilant professional reader, either. Had I been in a position to advise someone like Mssr. Marx — of whose performances I am exceedingly fond, by the way — I might have diplomatically expressed some concern over the overall storyline's containing some logical inconsistencies. And not a few historical ones.
In his defense, neither is at all uncommon in anecdote-based memoirs; such is the nature of the verbal anecdote, as I once learned to my sorrow. In my dim and checkered past, I may have been called in to assist a minor political bigwig in the construction of his or her life story for an admiring public, a process that the Semi-Illustrious One had decided in advance would consist of a barrage of verbal recollections, followed by my wrangling same into a coherent and entertaining story arc.
That proved somewhat problematic, as the SIO's triumph on one continent might, to pick an entirely hypothetical example, have apparently occurred on the same day that s/he was wallowing in deep despair on the other side of the world. Presidents in two non-consecutive administrations evidently provided crucial support for the SIO's ongoing crusade — in the reverse order that one would expect if time were, say, linear. Quips a ghostwriter might have uttered in response to certain stories a scant few weeks before might have been recounted with a straight face later as the SIO's great-grandmother's most treasured maxims. That sort of thing.
Now, a celebrity collaborating what is sometimes actually and sometimes charitably called a cowriter (or, as my agent at the time kept referring to me when I mentioned the slight variations of fact, the With on the Cover, an honor I subsequently declined when certain anecdotes turned out not to be verifiable) can, and should, rely upon that writer to speak up when storylines collide. The editor should be similarly uninhibited, because you'd be surprised how many non-professional readers will catch inconsistencies in a published version.
And frankly, everyone concerned should be happy about the participation of the eagle-eyed. Let's face it, not all memoirists are fortunate enough to attract the beneficent attention of reviewers willing to shrug off storytelling anomalies with "This is a riotous story which is reasonably mad and as accurate as a Marx brother can make it."
Celebrity authors are not the only ones whose manuscripts sometimes escape the rigors of that quite necessary critical scrutiny, unfortunately. For the ordinary memoirist presenting the reader with a trenchant slice of life, it's quite common for a potential agent, her Millicent, or even the acquiring editor to be the first human being who does not know the author personally — and thus has not enjoyed the benefit of hearing the anecdotes on the page told out loud — to read her life story.
Why might that prove troublesome at submission time, you ask? Well, anyone who regularly handles memoir or narrative nonfiction manuscripts is quite likely to experience the type of visceral response I mentioned above at the sight of certain ubiquitous pitfalls. I, for instance, inevitably felt my blood pressure rising at Mssr. Marx's tendency — which his With on the Cover seemed entirely unable to curb — to regale us with too-sketchy anecdotes sufficiently devoid of character development and situational detail that someone not already familiar with the story or the people depicted might have trouble picturing the event being recounted.
"Ah," those of you drawn to anecdotal storytelling leap to your dainty feet to point out, "but that's the nature of the beast, isn't it, when a writer is trying to capture the spirit of the spoken word on the page? Great raconteurs, especially funny ones, often limit specifics, in the interest of speed. Nobody expects the life of the party to explain what every cobblestone on the street looked like, if the story's about somebody tripping on top of them. Thus, if a first-person narrative is holding, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, the very sketchiness of a telling would make it sound like authentic speech, right?"
It might, yes, but a realistically chatty tone is not the only desiratum for a first-person narrative, is it? Ideally, it should also be entertaining to read, easy to follow, and — here I'm going to be nit-picky again — clearly written. Clarity, lest we forget, lies in the eye of the reader, not the narrator — and certainly not in the eyeballs of the most frequent first readers for any not-yet-agented writer of any stripe, the writer's kith and kin.
Who, more often than not, have already heard the anecdotes in question, and thus are not the best judges of whether the story works on the page. All too often, memoirists famous, infamous, and as yet to be discovered alike fall into the narrative habit of forgetting that their target reader will, if the book is successful, be someone they've never met. So it really doesn't make abundant sense to operate on the narrative assumption that whoever picks up the book will be either able or willing to fill in the details of a bare-bones account.
Remember, in the case of a non-celebrity memoir, the reader is almost certainly going to be someone who could not pick the author out of a police line-up. And the more successful the book is, the more total strangers will be reading it, right? So shouldn't their perception of what's going on in a particular scene be of greater authorial interest than, say, the guy who always begs you at parties, "Oh, Harry, please tell the one about the orangutan!" every time you see him? Or the lady who helped you to win the arm-wrestling match with that orangutan?
I guess you had to be there.
Admittedly, a celebrity memoirist frequently can get away with expecting readers to imagine specifics that do not appear on the page — by definition, celebrities are those for whom the public, or at least some large segment of it, have already formed mental images of personalities. That's certainly the case for ol' Harpo and his accounts of the Algonquin Round Table: since pretty much anybody interested enough in reading about either would presumably already know something about the players, it might not actually have been necessary for his memoir to explain what each of the movies he mentions was about, who was in it (the roster of Marx brothers varied more than biology might lead one to expect), what the creative process of making them was like, or how the Round Table's members interacted on an interpersonal basis.
I can't help but feel, however, as both a reader and an editor, that any or all of those matters would have been darned interesting to see the gentleman discuss. The storyline might have been clearer, and even the most star-struck of readers might have appreciated more information about the folks Harpo name-checks. Call me zany, but unless one happened to be very familiar indeed with the New York-based literati of the 1920s (which I am, as it happens), how easy would it be for one to differentiate amongst a group of poker players introduced thus?
I met a plump Mr. Benson with a toothbrush mustache and a surprised look; a huge shaggy one who looked like he was wearing last week's dirty laundry; a tall one with a booming voice and a handsome ruddy face; a tall, sad-faced one who kept twisting an arm around his head and massaging an ear the hard way; a bald Mr. Benson with glasses, and a Benson with uncombed hair who looked like a cowhand who'd lost his horse.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that it's funny Harpo thinks of all strangers who happen to be men as Mr. Benson, but honestly, how much did you retain of that description? Were these men really so similar that two of them could only be described as tall?
An unusually optimistic reader might gloss over this list, clinging to the hope that some character development might occur in the course of a subsequent amusing account of the poker game, but no such luck. Here's the totality of the book's description of the rest of the night's social interactions:
?I stayed and played poker. My luck was lousy, but it was otherwise a surprisingly pleasant evening.
I defy anyone who wasn't actually holding cards at that particular table on that particular night to be able to glean from this what happened, based upon this description alone. We aren't given much insight into what our hero was doing, seeing, feeling, or thinking, much less anyone else. Why Harpo hadn't expected the evening to be pleasant, or how it was, is anyone's guess.
You wouldn't believe how often memoir-handling professional readers stumble upon this type of description in submissions. "What am I supposed to be picturing here?" Millicent mutters, because she has too much sense to place words she merely thought within quotation marks. "If this scene isn't important enough to the story to be shown in some detail, why is it included in the book at all?"
An excellent set of questions, Millie, and ones that richly deserve answering in Part III.
I believe I can answer Millicent's second question now, however. So may my clever readers, after taking a gander at the only other information Harpo's reader is given on the subject, also conveniently conveyed as a list, rather than description.
Weeks later, when I finally got them all straight, I realized I had been introduced to, respectively, the writers Robert Benchley and Heywood Broun, Herbert Bayard Swope, the editor of the New York World {sic}, the playwrights George F. Kaufman and Marc Connelly, and Harold Ross, the editor of Judge who was then cooking up an idea for a new magazine to be called The New Yorker.
See what I mean? I would have liked to learn something about these quite interesting fellows other than the fact that they were in the room — a preference shared, I suspect, by pretty much everyone to whom these names might conceivably ring a bell. To anyone else, they would just be names. And good luck matching the moniker with the physical description, should you care enough to do it, because apparently, that's the reader's responsibility, not the author's.
Can you blame me, then, for itching to scrawl in the margin, "Harpo, what makes you think that just mentioning that someone famous was in the room during an incident will necessarily enable the reader to picture his contribution to the scene?"
Again, I believe I can answer that question: as a verbal anecdote told by a famous member of the Round Table to an admiring literature-lover just aching to hear about it, this story probably, as they say, killed. That does not mean, however, that even the most gifted anecdotalist — or the With on the Cover jotting down his reminiscences — could make a narrative spring to life on the page by simply reproducing those spoken musings in print.
Why, then, do memoirists indulge in this storytelling tactic so much? Well, it's worked socially, right? All too often, though, the social success of an anecdote, like a joke, lies as much in the delivery as in the content. Memoirists often forget that, presuming that the reader — any reader, including one who has never met the author, even in passing — will already have such a clear idea of the narrator's voice embedded in her brainpan that stories whose hilarity has reliably been in a verbal telling entirely dependent upon tone and cadence will strike her as similarly amusing committed verbatim to the printed page.
Anyone see a problem with employing such a storytelling tactic in a book by a celebrity known for pantomime artistry? Am I alone as a reader in associating this particular author with only the noises of a honking horn and a lilting harp?
At the risk of sounding like an editor, has anybody out there ever actually heard Harpo Marx's voice?
And while I'm quibbling, is it wacky of me to be express surprise that an editorial staff sufficiently aware of its author's invariably silent on-screen presence would entitle the work in question Harpo Speaks!, yet not say to him constantly throughout the publication process, "You know, big guy, that story about the poker game doesn't really come across on the page the way it does when you told it out loud, when you grabbed your ear as a demonstration. Mind if we tweak it so it's funny, by, say, giving it a plot or not presuming that the reader will be so familiar with your friends that he'll recognize each and every one of them from vague physical descriptions?"
In the unlikely event that I have not already scared you to death about how intensively pros read, allow me to remind you that this was my reaction to a book that I liked. I found it quite amusing, once I made the additional mental effort of picturing Harpo Marx doing the things the book said he did — and telling the story with gestures.
He was a past master at gesturing, after all. As a reader, I would have preferred Mssr. Marx or his With on the Cover to have made a bit more of that effort for me, but hey, you can't have everything.
And, to be absolutely fair, I probably would have liked the book even more had I not spent significant hunks of my life hearing it lauded as the single greatest achievement in historical writing since Julius Caesar saw fit to inform an admiring world that all Gaul was divided into three parts. That's the problem with book recommendations: reading taste is, contrary to amazingly popular opinion amongst writers, largely subjective.
So I'm not blown over by how much more my godmother enjoyed this book than I did. A book recommendation, particularly a wildly enthusiastic one, reveals as much about the recommender as the book. I was aware going in that her personal sense of anecdote leans, as we just saw Mr. Marx's does, toward what those of us who travel in less rarified circles might call name-dropping. It's not at all an astonishing habit amongst those fortunate enough to have names to drop.
Heck, I'm not immune to the thrill myself. I can still vividly recall the visceral shock of realizing why I had recognized the comely fellow my godmother had seated next to me at dinner on my second night of graduate school: he'd played Apollo on a long-ago episode of the original Star Trek, and I was not all that far removed at the time from my science fiction-soaked adolescence.
Taste in star-gazing, like literature, is deeply subjective.
What we have been discussing as narrative flaws, however, what any good professional reader would perceive as narrative faults, are objectively observable. If a story isn't clear on the page, if its point is lost through a too-sparse telling, or if the characters start to blur together due to lack of development, an editor worth her salt — especially as passed by Apollo — is going to notice it. And you're going to want her to notice it, aren't you, so your future readers, those fine souls who currently don't know you from Adam (or Eve, as the case may be) will be able to visualize your story as vividly as you are picturing it yourself?
Permit me to answer that question, too: yes, you do. It might not feel that way when you first receive the feedback, but ultimately, you — and your readers — will be glad of its effects.
Here's hoping my blog can return to its accustomed home soon; it's so tiring for me to moderate my opinions like this. Keep up the good work!
Posted on January 4, 2013 January 19, 2017 - 1 Comment on There's more to writing a memoir than sitting down and telling the truth?
There's more to writing a memoir than sitting down and telling the truth?
Surprised not to see a post on formatting occupying this space, campers? You should be: for the past seven years, I have embraced the decline of the old year and the advent of the new as an opportunity to provide the members of the Author! Author! community with a solid explanation of something that new writers are simply expected to know how to do before they even consider approaching an agent. For some reason that defies human understanding, formatting a book manuscript or proposal as the pros do is implicitly regarded as piece of practical know-how the Literature Fairy bestows on talented writers at birth.
Perhaps my decades of experience as a writer and editor have skewed my sample, but in my experience, approximately no one is born with that knowledge. Innate literary talent has nothing to do with the learned skill of presenting one's writing professionally, any more than having a naturally good ear for dialogue correlates with the ability to place a comma in the right place or wield a semicolon correctly.
Contrary to popular belief, quite a lot goes into writing a book other than inspiration, patience, and the willingness to sit in one place, typing your little heart out, for a year or two. So don't panic, rookies: I shall be reviving my annual explanatory tradition next week.
For the next few days, though, I'd like to talk with those of you writing about reality — as memoir, as narrative nonfiction, as everyday life interpreted on the pages of a novel. It's some of the most difficult writing to do well, yet strangely, we writers tend to discuss walking the truth tightrope far less amongst ourselves than the more fanciful aspects of craft.
Why? Well, fact-based fiction is considerably in less popular than it used to be, for one thing. While 30 or 40 years ago, someone who burned to write would have tended to churn out a slice-of-life piece the first time out — and, in all likelihood, seen it treated as a more serious literary production than a nonfiction piece covering precisely the same subject matter — new writers in recent years have been turning in greater numbers to genre fiction. It's not that Millicent the agency screener no longer sees the vividly-rendered descriptions of living room slipcovers, meaningful glances, and tense non-verbal exchanges over WASPy Thanksgiving dinners of yesteryear cross her desk; it's that realism in fiction has very largely been supplanted by fast-paced street fighting, a little light bondage, and sparkling vampires who, in defiance of tradition, wander about freely in daylight.
Nothing wrong with that, of course: publishing has always been a trend-oriented business. The explosion of YA, paranormal, and fantasy in recent years has brought incredible richness to all of those categories, partially through definitional expansion — YA in particular now regularly takes up subject matter that would have made even the most hardened high school librarian blush in the 1970s — and partially, let's face it, through good writers rushing toward those readerships. Since the economic downturn began, even quite well-established mainstream and adult fiction authors have found themselves gravitating toward these categories — and if they haven't of their own accords, their agents may well have suggested it. Trends, you see.
Memoir, too, has seen quite a sea change in recent years — and that has generated some immensely positive effects for memoir aficionados and writers alike. My personal favorite: like genre fiction, good memoir writing has very largely lost the stigma it once carried.
Does that sharp collective intake of breath indicate that those of you new to the joys and challenges of memoir were not aware that for many years, it was not considered high literary writing? While there have always been wonderfully-written memoirs, it used to be routine for fiction-lovers to sniff at them as literary efforts — and not only in private. It was an accepted species of snobbery. Blame Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Parker, and their ilk: for a good century or more, even the most beautifully-composed first-hand nonfiction account was generally dismissed in literary circles as a less serious endeavor — or at least one that deserved to be taken less seriously — than garden-variety slice-of-life fiction. Even, interestingly enough, if they covered essentially the same subject matter at a similar level of characterization.
Oh, you may laugh, but writers of promise (what ever happened to that lovely phrase?) were often actively discouraged from writing nonfiction accounts. "That's journalism," the literati would say. "You would have to approach your subject matter with absolute objectivity. If you wrote it as fiction, you could be as subjective as you liked! Not to mention using nicer language."
Today, however, if a novelist snorts derisively at the very notion of telling some aspect of his life story in nonfiction form — or, to put it a bit more bluntly, by being up front about his being a character in his own book — readers and interviewers alike tend to respond in much the same way they would if he said that genre fiction contains no legitimate character development. They'd just assume that he doesn't read very widely.
Because, let's face it, there is great writing in every book category. Being a well-read person no longer means reading only certain types of books; the average reader's tastes are now recognized as being fairly eclectic.
And hallelujah for that, I say. Pretending that consumers of literary fiction never cracked a graphic novel or fantasy was a strain on everybody, was it not? Although watching a literary snob swiftly shove the paperback he was avidly reading into a copy of PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT did constitute one of the great amusements of modern life, it's one that I readily gave up in the service of an expansion of what counts as good writing.
The rehabilitation of the memoir also owes a debt to the narrative nonfiction revolution. Largely the brainchild of novelists, narrative nonfiction brought fiction techniques to real-world subject matter, presenting actual events accurately (ideally, verifiably so) while casting the storyline as a novel would, with a distinct narrative arc, intensive character development, and fleshed-out scenes. Like literary fiction, narrative nonfiction's language not only conveys the facts; it evokes a mood. And, unlike objective journalism, narrative nonfiction voice often contains a distinct authorial point of view.
Admittedly, as is so often the case in the literary world, definitions of narrative (also known as creative or literary) nonfiction vary. There is a certain amount of debate, for instance, about how much factual research must go into narrative nonfiction: need it be sourced as exhaustively as a journalistic treatment of the same story? If the writer was not physically present for certain scenes, how much can she legitimately make up? How extensively can she embellish a scene? If the storyline includes dull or dramatically unsatisfying sections, may they ethically be glossed over?
A question that does not crop up much in the publishing world, however, but one often hears aspiring writers of the real asking at literary conferences: should a first-person narrative dealing primarily with events in the author's own life should be categorized as narrative nonfiction or memoir? The confusion is understandable, of course — while a cookbook containing travelogue or extensive personal stories is fairly obviously a cookbook (the recipes are a dead giveaway), where the precise line falls between a personal essay (a distinct sub-category of narrative nonfiction) and memoir can be less clear-cut.
So why don't the pros get thrown by the question? While a narrative nonfiction book and a memoir might well share a distinct story arc, a strong authorial voice and point of view, and pretty writing, narrative nonfiction tends to be more concept-oriented than memoir. While a personal essay might bring in scenes, events, and characters from the author's life to speak to an overall philosophical, analytical, or even political point, a memoir would concentrate primarily upon telling the story.
Still confused, writers of the real? Let me put it another way: while the writer can be a character in both memoir and narrative nonfiction, a memoir is first and foremost that character's tale. A narrative nonfiction treatment of the same set of events might well include the author's activities, but it's often as an observer of larger events. Think MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL or IN COLD BLOOD, or, better still, if you happen to be a Capote fan, HANDCARVED COFFINS: while the reader does learn quite a bit about the writer over the course of those narratives, the narrator is an observer of a larger play.
In a good memoir, however, the reader gets not only to see through the narrator's eyes, but live through her flesh — not only for individual scenes tucked within a mostly descriptive narrative, but throughout the entire storyline. Indeed, a memoir can hardly be said to be successful on a writing level if the reader isn't drawn into the action sufficiently to feel and think along with the protagonist.
Some eyebrows just hit some hairlines, I'm guessing. "But Anne," sputter flabbergasted memoirists the English-speaking world over, "I hadn't been thinking of myself as the protagonist of my story, as if I were writing a novel. I'm the narrator in a nonfiction book — naturally, I'm bound by the truth, but I'm telling the reader what happened, the way I would recount my adventures to a friend. Or to someone I met at a party. Or, ideally, to the agent of my dreams, shortly after she claps eyes on my query letter."
That may well be your intent, memoirists, but to an editorial eye, those three audiences would call for three completely different levels of narrative intimacy. You would almost certainly include more personal details in regaling your friend with your adventures, would you not, than a total stranger at some dubious social gathering? And wouldn't you be more inclined to make yourself look good as a character if you were trying to impress the hearer?
I get what you're saying, though: aiming for a chatty, anecdotal-style voice is a fairly common memoir tactic. Common enough, unfortunately, that it can be a problematic narrative choice at submission time. I've said it before and shall no doubt say it again: just as real-life dialogue is often stultifying if transcribed directly to the printed page, the storytelling norms of everyday speech tend to be rather boring to read.
For starters, spoken sentence structure and word choice typically fall far below the standards of good memoir writing. Everyday speech also leans pretty heavily on stock phrases. New writers often don't think about this, but using the same words, phrases, and kinds of sentences over and over again, as most of us routinely do when chatting with our friends, is rather tiring for the reader. Take, for instance, how I might legitimately describe something that happened to me recently should you be unfortunate enough to allow me to buttonholed you at a cocktail party whilst I was still miffed:
I'm starting to think my UPS man can't read. Since getting to my front door from my studio means climbing down a couple of flights of stairs, I put a great big sign over my doorbell reading: PLEASE LEAVE PACKAGES ON RIGHT SIDE PORCH. Every time I have a package delivered, I put it in the address line. My side door has a sign reading: THANK YOU FOR DELIVERING PACKAGES HERE. Yet on each of the last three business days before Christmas, there he was, standing at my front door, ringing the doorbell over and over again, whistling, expecting me to climb down all of those stairs to give him a signature. No amount of shouting down from second-floor windows can make him budge.
Not precisely Dickens, is it? Or perhaps it is, if we consider the notoriously word-repetitious opening sentence of A TALE OF TWO CITIES:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way — the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted upon its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Funny, certainly, but equally certainly stuffed with sweeping generalizations and eye-distracting word, phrase, and structural repetition. Not to mention being one lulu of a run-on sentence. Poor old Charles would have a heck of a time getting this opening past Millicent today — and not only because anything that read remotely like this would now be immediately dismissed as derivative of Dickens. That's the trouble with those much-vaunted experiments in which disgruntled writers submit the opening pages of something like PRIDE AND PREJUDICE to agencies in an attempt to prove that good, solid writing no longer stands a chance, by the way: any Millicent who has been at it a while would recognize, if not the first few lines of P&P itself, then at least a manuscript attempting to copy Austen's well-known satirical voice.
What was fresh in 1813 can hardly be called the cutting edge of literary style today. Had I mentioned that this has always been a trend-driven business?
My point, should we all care to veer back to it, is that while some stalwart soul with magnificent lungs might conceivably be able to utter Dickens' epic opening sentence within a single breath to a crowd of hearers who would not necessarily wince at all of that textual repetition, it would be significantly harder for a reader to plow through a similar speech on the page. (As perhaps you recall from sophomore English class.) People in publishing would find it even more difficult: because most adult readers become bored and/or distracted by repetitious prose — if you don't believe that, consider how annoying it's been that I've kept using various forms of repetition throughout the last few paragraphs — agents and editors develop a sharp eye for it.
So, as it happens, do experienced Millicents. Now that Uncle Charles has been kind enough to irritate you into noticing repetition (there's that darned word again!), let's take a peek at how our favorite screener would read our earlier example of ordinary-voiced memoir writing:
I'm starting to think my UPS man can't read. Since getting to my front door from my studio means climbing down a couple of flights of stairs, I put a great big sign over my doorbell reading: PLEASE LEAVE PACKAGES ON RIGHT SIDE PORCH. Every time I have a package delivered, I put it in the address line. My side door has a sign reading : THANK YOU FOR DELIVERING PACKAGES HERE. Yet on each of the last three business days before Christmas, there he was, standing at my front door, ringing the doorbell over and over again, whistling, expecting me to climb down all of those stairs to give him a signature. No amount of shouting down from second-floor windows can make him budge.
Awfully hard to follow what's going on in the face of all of that visual noise, isn't it? And that's not even factoring in how high the generalization to detail ratio is here: as is so often the case with verbal storytelling, this paragraph is a festival of telling, not showing. That's entirely appropriate for interpersonal communication, but not necessarily the best tactic for sharing a real-world story in print.
Why? Well, verbal anecdotes tend to be light on specifics, relying on swiftness of telling and sudden reversals to maintain momentum. As a result, they often don't work well when translated directly to the page, which cries out for detail and fully fleshed-out interactions.
That often comes as a gigantic surprise to first-time memoirists — especially if they happen to be funny people. They expect, and with good reason, that the same story told in the same words will evoke the same reaction in any context. Yet as Millicent knows to her sorrow, many an anecdote that's been slaying 'em at parties for decades falls completely flat on the printed page.
A spoken anecdote's success with hearers is frequently dependent upon the teller's storytelling skills — a different set of skills than a writer wields, and requiring a significantly different sense of timing. That's why, in case any of you had been wondering, a reader with a personal relationship with a writer of memoir (or personal essay, for that matter) will often have a significantly more positive response to reading that memoir or essay than a stranger would. The writer's kith and/or kin will be mentally hearing the prose on the page in the writer's spoken voice.
That's impossible, obviously, for readers who don't already know the author — a group which for your garden-variety aspiring writer includes Millicent, the agent of his dreams, his future acquiring editor, and, if we're being honest, virtually everybody who will ever buy his book. I wish more aspiring memoirists thought about that; I can't even begin to count how often I've seen great personal stories not be able to fly as memoir, simply because the narratives relied upon the reader to imagine tone and delivery style that just didn't show up on the page.
Celebrity memoirs, particularly those written by comedians, are notoriously susceptible to this pitfall: if the reader can imagine the text read in the celebrity's voice, it's funny, but otherwise, the prose just sits on the page, unremarkable, crying out for a dramatic reading. These literary efforts represent, I think, a fundamental pessimism about the possibilities of readership. Presumably, the celebrity, the acquiring editor, and any ghost who might happen to have contributed some text to the festivities (allegedly) all believe in their heart of hearts that absolutely no one who has not heard the author's speaking voice often enough to be able to produce a spontaneous and reasonably accurate impression would ever consider picking up his book. Were I a celebrity with something to say, I might find that a trifle depressing.
While stand-up comics and their ilk can indeed sell books that suffer under this presumption, it's not the best strategic move for writers trying to make a name for themselves. Millicent does not use a smile for her umbrella, typically; she's seen too many attempts at humor die a miserable death on the submission page. Unless you are absolutely positive that something is funny — and would be funny to a complete stranger who had never heard you utter a syllable out loud — you might want to consider punching it up. If you're not sure, track down some objective feedback.
And don't try to wiggle out of it by saying that your witticisms left your kith and kin rolling in the aisles. "But my mother thought it was hilarious!" has literally never convinced an agent or editor — or anyone else, for that matter — that an anecdote was funny if it didn't elicit a chuckle on a first read. If there's any rule to which those who work with writers cling tenaciously, it's that the person who gave a writer birth — or shares his bed, or has been her best friend since the second grade — is not the ideal first reader for a memoirist. They're simply too likely to read something into the text that isn't actually on the page.
That's true to a lesser extent of any form of writing, of course, but for memoir, the response of someone who knows the writer is likely to deviate even more wildly from the average reader's. Even if your chum/relative/guy unwise enough to say, "Oh, you write? I'd love to read something of yours sometime," isn't actually a character in your memoir, s/he will already have formed opinions about you as a person, right? That relieves the narrative of the burden of character development for you, at least for that particular reader. Ongoing relationships also, more often than not, cause too-close first readers to peruse the text with a too-indulgent eye — or a too-critical one.
And although your kith and kin are no doubt delightful people, charming to know in any other context, when they are reading your memoir, they will probably also fill in necessary logic, should your narrative have happened to omit it. Indeed, many first-time memoirists so firmly picture their kith and kin's past reactions to their verbal anecdotes that they elect to leave out connective logic, description, and character development requisite for an impartial reader to follow what's happening.
Much to Millicent's chagrin, many of these well-meaning writers — who, after all, are quite sensibly, they think, relying upon their past storytelling experience in constructing their memoir voices — will believe that telling their tales in a conversational manner will be an asset to the story. You wouldn't believe how many memoir submissions open something like this, as if the narrator were addressing a close friend:
You're not going to believe this, but that crazy UPS man appeared on my doorstep again. You know, the one who believes that the only physical space in the universe where it's possible for a human being to sign for a package is the front doorstep?
I could go on, but why? There's nothing wrong with the phrasing here, but already, the anecdote is predicated on the assumption that the reader will be willing to accept this rushed, limited back-story as a legitimate means of setting up what's about to happen. Instead of showing us precisely how and why the guy's nutty — or giving us enough insight into the narrator's character to be able to discern whether we should take her word for this casual diagnosis — the text just expects us to try to picture what's already happened before the story began, even though we don't have access to enough information to be able to guess.
But that's not the usual narrative presumption in a verbal anecdote, is it? We seldom assume that total strangers will already know what's been going on in our lives, but fortunately for speed in storytelling, we're often in the comparatively easy narrative position of relating our anecdotes to people who have already heard about our earlier interactions with the same characters. In this case, if I were actually telling this story to a friend (let's call her Antoinette) I would have already regaled with my earlier interactions with the UPS man (which were positively hair-raising, incidentally). She also might have seen first-hand that since I've been walking with a cane since a car crash, hobbling down a flight of stairs, much less two, might be a trifle dangerous.
Oh, hadn't I mentioned that any of the three times I shared this anecdote as memoir text? Changes your mental image of what's going on, doesn't it? An objective first reader might have caught that, but Antoinette probably wouldn't.
That expectation of familiarity frequently haunts the anecdote-teller committing her tales to the page: the verbal anecdotalist can legitimately construct a tale under the assumption that the hearer will remember past accounts. Had Antoinette chatted with me on any day since midsummer, she might well have stood, glassy-eyed, while I treated her to a vivid account of how this sterling deliveryman raised my hair, as well as my hackles.
In essence, I am expecting Antoinette to follow a serial already in progress; woe to her if she had not paid attention to the earlier installments. She might have, but I can tell you now that Millicent hasn't.
Yet you'd be astonished at how many memoir submissions toss poor Millie into the middle of an ongoing series of anecdotes. Perhaps not as obviously as Antoinette was, but honestly, would a screener not need to have pre-knowledge of the writer's life to be able to make sense of a first paragraph like this?
I walked into my usual bar, ordered my usual drink, smiled at the lady who's always sitting on that stool where the bar bends. So far, a completely ordinary day.
"I have no doubt of that," Millicent sighs, "but since neither the reader nor I have any idea what your ordinary days are like, you're leaving us in the dark here, narratively speaking. I suppose I could make the effort of conjuring up what the bar looked like, smelled like, and felt like underfoot, but that's not the reader's job, is it? Nor does my job description compel me to guess what you like to drink, the lady's back-story, or even what time it is when you walked into the bar, so I can form no opinion about whether I should draw any conclusion whatsoever from your day's including this activity. Next!"
Why, yes, that's quite a bit of reaction to only two sentences of text, now that you mention it. But tell me truthfully: if you were Millicent, would you keep reading?
Yes, yes, I know: that's an extremely difficult question for a memoirist to answer, and probably one that calls up an emotional response. Not only does it require an objective assessment of how the story's being told here — an objective assessment which, by definition, no memoirist can possibly derive from her kith and kin, who will automatically bring their knowledge of you to the text — but it implies a critique of the events described, too, doesn't it?
"How dare you?" the memoirist shouts. "Are you calling my story too boring to maintain anyone's interest? Or are you saying that it's badly written?"
Neither, necessarily. From Millicent's perspective — which, lest we forget, will be shared by her boss, an acquiring editor, and the future readers of your book — the question of whether to read on past this paragraph has nothing to do with what's actually going on in the scene. So far, all that's happened is that the narrator has walked into a bar and ordered a drink: not a lot to judge there. The narrative style is plain, but perhaps that's appropriate for the book's subject matter and target audience.
"Wait a sec," our beleaguered memoirist interrupts. "Target audience? What does that even mean for a memoir?"
Glad you asked. Most first-time memoirists don't give any thought at all to who will want to read their books, much less who will be willing to shell out cash to read them. Or, if they do ponder it, the audience they have in mind consists largely of, you guessed it, the array of kith and kin who have already heard at least some of the memoir's storyline in anecdotal form.
Now, I'm not saying that your Aunt Sadie, your best friend from work, and your significant other won't be delighted enough to see you in print at last to rush out and buy your book. They probably will — especially if you're clever enough to explain to them now that published authors get very few free copies; any you distribute to your loved ones gratis will not count toward your sales totals, and you may actually have to purchase them yourself. The sooner the fine folks who love you come to accept that the best way to support an author one happens to know personally is to buy their work, the happier you will be as a working writer.
But as your literary cheerleader and friend in the biz, is it wrong of me to hope that the people who already know you will not make up the entirety of the readership for your memoir? You want complete strangers to be enchanted with your prose, right? Presumably, if you didn't want to reach readers outside your doubtless warm intimate circle, you would not be going to the effort and taking the considerable emotional risk of sending your work out to agents.
Especially because that risk is quite a bit higher when it's your own story told as nonfiction, isn't it, memoirists? I'm inclined to think, then, that you're pretty committed to reaching some sympathetic strangers.
I applaud your bravery, but that means, in practice, that objective readers' opinions of your memoir matter. Inevitably, like any book, your memoir will appeal to some readers and not others.
And before you get your mouth fully open to retort, let me stop you from asserting that anyone interested in good writing will like your book because it is a good story well written. I can tell you now that your future agent and editor will be amused, not convinced, by that argument.
Why? Well, from a publishing perspective, there is no such thing as a universally-appealing piece of writing. Some readers are drawn to one type of story, others another. That's just a fact of pushing books. Even if you happen to have produced a memoir that both taps into an under-mined literary niche and catches the public imagination at just the right time (like, say, ANGELA'S ASHES), your future agent and editor will not think of it as just good writing about your life.
How will they think of it? As a memoir about a specific place and time, told in a specific voice — and as a book that will need to be sold to readers already in the habit of reading similar books.
"Similar books!" memoirists everywhere shout, insulted. "But my story's unique! So is my narrative voice. How could any reader possibly form a sense of whether he will like it without reading it?"
Yes, yes, you're a snowflake, but think about it: don't you decide whether to pick up a book in a bookstore or search for it online without having read it? Don't you as a reader gravitate toward certain types of narrative, particular varieties of story, a specific species of tone? Don't you in fact do it all the time?
So does everybody else — including agents, editors, and anyone in a position to help you get your book published traditionally. No agent or editor, even those who handle nothing but memoir, will be attracted to every conceivable personal story that's written well. Like every other individual reader currently milling about the earth's crust, they have individual preferences.
And — brace yourselves; this next bit often comes as a shock to first-time memoirists — not all of those preferences concern writing style, or even having a compelling story to tell. Agents, editors, and memoir readers in general also tend to gravitate toward stories about specific types of experiences. From the publisher's point of view — and thus an agent's — memoirs are always about something other than the author's life.
Mostly, I suspect, because to anyone familiar with the concept of a memoir, the statement "What's the book about? Why, it's about the author's life!" is self-evident. It's also self-evident to Millicent that not every interesting life translates easily into a page-turning memoir.
All of that can be difficult for writers fond of slice-of-life fiction to accept. "Isn't the point of memoir," they demand, and who could blame them? "to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature? Good books about ordinary life are valuable. If a well-written story happens to be true, it's automatically going to appeal to memoir readers, right?
Actually, no: thousands of memoirs come out every year, and by definition, all are about real events, yet only a few capture large readerships. Partially, that's a matter of scarce marketing resources; it's also often a matter of luck. Sometimes, it's a function of the writing, but again, no publisher with her head screwed on straight would dream of promoting a memoir by saying, "Oh, it's really well written. And had I mentioned that it was about the author's life?"
Of course it is, but at the risk of repeating myself (oh, you thought I'd dropped my earlier point about textual repetition?), not every true story is equally appealing to every reader. Truth is a necessary attribute of memoir, not an optional extra. So are solid, clear writing and a dramatically-satisfying story arc.
If that last paragraph left you grumbling, well, you're not alone. Most aspiring memoirists think of their books primarily as opportunities to share their life stories with a potentially admiring world. To them, the fact that they are telling their truth couldn't possibly be more important: who in her right mind would put herself through the genuinely emotion-wracking process of reliving her ups and downs vividly enough to write about them well unless she felt her story burning inside her?
I'm entirely sympathetic to that yearning to shout the truth to the skies. However, as a memoirist myself — and as an author who has written a minor political celebrity's memoir as well, a fascinating exercise in mind-melding — I know that there's considerably more to constructing an emotionally and factually truthful memoir than simply telling the reader what happened. It's not as though one can simply provide a list of events and expect the reader to extrapolate human feeling. A memoirist has to dig deep, be profoundly honest with himself — and then figure out what does and does not belong in the book.
Didn't see that last bit coming, did you? As much as we memoirists like to claim the mantle of truth, not everything that occurs in even the most fascinating person's life will be gripping on the page. Part of the art of memoir lies in selectivity — a good memoir tells the story of a particular part of a particular life, not everything that happened. That means, at both the book structuring and writing stages, you will need to weed out actual events that undoubtedly happened, ones that may in themselves be interesting, but do not advance the story arc of the book.
Let's pause for a moment to consider that; it's is an aspect of memoir-writing that often confuses those new to the game. Telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth may work admirably on the witness stand, but the goal of a memoir is not simply to provide the reader with either a complete transcript or general summary of the author's life. It's to recount a specific set of connected events in a truthful, well-written, and entertaining manner, in a narrative voice likable enough that the reader will want to accompany the narrator on that absorbing journey.
That's necessarily the case, because, let's face it, the alternative would not be much fun for the reader. In fact, it could be a heck of a lot of work: in an indiscriminate, sprawling memoir, the reader must try to determine which of many protagonist-centered activities are important to the central storyline. Indeed, it's not at all uncommon for a loosely-organized memoir manuscript not to have a clearly-defined central storyline at all, for the exceedingly simple reason that most new memoirists don't think of their lives that way.
But if you, the narrator, don't know what the core story arc of your memoir is, how can a reader possibly figure it out? And is it really the reader's job?
So I ask you again: what is your memoir about?
While you're pondering that gargantuan and quite possibly terrifying question, let me share my favorite analogy for creative selectivity in nonfiction: throwing a stone into an otherwise still pond. That will cause a series of concentric ripples, right, altering the surface of the pond over time? A well thought-out memoir will depict the pond, as well as the thrower and the flinging process, following those many small waves as they change everything in their path.
How might that translate into a story arc derived from a rich and diverse life story? Think of the pond and its environs as your day-to-day life prior to a defining moment or decision. In order to gain a clear sense of just how much throwing that stone disturbed the pond, the reader is going to need to experience it as you did: the sights, the sounds, the smells, the feelings, what you loved and wanted, what you feared and avoided.
You could simply summarize all of that, I suppose, but wouldn't the reader gain a stronger impression of what it was like to be you standing on the shore, weighing whether to toss that rock, if you conveyed your experiences via small, evocative details and fully fleshed-out scenes? With all of those sensations filtered through your psyche and perceptions, wouldn't the reader get to know you pretty well as the protagonist of your own story?
Once you've established yourself as an interesting person in an interesting situation, and an intriguingly observant one at that, the reader is going to care about where and whether you cast that rock — or, in a story about being overwhelmed by larger events, about how you were flung bodily into the middle of that pond. How did your life change as a result? What did you do in response? What did you want to have happen, and what barriers did you face?
Starting to sound much more like a cohesive storyline, isn't it? Much as in fiction, figuring out what is and isn't central to the overall story you're telling is not merely a matter of explaining what happened: it's a matter of identifying the most important conflict the protagonist faces, what obstacles she must overcome, and showing the reader how that conflict played out.
That conflict, my friend, is what your memoir is about. It's every bit as unique as you had originally thought; it's merely structured in a manner that's easier for a reader who doesn't already know you to follow.
Does it make more sense now that "What is your memoir about?" would be the first thing Millicent, her boss, your acquiring editor, and the reader who will ultimately buy your book would want to know? At least, unless you have had the foresight to have established yourself as a celebrity, giving rise to a reasonable expectation that the very sight of your name on a book jacket will make your target reader gasp with incredulous pleasure and reach for the volume. Barring that kind of extremely helpful platform, it honestly does make sense that your future publisher will want to aim your book at readers most likely to respond positively to it.
Which is why, in the extremely likely event that those of you grumbling your way through writing a book proposal had been wondering, agents and editors expect memoirists, like all hopeful nonfiction writers, to give some serious advance thought to who is likely to buy the book and why. It's also part of the reason memoirs — again, like other nonfiction — are typically sold in the U.S. not based upon a full manuscript, but merely upon a book proposal and a sample chapter. In all likelihood, your acquiring editor will want to have some input into the selection process, to help define your story arc in the manner most likely to capture the interest of readers already buying similar stories.
But let me guess: you'd been thinking of the proposal as just an annoying hoop through which you would have to leap in order to land an agent for your story, right? Believe it or not, the proposal's requirements genuinely are intended to help nonfiction writers think about their books — and for memoirists to think of their life stories — not merely as writing about facts, but as gripping stories aimed at a specific readership predisposed to like 'em.
I wouldn't lie to you about that; I'm a memoirist, selectively drawing from the world as I find it to create a narrative true on a wide variety of levels. Keep up the good work!
Posted on July 7, 2012 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on A good guest blog on comic voice revisited: The Sequel that Kinda Sorta Isn't, by Bob Tarte
A good guest blog on comic voice revisited: The Sequel that Kinda Sorta Isn't, by Bob Tarte
Hello, campers –
Yes, yes, faithful readers, your eyes are not playing tricks upon you: I am, uncharacteristically, re-running a guest blog, and one from only a couple of months ago, too. Why would a do such a thing? Might it perhaps have something to do with Seattle's bizarrely winterish recent weather's finally having given way to something that resembles, if not precisely summer in a reasonable climate, than at least a rather pleasant spring?
Unfortunately, no: a horrible head cold has carried off my voice in toto for days on end now, so blue skies are merely the painted backdrop I see through my windows while I sneeze. But my misfortune doesn't mean that you fine people should not be treated to some fine writing advice, does it?
Actually, I had been intending to re-run today's and tomorrow's guest posts sometime this summer in any case. Originally, I had planned them as companion pieces on developing and maintaining memoir voice, but then Godzilla came stomping through my studio in the midst of the series in which they both played such an admirable role, and the running order got all mixed up…
Oh, you doubt that's how it happened, do you? Well, maybe you're right; perhaps that was the week that marauding pirates invaded my lair. It's been an eventful year.
In any case, I think these two posts have an alchemy read back-to-back that they don't when read, say, a week apart, so do tune in tomorrow for the second, even if you should happen to remember Bob's incisive advice from last time around. And if, as is so often the case, you're one of the readers that adjust your reading habits seasonally — the end of the school year brings an annual radical shift in the hit stats — welcome!
Either way, enjoy!
Before I introduce today's installment in our guest blog series by hardworking authors about the ins and outs of moving smoothly from one book to the next, let me ask you: is this not one of the best, most mood-evocative book covers you have ever seen?
It is, for those of you reading this in some strange universe in which the Internet does not come with pictures, the cover art for the always-hilarious Bob Tarte's latest foray into memoir, Kitty Cornered. I'm going to have a lot to say in praise of Bob — for my money, one of the consistently funniest memoirists working in American English, and certainly one of the best documenters of the wackiness of life — but first, let's talk about why this is such a tremendously good book cover.
Actually, scratch that, so to speak: before we slide into first, allow me to pause a moment to let you in on how I know for a fact that this is an unusually eye-catching book cover: my 13-year-old neighbor was absolutely riveted by it when he visited the other day. Not only did he instantly pounce upon the book and begin leafing through it — the moment he walked into my library, he made what can only be called a beeline for it.
Actually ran to get his I'm sorry to report grubby paws upon that book. As if it were — sorry, but it must be said — catnip.
Now that's a cover that does its job, and then some. Kudos to the marketing and art departments at Algonquin Press for a magnificent achievement in a notoriously difficult medium.
Fair warning: if read this book in a public place, be prepared for total strangers to come running up to you and ask what on earth you're reading. I've seen it with my own eyes. If I were planning into, say, a crowded writers' conference anytime soon and wanted to make some friends fast, I would nonchalantly tote this book under my arm. (Again, well done, Algonquin.)
Why am I so impressed by this cover? Well, you try to come up with a photo that makes that winsome kitty appear intent upon beating Godzilla in a race to stomp on Tokyo. It provides a great twist on the expected. But that's not the only reason I like it: it's rare that a cover captures the spirit of the book within this well. That mad-eyed cat, combined with the offbeat lettering, tell the reader pretty plainly that this is going to be — and having read the book, I'm not too afraid of going out on an interpretive limb here — an uproarious memoir about living with a small battalion of marauding cats.
Which, as luck would have it, is precisely what the book is about. Check out the publisher's blurb:
Bob Tarte had his first encounter with a cat when he was two and a half years old. He should have learned his lesson then, from Fluffy. But as he says, "I listened to my heart instead, and that always leads to trouble." In this tell-all of how the Tarte household grew from one recalcitrant cat to six — including a hard-to-manage stray named Frannie–Tarte confesses to allowing these interlopers to shape his and his wife's life, from their dining habits to their sleeping arrangements to the placement and furriness of their furniture.
But more than that, Bob begins seeing Frannie and the other cats as unlikely instructors in the art of achieving contentment, even in the face of illness and injury. Bewitched by the unknowable nature of domesticated cats, he realizes that sometimes wildness and mystery are exactly what he needs.
With the winning humor and uncanny ability to capture the soul of the animal world that made Enslaved by Ducks a success, Tarte shows us that life with animals gives us a way out of our narrow human perspective to glimpse something larger, more enduring, and more grounded in the simplicities of love–and catnip.
Just between us, Bob has a pretty great eye for image composition himself. I would highly encourage those of you interested in marvelous critter pics to check out his Facebook page and/or follow me on Twitter @BobTarte; he posts new bird and beast photos there with charming regularity.
Of course, authors seldom have any direct say over their cover art — you knew that, right? — but they do often provide their author photos. Bob always has superlative ones. Check out his latest:
Bob with Maynard and Frannie
Doesn't leave you in much doubt about the subject matter of his memoir, does it? Nor does it leave his platform in question: the guy obviously knows cats.
Again, that's good promotional strategy: what's more boring than the standard-issue, flatteringly-lit jacket photo? I say hear, hear for author photos that actually make the author look like he might have some real-world experience with his subject matter. And isn't it a perennial source of astonishment how few author photos actually do?
But all of that is secondary to the purpose of this series: to blandish hardworking, successful authors into sharing their thoughts on something we literary types virtually never talk about amongst ourselves, the difficult task of switching gears — and sometimes authorial voices — between books. That's a rather strange topic to avoid, from my perspective, because if one is going to be a working author, one presumably will need to tinker with one's original voice to fit the next story.
Oh. you thought the Voice Fairy stole with little cat feet into writing studios across this fine land of ours, whacking established authors on their august noggins, and twittering, "There, my dear — write away!"
Obviously, that's not happening — but let's face it, writers new to writing humor often believe something almost as implausible. They (and, if the author does her job right, her readership) often labor under the mistaken impression that a funny voice pops out of a gifted storyteller as spontaneously as breathing. Or — sacre bleu! — that all a person that's good at telling amusing anecdotes has to do is provide a transcript of what she might sound like in a bar, and poof! Hilarity ensues.
Cue the Humor Fairy. You'll find her in the dressing room she shares with the Pathos Pixie, the Dialogue Dervish, and the Opening Grabber Genie.
Mind if I inject a little reality into that fantasy? Yes, a great humorous memoir voice will come across on the page as effortless, but a truly fine, memorable, and in Bob's case simultaneously side-splitting and deeply honest voice doesn't happen all by itself. It takes work. And throughout this series, I'm going to be asking authors to be generous and brave enough to talk about that often-difficult process.
I'm particularly delighted to be able to bring you Bob's thoughts on the process. Not only is he a well-recognized master of spinning a yarn, but he also had to mine his creativity to fine-tune his already quite successful voice to a new breed of story.
And no, I'm not going to cut out the cat puns anytime soon, but thanks for asking.
As tempted as I am to let the cat out of the bag (don't say I didn't warn you), far be it from me to stand between a gifted storyteller and his audience. I suspect, though, that what follows will be even more instructive — and even more fun — if I give you a swift guided tour of Bob's earlier work, on the off chance that some of you have not yet had the opportunity to become familiar with Bob's work (or perchance missed his earlier guest blogs on developing a unique authorial voice for memoir and dealing with reader expectations).
In that spirit, here's the publisher's blurb for his breakthrough memoir, Enslaved By Ducks: How One Man Went from Head of the Household to Bottom of the Pecking Order:
When Bob Tarte left the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan for the country, he was thinking peace and quiet. He'd write his music reviews in the solitude of his rural home on the outskirts of everything.
Then he married Linda. She wanted a rabbit. How much trouble, he thought, could a bunny be?
Well, after the bunny chewed his way through the electrical wires and then hid inside the wall, Bob realized that he had been outwitted. But that was just the beginning. There were parrots, more rabbits, then ducks and African geese. The orphaned turkeys stranded on a nearby road. The abandoned starlings. The sad duck for sale for 25 cents.
Bob suddenly found himself constructing pens, cages, barriers, buying feed, clearing duck waste, spoonfeeding at mealtime. One day he realized that he no longer had a life of quiet serenity, but that he'd become a servant to a relentlessly demanding family: Stanley Sue, a gender-switching African grey parrot; Hector, a cantankerous shoulder-sitting Muscovy duck; Howard, an amorous ring-neck dove; and a motley crew of others. Somehow, against every instinct in him, Bob had unwittingly become their slave.
He read all the classic animal books — The Parrot Who Owns Me, The Dog who Rescues Cats, Arnie the Darling Starling, That Quail Robert, The Cat Who Came for Christmas — about the joys of animals, the touching moments. But none revealed what it was really like to live with an unruly menagerie.
Bob Tarte's witty account reveals the truth of animal ownership: who really owns who, the complicated logistics of accommodating many species under one roof, the intricate routines that evolve, and ultimately, the distinct and insistent personalities of every animal in the house – and on its perimeter. Writing as someone who's been ambushed by the way in which animals — even cranky ones — can wend their way into one's heart, Bob Tarte is James Herriot by way of Bill Bryson.
And here's the blurb for his second memoir, Fowl Weather:
How Thirty-Nine Animals and a Sock Monkey Took Over My Life
Bob Tarte's second book, Fowl Weather, returns us to the Michigan house where pandemonium is the governing principle, and where 39 animals rule the roost. But as things seem to spiral out of control, as his parents age and his mother's grasp on reality loosens as she battles Alzheimer's disease, Bob unexpectedly finds support from the gaggle of animals around him. They provide, in their irrational fashion, models for how to live.
It is their alien presences, their sense of humor, and their unpredictable behaviors that both drive Bob crazy and paradoxically return him to sanity. Whether it's the knot-tying African grey parrot, the overweight cat who's trained Bob to hold her water bowl just above the floor, or the duck who bests Bob in a shoving match, this is the menagerie, along with his endlessly optimistic wife Linda, that teaches him about the chaos that's a necessary part of life.
No less demanding than the animals are the people who torment Bob and Linda. There's the master gardener who steps on plants, the pet sitter applicant who never met an animal he didn't want to butcher, and a woman Bob hasn't seen since elementary school who suddenly butts into his life.
With the same biting humor and ability to capture the soul of the animal world that made Enslaved by Ducks such a rousing success, Bob Tarte shows us that life with animals gives us a way out of our small human perspectives to glimpse something larger, more enduring, and more wholly grounded in the simplicities of love — even across species lines.
With both of those intriguing premises firmly in mind, let's see what words of wisdom on strategizing voice are wiggling on the end of the string that's…I mean, let's get on with stalking…wait — fireman, what's that up in that nearby tree?
Oh, I give up. Please join me in welcoming back Bob Tarte!
I had big, fat, goose-size hopes for Enslaved by Ducks back in 2003. In my fantasies, the book would become such a huge honking success that I could spend the rest of my days humming cheerily as I effortlessly churned out sequels.
Unfortunately, I had overestimated the clout of readers who kept ducks as pets. The total population of duck owners in the US probably couldn't fill a single theater in a shopping mall multiplex. In fact, they probably couldn't fill a jumbo popcorn tub. So their enthusiasm only got me so far. Enslaved by Ducks sold steadily, but slowly. I wanted to do better.
For my second book, I decided that I would break out of the traditional pet book mold and vault into the ample lap of the general public. I didn't take the ducks, geese, parrots, rabbits, cats, and other critters out of Fowl Weather. Instead I wrote about how they affected my life during a stressful period of time in which I lost my dad, my mom was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and ghost cats haunted our basement. The result was a book that some folks thought was the funniest thing that they had ever read and others decided was mega-depressing.
NPR's Nancy Pearl occupied the former camp, and thanks to her enthusiastic January 22, 2008 "Under the Radar" review on Morning Edition, Fowl Weather was briefly the sixty-third best selling book on all of Amazon. But after that it sunk like a rock tied to an anvil, never making it out of hardcover — even as Enslaved by Ducks gradually waddled into its thirteenth paperback printing in 2012.
So what went wrong with my sequel? Lots of things. Pushing the animals even slightly into the background wasn't the smartest approach, since critters were what my readers wanted. And the subject matter was dark compared to Enslaved by Ducks. Because there were so many narrative threads and no single string strong enough to hang a catchy subtitle on, Fowl Weather also proved to be tricky to market. Death and Alzheimer's weren't suitable subjects for a humorous back cover blurb. And the non-waterfowl-owning segment of the population that had enjoyed Enslaved by Ducks presumably spotted the duckling on the cover of Fowl Weather and decided that it was a rerun.
In other words, Fowl Weather was simultaneously too different and too similar to my first book. It took me years to figure out how to follow it up, even though the solution lay right under my nose. It was as close as the nearest litter box.
It took me twice as long to write Kitty Cornered as it had to write either of my first two books. It didn't start out as a cat book. I kept trying to find new ways to write about our birds and other pets. While the cats kept clawing their way into the narrative, I never even considered making them the subjects of a book, because I couldn't shake loose of the image of myself as the duck guy. I couldn't shake loose of any good ideas, either. In an attempt to add some verve to a sagging repertoire of avian anecdotes, I concocted an increasingly unlikely series of devices, culminating in — I'm embarrassed to admit — a goose egg crystal ball that revealed incidents from my pre-pet past. This didn't work out any better than it sounds here.
Fortunately a skittish white-and-black stray cat showed up to rescue me from author's oblivion. As soon as I decided to write about this complicated little being that we named Frannie, I felt as if a huge goose-size burden had been lifted from my shoulders. I incorporated the strongest aspects of my first two books into Kitty Cornered, keeping the sunny-to-partly-cloudy tone of Enslaved by Ducks and the overlapping narratives of Fowl Weather, all the time returning the focus to Frannie as I wrote about all six cats.
My re-invention as a cat guy seems to have worked. Kitty Cornered was on the independent bookstore indie bestseller list during its first two weeks on the shelves, and when it was just short of a month old, it went into a second printing. Naturally, I'm hoping that it continues to gain momentum. It sure would be great to be able to knock out a couple of sequels, you know?
Bob Tarte and his wife Linda live on the edge of a shoe-sucking swamp near the West Michigan village of Lowell. When not fending off mosquitoes during temperate months and chipping ice out of plastic wading pools in the depths of winter, Bob writes books about his pets.
Emmy Award-winning actress Patricia Heaton has taken on an option on the dramatic rights to Enslaved by Ducks. Fowl Weather was selected as an "Under The Radar" book for 2008 by Nancy Pearl on NPR's Morning Edition.
Bob wrote the Technobeat world music review column for The Beat magazine from 1989 to 2009. He has also written for The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Miami New Times newspapers.
Bob also hosts a podcast for PetLifeRadio.com called What Were You Thinking? that's supposedly about "exotic pets" as a general topic, but the show just as often turns into a chronicle of life with his own troublesome critters.
Bob and Linda currently serve the whims of parrots, ducks, geese, parakeets, a rabbit, doves, cats, and hens. They also raise and release orphan songbirds (including woodpeckers) for the Wildlife Rehab Center, Ltd. in Grand Rapids and have the scars to prove it.
Posted on June 2, 2012 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Don't forget your troubles — come on, get unhappy, by guest blogger Joel Derfner
Don't forget your troubles — come on, get unhappy, by guest blogger Joel Derfner
Hello again, campers –
We bring our week of advice on moving from one book to the next to a close with not only a bang, but a hop, skip, and a jump: today, I am delighted to be bringing you some words of wisdom on writing a second memoir from none other than one of my all-time favorite memoirists Joel Derfner,>Swish: My Quest to Become the Gayest Person Ever and What Ended Up Happening Instead. You may also know him as the insidiously funny blogger, Faustus, M.D., or as one of the stars of the reality TV show Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys.
And no, you didn't misread the blurb on the cover: it's that Elton John. The little bird that flies around telling people things told me that he liked the original release of Joel's memoir so much that he volunteered to blurb the second edition.
If you prefer not to receive your news from passing waterfowl, you can read a fuller account of this remarkable publication story in Joel's earlier guest post on book promotion. While we're on the subject of guest posts, Joel also charmed the Author! Author! community with an exceedingly useful guest post on obtaining permission to use song lyrics in your books, should any of you be contemplating setting foot on that particular Yellow Brick Road. (Or were you under the impression that memoirs and novels could quote songs willy-nilly? Au contraire, mon fr?re.)
Mssr. John was not the only one to fall in love with Joel's deeply human, devastatingly honest, and often howlingly funny voice. I already knew how amusing and insightful Joel was before the book came out, yet as the neighbors that did not move away instantly at the sight can attest, certain sections of this book made me rush into the street, tap-dancing with glee. Sparklers may or may not have been involved.
Was I that hard up at the time for some humorous memoir? you ask, bemused. No, thank you, I write, read, and edit funny memoir all the time. What separated Joel's first book from, well, everything else was not merely how consistently diverting it was — not an easy trick, with a life fully and well lived — but how unblinkingly truthful it was.
Yes, those of you rolling your eyes? "Oh, come on, Anne," the memoir-jaded snort. "The whole point of memoir is that it's true, isn't it?"
Ah, but there's true in the sense of having actually occurred — and true that sends shivers through your membranes because it shows you life in a way you had not seen it on a page before. There's true that reads plausibly — and true that makes the reader gasp, "Wow, my therapist does not know me as well as I now know this memoirist." And, as any memoir editor worth her salt and/or pepper could tell you, there's true that's well-written — and there's true that's so prettily phrased that one's socks, shoes, and pinky rings get blown off.
Or, at the very least, that causes one to go running out into the street, looking for an innocent bystander to whom to read a particularly striking passage. (My neighborhood used to be so quiet before I met Joel.)
I'm certainly not the only professional reader that felt this way when his bombshell of a first memoir came out, incidentally. Some other bon mots from those that know about such things:
In a culture where we disguise vulnerability with physical perfection and material success, Derfner skewers heartache with Wildean wit . . . [Derfner is] the next No?l Coward.?Out.com
"Searing." — Washington Blade
"Derfner's writing is perfect. . . . He's your best friend. He's your brother. He is you." — EDGE Los Angeles
"Sometimes hilarious, sometimes poignant, always clever, and unpredictable." — Philadelphia Gay News
What's that you say? You'd like me to stop telling you the man can write and let him get on with showing you same? Reasonable enough. Let's start with the publisher's blurb for Swish:
Joel Derfner is gayer than you.
Don't feel too bad about it, though, because he has made being gayer than you his life's work. At summer day camp, when he was six, Derfner tried to sign up for needlepoint and flower arranging, but the camp counselors wouldn't let him, because, they said, those activities were for girls only. Derfner, just to be contrary, embarked that very day on a solemn and sacred quest: to become the gayest person ever. Along the way he has become a fierce knitter, an even fiercer musical theater composer, and so totally the fiercest step aerobics instructor (just ask him — he'll tell you himself).
In Swish, Derfner takes his readers on a flamboyant adventure along the glitter-strewn road from fabulous to divine. Whether he's confronting the demons of his past at a GLBT summer camp, using the Internet to meet men — many, many men — or plunging headfirst (and nearly naked) into the shady world of go-go dancing, he reveals himself with every gayer-than-thou flourish to be not just a stylish explorer but also a fearless one. So fearless, in fact, that when he sneaks into a conference for people who want to cure themselves of their homosexuality, he turns the experience into one of the most fascinating, deeply moving chapters of the book. Derfner, like King Arthur, Christopher Columbus, and Indiana Jones–but with a better haircut and a much deeper commitment to fad diets–is a hero destined for legend.
Written with wicked humor and keen insight, Swish is at once a hilarious look at contemporary ideas about gay culture and a poignant exploration of identity that will speak to all readers–gay, straight, and in between.
Here again, we smack head-first into that bugbear of memoirists everywhere, the distinction between true and true. All of these statements are factually accurate about the book, but what struck me most about Joel's memoir, what set my membranes humming, my feet tap-dancing, and my neighbors scurrying into the street to see why I was shouting is not mentioned in this blurb.
What's missing, in my view? The fact — oh, okay, my opinion — that this is one of the best memoirs ever written on how darned hard it is to be a smart, sensitive human being in a world that habitually rewards neither.
And that, my friends, is what has made this book among the most tattered on my memoir shelf. Occasionally, life will throw a meandering curveball that knocks one of Joel's beautifully-phrased insights out of my at this point stuffed-to-bursting memory vaults, sending me rushing right back to the text.
Oh, and in the spirit of this series, I should add: the guy's paid his dues as a writer, and then some. He's done it with wit, humor, and perseverance in the face of some pretty long odds. All of which has not only garnered my completely ungrudging respect (and you of all people know how high my threshold for grudge-free respect is), but a feeling that somewhere up there in the Muses' palace, the Ladies in Charge have already reserved some serious shelf space for Joel's subsequent literary achievements.
Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? After a debut memoir like that, what precisely does one do for an encore?
I asked Joel that question, and rather than fleeing with the flailing arms and piercing screams such a seemingly flippant but subversively difficult question deserves, he gave it the alternately serious and humorous literary attention that has caused me to come to think of him as the memoirist little brother the Muses should have seen to it that I had. (With all requisite apologies to the nonfiction author big brother with whom they actually provided me — oh, you thought my parents would have put up with offspring that didn't write?)
Here, then, is his response, and I have to say, I wish I had read it before I first sat down to write a memoir. In my checkered experience, it's not only true — it's true. Take it away, Joel!
Wait, that wasn't Joel. Although, come to think of it, I've never seen him and Judy Garland in a room together. I've never seen Superman and Joel in a room together either, though, so…hey, wait a minute…
Here, then, is Joel as his usual charming self — and his usual wise self vis-?-vis the difficult path of the memoirists. Five, six, seven, eight!
I'm about to sign a contract for the publication of my second real book, whose working title is Lawfully Wedded Husband: How I Tried to Destroy America With my Gay Marriage.
When my last book, Swish: My Quest to Become the Gayest Person Ever and What Ended Up Happening Instead, came out, many reviewers praised its combination of funny and wistful. It "bounce[d] back and forth,"? wrote one, "from tender and touching and deeply sad to wildly funny, sometimes in the space of a paragraph, or even a single sentence."?
Yes! I thought when I read this. It's a good thing this reviewer has a distinctive name, because now I can look him up online and stalk him and make him fall in love with me and then we can be happy together for the rest of our lives.
Part of what had allowed me so to bounce back and forth in Swish was that I was incredibly, incredibly depressed. I hadn't been quite on the verge of suicide while writing the book, but I had certainly been within spitting distance, and I'd found it easy somehow to reach inside, touch a raw, exposed nerve, and twist it until something funny came out and I started crying.
I began Swish in 2005, and it was published in 2008. At some point in 2009, my agent said to me, "Joel, I need another book from you." (I realize this sounds incredibly glamorous, but really I'd just begged her for a meeting because all I'd been able to afford for months was Taco Bell and I was hoping she would at least take me to TGIFridays or something.) (She didn't.) So I said, "Okay, no problem, I'll start working on another book." My boyfriend had just proposed to me, and the issue of marriage equality seemed topical enough to be worth writing about, so I went home, turned my computer on, and started typing.
After an hour or so, I looked at what I'd written, realized it wasn't interesting at all, deleted it, went to the bodega on the corner, bought a couple candy bars, came back, ate them both, and started over again.
A couple hours later, I looked at what I'd written, realized it wasn't true at all, deleted it, went to the bodega on the corner, bought five candy bars, came back, ate them all, and spent the rest of the evening staring morosely at the television, because I had a very serious problem:
I was no longer unhappy enough.
In the years between 2005 and 2009, I had made a great many positive changes in my life, including but not limited to getting a therapist, going on massive doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and moving in with my boyfriend, and all those nerves that had been so raw and exposed before now had a modicum of protective covering. My two-candy-bar attempt had been uninteresting because I hadn't been twisting any nerves; my five-candy-bar attempt had been dishonest because I was only pretending to twist nerves that weren't in fact twistable, at least not in the way to which I was accustomed in writing.
My muse had disappeared.
Please don't think for a second that I'm saying you have to be unhappy to write well. It wasn't my writing that had suffered, you see; it was my subject matter.
I came quickly to think of this as the Tolstoy problem. Even if you haven't read Anna Karenina you're probably familiar with its famous opening sentence, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."?
It was easy to write with deep sadness and wild humor when that was all I had, and I had them in my own way, and could convey them with idiosyncratic verve.
But what was I going to write now? "I cooked my boyfriend dinner. It was yummy. Then we watched Tabatha's Salon Takeover and went to sleep. I love him." Who would want to read that for even a page, much less an entire book? I certainly wouldn't.
But if I faked it–"I cooked spaghetti for my boyfriend and accidentally used only one clove of garlic instead of two in the spaghetti sauce and he didn't say anything about it so now I'm lying awake staring at my ceiling trying to figure out whether he didn't notice or he noticed but didn't want to say anything about it because it was the last straw and he's going to break up with me tomorrow" — well, that could work for a paragraph or two, maybe even a few pages, but it wasn't true, and I knew there was no way I could sustain it for an entire book.
So what was I going to do?
This question paralyzed me for about a year. Occasionally I would sit down and start writing something, trying to be both interesting and honest, fail, and then stop thinking about it for another month or two, because not thinking about it allowed me to avoid discovering I could no longer write.
The problem was that not thinking about it was great as a strategy to avoid discovering I could no longer write, but as a strategy to write it left something to be desired. If the only way to avoid confronting my inability to write was refusing to write, then the whole thing sort of turned in on itself until everything collapsed and at some point the bodega was going to run out of candy bars.
So I figured, okay, why don't I ease into this by writing about the issue itself first, not about my own experiences? If you're quoting legal statutes you can hardly be expected to be wildly funny and deeply sad.
So I started with a sort of analytical/philosophical/whateverical chapter, and went from there. And as I wrote, I tried to find ways to touch and twist indirectly those nerves to which I no longer had easy access.
I think I've succeeded, to some degree. I think that when this book is at its best I'm able to explore things about feeling alone even in a relationship, about what a relationship can't give you, about the difference between expectation and reality.
I'm sorry not to have a better or clearer way to talk about how I was about to get started again or what those indirect ways are. I think it's because I'm still in the middle of the story–the story of me writing this book, I mean, not the story the book is telling–and I don't have the perspective I need to understand what I'm doing differently.
I'm still very afraid that this book isn't as good as my last one, because its sadness isn't as deep nor its humor as wild. One reason I went with this particular publisher, though, was that the editor said he liked this book more than Swish, which was incredibly heartening, because it allowed me to hope that whatever I've replaced twisting raw nerves with might be equally valuable, or even more valuable–to hope that I've found a way, all unawares, to skirt the Tolstoy problem.
And if that's the case, then, if I'm lucky enough to be invited to post again on this blog in a few years, maybe I can tell you how I did it.
Swish: My Quest to Become the Gayest Person Ever and Gay Haiku author Joel Derfner is from South Carolina, where his great-grandmother had an affair with George Gershwin. After fleeing the south as soon as he possibly could, he got a B.A. in linguistics from Harvard. A year after he graduated, his thesis on the Abkhaz language was shown to be completely wrong, as the word he had been translating as "who" turned out to be not a noun but a verb. Realizing that linguistics was not his m?tier, he moved to New York to get an M.F.A. in musical theater writing from the Tisch School of the Arts.
Musicals for which he has written the scores have been produced in London, New York, and various cities in between (going counterclockwise). In an attempt to become the gayest person ever, he joined Cheer New York, New York's gay and lesbian cheerleading squad, but eventually he had to leave because he was too depressed. In desperation, he started knitting and teaching aerobics, though not at the same time. He hopes to come to a bad end.
Posted on May 28, 2012 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on The Sequel that Kinda Sorta Isn't, by guest blogger Bob Tarte
The Sequel that Kinda Sorta Isn't, by guest blogger Bob Tarte
Bob Tarte had his first encounter with a cat when he was two and a half years old. He should have learned his lesson then, from Fluffy. But as he says,
I listened to my heart instead, and that always leads to trouble." In this tell-all of how the Tarte household grew from one recalcitrant cat to six — including a hard-to-manage stray named Frannie–Tarte confesses to allowing these interlopers to shape his and his wife's life, from their dining habits to their sleeping arrangements to the placement and furriness of their furniture.
Posted on April 6, 2012 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on "Wait, haven't I read that someplace before?" — Millicent
"Wait, haven't I read that someplace before?" — Millicent
Please join me in a moment of silence, campers. Today, I received one of the saddest pieces of news a person can hear from a writer friend: an extremely talented author of my acquaintance reported that her hard disk had crashed, doubtless from overwork. Not a syllable could be salvaged.
In response to those of you who just gasped audibly: yes, she was almost finished writing her next novel. She had circulated only the first four chapters to her critique group, so physical copies of that much still exist. Beyond that, however…
On a not entirely unrelated note, when was the last time you backed up your writing files? Is it recently enough that you could reconstitute your most recent revisions or new text from your unassisted memory?
If the answer to that second question is no, feel free to stop reading right now and make a back-up. At minimum, e-mail them to yourself, for heaven's sake. I'm perfectly happy to wait, if it means that we can all sleep better tonight, confident that hours, days, weeks, and/or months of your writing time won't just vanish in the proverbial puff of smoke.
Or ozone, as the case may be. As undoubtedly conducive to creative expression as computers are, the permanence of the results can be illusory. At times like this, I occasionally find myself longing for my father's good old Olivetti typewriter, or even a simple Edwardian writing desk, like the one above. (Note, please, the requisite photo of a loved one and apparently equally requisite liquor tray.)
True, one had to hit the Olivetti's keys so hard that when my parents first plopped me down in front of it at age ten to compose the term paper that everyone else in my class was writing by hand, I couldn't actually force the q, z, p, or ? keys to hit the ribbon with sufficient force to create any impression upon paper. It took me so many hours to write the definitive history paper on the Bonus March that my mother seized the opportunity first to sketch my profile — she had never managed to convince me to sit still long enough before — then to sculpt my head in clay. Considering that my parents insisted that I write it in standard format for book manuscripts, I should probably count myself lucky that she didn't also have time to cast the sculpture in bronze.
Yes, it was a touch on the tedious side to be forced to retype an entire page in order to rework a single sentence. On the bright side, though, to lose a year's worth of one's writing, an author actually had to misplace it physically.
(Were you distracted from the pithiness of that last bon mot by a mental image of a 5th grader using two hands to wrestle the z key into submission? That memory haunts me, too. My mother, however, asks me to inform you that she had faithfully typed my newspaper articles prior to that term paper, and that a little pro of my caliber shouldn't have graduated from elementary school without learning to touch-type, anyway. And to be fair, she didn't actually make me try it blindfolded until after I'd turned in the paper.)
Writing on a computer boasts at least one monumental advantage over the all hard copy, all the time method, however: it's possible, and indeed easy, to check whether that wry observation that just occurred to you also struck you as the last word in style back when you were composing Chapter 3. And Chapter 7. And possibly Chapter 16.
Oh, you hadn't noticed that you had repeated yourself? Trust me, Millicent the agency screener will.
Since aspiring writers so seldom catch their own phrasing reuse, I'm going to spend the next couple of days talking about that ever-popular birthmark of Frankenstein manuscripts everywhere, the sentence — or paragraph, or footnote, or scene — that turns up more than once in a manuscript. Or more than once in a chapter. Or — are you sitting down? — more than once in a page.
Already, I sense some of you rolling your eyes. "Yeah, right, Anne," writers of 384-page texts huff, "I'm so uncreative, so myopic, so prone to writing only one paragraph per session that I would repeat entire sentences within just a few pages, yet Millicent remembers phrasing so well that she will catch me if I recycle a description from page 73 on page 312."
Actually, she might — and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but otherwise quite good manuscripts reuse pet phrases all the time. You've probably noticed the tendency in the later works of well-established authors, in fact; as television comedy has led us all to expect, revisiting the same premises, jokes, and yes, even descriptions can elicit chortles of delighted recognition from an audience already familiar with one's work. Heck, Oscar Wilde used to trot out the same laugh lines in play after play after play; he was monumentally good at branding.
For the overwhelming majority of writers, though, self-plagiarism does not constitute a promotional strategy so much as a simple lapse in memory. In the course of writing an entire book, it should perhaps not come as a surprise if the creative brain revisits a favorite turn of phrase, a trenchant observation on the human condition, of striking bit of imagery that strikes a writer as particularly, well, striking.
Hey, if it sounded good in the writer's mind the first time, what's to stop it from sounding good the second? Or the fourth? Or the forty-seventh?
Perfectly innocent and understandable, right? Well, perhaps not so much to our old pal Millicent — or her cousin Maury, the editorial assistant, or their aunt Mehitabel, the veteran contest judge. To someone who reads manuscripts for a living, such inadvertent redundancy can take on a more sinister aspect: to an uncharitable reader, even a single repetition of a pet phrase can smack of authorial laziness. Or as an aftereffect of that perennial bugbear, insufficient authorial re-reading.
Or, sacre bleu! a first indicator that what she holds in her ink-stained hands is a Frankenstein manuscript.
We've all seen Frankenstein manuscripts, right, even if we have not had the misfortune to write one? Many of us have at least a partial monster lurking in a bottom desk drawer or haunting our hard disks, books written over such a long period, in so many moods, at so many different levels of technical skill, and — come on, admit it — under the influence of so many and such varied favorite authors that it would take a small army of literary detectives years of close textual analysis to discern even an embryonic similarity between the authorial voices on pp. 10, 143, and 412.
In a first draft of a first novel, that's virtually inevitable, right? Contrary to popular opinion amongst those who have never actually sat down in front of the ol' Olivetti and cranked out a book, few writers are born with completely polished voices; it can take a great deal of trial and error to figure out how to sound original on the page. Then, too, it takes a good, long while to write a book, particularly the first time around: as Millicent would be the first to tell you, it's not all that uncommon for the manuscript to betray significantly greater technical skill at its end than at its beginning. Or for the first chapter or two to read a great deal more like the end of the book than like the middle, because the writer went back and revised those opening pages after polishing off the draft.
Why is Millicent an expert on the two most common stripes of Frankenstein manuscript? Care to estimate how many first-time novelists and memoirists start querying and submitting their work practically the instant they polish off the first draft? Or the second?
Trust me, those of us who read for a living learn to catch the early warning signs. When Millicent sees a sentence, image, or observation from page 1 turn up on page 26, Frankenstein manuscript warning bells start chiming wildly in her head. From that point on, her already sharp critical sensors turn downright predatory, eager to swoop down upon more tell-tale signs that this is one of those texts whose author either kept changing his mind about the style he wished to embrace — or tone, or target audience, or book category — or just kept revising it so often that the narrative reads like a patchwork of different prose styles.
That does not mean, however, that self-plagiarism does not turn up quite frequently in non-Frankenstein manuscripts. How can an experienced reviser tell the difference? While the Frankenstein manuscript varies substantially as pages pass, the self-plagiarized text merely becomes redundant: passing scenery always described the same manner, for instance, or a clever line of dialogue repeated in Chapters 2, 5, and 24.
Nonfiction writing in general, and academic writing in particular, is notoriously prone to redundancy. So are book proposals. Again, that's quite understandable. Once you've gotten into the habit of footnoting everything in the least questionable, it's pretty easy to reuse a footnote, for instance, or to come to rely upon stock definitions instead of writing fresh ones every time.
Or, in a memoir, to tell the same anecdote more than once. As, indeed, people who like to talk about themselves tend to do in conversation. (Did I ever tell you about the time my mother wanted me to learn touch-typing as a fifth grader?)
Or, in any kind of writing, for a particular way of describing something to sound good. Many a writer simply finds a certain turn of phrase appealing and forgets that he's used it before. Or just doesn't notice, despite the fact that great way to catch this sort of redundancy is — wait for it — to read your manuscript IN HARD COPY, IN ITS ENTIRETY, and OUT LOUD, in as few sittings as possible.
Oh, had I suggested that excellent pre-submission strategy before? Had I in fact mentioned it about once per week throughout Queryfest? How silly of me not to notice.
You may laugh, but actually, it's quite easy for even a fairly conscientious reviser to miss instances of self-plagiarism on the page, especially if — and most revisers do this — she is reading through the manuscript over several days or even weeks. After all, you have to be gifted with an unusually strong memory for phraseology to stop short in the middle of Chapter 15 and shout, "Hey, I've seen that image before, and it was on page 36, paragraph four!"
I don't mean to frighten you (or do I?), but professional readers frequently have astonishingly accurate memories for text. Millicent might not be able to tell you precisely where she's seen that Ch. 15 image before, but she will almost certainly have the dim impression that it has appeared earlier in the manuscript. I can positively guarantee you, though, that if the first instance of its use pops up on p. 36, and the second on p. 42, she will most assuredly spot the second as redundant.
She should: professional readers are trained for that.
For a self-editing writer, it can be harder to catch — and harder still to remember if you actually used that sentence elsewhere, or merely thought about it. As inveterate commenter and long-time FAAB (Friend of Author! Author! blog) Dave so rightly pointed out the last time we discussed this phenomenon, most good writers spend quite a bit of time mulling over any given scene in a book, not to mention revising it later on; it's not uncommon, therefore, to have a positive welter of mental associations about the evolution of the aforementioned pp. 36 and 42. Add to that the fact that a reader's eye will tend to pass over smoothly-written text pretty quickly, especially if it's a scene he's read before, and reading through one's own manuscript by definition entails re-reading, and can we really be surprised when repeated phrasing passes unnoticed under the reviser's gaze?
Even when the repeated phraseology or image does jump out at the rereading reviser (try saying that four times fast!), it won't necessarily be for a negative reason. It's not unheard-of for writers to prefer repeating bits of their own work: those turns of phrase are his favorites for a reason, presumably. They linger in his ears pleasingly when he reads them out loud; they strike him as some of his best writing on the page. If pressed, he might admit to wanting to see one of them chiseled on his gravestone.
Yes, those of you who have been jumping up and down with your hands raised for the last couple of paragraphs? "I know what this writer should do!" survivors of English 101 burble excitedly. "It was for precisely this kind of writer's benefit that Dorothy Parker started urging all of us to kill your darlings. If he loves those phrases so much, they should be the first axed, right?"
Aspiring writers and the English composition teachers who love them just love this piece of revision advice, eager burblers, but if you want to hear anyone who reads for a living choke on the coffee that's never far from her elbow (hey, you try staying awake uncaffeinated through the fiftieth YA paranormal novel you've seen this week), feel free to trot out this most misunderstood piece of writing advice. We've too often seen the slash-and-burn effects of this canonical advice in action. Indeed, going through one's own manuscript, relentlessly slaughtering any writing that strikes one as excellent is a pretty good prescription for creating a Frankenstein manuscript, not healing one.
And it's not even what Aunt Dorothy was advising writers to do. She wasn't talking about ruthlessly excising every piece of writing you like and leaving the stuff you like less, people: she was suggesting that you consider taking a critical look at even your favorite sentences and paragraphs. All too often, inexperienced self-editors will simply skip over their pet bits.
That being said, kill your darlings (selectively!) is excellent advice for habitual self-plagiarists. Perhaps a writer need not sacrifice the first of the litter, but the second through seventeenth should definitely go.
That's especially good strategy if the phrasing repetition was deliberate in the first place. If a line was clever once, many a darling-coddling writer thinks, the reader will find it so the second time — and the fifth, and the forty-seventh. Deliberate redundancy is particularly common with humor: since situation comedies tend to rely upon repetition of catch phrases, many aspiring writers believe that the mere fact of repetition will render a line funny.
On the page, it seldom works. Sorry to be the one to break it to you sitcom lovers, but it quickly becomes tedious on the stage and screen as well.
Don't believe me? Consider this: as those of us who live in caucus states know to our perennial (or at least quadrennial) sorrow, nowhere is the practice of self-plagiarism more prevalent than in the garden-variety political speech. Not only from speech to speech — oh, you thought your favorite candidate gave a speech only once, then threw it away? She has fourteen more campaign stops today! — but throughout a political season. Heck, as anyone who has listened closely to two consecutive State of the Union addresses can tell you, they often contain the same phrases from year to year No matter how fiercely THE WEST WING tried to promote the notion of presidential speechwriters as ultra-creative writers, if you look at speeches given by the same politician over time, chances are that you'll find self-plagiarism of epidemic proportions.
There's a good narrative reason for that, of course: the repetition of an idea makes it memorable. The ideas — and usually even the actual phrases — of the beginning of a political speech invariably recur throughout, to drive the point home.
Doubt that? Okay, answer this: do you think people would remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream if he had said it only once in his famous March on Washington speech?
On paper, phrase repetition is often problematic, but in and of itself, repetition does not necessarily equal self-plagiarism. On paper, repetition can seem very cool to the writer, as a means of creating a galloping rhythm. On paper, phrase repetition can be used for emphasis (as I have just done in this very paragraph, much to Millicent's chagrin).
We all know how phrase repetition can create a sense of momentum in writing, don't we? Take, for instance, the ending of the St. Crispin's Day speech from HENRY V:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Now that's a political speech, caucus-goers: great spoken out loud, but Millicent-enragingly repetitious in print.
Did that last observation catch you by surprise? Yes, this particular speech happened to fall from an exceedingly talented pen, but unfortunately, a lot of poor writers favor this rhythmic device, too. Because it is ubiquitous, it tends to be a rather risky trick to try to pull off in a short piece, such as a synopsis, or in the first few pages of a manuscript submitted for a contest or as part of a query packet.
Please tell me that you aren't even considering repetitive phrasing in your query. Or that the first line of your synopsis is the first line of your novel. Please. Please. Please?
Why is it dangerous? Well, to professional eyes, trained to search for the repetition of a single verb within a paragraph as evidence of boring writing, we few, we happy few will not necessarily jump off the page for the beauty of its rhythm. In an ultra-quick reading (as virtually all professional readings are, lest we forget), it may be mistaken for an incomplete edit: you meant to change we few to we happy few," but you forgot to delete the words you did not want, Bill.
A pop quiz to see if you've been paying attention: why would a savvy submitter not want to convey the impression of an incomplete editing job? That's right: because that's the birthmark of the dreaded Frankenstein manuscript, the fish that Millicent is only too happy to throw back into the sea.
Remember, too, that it may not take many instances of repetition for Millicent to draw this conclusion. The writer may not realize that she has reused a particularly spectacular image from Ch. 1 in Ch. 3, but believe me, if there is repetition, professional readers will catch it.
And no, I don't care how many times I have to repeat that point. It's vital for your happiness as a writer to understand that the pros are trained to catch redundancy. Editors in particular are notorious for remembering entire pages verbatim.
It's a specialized brain function, sharpened by use. When I was teaching at the University of Washington, I was known for noticing when term papers resubmitted in subsequent quarters, even though I read literally hundreds of papers per term. I would even frequently remember who wrote the original. As you may well imagine, I quickly acquired a reputation amongst the fraternities and sororities who kept files of A term papers for their members to, ahem, borrow.
Which is why, in case those of you who have had the good fortune/petrifying experience of receiving professional feedback, paraphrasing what you've said earlier in the manuscript tends to be significantly less frowned-upon in editorial circles than outright literal repetition. While very similar passages may earn you an ill-humored rebuke from Millicent, Maury, or Mehitabel, generalized repetition usually will not knock you out of consideration if the recurring bits occur far apart, such as at the beginning and end of a book.
In a shorter piece, however — such as, say, those first 50 pages of your novel that nice agent asked you to send for consideration, or the 15 pages plus synopsis — it certainly can cost you. Repetition sticks in the professional reader's craw, nagging at her psyche like a pebble in a shoe. It's in your best interest to do it as little as possible.
"Now wait a minute," I hear some of you out there grumbling. "You told us just a few minutes ago that Oscar Wilde repeated the same quips in one play after another. It became his trademark, in fact. So why should I be punished for using a single particularly sterling line 150 pages apart in my novel?"
You have a point, of course, grumblers. The next time you trot out this argument, you might bolster it by mentioning that Aaron Sorkin reused not only lines and speeches from SPORTS NIGHTin THE WEST WING, but entire plot lines and basic characters.
Tell you what: after you make it big, I give you permission to establish a trademark phrase and use it as often as you like. Until you do — as I sincerely hope you will — all I can do is tell you that phrasing repetition tends to annoy agents, editors, and contest judges.
Seriously, I will repeat it all night. Don't tempt me.
"But Anne," I hear the well-read among you protest, and with good reason, "many of the classic novelists I studied in my English 101 class used phrasing repetition to create invocatory rhythms. They also repeated dialogue, because, as you like to point out early and often, real-life dialogue is hugely redundant. If it's good enough for those long-ago greats, why isn't it good enough for me — or for Millicent?"
One reason leaps to mind: you're not writing on a typewriter, are you? You're probably composing your book in a word processing program. Not only can you spell- and grammar-check with an ease that would have made the late, great Ms. Parker gasp with envy — with the touch of a button or two, you can search your own writing to see if you have used a phrase before.
You think Millicent is unaware of that capacity?
You are perfectly right, though, close readers: all writers of book-length works have repeated themselves at one time or another. If a simile struck us as the height of cleverness last week, chances are good that we will like it next week as well. Each time we use it, it may seem fresh to us. These little forays into self-indulgence are so common, in fact, that literary critics have a name for them: tropes.
F. Scott Fitzgerald was a notorious troper in his short stories. My least favorite: a thwarted heroine's sobbing out (usually with her face hidden by her smartly-bobbed hair), "I'm so beautiful – why can't I be happy?" immediately before she does something self-immolatingly stupid to remove herself from the possibility of marrying the story's protagonist occurs at least four times throughout his collected works.
It may well pop up more; I merely stopped counting after four. That was, not entirely coincidentally, when I threw the book across the room.
Why Uncle Scott found that particular line so very attractive in a pretty woman's mouth remains a mystery eternal — it's hard to believe he ever actually heard a sane female utter it, even in jest. But he did, evidently, and now it's stuck to his name for all eternity.
Learn from his unhappy fate, I beg of you: no matter how marvelous a line of text is, use it only once.
This will require careful reading to enforce. Your garden-variety self-plagiarism is less obvious to the untrained eye than ol' Scott's outright dialogue reuse. Spread out over an entire text — or, as it often appears in the case of successful authors of series, once per book — it may be fairly innocuous, the kind of thing that might only bug someone who read manuscripts for a living.
Like, say, Millicent or yours truly. Do not underestimate, for your own sake, our memories. Unbound manuscripts do not typically survive intact being flung across the room.
E.F. Benson, author of two delightful series, the Lucia books and the Dodo books, was evidently extraordinarily fond of using Arctic analogies for one person suddenly grown cold to another. To gather but a small nosegay of examples:
"It was as if an iceberg had spoken,"
"It was as if the North Pole had spoken,"
"icebergs passing in the North Sea" must speak to one another as two characters had, and
"Mapp turned to ice."
See the problem? As a Benson enthusiast, I was able to come up with four of them without even pulling any of his books off the shelf These repetitions, deliberate or not, stick with the reader, just as surely as repeated phrases stick with the audience of a political speech.
That doesn't mean it is a bad analogy, of course, if not a startlingly original one. Like any other literary device, however, time it's used, it becomes less effective.
Yet again, we see an awfully good reason to read your entire book (or requested chapters, or contest submission) out loud before you submit it — and not just as a cursory mumble-through, either. Believe it or not, just as dialogue that seemed fine on the page can suddenly seem stilted when spoken aloud, phrases, sentences, and images that your eye might not catch as repetitious are often quite obvious to the ear.
Another good reason to read aloud: to make sure that each of your major characters speaks in a different cadence. It's substantially easier for the reader to follow who is speaking when that way.
Don't stand there and tell me that all of Aaron Sorkin's and David Mamet's characters speak in identical cadences, as though they all shared one vast collective mind. To my sensitive antennae, nothing is more potentially migraine-inducing than an evening of the percussive prose of Mamet. (Unless it's a chamber concert of Stephen Sondheim's greatest hits.)
As if the prospect of annoying your humble correspondent were not sufficient incentive to eschew identical dialogue patterns for every character, remember what I said back in Queryfest about the dangers of those new to the biz assuming that what the already-established have done, they may get away with as well?
Uh-huh. In a first manuscript, it would be considered poor craft to have every character in the book sound the same. Not to mention poor character development. While I'm on the subject, keep an ear out in your read-through for lines of dialogue that cannot be said aloud in a single breath without passing out — they tend to pull professional readers out of the story.
Why, you shout breathlessly? Well, in real life, listeners tend to interrupt speakers when the latter pause for — wait for it — breath. Cramming too many syllables into an uninterrupted speech usually doesn't ring true on the page. Allow your characters to breathe occasionally, and your dialogue will seem more realistic.
I'd give you a concrete example, but I meant to post a short blog today, and here I have gone long again. Which begs the question: I'm so beautiful — why can't I be happy?
There, now at least one real, live human female has said it; don't say I never did anything for you, Uncle Scott. Keep up the good work!
Posted on February 29, 2012 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Queryfest, part XXVII: the ring of truth that helps Millicent separate the compelling factual storytelling from the bull (with apologies to Ernest Hemingway, but not to Mark Twain)
Queryfest, part XXVII: the ring of truth that helps Millicent separate the compelling factual storytelling from the bull (with apologies to Ernest Hemingway, but not to Mark Twain)
We all know, because Mark Twain was kind enough to tell us, that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." It always comes as a shock to writers, however, that an anecdote can become someone else's property before the person who lived it has had a chance to turn it into one heck of a story.
You would think that I would be used to it by now, wouldn't you? Actually, blogging makes story-migration much more annoying. Since my usual excuse for not posting here as often as I would like — which is to say: as often as I did in the bad old days, when I occasionally posted as often as twice a day, as self-editing and marketing advice struck me; hey, there's a reason that this site contains thousands of pages of posts — is not particularly exciting, I sometimes find myself longing for more thrilling justifications. It's not that I actively yearn to be kidnapped by pirates, or drafted by the State Department to write a constitution for an emerging nation, or see my studio overrun by blue wildebeests intent upon retarding the forward course of American literature, of course; as a memoirist, I simply like to work with better material than hey, an editing client's publishing house just asked for a last-minute revision.
And yet in the last week and a half, when life has kindly provided me with the stuff of gripping narrative nonfiction, I've been too bushed to take full literary advantage of it. When my chiropractor asked incredulously, "How precisely did you dislocate a rib while lying flat on your back by yourself?" the answer made him choke with laughter. He's been dining out on the story for a week, and I still don't have the requisite energy to do it justice in print.
As Uncle Mark also had the foresight to inform us, "the trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."
Speaking of misplaced anecdotes, my friend Belinda has led a fascinating life, stuffed to the gills with the raw material of memoir. She's climbed mountains (yes, because they were there, now that you mention it), run with the bulls in Pamplona disguised as a man (because they usually aren't there), outrun riots in Southeast Asia (because the timing of her arrival was bad), observed meteor showers from the top of a tall tree in Canada (because the timing of her arrival was good), embraced lion cubs (because she knew the right keeper to be welcome), backed away from an angry grizzly (because she knew how to tell when she wasn't welcome), cooked with M.F.K. Fisher (because she knew a thing or two about fresh truffles) and mistakenly ordered a mushroom omelette in the late 1960s in Thailand that made her hallucinate that the restaurant owner's goat had grown to the size of Godzilla (okay, I haven't the faintest idea what she was thinking here).
I've been trying for years to cajole her into writing a travel memoir, but every time we sit down to talk about it, I can't help but notice that her anecdotes occasionally suffer from a rather serious narrative problem: it's not always clear at first what they are about. Or even about whom.
It's not that Belinda's memories have become confused over the last ninety-one years. Far from it: her tales of going door to door on election days during the Great Depression, cajoling the lonely and the shut-in to visit local polling places to vote for her candidate of choice with vague promises of hitting the town afterward, are so vividly rendered that they border on the illustrated. (Hey, she was a big fan of F.D.R., even at 15.) Nor does she sketch the background or secondary characters too lightly, a standard autobiographical pitfall: all too often, memoirs fail to provide either enough of a sense of place for the reader to picture where the narrator is, or enough character development for anyone but the narrator.
As Millicent the agency screener would be only too happy to tell you, there are an awful lot of memoirs out there apparently by authors wandering around uninhabited planets with no scenery to speak of. Or so she must surmise, from how little those memoirists seem to comment on anything or anyone around them.
That's not necessarily a drawback in spoken storytelling, of course; many a good cocktail party yarn contains no character development or sense of place at all, but it's often death to a memoir submission. Why? Pull out your hymnals and sing along, long-time readers of this blog: what works in a verbal anecdote will not necessarily fly in a written memoir. Telling a story well aloud is simply a different art than recounting it well on paper.
Nor does Belinda over-rely upon pronouns, another common bugbear of anecdotalists. We've all found ourselves in the clutches of a storyteller who doesn't specify, right? In a story with a lot of hes running around — say, on a street in Pamplona — it's helpful if the hearer knows which one is which: They chased him down the street as he ran alongside, screaming, and they cheered from the windows above is not, let's face it, particularly clear narration.
Yet as any Millicent screening memoir submissions on a regular basis can attest, that particular species of verbal confusion turns up on the memoir page all the time. Chant it along with me now, veteran readers: what doesn't work in a verbal anecdote often will not work in a memoir, either. And why? Shout it out: because telling a story well aloud is simply a different art than recounting it well on paper.
Sensing a pattern here, or do I need to trot out another Mark Twain quote? Okay, if you insist: ""It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
So you would think that Belinda would have it made as a memoirist, wouldn't you? Even better, perhaps because her storytelling style has been developed over decades of chatting with relative strangers, often in languages with which she was not altogether familiar, she steers clear of the ubiquitous tendency to assume that anyone who might be interested in her stories would necessarily side with her in a tale of conflict. Her villains are well drawn enough that her hearers do not need to be told whom to hate, and her heroes' exploits speak for themselves.
Why might that be unusual in a memoir submission, you ask? Because, alas for literary achievement, most would-be memoirists are used to telling their life stories to their kith, kin, and folks they might happen to meet at a party — in other words, to folk predisposed to think well of them. (Oh, you're hostile to fellow partygoers who tell anecdotes well?) As listeners, most of us lean on the kind side: if a storyteller entertains us, we will root for him as we listen.
Quoth Twain: "in all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."
That's why, I'm told, world-famous raconteur John Steinbeck used to change which character he was each time he told an anecdote: no matter who he said he was, that person was the hero of the current version. You might want to try it as a narrative exercise: not only is it good practice in perspective-shifting, but a canny way to suss out what story elements create more or less sympathy for a protagonist.
It also, rumor has it, allowed Uncle John to glean valuable feedback about which character he should pretend to be when he next told the story in front of a pretty woman. I'm sure ol' Mark said a thing or two about that, but I prefer Anita Owen's 1894 poem as a retort: "O dreamy eyes/they tell sweet lies of Paradise;/and in those eyes the love-light lies/and lies — and lies– and lies!"
Credibility, you see, is largely in the eye — or ear — of the beholder. We've all been swayed by a persuasive speaker. An audience's tendency to side with the narrator does not necessarily manifest on the printed page, though, where the memoirist is conveying her story to total strangers — and not face to face. Readers are significantly less likely to give a memoir's narrator the benefit of the doubt than hearers are, possibly because it's a whole heck of a lot harder to roll one's eyes and mutter, "Yeah, right," while one's boss is telling a story in a bar after work than over a book in one's lap.
That's vital to recognize, if one wants to write memoir well. In fact, let's go ahead and add it to the day's list of aphorisms: on the page, readers expect a narrator to win their empathy, not assume it. Which, again, is another way in which telling a story well aloud is simply a different art than recounting it well on paper.
I hate to depress you further, but truth compels me to say that Millicent is even less likely to jump on the narrator's bandwagon. She is paid not to cut a memoir query or submission any slack.
Why bring that up in a series on querying — or, for that matter, within the context of the discussion of memoir voice and story structure I seem to have been sneaking into the last half-dozen posts? Because so few memoir queries' book description paragraphs convey the impression that the querier is a particularly talented storyteller.
A shame, really, as plenty of extremely talented storytellers' queries get rejected on this basis. There's a reason for that: the overwhelming majority of memoirists tell their tales on the page — both query and manuscript — as though the reader already knows them personally, and thus is predisposed to like them and their stories. On the manuscript page, that's just not true. So from Millicent's perspective, memoir openings that neither grab the reader from line 1 nor convince the reader to start liking the narrator and his writing style enough to root for him by the bottom of page 1 to want to follow him through three or four hundred pages are ample reason to reject most of the submissions she sees.
Unfortunately, that's not how memoirists tend to think of their stories. You know the tune by now: because telling a story well aloud is simply a different art than recounting it well on paper.
Because Belinda's storytelling style steers clear of all of these common memoir shortcomings, I think her life story would translate well to the page. My one qualm about what she might import from conversation: her anecdotes frequently suffer from the assumption that the hearer will have begun following the story at some point prior to when the words began coming out of her mouth. Presumably via some sort of telepathy.
It's not that her stories are unclear; she merely does not always begin them at the beginning. Quite frequently, she will start somewhere in the middle, as the first part of the tale had already to been going strong in her own mind. Or even somewhere near the end: "And so I said to Henry Miller," she suddenly said the other day, "if he wanted to write about what had just happened, he would have to arm-wrestle me for it."
Admittedly, that's a pretty great teaser, but aren't you just the least bit curious to what this intriguing conclusion refers? Millicent would be, but being forced to judge a memoir only by what's on the page in front of her, she would have no way of finding out. Memoirists are all too prone to forget, unfortunately, that the reader cannot tug upon the author's sleeve and pipe, "Hey, Ambrose, what were you talking about here?"
"Get your facts first," Uncle Mark tells us, "then you can distort them as you please."
As I was actually in the room with Belinda, I enjoyed a luxury Millicent does not: the ability to ask follow-up questions. If only my rib permitted my conveying the rest of the anecdote — or if I shared my chiropractor's willingness to abscond with other people's stories — you'd be rolling in the proverbial aisles.
But the inherent humor of the story simply wouldn't matter if Belinda made the same mistake in telling it on the page as she did out loud — which Millicent sees all the time, incidentally. Steam-of-consciousness reasoning abounds in memoir submissions, synopses, and even, believe it or not, queries. Yet no matter how amusing, instructive, or entertaining a story might be in the teller's mind, if its facts are not clear on the page, it's not good memoir storytelling.
Or at any rate, not a narrative style that's ready for publication. Clarity is, after all, the minimum requirement for professional prose, not an optional extra.
Do my finely-tuned antennae pick up some ambient disgruntlement? "I get why Millie might regard hard-to-follow storytelling as a red flag in a submission," memoirists everywhere concede, "but I don't get how she could reasonably use it as a criterion in judging a query. As you have pointed out several times in the course of this series, the book description paragraph in a query should not tell the entire story of the book, merely introduce Millicent to its premise. So as long as my memoir query presents me as an interesting person in an interesting situation…"
Pardon my interrupting, disgruntled disembodied voices, but an astoundingly high percentage of memoirists who are in fact interesting people faced with interesting conflicts do not present themselves that way in their queries. All too often, talented autobiographers talk about their stories, rather than using their perhaps formidable storytelling skills to spin their legitimately fascinating yarns. The result, alas, tends to read something like this:
Pardon Millicent's asking, but what the heck is this book about? It sounds exciting, whatever it is, but why not give some general indication of the story's central conflict, where it takes place, and who the narrator is? Hey, while you're at it, Montecristo, why make a secret of the book's title? And why oh why is it printed on such funky-sized paper?
While we're asking rhetorical questions, forgive my bringing it up, but is this story fiction or nonfiction?
Oh, you laugh, but you would not believe how often memoir- and fiction-representing agents alike receive queries that leave them guessing on that last point. They even more frequently see queries that make them guess who the narrator is, what her story is about, and/or why memoir readers would be interested in learning about it.
None of these things are foregone conclusions for a memoir — but that's not what a writer of the real tends to think about when sitting down to write, is it? Implicitly, almost all of us (yes, I started here, too) conceive of our memoir narratives with an eye to how those who already know us — and, by extension, at least the bare bones of our stories — will react to our telling the truth about it.
Often, there's a good reason for that: if Aunt Madge ordered you at age 8 not to tell anyone about the exploding peach preserve debacle, it's safe to assume that she might become slightly irritated when you reveal it to an admiring public when you are 47. It's not safe to assume, however, that Millicent, her boss, or the editor to whom your future agent will be shopping your memoir proposal will be just fine with your being vague about what happened because you don't want to offend good ol' Madge.
Nor, alas, should a savvy querier presume that the fact a story really happened will render it inherently interesting to total strangers. If you want to provoke eye-rolling and moaning in a Millicent that works at a nonfiction agency, by all means, include one of the following phrases in your memoir query: true story, really happened, real-life tale, my own story.
I hate to be the one to break it to you (but better you hear it from me than not know why your query got rejected, right?), but in a memoir query, all of these phrases are redundant. Of course, a memoir is a true story, based upon something that really happened to the author: that's the definition of memoir, is it not?
Trust the Millicent opening your query to be aware of that. But — I feel an aphorism coming on — don't presume that the fact you lived your own life story will be enough to interest agents and editors in your book.
At least not all by itself. As anyone who works with memoirs for a living could tell you, just because something really happened does not necessarily mean it will make a good book. As the agents who represent memoir like to say, it all depends upon the writing.
I sense the agent-seeking memoirists out there shifting uncomfortably in their desk chairs. "But Anne!" you protest, and with what excellent justification! "I would love to toss my manuscript, or even just the sample chapter from my book proposal, at Millicent, so she could judge my book by, well, my book. But the agent of my dreams' submission guidelines specify that I should query without any supporting materials. That means, horrifyingly, that I have only that 1-page query letter to convince her that I've got a great story on my hands and that I can write it well. Help!"
I appreciate your panic, chair-shifters. Happily for us all, it is indeed possible for a good storyteller to convey enough of a memoir's story arc in a paragraph (or, at most, two) to grab our Millicent. The trick lies in conveying the premise vividly enough to make it apparent what is happening, who the memoirist is in the story, and what is at stake in the conflict.
Does the clang of a thousand jaws hitting a thousand desktops mean that some of you wish you'd known that was the goal before you first wrote a query for your memoir? If so, you're not alone; as Twain tells us, "I was seldom able to see an opportunity until it had ceased to be one."
Fortunately, today's brave reader-exemplar did see the opportunity to present Millicent with one heck of a premise — and make it clear why readers will find it both original and compelling. And I, for one, could not be more tickled to see her pull off this difficult challenge, as I (and regular readers of this blog) already know from past exposure to this writer's work that the memoirist in question can write.
So join me please, in appreciating long-time Author! Author! community member and generous volunteer Betsy Ross' (not her real name, of course, nor her real contact info) missive to Millicent. As always, if you find you are having trouble reading individual words, try holding down the COMMAND key and pressing + repeatedly to enlarge the image.
Doesn't leave much doubt as to what the book is about, does it? That descriptive paragraph makes it abundantly clear what happened, who the author was in the story, and what was at stake for her. Even more unusual, she has, unlike most memoirists, taken the time to figure out what her platform for telling this story is over and above having lived it! Beautifully done, Betsy!
But are that genuine grabber of a description and the platform as presented enough to wow Millicent? Possibly — yet I think we can improve the odds a bit. First, let's make a few cosmetic changes, to polish away a few eye-distracters. Compare the touched-up version with the original: can you spot the subtle differences?
Comes across as a trifle more professional already, does it not? Yet the changes I made were quite minor: I moved Betsy's contact information into the header (it had been on the first line of text), added a necessary comma in paragraph 2, line 1, made paragraph 2, line 4 conform with a grammatical expectation, and added a hyphen to e-mail in paragraph 4, line 2. All tiny stuff, but the result is closer to what Millicent will expect.
For the same reason, I changed trial to case in paragraph 2, line 5. I haven't read the memoir, so I don't know if the trial lasted 17 years, but as a matter of storytelling, the original word choice raised that question.
Is it me, though, or is the transition between the descriptive paragraph and the platform paragraph a bit more abrupt than it needs to be? And are those thoughtfully-constructed credentials presented in the most effective manner?
Again, I think we can make some improvements. Although I'm flattered that Betsy would present her abundantly justified win in an Author! Author! competition as her primary credential, for this story, it's not.
How do I know that? Because she has buried a humdinger of a credential later in that paragraph. She's also cast unnecessary doubt upon her delightfully apt professional credential by saying that she is trained to do her job. Isn't that assumed? And isn't the assertion that she can be reached via her listed contact information self-evident?
Doesn't, in short, something about the wording and presentation of these perfectly fine credentials imply that Betsy is not as sure of her platform as she should be?
Look how much more persuasive this query can be if we alter the running order of the platform paragraph and phrase her credentials a bit more assertively. In order to heighten Millicent's sense of Betsy's professionalism, I've also changed the rather confusing second magazine name to the way it would turn up in a Google search and removed that logically unnecessary sentence in the last paragraph. I also seem to have tightened the wording in the descriptive paragraph a little; I've never been able to resist adding the Oxford comma.
Her platform seems better-grounded this way, doesn't it? Yet it's all the same facts; they are merely set forth in a manner that aligns more closely with how Millicent is accustomed to seeing such good credentials show up in a query. They're also, to be blunt about it, harder for a skimming eye to miss.
If I were most querying teachers, I would leave it at that: this query is likely to fly with many Millicents now. Yet to an experienced Millicent or her boss, Betsy's query still might raise eyebrows in two respects. Any guesses why?
No? Would it help if I quoted Twain again? "Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often."
Okay, so that clue was a trifle opaque. I'm going to go ahead and remove the first of the red flags. Compare this version with the last, and we'll meet again on the other side to discuss why Millicent will like it better.
Did you catch it? This is one of those secret-handshake things, I'm afraid: to a professional reader, statements like my book will not only answer the initial question, but will also detail… would seem a trifle heavy-handed in a book description. They distance the reader from the tale, decreasing its impact. It's also, let's face it, perfectly obvious in a query that the description is talking about what's in the book.
Instead, why not just tell the story directly? It provides a much better opportunity for Betsy to show off what a talented storyteller she is — in a query that, frankly, has enough space left on the page to add a few more specifics. I just mention.
There's another red flag here, though, that might actually discourage some Millicents from reading as far as that compelling descriptive paragraph. Want a hint? We turn again to Twain: ""All generalizations are false, including this one."
Giving up so soon? I can't say as I blame you; this one is purely a matter of how the publishing industry thinks of books. Take a gander at a more Millicent-friendly target audience statement.
Goosebump-inducing this time around, isn't it? That's true for a couple of reasons. First, the appeal of the book is shown this time around, rather than told: by immediately leaping into the ultra-personal perspective appropriate for a memoir, that opening paragraph makes the stakes absolutely clear — and startling.
Let's face it, it would be hard to be that surprising in the distant, analytical voice of the original target audience description. Betsy's probably right about to whom this book is likely to appeal, but leaping straight to the conflict is just better storytelling. Especially since it allows both the first and second paragraphs to shout at Millicent: "This is a story you're not going to hear anywhere else!"
Better than just telling the old girl that Betsy's uniquely qualified to share this story, isn't it? Not to mention more emotionally powerful.
For Millicent, though, there's another reason this last version would be more convincing: true crime and memoir are quite different book categories, appealing to overlapping yet not overall very similar readerships. Again, Betsy is probably correct that her book would draw upon both of those audiences, but by stating it so baldly — and so early in the query — she's inviting Millicent to leap to the conclusion that this is a writer that doesn't understand how book categories work. At minimum, that's going to water down the impact of Betsy's MBA, from a publishing perspective.
As, you guessed it, Mark Twain observed, "Life does not consist mainly, or even largely, of facts and happenings. It consists mainly of the storm of thought that is forever flowing through one's head." That's also true of memoir. What makes a story unique, in the proper sense of being one of a kind, is the memoirist's perspective.
In Betsy's case, that perspective is genuinely jaw-dropping. So why shouldn't she make Millicent's jaw drop as soon as she possibly can? And why shouldn't she bring all of her storytelling talents to the task, drawing her future agent right away into that 13-year-old's fragmented world?
Life is crammed to the gills with the unexpected, my friends: ribs don't just leap out of their natural habitats by themselves. But as the agents like to say, it all depends on the writing. The miracle of talent, not just the content of the story, provides the difference between a second-hand anecdote about it and a memoir so vivid that the reader feels the she is the one whose rib has been displaced.
I have a feeling that readers are going to be reaping the benefits of that particular miracle in Betsy's case. Many thanks to her for volunteering this quite strong query, so we could experiment with making its strengths shine still brighter. Best of luck finding the right agent for this startling story, Ms. Ross, and everybody, keep up the good work!
Posted on December 27, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Details that tell it all: a post-Boxing Day story about excess baggage
Details that tell it all: a post-Boxing Day story about excess baggage
Before I launch into today's post, I am delighted to bring you some fabulous news about a member of the Author! Author! community, long-time reader and incisive commenter Kate Evangelista. Kate's first novel, TASTE, will be published by Crescent Moon Press! Please join me in congratulating her on this wonderful leap forward in her writing career — and in looking forward eagerly to the day when I can let all of you know that the book is available for sale.
It sounds like a great read, too. Take a gander at the blurb:
At Barinkoff Academy, there's only one rule: no students on campus after curfew. Phoenix McKay soon finds out why after she finds herself on school grounds at sunset. A group calling themselves night students threatens to taste her flesh until she is saved by a mysterious, alluring boy. With his pale skin, dark eyes, and mesmerizing voice, Demitri is both irresistible and impenetrable.
Unfortunately, the gorgeous and playful Yuri has other plans. He pulls Phoenix into the dangerous world of flesh eaters. When her life is turned upside down, she becomes the keeper of a deadly secret that will rock the foundations of the ancient civilization living beneath Barinkoff Academy. She doesn't realize until it is too late that the closer she gets to both Demitri and Yuri, the more she is plunging them all into a centuries-old coup d'état.
Sounds exciting, eh? It also, if you'll forgive my lapsing into the practical in mid-kudo, an awfully darned good role model for anyone on currently in the process of trying to write a descriptive paragraph for a query or a synopsis, by the way should anyone be interested. Kate's charming author photo, too, is instructive: she comes across as friendly, interesting, and certainly literate, with all of those shelves in the background. Not to mention the playful gleam in her eye that promises adventure to come.
So well done on several fronts, Kate. It's a genuine pleasure to see a writer who has worked as hard as you have receive recognition, and I, for one, want to read that book.
It just goes to show you, campers: it can be done. Keep persevering, everybody — and keep that good news rolling in!
Back to the business at hand — or rather, back to the hiatus between the last theory-minded Queryfest posts and the rest of this week's reader-generated practical examples. (Look for the latter to begin on Wednesday and continue through the end of the year!) After having devoted Sunday's post to a Christmas-themed parable about the importance of vivid, original details to impressing every querier's beloved nemesis, Millicent the agency screener, I fully intended to run this companion piece, another anecdote-based lecture on specifics, on Boxing Day. Then the lights went out (again!) but the oven remained operational (post-Christmas cookies!), and I never managed to post this yesterday.
I suppose I could just have skipped it and moved on to pragmatic query consideration today, but in case I was too subtle in my last post: just as the threshold between an opening page of a manuscript or book proposal that leaps off the page at a weary-eyed Millicent and one that doesn't is frequently a turn of phrase, image, or specific that surprises her, the difference between a query that makes a weary-eyed Millicent jerk bolt upright, exclaiming, "Wow! This story/argument/memoir story arc has potential!" and one that leaves her unmoved is sometimes as little as a single, creative detail that she's never seen before.
That's harder than it sounds to pull off: as I pointed out on Sunday, Millicent — like her boss the agent, the editors to whom the agent pitches clients' books, the members of the editorial committees to which those editors suggest manuscripts they would like to acquire, and any experienced contest judge — reads a heck of a lot. Not only in general, but in the book category that her boss represents.
And aspiring writers, unfortunately for their queries and submissions, often do not have the time, inclination, or the access to what others are writing to be anywhere near that familiar with what Millicent would and would not consider a cliché. Even writers who, bless their warm and literature-loving hearts, routinely improve their professional knowledge by not only keeping up with the new releases in their categories, but also seeking out works by first-time authors of books like theirs in order to see what has pleased the agents and editors who handle them recently, will often remain blissfully unaware that a pet plot twist, character trait, or turn of phrase is not original. To them, it just sounds good.
How could they know, poor benighted souls, those particular plot twists, character traits, and turn of phrase have turned up in a good quarter of what crossed Millicent's desk within the last six months? Admittedly, if any of those things appeared in a recent bestseller in that book category, it's a safe bet that our Millie will be inundated with them for the next two years — more if a movie version appears. And because so many writers define good writing in a particular category by what sells well — not the only criterion, I think, nor the best — a submitter is often genuinely unaware that his nifty description on page 14 echoes the same nifty description on page 247 of a bestseller, a fact that almost certainly will not be lost upon a well-read Millicent.
At least, not after she's cast her eyes over the 53rd similar submission. Of the week.
Of course, not all popular elements are derived from established authors' works. By some mysterious means known only to the Muses alone, the zeitgeist seems to whisper the same suggestions in thousands of writerly ears simultaneously. So often does this occur, and so lengthy is the lag time between submission to an agency and eventual publication for most first books, that even an extremely conscientious trawler of the latest releases would have a hard time predicting what types of details or story arcs to avoid this year, as opposed to next.
What does all of that mean in practice? Well, it's pretty easy to bore Millicent, for one thing: see the same plot, plot twist, memoir story arc, or descriptive detail 1,700 times in any given year, and you might become a trifle inured to its charms, too. In order for a detail, image, or argument to impress her as original, she genuinely has never to have seen it before — or, more realistically, never have seen it done in that particular way before.
Or anywhere near as well. And even then, she has to like it.
That doesn't mean, though, that going completely wacky or waxing surrealistic is necessarily the way to win her literary heart, either. As we have discussed before, publishing pros make a pretty strong distinction between the fresh, an original concept, twist, or voice that's likely to appeal to an already-established book-buying audience, and the weird, an original concept, twist, or voice that doesn't really fit comfortably into either the expectations of the book category for which the author is ostensibly writing or the current literary market. A fresh plot, story arc, or phrasing is the polar opposite of one that's been done (see earlier point about the fate of original twists from bestsellers), or, even worse, is dated.
Confused? You're certainly not alone: due to the market-orientated slant of freshness, a book idea that's fresh today might well have been done by tomorrow — and will be downright dated a year from now. Complicating things still further, agents and editors will sometimes talk about a fresh take on a well-worn topic.
"Okay, Anne," originality-lovers everywhere cry, scratching their heads. "I'll bite: is that good, or is that bad?
Well, it's a good question, for starters — but yes, a fresh take is a positive thing. Consider, for the sake of example, the story of the Ugly Duckling. That's certainly been done a million times, right? Since most YA readers and virtually all literate adults currently buying books on U.S. soil may already be presumed to be familiar with the basic story, it would be hard to surprise any reader, much less one as genre-savvy as Millicent, with the essential plot twist there. But if, for instance, a writer felt that the UD's turning out to be something completely different and pretty watered down the message of the early part of the tale — what, it would have been perfectly okay for the other poultry to have made fun of an ugly duck who actually was a duck? — and presented essentially the same premise, but had UD possess the ability to foresee that the duck pond was shrinking and lead her waddling brethren and sistern to swampy safety elsewhere, thus winning their respect, that would be a fresh take on a well-worn topic.
Oh, you may laugh, but a clever author did in fact create a similar variation on this story that was very successful, both artistically and commercially: it was a little number called THE COLOR PURPLE. Very fresh — in 1982. But do I even need to tell you how many Ugly Duckling variations the Millicents of the mid-eighties saw tumble into their inboxes? As anyone who perused women's fiction bookshelves regularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s could no down tell you to her sorrow, it was done. Over and over again. And since that essential plotline has been done so many times since, can you imagine how dated the same manuscript would appear if it showed up on Millicent's desk today?
So get your thinking caps on, campers. We're going to devote the rest of today's post to learning to walk the fine line between the Scylla of what's been done and the Charybdis of the weird. But before I launch into the how-to part of our program, allow me to tell you a little story.
To set it up for those of you who have not boarded a commercial airliner lately, since the airlines have started charging to check bags, many passengers have simply begun wheeling their bulky suitcases down the center aisle, fighting with one another to find space for them in the overhead bins. During the holidays, this battle royale necessarily entails jostling some passengers' shopping bags full of presents too delicate or valuable to pack in checked luggage. In the midst of this ongoing conflict between the crammers and the fearful, we join our intrepid memoirist.
After my companion and I were seated — he in 18B, your humble narrator in 18C — I felt my chest tighten: the gentleman behind me had evidently bathed that morning in some pepper-based cologne. That, or he was a secret agent for the airline transit authority, testing the viability of toxic scents in knocking nearby passengers senseless.
A sympathetic flight attendant told me I could move if I could find an empty seat away from the source of the nerve agent. Having first gobbled down some precautionary antihistamines to ward off an asthma attack, I wiggled my way into the center aisle to begin scouting.
Up by row six, a tall woman in cashmere with faux fur cuffs knocked me sideways — right into in the lap of the man in 6C. I repeatedly apologized for treating him like Santa Claus (he didn't seem to mind much), but I could not budge: the imperious woman was blocking the aisle too thoroughly while searching for a place to stow her immense roll-on luggage in the already crammed overhead bins.
A time-conscious flight attendant murmured in her wake, tactfully replacing the shopping bags the passenger was blithely flinging to the floor. "Could you please hurry, ma'am? We can't close the cabin doors until everyone is seated, and we're already behind schedule."
Clearly, though, that baggage had to be placed just so. As my assailant made her noisy way down the aisle, I was able to free myself of my human seat cushion and follow, clambering over the flotsam and jetsam the flight attendant could not manage to scoop up. I felt like the caboose in a slow-moving train.
By the time I could smell where I was supposed to be parked, the picky passenger had managed to free enough space in the bin above row nineteen to shove her suitcase inside. The flight attendant and I pushed from behind.
As I slipped, choking, into my assigned seat, the woman turned to the flight attendant. "Well, that's a relief. Now you need to switch my seat assignment."
The exhausted flight attendant looked at her blankly. "You're in 6E."
"Yes," the woman said testily, "but my bag is back here. I'll have to wait until everyone else gets off the plane before I can grab it. I need to sit next to it."
Feeling both revolutionary levels of resentment rising off the rest of the passengers and my throat constricting from the cologne fumes, I knew my time had come. I leapt to my feet. "She can have my seat! I don't mind coming back for my carry-on."
The woman had plopped herself into my seat before the flight attendant could even nod. She thanked no one.
The flight attendant propelled me forward to row six before the irritating passenger could change her mind. I gave the five extra bags of pretzels she slipped me to the man who had let me share his lap.
Amusing, I hope? Good, but as those of you who have been hanging around Author! Author! for a while had probably already begun suspecting by the end of the first paragraph, I didn't share that anecdote with you purely for entertainment value, or even to vent. (I thought the other passengers were going to attack the rude lady. She must have delayed our departure by 15 minutes.)
No, I've included this story here because it has an editing problem — several, actually. Any guesses?
Hands up if you think it is too long. Is the action/narrative ratio off? Do you think a swifter telling would have allowed the comedy inherent in the situation to come out more clearly, or would you have liked to see more internal reaction from the narrator?
Which is right? Well, it depends upon what kind of narrative the author is creating — and where the scene is going. In a memoir, the reader expects the narrator's character to be revealed through her reactions to the events around her, so I might well want to ramp that up. Getting out of the narrator's head and into her body might be a good place to start: I felt my chest tighten is a strong detail in that respect; it makes the same point as I began to worry, but does so by showing how the emotion manifested, rather than just naming it.
Oh, hadn't I mentioned lately that most of the memoir Millicent has been seeing lately seldom mentions a reaction occurring below the narrator's neck? I guess one has to read an awful lot of memoir manuscripts to know about that.
While showing, rather than the dreaded telling, is good strategy in many kinds of writing, there honestly isn't a one-size-fits-all revision strategy for fiction. How a savvy writer might go about showing what's going on in the scene above and what kind of details might make the piece sing would vary. In a romance, for instance, the reader would probably want a slightly different focus, perhaps showing my companion's dismay at being first left alone, then saddled with another seatmate, or more complex interactions with the gentleman with the lap. So the smart specifics to add here would illustrate the relationship between the narrator and her companion: he could make an ineffectual grab after her as she flees the cologne, for instance, or try to convince Santa to switch seats with him, so the pair could travel together.
If, by contrast, this is a scene intended for a thriller, and the reader has some reason to suspect that one of the passengers on the plane is carrying something lethal, this semi-amusing bit of business might merely be a means of prolonging the suspense, right? In that instance, I would want to edit to speed up this scene, so Millicent would not become impatient at a too-lengthy digression. Or I would have the protagonist spy another character doing something odd out of a corner of her eye, allowing the reader the fun of speculating whether the obnoxious woman was some sort of decoy, creating an intentional distraction from the real threat. If I really wanted to ratchet up the danger, our heroine could feel something cold and hard beneath her after she tumbled into Santa's lap: a gun?
Or, to surprise Millicent more, how about a titanium leg that can receive radio signals?
The possibilities are legion, right? Many self-editors, though, as well as a hefty percentage of writers' group critiquers, would not take intended book category into account when making decisions crucial to revising this scene. All too often, short and terse is deemed appropriate for any type of book.
But it doesn't always work, because — wait, I'm going to let you see why for yourself. Here's that scene again, winnowed down to a just-the-facts-ma'am telling. This, too, is a style Millie sees quite often in memoir submissions.
After my companion and I reached our seats, I felt my chest tighten: the guy behind me reeked of cologne. I waved down a flight attendant to ask if I could change seats, and she said yes, but she was too busy to find one for me. I gobbled down some precautionary antihistamines to ward off an asthma attack and began scouting.
A woman shoved me into some guy's lap in row six. She was trying to find an overhead bin to stow her luggage, but the ones near her seat were already crammed. The flight attendant kept urging her to hurry, since the plane couldn't start taxiing until everyone was seated. I remained trapped in the guy's lap until the woman had exhausted all of the possibilities near her seat and moved up the aisle, with the flight attendant replacing the items she had displaced.
The woman finally found enough space for her bag above row nineteen, just behind me. But before I could buckle myself in, the woman demanded to sit near her bag, rather than in her assigned seat.
The passenger and flight attendant had a small argument about it, causing the other fliers to express resentment. I offered to switch seats with her, in order to solve both of our problems. The flight attendant gave me extra pretzels; I shared them with the guy whose lap I had previously occupied.
Not a very effective editing job, is it? It's precisely the same story, true, but most of its charm has evaporated. Any guesses why?
If you immediately shot your hand into the air, exclaiming, "The humorous voice is gone!" lower that hand 18 inches and pat yourself on the back with it. Very, very frequently, insecure self-editors will sacrifice narrative voice to pace, resulting in the kind of tale you see above.
But one of the main selling points a writer has for an agent or editor is freshness of voice! If it's largely edited out, how is Millicent to know that this is a writer with an interesting and unique worldview?
If, on the other hand, you cried out, "In this version, the reader doesn't really learn much about who these characters are or why this incident is important. It's just a flat description of events," you also deserve a pat on the back, because that's also true. Characterization is a very frequent casualty of the revision process, because, well, it takes up room on the page.
I'm reserving today's gold star, though, for those of you who noticed both of these problems, yet pointed out, "Hey, Anne, both of these examples share a flaw I'd like to see fixed: what are any of these people like? Admittedly, the second example exhibits much weaker characterization than the first, but most of these characters are one-note: the pushy passenger is rude, the flight attendant harried, and the guy with the lap — well, let's just say that I couldn't pick him out of a police lineup, based upon this account. I'd find this story both more enjoyable and more plausible if the narrative showed them more. In fact, isn't this a show, don't tell problem?"
Wow, that's one well-earned gold star. Both versions are indeed light in the characterization department.
Some lovers of terseness out there find that diagnosis a bit dismaying, I sense. "But Anne," they protest, struggling manfully to keep their commentary brief, "isn't the usual goal of editing to cut out what doesn't work? You admitted above that the original anecdote was a little long — won't adding characterization just make it longer?"
Not necessarily — if the characterization is achieved not through analysis or lengthy descriptions, but through the inclusion of vivid, unexpected details and interesting phrasing. Such as:
The lanky woman seemed barely muscular enough to drag her leopard-print suitcase behind her, yet she surged up the aisle, flinging open every single overhead compartment on both sides as she passed. A small child bashed in the head by a pink umbrella moaned in her wake. The flight attendant leapt to keep the morass of holiday gifts, rolled-up winter coats, and overpacked suitcases from tumbling onto the passengers who had arranged their carry-ons so carefully just minutes before, but to no avail. Within moments, rows seven through twelve resembled a picked-over bargain bin at a thrift store.
"Could you please hurry, ma'am?" she kept murmuring after every slam and between bites on her regulation pink-frosted lips. The first-class flight attendant was wearing the same color. "We can't close the cabin doors until everyone is seated, and we're already behind schedule."
Thirteen sets of hanging doors later, the woman shoved aside a red shopping bag to make room for her carry-on. I helped the flight attendant wrestle the last three compartments shut before both of us provided the necessary muscle to inter the leopard. She did not thank us.
Obviously, these three paragraphs are not an adequate substitute for the entire story, but see what I have done here? The details provide characterization that neither the first version's narrative reactions nor the second's series of events showed the reader.
In this third version, however, the reader is neither left to fill in the specifics — something a time-strapped Millicent is unlikely to do — nor expected to guess what conclusions the author wants her to draw from these actions. The details make it perfectly plain that the lanky woman could not care less about anybody else's comfort, feelings, or even rights: leaving those bin doors open behind her for the flight attendant and another passenger to close shows the reader what kind of person she is, just as the specifics about the volume of the luggage and the uniform lipstick, contrasted with the flight attendant's consistent politeness, illustrate her dilemma, and the narrator's automatically pitching in to help demonstrates her approach to the world.
Vivid details are the gem-like tiny touches so beloved of editors everywhere, the telling little tidbits that illuminate character and moment in an indirect manner. The frequency with which such details appear in a manuscript is often one of the primary factors professional readers use in determining whether to keep reading — and if such unusual specifics are incorporated skillfully into a query's book description, they often prompt a request for pages.
Why? Well, more than almost any other device, they give the reader insight into the author's worldview.
Sound like too amorphous a concept to be useful at revision time — or query-writing time, for that matter? It isn't. A good writer sees the world around her with unique eyes, and — ideally, at least — powers of observation heightened to an extent that many non-writers would actually find painful.
This requires pretty sensitive nervous tissue, as H.G. Wells pointed out. He liked to call writers Aeolian harps (that's a fancy way of saying wind chime, in case you were wondering), responding to our perceptions of the world through our art and, he hoped, making it better in the process.
Wells is now best-known for his science fiction, of course, but in his lifetime, many of his most popular novels were about social interactions. As I mentioned back on Veterans' Day, his Mr. Britling Sees It Through was considered at the time THE definitive work on the British home front during the First World War. My favorite of his social novels is The Wife of Sir Isaac Harman, a comedy about marriage and the establishment of decent, affordable apartment buildings for young working women.
Okay, so his political beliefs were not particularly well-hidden in his social novels. Neither was his evident belief that the primary purpose of female intellectual development was for those pesky women with brains to make themselves more attractive to men with brains. But his eye for social nuance — and social comedy — was exceptionally good.
The tiny little details that our sensitive nervous tissue lead us to notice — the way you wear your hat, the way you sip your tea, as the song says — are a large part of what makes great writing seem almost miraculous to readers. Not everyone notices the worn-down heel of the left shoe of the man in his interview suit, after all, or the way the eyes of the president of the local charitable organization occasionally glaze with hatred while her mouth is loading the members with drippingly complimentary gushings.
Feeling special yet? You should: being aware of these details is a gift, after all, a sharpness of eye with which not very many human beings are endowed. Yet most writers don't rely upon it nearly heavily enough in constructing their narratives — and still less in their queries.
And to someone whose job it is to read manuscripts all day, every day, seeing that gift wasted can start to get pretty annoying. "Where are those delightfully unexpected little insights?" the Millicents of the world think, running their fingertips impatiently down page 1. "Where is the evidence that this writer sees the world in a way that will change the way I see it myself?"
A tall order, yes, but — wait, do I hear some cries of distress out there? "Did you just say," a strangled voice asks, "page ONE? As in my manuscript should produce evidence of my unique worldview and uncanny eye for telling little details that early in my book? Can't I, you know, warm up a little?"
Great question, strangled voice. The answer is yes, if you want to make absolutely certain that an agency screener will read PAST the first page. (If you doubt this, please take a gander at the HOW NOT TO WRITE A FIRST PAGE category on the archive list at right. It's a series on reasons that agents report for not reading past page 1, a pretty sobering group of posts.) And to anticipate your next cri de coeur, yes, you should make an effort to provide such evidence in the book description section of your query, for the exceedingly simple reason that at most agencies, that's all the page space you have to convince Millicent that her boss needs to read your manuscript.
Some of you submitters may find the necessity for cajoling reading more than a few paragraphs from people who, after all, asked you to send a chapter or 50 pages or your entire book. If you're a novelist, it can be especially galling: presumably, if your forté as a writer were brilliant single-page stories, you would be entering short-short competitions, not writing 400-page books, right?
Believe me, I'm sympathetic to this view. If I ran the universe, agents and editors would be granted an entire extra day or two per week over and above the seven allocated to ordinary mortals, so they could read at least 10 pages into every submission they request. Writers would get an extra day, too, and lots of paid vacation time, so we could polish our work to our entire satisfaction before we sent it out.
And Santa Claus would tumble down my chimney to shower me with presents every day of the year, instead of just one.
Unfortunately, I believe I have mentioned before, I do not run the universe. If we writers want to be successful, it behooves us to recognize that queries and submissions are often read very, very quickly, and adapt our first few pages — and our queries — to that reality.
Sorry to be the one to break that to you. But before you condemn the rigors of the industry too vigorously, take a moment to consider the conditions that might lead to someone at an agency or publishing house to conclude that it would be desirable, or even necessary, to give a requested manuscript only a page — in a manuscript or in a query — to establish the author's brilliance.
Lest we forget, Millicent can sometimes be the world's most impatient reader. While some screeners and agents are looking to be wowed, Millie is in a rush to get out the door; she's put off her lunch date three times already this week, because she had to work through lunch, and she's not going to miss it again.
It is now 12:10, she's just noticed a run in her tights, and your manuscript is the next in the pile. How easy do you think it is going to be for it to impress her into reading past page 1?
I bring up Millicent's foul mood not to scare you — but since a writer has absolutely no control over the mood of the person deciding whether to accept or reject his manuscript, it is worth preparing your submission so that it would impress EVEN Millicent at her most frustrated. That's just good submission strategy.
It's also good querying strategy. Assume a bored Millicent longing to be startled out of her malaise by an exciting detail, and you're halfway to perking up your query.
I hear some of you huffing, but pause to spare some sympathy for the Millicents of the agenting world, as well as Maury, the editorial assistant who is her equivalent in publishing houses. They are expected to read reams and reams of paper very, very fast — and for this Herculean effort, they are not necessarily always paid. Often, in this harsh economy, this work is assigned to interns. If it's the summertime, Millicent is probably on break from a good Northeastern college, someplace like Barnard, and since her parents can afford to support her while she takes an unpaid but résumé-building job, she's probably from an upper-middle class background.
If it's the rest of the year, or she has already graduated, she is probably paid — poorly — and lives in an apartment the size of a postage stamp with four other young people with similar jobs. Millie would not have gone into this line of work had she not liked reading — in fact, she may have writing aspirations herself, or she may want to become an agent or editor, so taking a job screening queries and submissions seemed like dandy on-the-job training at the time.
But now, after weeks on end of seeing hundreds upon hundreds of rather similar storylines, her capacity for appreciating literature has markedly dimmed. Sometimes, when she is especially cranky, a single line of awkward dialogue or two lines free of conflict can make her feel downright oppressed.
And your manuscript will have to get past Millie, and often also a senior assistant who has been screening manuscripts for even longer and has an even shorter boredom fuse, before it lands on the agent's desk.
Still think it's a good idea bore her, as long as your writing is strong enough?
What if, as occasionally happens, your manuscript is the next on her list to read immediately after she has broken up with her loutish boyfriend, she twisted her ankle clambering up from the subway, or she's wondering how she's going to pay the rent? And if poor Millie has just burned her lip on her non-fat double-shot tall latté — well, let's just say that the first few pages of your manuscript had best be tight. And your query had better be fascinating.
And either should feature at least a few delightful little details that will make Millicent sit up, forgetting her bright magenta lip, and cry, "Eureka! This writer showed me something I've never seen before, presented in magnificent, clear prose! Forget my lunch date — I have something to READ!"
The miracle of talent, as Mme. de Staël tells us, is the ability to knock the reader out of his own egoism. Let the first example an agent sees of your writing be living proof of that.
I think you have it in you; that gift of insight is what made you want to write in the first place, isn't it? Don't let the difficulties of the querying and submission processed dim that mission. Millicent, and readers everywhere, will be the better for the originality of your insight.
Oh, and do make an effort to share those overhead bins; you never know when the guy upon whom cast-off luggage tumbles will turn out to be Millicent's brother. Although that's an ending to an Ugly Duckling story she'll never see coming. Keep up the good work!
Posted on September 13, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on But enough about you — what about me?
But enough about you — what about me?
Today, I had planned to launch headlong into my annual foray into how to construct a graceful and effective query letter, campers, but frankly, didn't we devote an awful lot of the summer to discussing how to pitch? After so many weeks on end of dealing with practicalities, I feel that the artist in each of us deserves a little holiday.
So let's refresh ourselves by talking craft for a while. Queryfest will be every bit as useful next week.
Memoir-writing and writing about reality as fiction has been much on my mind of late, and not merely because my memoir remains in publishing limbo. (Yes, still. Let's just be grateful that not every memoirist's extended family has the wherewithal to make credible $2 million dollar lawsuit threats.) While we writers talk endlessly amongst ourselves about craft and structure for fiction, it's actually quite rare to stumble into a knot of literary conference attendees avidly discussing how to make a personal anecdote spring to life on the page.
Why is that, when it is so very hard to write memoir well? All too often, the prevailing wisdom dictates that all a writer needs to produce a successful memoir is an exciting life, an ability to write clearly, and, if at all possible, celebrity in another field, so the writing will matter even less. The writer's platform and the inherent interest of the story, we're told, are all that matter in a memoir. Anything beyond that, presumably, is gravy.
As to structure, that's held to be self-evident. In the immortal words of Lewis Carroll,
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin, please, your Majesty?" he asked.
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop."
As a memoirist and an editor who works regularly with same, I must disagree. While a chronological structure can work, not all human events start out scintillating; depending upon the story, another structure might work better.
Then, too, a memoir cannot really be deemed a success unless readers find it entertaining, enlightening, or at the very least, interesting. That's not merely a matter of story. Any long-form writing, be it fiction or nonfiction, will benefit from a strong narrative structure, a consistent, likable narrative voice, a plausible and engaging story arc, believable, well-drawn characters, a protagonist the reader would be happy to follow for a few hundred pages…
In short, many of the elements one might find in a well-constructed novel. But that's not all that a good reality-based story requires, is it? After all, few readers will want to read a story, whether it is presented as memoir or as fiction, simply because it really happened. It needs to feel real on the page — and it needs to be enjoyable to read.
What makes me think that this might be news to many writers of memoir and reality-based fiction, you ask? For my sins, I have served quite frequently as a contest judge, assessing both memoir and novel entries, and I'm here to tell you, they look more similar on the page than one might think.
How so? They tend to share a few characteristics: a one-sided approach to scenes, as if the protagonist's perspective were the only possible one; an apparent assumption that the reader will automatically side with the protagonist, regardless of what is going on, and bolstering both, a propensity for relating conflictual exchanges as though they were verbal anecdotes, light on detail but strong on emotion. Or, to boil all of these down to a single trait, these narratives tend to be disproportionately weighted toward a single point of view.
And memoirists' hands fly heavenward all over the world. "But Anne," they point out, and who could blame them? "My memoir is my story. Why wouldn't it be biased toward my perspective?"
It should, of course — but in the interests of representing one's own point of view, memoirists and writers of the real often render the narrative so one-sided that the situation neither seems plausible nor fairly presented. It just reads like a diatribe in scene form, a piece of prose whose primary point is not storytelling, but getting back at someone.
About half of you have started to blush, have you not? I'm not surprised; in both memoir and reality-based fiction, the scene where the reader is evidently expected to take the protagonist's side, not because the antagonist is shown to be particularly awful, but because the narrative presents the antagonist without any sympathy — or, usually, any redeeming characteristics — is a notorious pet peeve of our old pal, Millicent the agency screener. And not just as a generality, either. When Millicents, their boss agents, and the editors to whom they cater gather to share mutual complaints in that bar that's never more than 100 yards from any writers' conference in North America, the annoying coworker stereotype often crops up in conversation.
As in, "You think you're tired of conceptual repetition? I've read fourteen submissions this week alone with omitable annoying coworker scenes."
It's perhaps not altogether astonishing that memoirs would be rife with interactions between the protagonist/narrator and the people who happen to rile her, told in a breathlessly outraged tone, but aspiring writers of fact-based fiction are often stunned to discover that they were not the first to think of inserting actual conflicts into fictional stories. They shouldn't be: there's a pretty good reason that such scenes are ubiquitous in manuscript submissions and contest entries. Care to guess?
If you immediately cried out, "By gum, Anne, every writer currently crawling the crust of the earth has in fact had to work with someone less than pleasant at one time or another," give yourself a gold star for the day. Given how often aspiring writers resent their day jobs — and, by extension, the people with whom they must interact there — that such unsavory souls would end up populating the pages of submissions follows as night the day.
If these charming souls appeared in novel and memoir submissions in vividly-drawn, fully fleshed-out glory, that actually might not be a problem. 99% of the time, however, the annoying co-worker is presented in exactly the same way as any other stereotype: without detail, under the apparent writerly assumption that what rankles the author will necessarily irk the reader.
Unfortunately, that's seldom the case — it can take a lot of page space for a character to start to irritate a reader. So instead of having the character to demonstrate annoying traits and allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions, many a narrative will convey that a particular character is grating by telling the reader directly ("Georgette was grating"), providing the conclusion indirectly (through the subtle use of such phrases as, "Georgette had a grating voice that cut through my concentration like nails on a chalkboard"), or through the protagonist's thoughts ("God, Georgette is grating!")
Pardon my asking, but as a reader, I need to know: what about Georgette was so darned irritating? For that matter, what about her voice made it grating? It's the writer's job to show me, not tell me, right?
I cannot even begin to count the number of memoirs and novels I have edited that contained scenes where the reader is clearly supposed to be incensed at one of the characters, yet it is not at all apparent from the action of the scene why.
Invariably, when I have asked the authors about these scenes, the response is identical: "But it really happened that way!"
No surprise there. These scenes are pretty easy for professionals to spot, because the protagonist is ALWAYS presented as in the right for every instant of the scene, a state of grace quite unusual in real life. It doesn't ring true.
The author is always quite astonished that his own take on the real-life scene did not translate into instantaneous sympathy in every conceivable reader. Ultimately, this is a point-of-view problem — the author is just too close to the material to be able to tell that the scene doesn't read the way she anticipated.
Did I just see some antennae springing up out there? "Hey, wait a minute. Mightn't an author's maintaining objective distance from the material — in this case, the annoying co-worker — have helped nip this particular problem in the bud long before the manuscript landed on Millicent's desk?"
Why, yes, now that you mention it, it would. Let's look at the benefits of some objective distance in action.
Many writers assume, wrongly, that if someone is irritating in real life, and they reproduce the guy down to the last whisker follicle, he will be annoying on the page as well, but that is not necessarily true. Often, the author's anger so spills into the account that the villain starts to appear maligned, from the reader's perspective. If his presentation is too obviously biased, the reader may start to identify with him, and in the worst cases, actually take the villain's side against the hero. I have read scenes where the case against the villain is so marked that most readers would decide that the hero is the impossible one, not the villain.
This character assassination has clearly not gone as planned. A little more objective distance might have made it go better. Who was it that said, revenge is a dish best served cold?
Yes, I called it revenge, because revenge it usually is. Most writers are very aware of the retributive powers of their work. As my beloved old mentor, the science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, was fond of saying, "Never screw over a living writer. They can always get back at you on the page."
Oh, stop blushing. You didn't honestly think that when you included that horrible co-worker in three scenes of your novel that you were doing her a FAVOR, did you?
My most vivid personal experience of this species of writerly vitriol was not as the author, thank goodness, but as the intended victim. And at the risk of having this story backfire on me, I'm going to tell you about it as nonfiction.
Call it a memoir excerpt. To prevent confusion, I'm going to offset the narrative from the discussion.
A few years before I began blogging, I was in residence at an artists' colony. Now, retreats vary a great deal; mine have ranged from a fragrant month-long stay in a cedar cabin in far-northern Minnesota, where all of the writers were asked to remain silent until 4 p.m. each day to a sojourn in a medieval village in southwestern France to a let's-revisit-the-early-1970s meat market, complete with hot tub, in the Sierra foothills.
A word to the wise: it pays to do your homework before you apply.
This particular colony had more or less taken over a small, rural New England town, so almost everyone I saw for the month of March was a writer, sculptor, photographer, or painter. While world-class painters and sculptors were imported up ice-covered rural roads every few days to critique and encourage those newer to their respective arts, the National Book Award winner scheduled to give feedback to the writers didn't bother to show up for the first week of her residency. Amenities like kilns, darkrooms, and ladders to facilitate the construction of 20-foot woven cardboard cocoons seemed to appear whenever the visual artists so much as blinked. The writers, a tiny minority, had been shoved into a dank, dark cellar with cinder block walls; you could see the resentment flash in their eyes when they visited the painters' massive, light-drenched studios, and compared them to the caves to which they had been assigned.
See what I just did there? I skewed the narrative so you would resent the visual artists.
But was that necessary? Objectively speaking, they were not the villains in this situation; they, like me, were visitors to the retreat. Besides, since the overwhelming majority of the Author! Author! community is made up of writers, couldn't I simply have assumed that my readers would identify with the cave residents pretty much automatically?
Or, better yet, couldn't I have included a vivid detail or two that would have nudged the reader in that direction without the narration's appearing to be presenting a myopic account?
What kind of detail, you ask? Let's try this one on for size.
Due to the musty dampness of the writers' cellar, I elected to write in my assigned bedroom, in order to catch the occasional ray of sunlight. Sure, there were certain drawbacks — the desk had been designed for a hulking brute twice my size, while the desk chair had apparently been filched from a nearby kindergarten — but at least the heat worked. Too well, in fact: an hour and a half into my first afternoon of writing, a sleepy hornet emerged from the gaping hole around the charming antique light fixture and aimed straight for my head.
It was not the best moment to learn that the windows had been sealed for the winter. You know writers: we can't be trusted not to let all of the heat out. Unlike, say, painters, whose windows might safely open onto vast vistas of forested hillside.
As the afternoon sun warmed the room, hornet after hornet emerged from its long winter's nap. After the eighth had expressed its displeasure at my having had the temerity to have turned on either the light or the heat, I shook the bees off my jacket, wrapped my head and shoulders in several scarves, and plunged into a blizzard. By the time I reached the administration building, I was chilled to the bone.
Perhaps naïvely, I had assumed that the hornet's nest in my room would come as a surprise to the retreat's administrators. The writer who'd had the room the previous November — the local authorities had deemed it inadequately heated for winter residence — had complained about the bees, too. The painter-in-residence charged with rooting them out had simply not gotten around to it.
And didn't for three days. He was too busy with a canvas that just couldn't wait to be handed down to posterity. The administrators encouraged me to regard sleeping on a couch next to the dining hall as my contribution to the world's supply of art. I had to wait until after dark in order to retrieve my laptop.
That engaged your sympathies more robustly, didn't it? It's still my experience and my perspective, told in my voice — but I've allowed you to draw the conclusion. That's simply better storytelling.
Don't see it? Okay, contrast the fleshed-out account above with the following series of summary statements.
Sharing meals in a dining hall was a bit high school-like, conducive to tensions about who would get to sit at the Living Legend in Residence's table, squabbles between the writers and the painters about whether one should wait until after lunch to start drinking, or break out the bottles at breakfast (most of the writers were on the first-mentioned side, most of the painters on the latter), and the usual bickerings and flirtations, serious and otherwise, endemic to any group of people forced to spend time together whether or not they have a great deal in common.
An environment ripe, in other words, for people to start to find their co-residents annoying.
Aren't you already longing for me to show you how specifically they were annoying, rather than merely telling you that they were? Let's exacerbate the problem in the manner so many writers of the real do, creating the illusion of narrative distance by switching the text almost entirely into the passive voice.
Of course, such problems are endemic to large artists' colonies. One classic means of dealing with the inevitable annoying co-resident problem is to bring a buddy or three along on a retreat; that way, if the writer in the next cubicle becomes too irritating, one has some back-up when one goes to demand that she stop snapping her gum every 27 seconds, for Pete's sake. I am of the school of thought that retreating entails leaving the trappings and the personnel of my quotidian life behind, but there's no denying that at a retreat of any size, there can be real value in having someone to whom to vent about that darned gum-popper. (Who taught her to blow bubbles? A horse?)
Doubtless for this reason, several artists had brought their significant others to the hornet-ridden New England village. Or, to be more accurate, these pairs had applied together: writer and photographer, painter and writer, etc. One of these pairs was a very talented young couple, she a writer brimming with potential, he a sculptor of great promise. Although every fiber of my being longs to use their real names, I shall not.
Let's call them Hansel and Gretel, to remove all temptation.
And let's see how this telling, not showing thing I've got going works for character development, shall we?
Hansel was an extremely friendly guy, always eager to have a spirited conversation on topics artistic, social, or his personal favorite, explicitly sexual. The dining hall's Lothario, one constantly spotted him flirting with…hmm, let's see how best to represent how he directed his attentions…everything with skin.
Amusing, but wouldn't some details have brought his predilections more clearly before the reader's eyes? Let's try showing some of his work.
His eyes flickered over the female residents so persistently that I wondered if he was looking for a model. On day three, when he invited me to his palatial sculpture studio, I realized that he might have been seeking a lady to encase in plaster of Paris: practically every flat surface held representations of breasts, legs, pudenda, and breasts. He practically backed me into a backside. Murmuring some hasty excuse about needing to get back to my hornets, I slipped away from his grasping hands and dashed out into the pelting snow.
Still don't see why that was better? Okay, let's revert to generalities.
Being possessed of skin myself, I naturally came in for my fair share of Hansel's attentions. (How's that for a colorless summary of the proceeding story?) Generally speaking, though, I tend to reserve serious romantic intentions for…again, how to put this…people capable of talking about something other than themselves. Oh, and perhaps I'm shallow, but I harbor an absurd prejudice in favor of the attractive.
This is precisely the type of paragraph that will absolutely slay 'em in a verbal anecdote, or even in a blog, but often falls flat on the page. Yes, it's amusing; yes, people actually do speak this way, so it's a plausible a first-person narrative voice. But it's vague. It's character development, in the sense that it purports to tell the reader something about the narrator, but the reader just has to take the narrative's word for it. Is that really the best way to convince the reader what a protagonist is like?
An artists' retreat tends to be a small community, however; one usually ends up faking friendliness with an annoying co-resident or two. Since there was no getting away from the guy — believe me, I tried — I listened to him with some amusement whenever we happened to sit at the same table. I was, after all, the only other artist in residence who had read any Henry Miller. We had coffee a couple of times when there was nobody else in the town's only coffee shop. And then I went back to my room, battled away the wildlife, and wrote for 50 hours a week.
Imagine my surprise, then, when Gretel started fuming at me like a dragon over the salad bar. Apparently, she thought I was after her man.
Now, I don't know anything about the internal workings of their marriage; perhaps they derived pleasure from manufacturing jealousy scenes. I don't, but there's just no polite way of saying, "HIM? Please; I do have standards" to an angry wife, is there? So I simply started sitting at a different table in the dining hall.
A little junior high schoolish? Yes, but better that than Gretel's being miserable — and frankly, who needed the drama? I was there to write.
Let's pause here to consider: what do you, the reader, actually know about Gretel at this point? Are your feelings about her based upon what you have actually seen her do or my conclusions about her motivations? And are the facts even clear: was I the only resident of whom Gretel was jealous, or did she fume over the salad bar with anyone possessing two X chromosomes?
Wouldn't it have worked better had I just shown her slapping peanut butter violently onto some white bread while I tried to make pleasant conversation with her, or depicted her veering away from me with her cracked metal tray? In short, wouldn't it have made more sense to show this as a scene, rather than telling it as an anecdote?
Often, this fix is expressed rather confusingly: writers are told to insert some narrative distance into such scenes. I'm not a big fan of this language, for the simple reason that most memoirists and writers of the real new to editor-speak tend to interpret it as a call to make the narrative appear objective by, you guessed it, retreating into the passive voice. Let's take a gander at this strategy in action.
Another phenomenon that often characterizes a mixed residency — i.e., one where different types of artists cohabitate — is a requirement to share one's work-in-progress. At this particular retreat, painters and sculptors had to fling their studios open to public scrutiny once a week. Each writer had to do at least one public reading in the course of the month.
Feels like you've been shoved back from the story, doesn't it? That's how verbal anecdotes tend to read on the page: as rather vague summaries. When they are in the passive voice as well, the narrator can come across as the passive puppet of circumstances, rather than as the primary actor of the piece, the person who makes things happen.
Let's borrow a tool from the novelist's kit and make the protagonist active, shall we?
Being a "Hey – I've got a barn, and you've got costumes!" sort of person, I organized other, informal readings as well, so we writers could benefit from feedback and hearing one another's work. I invited Gretel to each of these shindigs; she never came. By the end of the second week, my only contact with her was being on the receiving end of homicidal stares in the dining hall, as if I'd poisoned her cat or something.
It was almost enough to make me wish that I had flirted with her mostly unattractive husband.
But I was writing twelve hours a day (yes, Virginia, there IS a good reason to go on a retreat!), so I didn't think about it much. I had made friends at the retreat, my work was going well, and if Gretel didn't like me, well, we wouldn't do our laundry at the same time. (You have to do your own laundry at every artists' retreat on earth; don't harbor any fantasies about that.) My friends teased me a little about being such a femme fatale that I didn't even need to do anything but eat a sandwich near the couple to spark a fit of jealous pique, but that was it.
Aha, so Gretel had singled me out. Was there a good narrative reason not to make that plain earlier? It almost certainly would have been funnier — and made both my reactions and my conclusions as narrator make more sense to the reader.
At the end of the third week of our residency, it was Gretel's turn to give her formal reading to the entire population of the colony, a few local residents who wandered in because there was nothing else to do in town, and National Book Award winner who had finally deigned dropped by (in exchange for a hefty honorarium) to shed the effulgence of her decades of success upon the resident writers. Since it was such a critical audience, most of the writers elected to read highly polished work, short stories they had already published, excerpts from novels long on the shelves. Unlike my more congenial, small reading groups, it wasn't an atmosphere conducive to experimentation.
Wow, I've left you to fill in a lot of details here, have I not? How could you possibly, when the narrative so far has given you only a very sketchy view of time, place, and character?
Four writers were scheduled to read that night. The first two shared beautifully varnished work, safe stuff, clearly written long before they'd arrived at the retreat. Then Gretel stood up and announced that she was going to read two short pieces she had written here at the colony. She glanced over at me venomously, and my guts told me there was going to be trouble.
See how I worked in the false suspense there? Rather than showing precisely what her venomous glance was like — impossible for you to picture, right, since I have yet to tell you what she looks like? — I embraced the ever-popular storytelling shortcut of having the protagonist's reaction to an event or person take the place of showing what was actually going on. Think that was the best strategy for this story?
Let's try another tack. How about getting a little closer to what's happening in that crowded room, so the reader may feel more like she is there? Or at least more like she's standing in the narrator's shoes?
Gretel settled a much-abused spiral notebook onto the podium and began to read a lengthy interior monologue in stentorian tones. Her eyes never left the paper, and with good reason: the plotless account depicted Hansel and Gretel — both mentioned by name on page 1, incidentally — having sex in vivid detail. Just sex, without any emotional content to the interaction, in terms neither titillating nor instructive. It was simply a straightforward account of a mechanical act, structured within a literal countdown to the final climax: "Ten…nine…eight…"
It was so like a late-1960's journalistic account of a rocket launching that I kept expecting her to say, "Houston, we've got a problem."
I cringed for her — honestly, I did. I'd read some of Gretel's other work: she was a better writer than this. So what point was she trying to make by reading this…how shall I put it?…a literarily uninteresting piece whose primary point seemed to be to inform the uncomfortable audience that she and her husband had consummated their marriage?
See how I used my response to develop the narrator's character? Memoirists and writers of the real too often forget that the narrator is the protagonist of the story they are telling, and thus needs to be fleshed out as a character. If I'd attacked that last paragraph with a big more descriptive vim, I might have worked in some interesting insights into both Gretel and Hansel's characters — how did her account jibe with his sculptural depictions of the act, for instance?
Oh, you thought that all of those body parts were languishing around his studio solo? Alas, no; I've seen less accurate models in biology classes. Again, wouldn't it have been more effective storytelling to have shown that — or even made that last comment — while the protagonist was in the studio?
That would also have been the natural time to work in that Hansel's sculptures did not…again, how to put this tactfully?…appear to have been based upon his wife's womanly attributes. Artistically, he favored curves; she was so angular that she could have cut vegetables on her hip bones.
Lingering too long in the narrator's head can be distracting from the action, though. Throughout the next paragraph, I invite you to consider: as a reader, would you have preferred to see the action more directly, or entirely through the narrator's perspective?
Maybe I just wasn't the right audience for her piece: the painters in the back row, the ones who had been drinking since breakfast, waved their bottles, hooting and hollering. They seemed not to notice that although the monologue was from a female perspective, there were no references whatsoever to the narrator's physical sensations, only what Hansel was doing. The part of Gretel might have been quite adequately played by a robot.
Call me judgmental, but I tend to think that when half the participants seem to be counting the seconds until the act is over, it's not the best romantic coupling imaginable. Still, looking around the auditorium, I didn't seem to be the only auditor relieved when it ended. "Three…two…one." No one applauded but Hansel.
In first-person pieces, the narration will often switch abruptly from inside the protagonist's head to an ostensibly objective set of descriptions. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You be the judge: how well do you think the next paragraph carries the story forward from the last?
Gretel's second piece took place at a wedding reception. Again, it was written in the first person, again with herself and her husband identified by name, again an interior monologue. However, this had some legitimately comic moments in the course of the first few paragraphs. As I said, Gretel could write.
Somewhere in the middle of page 2, a new character entered the scene, sat down at a table, picked up a sandwich — and suddenly, the interior monologue shifted from a gently amused description of a social event to a jealously-inflamed tirade that included the immortal lines, "Keep away from my husband, {expletive deleted}!" and "Are those real?"
Need I even mention that her physical description of the object of these jabs would have enabled anyone within the sound of her voice to pick me out of a police line-up?
Wouldn't it have been both more interesting and better character development to have shown the opening of Gretel's second piece, rather than leaving it to the reader's imagination? Ponder how that choice might have affected your perception of whether this scene is funny or tragic, please, as the narrative belatedly tells what it should have shown in the previous section.
She read it extremely well; her voice, her entire demeanor altered, like a hissing cat, arching her back in preparation for a fight. Fury looked great on her. From a literary standpoint, though, the piece fell flat: the character that everyone in the room knew perfectly well was me never actually said or did anything seductive at all; her mere presence was enough to spark almost incoherent rage in the narrator. While that might have been interesting as a dramatic device, Gretel hadn't done enough character development for either "Jan"– cleverly disguised name, eh?– for the reader either to sympathize with the former or find the latter threatening in any way.
There was no ending to the story. She just stopped, worn out from passion. And Hansel sat there, purple-faced, avoiding the eyes of his sculptor friends, until she finished.
The first comment from the audience was, "Why did the narrator hate Jan so much? What had she done to the narrator?"
Had I been telling this anecdote verbally — and believe me, I have — this spate of summary statements and analysis of what the reader has not been shown might well work beautifully. Memoirists tend to be fond of paragraphs like this, commenting upon the action as if the reader had also been there. It makes abundant sense, from the writer's perspective: after all, I was actually there, right?
But talking about events creates a very different impression on the page than writing about them vividly enough that the reader can picture the action and characters for herself. If I had shown you the story Gretel was reading, at least in part, you could have judged this character based on her own words — much more powerful than the narrator's simply telling you what you should think about her.
A professional reader like Millicent — or, heck, like me — might well raise another objection to that last section: since the narration is so skewed to the protagonist's side, some readers may feel that this account lacks credibility. Could Gretel actually have been as vitriolic (or unstrategic) as I've depicted her here?
Actually, she was, every bit — but does that matter, if the narrative can't make her seem plausible on the page? The fact that Gretel existed and that she chose to act in this extraordinary manner is not sufficient justification for the reader to finish this story. It also has to work as a story, and that's going to require some serious character development for not only the narrator, but the other characters as well.
You'd be astonished at how often memoir submissions do not treat either as characters. Frequently, Millicent sees memoirs — and slice-of-life fiction, for that matter — that are simply commentary upon what was going on around the protagonist. Yet a memoir isn't a transcript of events, interesting to the reader simply because they happened to the narrator; it's one person's story, skillfully pruned to leave out the dull parts. If the reader doesn't get to know that narrator, though, or come to experience the other characters as real, the memoir is likely to fall flat.
Why? Because it will read like a series of anecdotes, rather than like a book.
Fictionalizers of real life tend to have an easier time thinking of their protagonists as protagonists, I notice, but as any Millicent could tell you, they often give away the narrative's bias by clearly siding with one character over another. Or by depicting one character as all sweetness and light and the other as all evil. A popular secondary strategy: describing other characters' reactions to the antagonist as universally in line with the protagonist's, as though any onlooker would have had exactly the same response.
I was very nice to Gretel afterward; what else could I do? I laughed at her in-text jokes whenever it was remotely possible, congratulated her warmly on her vibrant dialogue in front of the National Book Award nominee, and made a point of passing along a book of Dorothy Parker short stories to her the next day.
Others were not so kind, either to her or to Hansel. The more considerate ones merely laughed at them behind their backs. ("Three…two…one.") Others depicted her in cartoon form, or acted out her performance; someone even wrote a parody of her piece and passed it around.
True, I did have to live for the next week with the nickname Mata Hari, but compared to being known as the writer whose act of fictional revenge had so badly belly flopped, I wouldn't have cared if everyone had called me Lizzie Borden. And, of course, it became quite apparent that every time I went out of my way to be courteous to Gretel after that, every time I smiled at her in a hallway when others wouldn't, I was only pouring salt on her wounded ego.
Is there anything more stinging than someone you hate feeling sorry for you?
At last, we come full circle, back to my original point in sharing this anecdote in the first place: if your answer was any flavor of yes, you might want to consider waiting until you've developed some objective distance from your annoying co-worker before committing her to print. Think at least twice about what you're putting on the page, particularly for work you are submitting to contests, agencies, or small presses.
Or, heaven forbid, reading to a group of people you want to like you. Or your narrator.
If you're still angry, maybe it's not the right time to write about it for publication. Your journal, fine. But until you have gained some perspective — at least enough to perform some legitimate character development for that person you hate — consider giving it a rest. Otherwise, your readers' sympathies may ricochet, and move in directions that you may not like.
It's always a good idea to get objective feedback on anything you write before you loose it on the world, but if you incorporate painful real-life scenes into your fiction, sharing before promotion becomes ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE. If you work out your aggressions at your computer — and, let's face it, a lot of us do — please seriously consider joining a writing group. To be blunt about it, finding good first readers you can trust can save you from looking like an irate junior high schooler on a rampage.
And Gretel, honey, in the unlikely event that you ever read this, you might want to remember: revenge is a dish best served cold. Or, as Philip used to say, never screw over a living writer. You never know who might end up writing a blog.
Hey, I'm only human — which renders me a more interesting protagonist in a memoir, right? As a memoirist, I have to assume that my readers too intelligent to believe that I was 100% perfect in this trying situation (I must admit, I did make an unkind joke or two in private), or that Gretel was 100% nasty (in actuality, she was rather nice to people her husband did not appear to be obsessed with sculpting), I suspect that most readers would also wonder whether Hansel actually stood by passively while his wife seethed with jealousy (he didn't: he egged her on, in what appeared to me to be characteristic of their relationship). Were I planning to use this dynamic in a memoir, it would be in the story's best interest to develop those less-neat elements into a more plausibly complete account.
If I hoped to fold this frankly pretty darned annoying incident into a novel, the imperative to flesh these people out into fully-rounded characters would be even stronger. Showing their foibles through action and dialogue, rather than just telling the reader what conclusions to draw, is not only better storytelling — it's less intrusive narration.
Would I feel as vindicated? Perhaps not. Enough time has passed, however, that I now see this story as fundamentally sad: instead of befriending a more experienced writer who could have conceivably helped her on the long, twisty road to publication, Gretel allowed the troubled dynamic of her marriage to become the central focus of a bunch of not-particularly-sympathetic strangers. She, too, was in that dank basement, while her husband created his fantasies of women who did not resemble her in comparative comfort. If he hadn't chosen me to as the prod with which to keep poking her insecurities, I'm sure he would have found somebody else.
So who is the actual villain of this piece? You decide; that's the reader's job, after all.
Posted on September 4, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Raising Your Voice in Your Memoir, by guest blogger Bob Tarte
Raising Your Voice in Your Memoir, by guest blogger Bob Tarte
Had you noticed that I had abruptly stopped giving you homework, campers? That's not entirely coincidental: I figure that you already have distractions enough. I'm quite certain that many, if not most, of the Author! Author! community is spending this long holiday weekend (a) prepping queries to send out after Labor Day, (b) prepping requested materials to send out after Labor Day, (c) writing something fabulous and fresh, (d) revising an existing manuscript so it becomes fabulous and fresh, and/or (e) thinking, "Gee, I really ought to be doing (a) (b), (c), and/or (d) today, but the barbecue is already fired up."
In order to amuse, enlighten, and inform those of you who are tuning in this weekend, I have blandished some very fine authors into sharing a little just-amongst-us literary advice. Yesterday, we talked about fiction. Today, we're going to concentrate up memoir.
And not just the oft-discussed conundrum how to work up the nerve to be completely transparent on the page — no mean feat in itself — but a burning topic that I do not believe is discussed nearly enough amongst writers: narrative voice in memoir.
To succeed in grabbing the reader, a memoir's narrative voice must also be a likable and lyrical — wait for it — narrative voice.
Was that loud BOING that just reverberated around the cosmos the sound of memoirists' jaws bouncing off the floor? I'm not entirely astonished: in the throes of the hugely challenging task of writing one's own life, the emotional strain of reliving events vividly enough to write about them well can easily trump the imperative to craft lovely sentences. Or even to depict yourself and your environs juicily enough for a reader to long to follow you through 300+ pages.
Let's face it, there's more to composing compelling memoir than having had an interesting life and being able to make it sound interesting on the page. There's even more to it than sounding like yourself.
In order to tackle this recalcitrant problem, I tracked down one of my all-time favorite memoirists, the inimitable and hilarious Bob Tarte, author of the brilliant pet memoirs ENSLAVED BY DUCKS and FOWL WEATHER, and lobbied shamelessly for him to share his insights with the Author! Author! community. Page for page, Bob has one of the strongest memoir voices I've ever seen: humorous, honest, and absolutely original.
I've said it before, and I shall no doubt say it again: anyone seriously interested in writing humorous memoir should take a gander (so to speak) at his seemingly effortless wit. In case those of you who are not comedy writers are wondering why: there's nothing more difficult than appearing to be spontaneously funny; it takes careful, meticulous craft.
A great comic premise isn't a bad idea, either. Here's the publisher's blurb for ENSLAVED BY DUCKS:
Enslaved By Ducks
How One Man Went from Head of the Household to Bottom of the Pecking Order
Bob Tarte's witty account reveals the truth of animal ownership: who really owns who, the complicated logistics of accommodating many species under one roof, the intricate routines that evolve, and ultimately, the distinct and insistent personalities of every animal in the house – and on its perimeter. Writing as someone who's been ambushed by the way in which animals — even cranky ones — can wend their way into one's heart, Bob Tarte is James Herriott by way of Bill Bryson.
Nor does Bob's comic genius stop there. FOWL WEATHER was one of NPR's Nancy Pearl's Under-the-Radar Books for January 2008. Quoth Dame Nancy: "If you're longing for a book that will make you laugh out loud, then run, don't walk, to the nearest library or bookstore and pick up a copy of Bob Tarte's Fowl Weather."
Before you lose yourself in daydreaming about receiving a review like that, cast your eyes over the blurb:
Fowl Weather
So the man knows whereat he speaks, memoir-wise. Those of you even considering setting pen to paper to write about the real should pull up a chair and take good notes.
Join me, please, in a big round of applause for today's guest blogger, Bob Tarte. Take it away, Bob!
You're probably itching to get started writing your memoir, to sit down with your notes and let the story flow. But before you flow too far, you might want to tighten the tap as you think about refining one of the most important aspects of your writing. And that's your narrative voice. Check with agents and publishers, and you'll discover that a unique voice is at the top of their must-have list when they're looking for new authors.
Voice can be a slippery, elusive element to grab hold of. But if you've got good material for your memoir and a strong point of view, you're probably most of the way there. It's tempting to use the same voice in your memoir that you've been using in your emails, blog, or journal. But don't just automatically do that. Although your first-person narrator stands at the center of your story, it's really just another character that needs to be developed. And you need to develop it to a knife's edge.
The "I" who tells your story is supposed to be you. But it isn't you exactly. It's both more and less than that.
In my three pet memoirs, Enslaved by Ducks and Fowl Weather, and Kitty Cornered (which I promise to only mention a dozen more times), my voice isn't like the real Bob Tarte at all. The voice in my books is whiny, complaining, self-effacing, and funny. And the real Bob isn't particularly funny. I'm mostly just droopy.
But if I put that droopiness into a book, it wouldn't even sell to other droopy people. So I've gone with the humor angle instead, and it seems to do the trick. I'm never quite sure if I'm a greater or lesser fool than the "I" who inhabits my memoirs, though I suspect the truth.
The important thing is to sculpt a voice that is indisputably in charge of your narrative. And why shouldn't it be? If you're not an authority about your own life, nobody is. You just need to pick a personality that convinces your readers of this fact.
Which "I" Are You, Anyway?
There's another problem with using a voice that supposedly reflects who you really are. Who are you? Are you just one "I"? Or are you a bunch of little "Is" that weave in and out of dominance throughout the day?
I often start my morning with a good case of the jitters due to existential angst. Later I might get crabby. Neither of these is the basis for an appealing voice. But if I refuse to write until an ecstatic mood seizes me, I'm going to have to wait until fall or spring when the warblers migrate through our woods. And that leaves a lot of dead space in between.
What's a memoirist to do? You need to do what I did, which is to create an artificial intelligence that stands in for you, an I, Robot narrative contraption that will do your bidding and tell your story better than a swarm of little "Is" ever could. Harness those elements of your personality that can tell your story in the strongest and most engaging manner, and leave the other bits and pieces on the floor.
Did I mention that the voice needs to be engaging? Early this year, a woman sent me the manuscript for a memoir about her collie. She had a definite flair for writing and she had entertaining anecdotes about her dog. But her voice rarely shifted out of hysteria as it wrenched her narrative from one crisis to another with never an intervening moment of quiet. And on nearly every page, the voice shouted something IN ALL CAPS.
When I suggested that her approach was too exhausting and too repetitive, she told me, "But that's exactly how it all happened."
I didn't believe it. But I didn't blame her. I blamed her voice instead.
Voice Determines Content, Too
If she had chosen a different voice, she would have told her story differently. In her e-mails, she told me how much she loved her collie now that the dog was older and calmer. But in her manuscript she used a voice that was continually caught up in each fresh moment of disaster rather than the voice of experience that reflected who she was now. That more mature voice could have supplied the balance that her story needed not only by changing the tone in which it described events, but also by choosing which events to include and which ones to leave out.
Our elderly cat Moobie passed away while I was writing Kitty Cornered. The voice that I had used in Enslaved by Ducks or Fowl Weather might have worked Moobie's loss into my book. But the voice of Kitty Cornereddidn't want anything to do with death. It wanted to keep the story light and funny. So instead of seeing Moobie through her inevitable decline in the book, I ended the tale while she still lolled upon the bed with flashes of kitten-like behavior.
Nobody will notice what I left out, because that's the coolest thing of all about narrative voice. It's both transparent and opaque at the same time. It's a guy who stands holding a pane of glass. Most of the time, you look straight through the glass at the action and get caught up in it without even noticing that the guy is there. From time to time he shifts his body. A cuff or a finger get in the way as he points at something happening through the glass, but you don't mind the intrusion, because he's showing you something interesting. He's kind of a magician. And he's a lot like you.
The ideal voice might not come to you immediately. It always takes me a while to find it. Sometimes I have to write 50 pages while my voice and material dance with one other before they finally make a connection. It's frustrating because I don't know how to tell my story until I discover my "I," but I can't discover my "I" without writing. So I just have to wait it out.
And speaking of waiting, I thank you for your patience as I flounder around trying to get these simple ideas across. Part of the problem is that I don't think I've ever quite found my voice here. And I wouldn't, because I'm writing about writing instead of writing about my life with cats, ducks, parrots, or geese.
Bob Tarte and his wife Linda live on the edge of a shoe-sucking swamp near the West Michigan village of Lowell. When not fending off mosquitoes during temperate months and chipping ice out of plastic wading pools in the depths of winter, Bob writes books about his pets, namely Enslaved by Ducks and Fowl Weather. In April 2012, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill will publish Bob's new book, Kitty Cornered How Frannie and Five Other Incorrigible Cats Seized Control of Our House and Made It Their Home.
Emmy Award-winning actress Patricia Heaton has taken on an option on the dramatic rights to Enslaved by Ducks. and Fowl Weather was selected as an "Under The Radar" book for 2008 by Nancy Pearl on NPR's Morning Edition.
Bob Tarte's website includes photos of Bob, Linda, and the animals, information about Bob's books, links to Bob's music review website and pet podcast, Bob's email address, and several videos of Bob and his animals.
Posted on July 6, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Pet Peeves on Parade, part XXIX, and Structural Repetition, part VI, and bears, oh my! And other run-on sentences of note. And anything else that might occur to me to include.
Pet Peeves on Parade, part XXIX, and Structural Repetition, part VI, and bears, oh my! And other run-on sentences of note. And anything else that might occur to me to include.
Sick of structural repetition yet, campers? Excellent: you're starting to gain a sense of how Millicent the agency screener and the rest of us who read for a living feel about it.
Oh, you think I'm kidding? Those of use who have been at the manuscript game for a while tend to have negative reaction to it that borders on the visceral. At the end of a long, hard day — or week, or month, or lifetime — of watching manuscripts get caught up in the insidious allure of and to make even the simplest run of short sentences sound interconnected and chatty, just like the run-ons that plague everyday speech, most of us would be perfectly happy never to see a conjunction again.
Okay, so we tend to get over it by the next day. Then what do you think happens? We're greeted by another manuscript penned by some well-meaning and probably talented soul laboring under the misconception that a narrative voice must sound like somebody who's had eight cups of coffee by 9 a.m.
Make that someone rude who's had eight cups of coffee by 9 a.m. There's just no getting that pushy narrator to pause for breath — or a period. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this run-on dominated style is especially common in first-person narratives:
I was walking down the street, and I saw a car drive by. Not just any car, mind you, but a red, white, and blue car with magenta trim and violet and gold rims. And then, just when I thought my eyeballs could take no more searing, a truck drove up and I looked at it: a two-ton mauve beauty with chartreuse bucket seats, a scarlet grill, and neon yellow racing stripes.
I stopped and stared. Who wouldn't?
Makes some sense, right? The character narrating the piece is a non-stop talker; the constant forward impulse of all of those ands conveys that. Clearly, what we see on the page is what the narrator would sound like in real life.
A rather literal interpretation of narrative voice — and, perhaps because so many people are hyper-literal, a radically overused device — but justifiable. You'd be astonished, though, at how often third-person narratives — which, although they may follow a single character closely, are seldom attempts to echo an individual's speech pattern — fall into a similar cadence.
Why is that a problem? Let's allow those cars to take another pass by our hero.
George was walking down the street, and he saw a car drive by. Not just any car, but a red, white, and blue car with magenta trim and violet and gold rims. And then, just when he thought his eyeballs could take no more searing, a truck drove up and he looked at it: a two-ton mauve beauty with chartreuse bucket seats, a scarlet grill, and neon yellow racing stripes.
George stopped and stared. Who wouldn't?
Doesn't work as well, does it? In this version, those run-ons come across as precisely what they are: not a reflection of an individual's speech patterns, but rather repetitively-structured writing. And, unfortunately for the writer responsible for these immortal words, repetitive in a manner that our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, is likely not only to find repetitive on this page, but across half of the manuscripts she screens today.
Given the unfortunate ubiquity of this structure, a reasonable submitter might conclude that Millicent's sensibilities would get blunted after a while, but in practice, quite the opposite is true. If anything, most professional readers become more sensitive to word, phrase, and structural repetition over time. So if the ands in question have rampaged all over page 1 of a submission — or even, heaven help us, a query letter — we shouldn't be tremendously surprised if Millicent reverts to the most over-used word in her vocabulary?
That's right, campers: "Next!"
Honestly, it's hard to blame her. Seeing the same phenomenon rampage across submission after submission, one does start to wonder if every sentence structure other than this happened and that happened and then we did this, that, and the other thing was wiped off the face of the earth by an evil wizard. And (see, even I'm doing it now) those of us prone to sympathizing with good writers everywhere can easily become depressed about that, because the ubiquitous use of run-ons can make otherwise quite polished writing seem in a submission like, well, the rest of what we see.
"Oh, talented writer who appears not to read his or her own work very often in hard copy," we moan, startling onlookers and fellow coffee shop habitués, "why are you handicapping your voice so? It would be understandable — if a bit predictable — if you were writing a first-person narrative, especially if it is YA, but in this close third-person narrative, why cram so many disparate elements into a single sentence? If only you would give the ands a rest and vary your sentence structures more, your voice would be much more enjoyable to read."
I'm telling you: it's a tragedy — all the more so because so many aspiring writers are not even aware that this plague afflicts their manuscripts. For every voice-constructor makes a conscious authorial choice to incorporate conversational run-ons to ramp up the narrative's chatty verisimilitude, there seem to be ten who just don't notice the ands piling up .
Purposeful or not, the results still aren't pretty, as far as Millicent is concerned. Any reasonably busy professional reader sees and in print so often that she might as well have that WANTED poster above plastered on her cubicle wall.
And's crime? Accessory to structurally repetitive prose. As we have seen close up and personal in my last few posts, too great an affection for this multi-purpose word can lead to run-on sentences, dull action sequences, and contracting nasty warts all over one's kneecaps.
Well, perhaps not the last, but let's face it: no other individual word is as single-handedly responsible for text that distracts the eye, enervates the mind, and wearies the soul by saying different things in more or less the same way over and over and over again on the page. Yet on the individual sentence level, the problem may not be at all apparent.
Don't believe me? Okay, let's take a look at the issue both in isolation and at the paragraph level.
Bernadette had her cake and ate it, too.
Standing alone, there's nothing inherently wrong with this sentence, right? Most self-editors would not even consider excising it. Solitude, however, tends not to be this structure's writer-preferred state. A perennial favorite in both submissions and contest entries, the X happened and Y happened sentence structure all too often travels in packs.
Yes, like wolves. Here's what the mob tends to look like in its natural habitat:
Bernadette had her cake and ate it, too. Jorge ate what was left of her cake and then went out and baked his own. He believed it to be good, tasty, and yummy. After having tried his cake and found it untoothsome, unpalatable, and generally inedible, Frankenstein's monster broke into his apartment and destroyed his oven.
"I'm stopping him," the monster told reporters, "before he bakes again."
See the problem? No? Okay, let's look at that first paragraph again as Millicent might:
Like any sentence structure that appears too often within a short run of text, this type of sentence to bore the reader after a while, even if the subject matter is inherently interesting — and yes, Virginia, even if every sentence in the passage isn't put together in precisely the same way. That's and's fault, you know; when too many of them appear on a page, even the untrained eye starts unconsciously counting them up.
Seven, by the way. And two in the last paragraph of explanation — which also boasted two evens, in case you're interested.
That's not to say, naturally, that the X happened and Y happened sentence structure doesn't have some legitimate uses. Let's face it, it's darned useful, providing a quick way to inform the reader of quite a bit of action in a short amount of text. Instead of having to write a brand-new sentence for each verb with the same subject, all of the action can be presented as a list, essentially. That can be especially handy if the individual activities mentioned are necessary to plot, characterization, or clarity, but not especially interesting in and of themselves.
Weary from a long day at work, Ambrose sat down and removed his heavy steel-toed boots.
Nothing wrong with that, right? The reader doesn't need to spend two sentences mulling over Ambrose's rather predictable post-workday actions. Now, while we've got our revision spectacles on, we could debate from now until next Tuesday whether the reader actually needs to be told that Ambrose sat down — not exactly a character-revealing move, is it? — but that's a matter of style, not proper presentation. Technically, this is a perfectly legitimate way to convey what's going on.
You'd be astonished, though, how often aspiring writers will treat even quite a thrilling string of events in this manner, purely in the interest of telling a tale rapidly. This tactic is particularly popular amongst synopsis-writers trying to compress a complex plot into just a page or two. Like so:
AMBROSE MERCUROCROME, JR. (27) comes home from work one day, removes his steel-toed boots, and discovers that the third toe on his left foot has transformed into a gecko. He cuts it off in a panic and takes it to a veterinarian, DR. LAO (193). Dr. Lao examines the gecko-toe and determines it has the capacity to knit exquisite sweaters. He and the gecko kill AMBROSE, go into business together, and soon take the skiwear market by storm.
Not the most scintillating way of describing the plot, is it? The repetitive structure gives the impression that none of these potentially quite exciting plot developments is important enough to the story to rate its own sentence. Obviously, that's a problem in a synopsis, where the goal is to present the story you're telling as interesting and exciting.
Perhaps less obviously — brace yourself, and-lovers; you're not going to like this — this structure can create a similarly dismissive impression on a manuscript page. Not to be telling stories out of school, but skimming eye like You-Know-Who's will has been known note only the first verb in a sentence and skip the rest.
Before any and-hugger out there takes umbrage at the idea of every sentence in his submission or contest entry's not getting read in full, let's take a moment to think about verb-listing sentences from Millicent's perspective — or, indeed, any reader's. If an action is not crucial enough to what's going on for the writer to devote an entire sentence to it, why should we assume that it's important to the scene?
I sense some squirming out there. "But Anne," some of you and partisans hasten to point out, "while I admit that sometimes I lump a bunch of activity together in a few short, list-like sentences in order to speed things up a bit, that's not the primary way I use and in my prose. As you yourself have mentioned, and not all that long ago, stringing together sentences beginning with but or yet, it creates the impression conversation-like flow. Isn't that essential for a convincing first-person narrative?"
At the risk of repeating myself, partisans, echoing recognizable speech patterns is only one technique for constructing a plausibly realistic first-person narrative voice. There are others; this is simply the easiest. It would be hard to deny that
I woke up the next morning and poisoned my husband's cornflakes.
is chatty, casual, echoing the way your local spouse-poisoner is likely to describe her activities to her next-door neighbor. True, it doesn't quite match the arid eloquence of Ambrose Bierce's
Early one June morning in 1872, I murdered my father — an act which made a deep impression on me at the time.
But then, what does?
You would not be alone, then, if you feel that the heavy use of and is downright indispensable in constructing dialogue or a first-person narrative. (Just ask Millicent how often she sees it on any given day of submission-screening.) Many a living, breathing, conversation-producing person does incorporate the X happened and Y happened structure into her speech with great regularity.
In many cases, with monotonous regularity. Certainly, it can feel awfully darned monotonous to the reader, if it appears on the printed page with anywhere near the frequency that it tumbles out of the average person's mouth.
Don't believe me? Okay, try walking into any public place with an abacus and moving a bead every time you hear somebody use and. Better get some training on how to use that abacus quickly, though; your total is going to be up in the thousands before you know it.
Yes? Do those of you who have been following this series have anything you'd like to add here? Perhaps the observation that no matter why a word, phrase, sentence structure, and/or narrative device appears over and over again within a short span of text, it's likely to strike a professional reader as repetitive?
No? Were you perhaps thinking of my oft-repeated axiom that just because something happens in the real world doesn't necessarily mean that a transcript of it will make compelling reading?
Despite the sad fact that both of these observations are undoubtedly true, few real-world patterns are as consistently reproduced with fidelity in writing as everyday, mundane verbal patterns. Sociological movements come and go unsung, jargon passes through the language literarily unnoted, entire financial systems melt down without generating so much as a mention in a novel — but heaven forfend that everyday redundant or pause-riddled speech should not be reproduced mercilessly down to the last spouted cliché.
And don't even get me started on the practically court-reporter levels of realism writers tend to lavish on characters who stutter or — how to put this gracefully? — do not cling tenaciously to the rules of grammar when they speak. In some manuscripts, it seems that if there's an ain't uttered within a five-mile radius, the writer is going to risk life and limb to track it down, stun it, and pin it to the page with quotation marks.
Again, I'm not saying that there aren't some pretty good reasons underlying this impulse. Many aspiring writers consciously strive for prose that echoes the kind of conversational rhythms and structures one hears every day, particularly when they are penning first-person or present-tense narratives.
"I want it to sound real," they say with engaging earnestness. "My goal is to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature."
Unfortunately, from Millicent's perspective, most of these writers don't realize just how widespread this particular goal is — or that much real-life conversation would be either deadly dull, logically incoherent, or at minimum not literarily interesting transferred directly to the printed page. Real-life speakers repeat both words and sentence structures to an extent that would make even the most patient reader rip her hair out at the roots in frustration.
And I'm talking arm hair here, people. If you doubt the intensity of this reaction, here's a little experiment:
(1) Sit in a crowded café for two hours, jotting down the conversations around you verbatim.
No fair picking and choosing only the interesting ones; you're striving for realistic dialogue, right?
(2) Go home and type up those conversations as scenes, using only the dialogue that you actually overheard.
No cheating: reproduce ALL of it.
(3) Wait a week.
(4) Seat yourself in a comfy chair and read the result in its entirety.
If you can peruse the result without falling into a profound slumber, congratulations! You have an unusually high threshold for boredom; perhaps you have a future as an agency screener. Or maybe you have cultivated an affection for the mundane that far outstrips that of the average reader.
How can you tell if you have roughly the same redundancy tolerance as most reader? Did you find yourself reaching for the nearest ice pick with the intention of self-destruction within five pages?
And if your fingers start itching not for that ice pick, but for a pen to write some acidic commentary on the subject of the inadvisability of boring one's audience with gratuitous word repetition, have you considered a career in publishing? Millicent was reaching for that pen before she graduated from middle school.
I was reaching for it before I could walk. One of the most beloved Mini family anecdotes concerns my correcting a dinner guest's grammar from my high chair. His spoken grammar.
But enough about me. Let's get back to that test.
(5) Ask yourself honestly: does the dialogue you overheard have any entertainment value at all when reproduced in its entirety? Or are only selected lines worth preserving — if, indeed, any lines deserve to be passed down to posterity at all?
Even if you are lucky enough to stumble upon an unusually witty group of café denizens, it's highly unlikely that you would be able to get the result past Millicent, either as dialogue or as narrative. In professional writing, merely sounding real is not enough; a manuscript must also be entertaining enough to hold a reader's interest.
Yes, Virginia, even if the manuscript in question happens to be literary fiction, if it's book-length. Most of what goes on in the real world, and nearly everything that's said, doesn't rise to the standards of literature.
Not of good literature, anyway. And that's as it should be, as far as I'm concerned.
There's more to being a writer than having adequate transcription skills, after all; merely reproducing the real isn't particularly ambitious, artistically speaking. Think about it: wouldn't you rather apply your unique worldview and scintillating ability with words to create something better than reality?
In that spirit, let's revisit that sentence structure beloved of the real-life speaker, X happened and Y happened and see if we can't improve upon it. Why, here's an example of it wandering by now.
Ghislaine blanched and placed her lily-white hand upon her swiftly-beating heart. Roland nodded with satisfaction and strode toward her, grinning. She grabbed a poker from next to the fire and glanced around for an escape. He chortled villainously and continued to move closer.
Did it bug you that time? Each of these sentences is in fact grammatically correct, and this structure reads as though it is merely echoing common spoken English. It's also pretty much the least interesting way to present the two acts in each sentence: the and is, after all, simply replacing the period that could logically separate each of these actions.
By contrast, take a look at how varying the sentence structure and adding the odd gerund livens things up:
Ghislaine blanched, her lily-white hand clutching her swiftly-beating heart. Roland strode toward her, grinning. She grabbed a poker from next to the fire and glanced around for an escape. He chortled villainously, moving closer every second.
Easier to read, isn't it? Admittedly, the prose is still pretty purple — or at least a blushing lilac — but the paragraph is no longer jumping up and down, crying, "My author knows only one way to structure a sentence! Run, Millicent, run, or you'll be driven mad by page 42!"
Good advice, bellowing paragraph, but your assessment is rather generous: most pros would be driven mad within a page, particularly if that page happens to be page 1. We tend to have a very low tolerance for over-use of this particular sentence structure. Seriously, I've seen pens poked through manuscripts at the third instance of this kind of sentence within half a page. Screaming has been known to ensue after the sixteenth use within the same space.
If that seems like an over-reaction, consider this: most professional readers go into the job because they like to read. Adore it. Can't get enough of lovely prose. Lest we forget, people who work at agencies are individuals with personal preferences, rather than the set of automatons sharing a single brain that many aspiring writers presume them to be. I can guarantee, however, that they all share one characteristic: they love the language and the many ways in which it can be used.
What does that mean in practice, you ask? Millicent screens manuscripts all day at work, pulls a battered paperback out of her bag on the subway home, and reads herself to sleep at night; her boss totes submissions back and forth on that same subway because he's so devoted to his job that he does half of his new client consideration at home. And no matter how many manuscripts they reject in a given week, both wake up each and every day hoping that today, at last, will bring an amazing manuscript into the agency, one to believe in and shepherd toward other lovers of good literature.
With such an orientation, it's genuinely frustrating to see a great story poorly presented, or an exciting new voice dimly discernible through a Frankenstein manuscript. Or — and this happens more often than any of us might care to think — when a talented writer was apparently in such a hurry to get a scene down on paper that a series of potentially fascinating actions degenerated into a mere list that barely hints at the marvelous passage that might have been.
"But Anne," and-huggers everywhere cry, "I just love the charge-ahead rhythm all of those ands impart to a passage! If the writing is strong enough, the story gripping enough, surely a literature-lover like Millicent would be able to put her repetition reservations aside?"
I see that it's time to get ruthless: I'm going to have to show you just how much damage an injudicious application of ands can inflict upon even the best writing. To make the lesson sting as much as possible, let's resurrect an example I used a week or two ago, the exceptionally beautiful and oft-cited ending of F. Scott Fitzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY. To refresh your memory:
And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther… And one fine morning–
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
Even before I finished typing this, I could sense hands shooting up all over the ether. "Aha, Anne! He began two sentences with and! And he used the very X happened and Y happened structure you've been complaining about. So I may use both with impunity, right?"
No, actually — I selected this passage precisely because he does incorporate them; he also, you will notice, uses the passive voice in one sentence. He does both sparingly, selectively.
Look at the horror that might have resulted had he been less variable in his structural choices. (I apologize in advance for this, Uncle Scott, but I'm making a vital point here.)
And I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, and I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, and that it was somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, and it was where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.
Gatsby believed in the green light, and in the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. And it eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster and we will stretch out our arms farther… And one fine morning–
The moral: even when the writing is very good indeed, structural repetition can be distracting. (Take that, writers who believe that they're too talented for their work ever to require revision.)
Where might one start to weed out the ands, you ask? Glance over your pages for sentences in which and appears more than once. Chances are high that such a sentence will be a run-on — or a too heavily burdened list.
Not sure that you'll be able to spot them in the wild? Here is a classic run-on — too much information crammed into a single sentence, facilitated by those pesky conjunctions.
In avoiding the police, Babette ran down the Metro stairs and out onto the platform and into the nearest train.
And here is a description crammed into list form:
Zorro scanned the house, admiring its inventive decorative scheme. Its attractive red lintels, inviting purple door, and Robin Hood green roof demanded the attention of passers-by, while its white-and-orange checked kitchen curtains seemed to promise that pies would be cooling beneath them soon and sultry sheers wafted from the bedrooms on the second floor, offering (in the chaste realm of thought, at least) the imaginative onlooker a suggestion for what to do until the pies cooled. Not that the view from the street gave an impression of relaxation: the lawn was manicured and the hedges were clipped and shorn; even the small and compact doghouse was shipshape and freshly painted.
Interesting use of detail, but why on earth stuff so much description into so few sentences? What's the narrator's hurry? And is it really a good idea to preface such a hastily thrown-together image with an announcement to Millicent that what is about to be described is inventive?
She's like to make up her own mind about that, thank you very much. But trust me, by the middle of the second sentence, she will already be asking herself, "Wasn't there another, more interesting way the writer could have conveyed this information? If not, is are all of these details even necessary?"
Some writers, of course, elect to include run-on sentences deliberately in their work, for specific effect: to make the narrator sound less literate, for instance, or more childlike, or to emphasize the length of a list of actions the protagonist has to take to achieve a goal. Or sometimes, the point is to increase the comic value of a scene by the speed with which it is described, as in this excerpt from Stella Gibbons' immortal comedy, COLD COMFORT FARM:
He had told Flora all about his slim, expensive mistress, Lily, who made boring scenes and took up the time and energy which he would much sooner have spent with his wife, but he had to have Lily, because in Beverly Hills, if you did not have a mistress, people thought you were rather queer, and if, on the other hand, you spent all your time with your wife, and were quite firm about it, and said that you liked your wife, and, anyway, why the hell shouldn't you, the papers came out with repulsive articles headed "Hollywood Czar's Domestic Bliss," and you had to supply them with pictures of your wife pouring your morning chocolate and watering the ferns.
So there was no way out of it, Mr. Neck said.
Quite the sentence, eh? (Not the second, silly — the first.) I'm going to part company with pretty much every other editor in the world for a moment and say that I think that a writer can get away with this sort of run-on every once in a while, under three very strict conditions:
(1) if — and only if — it serves a very specific narrative purpose that could not be achieved in any other manner (in this example, to convey the impression that Mr. Neck is in the habit of launching into such diatribes on intimate topics with relative strangers at the drop of the proverbial hat),
(2) if — and only if — it achieves that purpose entirely successfully (not a foregone conclusion, by any means), and
(3) if — and only if — the writer chooses to do this at a crucial point in the manuscript, s/he doesn't use it elsewhere, or at least reserves the repetition of this choice for those few instances where it will have the greatest effect.
Why minimize it elsewhere? As we saw in that last example, this device tends to create run-on sentences with and…and…and constructions, technical no-nos. You may be doing it deliberately, but as with any grammatical rule, many writers who do not share your acumen with language include them accidentally.
Why might that prove problematic at submission time? Well, Let me ask you this: how is a speed-reading Millicent to tell the difference between a literate submitter pushing a grammatical boundary on purpose and some under-read yahoo who simply doesn't know that run-ons are incorrect?
Usually, by noticing whether the device appears only infrequently, which implies deliberate use, or every few lines, which implies an ingrained writing habit. Drawing either conclusion would require our Millie to read a significant chunk of the text.
Obviously, that would take quite a bit more time than shouting, "Next!"
I've been sensing disgruntled rumblings out there since point #3. "But Anne, I read a great deal, and I see published literary fiction authors break this rule all the time. Doesn't that mean that the language has changed, and people like you who go on and on about the rules of grammar are just fuddy-duddies who will be first up against the wall come the literary revolution?"
Whoa there, rumblers — as I believe I may have pointed out before, I invented neither the rules of grammar nor the norms of submission evaluation. If I had, every agency and publishing house would post a clear, well-explained list of standard format expectations on its website, along with explanations of any personal reading preferences and pet peeves its staff might happen to be cherishing. Millicent would be a well-paid, under-worked reader who could spend all the time she wanted with any given submission in order to give it a full and thoughtful perusal; the agent for whom she works would be able to afford to take on a difficult-to-market book project every month or so, just because he happens to like the writing, and the government would issue delightful little checks to compensate writers for all of the time they must now spend marketing their own work.
As simple observation will tell you that these matters are not under my personal control, kindly take me off your literary hit lists. Thank you.
No, but seriously, folks, even in literary fiction, it's dangerous to include grammatically incorrect sentences in a submission — to someone who hasn't read more of your work than the first few pages of your manuscript, it's impossible to tell whether you are breaking the normal rules of grammar in order to create a specific effect, or because you just don't know the rule. If an agency screener concludes that it's the latter, she's going to reject the manuscript, almost invariably.
Then, too, the X happened and Y happened structure is just not considered very literary in the business. So the automatic assumption if it shows up too much is that the material covered by it is to be read for content, rather than beauty of prose.
To quote Millicent's real-life dialogue: "Next!"
Unless you are getting an extremely valuable effect out of a foray into the ungrammatical — and an effect that would impress Millicent with its efficacy at first glance — it's best to save them for when it serves you best. At the very least, make sure that two such sentences NEVER appear back-to-back.
Why? To avoid that passage appearing to Millicent as the work of — horrors! — a habitual runner-on or — sacre bleu! — someone who does not know the rules of grammar. Or even — avert your eyes, children — as the rushed first draft of a writer who has become bored by what's going on in the scene and just wants to get that darned set of actions or description onto the page as quickly as humanly possible.
Oh, that diagnosis didn't occur to you in the midst of that description of the house? Millicent would have thought of it by the second and.
None of these may be a fair assessment of any given sentence in your manuscript, of course. But when you do find patches of ands in your text, step back and ask yourself honestly: "Do I really NEED to tell the reader this so tersely — or all within a single sentence? Or, indeed, at all?"
"Perhaps," (you're still speaking to yourself here, in case you were wondering) "I could find a way that I could make the telling more intriguing or unusual by adding more detail? I notice by reading back over the relevant paragraphs that my X happened and Y happened sentences tend to be light on specifics."
My, you're starting to think like an editor, reader. A Frankenstein manuscript just isn't safe anymore when you're in the room. But would you mind not wielding that ice pick so close to the computer screen?
Since your eye is becoming so sophisticated, take another look at paragraphs where ands abound and consider the opposite possibility: do all of those ands indicate that the narrative is rushing through the action of the scene too quickly for the reader to enjoy it? Are some of those overloaded sentences cramming four or five genuinely exciting actions together — and don't some of these actions deserve their own sentences?
Or, to put it a bit more bluntly, is the repeated use of and in fact your manuscript's way of saying COME BACK AND FLESH THIS OUT LATER?
You thought you were the only one who did this, didn't you? Almost every writer has resorted to this device at the end of a long writing day. Or when we have a necessary-but-dull piece of business that we want to gloss over in a hurry. When the point is just to get lines down on a page — or to get a storyline down before the inspiration fades — X happened and Y happened and Z happened is arguably the speediest way to do it. It's a perfectly acceptable time-saving strategy for a first draft — as long as you remember to go back later and vary the sentence structure.
Oh, and to make sure that you're showing in that passage, not telling. Millicent has an ice pick, too.
When time-strapped writers forget to rework these flash-written paragraphs, the results may be a bit grim. Relying heavily on the and construction tends to flatten the highs and lows of a story. When actions come across as parts of a list, rather than as a sequence in which all the parts are important, the reader tends to gloss over them quickly, under the mistaken impression that these events are being presented in list form because they are necessary to the plot, but none is interesting enough to sustain an entire sentence.
Which, I'm guessing, is not precisely the response you want your sentences to evoke from Millicent, right?
Does revising for this tendency require an impeccable attention to detail? You bet it does. But honestly, isn't there more to your literary voice than a sense of consecutive speech? Doesn't that inventively-decorated house in your mind deserve a full description? And isn't there more to constructing a powerful scene than simply getting it on the page before you have to run out the door to work?
Doesn't, in short, your writing deserve this level of scrutiny? Keep up the good work!
Posted on June 29, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Pet Peeves on Parade, part XXVIII and Structural Repetition, part V: wait — there's a forest out there? How can I possibly be expected to see it through all of these trees?
Pet Peeves on Parade, part XXVIII and Structural Repetition, part V: wait — there's a forest out there? How can I possibly be expected to see it through all of these trees?
The other day, an author who had established her literary credentials some decades ago — let's call her Martha, because it's nothing like her name — came over to my house for tea and a vigorous discussion of the ever-changing literary market. I love chatting with well-read, highly opinionated people on this particular subject, and Martha did not disappoint. She is, to put it mildly, no fan of what she calls "the recent vampire/werewolf/zombie craze," nor does she entirely improve of this golden age of YA.
"I keep meeting wonderful writers," she says, "who have just given up on writing for adults. Or about anyone with a pulse."
I do, too, but actually, I find this view a trifle outdated: when I walk into, say, a Barnes & Noble today, what strikes me is not the size of the YA section (I think the expansion of this particular book category has yielded some great things) or how few novel protagonists boast pulses (for me, a little contact with the undead goes a long way), but what a high percentage of the books currently available for sale were written by those who no longer have pulses at all. I'm as fond of Mark Twain, Edgar Allen Poe, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley as the next person, but do they really need to take up half the summer reading table AND an entire shelf of the sale books? Might an enterprising publisher not shell out for some display space for a few more living authors?
And while we're at it, is there a particular reason that so many bookstores stock only FRANKENSTEIN, but not any of Shelley's other novels? Again, I'm as fond of, etc., etc., but the lady was prolific. For my money, VALPURGA, her fictional account of the Inquisition, dances circles around FRANKENSTEIN. But perhaps that's merely another manifestation of my preference for living protagonists, rather than revivified ones.
As so often happens, I ended up defending publishing trends I do not necessarily applaud, simply because Martha seemed so very determined to ring the death knell for the industry — because, she said, "All publishers think about now is cash."
That's a very popular complaint amongst those who landed their agents back when it was considered a trifle gauche for writers to admit that they wanted to make a living at it. My kith and kin has been involved in producing books since the 1920s, and I can't say that I've ever heard of a time when publishing was purely a charitable enterprise. It is true, however, that both agents and publishers routinely used to nurse promising authors through half a dozen books, despite anemic sales, in the hope that someday, he (and it was almost always he) would gain a larger audience. Now, if a new author's book does not sell well, she (and it often is she these days) and her agent may well have trouble convincing even an editor absolutely besotted with her prose stylings to take a chance with her next.
Hey, the bookstore needs that shelf space for its fifth copy of FRANKENSTEIN.
To be fair, though, readers also have quite different expectations than they did when Shelley's debut novel hit the shelves — or, for that matter, when Martha's did. Pacing is considerably faster these days; the passive voice so popular prior to World War II is considered stylistically rather weak, and in deference to that type of browser who habitually grabs books off the shelves and reads page 1 before purchasing, action tends to appear much earlier in plots than in years past.
Yes, even in literary fiction — do some comparative reading. Martha didn't want to believe it, either.
Because I am, as you may have noticed, a big fan of concrete examples, I reached over to my fiction bookshelves for an example of good, solid literary writing that might have trouble getting published, or even landing an agent, today. I didn't have to run my fingertips past more than half a dozen spines before I found a great page 1: William Styron's breakthrough 1951 novel, LIE DOWN IN DARKNESS.
I would urge all of you to read this lyrical, moving book in its entirety (after you polish off VALPURGA, perhaps). For our purposes, though, I'm going to show you only what I read to Martha. Try to absorb it on two levels: for the quality of the writing, and as our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, might respond to it if it landed on her desk as a submission from an unknown writer today. To aid in that imaginative feat, I'll even show it to you as she would see it.
"Wow, he was a wonderful writer," Martha said. "Why did you stop there?"
"Because," I said, bracing myself for the inevitable outcry of the literary-minded, "an agency screener wouldn't have read any farther."
Any guesses why? How about that paragraph-long, 118-word opening sentence? Or the two subordinate clauses beginning with which and the one with where? Or the piling-up of prepositions? Or the abrupt shift from the third person to the second on line 6?
None of this, of course, mars the inherent loveliness of the writing; hearing it read out loud, Martha was quite right to be impressed. As seen on the submission page, though, how likely to you think Millicent is to exclaim, as my guest did, "Wow, this is a wonderful writer," rather than "Wow, that's quite a run-on sentence?" And having emitted the second, how likely is she not to follow it with, "Next!"
Darned right, that would be a pity; this is a beautifully-written, incisive novel. But Millicent is in fact justified in believing that a browser picking up this page 1 is likely to set the book back on the shelf again halfway through that gargantuan opening sentence.
What would make her so sure of that? Because the difference between the literary market of 1951 and the literary market of 2011 lies not merely in how quickly professional readers make up their minds about submissions, but also in non-professional readers' expectations for what constitutes good writing.
I know, I know. After I made that argument to Martha, she kept feeling my head to see if I had developed a fever.
Why might a browser not be able to see past the length of that opening sentence? Memory, partially: the browser's high school English teacher would have marked her down for producing a run-on of this magnitude. Besides, subordinate clauses are simply not as highly regarded as they used to be. Back in the day, literature was rife with these; now, most Millicents are trained to consider them, well, a bit awkward. In fact, chances are very good that she was specifically trained to zero in on relative pronouns like which and subordinate conjunctions like where with the intent of ferreting out run-ons.
That, I suspect, is going to come as surprise to those of you who love 19th-century novels. We could quibble for hours about whether literary tastes have changed for better or worse. Since they have undoubtedly changed, though, it's vital for aspiring writers who prefer more old-fashioned structures to realize that what was hailed by critics in 1951 might well give Millicent pause on page 1 today.
Or even give her an excuse to stop reading. But that does not necessarily mean that if the late lamented Mssr. Styron were trying to break into the literary fiction market today, I would advise him to lose all of the subordinate clauses.
Oh, I would certainly recommend some tinkering; that semicolon, for instance, could be replaced by a period at no great loss to the passage. Because the writing is so pretty here, however, I'm reluctant to impose the necessary cuts and changes on this passage, even for the purposes of an instructive example. As an editor, all I can justifiably do is point out the problems; it's the writer's job to rewrite.
That, too, often comes as a surprise to those harboring old-fashioned views of publishing. I meet aspiring writers all the time who greet any and all revision suggestions with an airy and dismissive, "Oh, I'm sure the acquiring editor/the agent of my dreams/some luckless proofreader will take care of that. All that matters at the submission stage is the quality of the writing."
To a professional reader, sentence-level difficulties are not external to the writing; they're integral parts of it. How a writer revises — or doesn't — is as important to the ultimate quality of the book as the initial composition. Contrary to popular belief, though, there is no such thing as a single best way to revise a narrative, any more than there is a single best way to tell a story.
That being the case, how could an editor justifiably perform all necessary revisions to a manuscript? Or an agent, for that matter? And why wouldn't a savvy writer prefer to make those changes herself, so she can control the voice?
Part of the charm of individual authorial voice is that it is, in fact, individual — but you'd never glean that from how writers (and writing teachers) tend to talk about revision. All too often, we speak amongst ourselves as though the revision process involved no more than either (a) identifying and removing all of the objectively-observable mistakes in a manuscript, or (b) changing our minds about some specific plot point or matter of characterization, then implementing it throughout the manuscript.
These are two perfectly reasonable self-editing goals, of course, but they are not the only conceivable ones. When dealing with what I call, with apologies to Madame Shelley, a Frankenstein manuscript — a text that, while perhaps prettily written, has not yet been revised to the level of professional polish — a conscientious self-editor might well perform a read-through for voice consistency, another for grammatical problems, a third for logic leaps, a fourth because the protagonist's husband is no longer a plumber but the member of Congress representing Washington's 7th District…
And so forth. Revision can come in many, many flavors, variable by specificity, level of focus, the type of feedback to which the writer is responding, and even the point in publication history at which the manuscript is being revised.
Does that all sound dandy in theory, but perplexing in practice? Don't worry; I am queen of the concrete example, remember?
To help you gain a solid sense of how diverse different of levels of revision can be, I'm going to treat you to a page from one of my favorite fluffy novels of yore, Noël Coward's POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE, a lighthearted romp set in a tropical British colony on the eve of a royal visit.
I chose this piece not merely because it retains a surprisingly high level of Frankenstein manuscript characteristics for a work by a well-established writer (possibly because it was Coward's only published novel), or even because it deserves another generation of readers. (As it does; his comic timing is unparalleled.) I think it's an interesting study in how literary conventions change: even at the time of its release in 1960, some critics considered it a bit outdated. Coward's heyday had been several decades before, they argued, so the type of sex comedy that used to shock in the 1920s was a bit passé, and wasn't it a bit late in the literary day to steer so firmly away from sociopolitical commentary?
Now, sociopolitical commentary has largely fallen out of style, at least in first novels, and sex, as Coward himself was fond of observing, seems to be here to stay. Here is a page from the end of the book, where our narrator, a harried British matron living on a South Sea island, finds herself entertaining Droopy, the husband of her best friend Bunny's would-be mistress.
Amusing, certainly, but a bit Frankensteinish on the page is it not? At first glance, how would you suggest Noël revise it? Would your revision goals be different if this were page 5, rather than page 272?
Before you give your final answers, here's that page again, after it has been subjected to just the kind of repetition-spotting mark-up I've been asking you to perform of late. (Sorry about the dark image; I honestly didn't take the photograph in a particularly gloomy room. If you're having trouble reading the specifics, try pressing command +.)
Replete with structural redundancy, is it not? By today's book publication standards, as Millicent would no doubt be overjoyed to tell you, it would deserve instant rejection on that basis alone.
But would you agree? Or is the very repetition an inherent part of this comic voice?
Arguments could be made in both directions, you know. After all, this narrative voice is not all too far from the kind of writing we all see every day online, or even in the chattier varieties of journalism. We can all see why some writers would favor this kind of voice, right? Read out loud, this kind of first-person narration can sound very natural, akin to actual speech.
That's not to say, though, that Millicent would not cringe at the very sight of it in a novel submission. And why? Feel free to chant it with me: the level of repetition that works in everyday speech is often hard to take on the printed page.
As you can see for yourself in the example above, I suspect. Now that you see all of those ands and other word repetition marked on the page, you must admit that they are mighty distracting to the eye. By repeating the same sentence structures over and over, our buddy Noël is practically begging Millicent to skip lines while skimming.
Nor is all of the redundancy here literal; there's a certain amount of conceptual repetition as well. Take note of all of those visually-based verbs: not only do people look a great deal, but our heroine envisages AND tries to imagine how she might appear in his eyes.
And did you catch the over-use of subordinate clauses, all of those whiches in yellow? While a tolerant Millie might be inclined to glide past one every ten or fifteen pages, even a screener noted for her restraint would begin to get restless with a quarter as many as appear on that single page above.
That almost certainly would not have been a major objection raised by Millicent's forebears in 1960, though, right? The literary gatekeepers would have concentrated on quite different parts of this page — the grammatically-necessary missing commas, for instance, and the back-to-back prepositions.
Longing to see how Millicent's grandmother would have commented on this page? Well, you're in luck; I just happen to have her feedback handy.
Let's linger a moment in order to consider Grandma M's primary quibbles. First, as she points out so politely in red at the top of the page, it takes at least two sentences to form a narrative paragraph. In dialogue, a single-line paragraph is acceptable, but in standard narrative prose, it is technically incorrect.
Was that gigantic clunk I just heard the sound of jaws belonging to anyone who has picked up a newspaper or magazine within the last decade hitting the floor?
In theory, Grandma M is quite right on this point — and more of her present-day descendants would side with her than you might suppose. Millie's grandmother did not bring her up to regard setting grammar at naught lightly, after all. But does that necessarily mean it would be a good idea for you to sit down today and excise every single-sentence narrative paragraph in your manuscript?
Perhaps not: the convention of occasionally inserting a single-line paragraph for emphasis has become quite accepted in nonfiction. The practice has crept deeply enough into most stripes of genre fiction that it probably would not raise Millicent's eyebrows much.
How can you tell if the convention is safe to use in your submission? As always, the best way of assessing the acceptability of a non-standard sentence structure in a particular book category is to become conversant with what's been published in that category within the last few years. Not just what the leading lights of the field have been writing lately, mind you; what an established author can get away with doing to a sentence is not always acceptable in a submission by someone trying to break into the field.
Pay attention to what kinds of sentences first-time authors of your kind of book are writing these days, and you needn't fear going too far afield. As a general rule of thumb, even first-time novelists can usually get the occasional use of the single-sentence paragraph device past Millicent — provided that the content of the sentence in question is sufficiently startling to justify standing alone. As in:
The sky was perfectly clear as I walked home from school that day, the kind of vivid blue first-graders choose from the crayon box as a background for a smiling yellow sun. The philosopher Hegel would have loved it: the external world mirroring the clean, happy order of my well-regulated mind.
That is, until I tripped over the werewolf lying prone across my doorstep.
Didn't see that last bit coming, did you? The paragraph break emphasizes the jaggedness of the narrative leap — and, perhaps equally important from a submission perspective, renders the plot twist easier for a skimming eye to catch.
Grandma M would growl at this construction ("My, Granny, what big teeth you have!"), and rightly so. Why? Well, it violates the two-sentences-or-more rule, for starters. In the second place, this problem could have been avoided entirely by eschewing the RETURN key. In a slower world, one where readers lived sufficiently leisurely lives that they might be safely relied upon to glance at every sentence on a page, all of this information could have fit perfectly happily into a single paragraph. Like so:
The sky was perfectly clear as I walked home from school that day, the kind of vivid blue first-graders choose from the crayon box as a background for a smiling yellow sun. The philosopher Hegel would have loved it: the external world mirroring the clean, happy order of my well-regulated mind. That is, until I tripped over the werewolf lying prone across my doorstep.
I bring this up not only to appease Grandma M's restless spirit, currently haunting an agency or publishing house somewhere in Manhattan, but so that those of you addicted to single-line paragraphs will know what to do with hanging sentences: tuck 'em back into the paragraph from whence they came. Ruthlessly.
At least a few of them. Please?
Really, it's in your submission's best interest to use the single-line paragraph trick infrequently, reserving it for those times when it will have the most effect. That will at least give your narrative the advantage of novelty.
How so? Well, amongst aspiring writers who favor this structure, moderation is practically unheard-of. Many, if not most, novelists and memoirists who favor this device do not use the convention sparingly, nor do they reserve its use for divulging information that might legitimately come as a surprise to a reasonably intelligent reader.
As a result, Millie tends to tense up a bit at the very sight of a single-sentence paragraph — yes, even ones that are dramatically justifiable. Hard to blame her, really, considering how mundane some of the revelations she sees in submissions turn out to be. A fairly typical example:
Beside the sidewalk, a daffodil bloomed.
Not exactly a stop-the-presses moment, is it?
Often, too, aspiring writers will use a single-line paragraph to highlight a punch line. This can work rather well, if it doesn't occur very often in the text — any literary trick will lose its efficacy if it's over-used — AND if the joke is genuinely funny. Much of the time in manuscripts, alas, it isn't.
At least not hilarious enough to risk enraging Grandma M's spirit by stopping the narrative short to highlight the quip. See for yourself:
My Algebra II teacher would have fallen over dead with astonishment.
Gentle irony does not often a guffaw make, after all. And think about it: if the reader must be notified by a grammatically-questionable paragraph break that a particular line is meant to be funny, doesn't that very choice indicate a certain authorial doubt that the reader will catch the joke? Or that it's funny in the first place?
Grandma M's other big objection to Noël's page 272 — and this pet peeve, too, she is likely to have passed down the generations — would be to, you guessed it, the many, many run-on sentences. The run-ons here, however, are not the result of the driving rhythmic pattern or descriptive complexity that made ol' William go overboard on his opening; clearly, Noël was just trying to sound chatty.
That should sound familiar by this point in the series, right? Like so many aspiring novelists, our Noël favors an anecdotal-style narrative voice, one that echoes the consecutiveness of everyday speech. That can work beautifully in dialogue, where part of the point is for the words captured within the quotation marks to sound like something an actual human being might really say, but in narration, this type of sentence structure gets old fast.
Why might that be, dear readers? Sing along with me now: structural repetition reads as redundant. Varying the narrative's sentence structure will render it easier, not to mention more pleasant, to read.
Are some of you former jaw-droppers waving your arms frantically, trying to get my attention? "Okay, Anne," these sore-jawed folk point out, "I get it: Millicents have disliked textual repetition for decades now. No need to exhume Grandma M's grandmother to hammer home that point. But I'd had the distinct impression that Millie is a greater stickler for bigger-picture problems than her forebears. Don't I have more important things to worry about than grammatical perfection when I'm getting ready to slide my manuscript under her nose?"
Well, grammatical perfection is always an asset in a manuscript, ex-jaw-droppers, so a completely clean manuscript is not at all an unreasonable goal for your pre-submission text scan. You are right, however, that present-day Millicents do tend to be weighing a great many more factors than their grandmothers did when deciding whether the manuscript in front of them has publication potential. But not all of those factors involve large-scale questions of marketability and audience-appropriateness; Millicent is also charged with going over the writing with the proverbial fine-toothed comb. Using, of course, today's standards as a guide.
What kinds of manuscript problems might catch on her comb that Grandma M's would have missed, you ask with fear and trembling? See for yourself — here's Millie's response on the page we've been examining:
I sincerely hope that your first thought upon seeing her much, much higher expectations was not to wish that you'd had the foresight to try to land an agent back in 1960, rather than now. (Although I would not blame you at all if you kicked yourself for not launching your work back in the 1980s, when the home computer was available but not yet ubiquitous, astronomically increasing the number of both queries and submissions Millicent would see in a given week.) True, the competition to land an agent is substantially fiercer now, but it's also true that a much, much broader range of voices are getting published than in Grandma M's time.
Back then, if you weren't a straight, white man from a solid upper-middle class home, Granny expected you at least to have the courtesy to write like one. (Styron's father worked in a shipyard, so he had to fudge it a little; so did his contemporary Gore Vidal, for other reasons.) If you did happen to be a SWMFaSUMCH, you were, of course, perfectly welcome to try to imagine what it was like not to be one, although on the whole, your work would probably be more happily received if you stuck to writing what you knew. And if there was a typo in your manuscript, well, next time, don't have your wife type it for you.
You think I'm making that up, don't you? That's a quote, something an agent told a rather well-known writer of my acquaintance in the mid-1960s. The latter kept quiet about the fact that he was unmarried at the time and composed his books on a typewriter.
Let's return from that rather interesting flashback, though, and concentrate upon the now. It's not enough to recognize that literary standards — and thus professional expectations for self-editing — have changed radically over time. It's not even sufficient to accept, although I hope it's occurred to you, that what constituted good writing in your favorite book from 1937 — or 1951, or 1960 — might not be able to make it past Millicent today. If you're going to use authors from the past as your role models — a practice both Grandma M and I would encourage — you owe it to your career as a writer also to familiarize yourself with the current writing in your book category.
Just for today, what I would like you to take away from these examples is that each of the editorial viewpoints would prompt quite different revisions — and in some instances, mutually contradictory ones. This is one reason the pros tend not to consider the revision process definitively ended until a book is published and sitting on a shelf: since reading can take place on many levels, so can revision.
Don't believe me? Okay, clap on your reading glasses and peruse the three widely disparate results conscientious reviser Noël might have produced in response to each of the marked-up pages above. For the first, the one that merely noted the structural, word, and concept repetition, the changes might be as simple as this:
"Hey, Anne!" the sharper-eyed among you burble excitedly. "Despite the fact that Noël has added a couple of paragraph breaks, presumably to make it easier for the reader to differentiate between speech and thought, the text ends up being shorter. He snuck another line of text at the bottom of the page!"
Well-caught, eagle-eyed burblers. A thoughtfully-executed revision to minimize structural redundancy can often both clarify meaning and lop off extraneous text.
I hope you also noticed that while that very specifically-focused revision was quite helpful to the manuscript, it didn't take care of some of the grammatical gaffes — or, indeed, most of the other problems that would have troubled Grandma M. Let's take a peek at what our Noël might have done to page 272 after that august lady had applied her red pen to it. (Hint: you might want to take a magnifying glass to the punctuation.)
Quite different from the first revision, is it not? This time around, the punctuation's impeccable, but the narration retains some of the redundancy that a modern-day Millicent might deplore.
Millie might also roll her eyes at her grandmother's winking at instances of the passive voice and the retention of unnecessary tag lines. Indeed, for Noël to revise this page to her specifications, he's going to have to invest quite a bit more time. Shall we see how he fared?
Remember, not every close-up examination of a single tree will result in a pruning plan that will yield the same forest. A savvy self-editor will bear that in mind, rather than expecting that any single pass at revision, however sensible, will result in a manuscript that will please every reader.
By apprising yourself of the current norms in your chosen book category, you can maximize the probability that your self-editing eye will coincide with Millicent's expectations. Keep up the good work!
Posted on June 23, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Part XXVI of Pet Peeves on Parade, and part IV of Structural Repetition, and other excuses stockpile a whole lot of ands. Because you wouldn't want to run out or anything.
Part XXVI of Pet Peeves on Parade, and part IV of Structural Repetition, and other excuses stockpile a whole lot of ands. Because you wouldn't want to run out or anything.
Are your fingers stained with highlighter ink, campers? I hope they are: last time, I urged you to scan your submission pages — in particular, the first five, the opening chapter, or all of a contest entry — for over-use of the words and, but, and then; the average manuscript submission is positively peppered with 'em. Since our old pal, Millicent the agency screener, sees these words so very often, I suggested that you print out these pages and highlight these words throughout, so that you might get a sense of just how often you tend to utilize them.
As I hope you have seen for yourselves, once you started marking, it was pretty darned astonishing just how often those conjunctions leapt off the page, wasn't it? Or they would have, had you flung yourself into this nit-picky task wholeheartedly — as opposed to, say, devoting yourselves the activities of normal people.
The typical writerly reaction, though, is somewhere in between: glancing over those pages with an initially willing mind, but throwing up one's hands in despair three buts in. "What was Anne thinking," I sensed some of you muttering yesterday, "to advise such a time-consuming (and potentially ink-consuming) exercise? Doesn't she realize that most of us have to fight in order to carve out time to write — and even if I happened to be one of the happy few who don't, sunny days relatively rare in the Pacific Northwest?"
Well, in the first place, summer in Seattle is frequently beautiful; the popular belief that it rains here non-stop is a myth. In the second place, I do realize just how important your time is to you — which is precisely why I'm advising you to invest a little time now in exchange for not having scads of your time wasted later in the submission process.
Think of it this way: as those of you who have submitted to an agency or entered a contest lately are already well aware, preparing your pages and sending them off is quite time-consuming, and, if you're like most aspiring writers, even more energy-consuming. We also all know, I hope, that the cleaner your manuscript — that's industry-speak for pages free of basic spelling, grammar, formatting, and logic problems, in case anyone was wondering — the less likely it is to push Millicent's rejection buttons. The same holds true for her pet peeves: the better revision job you do, the less likely your pages are to come winging back in your SASE, accompanied by a form-letter rejection. Or, as is increasingly common, for them not to come back at all.
Sense where I'm heading with this? Getting caught in a submission-rejection cycle generally ends up eating far, far more of a writer's valuable time than an intensive revision aimed at weeding out rejection triggers would take.
Or, to put it more bluntly, aspiring writers who routinely send out first drafts, especially — sacre bleu! — ones that have neither been proofread or spell- and grammar-checked — because they are impatient to get their books published generally have a harder time landing an agent, winning a contest, and/or pleasing an editor than writers patient enough to polish their work prior to submitting it.
Given such a noble goal, concentrating upon something as basic as whether your narrative relies too heavily upon and, but, and then may not seem as if it would make a big difference, but actually, out of all the potential problems a self-editor might discover in a Frankenstein manuscript, overused conjunctions are some of the easiest to catch and fix. And the pay-off can be tremendous: quick-reading agency screeners, editorial assistants (who screen submissions for editors) and contest judges are routinely ordered to subtract points (Brownie in the case of the former two, literal in the case of the contest submission) for grammatical errors — and word repetition is always high on their penalty list.
As is that habitual roommate of conjunctions, the run-on sentence. Not sure what one looks like? Here's a lulu, presented for your reading pleasure in its natural habitat, the manuscript page.
Laugh if you like, but would it astonish you to learn that this is shorter than some of the sentences my aged eyes have beheld in manuscripts and contest entries? I've seen sentences that have dragged on for more than a page; I once spotted one that expected the reader to follow its twists and turns for almost three.
Although I have apparently lived to tell about it, there can be no legitimate justification for dragging the reader through such an epic. The best possible outcome — which the author does not deserve — is that perhaps no one will notice that there was only a single period in those 21 lines of text, but that's not what's likely to happen at submission time. Since text like this simply shouts at Millicent, "Hey, this writer didn't bother to reread this paragraph in hard copy after writing or revising it; clearly, these pages are not ready for professional perusal," including such a lengthy run-on produces prose that is in effect self-rejecting.
I sense that those of you fond of the occasional multiply compound sentence longing to equivocate. "But Anne," run-on huggers point out, "couldn't embracing this sort of conversational-style sentence be a daring authorial choice? Could it not, in fact, be a characteristic of a distinctive voice?"
Well, it could, if it were handled skillfully — but in 99.99% of cases, extended run-ons are not interesting enough to be honored with the name of style. Run-on sentences, much like the repetition of a favorite word or phrase, virtually never strike Millicent as the result of well-thought-out and purposeful writerly strategy. Or, if a pro does think it is purposeful it's poor strategy: "I know! I'll bore my reader and annoy Millicent by making her read the sentence twice in order to understand it!"
Seem like a harsh assessment? It isn't, particularly, if you consider that from an agent or editor's perspective, it's the writer's job to write not only clearly, but beautifully, adhering to the basic rules of grammar. Expressing a sentiment well and without gaffes is, after all, the minimum requirement for professional writing, not an optional extra.
To Millicent, then, a run-on sentence tends to look like an instance of the writer's just being in too much of a hurry to write well — and in practice, she's frequently right about that. It's not at all uncommon for an aspiring writer to whip out a scene or paragraph in a rush, fully intending to come back and flesh out those not-especially-stirring sentences when he has more time. Astonishingly often, though, that mythical day with 27 hours — 24 for normal life, plus an extra 3 for revision — never manages to roll around. The writer forgets all about those original noble intentions and moves on.
Multiply that by a few hundred times, and you'll end up with the type of submission that makes Millicent shake her head over a good premise gone awry: a typo-filled, run-on laden series of scenes dimly indicating what an intriguing story this might be four or five drafts down the line. A half-century ago, an agent or editor might have taken on a project like this, seeing that with proper professional guidance, the writer might polish it up into something genuinely fine. Today, however, our Millie sees just too many technically perfect submissions to worry much about rejecting those that still need work.
You'd be surprised, I suspect, at just how clearly a page featuring a couple of run-ons telegraphs to the pros that this manuscript could use more revision. Run-ons are usually hodgepodges of several distinct sentences' worth of material, rubber-cemented together with our old pals and, but, and then. Look how obvious it is that the writer was in a rush:
Eighteen thousand citizens rushed as one to the city's walls and stared over the side, but they could not possibly have anticipated what they would find there and gasped accordingly, then began to shout.
Essentially, this is a summary, not a description. We can see where and how this hefty hunk of prose could be chopped up into interesting, specific detail-filled individual sentences, but for reasons best known to herself, the writer has elected not to do so.
Once a reader has developed the editorial eye to see what could have been, other types of compound sentence also seem ripe for closer scrutiny. Take, for instance, the 19th century prose practice of stringing clause after clause together with whiches and whos and wheres:
Petunia, who was desperate, ran along the docks where Ambrose had vanished. She turned right every time she came to a curve, which was easier than making a new decision each time, but which left her wondering after about fifteen minutes if the awnings she was passing were the same ones she had passed earlier.
Modern style cries out for fewer of those clunky asides. And don't even get Millicent started on the species of run-on that's simply the result of a writer's apparently being unsure whether it's okay to replace a period with a comma in order to speed up the reader's sense of what's going on.
Sebastian hesitated before marching through the doorway, the scent of gunpowder coming through it was so strong.
The answer, Millie would like me to tell you, is no: it's never correct to slap two complete sentences together with a comma. That last example should have been cut in half with a period:
Sebastian hesitated before marching through the doorway. The scent of gunpowder coming through it was so strong.
Or a semicolon:
Sebastian hesitated before marching through the doorway; the scent of gunpowder coming through it was so strong.
Even with the punctuation corrected, these sentences still might raise Millicent's ire. Any guesses why?
Give yourself a gold star with almond clusters if you instantly leapt to your feet, shouting, "So is comparative! It must take a modifier!" A so statement logically requires a that follow-up. Voilà:
Sebastian hesitated before marching through the doorway. The scent of gunpowder coming through it was so strong that it made him gag.
Why, yes, I did add some extra information to this sentence that might not have been part of the author's original intention; editors are notorious for doing that, in the interests of rendering the prose clearer. I could also have revised these sentences without changing the meaning. What the author probably meant ("And should have taken the time to say," sniffs Millie) was this:
The scent of gunpowder wafting through the doorway was so strong that Sebastian hesitated before marching through it.
This version also, I am glad to report, neatly side-steps the other professional readers' pet peeve in the original, presenting cause and effect out of chronological order. Think about it: how likely is it that Sebastian would have hesitated before he smelled the gunpowder? Isn't it far more plausible that he paused because it wafted toward him and he drew a conclusion from it about what probably lay beyond that doorway?
I hate to be the one to break the sad news, but the writer of the first version probably thought she had said precisely that. She was just in too much of a hurry to go back and make sure a reader would take that meaning from it.
Starting to get the hang of reading a run-on for clarity and grammar? Good. Now — and only now — are we ready to talk about style.
Let's face it, none of these are particularly pretty sentences. The word choice is not especially interesting; they reveal little about the physical environment, Sebastian's character, or even the danger into which he is almost certainly walking. As such, the phrasing takes a potentially suspenseful moment and squashes the reader's sense of anticipation.
So I ask you: as a writer, how likely would you be to do any of those things on purpose, in the name of delightful literature or compelling storytelling?
Millicent doesn't think it's likely, either. No professional reader would mistake any of these examples for a daring stylistic experiment; they are not polished or interesting enough to prompt the reader to try to figure out if the writer had some clever reason for presenting these facts in this manner.
Nor — dare I say it? — are these sentences original enough to set off the High Literary Stylings siren in Millicent's brainpan. That may well come as something of a surprise to creators of the variety of first-person narration whose primary stylistic recommendation is that it reads like everyday speech. The most popular means of pulling that off, as we have discussed earlier in the Pet Peeves on Parade series, is to replace grammatically-necessary periods with the ands, buts, and thens that grant a false consecutiveness to verbal storytelling.
My name is Louisa, and I am seven years old — and already, I see your eyes glazing over, dismissing anything I might have to say as the mere ramblings of a child. But I was there when the schoolhouse caught fire, there when the mayor decamped with the last dime of the town's funds, there when the crocodiles began to squirm up from the riverbed to dine on the dear departed that no one was around anymore to bury. Then the vultures came, and still, I was there.
It's not an uncompelling voice — although of the scores of professional readers' pet peeves, few will cause the average Millicent to mutter, "Next!" faster than the grade-school storytelling expedient of having the narrator say right off the bat My name is X and I am # years old — but honestly, any originality the reader might spot in it comes from the details, not the echo of run-on filled normal speech. ("And even if it did," Millicent adds, "this is a far cry from a seven-year-old's voice.")
Don't believe me? Okay, here is the same passage, stripped of run-ons and reworked to minimize conjunctions.
My name is Louisa. I am seven years old. Already, I see your eyes glazing over, dismissing anything I might have to say as the mere ramblings of a child, but I was there when the schoolhouse caught fire. I was there when the mayor decamped with the last dime of the town's funds. I was there when the crocodiles began to squirm up from the riverbed to dine on the dear departed that no one was around anymore to bury. When the vultures came, I was still there.
A forest of hands sprouted throughout the course of that last paragraph; I couldn't be more delighted. "But Anne," shout those of you who have been paying attention in recent weeks, "isn't this opening a prime example of the oh-so-common invocatory rhythm achieved through word and phrase repetition that we have already identified as one of Millie's pet peeves? I can't believe that you edited the original without addressing that problem."
Hey, it's not the editor's job to rewrite the author's voice choices; all we do is flag what's not working and suggest how to kick-start that story's engine. It's the writer's job to decide how the words should appear on the page, right?
Admit it: you're happy that's the case. You wouldn't really like somebody else to set your literary voice for you, would you?
So I leave to you the meaty creative challenge of making your prose sound like you at your best. For the moment, my goal is far less lofty: I want to help you be able to spot a run-on when you encounter it in the wild.
Here's a good preliminary rule of thumb: if you can't say any given sentence within a single breath, it might be a run-on. (Yet another great reason to read your manuscript OUT LOUD, IN HARD COPY, and IN THEIR ENTIRETY before you submit, eh?) Another classic tip-off: where run-ons gather, there will be ands aplenty also, typically.
So whip out your marked pages from last time, please, and let's observe the reproduction habits of and. If you're like most writers, your marking project probably revealed four major patterns of andusage:
(1) In lists.
Remember, not all lists take the form of Kamala had three novels, two memoirs, and a dictionary in her backpack. Keep an eye out for lists consisting of named emotions, which often appear in groups (Kamala felt angry, betrayed, and hurt), too-hurried accounts of activity (Kamala went to the store, searched fruitlessly for spumoni ice cream, ran down the block to her favorite trattoria, and begged them to sell her a couple of scoops on the sly.), as well as lists inadvertently formed by the use of and for emphasis (Kamala felt angry and betrayed and hurt and, consequently, ravenous for spumoni ice cream.).
Don't think of all of those types of sentence as lists? Millicent does, believe me — and are lists really the most interesting way to present your protagonist's activities? Ever?
(2) In the immensely popular X happened and (then) Y happened sentence structure.
We're all familiar with this one, right? Edward ate his pizza and drank his Coke. The sky turned brown, and all of the birds stopped singing. I could go on like this all night, and if my guests were not flipping impatiently through magazines, I would.
There's nothing wrong with this structure per se — but used too often, or too close together, all of those ands can start to feel quite repetitious quite fast. As can…
(3) In the almost-as-popular trilogy structure: Someone did X, Y, and Z. Alternatively, it may appear as Someone did X and Y, then Z.
Yes, either of these structures could be considered a list (as in, Christos cried, rolled over, and bawled some more.), but since most aspiring writers simply like the three-beat rhythm, I prefer to talk about it as a separate sentence type. Again, there's nothing wrong with this structure if used sparingly, but all too often, the three-beat descriptive sentence becomes the default in the manuscript.
The resulting repetition can feel quite percussive to a reader, even if the actual sentence structure varies:
Christos felt betrayed, confused, and, oddly enough, desperate for some spumoni ice cream. Puzzled, he wandered into his kitchen, yanked open the freezer door, and pondered his ice cream supply. Wait — what had happened to his long-hoarded supply? Suddenly, it came to him: he'd heard Kamala rooting about in here in the wee hours, rattling bowls and clattering spoons. He felt angry and betrayed and hurt.
See how predictable those threesomes became, even in the space of one short paragraph? Imagine how Millicent feels when confronted with pages upon pages of them — which happens more than any of us would like to think.
(4) In complex descriptions.
Descriptions with multiple elements almost always contain at least one and, particularly if the sentence is passive: Germaine was tall and lanky. Again, this is technically a list (albeit a short one), but few writers would think of it as one.
Pay close attention to descriptive passages for another common and bugbear: sentences containing more than one of them. A multiple-and sentence is to most professional readers what a red flag is to a bull, and yet they are so easy to produce almost inadvertently if a writer is trying to cram too much description into a single sentence. As in:
Germaine was tall and lanky, with long, straight hair that came down to her lean and boyish hips. She liked to dress in black-and-white dresses, the kind that confused the eye if she walked past a strobe light, and skin-tight leather boots. She also favored tight jeans and tank tops, except of course for days she knew she would be running into Kamala and joining her on a spumoni ice cream run.
Quite a lot of ands, isn't it? As strange as it may seem, most writers have an infinitely easier time spotting this kind of repetition in other people's work; in their own, they tend to concentrate on the description, not the repetitive structure.
Complicating matters is the fact that often, two or more of these four types of and usage will appear within a single paragraph — or even a single sentence. Not sure what that might look like in practice? Okay, see if you can ferret out instances of all four kinds in this sterling piece of prose:
Abe took a deep breath and ran his palms over his face. He yanked his handkerchief from his pocket and mopped the red and black tattoo over his left eyebrow, folded it twice, and stuffed it back into his coat. A motley assortment of trash caused his hand to recoil: cast-off candy bar wrappers, half-sucked lollipops hastily stuck back into their wrappers, waiting for later, and both red and black licorice whips. Sure, he was a sane and sober adult now. Outwardly composed, he twisted his face into a smile, swallowed a groan, and extended his hand to Emile.
How did you do? Admittedly, we're looking for something a bit subtle here. Although the types of repetition used in this example may sound merely chatty when read out loud, they would come across as structurally redundant on the page. Even minor word repetition can set editorial teeth on edge, because editors — like other professional readers — are trained to zero in on redundancy.
To see how this orientation might affect how one reads, let's look at this same paragraph with a screener's heightened antennae:
See? The repetition of all those ands can be downright hypnotic — the percussive repetition lulls the reader, even if the action being described on either end of the and is very exciting indeed.
There's a reason for that, you know, and if you've been paying attention throughout this series, it has probably already occurred to you. The swiftly-scanning eye's automatic tendency is to jump between repeated words on a page, in very much the manner that a CLUE player might move his piece from the study to the kitchen via the secret passage about which everyone in the game is evidently quite well-informed. (Hey, it's an editor's job to demand precise word usage.)
The result: Miss Scarlet did it in the kitchen with the revolver.
Oops, wrong chain of events: the result relevant for our purposes is a submission page read far, far more quickly than the average submitter might wish. Not only by Millicent and her ilk, but by the average reader as well.
The best way to avoid triggering this skimming reaction is to vary your sentence structure. A great place to start: scanning your manuscript for any sentence in which the word and appears more than once. Take a gander:
Ezekiel put on his cocked hat, his coat of many colors, and his pink and black checked pantaloons. And he dusted himself out before heading toward the big top, clown shoes a-flopping.
Did your eye catch the subtle problem here? No? Let's take a second look, this time as Millicent would see it:
All of the ands are serving slightly different functions here, two of which would be perfectly valid if they stood alone: the first is connecting the second and third items in a list; the second is connecting two characteristics in a shorter list. And the third — as in this sentence — is the kind of usage we discussed last time, where a conjunction gives a false sense of chatty consecutiveness between the first sentence and the second.
When I first began writing that last paragraph, I didn't intend it to be an illustration of just how visually confusing word repetition may be on the page — but as I seemed to be succeeding brilliantly at doing just that, I figured I'd just run with it.
You're welcome. Let's highlight the repetition here, to determine precisely why a skimming reader might find it confusing:
All of the ands are serving slightly different functions here, two of which would be perfectly legitimate if they stood alone: the first is connecting the second and third items in a list; the second is connecting two characteristics in a shorter list. And the third — as in this sentence — is the kind of usage we discussed yesterday, where a conjunction gives a false sense of chatty consecutiveness between the first sentence and the second.
Is your brain in a twist after all of that percussive redundancy? Never fear — the twin revising morals are actually quite simple to remember:
(1) Every writer, no matter how experienced, will occasionally write a poorly-constructed sentence or paragraph, so there will never be a point where any of us can legitimately assume that our first drafts require no revision whatsoever, and
(2) Just because a given word may carry more than one meaning — or, as here, refer to distinct categories of things — that fact doesn't nullify the effects of repetition upon the reader.
Because we writers tend to think of words according to their respective functions within any given sentence, rather than as images on a page, these kinds of repetition often flies under our self-editing radars. Unless one is looking for it specifically, it's easy to, well, overlook. Thus my urging you to whip out the highlighting pens, in case you were wondering. I'm just trying to make repetition jump out at you as garishly as it does to those of us who read for a living.
Incidentally, words that sound alike but are spelled differently — there, they're, and their, for instance — often strike readers as repetitious if they are used in too close proximity to one another. For example:
"They're going to look for their zithers in there," Thierry pointed out.
Why might this sentence give a reader pause? Because many pronounce words silently in their heads while they scan. Yet another great incentive to read your manuscript IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and OUT LOUD, eh? It's the best way to replicate the silent reader's mental experience.
Next time, I shall delve into some other problems that commonly arise from an over-reliance upon ands. In the meantime, in between time, try to minimize word and sentence structure repetition, and keep up the good work!
Posted on June 21, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Pet peeves on parade, part XXV, structural repetition, part III, and the role of pretzels in a well-rounded breakfast
Pet peeves on parade, part XXV, structural repetition, part III, and the role of pretzels in a well-rounded breakfast
This morning, I was puzzled into wakefulness by my fiancé's waving a soy latte and a freshly-baked pretzel under my nose. A new German bakery has opened in our neighborhood, and he's terrified that it will go out of business without our daily support. A reliable source for Black Forest cake is not to be taken for granted, after all.
Now, I'm as fond of a good pretzel as the next person, but at 8 a.m., I must confess, mustard-laden food options are generally not the first to pop to mind. Nor is rock salt my favorite pillow covering, given my druthers.
Rick, however, subscribes to the surprisingly pervasive school of thought that holds what a person has said she liked once, ever, will come as a pleasant surprise to receive at any randomly-selected moment for the rest of her life. Or so I surmise from the fact that he could not resist pointing out that I had apparently enjoyed a remarkably similar pretzel only two afternoons before.
Which, of course, would render it even less likely that I would want another one now. The pretzel was turning out to be pretty tasty, though, so rather than take the time to explain at length that piling on more of a good thing does not necessarily improve, well, anything, I decided it would be the better part of valor to thank him graciously and bear my usual breakfast into a more appropriate environment for consuming something warm and squishy. As I fled, I marveled at how, once again, the muses had tumbled all over themselves to provide me with a delightfully apt metaphor for a craft issue you and I were already discussing.
Oh, hadn't the pretzel-paragraph construction parallel hit you instantly? Allow me to recast it as a self-editing aphorism for the ages, then: what might read beautifully as a stand-alone sentence may not work as well within the context of a page of text. Varying word choice and sentence structure will usually provide the reader with a more pleasurable reading experience than a narrative's insisting that if something looked good on the page once, it will necessarily look great if it's repeated.
For the last couple of posts, I've been talking about how professional readers tend to respond to repetition in submissions. (To summarize their reaction for those of you joining us mid-series: not at all well.) I cannot in good conscience round off my lobbying for reduced repetition in your manuscripts, though, without discussing those ever-popular transients passing through Conjunction Junction: and, but, and then.
Positive legions of hands shoot into the air. Yes, grammar mavens? "But Anne," you point out, and rightly so, "then isn't a conjunction! Why, then, would you include it in your discussion of conjunctions, when there are so many legitimate conjunctions — yet, for instance — deserving of your august scrutiny?"
Quite right, hand-wavers: when used properly, then isn't strictly speaking a conjunction. However, enough writers are using it these days as if it were a synonym for and in a list of actions (as in The Little Red Hen kneaded the bread, baked it, then fed it to her forty-seven children.) that I feel justified in — nay, compelled to — treat it as such for the purposes of our ongoing discussion of repetitive sentence structures and their predictably negative effect on Millicent the agency screener's weary peepers.
Language does grow and change, of course. Back in the bad old days, when dinosaurs roamed the earth Roosevelts were presidents Dorothy Parker was still speaking to Ernest Hemingway editors like Maxwell Perkins called the shots in the publishing world, it was considered hugely improper to begin any sentence with and, but, or then; amongst the literate, these words were purely intra-sentence phenomena. As my Uncle Alex (a fairly well-known SF short story writer in the 1950s, an editor at the LA Free Press, and a stickler for grammar for his entire life) used to scrawl in the margins of letters I had written when he returned them to me, a conjunction, by definition, connects one part of a sentence to another.
"Therefore," he would ink in large letters, "a conjunction may not begin a sentence. How's your mother?"
There are easier things than growing up in a family of writers and editors. Toward the end of his long, colorful, and occasionally scurrilous life, Uncle Alex was even known to shout grammatical advice at the TV screen when newscasters –sacre bleu! — began their sentences with conjunctions. And really, who could blame him?
(I couldn't resist. Hey, a pretzel is not exactly the breakfast of champions.)
Time and the language have been marching merrily onward, however, and at this point in North American history, it's considered quite acceptable to begin the occasional sentence with a conjunction. I do it here all the time. So do most bloggers, journalists, and columnists: it's a recognized technique for establishing an informal, chatty narrative voice.
That mournful crashing sound you just heard was Uncle Alex stomping his feet on the floor of heaven, trying to get all of us to cut it out, already, but there can be perfectly legitimate stylistic reasons to open a sentence with a conjunction. They can, for instance, be very valuable for maintaining an ongoing rhythm in a paragraph. Like so:
Ghislaine spotted the train pulling into the station. But would Arbogast be on it? He would — he had to be. And if he wasn't, well, she was just going to have to call him to find out why. Or not. Anyway, she wasn't going to waste her energy speculating on what would be a moot point the second Arbogast stepped off that train and caught her in his arms.
As Uncle Alex would undoubtedly have been the first (and last, and middle) to tell you, classic English grammar has an elegant means of preventing those conjunctions from hanging out at the beginnings of those sentences: by eliminating the periods and replacing them with commas. The result would look a little something like this:
Ghislaine spotted the train pulling into the station, but would Arbogast be on it? He would — he had to be, and if he wasn't, well, she was just going to have to call him to find out why — or not. Anyway, she wasn't going to waste her energy speculating on what would be a moot point the second he stepped off that train and caught her in his arms.
To old-fashioned eyes, this paragraph's meaning is identical to the first; it is merely cleaner grammatically. However, I suspect that most current readers of English prose would recognize a substantial difference in the rhythm. A period is, as the English like to call it, a full stop; a comma, on the other hand, indicates a pause. A dash indicates a slightly longer and more pointed pause. To this millennium's sensibilities, the first example has a choppiness, a breathless quality that conveys the subtle impression that Ghislaine's breathing is shallow, her pulse racing.
The periods my uncle would have forbidden, then, could be regarded as subtle narrative indicators of protagonist stress. At least to those in the habit of breaking paragraphs down into their constituent parts to see what their functions are. Like, say, most of us who read manuscripts for a living.
Before we leave that last set of examples, did you happen to notice any other editorial pet peeves in that first? No? Okay, let me whip out my editorial machete pen and remove a couple of Millicent's pet peeves. Rather than merely noticing that this third version reads better, why not challenge your revision skills by trying to figure out why?
Ghislaine spotted the train pulling into the station, but would Arbogast be on it? He would — he had to be, and if he wasn't, well, she was just going to have to call him to find out why. Right now, she wasn't going to waste her energy speculating on what would be a moot point the second he stepped off that train and caught her in his arms.
How did you do? Take a nice, shiny gold star from petty cash if you immediately cried, "Why, word repetition is word repetition, Anne — which is why you removed the second Jason in the paragraph." Stack another star on top of the first if you added, "Anyway is often how speakers inform hearers that they've digressed from their point. Is there a reason the narrative should go out of its way to inform readers that it has digressed?" And give yourself three more stars if you have gotten in touch with your inner Millicent sufficiently to have mused, "You know, to find out why — or not is conceptually unnecessary. And would the paragraph lose any actual meaning if I cut or not?"
I hear those of you who did not shout any of those three observations muttering under your collective breath, and you're quite right: this is nit-picky stuff. Both good writing and professional presentation are made up of lots and lots of nit-picky stuff. Your point?
While you're trying to come up with a sufficiently scathing comeback for that one, let's tie the anyway revelation (i.e., that what's considered acceptable in everyday speech may not work so well in a narrative voice on paper, even if it happens to be in the first person), back to our ongoing discussion of and and but. Since conjunction-opened sentences can sometimes mirror actual speech better than more strictly grammatical ones, the former can be a positive boon to dialogue.
Seem paradoxical? Okay, contrast this sterling exchange:
"And I tell you, Spencer, it was eerie. I'm never going back into that deserted house again. And that's final."
"But Yvette, you're backing recklessly away from the conventions of our chosen genre! You're a scantily-clad, unattached female who screams easily, often while tossing your dreamy long red (or blonde) hair. You are fleet of foot in the face of danger. Yet you are astonishingly prone to tripping over easily-avoidable bits of bracken your surer-footed male counterparts and non-ingénue sidekicks never seem to twist their ankles navigating. And, naturally, you are entirely unarmed. Therefore, you must return to face the danger that any sane person would take extreme measures to avoid!"
"Or what? Or you're going to turn me in to the Stereotype Enforcement Police?"
"Or else, that's all."
"Fine. Then give me the key to the tool shed."
"If you insist. But don't come crying to me when an axe comes crashing through your door at the closed-for-the-season hotel."
with the same dialogue after the conjunctions have been tucked into the middle of the sentences:
"I tell you, Spencer, it was eerie. I'm never going back into that deserted house again. That's final."
"Yvette, you're backing recklessly away from the conventions of our chosen genre! You're a scantily-clad, unattached female who screams easily, often while tossing your dreamy long red (or blonde) hair. You are fleet of foot in the face of danger, yet surprisingly prone to tripping over easily-avoidable bits of bracken your surer-footed male counterparts and non-ingénue sidekicks never seem to twist their ankles navigating. Naturally, you are entirely unarmed. Therefore, you must return to face the danger that any sane person would take extreme measures to avoid!"
"Is there some penalty attached to my refusal? Are you going to turn me in to the Stereotype Enforcement Police?"
"You must, that's all."
"Fine. Give me the key to the tool shed."
"If you insist, but don't come crying to me when an axe comes crashing through your door at the closed-for-the-season hotel."
The difference is subtle, but to a professional reader, it would be quite evident: the second version sounds more formal. Partially, this is a function of the verbal gymnastics required to avoid the colloquial Or what? Or else.
But these are not the only ways aspiring writers utilize sentence-beginning conjunctions in narrative prose, are they? As anyone who has ever been trapped in a conversation with a non-stop talker can tell you, beginning sentences with conjunctions gives an impression of consecutiveness of logic or storyline. (As was the case with the first sentence of this paragraph, as it happens.) Even when no such link actually exists, the conjunctions give the hearer the impression that there is no polite place to interrupt, to turn the soliloquy-in-progress into a dialogue.
We all encounter this phenomenon so often in everyday life that giving a concrete example seems a tad, well, repetitive. If you feel that your life lacks such monologues, though, try this experiment the next time you're at a boring cocktail party. (They're coming back, I hear.)
(1) Walk up to another guest, preferably a stranger or someone you do not like very much. (It will soon become apparent why that last trait is desirable.)
(2) Tell a lengthy anecdote, beginning every sentence with either and, but or then. Take as few breaths as possible throughout your speech.
(3) Time how long it takes a reasonably courteous person to get a word in edgewise.
Personally, I've kept this game going for over 15 minutes at a stretch. The imminent threat of fainting due to shortness of breath alone stopped me.
Which is, in case you happen to be writing a book about such things, why panhandlers and telemarketers so often speak for minutes at a time in what seems to the hearer to be one long sentence: run-on sentences discourage interruption. Almost invariably, this phenomenon is brought to you by the heavy lifting skills of and, but and then.
Perhaps for this reason, aspiring writers just love to tuck conjunctions in all over the place: it can create the impression of swift forward movement in the narrative. Or, even more often, to establish that chatty-sounding first-person narrative voice I mentioned above. Sometimes, this can work beautifully, but as with any repeated stylistic trick, there's a fine line between effective and over-the-top.
Also, had I mentioned that aspiring writers just love to overload their manuscripts with conjunctions? And that they use the device a lot? Or that by the time Millicent picks up your submission, she's probably already read hundreds of conjunctions that day?
In case I'm being too subtle here: since false consecutiveness is a narrative that professional readers see so very much, you might want to screen your submission for its frequency. Particularly, if you'll forgive my being a bit pushy and marketing-minded here, in the early pages of your manuscript. And absolutely on the first page.
Why especially the opening? Long-time readers, chant it with me now: agents, editors, and contest judges tend to assume that the writing on pages 1-5 is an accurate representation of the style throughout the entire manuscript. That presumption enables them to stop reading as soon as they decide that the writing is weak.
Or, to cast it in terms of our running analogy: Millicent didn't like the second pretzel of the day, she takes it as given that she's not going to like the 145th. She does not feel the need to gobble up pretzels 3-144 to confirm that.
Was that sudden blinding flash an indication that light bulbs just went off over some of your heads? That's right: this often-unwarranted assumption, renders rejection on page 1 not only logically possible, but reasonable. It certainly underlies the average Millicent's practice of not reading past any problems that might turn up on page 1 of a submission: once you've seen a modicum of this author's writing, she reasons, you've seen enough.
Feel free to pause here to punch the nearest pillow, sofa cushion, or other relatively soft object seventeen or eighteen times. I'll wait.
Got all of that frustration out of your system? Excellent. Let's shift our energies to what a writer can control in this situation. Narrative structure and voice are not merely matters of style; to a market-savvy writer, they are also matters of strategy.
And, frankly, the oh-so-common practice of conjunction overuse is not particularly good strategy. If you over-use any single narrative tool in your writer's kit in those early pages, Millicent and her ilk are not going to stick around to see whether you've mended your ways by page 25, alas. They're going to stop reading, so they may move on to the next submission.
Do I hear some moaning out there that's not attributable to any of my late relatives? "But Anne," these disembodied voices moan, bravely beginning their protest with a conjunction, thereby risking a thunderbolt flung by Uncle Alex and whatever minor deities he may have managed to befriend in his time in the choir eternal; he always did throw great parties, "not every book's best writing falls on its first page, or even within its first chapter. Many, many writers take a chapter or two to warm up to their topics. So doesn't this practice give an unfair advantage to those writers who do front-load their work?"
In a word, yes. Next question? In fact, I would highly recommend front-loading your submission or contest entry with your best writing, because I want your work to succeed.
Again, we could waste a lot of energy complaining about the necessity for this (which I'm sure all of us could, at great length), but I would rather we concentrate instead upon heading the problem off at the proverbial pass. Whip out your trusty highlighter pens, and let's get to work.
(1) Print out at least the first 5 pages of your submission. If you want to be very thorough, print the entire first chapter, as well a random page from each subsequent chapter.
And before anybody asks: no, reading through those pages on your computer's screen is not an adequate substitute here. Nor is simply doing a Word search for those particular words. The goal here is not to come up with a simple accounting of how often you are using these words, but to spot patterns in how and where you are habitually including them.
(2) Pick a color for and, another for but (go ahead and use it for the howevers and yets, too), and a third for then.
Why these words and no others? Well, these particular ones tend to get a real workout in the average manuscript: when writers are trying to cover material rapidly, for instance, and, but, and then often appear many times per page. Or per paragraph.
Or even per sentence. Yes, really.
(3) Mark every single time each of those words appears on your pages.
Not just where these words open a sentence, mind you, but every instance.
(4) After you have finished inking, go back and re-examine every use of then, asking yourself: could I revise that sentence to cut the word entirely? If it begins a sentence, is that the most effective opening?
(5) If you were even tempted to skip Step 4, does then appear more than once within those first 5 pages? More than once on page 1?
At the risk of seeming draconian, you should seriously consider excising every single use of then in those opening pages — and at least toy with getting rid of most thereafter. Sound drastic? Believe me, I have an excellent reason for suggesting it: some professional readers' visceral negative reaction to repetitive use of then borders on the physically painful.
Why? Well, it's one of the first words any professional editor would cut from a text — and with good reason. In written English, pretty much any event that is described after any other event is assumed to have happened later than the first described, unless the text specifies otherwise. For instance:
Jean-Marc poached the eggs in a little butter, slid them onto the plate, then served them.
Ostensibly, there's nothing wrong with this sentence, right? Perhaps not, but given the average reader's belief that time is linear, it is logically identical to:
Jean-Marc poached the eggs in a little butter, slid them onto the plate, and served them.
Technically, then is unnecessary here. In fact, then is almost always omittable as a purely temporal marker.
"Pardon my asking," Millicent says, wondering why I have a latte at my elbow and she doesn't, "but why is do submissions so often include it repeatedly, as if it were stylish? Or, if appears frequently enough, as a characteristic of authorial voice? It's seldom necessary, and it's hardly original."
That would be hard for anyone who has read more than a handful of manuscripts or contest entries to dispute. To professional eyes, this percussive use of then is logically redundant, at best. At worst, it's a sign that the writer is getting a bit tired of writing interestingly about a series of events and so crammed them all into a list.
Is this really the reaction you want to elicit to your narrative voice within the first few pages of your book?
Actually, it's not a bad idea to omit temporal thens altogether in your writing unless the event described after them is a genuine surprise or occurred so abruptly that it would have been so to onlookers. Here's an instance where the use is undoubtedly justified:
Jean-Marc poached the eggs in a little butter, slid them onto the plate — then flung their steaming runniness into Anselmo's astonished face.
Now that's a then that signals a change in sentence direction, isn't it? Reserving the device for this use will render your thens substantially more powerful.
(6) Turn now to the buts, howevers, and yets on your marked-up pages. Each time they appear, ask yourself: is the clause that immediately follows the word ACTUALLY a shift in meaning from what has come immediately before it? If not, consider excising the words altogether.
I hear more squawking from the non-celestial peanut gallery. "But Anne," they cry, bravely persisting in their long-term habit of opening every protest hurled my way with a conjunction, "you can't seriously mean that! Don't you mean that I should carefully rewrite the sentence, substituting another word that means precisely the same as but, however, or yet? The whole point of my introducing however and yet was to give my but a periodic rest, after all."
Good question, but-resters, but I did mean what I said. But, however, and yet logically imply contradiction to what has already been stated. Many aspiring writers use these words simply as transitions, a way to make the sentence before seem to flow naturally — that is, in a way that sounds like conversation — into the next.
What I'm suggesting here is not that you remove every legitimate negation, but rather that you should remove the negative conjunctions that are misused. Let's take a gander at what a savvy reviser might spare.
Bartholomew wanted to answer, but his tongue seemed to be swelling in his mouth. Was it an allergic reaction, stress, or had Josette poisoned him? He felt panic rising within him. However, his epi pen was in the pocket of his fetching dressing gown, so he need not panic. Yet now that he began to search for it, his personal first-aid kit seemed to have vanished from its usual resting-place.
"Cat got your tongue?" Josette asked sweetly, adding another lump of strangely-colored sugar to his tea.
I would vote for keeping all of buts, howevers, and yets in this passage. Each is serving its proper function: they are introducing new facts that are genuinely opposed to those that came just before the conjunction.
That is not always the case, alas. Take a look at a version of the same scene where none of these words is ushering in a twist related to the last information before it:
Bartholomew settled his fetching dressing gown around him irritably, but his tongue seemed to be swelling in his mouth. Was it an allergic reaction, stress, or had Josette poisoned him? He felt panic rising within him. However, he could not breathe. Yet his asthma seemed to be kicking in full force.
See the difference? By including conjunctions that imply an opposition is to follow, but not delivering upon it, the transitional buts, howevers, and yets ring false.
Yes, this level of textual analysis IS a heck of a lot of work, now that you mention it. Strategically, it's worth it, for this device is so popular amongst aspiring writers that the transitional but has become, you guessed it, a common screeners' pet peeve.
Harrumphs all round from my questioners, earth-bound and otherwise. "No big surprise there," they huff. "To hear you tell it, it doesn't take much for a writerly preference to graduate to industry pet peeve."
Actually, it does take much — much repetition. It just doesn't take very long manning the screening desk to discover that out of any 100 submissions, a good 92 will all share this narrative device.
And yes, Virginia, the transitional but IS that common. As is the unnecessary then. Trust me, agents and editors alike will bless you if your manuscript is relatively light on these overworked words.
Or if you don't overuse favorite words in general. English is a marvelous language for prose because contains so very many different words; it enables great precision of description.
"So why on earth," Millicent wonders, rejoining us after a coffee run, "do these submissions keep leaning so heavily on to be, to have, to think, to walk, to see, to say, and to take? If it happened in, say, one submission out of fifty, I could cope with it, but every other one?"
Good question, Millie. Varying word choice almost always makes a better impression upon professional readers than leaning too heavily on the basics.
Yes, I brought this up a few days ago, but it's a fact that I wish more first-time submitters knew, but usually, US writers have been taught just the opposite: all throughout their school years, teachers kept quoting either Mark Twain or Somerset Maugham's (depending upon how old the teachers were, and what examples their teachers had used) overworked axioms about never using a complex word when a simple word would do.
The reason that your teachers told you this is not that simple, straightforward words are inherently better than polysyllabic ones, but because they were trying to prevent you from making the opposite mistake: a narrative that sounds as if it has swallowed a thesaurus whole, dragging in pretentious or obsolete words inappropriate to the book category or target market. For most manuscripts, this is still pretty good advice.
Now, however, it's considered less a matter of style than of marketing. Remember, the standard vocabulary expectation for adult fiction is a 10th-grade reading level; in many genres, it's even lower. Doing a bit of reading in your chosen category can help you figure out where to pitch your word choices — and how broad a vocabulary Millicent is likely to expect in your manuscript.
Why is this a good idea? Not only is the gratuitous induction of polysyllabic terminology into a tome formulated for a less erudite audience not liable to galvanize a professional reader into spontaneous cries of "Huzzah!" (see how silly it looks on the page?) — it can also stick out like the proverbial sore thumb, knocking the reader out of the story.
The much-hyped 2007 movie JUNO contained such an excellent example of this that you might want to consider renting it just to see this phenomenon in action. After spending fully two-thirds of the film establishing the protagonist's father as a Working Man with a Heart of Gold, living in a house that apparently contains no books, repeatedly telling better-heeled folk that he's just a plain man, and who never once mentions to his pregnant 16-year-old daughter that her condition might conceivably (so to speak) affect any future college plans she might have, he says to his daughter, "You look morose."
At which, naturally, half of my fellow theatergoers laughed, believing this line to be a joke. Morose didn't seem to be a word that this character would ever use. Yet from context, it wasn't intended humorously: evidently, the screenwriter simply liked the word.
Nothing wrong with that, of course — but authorial affection is not always sufficient justification to include a pet word or phrase. If a word is not book-category appropriate, think seriously about finding a substitute. That's not compromising your artistic vision; that's gearing your voice to your audience.
It's also a necessary step towards individualizing your authorial voice. Just as a matter of practicality, if Millicent has already seen several conjunction-heavy narratives within the last hour, it's going to be significantly more difficult to impress her with the originality of a manuscript that's embraced a similar narrative strategy.
Speaking of developing a sensitivity to repetition across manuscripts, as well as within them, did anyone happen to catch the too-close similarity of Yvette and Josette in the two of today's examples? "What's going on?" Millicent shouts immediately after burning her lip on her too-hot latte. "A plague of -ettes? Did a bestseller from a year ago feature a heroine with an -ette name, and are the writers of these two passages copying that?"
Well caught, Millicent: I didn't catch that one myself until about ten minutes after I wrote the second example. Clearly, I should have had a more balanced breakfast.
Don't toss out those marked-up pages, please: we shall be talking more about overused conjunctions in the days to come. Next time, it's on to the ands. Keep up the good work!
Posted on June 2, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Finding your voice, part II, or, why am I introducing you to a small, annoying bug?
Finding your voice, part II, or, why am I introducing you to a small, annoying bug?
My apologies to those of you looking forward to Sunday's promised foray into book promotion. I shan't bore you with the details of why it didn't happen; suffice it to say that I will be really, really grateful when the universe stops finding such amusement in causing the lady with the cane to tumble over sideways. I'm hoping to do a couple of posts on subject this coming weekend, lenient gravity permitting.
I'm walking upright again today — Darwin would be so pleased — but I must confess, I'm feeling a bit stuffy-headed. It's all in a good cause, however: my backyard lilac tree has been waving bushels of lavender flowers in my general direction. Very beautiful, very pollen-laden.
It reminds me of the small town — a village, really, ensconced within an agricultural preserve — where I grew up, in the Napa Valley. (Note to those not from those parts: please, whatever you do, don't refer to the entire area as Napa; it makes the locals apoplectic. Napa is a well-developed city on the south end of the quite rural Napa Valley. If you're thinking of vineyards, you actually mean the latter, and if you're thinking of a quaint little tourist trap, you're probably thinking of my home town, 20 miles north of Napa. Believe me, when you're living there, the difference between a city of 130,000 and a town of 5,000 could not be greater.)
Tourists overrun the Napa Valley in the autumn, when the grapevines sport leaves ranging from bright green to mellow gold to sunburned red, but my favorite time there has always been the early spring. The vines are dormant then, blasted-looking and leaf-free, but the vineyards are full of knee-high fluorescent yellow mustard flowers: acres and acres of neon brilliance.
The local truism runs that if you don't suffer from pollen allergies during a Napa Valley spring, you never will. Because I am inherently contrary, I never suffered from pollen allergies while I was growing up. Then, years later, I moved to Seattle, where the pollen is evidently virulent in a completely different fashion.
Particularly, I notice, lilac pollen. A-choo.
I bring this up, not merely so you will excuse me if I pause occasionally for a ladylike wipe of the nose, but as an apt metaphor for today's topic, a continuation of Sunday's discussion of voice. Let's cut right to the central issue, as expressed by intrepid and curious reader Gordon's comment:
Anne — How do we tell if our voice is actually 'our voice'? Is there an easy answer, or do we rely on our early reader to tell us? Or our editor?
Terrific question, Gordon, and one that is surprisingly rarely discussed at literary conferences or in writing classes. There's a pretty good reason for this: while craft is general, voice is individual. While craft must be learned — and should be learned, as a means of clarifying and amplifying one's voice — authorial voice is, like talent, inherent. And, like talent, individual voice is not always apparent in even a very gifted writer's early efforts.
Which is, I must admit, why my first response to Gordon's question was, "Please, don't expect your future editor to define it for you — by definition, the best arbiter for a truly original voice is its author." Authorial voice can't really be taught (although there are some writing teachers who would disagree with me on that point). It arises organically, often after years of cultivation.
And I already hear some disgruntled muttering out there. "A very pretty notion, Anne," these mutterers say, "but we're looking for practicality here, not philosophy. What precisely is voice, and why should I worry about whether my work exhibits a unique one?"
For those of you who have heard the term bruited about in literary circles but were afraid to ask for a definition, voice is that combination of tone, worldview, vocabulary, rhythm, vocabulary, and style that makes one author's work differ from another's, even if they are telling the same story.
It is, to put it as simply as possible, what makes YOUR work sound like YOU, and not like someone else. In a book with a strong, well-developed voice, every paragraph — indeed, every sentence — will be in that voice, a phenomenon the pros call consistency.
And that's darned hard for a writer to pull off, particularly (as is often the case for those new to the craft) if the writer in question isn't quite sure what her voice is. "Is my voice how word patterns appear in my brain?" she might catch herself wondering. "Or on the page of a first draft? Or is my voice what ends up in a final revision? And how is what I like to read in other writers' work different — and the same — as my personal voice?"
Yes, in response to what half of you just thought exceedingly loudly, those are some mighty weighty questions, ones that a thoughtful writer could spend a productive lifetime answering. But think about it on a practical level: as a reader, don't you expect consistency of voice in a published book? Haven't you ever read a book where the tone, vocabulary, and/or style abruptly altered so much that it jarred you out of the storyline?
Millicent the agency screener has, alas. So have her cousin Maury, the editorial assistant, and their aunt, Mehitabel, the veteran contest judge. Lovers of literature that they are, it genuinely saddens them to see a voice that they have come to like and respect suddenly transmogrify into something else 150 pages into a manuscript. Or 50. Or 10.
And how do you think they are likely to react if the voice is uneven on page 1? Avert your eyes, children — it's not a pretty image.
Nor are they alone in preferring consistency. Most readers dislike that feeling of being pulled out of the story, so pros tend to edit with an eye to removing it. The result: the authors we tend to love are those whose voices are so consistent that if we took a two-line excerpt from Chapter 2 and another from Chapter 8, we could tell that the same person wrote them.
"Golly," say the scoffers we met above, "voice sounds awfully important. Why doesn't every writers' conference devote immense amounts of time to helping aspiring writers seek out and develop theirs?"
Beats me — unless it's because by definition, teaching a group means catering to commonalities; to help a writer develop his voice, an instructor would have to read enough of his work to figure out what he does better than any other writer on the planet. That's assuming, of course, that the instructor has the literary acumen to weed out those elements that are borrowed from other authors' styles (more common than you might think), as well as the time to encourage the writer, draft after draft, to cater to his own strengths.
Kind of a tough brief for a one-time two-hour seminar with twenty students, no?
To be fair to conference organizers, most submissions do fall under the weight of formatting, grammar, and clarity problems long before your garden-variety Millicent would take issue with inconsistency of voice, so it does make some sense to offer instruction on those issues first. When a writer is still struggling to express herself clearly and in a way that will appeal to an established market, those are definitely the skills she should master up front. And it's not all that uncommon for an aspiring writer only to begin addressing herself to acquiring craft skills until after she is relatively happy with the overall story she wants to tell.
Or, to put it another way, at the submission stage, if her manuscript is not in standard format, contains many grammatical errors, and is confusing to read, an agent or editor's rending his garments and crying, "But the voice is not consistent!" is probably the least of her worries. Nor is it likely to be Millicent's first concern if the story has been insufficiently thought-out.
But let's assume that you've been working tirelessly on these foundational issues, and now are pondering Gordon's question: how does a writer know when he's found his voice?
Does his writing abruptly jell in a way it had not before — and, if so, will that appealing congealing be immediately apparent to him? Or will he stumble upon a passage when he is reading his completed manuscript IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, AND OUT LOUD (I couldn't resist) before responding to a request for pages, causing him to cry out, "Wow, I would like my entire book to read like this! I shall instantly drop everything to go back through this entire manuscript, page by page, line by line, to apply this engaging voice consistently throughout the book!"
Um, no, on all three counts. Not usually. Especially that bit where the writer realizes that if his newfound voice is going to work qua voice, he's going to have to use it consistently throughout the manuscript.
So how does a writer discover her own voice? Well, for starters, it's extraordinarily rare that an author's distinctive personal voice shows up in her first writing projects, except perhaps in flashes. Why? Well, as much as we might like to think of ourselves as expressing ourselves as no one else does, doing so in writing is a rather difficult skill to master. Even for those most beloved of the Muses, it takes time, and it takes practice.
It takes, in other words, more than just sitting down and writing a complete draft of a book. That's the first step, typically, not the last: most writers will experiment with quite a few voices, vocabulary levels, approaches to scenes, etc. in drafting their first book or two. And that's perfectly fine: after all, how are you going to know what you can and can't pull off, or even what you like in your own writing, if you don't try a variety of styles?
That's why, in case you've been wondering for the last few paragraphs, professional readers like Millicent, Maury, and Mehitabel tend to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to manuscripts featuring a smorgasbord of voice experiments. To them, inconsistency of voice is a sign that the writer in question has not yet decided what she wants the book to sound like overall. So why not throw that fish back into the sea, to wait for it to grow bigger, stronger, and more consistent?
Okay, so that analogy crumbled a bit at the end; try as I might, I can't figure out what an inconsistent fish would act like. (Attempt to breathe air every second Thursday of the month, maybe?) But that's precisely why I used it: see how jarring even a single consistent sentence can be to a narrative?
Besides, most writers begin by imitating the voices of authors they admire, so it's not at all uncommon to see a manuscript scene that contains a patch that reads a bit of Annie Proulx, a terse dialogue reminiscent of Ernest Hemingway, and a blistering line or two of Jay Mcinerney cynicism, all tied together by a few straightforward declarative sentences.
Tell me, out of all of those disparate elements, which part is the writer's own voice? Is it really Millicent, Maury, or Mehitabel's job to guess?
Most of the time — and you might want to sit down for this one, campers; some of you may find what I have to say next rather discouraging — a writer comes to recognize her own voice because over time, it becomes the most natural for her to use. Its consistency sits up and announces itself to be how she should be writing all the time.
Which means, Gordon, that you may not yet know what your voice is, but you will probably recognize it when you see it.
I know, I know; that sounds very woo-woo, but I swear that it's true. For most good writers, one day, after seemingly endless writing, a personal voice abruptly emerges and takes over the narration. Like all of those lilac and mustard flowers bursting into bloom on a rainy spring morning, its essence will waft over the page, marking it.
And the writer says, "Hey, I like that. I think I'm going to write like that all the time."
To complicate matters, just as those early spring flowers make some people smile and others sneeze violently, a strong, original voice will not appeal to all readers. That's why, in case you had been wondering, no not all published writing exhibits an distinct narrative voice. The more distinctive the voice, the greater the risk, in a way — it can irritate in a way that a merely clear, pleasant, generic voice may not.
Oh, you didn't know that was one of the many reasons that journalists are trained to sound so much alike on the printed page? They are urged to keep their individual voices out of the story, so as not to distract the reader.
The ambient mutters have been steadily growing to a near-roar. "Okay, now I'm really confused. If I understand you correctly, it's safer not to write in an individual voice — but if I want to be known for the beauty of my writing, I need not only to do just that, but to do it consistently throughout my manuscript."
Nicely summarized, ghostly mutterers: it is a genuine paradox. It's also a choice that every writer has to make for himself. Or herself, as the case may be. (I've alternated so often in this post that I'm not sure whose turn it is.)
Feet continue to shuffle out there, and hips to shift uncomfortably on computer chairs. "What I'm really asking, I guess," my muttering friends continue, "is what separates a good voice from a bad voice. Or, to put it another way, how on earth can an agent, editor, or contest judge rate voice on anything but personal preference?"
Remember last autumn's Querypalooza series, when I pointed out early and often that contrary to popular opinion amongst the aspiring, a savvy writer shouldn't want to sign with just any agent — she should aspire to signing with one who truly loves her work? This is precisely why: response to voice is quite individual. No matter how beautifully-written a manuscript may be, it's not going to be every agent's proverbial cup of tea.
Is the common rejection line I just didn't fall in love with it making a bit more sense now?
In order to represent you successfully, an agent needs not only to like your voice, but be able to identify what is individual about it lucidly enough to be able to go to an editor and say truthfully, "Look, based on the books you have been buying lately, I think you are going to like this manuscript, for these twelve reasons…"
Because a runny nose is apparently conducive to decoding cosmic mysteries, allow me to add: that's why nonfiction is reputed to be easier to sell than fiction; fiction is inherently much more heavily reliant upon voice, right? Particularly literary fiction, where the freshness and strength of the voice is the book's primary selling point.
And, let's face it, no matter how strong a story is, few readers will finish a novel if they dislike the author's voice. "I just couldn't get into it," they will say, setting it aside.
Nonfiction, on the other hand, is much more concerned with the interest of the subject matter, the slant of the approach, and — yes, I must say it — the credentials of the author. (Oh, stop your groaning — you didn't honestly expect me to talk about selling NF without bringing up platform, did you?) Just think of the many, many nonfiction books sold each year by journalists: while a strong voice may be an additional selling point, clarity is generally the main desiratum.
Unless, of course, it's a memoir, where voice is nearly as important as in a novel.
Is your head spinning from all this? Not to worry; tomorrow, I shall discuss voice choices in greater detail. (And I'm going to try like heck to do it on the literal morrow, not merely the next time the pratfall-happy medical gods happen to allow me enough energy to post.)
For today's purposes, it's less important that you come away from this with a clear idea of the strategic uses of voice than to realize that you may well have more than one voice lurking inside your creative mind at this very moment — and that before you can make it consistent throughout the narrative, you are going to have to (a) identify the contenders, (b) decide which one you want to dominate the narrative, and (c) set aside some serious revision time for implementing that decision. If, as sometimes amuses the Muses to facilitate, you happen to like more than one of your voice options, you might want to (d) give some thought to which would be most appropriate to the book project at hand (which would fit most comfortably into your chosen book category, which is most likely to appeal to your target readership, etc.), reserving other options for your second, third, or fourth book.
Hey, no one ever said that developing a unique voice was easy. Or uncomplicated.
"I've got just one more question," the disgruntled mutterers who have been dogging me throughout this post are piping up to say. "Why did you decide to start talking about voice at the end of the Pet Peeves on Parade series? If my authorial voice is what is most distinctively me in my manuscript, shouldn't we have been talking about it all along?"
Ah, but remember what I said above about the usually progression of the authorial learning curve: first comes story, then craft, with voice discovery generally lollygagging to a distant third-place finish. That's necessary and appropriate — and, frankly, it's a heck of a lot easier for a writer who has already invested energy in polishing up storytelling and craft issues to tinker with voice than one who has not.
There is more to revising a manuscript than deciding whether this sentence is necessary, that paragraph is clear, or a scene tells rather than shows. All of these are necessary, of course — but ideally, a revising writer should also be asking himself, "But does this part of the manuscript fit with the overall voice? Does it sound like ME?"
Just a small, noisy bug to stick in your ear while you're reviewing your manuscript in the wake of the Pet Peeves on Parade series. Allow it to jump around freely until next time; perhaps it will awaken an exciting aspect of your voice that's been napping, waiting until you were ready to hear it. Keep up the good work!
Posted on May 28, 2011 January 19, 2017 - No Comments on Pet peeves on parade, part XXII: a stay of execution for some of those oft-doomed darlings, or, how can I tell which of this array of beauties to keep?
Pet peeves on parade, part XXII: a stay of execution for some of those oft-doomed darlings, or, how can I tell which of this array of beauties to keep?
Because we have been concentrating quite heavily on craft issues of late — and very satisfying it has been, too — I had planned to devote Memorial Day weekend entirely to book promotion skills: author interviews, book trailers, guest blogs, and similar increasingly essential but seldom discussed wrenches for the first-time author's toolkit. I do plan on getting to that material tomorrow. I realized this morning, however, that due to a heavily-booked last couple of days, I had left those of you in the throes of revision without a meaty homework assignment for the long weekend.
That will never do, will it? You might have to resort to sending out a few more queries, writing fresh pages, spending time with your kith and/or kin, or some other non-revision-related activity.
Practice is essential for building up the revision portion of that toolkit — and not just experience correcting one's own manuscript on a sentence level. Being able to produce and polish a lovely sentence is, after all, the best-known part of an author's job description. It often comes as a surprise to first-time novelists and memoirists, though, that most of the feedback agents, contest judges, and yes, even many editors give is not line-specific, but general requests to change precisely the type of patterns we've been discussing throughout this series: ramping up the showing, rather than the telling; tinkering with the pacing to keep the reader turning pages; revealing more character complexity in the dialogue, and so forth.
You didn't think I'd been going on and on about these matters just to get your work past Millicent the agency screener, did you? Once you've landed the agent of your dreams, you will need to be able to translate sometimes rather vague revision requests (which can run the full gamut from cut out all of the semicolons to more should happen in the first 50 pages to does your protagonist's brother absolutely have to be gay?) into concrete changes on the manuscript page. Sometimes very quickly.
How quickly, you ask with fear and trembling? Well, let me put it this way: my agent once called me on Thanksgiving to ask if I could rewrite the last third of a novel to an editor's specifications before Christmas. I had it on her desk in three weeks.
Well may you react with horror — but if you're not afraid of having your hair turn white on the spot, think about how much more difficult that would have been to pull off if I hadn't already amassed a pretty hefty array of tools already honed in my writer's toolkit.
That hellscape you just envisioned is a fairly standard experience for first-time novelists and memoirists, by the way. See why I am constantly badgering you to improve your revision skills, even if you happen to have a brilliant manuscript already in hand? You never know when you're going to need 'em.
Want to know what the most challenging part of revising on a deadline? Maintaining consistency of voice. It's terribly easy to become so fixated on details — or on a certain part of the text — that one ends up with the requested changes, true, but also with a Frankenstein manuscript.
For those of you new to Author! Author!, a Frankenstein manuscript meanders in voice, tone, perspective, structure, and/or style; like the body parts of Dr. Frankenstein's creature, the text may create the illusion of a whole entity, but it lacks the spark, the true-to-life continuity of a story told from beginning to end by a consistent authorial voice. Often, FM tendencies are the result of multiple or partial revision; even more often, they spring from a writer's learning the tricks of the trade while writing a book.
How do I know? You'd be surprised how frequently the voice is quite different at the end of the manuscript than at the beginning. Or polished in parts, but rough in others.
Part of the point of this series has been to help you identify these FM tendencies in your own work. To that end, we've been talking a great deal about what to take out of a manuscript. Today, I would like to discuss what to leave in, or even what you might want to add.
And the masses rejoice! "Oh, that's such a relief, Anne," burnt-out revisers shout from every corner of the globe. "I've been working my fingers to the elbow, excising redundant text, spicing up my dialogue, and, of course, getting rid of all of those ands, all the while steeling myself for the inevitable moment when you would talk me into axing my favorite sentences and phrases. Because, after all, we've all been told time and time again to kill your darlings. But may I, kind lady, dare hope that you're going to tell me to keep a couple of my favorites?"
Oh, you poor dears — no wonder you've been quivering in your boots. How could you not be, when writing teachers all over North America have been shouting at their students to axe their favorite bits of prose since practically the moment the classic piece of advice fell out of Dorothy Parker's well-rouged lips sometime during Prohibition?
Well, I'm not going to do it. While a willingness to consider cutting even one's pet bits is indeed useful, in my experience, most talented writers — published and as-yet-to-be-published alike — actually have a pretty good sense of the little things that shine in their manuscripts. They may not be right that all of the pretty bits are indispensable to the story they are telling, but they usually know which sentences sing and which merely croak.
Especially if the writer in question has been honing her craft, her pet parts of the text are likely to be telling little details, original, fresh, surprising specifics that bring joy to the eyes of agents, editors, and contest judges when they appear nestled in a manuscript — particularly on the first page of the text, where they act like miniature neon signs reading, "Hello? This one can WRITE!" causing Millicent to sit up straight for perhaps the first time that screening day and cry, "By gum, maybe I should not toss this one into the rejection pile."
As lovely as eliciting this reaction is, there is more to catching a professional reader's attention than a charming and detailed first page, I'm afraid. Of course, it's a necessary first step to that reader's moving on eagerly to the second, and the third, and so forth. Yet an initial good impression is not enough, however much writing teachers emphasize the importance of including an opening hook: as I believe I may have mentioned before in this series, in order to wow an agent into asking to see the entire manuscript, or into reading the entirety of the one you've already sent, the impressive writing needs to continue consistently throughout.
Ah, some of you formerly joyous revisers have wilted a bit, haven't you, under the realization that keeping your favorite writing may require more work than cutting it wholesale? "But Anne," you whimper, "how can a revising writer tell if the proportion of telling little details falls off throughout a manuscript enough to harm the narrative? More importantly for submission purposes, what density of telling details is enough to continue pleasing a professional reader's eye?"
Excellent questions both, revisers: we're all aware that the answer to the first is not necessarily the answer to the second, right? The first is largely a matter of personal style, after all, as well as the narrative expectations of a particular book category. Some writers wrangle generalizations better than others, after all. Generally speaking, though, the higher the proportion of exquisite detail to generalization, the more literary the writing; the more summary statements predominate, the lower the expected reading level of the audience.
And if the three repetitions of general in those last two paragraphs drove you crazy, I'm proud of you. You've been doing your editing homework.
In answer to the indignant collective gasp I hear echoing about the cosmos, literary is not simply a synonym for high-quality when we're talking about writing. Let's face it, there is plenty of good fiction writing that isn't literary fiction — and plenty of excellent writing that isn't literary. Just as the various striations of YA presume specific reading levels, literary fiction assumes a college-educated audience, or at any rate readers with a college-level vocabulary.
Thus, literary fiction is a book category, not a value judgment. It is quite possible, however, to bring a literary voice to other book categories — one sees literary-voiced memoir (like, for instance, Barbara Robinette Moss' extraordinary CHANGE ME INTO ZEUS' DAUGHTER from time to time, and many breakout novels are literary-voiced genre works.
That doesn't mean, however, that a highly literary voice would be appropriate to every book category — or indeed, to every story. Only you, as author, can decide the best voice for your story, but in order to figure out the detail/generalization level appropriate to your book category, you can pick up some external clues.
How? By keeping up with the market in your chosen field, of course. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: unless you are willing to read recent releases in your chosen book category — as opposed to what was coming out 5, 10, or 50 years ago — you're going to have a much harder time querying, submitting, and yes, revising your own work.
Why? Because you won't know what the current expectations and conventions are. Case in point: detail vs. summary statements.
Think about it: could you really get away with a summary sentence like, "She had legs that stretched all the way from here to Kalamazoo," in a genre other than hardboiled mystery, bless its abstraction-loving fan base? (All right, I'll admit it: one of the all-time best compliments I have ever received came from a writer of hardboiled; he commented on a dress I was wearing by telling me, "You look like trouble in a B movie." I shall continue to cherish that to my grave.)
That's one of the many, many reasons agents and editors tend to expect aspiring and published writers alike to read a whole lot of recently-published books within the category they write, in case any of you conference-goers out there had been wondering: to gain a working sense of the abstract/concrete statement ratio habitual readers of that type of book will expect to see. Some other reasons for keeping up with the latest releases: learning what that particular readership likes, figuring out what is and isn't appropriate vocabulary for that specific readership, gaining currency with what's being published right now, rather than in, say, 1858, and other practical benefits.
Some of you are sniffing disdainfully, aren't you? "But Anne, none of this can possibly apply to me or my manuscript. My book is ART, you see: it is totally original. It cannot be forced into an artificial category."
I can understand why you might feel that way, oh sniffers, but I have a news flash for you: there's no such thing as a published book that doesn't fall into a particular book category, no matter how genre-busting it may be. It's simply how agents, publishers, and booksellers think of books. (If that is indeed news to you, and for some tips on figuring out which conceptual container might best house your manuscript for marketing purposes, please see the HOW TO FIGURE OUT YOUR BOOK'S CATEGORY posts on the archive list at right.)
Because that's the case, the pros' eyes tend to glaze over whenever an aspiring writer refuses — or even hesitates — to say to which category his manuscript belongs. To them, that just sounds like, you guessed it, a lack of familiarity with the current book market.
It's not enough, though, to have a general (there's that word again!) sense of what kind of writing is currently highly regarded in your chosen category. You also need to get a feel for your own personal style. Before you can decide where you want to pitch your manuscript on the detail scale, you need to figure out where the telling details already tend congregate in your work — and where they do not, so you may work toward overall voice consistency.
Which brings us right back to close textual analysis, doesn't it? Funny how that worked out. Whip out your trusty marking pens, campers, and try this experiment:
1. Print out three chapters of your manuscript: the first, one from the middle, and one toward the end of the book.
Don't use the final chapter; most writers polish that one automatically, doubtless the effect of our high school English teachers making us read the final pages of THE GREAT GATSBY so often. Second or third from the end will give you a better idea of your voice when you're trying to wind things up.
Do print out Chapter 1, though, because if Millicent reads any of them at all, she will start there.
2. Make yourself comfy someplace where you will not be disturbed for a few hours, and start reading.
Easier said than done, of course, especially for those of you with young children gladdening your daily lives, but this isn't relaxation: this is work. So don't you dare feel guilty about taking the time to pore over your prose.
Yes, I know: your three-year-old will not be all that impressed that I said so. But you owe it to your writing to get to know your own voice.
3. While you are reading, highlight in nice, bright yellow every time the narrative gives information about a character in summary form.
Yes, this will be a phenomenal amount of work, but trust me: it will be worth it. Mark everything from Angelique felt envious to Maxine was a shop welder of immense proportions to Zeb was a compassionate soul, drawn to injured children, limping dogs, and soup kitchens.
4. Now use a different color of pen — red is nice — to underline any character-revealing information that the narrative conveys indirectly, through specific detail or speeches that demonstrate a characteristic or an environment that is reflective of a character's internal mood.
Remember, you are not judging the quality of the sentences here — you are looking for passages that encourage the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about what the character is like, rather than simply stating it as a fact. To revisit the trio from above, red-marked sentences might include:
Unable to contain herself, Angelique surreptitiously poked her rival with a pin, or
Maxine's broad shoulders barely fit through the doors to her metal shop, or even
Zeb was late for work again, having been sidetracked by a child's scraped knee, a search for the same little girl's lost cocker spaniel, and the absolute necessity to track down and fund the homeless person he had been forced to overlook yesterday because he'd already given away the last dollar in his pocket.
Beginning to spot some patterns? Good. Now that your manuscript is color-coded to tell you at a glance what your summary statement/telling detail ratio is, how consistent is your narrative being about preserving those proportions?
That's a big concept to get your mind around, I know. While you're pondering, let's get back to that colorful text.
5. Now that you've identified these different species of sentences, double-check immediately before and after the indirect indicators in red for summary statements telling the reader precisely how these dandy little details should be interpreted. Circle bottom-lining conclusion statements in a third color — let's say green, and complete the Rastafarian triumvirate.
Such summaries tend to lurk in the environs of telling details — usually unnecessarily, as vivid details by definition speak for themselves. You may find them elsewhere, naturally, but these will be the easiest to spot.
6. For each green-marked sentence, ask yourself, "Self, is this summary absolutely necessary here, or does the indirect statement cover what I wanted to say? Could it in fact be cut, and would the manuscript be both shorter and better for it?"
Applied consistently, this question can strip a lot of unnecessary verbiage from a manuscript relatively painlessly. It's a good strategy to know, because it's often difficult for a writer to notice redundancy on a page he has written himself — from a writerly perspective, saying something in two different ways often just looks like creative emphasis.
Or — and this is more common — the writer may not trust the reader to draw the correct conclusion from the more delicate indirect clues, and so rush to provide the logical extrapolation. But readers are pretty smart, especially those lovers of good writing (in every sense) who dote on marvelously revealing details.
Again, that's not to say that specifics should trump generalities every time. Abstract statements that bottom-line a character's ever-changing array of feelings, thoughts, and actions (Eileen was morose, Teddy was sexy, Elvira was a tall, cool hunk of woman, etc.) can save a lot of time in a narrative, quickly providing the reader a sense of what's going on and who is doing it.
Sometimes, that can come in very handy. In a scene where the action is pretty mundane, a swift summary statement like Bernadette spent the next fifteen hours yawning her way through book shelving can act like a fast-forward button for the narration.
The effect can be even greater when there is a lot going on. When an action scene suddenly requires fifteen thugs to jump Our Hero, describing each one individually and in a nuanced manner would slow the scene down to a crawl — which, inevitably, would convey the impression that O.H. is being beaten up in slow motion.
Fast-paced action deserves fast-paced narration, short, tense sentences that get the blood pumping. Short, to-the-point summary statements like Edmund ducked sideways. The anvil thudded into the wall behind him. may well serve the scene better than long, lyrical, detail-rich ones that go on for line after line.
Oh, you wanted a second example? Okay: As Edmund veered sideways, the rush of air by his ear, percussive and harsh, reminded him of that long-ago summer of fireflies and BB guns, unwashed berry juice climbing up to his elbows after braving the bees for an afternoon's blackberrying. Funny, how something as dangerous as an anvil flung at his head could awaken such long-dormant memories.
Yes, the second set was prettier — but which would work best for this SPECIFIC action scene in this SPECIFIC story, told in this SPECIFIC voice?
By contrast, concrete characterization statements depict what a character is saying, doing, feeling, and so forth in a particular moment. In a story told primarily through concrete statements — and again, writing with a high concrete/abstract ratio is considered more stylistically sophisticated — the narrative expects the reader to draw conclusions about what characters are like based upon an array of specific actions, feelings, words, and so forth, rather than simply providing a summary statement.
Does that distinction sound at all familiar? It should: this is yet another manifestation of everyone's favorite writing bugbear, the difference between showing and telling.
Yet constructing an effective narrative is not as simple as eschewing the latter and embracing the former. Obviously, every manuscript ever produced needs both abstract and concrete statements. Because, let's face it, there's no such thing as a chapter, paragraph, or even sentence that's appropriate for every book in which the creative mind might choose to have it appear.
Context matters — and so does book category.
Avoiding summary statements wherever possible may serve a high-end women's fiction writer very well, for example, but actually harm certain types of genre novel. The rash of semicolons that might make an academic book look learned is unlikely to fly in a Western — but you'd be surprised how much more acceptable it would be in a science fiction novel. And while those of us devoted to literary fiction do occasionally marvel at a story intended exclusively for a college-educated readership written in very simple language, the vocabulary range of most literary fiction is quite different from that of well-written YA.
But you knew that already, right?
And don't even get me started on how much more acceptable rampant summary statements are in most types of nonfiction than in fiction. Memoirs in particular tend to rely upon them pretty heavily.
Why? Well, as a reader, how eager are you to hear every detail of what happened to even a very interesting real-life narrator over a two-year period? If a memoirist steers too clear of abstract statements like Auntie Mame's famous My puberty was bleak, she's going to end up expending quite a bit of precious page space on illustrating just how bleak it was, right?
So much for my carefully non-judgmental speech on the subject of abstract vs. concrete statements. It is worth noting, though, that on any given day of manuscript-screening, your garden-variety Millicent sees a whole lot more summary sentences than concrete ones.
Which, obviously, can render a genuinely original detail quite a refreshment for weary professional eyes. So, generally speaking (ooh, there's that pesky word again), if you can increase the frequency with which such concrete details appear, you'll be better off.
Ready to take gander at the ratio in the manuscript you've been submitting — or are planning to submit to professional scrutiny anytime soon? Fantastic. Let's revisit those yellow, red, and green pages from above. But this time, grab a fourth color of pen –- how would you feel about embracing something in the purple family?
7. Mark all the sentences where your protagonist (or any other character whose thoughts are audible to the reader) thinks a response to something that has just happened, instead of saying it aloud or the narrative's demonstrating the reaction indirectly.
Remember, you're not judging the quality of writing by determining what to highlight, or sentencing any given observation to the chopping block by marking it. You are simply making patterns in the text more visible.
These kinds of sentences are hard to show out of context, so let me mark up a bit of text for you. The sentences destined for purple overcoats are in caps:
I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE SAID THAT, ZACHARY THOUGHT.
WHY WASN'T HE ANSWERING? "What's wrong?" Nanette asked, rubbing her tennis-sore ankles. "Are you feeling sick to your stomach again?"
OH, WOULD ONLY THAT HIS ONGOING DISSATISFACTION WITH THEIR MARRIAGE STEMMED FROM A SOURCE AS SIMPLE AS NAUSEA. WAS HIS WIFE HONESTLY SO SOULLESS THAT SHE COULDN'T FEEL THEIR WELL-MANICURED LAWN CREEPING UP THE DOORSTEP TO SMOTHER THEM IN SEDUCTIVE NORMALCY? "No, I just had a long day at work."
Everyone clear on the distinction I'm making here? Excellent. Now humor me a little and dig up a fifth color of pen — blue, anyone?
8. Mark any sentence where your protagonist's reactions are conveyed through bodily sensation of some sort. Or depicted by the world surrounding him, or through some other concrete detail.
You're probably going to find yourself re-marking some of the red sentences from #4, but plow ahead nevertheless, please. Starting to notice some narrative patterns? Expressing character reaction via physicality or projection is a great way to raise the telling little detail quota in your manuscripts.
Does this advice seem familiar? It should, for those of you who regularly attend writing workshops or have worked with an editor. It is generally expressed by the terse marginal admonition, "Get out of your character's head!"
I wish feedback-givers would explain this advice more often; too many writers read it as an order to prevent their characters from thinking at all, ever. But that's not what get out of your character's head! means, at least not most of the time. Generally (ooh!), it's an editor's way of TELLING the writer to stop telling the reader about the character's emotional responses through dialogue-like thought. Instead, (these feedback-givers suggest) SHOW the emotion through details like bodily sensation, noticing a significant detail in the environment that highlights the mood, or…
Well, you get the picture. It's yet another way that editors bark at writers, "Hey, you — show, don't tell!"
What will happen to your manuscript if you take this advice to heart? Well, among other things, it will probably be more appealing to Millicent — because, believe me, protagonists who think rather than feel the vast majority of the time disproportionately people the novels submitted to agencies and publishing houses.
And when I say vast majority of the time, I mean in practically every submission they receive. To put it bluntly, a novel or memoir that conveys protagonist response in ways other than thought a significant proportion of the time will at very least enjoy the advantage of surprise.
Why are characters who think their responses — essentially summarizing what they might have said or done in response instead of saying or doing it — so very common, especially in memoir? One theory is that we writers are so often rather quiet people, more given to thinking great comebacks than saying them out loud.
A girl's best friend is her murmur, as Dorothy Parker used to say.
Or maybe we just think our protagonists will be more likable if they think nasty things about their fellow characters, rather than saying them out loud. That, or there are a whole lot of writers out there whose English teachers made them read HAMLET one too many times, causing them to contract Chronic Soliloquization Disorder.
Whichever it is, Millicent would be happier about most submissions in practically every book category if they exhibited this type of writing less. Done with care, avoiding long swathes of thought need not stifle creative expression.
Don't believe me? Okay, let's revisit our little scene of domestic tranquility from above, this time grounding the characters' reactions in the flesh and the room:
By the time Nanette was midway through her enthusiastic account of the office party, Zachary's stomach had tied itself into the Gordian knot. The collected swords of every samurai in the history of Japan would have been helpless against it.
"Zach!" Nanette's back snapped into even greater perpendicularity to her hard chair. "You're not listening. Upset tummy again?"
He could barely hear her over the ringing of his ears. He could swear he heard their well-manicured lawn creeping up the doorstep to smother them in seductive normalcy. The very wallpaper seemed to be gasping in horror at the prospect of having to live here a second longer. "I just had a long day at work."
See the difference? The essentials are still here, just expressed in a less obviously thought-based manner. The narrative's gotten out of the characters' heads — and stepped right into their bodies.
Go back and take another look at your marked-up manuscript. How blue is it? How heavily purple is that prose? (Sorry; I couldn't resist setting you up for that one.)
No, but seriously, it's a good question: all of the types of sentence you just identified are in fact necessary to a successful narrative, so ideally, you have ended up with a very colorful sheaf of paper. Using too many of one type or another, believe it or not, can be boring for the reader, just as using the same sentence structure over and over lulls the eye into skimming.
If you doubt this, try reading a government report sometime. One declarative sentence after another can be stultifying for the reader.
The telling details of your manuscript will be nestled in those red- and blue-marked sentences, Note how frequently they appear in your chapters. If you find more than half a page of yellow and/or purple between patches of darker colors, you might want to go back and mix up your abstract/concrete ratio more.
If you find any pages that are entirely yellow and/or purple, I would suggest running, not walking, to the nearest used bookstore, buying three or four battered paperback editions of books that sell well in your chosen genre, and carting them home to perform the five-marker experiment on them. Could you revise your manuscript so that the color ratio in it replicates that in those books?
Yes, this is a time-consuming exercise, now that you mention it. A test like this is rather nerve-wracking to apply to your own work, but it's a great way to start getting in the habit of being able to see your pages as someone who does not know you might. (If you want to get a REALLY clear sense of it, trade chapters with a writer you trust, and apply the same experiment.)
At the end of it all, however, you will have a much, much clearer idea of what your narrative voice sounds like — not only at its best and worst, but when it is just trying to do its job. You'll gain a sense of what it sounds like when you're tired or excited, trying desperately to get a thought down before it vanishes or having the time to allow your words to revel in their own beauty.
Once you gain that working sense of your own voice, editing your own work will become easier, I promise. You'll be able to spot the telltale signs that the narrative has slipped away from it; you may even come to feel the drift before the words hit the page.
It sounds like magic, but it isn't: it's narrative consistency.
What does all of this have to do with saving your darlings? Plenty. How wonderful would it be if your best writing did not jump out at the reader because the entire manuscript was that good?
A lovely thought, isn't it? Your darlings will be comfortably housed in a strong, sure narrative; they may — and this happens more than one might think — be your pets because they are already written in your personal narrative voice.
But you won't know that for sure until you know your voice inside out, will you? Keep up the good work!
Posted on May 12, 2011 - No Comments on The Short Road Home, Part III: always let your conscience be your guide — except when you shouldn't
The Short Road Home, Part III: always let your conscience be your guide — except when you shouldn't
Did you miss me, campers? I've been hiding under the covers of both a good book and my bed for the past few days. Why, you ask? Well, I can take a hint: the last time I poked my nose outside my front door, I sprained my ankle and caught a cold.
Clearly, Somebody Up There is harboring a preference for my staying put. With my foot in the air and a mug of hot tea clutched to my chest.
I am venturing forth this evening, however, to reignite our discussion of the Short Road Home, my pet term for a scene that introduces a potential conflict, only to resolve it so quickly that the reader barely has time to notice an increase in ambient conflict. Short Roads Home have been the downfall of many a submitted novel, for a small handful of exceedingly simple reasons: such scenes almost invariably tell rather than show, minimize inter-character conflict, and let the tension of the story lag.
So why, you might well have spent last week wondering, do Short Roads Home remain immensely popular in manuscript submissions? Much of the time, the writers who construct such shortcuts are not even aware that they are doing it.
That, I think, is both unfortunate and unnecessary. Today, I'm going to show you how to recognize the subtle form of Short Road Home, so you may see this common mega-problem in action and learn how to fix it.
As in right now. Or at least before you send your baby out again.
Why the urgency? Because the Short Road Home is so very common, an experienced pro might not even have to read more than a couple of lines of a scene to identify it — and shove the submission into the rejection pile. In fact, it's in the interest of a time-strapped Millicent the agency screener, Maury the editorial assistant, or Mehitabel the veteran contest judge to be on the lookout for this phenomenon: it's a pretty good indicator that a manuscript has not seen very many critical first readers.
As such, M, M, and M tend to assume, the book is probably at least one revision away from being polished. Or, to put it as they would, "Next!"
Long-time readers of this blog, did a light bulb appear above your heads somewhere in the course of those last two paragraphs? Did it occur to you as if archangels suddenly appeared and shouted the news into your awed ears that, as with nonstandard formatting, the appearance of an ultra-frequent megaproblem in a manuscript might actually be a welcome sight to an agent, editor, or contest judge, because it means that the work can be rejected without further ado — or, more to the point, without investing further reading time?
If so, congratulations — you now have a much, much firmer grasp of how submissions work than a good 95% of the writers currently slapping stamps on SASEs across the English-speaking world. It's one of the great paradoxes of being in a position to discover new writers: in order to unearth that great undiscovered talent, they have to read a lot of, well, everything else. So the faster they can sift through the rest and reject the bulk of what they receive, the more time and energy they have to devote to that elusive perfect book.
Which is great, if your manuscript happens to be that needle in a haystack. It's substantially less great if your project is a pin that merely needs a bit more sharpening and an eye installed before M, M, and/or M will recognize it as what they have been seeking.
Was the refreshing breeze that just wafted across my elevated foot the collective result of all of you agent-seekers sighing gustily? I'm not surprised: polishing a manuscript to professional standards is hard work, and not something that is going to happen all by itself. As much as the artist in all of us would like to believe that each and every sentence to fall off our fingertips onto a keyboard is camera-ready, more than talent is typically necessary to bring a wonderful story to publication. It takes inspiration, yes, but it also takes craft and an acquired knowledge of how the publishing industry expects good writing to be presented.
And half of you sighed again. But honestly, if you were setting out to be a professional baseball player, would you expect to hit the ball out of the park the first time you tried? Even a natural benefits from training.
But as M, M, and M can tell you to their cost, that's not the prevailing notion of how books get published. Quite the opposite: most aspiring writers new to the business leap to the unwarranted conclusion that an agent or editor will be so delighted by a fresh voice that s/he is automatically going to be willing to ignore other problems in the manuscript until after the contract is signed.
In practice, this doesn't happen much, even for manuscripts with minor problems. Certainly not for those with pacing or storytelling problems.
Out comes the broken record again: when submitting your writing in any professional context, it is not safe to assume that it will meet with readers eager to give it the benefit of the doubt. Seldom does one hear a professional reader say, "Well, this manuscript certainly needs work, but I think it's going to be worth my while to expend my energy on helping the author fix it."
And never, alas, does one hear, "This author seems to have trouble moving the plot along and maintaining tension, but that's nothing that a good writing class couldn't fix. Let's sign this writer now, and help her grow as an artist for the three or four years it will take her to learn to correct these problems."
As delightful as it would be if they did habitually express such sentiments — better still, if they routinely acted upon them — this just doesn't happen for writers who don't already have a solid platform (i.e., a special expertise or celebrity status to lend credibility to a book). As a non-celebrity writer, you can safely assume that the first reader at an agency, publishing house, or contest is looking for reasons to weed your work out, rather than reasons to accept it. At least for the first half of the book or so. Millicent and her ilk don't worry too much about too quickly rejecting the next great American novel — since writers are resilient creatures who improve their skills on their own time (and dime), the publishing industry is fairly confident that the great ones will keep coming back.
Until then, they're hoping that those great ones will take a hint, stop submitting, and polish their manuscripts before approaching the pros again. Oh, and becoming a celebrity in the meantime would be a selling point, too.
For some reason, people in the writing community — especially those who write for writers' publications and teach seminars, I notice — don't like to talk much about this hope. Maybe it's so they can put a positive spin on the process, to concentrate on the aspects of this honestly hugely difficult climb to publication that are within the writer's control.
As far as I'm concerned, megaproblems are very much within the writer's control, as are the other rejection triggers we've been discussing over the last few months– but only if the writer knows about them in advance of submission. So let's get down to the proverbial brass tacks and see about clearing up the subtle Short Road Home.
The subtle flavor of Short Road Home crops up frequently in the work of authors who have themselves spent quite a bit of time in therapy, 12 Step programs, or watching Oprah: the second an interpersonal conflict pops up, some well-informed watchdog of a character — or, even more often, the protagonist's internal Jiminy Cricket — will deftly analyze the underlying motivations of the players at length. Case closed!
Not sure what I'm talking about? Okay, here's a common example: when a protagonist apparently shows up to a scene purely in order to comment upon it as an outside observer, rather than participating actively in it.
"I did not press the panic button!" James insisted.
Barnaby pointed to the city skyline melting into a fluorescent puddle in the distance. "The warhead didn't launch itself!"
Etienne listened to the argument swirling around him, knowing it wasn't really about who bombed what when. Anybody could see that the rapidly-disintegrating city was just an excuse for James and Barnaby to snipe at each other, a transparent mask laid delicately over the face of their unadmitted mutual passion. He wished that they would just rent a motel room and get on with it, so he wouldn't have to listen to their bickering — assuming, that is, that James' little slip of the finger had left any motels standing.
See the problem? Essentially, the protagonist is acting as the reader's translator here: no need to draw one's own conclusions while Etienne is on the job. No messy loose ends left to complicate the plot here — or to keep the reader turning pages.
Even when these helpful characters are not therapists by trade (although M, M, and M have seen a LOT of manuscripts where they are), they are so full of insight that they basically perform instant, on-the-spot relationship diagnosis: "I realize that you're upset, Cheryl, but aren't you displacing your underlying dissatisfaction at being laid off at the lumberyard onto your boyfriend? After all, it's not his fault that pastry chefs remain in such high demand. If you were not envious of his job security, would you really have minded his torrid affair with those Siamese twins?"
Ta da! Situation understood! Conflict eliminated!
"But Anne," I hear many an amateur Jiminy Cricket protest, "I don't understand. Don't my explanations move the plot along? Don't they provide necessary character development? And isn't my spouting them a fabulous way of making sure that the reader doesn't miss any critical nuances?"
Why, yes, Jiminy, your running commentary can indeed perform all of those functions — but by definition, your pointing them out to the reader is telling, not showing.
I'm not just bringing that up to sound like your 10th grade composition teacher, either. While no one minds the occasional foray into summation, both characters and situations tend to be more intriguing if the narrative allows the reader to be the primary drawer of conclusions based upon what the various characters do, say, and think.
It makes for a more involving narrative. Hyper-analytical protagonists seldom surprise; they're too thoroughly explaining what's already gone on, what's going on now, and what is likely to be going on in future to allow a twist to sneak up on the reader.
Also, when the instant-analysis device is overused, the reader can become jaded to it pretty quickly. After the third or fourth instance — or after the first, if the reader happens to be a professional manuscript-scanner — the reader is apt to become convinced that that there is absolutely no point in trying to second-guess the protagonist.
Why bother, if the author is going to tell her right away what to conclude from what has just passed? Which, correct me if I am wrong, completely prevents the reader from enjoying one of the great joys of getting into a novel, trying to figure out what is going to happen next.
Besides, as we saw last week, instant analysis can relieves the conflicting characters of any urgency they might have felt in resolving their interpersonal issues. Since Jiminy Cricket hops on in and spells out everyone's underlying motivations, the hard work of figuring one's own way out of a jam is rendered unnecessary.
If this seems like an exaggeration to you, take a good look at your manuscript — or, indeed, any book where the protagonist and/or another character habitually analyzes what is going on while it is going on, or immediately thereafter. Does the protagonist leap into action immediately after the analysis is through, or wait for new developments?
In the vast majority of manuscripts, it is the latter — which means that the analytical sections tend to put the plot on hold for their duration. Where analysis replaces action, momentum lulls are practically inevitable.
Memoirs are particularly susceptible to this type of stalling, incidentally. Memoirists just adore foreshadowing — because, obviously, they are telling about their past through the lens of the present. In the course of foreshadowing (often identifiable by the historical future tense: "It was not to turn out as I hoped…"), the narrator will all too often analyze a scene for the reader before showing it, thus killing any significant suspense the reader might have felt about how the scene will be resolved.
Yes, you know the story you are telling very well, but remember, your reader doesn't. Just because something really occurred does not relieve the writer of the obligation to make its telling vibrant and dynamic. You may be excited to share insights gleaned over the course of a lifetime, but if they are not presented as the stories unfold in the memoir, the reader may have a hard time tying the lessons to the anecdotes.
A great structural rule of thumb for memoirs: show first, conclude later.
But what's that you say, Great Hinter in the Sky? That burgeoning swelling in my ankle means I should stop for now? Thanks for telling me — I wouldn't want to risk drawing the wrong conclusion from the evidence, after all.
I shall continue to wax poetic on this subject tomorrow. In the meantime, make sure those protagonists stay active, concentrate on giving the reader enough information so s/he may draw the correct inferences about what's going on, and keep up the good work!
Posted on May 7, 2011 - No Comments on At long last, a memoir comes to the readership that needs it most
At long last, a memoir comes to the readership that needs it most
No, your eyes do not deceive you, readers — that is in fact my name on the cover of a book. And not just any book, but one written by a memoirist who has long been a member of the Author! Author! community: Shaun Attwood, author of Skyhorse Publishing's brand-new release, Hard Time: Life with Sheriff Joe Arpaio in America's Toughest Jail.
If Shaun's name sounds familiar, it should. As some of you may recall from my post last August, announcing the release of the U.K. edition of his memoir, I felt rather strongly that it was a terrible shame that readers in the U.S. — the country in which Shaun was incarcerated, and thus in which his tale of outrageous jail conditions is set — would not be able to find the book in most domestic bookstores. So when the fine folks at Skyhorse bravely stepped up to bring this startling memoir to North American readers, I was thrilled.
How thrilled, you ask? Well, let me put it this way: it's the first time I've written an introduction for another author's book.
What's more, I did it for free. And I did so for a memoir by an admitted drug dealer, despite the fact that I had recently given the eulogy for one of my best friends, dead of an overdose. Believe me, I couldn't be more hostile to drugs and the damage they so often do to creative people.
So why was I willing to introduce this book to the American reading public? Because at base, I believe Shaun's memoir to be deeply anti-drug. It's also one heck of a story — and, I think, an important one.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Take a gander at the publisher's blurb:
Shaun Atwood was a millionaire day trader in Phoenix, Arizona, but his hedonistic lifestyle of drugs and parties came to an abrupt end in 2002 when a SWAT team broke down his door. Overnight, Atwood found himself on remand for drug distribution charges in the notorious Maricopa Jail – run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a.k.a. the self-proclaimed "Angel of Death."
In Hard Time, Atwood describes his life in one of the most controversial jails in the country. In vivid language, he illustrates a real world where rival gangs vied for control, crystal meth was readily available, moldy bread was the staple diet, and breaking the rules could result in beatings or even death.
Hard Time is the harrowing account of the twenty-six months Shaun spent trying to stay alive in a nightmarish world of violence, cockroach-infested cells, and food with dead rats in it. Atwood's remarkable story provides a revealing look at the brutal, tragic, and even darkly comical aspects of life in America's toughest jail.
"I once asked a guard how Sheriff Joe Arpaio got away with the illegal jail conditions," Atwood explains, "and he
said, 'the world has no idea what is really going on in here,' so I decided to document my entire jail experience to change that."
Arpaio's jail conditions are notoriously atrocious. According to a judge's ruling, the Sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence. Inmates are routinely denied access to necessary medical procedures to the extent that one pregnant inmate's cries of pain were dismissed by Arpaio and his staff, resulting in a miscarriage that could have been prevented by more attentive medical attention. In 2005, county health inspectors found the water well in the facility where the pregnant women were held to be filled with mice feces!
What's worse is that most of the inmates in Arpaio's jail, like Atwood, are awaiting trial and have not yet been convicted of any crimes. Deborah Braillard, a diabetic 46-year-old mother who was arrested for nonviolent crimes and was awaiting her trial in Arpaio's jail, was denied insulin by the jail's staff, and died shortly thereafter.
Hard Time reveals these and dozens of other atrocities committed by Arpaio and his staff in secret. "I hope that my book causes outrage from the American public," Attwood exclaims, "and that changes are made for the inmates rotting away in Arpaio's jail system. Changes could save lives."
Of course, as a loyal member of the Author! Author! community, Shaun will be sharing his memoir-writing trials, tribulations, and tips with us in the weeks to come. I'll also be hitting him up for some insights into how to find a great memoir agent. As he is also well versed in the tricky twin arts of public readings and talking about his book in public — two skills most first-time authors are generally desperate to learn, and pronto — I'm also in hopes of blandishing him into sharing his author presentation secrets with us sometime this summer. (And yes, campers, I will be walking you through the ins and outs of writing an introduction. Did you honestly think I would leave you in the lurch?)
But right now, today, I want to let his story speak for itself — and I can't think of a better way to do that than to share Shaun's original guest post from 2009, along with my original introduction to it. Not merely because what he had to say then was starling, but because I think it will be informative for all of you memoir-writers to see just how much his book concept did and did not change throughout the proposal, writing, and editing processes.
To render the piece even more interesting to those of you first shocked by it two years ago, I shall be adding some clips from a couple of Shaun's inspirational anti-drug speeches. While I'm sure that all of us believe that the true test of any memoir — indeed, of any book — lies in what is on the page, I can't resist offering you a bit more of the story.
Welcome again to our ongoing series on censorship, subtle and otherwise. Fair warning: today's is of the not-so-subtle variety, so as they say on television, viewer discretion is advised.
I'm quite serious: this is most emphatically not going to be a guest post for the queasy. It is, however, an important voice talking about often-taboo subjects — and, I think, a fairly stunning tale about a writer struggling against incredible odds to tell a story that desperately needed (and still needs) to be told.
Therefore, I'm delighted to be introducing today's guest author, Shaun Attwood, blogger extraordinaire. Since 2004, he has been writing Jon's Jail Journal — and yes, in response to what half of you just thought, it was not safe for him to write under his own name when he first began trying to expose the grim realities of prison life.
Inexplicably, the folks who ran the prison took exception to that. I imagine that the authorities in the Dreyfus case objected to Emile Zola's writing about that, too.
As my parents liked to point approximately once every 42 seconds throughout my excruciatingly literary childhood, that's precisely what good writers are supposed to do, isn't it?
To give you a sense of the scope of the incredible story Shaun has to tell, here is a blurb for his memoir-in-progress — which I, for one, cannot wait to read — that he was kind enough to share with me:
Green Bologna and Pink Boxers: Surviving Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Jail is an account of my journey through America's most notorious jail system, a netherworld revolving around gang violence, drug use and racism. It provides a revealing glimpse into the tragedy, brutality, comedy and eccentricity of jail life and the men inside. It is also a story of my redemption, as incarceration leads to introspection, and a passion for literature, philosophy, and yoga. The book ends with me starting Jon's Jail Journal, exposing the conditions in the jail.
Call me zany, but I suspect he knows more than most of the rest of us about institutional censorship. So I am positively overjoyed that he has agreed to share some of his thoughts on the subject with all of us here at Author! Author!
Those of you reading in the UK may already be familiar with Shaun's writing, either through excerpts of his prison diary published in The Guardian or the numerous articles on his efforts to bring public attention to appalling conditions for prisoners. He also speaks to young people about his jail experiences and the consequences of his drug use.
Even if prison memoir is not your proverbial cup of tea — even if memoir isn't your usual reading material — please try not to turn away from the horrendous story Shaun is about to share with you. Read it, and read his bio, below. Consider visiting his blog to read what a talented writer has to say about being denied the right to share his writing with the world.
As writers, no one knows better than we the vital importance of self-expression to the human soul; this entire series has been about that, hasn't it? After all, telling the truth, regardless of obstacles, is what good writers are supposed to do.
So please join me in welcoming a very brave and interesting writer, Shaun Attwood. Take it away, Shaun!
Towards the end of my stay at the Madison Street jail in Phoenix, Arizona, I asked a guard how Sheriff Joe Arpaio got away with flagrantly violating federal law by maintaining such subhuman conditions.
"The world has no idea what really goes on in here," he replied.
I decided that was about to change.
Some of you may be familiar with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the star of the reality TV show, Smile…You're Under Arrest! He's the sheriff who feeds his prisoners green bologna, puts them to work on chain gangs, and makes them wear black-and-white bee stripes and pink underwear.
He has labeled himself "America's toughest sheriff," but he never mentions that he is the most sued sheriff in America due to the deaths, violence and medical negligence in a jail system subject to investigation by human rights organisations including Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a maximum-security cell — about the size of a bus-stop shelter, with two steel bunks and a seatless toilet — I used a golf pencil sharpened on the cement-block wall to document the characters, cockroaches, suicide attempts, and deaths. Wearing only pink boxers, I wrote at the tiny stool and table bolted to the wall, trying to ignore the discomfort from my bleeding bedsores. Outdoor temperatures — that sometimes soared up to 120 °F — converted the cell into a concrete oven, making it difficult to write without the sweat from my hands and arms moistening the paper.
Here are the first few paragraphs I wrote:
The toilet I sleep next to is full of sewage. We've had no running water for three days. Yesterday, I knew we were in trouble when the mound in our steel throne peaked above sea level.
Inmates often display remarkable ingenuity during difficult occasions and this crisis has resulted in a number of my neighbours defecating in the plastic bags the mouldy breakfast bread is served in. For hours they kept those bags in their cells, then disposed of them downstairs when allowed out for showers. As I write, inmates brandishing plastic bags are going from cell door to door proudly displaying their accomplishments.
The whole building reeks like a giant Portaloo. Putting a towel over the toilet in our tiny cell offers little reprieve. My neighbour, Eduardo, is suffering diarrhoea from the rotten chow. I can't imagine how bad his cell stinks.
I am hearing that the local Health Department has been contacted. Hopefully they will come to our rescue soon.
Fearing reprisals from guards notorious for murdering prisoners, I wrote under the pseudonym Jon. As the mail officer could inspect outgoing letters, posting my words was too risky. To get my words out undetected by the staff, I employed my aunt.
She visited every week, and I was allowed to release property to her, such as mail I'd received, legal papers, and books I'd read. The visitation staff's chief concern was stopping incoming contraband such as drugs and tobacco, so they never thoroughly examined outgoing property.
I hid my words in the property I released to my aunt. She smuggled them out of the jail, typed them up and emailed them to my parents who posted them to the Internet. Considering the time involved in maintaining a blog, I was lucky to have such outside help.
That's how Jon's Jail Journal came about. It was one of the first prison blogs, and went on to attract international media attention after excerpts were published in The Guardian.
After serving almost six years for money laundering and drugs, I'm now a free man. I've kept Jon's Jail Journal going, so the friends I made inside can share their stories.
Like most prisoners, those in Arizona do not have Internet access. To get their writing online, they need outside help. Unfortunately, most of them do not have family members willing to run a blog for them.
I started Jon's Jail Journal unaware Arizona had been the first state to censor its prisoners from the Internet. This came about after the widow of a murder victim read an online pen-pal ad in which her husband's murderer described himself as a kind-hearted lover of cats. A law passed in 2000 carried penalties for prisoners writing for the Internet. Privileges could be taken away, sentences lengthened.
The freedom to speak without censorship or limitation is guaranteed by the First Amendment, so the ACLU stepped in and challenged this law. In May 2003, Judge Earl Carroll declared the law unconstitutional. Since then, no other state has attempted to introduce such a law.
But even with that law repealed, any inmate writing openly about prison is running the risk of reprisals from the staff and the prisoners. The threat of being harmed or killed by your custodians or neighbours is a strong form of censorship.
I always got permission from the prisoners I wrote about. I hate to think of the consequences if I hadn't. But even with that safeguard in place, I still ran into occasional problems.
I once wrote about how the prisoners made syringes from commissary items. A prisoner received a copy of that blog in the mail, and circulated it on the yard. Some of the older white gang members gave the order to have me smashed, claiming they were concerned the staff would read that blog and stop the inmate store from selling the items the prisoners needed to make the syringes.
Fortunately, I was writing stories about some well-established prisoners at the time. Like Two Tonys, a Mafia associate classified as a mass murderer. Frankie, a Mexican Mafia hitman. C-Ducc, a Crip with one of the toughest reputations on the yard. They intervened, pointing out that the staff were well aware of how the prisoners made syringes, and that I hadn't divulged anything that the staff didn't already know about. After a few tense days during which they instructed me not to walk the yard alone, the matter died down.
To avoid conflict with the administration, I never used real staff or prisoner names. Using real names would have enabled the administration to classify me as a threat to the security of the institution. If you are deemed such a threat, the administration can invoke laws that strip you of your standard human rights. You can lose your privileges, be housed in the system's darkest quarters, and if the staff really have it in for you, you may suddenly receive a gorilla-sized cellmate intent on using you as his plaything.
On that front, I must credit Shannon Clark — my friend in prison who writes the blog Persevering Prison Pages — for being a much braver man than I. He has sprinkled guards' names liberally throughout his blog, and he's not exactly praising them for their humanity. Shannon has a reputation for being fast to slap lawsuits on the staff, which I hope continues to protect him from major retaliation.
After my release in December 2007, I figured my censorship battles with the Arizona Department of Corrections were over. I was maintaining the blog mostly for the stories of the friends I'd made inside, stories they were mailing to me in England. But in August 2008, I stopped receiving mail from them. Then in September, I received a disturbing email:
I wanted to let you know that *** called me today with a message for you. I guess the prison spoke to all of the guys that write to you and told them they are not allowed to write to you anymore. He thinks it's because they (the prison) don't like what is being said on your blog. It is a free country isn't it? Can they do that? It's ridiculous!
Attempting to sabotage Jon's Jail Journal, certain staff members had ordered the contributors to stop writing to me. If they continued to write to me, they would receive disciplinary sanctions such as losing their visits, phone calls, and commissary.
This violation of their freedom of speech earned me a nerve-racking live spot on Sky's headline news. The publicity attracted a prisoners'-rights attorney, and the problem eventually went away.
With all of these obstacles, it's unsurprising that so few prisoners are writing for the Internet.
Googling for prison bloggers, I immediately noticed the absence of women in this fledgling community. I found one writer, but she had been released. Hoping to bring the voices of women prisoners online, I wrote to two women — Renee, a lifer in America serving 60 years, and Andrea, a Scottish woman arrested for the attempted murder of her abusive boyfriend in England. I'm delighted that these two women are now regular contributors to Jon's Jail Journal, giving their unique insights on what it's like in women's prisons.
To keep Jon's Jail Journal going, I've had to overcome censorship from many angles, some foreseen, some unexpected. The blog has managed to survive these challenges, and to build up a loyal readership over the years. It has become a bridge to the outside world for my prisoner friends. They really enjoy the feedback from the public, and some of them receive pen pals from around the world. Through blogging, they are cultivating their own writing skills, and focusing on something positive in such a negative environment. Jon's Jail Journal has come a long way since when I lived with the cockroaches.
Shaun Attwood grew up in North West England where he was an early participant in the burgeoning rave scene that soon took over the whole country. Graduating from Liverpool University in 1991 with a business degree, he immigrated to Phoenix, Arizona to try his luck in the world of finance, and rose quickly through the ranks to become a top-producing stockbroker.
But it was not quite plain sailing. Shaun lost control of his life and finances in the mid-nineties, declared bankruptcy and quit his job.
The rave bug had never left him, and Shaun started to throw raves in Arizona while investing in technology stocks online. By 1999, he was living in a luxurious mountainside home in Tucson's Sin Vacas, working as a day trader in the day and partying at night. It was the time of the dot-com bubble and he made over a million on paper, but the bubble was soon to burst and Shaun lost most of his fortune and moved back to Phoenix.
In May 2002, he was arrested in Scottsdale during a SWAT-team dawn raid, and alleged to be the head of an organisation involved in a club-drug conspiracy. The local media described him as "bigger than Sammy the Bull." Facing a life sentence, he entered a lengthy legal battle.
In 2004, Shaun started the blog,Jon's Jail Journal, documenting the inhumane conditions at the cockroach-infested Madison Street jail run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. After two years of being held on remand while three trial dates were cancelled, Shaun signed a plea bargain admitting guilt to money laundering and drug offences. He was sentenced to 9 ½ years, of which he served almost 6.
Shaun had only read finance books prior to his arrest. While incarcerated, he submerged himself in literature –- reading 268 books in 2006 alone, including many literary classics. By reading original texts in philosophy and psychology he sought to better understand himself and his past behaviour. His sister sent him a book on yoga, which he still practices.
In September 2004, blog excerpts were published in The Guardian attracting further media attention, including several BBC news stories.
Shaun was released in December 2007, and has since kept Jon's Jail Journal going by posting prison stories sent to him from the friends he made inside. In July 2008, Shaun won a first prize, a Koestler/Hamish Hamilton Award, for a short story, which he read to an audience at the Royal Festival Hall. In February 2009, Shaun moved to London to work for the McLellan Practice speaking to audiences of youths about his jail experiences and the consequences of his drug taking.