A comment by Anna, and a site my good friend Harry dropped on my doorstep brought up another thing about advice: Consider the Source.

I mentioned before that advice has to be from someone expert in the field, so you would probably think it would be safe taking advice from the true masters of the craft, say… Stephen King.

Well, here’s what Steve has to say about “Writing successfully”, and while it is entertaining, some of the points he makes I would hesitate to take to the bank.

Now don’t get me wrong; Stephen King is a consummate story teller. If he wants to tell me how to write, I’m all over it. Most of his points I read and nodded, yep, right on the mark. Anything from character development, to plot, to technique, or even his favorite cure for writer’s block, yep, I’ll put money on that horse, but let’s face it, he’s Stephen freaking King, for cripes sake! He hasn’t had to “sell” a piece of work in thirty years!

My point is, his advice about not needing an agent is a little dated. In today’s market, most big publishing houses won’t even look at your work unless it comes through an agent. There are a few notable exceptions (Tor, for instance, still says they accept unagented submissions, but their slush pile must rival the height of the building they rent.) and small publishers will definitely look at your work, if they have the time.

My point, if I have one, is to consider the source of your advice in ALL respects. You wouldn’t take advice from me on comma placement, for instance (or you shouldn’t, anyway), just like you shouldn’t take advice from someone who hasn’t had recent experience in selling that first big novel.

There are lots of angles, lots of styles, lots of theories and not so many really valuable sources of information.

While I’m here, I’ll tell you that I poked around the source page for the above link a little, too, and I found another way to get your work out there: Give it away. I guess this is the theory that “If it’s free, they will come”… and read, and it may be true, but I think that is just about as far as it will go. As far as creative fiction goes, if it’s not for sale, it’s not going to get “Buz”. Don’t ask me why, but it just won’t work. It’s like the “free table” at a garage sale… nobody really pays that much attention to it, and nobody roots through all the old, moldy clothing hoping to find a piece of art.

This, of course, like everything else I put up here, is my humble opinion… No offense, Mike, if you happen to follow the link back and read.

I was stumbling around a place I never thought I would stub my toes upon, a blog site on television called tvsquad.com (Thanks for the link, Harry) when I found a bit about recent perceived screw ups by the SciFi Channel in their programming. Now, admittedly, I don’t watch much TV, but the discussion struck a cord with me. You see, the blogger, Richard Keller, had spent some time in the Great White North, and found a science fiction network named HypaSpace, that actually aired classic and new Science Fiction series that were… hold on to your hats… entertaining!

Okay, so I’m not likely to quit my job, cut the lines loose and sail to Lake Ontario, just so I can get some quality SF-Fantasy TV, but I think this touches on a subject that is very close to the problem we writers are seeing in the publishing industry. The system is so money driven, that publishers (the big ones anyway) are loosing touch with the fan base. Tell the truth, when you go to a bookstore, do you gravitate directly toward your old stand-by author and look for his 23^rd in the never-ending series, or are you tempted by the new release section. I am always tempted by the new releases, personally. I would rather find a new favorite author than continue with an old one. Call me fickle…

So, can American publishing change?

I think it is changing, and I think the vehicle for change is the small press. Small publishing houses are cropping up all over, supporting new authors who don’t have, and don’t want agents (yet), and who can really turn out a quality product that is NEW! This venue has nowhere to go but up. There is such a huge niche for small presses that even the big name authors have been going to them, simply to avoid the problems inherent with the larger houses. Add to this high-tech printing which doesn’t fill a warehouse on every print run, which means less risk for the publisher and more opportunities for more writers, and I think we have a winner.

Kinda makes you want to tell those big names to go back and paddle around their own pool, doesn’t it?

Here’s a little mote of wisdom: Not everyone who claims to be an expert, is indeed an expert. Please note: I have never claimed to be an expert on anything except perhaps making the perfect omelet, and if you don’t like spicy, you’d probably argue with me on that one, too. In fact, anyone claiming to be an expert on anything, in my opinion, should immediately be viewed with suspicion, or be able to produce a PhD Diploma on the subject he or she is professing to be expert in.

First, let’s define “Expert”

From the Latin “Ex”, meaning former or in the past.

From the English “pert” a contraction “Spurt”, which is a small volume of water or some other fluid being extruded under pressure.

So, we have our definition: Ex is a has-been, and a Spurt is a drip under pressure…

All right, enough tom-foolery. The point is, of course, to consider the source of your “advice”, this blog included. I will offer opinions on almost any subject, but they are just that, opinions, and if you find a better one, please take it and let me know of it so I won’t embarrass myself further.

There are only a few things that separate good advice from bad advice. Good advice must come from someone who is at least marginally experienced in the field. The advice must be reasonably current, when dealing with subject matter which changes over time; for example, how to get your book, story, poem, or art published. In areas that are less susceptible to change, some advice is timeless. The perfect example of this is the list of “Twain’s Rules of Writing”, which are not only entertaining, but spot on, and always will be. They are not trendy “this is the new editorial trick that will make your writing better” quips, but ideals every author should learn and live by.

My personal favorites are:

#5: “When the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say.”

#6: “When the author describes the character of a personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description.”

#8: “Crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader by either the author or the people in the tale.”

#9: “The personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable.”

They are all great truths, and should be read and thought through carefully. Twain was always one for saying a whole paragraph’s worth in a single sentence. Please note that the website linked above belongs to Mary Anne Mohanraj. It also has a link to Writing Resources, which I glanced through. Most of the material is a little dated (about 5 years) but some is interesting, and worth a read.

Well, there you have it, more advice from a non-expert. The take-home is, of course, to keep your eyes open and do what you feel is right. You may choose to not take a single word I print here to direct your efforts as a writer, but I think you can trust Mark Twain…

I was cruising around blog sites (okay, I was procrastinating, but it was healthy procrastination) and stumbled upon one by Jennifer Fallon. She is an Australian author of fantasy, and is breaking out all over the world. Her blog covers topics from parenting to some great lists of “rules” for writers. Her “10 things to think about before you send your MS out” are gems! One of her most recent involved the subject of adverbicide, or “getting rid of the adverbs”. Her opinion is that the use of adverbs is a crutch, and a common beginner’s mistake. I must admit, to a certain degree I agree with what she’s trying to get across. I don’t think you should delete every adverb in your manuscript as a hard fast rule, but some adverbicide is healthy. If you are writing effectively, your reader already has the feeling in their mind of how your character is acting or speaking; your verb should be descriptive enough. If you read back and do not get that feeling, rewrite your sentence.

One particular sin is to use adverbs to modify “said”. I have to watch myself on this one, but can usually edit it out (yes, sometimes I sin…), so if you catch me doing it, please smack me with a stick. The verb “said” is one of the invisible words. We are often obligated to use it, but the reader doesn’t really see it, so modifying it just makes the reader stumble and tells everyone that we were unable to get the feeling across without the crutch of the adverb. So, hunt them down and kill them mercilessly (oops, there’s one). Also, don’t be tempted to replace your invisible verbs with more visible ones to add emotion or action to your sentence. One sin that I have been guilty of and am trying to wean myself away from, is replacing “said” with an emotive verb like “spat, grumbled, roared,” and the like. If this is done occasionally, no mortal sin, but making a habit of it is one more flag for an editor to see that says “rookie”.

Okay, so, having said that, go pick up a bestseller, and I’m sure you can find violations of these “rules”. But they are bestsellers. Here’s a news flash: after you sell that many books, you are allowed to sin a little. This is something that is both confusing and frustrating to new writers, but really not hard to understand. New writers are often held to a higher standard than the icons of the literary world. This is probably due to the “weed out” factor that editors use to thin their slush; if an editor has a dozen manuscripts on his desk and he can only pitch one or two to his boss as his “next new writer”, he or she will start looking for reasons to push one from the slush pile to the recycle pile. Don’t get recycled! Keep those invisible verbs invisible, use descriptive verbs where you need description, and kill the adverbs!