17. October 2011 by Gore Wehner.

Something new is happening to literature. Anyone can get published without upfront costs. Before, authors were limited to either going with traditional, POD, or vanity presses. Now anyone can upload their work to a variety of on-line venues such as Kindle, the Nook, Smashwords, and many more with little to no upfront costs.

So what do we need publishing houses for?

I know people fed up with traditional presses, citing receiving many rejections over what they deem is quality writing, or admonishing the long period of waiting between acceptance and getting their books on the bookshelf. Plus I’ve heard grumbling over agent and publishing fees that “might have” been theirs had they avoided going the long route of submitting. After all, they argue, we’re doing all the marketing ourselves anyway.

So what is a writer to do?

Here’s my take. E-publishing is definitely a valid way to go. But it’s similar to an agent or editor slush pile. Someone has to find it to read it, and if it isn’t well done, the reader will put down the book and not bother reading anything else you write. Ever. (Although an agent or editor might give you a second chance someday.)

In all honesty, too many e-book writers put out material that isn’t very good.  Traditional publishing houses have knowledgeable editors. Editors that can turn a good book into a great book. If you have a long way to go with writing, they will turn you down. This may mean you aren’t ready to share your work with the world yet. It could be a pretty decent benchmark of where you stand as a writer.

But they also may turn you down if they feel you won’t make them enough money. After all, publishing is a business. Physical books cost money to make. And your editor needs to be paid for his or her time and service.

So it may have nothing to do with skill as much as marketability. This is why I’m happy e-books are out there and anyone can publish through them. But this may change publishing as we know it.

As readers, we’ll have to muddle through the bad writing to find the well done books. Eventually people may become wary of self-published work and search for books published by established, well-known imprints.

Or, readers may tolerate poor writing. Perhaps not even realize the craftsmanship is missing. Will this “dumb down” America? Will our standards of literature change?

Only time will tell. But until then, I applaud the efforts of those e-publishing, but respect those sticking to traditional publishing as well.

Posted in Blog Posts | No Comments »

4. October 2011 by Gore Wehner.

One of the most difficult parts of being a writer–ahem, a good writer–is the revision process. You’ve probably heard the term, “Killing one’s babies.” If not, you will eventually. It means (in a rather morbid fashion) that you will be removing a beloved portion of your story for the greater good of your novel/short story/essay.

Yes, you heard me correctly. Sure, you may be thrilled with a sentence you’ve written. It has pizazz! It has symbolism! It has the mark of a creative mind!

But then someone points out that it has no place in the storyline.

It slowly dawns on you (and by “slowly” I mean it may take a few days to settle in) that your critiquer is correct. Although it’s an awesome sentence–perhaps the best you’ve ever written–it doesn’t add to the story. In fact, it may even take the reader out of the story, it’s so profound.

Delete sentence. And sob.

But first? Copy and paste it into your “word dump” file. You do have one, don’t you? The place where you keep all those phrases that you love but can’t keep? You know, those babies? Because good writers don’t really kill their babies. No. They send them to a foster home in the hopes someday they’ll be adopted.

In the meantime, you will return to your work, cutting and pluming as if the piece is an unruly bush that needs trimming before the neighbor’s complain. Yes, there are mixed metaphors in my post. Another problem for writers.

This is why I am going to start up a new blog for those desperate to understand how to revise and trim. I call it “Revision 411,” and the link is here: http://revision411.wordpress.com/

I will have it up and running soon.

Help is here. And hopefully all your babies will be adopted soon.

Posted in Blog Posts | 4 Comments »

9. September 2011 by Gore Wehner.

I love to read. And one of my favorite things to read are articles on the writing craft. Sometimes I come across amazing advice, and I realize how much I have yet to learn. Just as often I come across information I already know but never thought about putting into words. And even if I had considered writing about it, I wouldn’t have been able to…at least, not as succinctly.

This was the case today. I’m enjoying The Writer’s Chronicle (September 2011 issue), the first issue I’ve ever read.  Jona Colson wrote an interview with Mark Doty. If you’ve never heard of Mak Doty, you’re not alone. I don’t read much poetry, and he’s a poet. But he’s also written memoirs and non-fiction essays. Basically, from what I gathered between the interview and looking up his work on Amazon.com, he’s a literary super-genius.

Gotta love him.

What really opened my eyes in the interview,  was the question Colson posed about sentimental writing. Colson wanted to know how a writer can avoid it. Doty began his answer with his definition of sentimental writing, that it’s when “…the writer feels more than the reader does” (p. 28). When the writer becomes wrapped up in his own emotion, he can’t find the right way to express himself. (I’m using “him” to refer to the writer, but obviously I could just as easily be using “her.” Do not flog me for using the masculine pronoun!)

I understand this. I recall several times in writing groups when a writer reads his work and halts because his voice breaks. He struggles with his story, and the audience aches for him, this emotion wrung forth from reliving his words. But otherwise we, the audience, remain untouched. We don’t feel  emotion from his prose, only his own response to his writing. In fact, had he read it out loud without the cracking voice, the stilted narrative, we would not feel anything at all from the words.

Doty explains that we need to detach ourselves from our work. Think about the words, the phrases. I’d like to add that if there are any cliches written into the piece at all, we won’t be touched.  Cliches don’t work because they don’t hold meaning to us anymore. If you are going for a vein, you must use a sharper knife. Dull ones won’t make a clear enough cut.

Doty goes on to explain that there is a second type of sentimental writing. The “sweetened version of reality” (p. 29). We give a piece of ourselves, but it’s not deepened. Not enriched. Like those love poems that don’t go beyond the true emotion. You know what I mean. “I love you, your golden hair, your sparkling smile, the way you look at me.” May be true in one sense, but what about probing deeper? “My heart wraps around you like a vine, struggling, choking, the need pure but physical.” Okay, you can tell I’m no poet, but see the difference? Who is the narrator? What does he truly feel? How is the love? One-sided? Which example shows that more clearly?

Consider you own work. Is there a way to express emotion deeper? Make it resonate for the reader? If you blubber when reading it, have someone else read it. Watch the audiences’ reactions. If they’re shedding tears, you may have gotten through. But if they stare out dully, it’s time to go back and study how to make the piece stronger.

This interview was a great article. I suggest you take a look at it if you haven’t already. You may also wish to take a look at Doty’s work. Click on this link to see what he’s written:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_pop_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Mark%20Doty

Posted in Blog Posts | 1 Comment »