I apologize if it's been awhile. I haven't been well/upright much the last two weeks, for reasons unexplained and I wouldn't explain a publishing blog anyway.
Hi.
* When starting new chapters, do we just make a few returns (so there's obvious white space) or start each new chapter on an entirely new page?
A new chapter should have a new page.
* Also, when changing POV in a scene, I always used to see * * * * * to indicate the switch. Now I sometimes just see white space. Does it matter how you indicate the POV/scene change?
As long as they're space it doesn't really matter, but you can add something like ****s or ##s if you want, as long as it's unobtrusive and doesn't confuse us into thinking we're reading a new chapter.
* I've looked at several agents' blogs, and different agents suggest different footers/headers. Is there a standard? i.e., should it be book title/name or name/book title at the top left? Also, should the page number appear top right or at the bottom?
Standard is:
AUTHOR'S LAST NAME - PAGE NUMBER - TITLE
In the upper right hand corner of the page on every page. Minor alterations to this, such as the author's full name, or reversing the positioning of the title and the last name, or putting it on the bottom of the page, are not a huge problem unless the agent specifically told you what to do on their website and you didn't do it. Then you look lazy/obnoxious.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Infamous Synopsis
A lot of recent questions seem to be synopsis-related, so I figure I'll go over this once and for all so that it can settle the issue until a few months bury it in the archives and someone new comes along and answers the questions because they don't know how to use the "search" function on the blog.
Writers are irrationally scared of the synopsis. How long is it? Does it have to be really good, or is it just a summary? Should it have the character's name in bold? How is it different from an outline? I remember being terrified of the idea. I'd already gone through the manuscript, the editorial phase, then perfected my query letter - and now I had to write more? Holy shit! This just goes on and on and I could screw up at any time! And I went to write a synopsis for a novel that was rejected, though I assume it was because the novel didn't make much sense and not because of the synopsis. This happened again with a different novel a few years later, and when I did eventually get accepted and get an agent, I was thrilled to be done with the synopsis - or so I thought.
After my first book did well, my editor requested a synopsis of the next two books before she bought them. In a panic I asked my agent what to do, to which she said, "Summarize the books. It's not a big deal."
Which it isn't. Really, the synopsis is straightforward. The agent is asking you for a summary of the events that occur in your book, over about 1-2 pages. I say "1-2" because less than one is probably not descriptive enough in my experience and three is generally too long. Some agents do specifically ask for more, and you should give them a more detailed synopsis. If they ask for it chapter-by-chapter, write a paragraph for each chapter.
While the synopsis can be very important when we're trying to determine if the book is going in a solid direction and has a good arc without reading it all, it lacks a certain formality that squashes the query letter. We're also not as serious about formatting like we are in the manuscript itself, where we really, really want you to use the manuscript format described on every single writing website ever. Why? Because manuscript format is specifically designed to be easy on the eyes - spaces between the lines, large font, page numbering - and we need things to be easy on the eyes because we're going to be spending hours reading your manuscript. The synopsis? Not so much. Twenty or thirty seconds, maybe more. Presentation is not so important. Double-spacing, 1.5, single, whatever. Font? It should be readable. Should the characters have their names in bold? Uhm, if you want, sure.
The only important things are to (a) cover the important events in your manuscript, including the ending, and (b) not go on for too long. Seriously, no 80-page synopses. If we can't tell the difference between a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and actual chapters, your attempts have gone horribly awry. (And yes, this happened) So, 1-2 pages, maybe three if it's a long book with a lot of intricacies and you just can't fit it onto two pages. Only do more if it's requested.
As to an outline, it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people, but to me it means "a synopsis with a lot of structure to it." Really I'm not the person to ask about outlines as I never bother to distinguish them from a synopsis. Follow the agent's instructions and you should be OK.
Publishing will provide you with plenty of chances to stress out over real and imagined crises. The synopsis doesn't have to be one of them.
Writers are irrationally scared of the synopsis. How long is it? Does it have to be really good, or is it just a summary? Should it have the character's name in bold? How is it different from an outline? I remember being terrified of the idea. I'd already gone through the manuscript, the editorial phase, then perfected my query letter - and now I had to write more? Holy shit! This just goes on and on and I could screw up at any time! And I went to write a synopsis for a novel that was rejected, though I assume it was because the novel didn't make much sense and not because of the synopsis. This happened again with a different novel a few years later, and when I did eventually get accepted and get an agent, I was thrilled to be done with the synopsis - or so I thought.
After my first book did well, my editor requested a synopsis of the next two books before she bought them. In a panic I asked my agent what to do, to which she said, "Summarize the books. It's not a big deal."
Which it isn't. Really, the synopsis is straightforward. The agent is asking you for a summary of the events that occur in your book, over about 1-2 pages. I say "1-2" because less than one is probably not descriptive enough in my experience and three is generally too long. Some agents do specifically ask for more, and you should give them a more detailed synopsis. If they ask for it chapter-by-chapter, write a paragraph for each chapter.
While the synopsis can be very important when we're trying to determine if the book is going in a solid direction and has a good arc without reading it all, it lacks a certain formality that squashes the query letter. We're also not as serious about formatting like we are in the manuscript itself, where we really, really want you to use the manuscript format described on every single writing website ever. Why? Because manuscript format is specifically designed to be easy on the eyes - spaces between the lines, large font, page numbering - and we need things to be easy on the eyes because we're going to be spending hours reading your manuscript. The synopsis? Not so much. Twenty or thirty seconds, maybe more. Presentation is not so important. Double-spacing, 1.5, single, whatever. Font? It should be readable. Should the characters have their names in bold? Uhm, if you want, sure.
The only important things are to (a) cover the important events in your manuscript, including the ending, and (b) not go on for too long. Seriously, no 80-page synopses. If we can't tell the difference between a chapter-by-chapter synopsis and actual chapters, your attempts have gone horribly awry. (And yes, this happened) So, 1-2 pages, maybe three if it's a long book with a lot of intricacies and you just can't fit it onto two pages. Only do more if it's requested.
As to an outline, it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people, but to me it means "a synopsis with a lot of structure to it." Really I'm not the person to ask about outlines as I never bother to distinguish them from a synopsis. Follow the agent's instructions and you should be OK.
Publishing will provide you with plenty of chances to stress out over real and imagined crises. The synopsis doesn't have to be one of them.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Don't Go All St. Elsewhere On Us
I've heard conflicting things about submitting a synopsis. Some say tell ALL (the plot twists, surprises, even the ending) and others say allude to those events but don't necessarily tell exactly how everything is ironed out. Which is it?
Basic answer here - give away the ending, be it in synopsis or outline form. We want to know that the spy thriller doesn't end all crazy with everyone riding off on a magic unicorn.
Basic answer here - give away the ending, be it in synopsis or outline form. We want to know that the spy thriller doesn't end all crazy with everyone riding off on a magic unicorn.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Small Press vs. No Publication
I have a novel submitted all over the place and have a few requests for fulls. I also have a bite from a very very small press that usually only sells between 100 to 500 copies of a book and usually poetry.
My question is: if the big/medium presses don’t come back with a contract, should I pursue the small press. Knowing I’d have to do all the publicity etc. I think I could sell 500 books easily.
Im working on my next novel which I think will be much better than my first.
Should I shelve my first novel or go with the small press? If I go with the small press and only sell 500 copies, will this hurt me if a I look for an agent for my second (and better) book?
If you get no hits from the big presses, go with the small press. You don't have to take my advice here. It's not a hard-and-fast rule I'm laying down. But I am saying that it is awesome to be published, especially for the first time. You don't know when the next time is going to come, so shoot for the stars. If the small press is your only offer, you should go with it.
The other legitimate option is to shelve it and focus on your new work. I've certainly shelved a lot of work - in fact, most of my work - either to revise it later or never to look at it again, but usually I shelved it after it was turned down everywhere, a surefire sign that something was wrong with it. Some people are not proud of their early stuff. Some people believe that a small press is harmful to your resume. This is not true, necessarily, it just isn't as helpful as you would think in comparison to having a shorter piece published in a major magazine.
A lot of people talk about waiting to have written the "right" book which will land them a good advance at one of the big 5/6 publishing companies. These people generally do not get published.
My question is: if the big/medium presses don’t come back with a contract, should I pursue the small press. Knowing I’d have to do all the publicity etc. I think I could sell 500 books easily.
Im working on my next novel which I think will be much better than my first.
Should I shelve my first novel or go with the small press? If I go with the small press and only sell 500 copies, will this hurt me if a I look for an agent for my second (and better) book?
If you get no hits from the big presses, go with the small press. You don't have to take my advice here. It's not a hard-and-fast rule I'm laying down. But I am saying that it is awesome to be published, especially for the first time. You don't know when the next time is going to come, so shoot for the stars. If the small press is your only offer, you should go with it.
The other legitimate option is to shelve it and focus on your new work. I've certainly shelved a lot of work - in fact, most of my work - either to revise it later or never to look at it again, but usually I shelved it after it was turned down everywhere, a surefire sign that something was wrong with it. Some people are not proud of their early stuff. Some people believe that a small press is harmful to your resume. This is not true, necessarily, it just isn't as helpful as you would think in comparison to having a shorter piece published in a major magazine.
A lot of people talk about waiting to have written the "right" book which will land them a good advance at one of the big 5/6 publishing companies. These people generally do not get published.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
BEA Roundup
Officially, I did not go to the BEA. I went into the building on Sunday, the only day I was available because of Shavuos, but I didn't have a badge and I went to meet with my editor, who was in town for the convention and pre-scheduled it. At that point I could have gotten a free badge from her, but the convention was over in about an hour and I have no more room in my apartment for free books. From my editor and my boss (who attended on Friday), I learned the following things:
(1) There were less people this year. Some booksellers didn't show up at all, or sent very few people. It was not a wasteland, but it was no 2007.
(2) There were a lot of panels on e-books, as nobody knows how to price them and is mad at Amazon for arbitrarily deciding how books should be priced for the Kindle. Whatever the price is, in the publisher's opinion, it's always too low. About a year ago I went to a talk where I publisher said he thought e-books should be priced the same as regular books because they were the same, which had to have been the stupidest thing that came out of anyone's mouth that evening. Obviously they're not the same, and the lower price is a discount because of the production saved in creating a physical book and the money spent on the reader.
(3) Whatever company that decided to send drummers and dancers to promote their new e-Book deserves to die a fiery death of flames, or at the very least get some acid in the face. In other worsd, the people who had to be at the BEA for 3 days (or even 3 hours, really) did not appreciate their ear-pounding presence.
If you have interesting tales from the BEA, feel free to share them with the other readers here.
(1) There were less people this year. Some booksellers didn't show up at all, or sent very few people. It was not a wasteland, but it was no 2007.
(2) There were a lot of panels on e-books, as nobody knows how to price them and is mad at Amazon for arbitrarily deciding how books should be priced for the Kindle. Whatever the price is, in the publisher's opinion, it's always too low. About a year ago I went to a talk where I publisher said he thought e-books should be priced the same as regular books because they were the same, which had to have been the stupidest thing that came out of anyone's mouth that evening. Obviously they're not the same, and the lower price is a discount because of the production saved in creating a physical book and the money spent on the reader.
(3) Whatever company that decided to send drummers and dancers to promote their new e-Book deserves to die a fiery death of flames, or at the very least get some acid in the face. In other worsd, the people who had to be at the BEA for 3 days (or even 3 hours, really) did not appreciate their ear-pounding presence.
If you have interesting tales from the BEA, feel free to share them with the other readers here.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Travel Writing
I'm back. You probably figured that out from, you know, a new post being up, but I feel like it's the thing to say. For years I haven't traveled abroad because of illness, except to go to Israel, but this year I said, "Screw it, I'm doing okay" and went to Asia, and surprised everyone by not getting sick. Of course I mainly ate trail mix, so that probably contributed to it.
If you're a writer, you should really travel. If you've been saving up for years and you're not dipping into that savings to pay rent, do it now. My plane ticket was cheap, my tour was like half their regular cost, and there were all kinds of free upgrades at hotels because they were deserted. Of course now I have to be really careful with my spending, but I'll manage. As they say, "You can't take it with you." But really, it's important to get out and see something completely foreign, which opens your eyes to so many different things that contribute to the creative process. Man, I hope this is the last time I ever use the words "creative process."
Every once in awhile we get a travel memoir at work - today was one of those days - where the traveler is obviously racist. You can tell because they talk at great length about how open-minded they are and how they're really throwing themselves out there, and then go on to say how like every Middle Eastern guy tried to rape them. You would think that extensive international travel would broaden horizons, not limit them. Of course stereotypes are based on fact, and there is horrible shit out there that will harden your stance on things, but usually if you come out of a place with no respect for its culture and a bad opinion of its people, it's justified because something bad happened to you.
For example: I have friends I met through the SCA who were shot at by a Palestinian sniper on a regular basis, and knew people who had died because the windows of the car weren't bulletproof. They could point to the sniper site, actually, from their backyard. The problem was, they lived on the border with Gaza (a lesser border, with just some chicken wire up), and a blue-topped UN car would drive up and down the road every once in a while to make sure that the Jewish townspeople weren't violating Palestinian territory by, say, arresting or killing the one sniper. Or just destroying his nest. Nope, the UN is there to safeguard the Palestinians. Thank goodness.
Now obviously that's an isolated situation, and the politics are vast and complex and the Palestinians are really suffering, not entirely but mostly because of Israel, but I would see a lot of situations like that, and they would harden me, whether I wanted them to or not. Like seeing a blown-up bus or having a friend who was on a bus that blew up, but she got off just in time because she was in the back. These things are events that shape your perception because they're just so terrible, and if you happen to write about them, you should probably do so with every attempt at perspective (that sniper felt the Israeli community had stolen his home even if it wasn't true, he was given a gun by the government but not food, he sincerely felt that the situation was desperate enough to call for violence, and if he had his own home and good plumbing and and a job, maybe he wouldn't pick off kids walking from the school building to their houses with a rifle, i.e. some of this is our doing for not helping him). People have called me a racist for telling the sniper story, though people have also called me a racist for saying that Scientology is a dangerous cult, so I feel that word is just thrown around a lot. Also, Scientology is a dangerous cult.
It bothered me that this writer, who was talking about the 1970's when she traveled around Asia Minor and the Middle East, discussed her various fears based on ignorance (she wouldn't be allowed in mosques, she would be raped, she would get involved in some Arab honor killing somehow) and then described a trip where none of those fears manifested into reality, and she had no attempt to justify her early assumptions or say something like, "How foolish I was to think that all Turkish men are gay." It just astounds me that a person could be that way, and then have the gall to write about it as if she did a great thing by traveling to these horrible countries where the food was all bad because she didn't know what it was and so she ate bread and onions the whole time.
So, travel. Then consider what you actually want to say before you write about it. We will judge you.
Note to commentors: I am not interested in turning this into an Israeli-Palestinian political discussion; I was just using that as an example. I will reject comments that are about that and not writing or travel writing and instead are attempting to inform me of how racist I am.
If you're a writer, you should really travel. If you've been saving up for years and you're not dipping into that savings to pay rent, do it now. My plane ticket was cheap, my tour was like half their regular cost, and there were all kinds of free upgrades at hotels because they were deserted. Of course now I have to be really careful with my spending, but I'll manage. As they say, "You can't take it with you." But really, it's important to get out and see something completely foreign, which opens your eyes to so many different things that contribute to the creative process. Man, I hope this is the last time I ever use the words "creative process."
Every once in awhile we get a travel memoir at work - today was one of those days - where the traveler is obviously racist. You can tell because they talk at great length about how open-minded they are and how they're really throwing themselves out there, and then go on to say how like every Middle Eastern guy tried to rape them. You would think that extensive international travel would broaden horizons, not limit them. Of course stereotypes are based on fact, and there is horrible shit out there that will harden your stance on things, but usually if you come out of a place with no respect for its culture and a bad opinion of its people, it's justified because something bad happened to you.
For example: I have friends I met through the SCA who were shot at by a Palestinian sniper on a regular basis, and knew people who had died because the windows of the car weren't bulletproof. They could point to the sniper site, actually, from their backyard. The problem was, they lived on the border with Gaza (a lesser border, with just some chicken wire up), and a blue-topped UN car would drive up and down the road every once in a while to make sure that the Jewish townspeople weren't violating Palestinian territory by, say, arresting or killing the one sniper. Or just destroying his nest. Nope, the UN is there to safeguard the Palestinians. Thank goodness.
Now obviously that's an isolated situation, and the politics are vast and complex and the Palestinians are really suffering, not entirely but mostly because of Israel, but I would see a lot of situations like that, and they would harden me, whether I wanted them to or not. Like seeing a blown-up bus or having a friend who was on a bus that blew up, but she got off just in time because she was in the back. These things are events that shape your perception because they're just so terrible, and if you happen to write about them, you should probably do so with every attempt at perspective (that sniper felt the Israeli community had stolen his home even if it wasn't true, he was given a gun by the government but not food, he sincerely felt that the situation was desperate enough to call for violence, and if he had his own home and good plumbing and and a job, maybe he wouldn't pick off kids walking from the school building to their houses with a rifle, i.e. some of this is our doing for not helping him). People have called me a racist for telling the sniper story, though people have also called me a racist for saying that Scientology is a dangerous cult, so I feel that word is just thrown around a lot. Also, Scientology is a dangerous cult.
It bothered me that this writer, who was talking about the 1970's when she traveled around Asia Minor and the Middle East, discussed her various fears based on ignorance (she wouldn't be allowed in mosques, she would be raped, she would get involved in some Arab honor killing somehow) and then described a trip where none of those fears manifested into reality, and she had no attempt to justify her early assumptions or say something like, "How foolish I was to think that all Turkish men are gay." It just astounds me that a person could be that way, and then have the gall to write about it as if she did a great thing by traveling to these horrible countries where the food was all bad because she didn't know what it was and so she ate bread and onions the whole time.
So, travel. Then consider what you actually want to say before you write about it. We will judge you.
Note to commentors: I am not interested in turning this into an Israeli-Palestinian political discussion; I was just using that as an example. I will reject comments that are about that and not writing or travel writing and instead are attempting to inform me of how racist I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
