# Bad Writing Advice



## Philip Overby

What's the worst writing advice you've ever received? Did following this advice really derail you or did not following this advice really propel you forward?


----------



## Steerpike

Any advice that says you _have_ to do _x_, or in some way implies there is only one correct way to write fiction. And no, it didn't derail me because I never fell for it


----------



## Devor

I think the worst advice you can give is, "It's awesome!  You should totally pursue it!" while thinking, *this is rubbish, this person's just wasting time.*


----------



## C Hollis

> I think the worst advice you can give is, "It's awesome! You should totally pursue it!" while thinking, *this is rubbish, this person's just wasting time.*



That very thing stopped me from writing for years.  I was always afraid that's what people were thinking when they told me I should write a book.  It took some encouraging comments from a couple of my college professors to change that.

And my friends said, "Dude, we've been telling you that for years!"

The worst advice as far as I'm concerned is taking some of the countless so-called writing axioms as absolutes.  Guidelines, that's all they are, guidelines.  Some of the classics take those axioms and tromp them into unrecognizable mush.


----------



## Philip Overby

I agree with all of the above. I don't think any writing advice should really be written in stone, nor do I think you should tell someone something's awesome if it isn't. 

I think as writing peers some may like to shy away from totally bashing someone's dream. So they do the polar opposite when perhaps they shouldn't. I'm of the opinion that anyone can become a better writer if they spend the time reading and writing to get better. However, if something's all around not good, telling someone that it's awesome is not doing them any favors.

Some bad writing advice I received once was that "I need to scale it back because it's too weird." I actually got that a lot when I first started writing. I would perceive being weird to be a good thing when it comes to fiction. 

Some advice that I thought was bad at the time I got it: "You need to give your character some personal journey." This was when I was in classes that were mostly dealing with grandmotherly characters finding a new lease on life or university students "discovering themselves." I thought the advice was to write more like that. Now I know it's more about giving a character goals to achieve throughout the story. Makes sense to me now!


----------



## Sander

Someone once told me the following:

When writing characters don't base yourself on real people. They are fictional and they should be grandiose. A story is only interesting when the characters are and great characters come from extremes. A hero should be flawless, inspiring, a beacon of hope. While villains should excel in being absolutely dreadful. Grays are not interesting, a great story has very clear lines of good and bad. 

I basically take that advice and do generally the opposite.


----------



## Scribble

"You need to pick your genre."

While this may be sound marketing advice, it's crappy creative advice. I was writing non-fiction essays and blogging. Then I was into writing poetry. Then I was into writing sci-fi. Now I am into writing fantasy. In the future I may write Buddhist steampunk mysteries.

I write what my passion leads me to write.


----------



## Philip Overby

Scribble said:


> "You need to pick your genre."
> 
> While this may be sound marketing advice, it's crappy creative advice. I was writing non-fiction essays and blogging. Then I was into writing poetry. Then I was into writing sci-fi. Now I am into writing fantasy. In the future I may write Buddhist steampunk mysteries.
> 
> I write what my passion leads me to write.



I'd read a Buddhist steampunk mystery!

The advice to chose a genre and stick with it can also apply to the advice that "short story writers should write short stories and novelists should write novels." I always go back and forth on that. They're definitely two completely different mediums. However, I like writing both so I'll continue to do so.

I find that some of the most interesting writers tend to blend genre conventions. China Mieville and Joe Abercrombie stick out to me as writers that excel at creating worlds that aren't atypical of their respective "genres."


----------



## Jamber

Hi Phil,
the worst advice I received was also the best advice.
It was to avoid passive phrasing. However the critiquer added the words, 'you should eliminate every instance of "had" or "was"'.

One comb-over to make my story more active made all the difference to it as a piece. However being told to hunt down and kill every instance of 'was' (not necessarily passive but certainly flat) turned the story into a competition between verbs. Not every story is best written super-actively, and not every moment in a super-active story should read like volcanoes erupting.

Actually I think all the worst advice I've ever received took the form 'don't'... 

cheers
Jennie


----------



## Scribble

Phil the Drill said:


> I'd read a Buddhist steampunk mystery!



That good sir, sounds like a writing challenge!


----------



## Scribble

Phil the Drill said:


> it can also apply to the advice that "short story writers should write short stories and novelists should write novels.



Brandon Sanderson actually says this in one of his lectures. I think he has a good reason for saying this, but I don't think it applies to everyone. I think he knows this, but all he can do is explain what works for him, and to suggest people try it in the hope it will work for them - or to figure out that it won't!

You've got to start somewhere, with some kind of teaching. Hopefully, you can learn quickly what to discard from that teaching and what to keep!


----------



## Penpilot

I agree with no rules just guidelines. Anything taken to extreme, generally, isn't good.

Some of the worst writing advice I've been given usually starts with a sentence similarly to "You should do 'this'." Basically they're telling me how my characters should act and where my story should go without me prompting them for that type of advice.


----------



## Philip Overby

Jamber said:


> Hi Phil,
> the worst advice I received was also the best advice.
> It was to avoid passive phrasing. However the critiquer added the words, 'you should eliminate every instance of "had" or "was"'.
> 
> One comb-over to make my story more active made all the difference to it as a piece. However being told to hunt down and kill every instance of 'was' (not necessarily passive but certainly flat) turned the story into a competition between verbs. Not every story is best written super-actively, and not every moment in a super-active story should read like volcanoes erupting.
> 
> Actually I think all the worst advice I've ever received took the form 'don't'...
> 
> cheers
> Jennie



It's always preferable to make scenes more active when you can, but I'd say most published writers have plenty of instances of "was." If they're good story-tellers, I don't really notice these kind of things. I'm actually fine with it myself, but some people are more picky about active vs. passive verbs.


> I agree with no rules just guidelines. Anything taken to extreme, generally, isn't good.
> 
> Some of the worst writing advice I've been given usually starts with a sentence similarly to "You should do 'this'." Basically they're telling me how my characters should act and where my story should go without me prompting them for that type of advice.



For me, if someone tells me I "should do this" I don't always take it as bad advice. It may be good advice overall. I just need reasons why. However, that's often a sign of a bad critique partner. One that just places their view of how story-telling MUST be done above actually giving helpful critiques that work best for what you're trying to do.


----------



## TheokinsJ

I think the worst piece of advice I ever got was from an author (Can't remember his name), who said "Bad writing is contagious, don't read it". Being 12 at the time and as devoted as I was, I then stopped reading books because I would read a couple of sentences and go "This is bad writing, it will affect me!"... I realised a year later after having read nothing for a long time, that bad writing if anything helps to teach you what not to do, and that reading anything helps you become a better writer.


----------



## Xaysai

Worst writing advice I ever got: "Dan, you should definitely be a writer."


----------



## PhoenixF2B

I find I have a great deal of respect for those who can work effectively in multiple genres, whether it be movie, music or prose. It shows great range.


----------



## Steerpike

Sanderson talking about finding your style and realizing that writing advice gives you things to 'try,' not commandments.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Sander said:


> Someone once told me the following:
> 
> When writing characters don't base yourself on real people.


wow.  I base so many characters off real people.  Their mannerisms, their walk, the way they react.  If I didn't have real people other than myself to draw from... my world would suck!

@ Phil.  I like your "weirdness".  I think not enough people dare to think outside the box.

I can honestly say I've never really received any bad advice.  I've had people make comments about little aspects of my stories I wholly disagreed with, nit-picky things mostly about historical social structure (which I'm very secure in most of my decisions), but I thank them for their time and move on.  I've been on the receiving end of loads and loads of great advice and am proud to work with a crew of people who I know do their very best to give me sound advice and help me step up my work by playing to my strengths.  I'm a lucky writer in the friends I've made.  This journey has become a lot more fun with them by my side.


----------



## Butterfly

Someone once told me I should say who is the dwarf, and who the elf is...

Problem was... they were all human.

They kind of thought all fantasy had dwarves and elves.


----------



## Philip Overby

Butterfly said:


> Someone once told me I should say who is the dwarf, and who the elf is...
> 
> Problem was... they were all human.
> 
> They kind of thought all fantasy had dwarves and elves.



Doesn't it?


----------



## The Dark One

I really hate it when people say: why don't you write a book like...John Grisham/Stephen King/JK Rowling/GRR Martin because that would really sell, unlike all that weird stuff you write.

I even get fan mail and reviews these days, but still friends, family and colleagues ask...why don't you write a book like...[insert generic mega-seller]


----------



## Weaver

Bad writing "advice" I've gotten in the past:

"Why don't you write real stories instead of all this imaginary stuff?"

"You should only write about characters like yourself.  Men can't write about women, and women can't write about men."

"You're from Kentucky, so you should be writing about Kentucky things, not this imaginary stuff."

"Nobody likes to read first person."

"All readers prefer first person."

"Readers prefer present tense -- you should only write in that."

"Men won't read a story with a female main character, and women won't read a story with a male main character."

"No one likes a story without lots of sex scenes.  They only read it for the sex anyway."

"This story would be better if you added vampires to it."

(Those last 3 are all things said by my former sister-in-law -- oh, how I hate her!)

"Stop using big words!!!!!"

"If you write a female MC, remember to make the character a lot more emotional because all women are like that."  (The _exact_ quote:  "I’m getting the impression the narrative is male. I can’t pinpoint exactly why though I think if you could make it more emotional (in the bedroom females are more emotionally lead, where is males are more physically turned on, maybe you can apply this kind of concept to some of the details you’ve given")

"You can't write science fiction if you don't have a degree in physics."

"You can't be a writer at all if you don't have a degree in English."


----------



## Trick

I'll do one bad and one good:

"Only worry about getting a real job and forget writing." - A teacher (Not English, fortunately)


"The richest and poorest people in the world are writers, artists and salesmen. If you want to succeed at any of those, you better know your stuff." - My Dad


----------



## Devor

_Show, don't tell._

*What the critiquers are thinking:*  Nevermind that the story is poorly structured, the protagonist is a bore, and the dialogue rambles - you should fix this one telling sentence because that cliche is all I feel comfortable talking about.

*What authors hear:*  Fix this one sentence and your story will be good to go!


----------



## Philip Overby

I find what Weaver wrote above interesting. 



> "Men won't read a story with a female main character, and women won't read a story with a male main character."



I'm curious where this idea comes from as it seems to be more prevalent than you'd imagine. Is there marketing evidence to back this up or are people just pulling this from out of thin air? 

I tend to read fiction that has multiple protagonists, some which are male and some female, and I have no preference really. 



> "This story would be better if you added vampires to it."



Any advice that begins "This story would be better if you added _________ to it" is almost always horrible. Even if the advice is "This story would be better if you added _chocolate and peanut butter_ to it." 

Hmm...chocolate and peanut butter story...


----------



## Steerpike

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm curious where this idea comes from as it seems to be more prevalent than you'd imagine. Is there marketing evidence to back this up or are people just pulling this from out of thin air?



I've seen some marketing studies that draw the conclusion regarding male and female writers (not characters), but I've never seen the underlying evidence they're based on. Anecdotally, I do know a few guys who won't read books written by women. If they're written by men but have a female MC, they seem to be fine with it.


----------



## Devor

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm curious where this idea comes from as it seems to be more prevalent than you'd imagine. Is there marketing evidence to back this up or are people just pulling this from out of thin air?



A lot of that kind of research is proprietary, so evidence might be hard to find.  But whatever the evidence says, it's not going to be as simple as the quoted statement.  For instance, if you could find a good break down of the data, you might find that it's more like men and women want different things from a female protagonist, while they're less picky about what they want to see from a male protagonist.  If that's the case, if you write women that appeal to one group, you lose the other, while if you write with male characters you're on common ground.

But that's a hypothetical guess, mostly to suggest how nuanced these things can get.


----------



## SineNomine

I'm not sure if it qualifies for the worst, but the most INTERESTING bad advice I've seen definitely comes from Stephen King's _On Writing_.  Interesting for the obvious reason given that it's from a great book by a great author.  He spends some time really trying to convince you that outlining doesn't make great stories, that it's generally a waste of time and makes your story predictable.  What you should really do is think up an interesting idea or situation or person and then just start writing and see what flows!  Then it is so much more real and personal!

It's pretty obvious how silly that is, everyone has their own style somewhere between perfect planning and perfect seat-of-your-pants writing, and you should probably try and find your place in it rather than forcing the issue.  If I am not mistaken, he even walked that back later on since he definitely outlines some books.


Oh, how about the one I think everyone who grew up in the American education system probably went through?  "You want to eliminate the word said from your writing, it's so boring and drab and lifeless.  There are so many other better words that are more evocative of what characters are doing, so use them!"


----------



## Kikuchiyo

"Find out what's currently popular in the market and base your story around it."


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Worst advice I ever got (and keep getting now and then) Don't self publish. Go through an agent and get trade pubbed. I tried that, and for over a year I sent out queries and got not a lot back. And if I'd kept doing that I'm fairly sure I'd still be back there trying to hock my first book instead of now having 13 out there. I'd probably be on prosac too for depression, and might well have given up completely.

At some point if you want to be a writer (and I'm not talking about commercial success here) you have to publish. You have to put your work out there and let it receive the brick bats and bouquets it merits. It's only then that you can truly advance yourself as a writer.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## CupofJoe

Kikuchiyo said:


> "Find out what's currently popular in the market and base your story around it."


That is just about my [least] favourite advice ever - and it applies to almost any creative context...


----------



## Philip Overby

I actually think part of that is great advice:

"Find out what's currently popular in the market..."

Just that part. It's always good to know what other people are doing. That doesn't mean you have to copy it.


----------



## The Dark One

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Worst advice I ever got (and keep getting now and then) Don't self publish. Go through an agent and get trade pubbed. I tried that, and for over a year I sent out queries and got not a lot back. And if I'd kept doing that I'm fairly sure I'd still be back there trying to hock my first book instead of now having 13 out there. I'd probably be on prosac too for depression, and might well have given up completely.
> 
> At some point if you want to be a writer (and I'm not talking about commercial success here) you have to publish. You have to put your work out there and let it receive the brick bats and bouquets it merits. *It's only then that you can truly advance yourself as a writer.*
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I have a different take on this. Self publish by all means, but don't do it too early. I believe that you improve as a writer when you can see where you used to go wrong.

Sometimes this comes from improving self insight, but it also comes when you start to get a bit of feedback from publishing professionals, and take it on board. It is _really_ hard to get published in the mainstream, and you have to improve out of sight to even get considered. I was writing seriously for 17 years before I had a book published, and I know that I am an infinitely better writer now than when I started.

Thing is, I thought I was great. My first efforts were certainly full of good ideas and flashes of good writing, but the whole package was dreadful. I can see that now, and I can also see why publishers take me seriously now, because the full package is honed and crafted into something worth reading.

My concern with self publishing too early is that I suspect too many writers are so desperate for an audience they publish unrefined first drafts without trying to improve after rejection.

If you don't respond to rejection by trying to get better, you may never grow into the writer you are capable of becoming.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

My worst advice:

"You should write romance.  It's easy to write and easy to publish."
~ Yes, this was from my mother, also a writer, who notably tried for 20 years to write and publish romances and trained me to write that way.  Gotta give her points for being tenacious.  I was telling her the whole time her strength was in satire, but what do I know?  She changed my diapers.  What's she publishing now?  Satire.  /facepalm

"Why does your rebel princess have to kill her mother to take the throne?  Can't they make up or something?"
~ Again, my mother.  I love my mother, but I have a lot of parent issues and they tend to pop up in my writing.  Between that and the, shall we say, liberal views on sexuality, I don't show my mom my writing anymore, at least not until something makes it into galleys.

"You need to write poetry.  This fantasy nonsense isn't real writing."
~ My high school writing teacher at my arts school.  She was a poet and was determined to make the rest of us poets, as well.  The woman would actually LOCK ME IN A ROOM until I produced poetry to enter into contests, because I hated writing it so much.  And then I took awards in every poetry and essay contest I entered.  She honestly thought I was the Spawn of Satan.

"Writing is just a pipe dream, you know.  You're never going to get anywhere with it."
~ My personal favorite, from my mother-in-law.  Lovely woman.  She also doesn't get to read our stuff because she doesn't understand the genre - and yet she is a Star Trek freak.  I just don't get it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

One of my most hated....

"Write what you know."

I'm sorry but that's just plain boring. Thankfully, it doesn't completely jive with the fantasy genre. Regardless, one of the wonderful aspects of writing is exploring the lives of others in events that would make me shudder and long for the comforts of home. That's what I want to read.... that's what I want to write. I certainly want to make events plausible. That's where research comes in.... but I don't want to live them.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Worst advice I ever got (and keep getting now and then) Don't self publish. Go through an agent and get trade pubbed. I tried that, and for over a year I sent out queries and got not a lot back. And if I'd kept doing that I'm fairly sure I'd still be back there trying to hock my first book instead of now having 13 out there. I'd probably be on prosac too for depression, and might well have given up completely.
> 
> At some point if you want to be a writer (and I'm not talking about commercial success here) you have to publish. You have to put your work out there and let it receive the brick bats and bouquets it merits. It's only then that you can truly advance yourself as a writer.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Grats on getting so many books out there!  13 is a very nice number, and you are rightfully proud of that.  One thing I will say, though, is you probably got frustrated a bit too quickly.  1 year querying your first book is actually a very short amount of time in this business, especially since it's a first book you're talking about.  First books are like first born children - we love them, but we also learn from them what to do and what not to do when the next one comes along.  Unless you hit it right out of the park, most people's first books won't sell, not because they suck as writers but because they're still learning.  The general rule of thumb for publishing traditionally is go ahead and get that first book ready to go and go ahead and send those queries - you never know, maybe you did hit it out of the park.  But while those queries make the rounds, write book #2, which will be better than the first one because of what you learned.  And so on and so on.  This can go on for years as you hone your craft and learn with each book you write.  Traditional publishing is a SLOOOOOOOOW business, where a couple of years can pass between a signed contract with a publisher to a book hitting the shelf, and that's just after it's been accepted.

In my opinion, being published does not make you a writer.  The drive to write makes you a writer.  What being published does is makes you an author - goodness, I love the sound of that word!  So, I am very glad you found your niche in self-publishing and that it's working out for you.  But for those who are looking to the traditional route, settle in for a long wait.  And for heaven's sake, keep writing while those queries are in the mail!  I was always taught that being able to paper your office walls with rejection letters is a mark of honor, and getting the personalized ones is a reason to party.  Those are the best!  They mean your work was seen and liked enough to earn a personal response, even if it did not fit the agent's/editor's needs at that time.  They mean you're on the right track.


----------



## Rinzei

I had the standard "show, don't tell" advice - "Don't tell me the old woman screamed, let her scream - EEEEEEEH!"

While that teacher was a great english teacher, it never settled well with me. I don't always think it works (particular in the example he gave - a blood-curdling scream on-page doesn't actually read very nicely).


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Rinzei said:


> I had the standard "show, don't tell" advice - "Don't tell me the old woman screamed, let her scream - EEEEEEEH!"
> 
> While that teacher was a great english teacher, it never settled well with me. I don't always think it works (particular in the example he gave - a blood-curdling scream on-page doesn't actually read very nicely).



While we're having good fun ripping on "Show, Don't Tell" in another thread, I can see where your teacher was coming from.  Which do you think is the more dynamic line?



> The old woman screamed.





> Her scream rent the air, echoing through the night dark house before it was silenced with bone snapping finality.


----------



## psychotick

Hi guys,

Yes I agree there is a time for publishing and you can do it too early. But personally for me I think that over a year spent getting rejection letters was long enough. I admire those who can sit longer and wait for letter after letter, half of which never even came (I think I got 18 or 19 replies back from nearly 40 sent out) but I couldn't do it. Maybe my tolerance is low. However the one thing I can say is that in all that time spent sending out queries, I learned nothing about writing. Not from that anyway.

I think everyone who considers themselves a serious writer needs to be aiming always at getting his writing out there to be judged by an audience. And when I say aiming, I mean more than just dreaming, wishing and hoping. I mean that you as a writer you have a plan and you have resolved to complete it. Writing is in the end a communicative art, and if you don't get your work out there somehow you're not communicating. It's like a painter sitting in his room painting only for himself. Or an actor practicing his craft eternally by himself, but never going on stage. Until you do that, until you put your work out there for others to read, you're not just not an author, you're also not really a full writer. There is something missing.

Once you've got your work out there, in whatever manner you can, then your entire world changes. First, when you've truly committed yourself to the journey, there were all the things you probably as a writer writing a story didn't think so seriously about. Editing, covers, formating, marketing. Knowing that you're going to take that step pushes you to master these things. And then there's the feedback. Sure it's not all good, but in the end it's what you need. The good the bad and the strange. That feedback even when it rubs you the wrong way and leaves you bleeding on the floor, will help you to lift your game in a way that nothing else can. 

Sitting at home sending out query letter after query letter, most of which will never be answered, and working on your next book can't do the same thing for you. In fact it can even become disabling. There is a certain comfort in being able to send out letters and have them come back 'no' or not at all with no explanation. It's a rut which you can get stuck in. It's never nice getting a 'Dear Sir thank you but' letter, but after a while you get used to it and you can return to your dreaming about when one day you will be published instead of biting the bullet and actually putting your work out there.

So yes, my advice is that if you want to be a serious writer you have to always know it will be published and will see an audience. You need a plan, and one with achievable goals that you know you will achieve. You can't allow yourself the luxury of simply writing whatever you feel like forever and dreaming about 'one day'.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## skip.knox

I've been lucky. No one has ever given me writing advice; at least, not for fiction writing. Plenty of advice from my professors on how to write history. Detailed, painful advice, and none of it bad.

There's plenty of advice to be read on the Interwebs, of course, but none of that is directed specifically at me. All the stuff I've adopted is all good advice, and all the stuff I've rejected is bad advice.


----------



## Rinzei

A. E. Lowan said:


> While we're having good fun ripping on "Show, Don't Tell" in another thread, I can see where your teacher was coming from.  Which do you think is the more dynamic line?



Hm, that's a good point. It may be then that the advice wasn't bad, but wasn't properly explained? Because he did let out a frightening scream during his example - which lead the group of 12-year-olds to think they should show through dialogue, not through vivid description. Saying that, he was more of a drama teacher than literature, so he was inclined more towards that? I can only speculate.


----------



## Chessie

Phil the Drill said:


> What's the worst writing advice you've ever received? Did following this advice really derail you or did not following this advice really propel you forward?


Oh goodness, when I was told to make my magic more realistic and explainable, like Tolkien did. Um...magic is mysterious and wondrous, not about to take the fun out of it. Also, Tolkien didn't give an explanation for his magic so that person was full of it. The comment made me laugh.


----------



## The Dark One

psychotick said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Yes I agree there is a time for publishing and you can do it too early. But personally for me *I think that over a year spent getting rejection letters was long enough*. I admire those who can sit longer and wait for letter after letter, half of which never even came (I think I got 18 or 19 replies back from nearly 40 sent out) but I couldn't do it. Maybe my tolerance is low. However the one thing I can say is that in all that time spent sending out queries, I learned nothing about writing. Not from that anyway.



I refer to my earlier points about the importance of rejection in forcing you to become a better writer, but a further point...

When I finally got a novel accepted after 13 years of trying, it wasn't just a matter of signing a contract and the book being published a few months later. There was 18 months worth of draft and redraft, working with four different editors until the publisher was satisfied the book was in a fit state to grace the shelves. It took me 13 years of learning my craft, three unpublished novels before it, a fourth novel which I thought was easily good enough to go...and the publisher says: yes, I love the raw product but there is a heap of work to do before it's really good enough to charge people actual money for.

I wonder how many self-publishers go through anything like this level of refinement before putting their stuff out there? I learned so much about writing by going through that difficult (and occasionally humiliating) process and now my next book will be even better again. And yet again it's gone through about 15 major drafts and over 100 revisions before a publisher was ready to commit to it. This is the level of perfection required for a commercial publisher to be interested (in my stuff at least) and quite frankly, I suspect that most self publishers don't realise that these are the kind of lengths they need to go to, to be taken seriously by the publishing world.

If you publish stuff that isn't ready, not only will it delay your learning trajectory, it will damage your reputation.

It takes years to become a decent writer. No doubt there are exceptions, but so few exceptions that it probably qualifies as a rule.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

The Dark One said:


> ...it's gone through about 15 major drafts and over 100 revisions before a publisher was ready to commit to it. This is the level of perfection required for a commercial publisher to be interested (in my stuff at least) and quite frankly, I suspect that most self publishers don't realise that these are the kind of lengths they need to go to, to be taken seriously by the publishing world.



15 'major' drafts? I do find it odd in an art form like writing that someone can come in and tell the artist to make major changes. Eliminating typos and grammatical errors is one thing, but structural changes - no. I'd far rather have my fantasy raw and passionate, straight from the creative mind of the author, than tinkered with by an editor. But that's just me.

As for the rest of your post, I'd make two points. Firstly, there's no such thing as perfection. Well, almost. In umpteen years of reading, I've encountered only a tiny number of books I'd regard as perfect. You might find it in a novella or short story, and certainly in poetry, where every word is measured. In a novel, it's pointless even to think about it. By all means polish and hone and tinker, but there comes a point where improvements are too marginal to be worth the effort. In my opinion.

Secondly, it may surprise you to know that the majority of self-publishers don't give a tinker's cuss about being taken seriously by the publishing world. That's because they deal directly with their readers, and publishers are irrelevant to that. And yes, many of them do know what needs to be done to put out a professionally presented book, because they're already doing it. Self-publishing isn't a guarantee of low quality, just as being commercially published isn't a guarantee of high quality.


----------



## Feo Takahari

PaulineMRoss said:


> 15 'major' drafts? I do find it odd in an art form like writing that someone can come in and tell the artist to make major changes. Eliminating typos and grammatical errors is one thing, but structural changes - no. I'd far rather have my fantasy raw and passionate, straight from the creative mind of the author, than tinkered with by an editor. But that's just me.



On that note, I think the worst advice I've ever been given is to forget about editing and just write from the heart. When I write a story and then immediately post it, it almost invariably gets a negative reception. When I write it, then revise it and post it, it's as likely as not to be more disliked than liked. The stories I've written that readers largely enjoyed were ones that I bounced off at least one other person, who honestly told me in great detail what worked and what didn't.

In a larger view, many of the worst writers I've ever read thought they didn't need editors. They got a lickspittle or three to tell them they were perfect and they didn't need to change anything they were doing, and everyone else who tried to read their stories just threw up their hands in disgust. Even famous writers like Anne Rice turn everything they touch to garbage when they try to go it alone--lesser writers like Tim Buckley never had a chance when they got arrogant.


----------



## Weaver

T.Allen.Smith said:


> One of my most hated....
> 
> "Write what you know."
> 
> I'm sorry but that's just plain boring. Thankfully, it doesn't completely jive with the fantasy genre. Regardless, one of the wonderful aspects of writing is exploring the lives of others in events that would make me shudder and long for the comforts of home. That's what I want to read.... that's what I want to write. I certainly want to make events plausible. That's where research comes in.... but I don't want to live them.




I think that many people take "write what you know" to mean "write about things you have experienced personally in your regular daily life, and NOTHING ELSE."  There's a word for that, though:  _autobiography_.  But try telling that to a typical high school or university English teacher...


----------



## Ireth

Weaver said:


> I think that many people take "write what you know" to mean "write about things you have experienced personally in your regular daily life, and NOTHING ELSE."  There's a word for that, though:  _autobiography_.  But try telling that to a typical high school or university English teacher...



I don't think having a basis in things one is already familiar with from your day-to-day life is necessarily a bad thing, as long as that's not the entire story. My mom has a few ideas floating around for magic realism type stories, and many of her protags hold jobs that she has held in the past. One is a waiter (or possibly a cook, I can't recall), and the inciting incident in his story happens while he's on the job, where he has a nasty run-in with an electrical appliance of some kind. The story itself, as far as it's planned, doesn't focus entirely around the guy's job, but it is still of some importance.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Yeah...I certainly think you can have benefit from practical knowledge & experience. At the same time, we shouldn't limit ourselves to those aspects of our lives.


----------



## Weaver

Phil the Drill said:


> I find what Weaver wrote above interesting.
> 
> 
> I'm curious where this idea comes from as it seems to be more prevalent than you'd imagine. Is there marketing evidence to back this up or are people just pulling this from out of thin air?



I have no idea where it comes from.  I've been told frequently that I cannot -- both am not_ able _and am not _allowed_ to -- write stories with female protagonists or even female 'major supporting cast' characters, because as a man I'm unable to comprehend The Way Women Think (as if every woman thinks the same way or acts the same way like some kind of hive mind).

There's a tirade about this somewhere in my blog posts about a "peer" critique I got once on a short story; I won't bore (or scare) anyone here by repeating it.  (Look for the "Old Critique Dissected" posts if you're curious.)


----------



## Weaver

Ireth said:


> I don't think having a basis in things one is already familiar with from your day-to-day life is necessarily a bad thing, as long as that's not the entire story. My mom has a few ideas floating around for magic realism type stories, and many of her protags hold jobs that she has held in the past. One is a waiter (or possibly a cook, I can't recall), and the inciting incident in his story happens while he's on the job, where he has a nasty run-in with an electrical appliance of some kind. The story itself, as far as it's planned, doesn't focus entirely around the guy's job, but it is still of some importance.



Well, yes, like an author who was on his university's fencing team using that experience when writing fight scenes in traditional fantasy (just to pick an example at random).  C. S. Freidman has a background in costume design; she always describes what her main characters are wearing.  Steven Brust's hobby of "inventing traditional Hungarian cuisine" comes through in much of his fiction.

The thing is, those writes don't stop there.  C. S. Friedman has never been to another planet.  Steven Brust is human -- the kind from _this_ world -- and so lacks direct personal knowledge of what it is like to be nonhuman.  They don't limit themselves.  _They make stuff up._


----------



## rhd

Weaver said:


> I have no idea where it comes from.  I've been told frequently that I cannot -- both am not_ able _and am not _allowed_ to -- write stories with female protagonists or even female 'major supporting cast' characters, because as a man I'm unable to comprehend The Way Women Think (as if every woman thinks the same way or acts the same way like some kind of hive mind).
> 
> There's a tirade about this somewhere in my blog posts about a "peer" critique I got once on a short story; I won't bore (or scare) anyone here by repeating it.  (Look for the "Old Critique Dissected" posts if you're curious.)



Well, if you're part of a community and feel you're being misrepresented or part of some male fantasy stereotype, I feel it's okay to object. I don't believe all men write women badly at all, I just look on the positive side and appreciate male writers who write women well, I thought Miranda Grey's diary entries in John Fowles's The Collector were fantastic, also Aliena from Ken Follett's The Pillar's of the Earth. Any way, even if it's a villainess, it works as long as she has depth and doesn't fall into the standard seductress mould, I hate those (see what I mean by stereotype).

Worst advice from someone, "third re-write? Time to give up."----NO ****ING WAY.


----------



## Weaver

Scribble said:


> "You need to pick your genre."
> 
> While this may be sound marketing advice, it's crappy creative advice. I was writing non-fiction essays and blogging. Then I was into writing poetry. Then I was into writing sci-fi. Now I am into writing fantasy. In the future I may write Buddhist steampunk mysteries.
> 
> I write what my passion leads me to write.



I'd read a Buddhist steampunk mystery, especially if didn't have airships.  ("_Every_ story with airships is steampunk" is one of my pet peeves.)


----------



## Weaver

rhd said:


> Well, if you're part of a community and feel you're being misrepresented or part of some male fantasy stereotype, I feel it's okay to object. I don't believe all men write women badly at all, I just look on the positive side and appreciate male writers who write women well, I thought Miranda Grey's diary entries in John Fowles's The Collector were fantastic, also Aliena from Ken Follett's The Pillar's of the Earth. Any way, even if it's a villainess, it works as long as she has depth and doesn't fall into the standard seductress mould, I hate those (see what I mean by stereotype).
> 
> Worst advice from someone, "third re-write? Time to give up."----NO ****ING WAY.



You are welcome to read my short story that prompted that comment, if you think I'm misrepresenting women or perpetrating stereotypes by writing a story with a female protagonist.  It's in my portfolio here now; the title is "Finder's Fee."


----------



## riderus

Devor said:


> I think the worst advice you can give is, "It's awesome!  You should totally pursue it!" while thinking, *this is rubbish, this person's just wasting time.*



Well, there you have it, Devor; in your signature

By and by, many an artist had been told the same (''rubbish'', ''wasting time''; but on the other hand many had been told ''dragons/vampires really existed'', ''if you're persistant enough you could be able to come accross a dragon's egg, meet the dragon mother'', ''the dragon/vampire mother is really nice''... 

Let nothing stop you in your inner stirring characters' conflict. A good word of advice: ''So what? it only takes practice.'' In fact, if you feel like wanted/meant to stop - just keep on writing everyone: that is if you think it's what you do best, if you feel writing's your calling. 
And, don't forget to read all the six pages here, fG'ss


----------



## psychotick

Hi Dark One,

First let me say I'm in awe of the lengths you've gone to get published. It shows commitment above and beyond in my view. And Feo I agree with you, every book needs editing and I can't think of many authors who can adequately do their own. Asimov? Maybe?

But fifteen major edits by four different editors? A hundred revisions? You have two questions I think to ask yourself. First is your book still really yours? I.e. the one you started out writing. Because with so much editing, so many changes I would be worried that it has become something else. A completely different animal so to speak. And the other question would be at what point do you think you're guilding the lilly? Because if every one of these edits and revisions was necessary to improve the book it would have had to have been utter - well you get the picture - to begin with. I doubt that you think it was.

My fear would be that your editors have not been editing your book so much as they have been editing each other's edits, and that they have been editing as much for personal taste as they have been for fixing faults.

However not having seen either the original nor the final version I can't say this for certain. Only you can.

My thought would be, and I know this will be determined as much by your agent and publishers as you, find one editor you like and trust and stick with him. The first edit should be brutal, and what follows far less so as you fix the inevitable problems that arise from the editing.

However I'm glad you've found success and I admire your perserverance.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mythopoet

Most writing advice is terrible because it's not personal. Writing (and reading) are very personal things. What works for one writer won't work for many others. In order to avoid giving out specific advice that can't possibly apply to all writers, some writing advice is generalized and dumbed down to the point of being absolutely useless. What I truly believe is that you can't learn about writing from other writers. You can only learn about writing from immersing yourself in stories. Read and read and read and read until you have an intimate sense of how story works for you personally. Then write and write and write and write until you're able to reliably produce what you've learned from reading. Ignore the advice, avoid the writing blogs. Learn how to do it for yourself and when you're happy with the stories you are telling, don't let anyone else tell you they aren't good enough. If you love your own stories, there are surely other people out there who will as well. You just have to find them or let them find you.


----------



## Devor

riderus said:


> Well, there you have it, Devor; in your signature



I don't understand what you mean by referring to my signature.




> By and by, many an artist had been told the same (''rubbish'', ''wasting time'' . . . .



I'm lost by the rest of your post, but I do want to respond to this.

Telling someone to pursue something, if you know they will fail, is far crueler to them than telling them to quit.  But that's not the only alternative to telling them it's "awesome."  You could actually give them honest, thorough feedback about the work.

Honestly, in my opinion some of the worst advice going around happens when it comes to giving critiques and dealing with beta readers.  The advice people give pushes towards a shallow critique and a blase relationship.  Or else to nitpick a few sentences as if we could name them all.

We can learn to give solid critiques if we wanted to.

For instance, I did critiques recently for Ankari's Iron Pen challenge, and afterwards, based on the comments I was making, I jotted down the following critique rubric for judging writing style:

 - Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.
 - Scene is structured to support the important moments.
 - Events are paced in a way that builds tension.
 - Details create immersion.
 - Language use serves to deliver on the full emotion of the story.

By talking about these five points, I can say a lot more about a person's writing style than "it's awesome," "it's rubbish," or "show, don't tell."  And I can help an author walk away with a much better idea of where their writing stands so they can make their own decisions about whether to pursue it.


----------



## Mythopoet

Devor said:


> For instance, I did critiques recently for Ankari's Iron Pen challenge, and afterwards, based on the comments I was making, I jotted down the following critique rubric for judging writing style:
> 
> - Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.
> - Scene is structured to support the important moments.
> - Events are paced in a way that builds tension.
> - Details create immersion.
> - Language use serves to deliver on the full emotion of the story.
> 
> By talking about these five points, I can say a lot more about a person's writing style than "it's awesome," "it's rubbish," or "show, don't tell."  And I can help an author walk away with a much better idea of where their writing stands so they can make their own decisions about whether to pursue it.



It's important to remember though that you're making judgements based on your own personal preferences (except for grammar and spelling issues, which are more a copy editor's area). Whether or not the structure of the scene supports the important moments depends on the person, indeed, even which moments are the important moments is a matter of taste. Everything you listed there is subjective and personal, not elements that can be judged by an objective standard. There is no objective standard for storytelling. This is why I object strongly to most critique and story editing (as opposed to copy editing). It's one thing for a publishing company that is putting money into a book being able to say "No, this isn't something we feel is worth our investment". But any sort of critique or writer's group or individual (including agents) judging your work is doing so only based on their own taste and thus is not really a good judge of a writer's skill or effectiveness as a storyteller.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> But any sort of critique or writer's group or individual (including agents) judging your work is doing so only based on their own taste and thus is not really a good judge of a writer's skill or effectiveness as a storyteller.



If you're any good as a writer you can decide whether the advice is right or not.  That's what being professional is about, right?

I mean, what's the alternative?  Nobody's going to tell you _anything_ about your work and you're just going to plod along hoping to sell something - as if millions haven't tried that and failed?

Listening to a bit of feedback doesn't mean you're selling out.


----------



## Scribble

Devor said:


> If you're any good as a writer you can decide whether the advice is right or not.  That's what being professional is about, right?
> 
> I mean, what's the alternative?  Nobody's going to tell you _anything_ about your work and you're just going to plod along hoping to sell something - as if millions haven't tried that and failed?
> 
> Listening to a bit of feedback doesn't mean you're selling out.



I have to agree with you. Writing is a skill. When I was learning programming, if I had listened only to certain teachers, I would have been a terrible programmer. I learned from some what were bad practices, and from certain others what were good practices. When I needed to learn a technique, or a new programming paradigm, I went to multiple sources. I took the nuggets from each that were effective for me, and made myself better.

Writing is a craft that develops somewhere between your mind and what you produce. Nobody's mind is exactly like mine, but other people's minds are very similar to mine. Others, are very different. 

A rare genius programmer might be able to learn in his own vacuum, but 99% of everyone, without feedback, would be crap. 

Feedback is a dialogue, it's not just something you dump there. You need to take it intelligently to get quality, you need to find people that can help _you_ with _your _writing.

In my writing group there are two people who "get me" who "get" my writing, I can take about 20% of what they tell me and it improves my work. There are others... maybe 2% of what they tell me is useful to my work, but the other 98% still broadens my awareness of my writing, and how other people approach it.


----------



## Mythopoet

It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.) 

But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.


----------



## Scribble

Mythopoet said:


> It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)
> 
> But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.



I think this is _a _way, but I am highly skeptical that it is _the _way. I do think there is merit in what you are saying. Some bad advice can send you off into the weeds. You need to be intelligent about what advice you take. 

I think that _good _advice can turn bad writing into good writing, _bad _advice can turn bad writing into another kind of bad writing, and only vision and experience can turn good writing into _great _writing.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)



I think that's a good way to wreck your reputation.  Plus you actually need to have readers before you can listen to them.

Also, where are readers talking to you if not in the reviews they're writing . . . ?




> But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.



I don't understand how you can expect to learn anything in a bubble.

Also, practice only makes perfect if you're practicing in a way that encourages you to improve.  It's very easy to be focused on trying to waste your time improving the wrong things.

Rather than just giving up on critiques, and ignoring other smart people with a bit of experience, isn't it better to work on learning how to give better critiques and to ask for better critiques?

Why just dismiss people who are trying to help you?


----------



## Butterfly

Mythopoet said:


> It's much better to just publish what you write and get feedback from readers rather than editors or critiquers who are always looking at your writing with their critical brain rather than their creative brain. (Which is bad.)
> 
> But honestly, you don't NEED feedback to improve as a writer. That's a myth. If you keep writing, the more you write the better a writer you will become (continuing to immerse yourself in story through reading is also essential, of course). All writers improve over time. You don't need critique to do that. Critique is often detrimental to the development of a writer (though critiquers will usually tell you otherwise). Writing and reading are the only essential things for becoming a better writer.



I agree that reading and writing will help you improve. But, the publishing and asking for feedback from your readers bit is very bad advice. I think it's fair to say that anything you publish you will be asking money for. Therefore you owe it those who are paying good money for your work for it to reach them in some sort of readable standard. Otherwise, you are just cheating your readers, and also reducing the reputation and value of your brand and your name (pen name if you choose to have one). In effect, poor work, reflects badly on yourself and your position in that market.

Imagine if you bought a computer and it didn't come up to standard, or there were things wrong with it. It's the same thing, your product has got to be ready for the market, and it really can't be of a substandard quality.

At least getting feedback from editors and critiquers and beta readers before it's published, you can catch those issues that readers are seriously unforgiving on.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think any advice or comment is wasted in and of itself, it is only what the author does with it that makes it so. Even if someone gives you generic "show don't tell" comments, or much of the other advice listed in this thread, it can still be useful. Even if I think the advice is bad, I can look at the story and try to decide if there is some underlying issue that the reviewer didn't express properly, or whether I just disagree with their comments and should ignore them. Either way, it gets me thinking about things even if the reviewer didn't think about it. The advice only becomes harmful when it is implemented by the author without critical analysis.


----------



## Mythopoet

All right guys, you go ahead and keep believing those myths. Career authors know better.


----------



## Chessie

I think Mythopoet has a point, but like with all things balance is key here. I think critiques help and we alone can decipher what advice feels right to us. Some of the stupidest comments about my writing have changed things in it, while positive comments have helped me flesh out my strong points. I think it is important to have your writing out there, and sure, reputation is important, but really when it comes to self-publishing the idea here is that we only have ourselves to trust. I'm strongly considering self-publishing because its what fits for me, but I'm having the story critiqued and will hire an editor, go through several drafts, etc until I feel it is ready to charge money for. Nothing is perfect, but I want a professional and polished product which yes, can be achieved with self publishing. 

But I digress back to the topic: I think overall, the worst writing advice is the one that we let bring us down. And it has nothing to do with what someone else says, but rather how we as authors use that advice. Ultimately, following our intuition pays off more.


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> All right guys, you go ahead and keep believing those myths. Career authors know better.



Assuming that all writers work the same way doesn't make much sense to me. Brandon Sanderson, for example, says he uses beta readers, and their feedback impacts the work. Certainly a career author. From comments I've read by Patrick Rothfuss, I think he uses them as well. I suspect quite a lot of career authors do so.


----------



## Chessie

Beta readers are great. I have a little group of non-writers for beta readers, but I also use a critique group. It works well for me this way, to have one group writers one group not. In a way, using crits is also getting your writing out there.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> Assuming that all writers work the same way doesn't make much sense to me. Brandon Sanderson, for example, says he uses beta readers, and their feedback impacts the work. Certainly a career author. From comments I've read by Patrick Rothfuss, I think he uses them as well. I suspect quite a lot of career authors do so.



I remember the episode of Writing Excuses which touched upon it, and all of the hosts had beta readers, and none of them used their beta readers in the same way.  And that was on top of their editors.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> I remember the episode of Writing Excuses which touched upon it, and all of the hosts had beta readers, and none of them used their beta readers in the same way.  And that was on top of their editors.



Yeah. The published books you see on the shelves often undergo changes based on feedback from beta readers, agents, and editors before they finally hit the shelves. Not every writer is going to go through all of that, I suppose, but the idea that career writers produce work in a vacuum and don't let commentary from others influence what they're doing doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence.


----------



## Scribble

Devor said:


> their editors.



What is an editor, but someone who is paid to give writing critiques to a writer? 

Fix this, change that, this is dull, your dialogue stinks here, the motivation is fuzzy there, show don't tell here, etc...


----------



## Steerpike

Scribble said:


> What is an editor, but someone who is paid to give writing critiques to a writer?
> 
> Fix this, change that, this is dull, your dialogue stinks here, the motivation is fuzzy there, show don't tell here, etc...



I think most professional writers would agree, too, that their editors improved the work. 

That said, if an author wants to stick to their original vision, they should. Even if 50 beta readers all say the same thing. It's your book, do what you want with it. But the idea that no one can help you with feedback seems strange. As long as the author applies some reason to things, the feedback isn't going to hurt.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Steerpike said:


> But the idea that no one can help you with feedback seems strange. As long as the author applies some reason to things, the feedback isn't going to hurt.



To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all. There are plenty of other ways to learn, after all. When I was a beginner programmer, nobody went through my code and said tighten up this part and add a couple more subroutines there. I improved by finding out for myself what worked and what didn't, by reading manuals and magazines, and by seeing other people's code (which taught me both what to do, and what NOT to do). And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.


----------



## C Hollis

After following this thread and seeing the various people respond and discuss, from all rungs of the ladder, I have witnessed the one piece of bad advice no one has mentioned:

What you are doing is wrong.  My way is the only correct way.


----------



## Steerpike

PaulineMRoss said:


> To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all.



A fair point.

I don't think there is any one way to go about it, and what works for one author may not necessarily work for another. People have to find their own approach, and also be secure enough in it that they don't feel the need to criticize those who choose a different path.


----------



## Steerpike

C Hollis said:


> What you are doing is wrong.  My way is the only correct way.



Yes, good point. It's a implied statement in a lot of critique and commentary, where people say things like "you need to," or "you have to," or "you can't..." Those statements imply that the reviewers way is the only way, and those statements are incorrect


----------



## Scribble

PaulineMRoss said:


> To be fair to Mythopoet, what s/he said was that a writer doesn't *need* feedback to improve, not that it doesn't help at all. There are plenty of other ways to learn, after all. When I was a beginner programmer, nobody went through my code and said tighten up this part and add a couple more subroutines there. I improved by finding out for myself what worked and what didn't, by reading manuals and magazines, and by seeing other people's code (which taught me both what to do, and what NOT to do). And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.



In my first job, we were two interns each assigned a senior to teach basic structures, best practices, etc... We had to have our code reviewed before we could commit it. In that time of wrestling with complex data and systems, loaded down with idealistic "fresh out of school" ideologies about programming, without a coach, it would have been disaster. I was given room to innovate, to try new things, but under the watchful eye of "the people who know stuff". It was a great environment to learn in, I was there almost two years. On my LinkedIn profile I have this recommendation from my then senior, going back 14 years!



> Jason is team player who is not only able to deliver clear good work, but when face with new problems, he is able to find a solution. He also brought new knowledge to the team that made us change the way we approached future projects.



The key of that environment is that they cared about me learning AND them learning. They also learned from me, and they recognized that. When I get critiques from someone who cares about me succeeding in my writing, I feel it. When I get critiques from someone who has their head up their... business... and just wants to preach their sermon, that's easy to sense as well. You just don't always call it out, for bull**** is the glue of polite society, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## Scribble

Oh, I missed a point I wanted to add. There were some really bad programmers at that job as well. There was in that great environment, unfortunately a bit of nepotism as well to deal with. I was told by certain "senior" developers to do things in a way that I knew even as a first year programmer, were bad. So, I side-stepped their advice and did things my way. You have to pick and choose, and after all, it's YOUR art. Pick the brains of people to get the good fruit, and toss out the rotten. Someone had to teach you how to hold your pencil, and not to write on the table. There's certainly more to learn than that.


----------



## Trick

Returning the favor of noticing a unique thought, as you put it, a quotable quote:



Scribble said:


> Someone had to teach you how to hold your pencil, and not to write on the table. There's certainly more to learn than that.


----------



## Scribble

> And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.



I am going to politely disagree.  I do love an elegant routine, I waste time with elegantly formatted comments, sublime indentation... perfect C++ (now C#) styling... but if something looks too "pretty", I intuitively distrust it's sturdiness. 

Legacy code gets ugly over time. It grows all these weird tendrils, odd hairy growths, code sections added to handle particular business cases and exceptions... but that's what makes it strong. If you build without craftsmanship, it may not stand the strain of time. What looked beautiful on the first version might not be the strongest. It's through tinkering, adjusting, tuning, that a software comes to maturity.

Whenever I look in to the guts of some new ERP system code, I always get an immediate shock... "Holy crap, what is all this for...?" And then, I get into the work of teasing it out, understanding the flows, breaking down the complexity, becoming it's master! Going in and making new changes without breaking the system logic, there's a part that is art, but mostly, it seems to be craftsmanship and experience.

/derail - sorry, but I don't often get to talk with fellow programmers on here!


----------



## Trick

Scribble said:


> there's a part that is art, but mostly, it seems to be craftsmanship and experience.



I am not a programmer so I may not be seeing this how you mean it but, IMHO, craftsmanship and experience produce art. If you don't believe me, find some episodes of a master wood working show and look at the finished products. Then look at what a kid in his first shop class makes. One is beautiful because it is practically perfect and the other may be beautiful because of what it represents but the first one is art.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

And now for some interesting (non-)advice from Mark Lawrence:

Mark Lawrence: Rules to Write by

Cliff Notes version: he's a discovery writer, he only writes one draft, plus a bit of basic spellchecking, but he recommends a critique group.


----------



## Steerpike

PaulineMRoss said:


> Cliff Notes version: he's a discovery writer, he only writes one draft, plus a bit of basic spellchecking, but he recommends a critique group.



That's generally how I approach things as well. So far, so good. My short stories usually remain largely unchanged after the initial draft. Longer works are more likely to be modified.


----------



## Weaver

psychotick said:


> You have two questions I think to ask yourself. First is your book still really yours? I.e. the one you started out writing. Because with so much editing, so many changes I would be worried that it has become something else. ...
> 
> My fear would be that your editors have not been editing your book so much as they have been editing each other's edits, and that they have been editing as much for personal taste as they have been for fixing faults.



My thoughts exactly.  It isn't the editor's job to make your story into one _they'd_ write; it's the editor's job to make your story the best that it can be as _your _story.


----------



## Weaver

Mythopoet said:


> It's important to remember though that you're making judgements based on your own personal preferences (except for grammar and spelling issues, which are more a copy editor's area).



What, you mean that grammar and spelling aren't just matters of personal taste, too?  I'm _shocked_!  (Actually, I'm catching up on my weekly sarcasm quota.  I hate it when someone _asks_ me to check such things in a story -- it's what I do, after all -- and then insists that their quirky use of apostrophes to indicate plurals is 'just how i write cos i like it.')



> Whether or not the structure of the scene supports the important moments depends on the person, indeed, even which moments are the important moments is a matter of taste.



No kidding.  Most people just don't care all that much about the scene at the end of chapter 8 of _Sign of the Unicorn_, and_ I_ thought it was a defining moment for the protagonist.



> There is no objective standard for storytelling. This is why I object strongly to most critique and story editing (as opposed to copy editing).



Again with the respect for copy editors.  Why are there not more writers like you?


----------



## Weaver

Scribble said:


> Feedback is a dialogue, it's not just something you dump there. You need to take it intelligently to get quality, you need to find people that can help _you_ with _your _writing.



It's getting feedback that_ is _a dialogue that is so hard.  Whenever I ask for feedback, I specifically state that I would like to know WHY the reader thinks whatever they think about the writing.  Most of the time, I get nothing on that, just "I like it" or "This stinks."  The _why_ is often more useful than the _what_.


----------



## Weaver

Steerpike said:


> Even if someone gives you generic "show don't tell" comments, or much of the other advice listed in this thread, it can still be useful.



If they cannot at least point out an example where I tell when I ought to show, I ignore such comments.

I don't trust generic advice.  Most of the time, it comes from someone who didn't actually read the story in question; they just assume that everyone has a problem with whatever they pointed to, so whatever they say ought to apply to anything.  I've gotten "feedback" like "First person stories are hard, maybe you should start with something else as a new writer" when the story commented on _was not in first person_.  I'm sorry, but that kind of feedback is_ not _valid, nor is it useful.


----------



## Philip Overby

I'm glad this thread has gotten so much attention. It appears a lot of people have been given bad advice over the years!

One interesting topic that's come up is how much editing or revision is too much. My personal take is that you should edit until you're finished. That could mean editing one time or editing dozens of times. Editing I think is kind of like cooking. You begin with a piece of chicken (your story). In order to make your dish as good as you can make it you need to add spices, apply the right heat, and maybe add some vegetables (editing.) Sometimes you may add too much and then your dish that was actually pretty good gets burnt or over-spiced (over-written or over-edited). Sometimes a friend (editor) may say "Oh, you put too much salt in this." Thankfully, as writers, we can take the "salt" out if needed. As the cook (writer), it's really up to you how your dish (story) ultimately turns out. And those customers (readers) eating it (reading it) are going to be the ultimate judges of your success.

Analogy over.


----------



## The Dark One

psychotick said:


> Hi Dark One,
> 
> First let me say I'm in awe of the lengths you've gone to get published. It shows commitment above and beyond in my view. And Feo I agree with you, every book needs editing and I can't think of many authors who can adequately do their own. Asimov? Maybe?
> 
> But fifteen major edits by four different editors? A hundred revisions? You have two questions I think to ask yourself. First is your book still really yours? I.e. the one you started out writing. Because with so much editing, so many changes I would be worried that it has become something else. A completely different animal so to speak. And the other question would be at what point do you think you're guilding the lilly? Because if every one of these edits and revisions was necessary to improve the book it would have had to have been utter - well you get the picture - to begin with. I doubt that you think it was.



Perfectly valid questions, with simple answers:

Only one of the editors (the last) actually touched the ms and presumed to make changes. The first three were all more in the way of editorial reports with numerous suggestions which it was my responsibility to adopt, or not. The first three were structural and tonal suggestions and the last was a tight line edit (which I still had the ability to accept or reject). Mind you, the publisher had quite a say in all this so it was always a negotiation, but that's one of the benefits of working with a small publisher - the process is more intimate than the editorial machine of the large publisher and the write retains more power.

As for gilding the lily...that's in the eye of the beholder, but I do confess I edit as I go and I was counting all the transitional versions as the first draft developed.

A further comment - it's really important to edit proofs as well as just A4 word docs. It reads so differently when in page proof form and what looked good before suddenly looks cluttered or awkward.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Phil the Drill said:


> My personal take is that you should edit until you're finished.



Ah, but how do you know when it's finished? Serious question. I suspect some people keep tinkering away - just one more draft...


----------



## riderus

Devor said:


> I don't understand what you mean by referring to my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lost by the rest of your post, but I do want to respond to this.
> 
> Telling someone to pursue something, if you know they will fail, is far crueler to them than telling them to quit.  But that's not the only alternative to telling them it's "awesome."  You could actually give them honest, thorough feedback about the work.
> 
> Honestly, in my opinion some of the worst advice going around happens when it comes to giving critiques and dealing with beta readers.  The advice people give pushes towards a shallow critique and a blase relationship.  Or else to nitpick a few sentences as if we could name them all.
> 
> We can learn to give solid critiques if we wanted to.
> 
> For instance, I did critiques recently for Ankari's Iron Pen challenge, and afterwards, based on the comments I was making, I jotted down the following critique rubric for judging writing style:
> 
> - Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.
> - Scene is structured to support the important moments.
> - Events are paced in a way that builds tension.
> - Details create immersion.
> - Language use serves to deliver on the full emotion of the story.
> 
> By talking about these five points, I can say a lot more about a person's writing style than "it's awesome," "it's rubbish," or "show, don't tell."  And I can help an author walk away with a much better idea of where their writing stands so they can make their own decisions about whether to pursue it.



Any signature should be chosen carefully; Your signature to me is a clear example of how to attract people to writing. Which is good for us, the aspiring ones.

Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity; Scene structured; Events being paced; Immersion by details; the Language use; 
That is the foundation, of course, but without the great writers' sincere, original inner self-stirring struggle/rush/passion there is no good read.
And then we come to the cliche-or-not conclusion of the great writers being neurotic (but, alas, that very often - is - the case...)... 

p.s.
I hope I've made myself clearer now to _the rush-in-passion (this is abstract enough, I know) writing._


----------



## rhd

Just saw this great post on "Advice on Advice from Literary Greats" Brain Pickings
Don't miss the advice that Charlotte BrontÃ« ignored.


----------



## Steerpike

rhd said:


> Just saw this great post on "Advice on Advice from Literary Greats" Brain Pickings
> Don't miss the advice that Charlotte BrontÃ« ignored.



I like the Steinbeck quote a lot, particularly the first sentence. I think it was in my signature line for a while.


----------



## Chessie

Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...

Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.


----------



## Philip Overby

PaulineMRoss said:


> Ah, but how do you know when it's finished? Serious question. I suspect some people keep tinkering away - just one more draft...



That could be part of the reason some writers never finish anything. Either due to abandonment or over-editing. Perhaps the key to knowing when to stop editing is having a great group of beta readers. When they say "I think this is good to go" then that should help guide your decision to stop editing. I do think it's possible to edit something into oblivion. 

Like someone mentioned about Mark Lawrence, he basically writes one draft. I've heard of other writers doing this as well. Should _every_ writer do this? No, I hope not. It works for him though. I've personally tried discovery writing only and have had mixed results. 

However, if someone needs dozens of edits to make their writing work, then that's their method. Writing's like anything else: each person has their own unique way of approaching it. I believe it's good to try all sorts of techniques out there and then see which one works best. Then you can always tinker with that technique to make it work for your personal tastes.



> Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...
> 
> Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.



Chesterama: I find this helpful if I'm working on the "structure stage." If I want content feedback, I feel the same way. I don't really need nitpicking over structure, grammar or whatever unless it's incredibly distracting. The odd comment here and there doesn't bug me, but I want to know information about content first and foremost.


----------



## bookmasta

"Show, don't tell."


----------



## The Dark One

Chesterama said:


> Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...
> 
> Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.



You may think this semantic, but what you're describing above (to me) isn't structural - it's more line editing.

Structural editing, to my mind, is dealing with the broad-brush plot and character issues. Should X happen here? Should characters Y and Z be blended into one?

I think all writers enjoy the emotional responses, and you probably don't want the same approach from all readers, but those capable of giving constructive structural advice are the most valuable.


----------



## Weaver

The Dark One said:


> I think all writers enjoy the emotional responses. ...



Well,_ most _of the time.  I love knowing whether the reader likes a character, or hates him, or suspects that he's secretly a fiendish creature who will kill the other characters in a few chapters (even though he isn't and won't), but occasionally the "emotional response" frustrates the hell out of me.

And yes, structural editing, a.k.a. substantial editing, deals with the Big Picture stuff:  the order in which the story is presented, the pacing, characterization, etc.  Word choice is a line editing thing.

I know _I_ find feedback on structural things helpful.  I have difficulty sometimes with knowing when to give the reader details about backstory, especially.  If someone can tell me, "I think you ought to reveal sooner that character A knew character C when they were children" or "This is too soon -- wait until the big confrontation to show through dialogue the real reason why character X is secretly on the villain's side," and explain why they think these changes would improve the story, that is useful to me.


----------



## Chessie

Ok, I get that. If something is confusing or out of order then yes, I want to know. I also would like to know more than just how the story made readers feel. Other things are important too. I'm talking about this: "you shouldn't use loose with bonnet", with no explanation as of why. 

......ok? How else am I supposed to let the reader know she doesn't like tying her bonnets tight? Its these little things that piss me off and make me reluctant to share my writing, though I know its important to. My point is that no one has to do it the same way. So long as the message is getting across in a clear, direct, professional and beautiful way then to knitpick over certain phrases or whatever is bogus imo.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

For my money, I love very detailed critiques. What some may call nitpicking, I call valuable. The only time I don't consider someone's comment is when style becomes the issue. In the end, you always have the option on whether or not to utilize their advice.

You really need to find critique partners that understand your goals, style, & vision. Establishing a good group to work with can do wonders. One thing though...You as the author bear some responsibility for directing the people critiquing your work. Tell them what you're looking for specifically. Also, consider a critique partner like you would any relationship. It may take time to work well together, and effort from both parties.


----------



## Weaver

Chesterama said:


> Ok, I get that. If something is confusing or out of order then yes, I want to know. I also would like to know more than just how the story made readers feel. Other things are important too. I'm talking about this: "you shouldn't use loose with bonnet", with no explanation as of why.
> 
> ......ok? How else am I supposed to let the reader know she doesn't like tying her bonnets tight? Its these little things that piss me off and make me reluctant to share my writing, though I know its important to. My point is that no one has to do it the same way. So long as the message is getting across in a clear, direct, professional and beautiful way then to knitpick over certain phrases or whatever is bogus imo.



Under any circumstances, if they can't tell you WHY they're suggesting a change, the suggestion is... questionable, at best.


----------



## The Dark One

I now have quite a large group of beta readers - none of them are writers, but they are all intelligent readers who know what they like. They also know my work now (esp the published work) which, I think, makes a difference.

In fact, I've noticed a change in my beta readers over the years. When I was first ready to start showing my unpublished stuff to people, there was a bit of reluctance. I suspect some didn't want to have to tell me how crap it was, and others thought I might be setting some sort of IQ test for them. I got few takers and not many had much of any value to say. But they were my friends, so who else was I gonna get? As the years went by and I remained unpublished, my writing career was not taken at all seriously and beta readers, if they gave me any feedback at all, tended to be quite critical (even patronising) without offering much in the way of encouragement.

The change happened when I started writing the book which eventually became my first published book. I had only written 30 odd pages when I was at a party one night and started telling a bloke (Bruce) about my new opus. He was someone I only knew tangentially, but he expressed strong interest in the project and asked to read it. So I gave him the 30 pages one Sunday afternoon, and to my amazement, he rang me the following morning at work to tell me how much he enjoyed it and when could he have the next 30 pages?

This was a turning point. I had my first ever fan and it had three effects - it really drove me to finish the ms because I was a glutton for his feedback; it gave me confidence in the story and in my own ability; and best of all, he would talk about the book glowingly in front of my older friends/beta readers, which really turned them around. One by one, they started asking to read the ms, and word started getting out that _this time_ I was really onto something - which of course had a compounding effect on my confidence and desire to get the thing finished.

My third book is just about to go to press, and my beta readers have changed profoundly. They are now all fans and where they might, in the past, have simply found fault, now they have enough confidence in my ability to trust that I know what I'm doing. They know that if something seems wrong or strange then it's probably deliberate, but if not, then them pointing it out is very valuable to me. They are now more than beta readers - they are a test audience. In my new book, two really important changes were made due to the comments of friends and, I fully believe, these changes will make all the difference to the book's prospects of success.

But the beta reader change came when someone from the left field of my life took a genuine and enthusiastic interest in my work and it really helped me. I guess what I'm saying is that people close to you are no good as critics until you are successful enough for that part of your relationship to change. Until then, look to the peripheries of your acquaintance to find interested readers without too much emotional investment to cloud their judgment.

As for Bruce, he had read the entire ms 30 times (he says) by the time it was published. Yes that is a tad obsessive, but his reward? He is on the cover and has had much enjoyment pointing it out to his friends in bookshops.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

The Dark One said:


> This was a turning point. I had my first ever fan ...



Y'know, I think this is quite a good argument for just putting stuff out there. You had terrible trouble finding that first fan, and in the end it only happened by chance. How many more years might have drifted by before you found a Bruce? But for those who don't want to depend on chance, maybe the answer is simply to publish anyway, in some way, so that the fans have a chance to find you.


----------



## brokethepoint

That is awesome, I hope that someday I can say something like that.


----------



## Chessie

The Dark One and Pauline, awesome points both of you. And the Dark One, that story was great! I loved reading about your success and your friend on the cover of your book.  I completely agree far as beta readers go. My tiny group consists of one fan that I got from writing fanfic (his feedback is amazing), my two sisters, and my best friend. I think our relationships can all survive the bulk crap of my work haha.


----------



## Rinzei

The Dark One said:


> This was a turning point. I had my first ever fan and it had three effects - it really drove me to finish the ms because I was a glutton for his feedback; it gave me confidence in the story and in my own ability; and best of all, he would talk about the book glowingly in front of my older friends/beta readers, which really turned them around.



I think that was a big part of what put me in my lull (which I'm still trying to crawl out of) - I got to a point where it felt no one else would read it or care about it. I tell myself over and over again that I shouldn't care if no one else cares about it, I should do it if I enjoy it, etc. - but I know deep down that that's just not how it works. I do care if someone else cares about my writing. I've dreamt up this whole world and all these people - I don't want to be the only one to enjoy them.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

PaulineMRoss said:


> Y'know, I think this is quite a good argument for just putting stuff out there. You had terrible trouble finding that first fan, and in the end it only happened by chance. How many more years might have drifted by before you found a Bruce? But for those who don't want to depend on chance, maybe the answer is simply to publish anyway, in some way, so that the fans have a chance to find you.



Pauline, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I think The Dark One makes an excellent argument for putting stuff out there *when it's ready* and not before, not for "just putting it out there."  What would it have done to his reputation as a writer if he had just thrown out all those stories his other beta readers were luke-warm to patronizing about, only to discover they were all right?  It wasn't until he found the story that struck a spark, when all his hard work finally paid off with the ignition of experience, that he found that fan.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Rinzei said:


> I've dreamt up this whole world and all these people - I don't want to be the only one to enjoy them.



Absolutely. I'm a great believer in the idea that there are *always* people out there who'll love what you write. However esoteric or quirky or wild, there *will* be an audience for it. It might be small, but it's out there, somewhere. And if you never publish, no one will ever get the chance to love those characters and that world.

Just before my mum died, she told me about this story she'd dreamt up. She had it all worked out, the characters, the whole plot, she'd carried it round in her head for decades. But she never wrote it down, and now it's gone for ever.

So, people - write your stories and then publish them. And isn't it lovely that these days you can just do that?


----------



## JCFarnham

I can honestly say I've only truly improved since acquiring myself a decent beta reader. He spots things I don't, He pushes me to keep going, the list goes on.

It's my experience that its hard to improve without such a relationship. I'm sure there's a few people out there who can write in a bubble, produce a work of genius, and get it published without any sort of feedback. (Wasn't that Hemingway's method?) But for the rest of us its time to think about letting people read your writing. 

As Chuck Wendig says: you're not a precious snowflake.

The worst advice I've gotten? Well I can pinpoint anything exact, but I've always been wary of the popular advice. Even if I'm told by fifty people that something works, I'd rather figure out if it works for myself first.


----------



## Scribble

JCFarnham said:


> I'm sure there's a few people out there who can write in a bubble, produce a work of genius, and get it published without any sort of feedback. (Wasn't that Hemingway's method?) But for the rest of us its time to think about letting people read your writing.



Hemingway was a brutal self-editor. His own self-criticism was clear and strong enough to turn out books that are still read today. 

These three quotes echo of his echo that.



> “Write drunk; edit sober.”


I need passion, inspiration, and ideas to create a story, but I need a clear, sober mind to shape and carve that raw stuff into a book:



> “The first draft of anything is s***.”


This lets my ego off the hook for producing s***. It reminds me that I can turn that s*** into something someone would want to read.



> “All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know.”


This is the golden rule by which I must assess my work.



> As Chuck Wendig says: you're not a precious snowflake.


Chuck Wendig is awesome. I follow him on Twitter, love his articles.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

A. E. Lowan said:


> Pauline, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.  I think The Dark One makes an excellent argument for putting stuff out there *when it's ready* and not before, not for "just putting it out there."  What would it have done to his reputation as a writer if he had just thrown out all those stories his other beta readers were luke-warm to patronizing about, only to discover they were all right?  It wasn't until he found the story that struck a spark, when all his hard work finally paid off with the ignition of experience, that he found that fan.



OK. The question is, when is a book ready? You seem to be implying that it's only ready when some outside agency (beta readers, editors, critique buddies, whoever) says that it's ready. I'm saying that authors need to have more confidence in themselves. If an author has been writing for some time (ie this isn't just the first book that got a completed first draft) and has polished it to the best of his/her ability and has learned something about the craft of writing along the way, then there comes a point when they have to just let it go. Waiting years and years for some arbitrary third party to come along and say: yes, now it's ready, is, frankly, a criminal waste of creative energy. 

There are people out there who want to read these stories. Please don't withhold them just because you're waiting for someone else's approval. The first book is always flawed. The next one will be better. They don't need to be perfect, because readers just don't care.

Footnote: I should say for clarity that when I talk about 'putting it out there', I don't necessarily mean uploading it to Amazon and slapping a $5 price tag on it. Putting it on a blog, or uploading it to a free site is also publishing.


----------



## JCFarnham

Scribble said:


> Hemingway was a brutal self-editor. His own self-criticism was clear and strong enough to turn out books that are still read today.



Who am I thinking of then? The famous anecdote is that he used to sit in a shop window with a type writer, churn out the manuscript and send it straight to the newspaper...

I feel it was a writer of the same era. Anyway just thought that was an interesting one to tell for those of us who spend years on a draft.


----------



## Scribble

JCFarnham said:


> Who am I thinking of then? The famous anecdote is that he used to sit in a shop window with a type writer, churn out the manuscript and send it straight to the newspaper...
> 
> I feel it was a writer of the same era. Anyway just thought that was an interesting one to tell for those of us who spend years on a draft.



I'm sure there are many people who can whip out a draft and call it _done_. I believe there are, and have been _far_ fewer who can do that and produce something readable.


----------



## Addison

"Start the writing off with coffee." Every article of writing advice has some mention of coffee. Before I found that advice I wasn't a coffee drinker. Now I am most definitely not. Coffee in me is like a pound of sugar is Speedy Gonzalez. I couldn't sit still and I kept running around the house like a crazy person imagining my story play out at fast speed. When I crashed down with a monster head ache I couldn't remember anything that I dreamt up. 

NO COFFEE!!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

JCFarnham said:


> Who am I thinking of then?



Vonnegut worked that way. One draft...


----------



## PaulineMRoss

A blog post relevant to parts of this thread, to wit, whether it's a good idea to wait until someone 'approves' your writing:

How Frustration Can Lead to Breakthrough and Picking Yourself | Positive Writer


----------



## Philip Overby

PaulineMRoss said:


> A blog post relevant to parts of this thread, to wit, whether it's a good idea to wait until someone 'approves' your writing:
> 
> How Frustration Can Lead to Breakthrough and Picking Yourself | Positive Writer



Good blog post. However, I'd like to add that "picking yourself" could also just mean having the confidence to submit to traditional publishers. I think a fear of rejection is a big part of what holds some writers from going the traditional route or even putting themselves out there in general. Self-publishing allows no rejection unless readers just reject it as a whole.

I like the hybrid approach that a lot of authors are now taking that Michal J. Sullivan highlighted in this interview here: An Interview with Hybrid Author Michael J. Sullivan | Digital Book World

Why not be in both camps if you have the drive? You can pick yourself and allow someone else to pick you as well.


----------



## BWFoster78

> OK. The question is, when is a book ready?



This is a question I've asked myself a lot!

On one hand, I agree with you completely.  The author is, and has to be, the ultimate judge of what he puts out there.  Above all, you have to meet your criteria.

The problem is that, as an author, I'm too close to the work.  I don't always see the flaws.  Maybe I missed something because I knew what I meant or maybe I didn't have the skill level/knowledge to see the problem.

How many times have you read an author's early stuff and really enjoyed it.  Then, their later stuff falls a bit flat.  Turns out, in the beginning they really put the time and effort in to make it right and listened to their editor's advice.  Later, their heads grew with their pocketbooks, and they started just churning stuff out.

My personal feeling is that I don't want to put anything out there unless it's good enough, and I'm careful to get feedback from people that I trust in order to make that decision.

Another thought:

I want to succeed as a writer (which I define as eventually making a living from it).  The only path I can see to that success that doesn't involve luck is:

1. Write something really good.
2. Put that work out there.
3. The work is so good that it gains me fans who will read other works I produce and encourage friends to do the same.
4. Go back to step 1.

If what I put out there in step 1 doesn't accomplish point 3, then it's a failure.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> T
> 1. Write something really good.
> 2. Put that work out there.
> 3. The work is so good that it gains me fans who will read other works I produce and encourage friends to do the same.
> 4. Go back to step 1.



I think that's right. The one thing I would like to point out, however, is that these days you have to produce quantity as well. This seems to be especially true if you're going to self-publish, and looks like it is becoming more true of traditionally-published authors.

For some writers, step 1 takes way too long because of endless edits and revisions. If you're starting out putting a book out there every three years, I think the odds are you're going to have problems.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> I think that's right. The one thing I would like to point out, however, is that these days you have to produce quantity as well. This seems to be especially true if you're going to self-publish, and looks like it is becoming more true of traditionally-published authors.



I agree.

Part of it is an economy of scale consideration.  If I spend time and effort promoting a single book, my chances for profit are limited to that sole book.  With two books, every person that finds the one I'm promoting is a potential customer for the other one.  At some point, it becomes worth the time you spend doing promotions.



> For some writers, step 1 takes way too long because of endless edits and revisions. If you're starting out putting a book out there every three years, I think the odds are you're going to have problems.



I agree that, once you enter the market, you need to follow with new products relatively quickly.  For your first novel, however, you need to make sure you're ready.

My first book is taking a long time because I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve.  Every time I think it's "good enough," I discover my ability has transcended where I was when I completed the previous version.  I think (hope) that my last leap added the final missing ingredient.

Regardless, I think I'm justified in taking the time to get a first book right.  I had to go through that learning process, and I don't think putting out something subpar would have helped me.

I can only hope that future books will go faster since my rate of increase in ability will slow significantly.


----------



## A. E. Lowan

Steerpike said:


> I think that's right. The one thing I would like to point out, however, is that these days you have to produce quantity as well. This seems to be especially true if you're going to self-publish, and looks like it is becoming more true of traditionally-published authors.
> 
> For some writers, step 1 takes way too long because of endless edits and revisions. If you're starting out putting a book out there every three years, I think the odds are you're going to have problems.



I also agree.  I'm seeing working writers out there talking about putting out at least 1 - 2 titles per year, sometimes more if they're working multiple series.  It's hard to balance reader expectations of quality with this economy of scale, but it's becoming part of the business.  We're just going to have to learn to keep up.

I think economy is one of the big reasons series are so popular these days, too - readers like to have characters they can invest in, characters they know with a writer they trust and spend time with from one book to the next, as opposed to only have a few hundred pages and then "The End."  They're more reluctant to put their limited entertainment budgets at risk on a new name or a new character.  But, revisiting Brian's earlier comment... 





> How many times have you read an author's early stuff and really enjoyed it. Then, their later stuff falls a bit flat. Turns out, in the beginning they really put the time and effort in to make it right and listened to their editor's advice. Later, their heads grew with their pocketbooks, and they started just churning stuff out.


 I've seen writers I've followed for years doing this, and I've got to say it's very disappointing to watch.  It seems to me that they just don't get edited after a while, generally once their names get larger than their book titles, and unless they're watching themselves closely and insisting on holding themselves to the highest standards their publishers will literally put anything with their name on it out there secure in the knowledge that it will sell.  Pity.  I, for one, am in no hurry to read these authors anymore.


----------



## C Hollis

> I think that's right. The one thing I would like to point out, however, is that these days you have to produce quantity as well.



You only "have" to do this if you want to make money right here, right now.  Myself?  I'm in no big hurry.  You see, while these bozo's are cranking out crap title after crap title, I will be plodding along, honing my craft, and improving with each title.  I would like to think everything I put out is high quality, but I would only be fooling myself.  I do know, however, that my slow release, quality over quantity method will win in the end.

Why do I know this, you ask?



> I've seen writers I've followed for years doing this, and I've got to say it's very disappointing to watch. It seems to me that they just don't get edited after a while, generally once their names get larger than their book titles, and unless they're watching themselves closely and insisting on holding themselves to the highest standards their publishers will literally put anything with their name on it out there secure in the knowledge that it will sell. Pity. I, for one, am in no hurry to read these authors anymore.



That is the sentiment of most customers.

Eventually the truth catches up to the crowd not concerned with quality of work.  And that's when this guy rolls on by on his moped that gets 80mpg, while hotrod stands on the roadside waiting for a lift.


----------



## Steerpike

C Hollis said:


> You only "have" to do this if you want to make money right here, right now.  Myself?  I'm in no big hurry.  You see, while these bozo's are cranking out crap title after crap title, I will be plodding along, honing my craft, and improving with each title.  I would like to think everything I put out is high quality, but I would only be fooling myself.  I do know, however, that my slow release, quality over quantity method will win in the end.



I think that's part of it. I think part of it also marketing and staying in front of the readers, so that you're not effectively re-introducing yourself to your target audience every number of years.

I think either approach can work out in the long run. There are good authors who can put books out at a rate of once per year or more and continuously put out high-quality material. If one has the desire and ability to do that, then great. If waiting, say, three years between titles is the only way to ensure you haven't put out crap, then it is best to wait.


----------



## Chessie

Steerpike said:


> There are good authors who can put books out at a rate of once per year or more and continuously put out high-quality material. If one has the desire and ability to do that, then great. If waiting, say, three years between titles is the only way to ensure you haven't put out crap, then it is best to wait.


This sums it up for me. When is the work ready to be published? I think its a combination of going with your intuition, working with an editor and beta readers. I would love to publish my WIP a year from now, but it may not be ready then. I'll trust and let it go when it feels right, when I know for sure its ready. That varies for all of us.


----------



## The Dark One

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree.
> 
> Part of it is an economy of scale consideration.  If I spend time and effort promoting a single book, my chances for profit are limited to that sole book.  With two books, every person that finds the one I'm promoting is a potential customer for the other one.  At some point, it becomes worth the time you spend doing promotions.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that, once you enter the market, you need to follow with new products relatively quickly.  For your first novel, however, you need to make sure you're ready.
> 
> My first book is taking a long time because I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve.  *Every time I think it's "good enough," I discover my ability has transcended where I was when I completed the previous version.  I think (hope) that my last leap added the final missing ingredient.*
> 
> Regardless, I think I'm justified in taking the time to get a first book right.  I had to go through that learning process, and I don't think putting out something subpar would have helped me.
> 
> I can only hope that future books will go faster since my rate of increase in ability will slow significantly.



Spot on! Sorry if I sound patronising, but this is when you know you're on the right track. When you can spot the weeds amid the flowers you thought so brilliant when you planted them...and then come back again and again and see where the book still needs work because _you've grown as a writer_ and what was good enough before now seems like trite and tinkling garbage...that's when you are seriously finding your voice and learning to refine the raw material into quality.

I honestly wonder how many dilettante writers (and I number myself among these because I still have a day job) ever acquire enough personal insight, taste and skill to see beyond their egos and appreciate the work for what it really is. If you do, you'll know it - partly because of the disgust you feel for your early work - but partly because you will also learn to take other writers' work apart from the perspective of a writer. Plenty of us learn to do that as readers, but when you're automatically deconstructing as a writer you instantly recognise every trick and device the writer throws at you and you're surfing the plot with him/her. Good writing is still enjoyable, even when you're guessing most of what happens, but I really love the writers who can manage to surprise me. It doesn't happen often now, but that's one of the many curses of becoming a serious writer.


----------



## JCFarnham

Steerpike said:


> I think that's part of it. I think part of it also marketing and staying in front of the readers, so that you're not effectively re-introducing yourself to your target audience every number of years.



You've got it spot on there. 

We're not talking producing total dren so it'll sell, we're not even saying flood the market. Take a cue from other industries. It's much safer to have more products out in consumer space, and as a business it may be the easiest way to survive. Say someone buys what you're selling, enjoys the experience and wonders if there's anything more. When they find out there isn't... Well, they shrug and effectively forget about you. You may stick in their mind associated with a particular good time in their life, or a smell, maybe a relationship, but that's a lot of mays and mights to rest your income on.

The voracious reader will always finish your back catalogue before you've released anything new. That's a given. That certainly lends credibility to keeping a slow pace, with extra high standards of quality. We must however keep in mind that even if everyone has consumed your only offering you have to stay in their mind somehow if you want your marketing to stand the test of time.

More releases could give you the necessary presence to keep the brand that is your name ticking over ... but so could simply existing fully amongst your fan base. While you plod away at writing great books don't forget to exist outside of the vacuum.

I tend to view getting your second book out there as quick as possible as bad advice. It only serves to strengthen the awkward second book image. You spend years on the first and perhaps half that on the second because your agent says so... Well, do the maths. If you can pull it off, that's great, but there are still other options available in the marketing tool box.

This is why web presence is somewhat key now days. B2C Interaction is the buzz word I'm looking for (if jargon interests you)


----------



## wordwalker

One tip that keeps bugging me is "Said is the best tag"-- not because it's wrong, but because so many people overstate the point. Yes, the most vital tagging lesson is not to use shouted/ said softly/ etc often, but that doesn't mean Said is the only other option. And Said is NOT "invisible" when you use it left and right, or even when you put it in the part of a line that steps on its rhythm.

(I still remember how someone murdered a story by brilliantly relating a Native American legend and then finishing the short story with  _"That's why Indian children are so well behaved," he said._   Argh!)


----------

