The Review Club Forum Discussion of Leah's The Seduc..

And CC, I agree with you.

I don't sit in judgement on people's tastes. I do know who I'm writing for -- potentially it could be anybody, but I can't think of just anybody or everbody when I'm writing. I have to think of the characters and the story, primarily.

Is it too much to ask to forget about the market for awhile and just think about the story?

How many people are writing slavishly for the market and never getting published?

I'd rather write for the story and never get published. I think my chances of being published are actually better if I think of the story, rather than the market.

I'm grateful, I'm grateful, I'm grateful. I've made lots of improvements based on critiques in this group and others. But I reserve the right to ask for other kinds of criticism, other considerations to be factored in. I get it about long sentences, okay? I get it about grabbing the reader -- but I don't think I need to do that in quite the same way as someone writing a thriller, for example. I think I'd rather embrace the reader and whisper, a little seductively perhaps, in his ear. Now, can we move on? Think, really think, about setting, character, theme, and, yes, even plot. Think about how to effectively express PoV. Think about the story itself as a living thing.

That's all I'm asking.

Quote:


Then FOR GOD'S SAKE, Leah, ask. Ask at the top of your post. Ask in the forum. Send an email. Don't explain, because nobody cares what you think works. We only care if we think it works. Come on. Readers are boss, because we control how we perceive the story.

We WANT to tell you. We don't WANT to be mad at you. God, who wants to fight? Say, Kim, hey, did you think the long sentences worked to create a mood anywhere? Where? What's holding you back from feeling that mood in these other places? What did you think of this, that, or the other thing? And I'm 99% sure she'd answer you. And then we'd all be happy, right?

OK, so this is for all of us. If we want a certain kind of review, we need to ask. I'm sure we'd all be happy to oblige each other. If we don't ask and we don't get it we don't get to b***h, and that's the end of the story. I am no exception, and I have been no better in the past. New rule. By one administrator's fiat, because I am tired of this back and forth arguing about how to deal with each other instead of how to write.

And, yes, it is too much to stop thinking about the market. I wouldn't dare suggest to not tell whatever story you want to tell -- I do whatever I want too. But once you know what you want, you know what genre it is, and you can look at that genre and say, OK, so this is what's selling. How can I get some of those elements without compromising what I want to do? For me, what's selling in paranormal is sex and intensity (back to Laurell K., who I despise as much as you, Leah). I like both, but I don't like this trite monster of the week plot, the flaky lead female, etc. that are also part of the genre. So I keep the sex and intensity and do away with some of the other elements. I found some things that are more sophisticated in Gaiman's work that I try to use, the otherworldliness, or the hardness of reality. And I try to build something that is both true to me and to the market. And you can't do that without thinking of the market every step of the way. And you know, taste is fickle, sure, but all those people can't be COMPLETELY wrong, right? So i think it makes me a better writer to always, always be aware of my audience. Of course I push back sometimes. I've had people tell me to make Amanda (from Monsters -- and WHAT'S wrong with sexy vampire novels, huh?) nicer, which I won't do because it's not part of her character. But, when somebody said, god, put in SOME narrative, I did. Please, please, please, just show us that we're not wasting our breath on you, which it feels like when you simply explain, that's all.

--cc

I have been asking. It's in the description at the head of that chapter. And I just asked very specifically, in my most recent replies here.

Bill gets it. I've had lots of readers get it. Maybe what's getting in the way is something that's insurmountable -- a bias for catering to the market. That's usually what comes up, when I question the necessity of altering something I'm doing.

Of course I want to be published. Of course I'd like to make enough money by writing so that I wouldn't need to be either a teacher or a bookseller -- though I might still want to do both. But that's not what's most important to me.

There's nothing wrong with sexy vampire stories. Vampires are sexy inherently -- I guess I prefer when that sexuality was subtle and submerged -- it was creepier that way. When every other book I shelve in SciFi/Fantasy, or Romance, for that matter, is a vampire or werewolf story, with graphic and usually brutal sex, I just wonder, why bother? What can be said that's new in all of this? If someone puts a psychologically valid and insightful twist on it, and does it well, I'd be happy to read it.

The High Fantasy conventions bug me too. Conventions of any kind, if they're expected to carry the story, bug me. I guess that's why I like Terry Pratchett. He pokes affectionate fun at all of them, and still manages to tell psychologically true stories.

What really works for me in Neil Gaiman is his interest in coming to terms with the unconscious -- individual and collective. That's worth doing, and can be done in an infinite variety of styles, through almost any genre of story.

Laurell K. Hamilton sells because of sex. Face it. People love to read about sex. They can excuse themselves with the tough, smart female protagonist, the cool mystical/magical elements, etc, but what they're really reading for is the graphic sex.

Some people are actually turned off by the graphic stuff -- I'm one of them. It makes me laugh. And then it gets boring. People like me need something to read too, of course.

I'm not trying to start any fights, really. I'm just asking to have my work critiqued without constant reference to "the market" and advice culled from manuals for writers of fiction. I get it! It's not what I'm after.

My last say (fingers crossed) on a very hot topic with beginning writers:

Life is too short to sweat about the market before the final page is written.

As I see it, the writing must come first. Until the deed is done, there is no need to bother about the pigeonhole. When time comes to write the query letter, then tell whomever you are writing you intend to fill their pigeonhole.

There is nothing wrong with thinking ahead, but the great danger in molding the writing around the pigeonhole is that author chances allowing such considerations to dictate the course of the writing. That's not "selling out" so much as selling yourself short.

If I write the book I want to write, in the best tradition I've spent my lifetime loving, and if I've executed to the degree my aspirations would propel me, then it is a given I will either find an agent or publisher, or die before I make the sale. Either way the product is mine.

If I lack talent and have no name, then whatever I write will fail to publish.

That the product will be all mine, my truth, from my heart, with no cookie cutter anywhere near it, will likely do more to find me into the halls of the published than all the sweating over marketing a product that doesn't even yet exist in all its fullness.

Quote:


Apparently not, because people follow my requests just fine. Perhaps you would have to go a little out of your way to make that clear. I know, I know, it's hard to care about your readers, what when we so obviously need you to explain everything to us.

Quote:


Congratulations. One out of 15. Huh. Even the people that LIKE classic literature, like ME, don't get it. That's really nice for you. I like Bill and I think he's a very smart guy, but give me a break. ONE OUT OF FIFTEEN?

Quote:


What is it that makes you think that catering to the market is a bad thing? What the hell are you writing for? Why are you trying to get feedback? Because if you're writing for your own amusement, please, keep it to yourself. Stop wasting our time. Stop talking down to good and intelligent people if you don't want to improve enough to sell a book.

Quote:


Oh, wait, you DO WANT TO SELL A BOOK? You mean, in the MARKET? So what is important to you? Writing for yourself? Back to that time thing again....

And I wonder again, if that's not so important to you, why are you here? Why are you in this group? Because I don't care if you want to write literary, genre, for the market, not for the market, or in purple crayon on your walls. I doubt anybody does. Stop hiding behind "the market" so you don't have to take criticism. Because that's all you've done since you've joined: tried to explain away any comment by your readers that isn't positive. You should know what I think about that. I have not seen a forum post that genuinely asked a question or seemed to seek clarification from you in coming on 3 months now. You simply explain how your reader is stupid and doesn't get it.

Quote:


That's awfully dismissive of somebody else's work, for somebody that wants every body to look beyond the long, wordy sentences to find the truth of her novel.

Quote:


Dismissive again. Perhaps you weren't listening in those literature classes. Convention, form, genre, what has been before, is just as much of a technique as character or plot or fancy language. Perhaps you should read Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, look at how he uses the conventions of the genre blended with modern poetic sensibilities to create a Nobel Prize Winning work.

Quote:


So why aren't you doing it? Why aren't you talking about techniques that interest you and asking for feedback on ways that you could incorporate that into your story, instead of sitting up in your ivory tower and ranting about Leah's high philosophy on what is worth publishing?

Quote:


Your main character is an androgenous android that has none of that psychological realism that you carry on about so much. And you can't stand to hear it, even though over several of your reviewers that week told you so. Actually, that's a comment about the STORY, isn't it? You know, those story comments that you want so much. No wonder nobody gives them to you anymore, because all you do is explain away the criticism, bury your head in the sand, and insult the reader's intelligence and education.

Quote:


You know what I'd like. A review from you that's most than 8 lines long. You know, like your reviews last week, where you didn't even indicate that you'd read the stories. Actually, you're reviews have been like that for a few weeks. You are sure asking a lot from your readers: that they understand you, that they trust your writing even when it bores them, that they take your condescension in the forum, and that they accept sub-par reviews from you.

I'm sure you aren't trying to start a fight. But you have. You have now talked down to at least three members of the group, not including me, and I will not sit here and let you do that. If you didn't want to start a fight, you should have taken the damn olive branch. You should have not condescended to me, who, I'd like to add, Leah, has the same education, the same experience working in a book store, and the same kind of library as you. You do not get to continue to speak to people like they are children, your peons, or like they are beneath you.

I'm sure you know this drill. I will not be participating in this conversation with you further.

I mean, after all, Leah, you're right. You know it all. Don't let me pull you out of lala land.

-cc

I don't see how I'm being condescending.

I'm stating my point of view, and asking for a specific kind of review -- about themes, character, plot on their own terms.

I don't abuse the people I critique. I don't think my reviews have been 8 lines long either -- I had a couple of weeks where I had to race bluescreens on my computer at home or go to the public library where I had exactly one hour at a shot to read and review, no way to save what I was doing, etc. I know my reviews weren't so hot during that time, and I apologized for it. I do read everything, all the way through, but I don't critique every inch of it. That would take too bloody long! I go for the most outstanding problems, and most shining successes. I figure the writers here can figure out some things for themselves, and extrapolate a particular criticism to other situations. If I give a short review, it's likely to be very positive -- in other words, nothing that really needs work, in my opinion. That should make the writer happy.

Sometimes it's hard to know what to say, because I don't want to antagonize anyone. I once critiqued a character, in much milder terms than you do Timu, but the writer took offense, saying, in effect, that I didn't know anything about it. After offering my explanations, I dropped the subject.

Rather more than 1 out of 15 people have been positive about my work. This isn't my only forum. Nor is urbis. I've stuck it out here partly because not everyone has had a shot at me yet, and partly because I'm interested in some of the stuff here and think I can really help -- I see other reviewers ignoring things that seem pretty important to me, and as I always explain my judgments, I figure my critiques might have some effect.

I really don't care for all this ranting. I'm just trying to express the way I view the craft of writing, and trying to get the discussion, of my work at least, to go in a substantive direction -- something that has to do with art, perhaps, rather than selling.

Is there more than one kind of book? More than one style of writing? I think there's room for all of it.

You mistake confidence for dislike of criticism. I've taken plenty, very pointed, and learned from it. A lot of it has happened here. But I know what I'm doing in many cases, where reviewers might be assuming I don't. I don't blame them, but if I point out that I know what I'm doing, with explanations, I'd appreciate it if they'd stop harping on the same things.

If this group is going to continue in this vein, I suggest a change of name, as I mentioned before. "Writing for Markets." Reviews should encompass more than determinations of whether something is likely to sell or not.

I'll do my other review, and await the ones due me, and next week I'll make a decision about whether I want to stay.

Unless someone decides that I'm being so condescending I should be kicked out.

I think I still need to respond to a few things in CC's diatribe.

I have tried to direct attention to things like PoV -- in my reviews of others, and in my remarks in the forum on my own work. If I stick around I may ask for reviewers to switch to True Minds for awhile, because I go to town with PoV in that one. I do more with PoV in the second part of the bigger thing that Seduction is part of -- now tentatively titled Of Two Minds. I am curious about whether I need to revise Seduction in terms of PoV. I'm willing to do it. The only thing that worries me is making it too long. I want it to be more an introduction to Timu (as boring as he may be to some people) than a novel in it's own right. The real novel is the two thirds that comprise "Lady Aulia's Choice."

That's the kind of thing I want to talk about, not the necessity of leaving out certain words because they automatically make a sentence passive.

I don't mind other people being concerned with that stuff -- why do they mind if I'm not?

Part of the difficulty is the piecemeal way we review things here. A chapter every two weeks? How can anyone get an idea of form, structure, themes, character development? A chapter a day, or every two or three days, works much better. Or one a week, at the least. Reviewing every two weeks may work for short stories, but it hinders comprehensive critique of a novel.

By the way, I know that conventions are part of what literature is built out of. I said I get bugged when convention alone is made to carry a story. It's a personal taste, by the way, not a judgment.

And there's nothing wrong with writing for a market, if that's what you want to do. I don't. What's wrong with that? You've got a whole list of things, but they just don't convince me. I'm the one being beaten over the head with market market market. I just want to talk about stories.

I guess that's enough now.

So often, I think the modern writer forgets to think of herself/himself as an artist, which might explain the inordinate amounts of pulp that gets pushed out. Of course, of course, I'd like to get published more than anything and of course, I need to understand how my work is affecting the reader which makes places like this and people like you fantastic, but I think it's a mistake to be so market driven that I lose a grasp on the sincere expression I started out to create. I believe, as in most arguments, the answer is somewhere in the lovely, gray middle. Listen to others who's opinions you trust and search for your niche, but stick to your guns about what you want to say and how you want to say it. Buuut, I'm also a selfish prick, so maybe my wisdom ain't so wise? (And I wrote the book on naive. Seriously, pick it up on Amazon: "The Book on Naive" by Jeff Horner, $14.95, Doubelday)