Thursday, 19 May 2016

Jera's Jamboree: Book Review (Novella) : Best Seller - A Tale of Th...

I was so thrilled by this lovely review for Best Seller, from book blogger Shaz Goodwin :)

Jera's Jamboree: Book Review (Novella) : Best Seller - A Tale of Th...: If you're a regular blog reader you will know I always thoroughly enjoy a Terry Tyler novel. Terry peels back those layers of tangled...



VOTING NOW OPEN!

Voting is now open for the Bloggers Bash Awards ~ voting closes on June 9th, the winners to be announed on June 11th.

One vote per category :)

Full details and lists of nominees in each category on Sacha Black's blog ~ vote HERE

 

Sunday, 15 May 2016

What Reading Has Taught Me About Writing (2)

In December/January 2014/15 I had a six week reading binge to get through much of my to-read back list, and enjoyed it more than I had ever expected, so much so that ever since then I've read at least two books a week ~ it's so easy to let reading slip by when you're busy writing, blogging, tweeting, etc.  I started my book review blog, and along the way I discovered that reading was teaching me more about writing, too.  I wrote a post about this HERE.  


Since January I've read over 50 books, many of them when I was laid up after an operation.  The reading time was such a bonus that I didn't mind the lack of mobility!  Along the way I've learnt a few more valuable lessons, and observed some oft-repeated errors I would like to share.

First of all, I'd like to thank Rayne Hall for this:

  So true.....
  • Lots of descriptive words do not necessarily bring a scene to life.  Making a scene come alive is an art, not a simple matter of having a large vocabulary of adjectives.  I worry that I don't include enough description in my books, but I've read passages in which every time some guy walks down a road you can't get to the next bit of plot development without reading about what he can smell in the air, the colour of the stone the buildings are made from, the wild flowers he passes on the verge - I know creative writing classes tell students to be aware of these things, but it doesn't mean they all have to be included, regardless; perhaps they're best kept to creative writing exercises.  In other words, it's a good idea to learn when you need description to convey atmosphere, and when it's holding up the action.  
  • I always feel irritated when reviewers mark down a book (any book) because they didn't like such and such a character, when you weren't meant to like him/her!  A couple of times someone's said something to me like 'I did enjoyed 'Best Seller' but I'm afraid I didn't like Eden'.  Um, no, I'd be worried if you did..... a book full of jolly nice people all being jolly nice to each other would be boring - but!!!  You need at least one person that the reader can really, really like.  I've had to think about making more of my characters likeable, sometimes; it's so much more fun to write baddies!  But think about your favourite TV show; if you didn't actively like most of Rick's gang in The Walking Dead, you wouldn't care if they got killed by the zombies and/or Neegan, would you?  You've got to have someone to root for, whether they're saving the world from the undead, destroying a dragon, or just trying to get the guy in the corner shop to fancy them.  
It's never not a good time for a picture of Norman Reedus

  • Predictable sucks.  Nothing makes me perk up and mentally prepare for giving a book another half or even a whole star than when it makes me say 'wow, I didn't see that coming!'  Give me anything but withered old chestnuts like the heroine and hero getting off on the wrong foot and denying the sexual chemistry that their friends and the reader can see painted in huge red lettersA quick flick to the back of the book and there they'll be, snogging on the last page.  Or the dedicated cop with an alcohol problem he's been fighting for ten years, whose methods aren't orthodox but get results.  Similarly, it's a real disappointment when I've enjoyed a book but from the last 85-90% it's just a slow winding down, with nothing else happening.  Not every book can have or needs a gut punching twist, but there's got to be something...
  • The boring bits - cut 'em out.  If a 'linking' chapter/page/paragraph was boring for you to write, it'll be boring to read, tooBe brave - try jumping into the next scene without all this: 'for the next three weeks, Joe and Sam carried on in much the same way; the days were moderately uneventful.  Joe began his taxidermy course, and Sam handed in his notice at the strip club.  He then got a job as a Sexy Fireman-o-Gram, and they put their plans together to go and rescue Princess Aurora from the Evil Baron's castle.'  Cut straight to them rescuing Princess Aurora.  You can fill in the info about Joe stuffing racoons and Sam taking his threads off for money, somewhere in the next bit.  It just takes a bit of confidence and experience to realise that you don't have to tell the reader every damn thing!
  • If you're changing POV (character point of view), there needs to be a reason for it.  Now that multiple POVs is the new black, everyone's giving it a go, but if a change in POV doesn't add anything to the plot, all it does is to divert the reader from the main story.  You also need to judge which POV a section is best told from, and make sure you have the ability to write in several different 'voices', or it just becomes confusing"Hang on a minute, why's Joe taking his clothes off in that pub?  Oh, of course, I forgot, this chapter is from Sam's POV.  And how come the Evil Baron uses the same colloquialisms as two lads from EssexSo this is Joe walking down the tunnel, right?  Oh no, he's wearing a skirt.  Must be Princess Aurora."  Another thing to watch is telling the same scene twice from two different characters' viewpoint.  It's interesting, if the second person has a completely different outlook, but, again, the repeat of the same occurrences needs to add something else to the plot, or the novel can run the risk of becoming repetitive or too slow.
  • Head-hopping.  Just don't.  This is when you start the chapter (or whatever) from Joe's point of view, placing the reader in Joe's head, feeling his fear and excitement as he enters the evil baron's castle to rescue Princess Aurora ~ then you suddenly, without any pause in the proceedings, move the reader into Aurora's head, telling us that she is feeling scared/excited/struck by Stockholm Syndrome and actually wants to stay with the Evil Baron.  I know that some consider this to be a choice of style, i.e., using the omniscient narrator, but you need to know exactly what you're doing to carry it off well.  Otherwise, it's just confusing and reeks of 'amateur'; any decent editor should flag it up.  If you want to change POV within a chapter/passage, it's best to leave a gap between paragraphs, or asterisks
  • Talent.  Of all the elements that make a book a delight, pretty good, just okay or distinctly put-down-able, this is what much of it comes down to: whether the writer has the innate ability to write sentences that keep the reader wanting to turn the page.  You can improve on what you have, but it can't be manufactured if it's just not thereOf course, we all hope we have it, and it's hard to tell if you do or not, or to what extent; reviews and book sales can give some indication but are not infallible.  I've written more about this in my previous post on the subject, link in the first paragraph.

I reckon it was Stephen King who said something about not being able to be a good writer unless you read, and, whoever said it, it's so true.  TV dramas and films help, as well, if you notice how a plot is constructed, how characters develop, and be aware of what works and what doesn't.

 Happy reading and writing! 

#TwitterTips ~ Tweeting with Style

Recently I've written four guest posts for book and writing blogger Rosie Amber, about how to get the most out of Twitter.

You can read the fourth one, Tweeting with Style, about how to make your tweets stand out, HERE



 

Sunday, 8 May 2016

Self publishing: a creative choice, not a last resort ~ thank you, Anton Newcombe...

.... for reminding me of something I've been thinking about lately...

For anyone who is not familiar with the nameAnton Newcombe is a brilliant musician and founder of 90s band The Brian Jonestown Massacre.  Last night I watched the 'rockumentary' Dig! (I use the term 'rockumentary' with a raised eyebrow and sardonic smile, btw), which is about seven years of friendship and feuding between BJM and their more commercially successful peers, The Dandy Warhols.  Newcombe had many chances to be signed by recording companies, but blew most of them, perhaps on purpose.


This morning I read an Interview with Newcombe in The Guardian by Rhik Samadder which, amongst other points, reiterated his anti signing-with-an-established-record-label policy.  I was so glad I read it.

Most writers, whilst penning their first novel, have fantasies about submitting it to a major literary agent and being taken on by a major publishing house.  This fantasy becomes reality for one in a million, if not less.  Alas, many soon realise that their first novel leaves much room for improvement, and is not the stuff of which bestsellers are made I started writing long before Kindle; back in the days when I occasionally submitted novels to agents I gained some interest, but it amounted to 'yes, like the way you write, but can you change the content according to what is currently in vogue, so I can sell it to a publisher?'


I've written about this before so won't go on and on about it again ~ the point I wanted to make, in a roundabout way, is that writers should not see self-publishing as a last resort after they've been rejected by mainstream publishers, or an indication that they are 'not good enough'.  Yes, self-published stuff on Amazon ranges from the brilliant to the 'shouldn't there be some sort of quality control on this site?', but many writers go DIY as a choice, and should be proud to do so, instead of thinking that the only way to gain kudos is to be able to say 'my publisher'.  This desire to be 'a published author' leads many to sign with small, or independent publishers.  According to a few blog posts I've read lately, some find that they end up with all the restrictions of the traditionally published (losing control of content, timing of publication, price, etc), with none of the advantages (no promotion, no financial advances, no books in high street shops, no sales, or certainly not very many, and, on occasion, proofreading and editing that leaves much to be desired).  (nb, I know there are good independent publishers, too.  Please note the words 'some' and 'on occasion'!)

Self-publishing means you can make your own decisions about every single aspect of your books.  You're not bound by what some editor (who may or may not have a good understanding of the market) considers saleable.  

I remember one writer saying that he'd felt so excited by the 'indie' movement in publishing, when Kindle was first introduced, but became disillusioned by the reality: people bunging up any old rubbish on Amazon and thinking they were going to be the next EL James, and hordes of vanity publishers and sundry scammers stepping forth to take advantage of the na├»ve.  This has added to the bad name self-publishing has had since the days when vanity publishing was the only option available.  The writers' hierarchy lives on: some writers who sign with indie publishers consider themselves superior to the self-published, and indeed make scathing remarks about them, not realising that DIY is an active choice (or that the standard for acceptance by indie pub companies is more 'relaxed' than for literary agents/trad pub).

But acceptance by a publishing house or a recording company should not be seen as the only affirmation that creative output is worth something; such large companies exist to make money, first and foremost, not to nurture the artist.  They don't encourage the artiste to be 'edgy' or explore new ground; money invested has to be a safe betAs Courtney Taylor-Taylor of The Dandy Warhols said in Dig!, all the record companies give you the spiel about caring about your career, not just your hit records, but if you don't have a hit record you soon find out how much they care about your career.   Similarly, with major publishing houses and literary agents: if you don't produce the hot selling goods, you're history.


But what about validation of your talent?  Doesn't acceptance by a publisher give you that?  Not necessarily.  If you want validation, wait to see if readers buy more than one of your books.  Rejoice in your genuine reviews from book bloggers and the reading public.

I've read fantastic books by self-pub authors that are easily as good as those by well known writers (see the 32 books to which I've given 5 Gold Stars on my book review blog HERE; about half are self-pub) and some published by mainstream houses that are pretty mediocre, but sell because of that, and the money behind them, of course; 'vanilla' is always popular and, indeed, is pushed by the media.

Saleability to the masses (and investment from large corporations) does not necessarily indicate creative brilliance; it's fair to say that creativity and making money do not go hand in hand.

(btw, if you would like to know more about the way the music industry operates and exactly how much money artistes who sign with a major record label DON'T make, I recommend the documentary Artifact, about rock band Thirty Seconds To Mars getting screwed over by EMI.  It's most interesting, and I kept seeing similarities between the music and the publishing industry!)

 

It took me a while to realise that I actually WANT to be self-published.  I don't like the idea of anyone else having control over what I produce.  If you self-publish because you want to have control over your own output, too, and you understand the importance of good editing and proofreading to produce something worth selling, you should be proud of it.  Once you stop worrying about writing synopses and what-the-hell-agents-are-looking-for, or getting yet another rejection letter, your writing life gets a lot easier.  And you can spend your time producing novels, instead of query letters.





Thursday, 5 May 2016

#TwitterTips: Retweeting and Post Sharing

Many say that the power of Twitter is not in the tweet but in the retweet, as it greatly expands the possible audience for your posts.

I've been guest posting with tips for more effective use of Twitter on Rosie Amber's blog; my article about retweeting and post sharing can be found HERE