Embracing the Middle Ground

So recently I got this rejection:

The tone of your novel was a bit confusing: you place it alongside Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer (which is appropriate for the plot and we love them) but there is clear lust between the main characters which feels more appropriate to a steamier kind of regency romance (such as ones by Lisa Keyplas and Lindsay Sands, who we also love). We wanted you to decide if you wanted something completely restrained or completely indulgent but not halfway. Our taste is subjective… etc etc

This is the first time I’ve received this particular critique about the level of steaminess. Usually I get comments like – this is half way between historical fiction (literary) and historical romance (commercial). So this one threw me for a bit of a loop. And it made me wonder – are there really no books out there that are neither sweet nor spicy? Really?

The thing is – this middle ground is what I love to read, what I want to binge-watch: stories, whether contemporary or period-based, with spine-tingling, tear-inducing romance, but without explicit sex or anything crass. Think Patricia Veryan, Carla Kelly, or Kristan Higgins, and think Downton Abbey or Gilmore Girls. I want to feel the longing, see the conflict, eat up the tension, but I don’t need to actually see or read them getting it on. In fact that middle-ground between the initial attraction and the eventual fulfillment is the best part. That’s the heart of the romance, for me. A kiss (or kisses) is enough to show they are on their way to a happily ever after that is physically as well as emotionally and intellectually satisfying.

So many times I have seen the advice: write what you love, write what you want to read, write what only you can write. I embrace that. I embrace wanting to be in the middle of high- and low-brow. I embrace loving romance, wanting maximum romance, but not crossing the line into “steamy”. I don’t see why I should be “completely restrained” or “completely indulgent” when I can have my cake and eat it too, in the middle. And I’m not the only one… am I?

The Inane Ramblings of a Writer Who's Waiting

or, The Many Cool Things Starting with "Ch".

I'm doing quite a lot of waiting at the moment. Well, just mainly waiting to hear back on queries, partials and fulls, and waiting for the Christmas holidays. And my brain's gone a bill do-lally, unable to attend to any kind of sensible tasks. With that in mind...

So I was cooking dinner, and I had a little sneaky cheese snack ("cook's treat"). And I said to myself, "OMG I love cheese!". And then I thought, "and I really love chocolate." And it occurred to me: how many things, OK foods, I like that begin with the letters "ch".

So apart from the aforementioned...

Cheese

Image courtesy of Suat Eman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

and chocolate....

Image courtesy of artur84 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

There's chips - both this kind:

Image courtesy of Keerati / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

and this kind:

Image courtesy of artemisphoto / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

And cheesecake:

Image courtesy of Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

And chicken!

Image courtesy of Apolonia / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Then after I'd finished eating my chicken, I was actually compelled to leaf through the dictionary to see what other "ch" treasures there are. Champagne, cherries, choux pastry.

And then non-food stuff: champion, chamber music, chandelier,chapter, character, chain reaction, charade, charisma, charity, chaise longue, chalet, chalice, chameleon, charming, chateau... need I go on?! (please stop, I hear you say). Those are just the "cha"s. I haven't even got to chivalry or chimpanzee. Oh yeah, and Christmas.

 

Image courtesy of digidreamgrafix / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Photokanok / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of m_bartosch / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It's a pretty cool way to start a word... not that I'm biased or anything ;-) But on that note, the dessert called a "charlotte" is pretty amazing.

So many wonderful things! And I was like, "I can't believe I've never thought of this before!" Like it was some kind of genius insight worth sharing. Sorry about that.

While we're procrastinating and thinking about yummy wonderful things, here's some candy for your ears AND eyes.

Cheers!

Your Unique Contribution

Recently there was a death in my wider world. And apart from the grief and loss of those around, the main effect was to make me consider my own mortality.

If I knew I was going to die, what would I do? What are the things I would regret not experiencing? Because I love to see the world, of course many places jump to mind. But not seeing those places wouldn’t change who I was. Even though life would be the richer for seeing amazing sights, I’ve seen many of them on TV, and it costs more than I have right now to experience them. What really matters, in terms of what I can personally contribute to the world?

It’s sort of a bucket list, but it’s deeper than that. If I was dying, what would I actually regret not trying to do? Something that only I can contribute to the world?

Have kids? Well, maybe.

But I know it’s been my dream ever since I wrote stories as a five year old to see my name in print. To have a novel published, and to have readers be touched by it, to have it make them laugh, cry and escape for a few hours.

That’s my biggest dream. My unique contribution.

So, back to work.

But What About The Writing?

If you're anything like me, you've studied up on the craft, in particular on how to avoid all those little habits and mistakes which reveal an amateur. The literary internet is awash with articles on what to look for when you're revising, with everything from repeated words to those pesky adverbs. It's enough to make you think your manuscript will never be good enough to send out. All of those potential mistakes seem so important, the implication being that you'll never get published if you don't catch them all.

I'm writing historical romance (at the moment!) and I'm continuing to explore new authors. Right now I'm reading another best-selling author, and I've noticed a somewhat frustrating trend. Even though I'm reading it for enjoyment, my now-critical writer's eye is picking up so many craft problems I find it almost impossible to lose myself in the tale. There are plot holes, historical inconsistencies, repeated phrases, telling not showing, an abundance of adverbs and a profusion of "that"s. It's not the first time this has happened - in fact pretty much any book I read these days seems to disappoint me on some level.

I know this issue is not restricted to this genre. There are many high-profile (and mega-selling) books that have been well-criticised for their lack of craft. Yet the stories, or the characters perhaps, have taken route in the collective imagination.

It makes me wonder: how on earth do they get published, again and again? And why didn't their editors catch all of these supposed mistakes? (and definitely real mistakes, when it comes to historical accuracy or completely implausible plot tangents) It seems to fly in the face of all the advice we read so frequently. I work so hard to fix all the stuff, and yet these authors don't seem to have to worry about it. Problems with craft must not be apparent to the average reader.

So it's all about the story then, right? And that's the bit which sets us apart as writers: our unique interpretation of a plot idea. Of course, this is the bit that I personally find the most challenging. Even when I'm really excited about an idea, there's no guarantee I'll be able to execute it to its full potential. Teasing out an idea to a novel-length story is a hard, there's no doubt about it. And it seems pertinent to remember that this very challenge is what we should devote our energies to. Of course we should make sure our manuscript is as clean as possible, but ensure you spend enough time making sure your plot will your hook readers. Agents and publishers seem to accept work with less than perfect execution, as long as it has something special that will draw readers in. Can you summarise your plot in a few sentences and make it irresistable? If not, you might want to go back to the drawing board before you spend weeks on fine-tuning a story no-one will get excited about.

The story is what your readers will fall in love with.

Can you read without picking up on all the mistakes? Do you get frustrated when you spot craft problems? What are your favourite books which excel in both story and craft?

So How's That Book Coming Along?

Image: Master isolated images / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Sometimes it seems like there is nothing more complicated, drawn-out, fulfilling, frustrating, and bewildering as the (attempted) path to publication. One of the most satisfying thing for a writer is to share the journey with other writers. Perhaps no-one else can understand just what it's like.

That doesn't, however, stop other people in your life from asking about it. With my first completed MS, I was extremely open about it. I told people I was writing a book.

"So how's that book coming along?" they'd ask me, whenever I saw anyone.

"Good, I'm writing lots," I could respond, or, "Nearly done!"

Then I went through edits (or what I thought were edits) and sent it to some people to read. And sadly, some of those people went quiet! (the irony is sort of amusing)

So when people would ask, "what's happening the book?" I could say, "I'm polishing it."

Then I submitted directly to publishers (you can do that here in NZ), and told people about it. I collected rejections.

Next I researched the international market, and discovered agents, querying, publishing blogs (I became a Miss Snark devotee). I poured myself into the process. When people asked me about the book, I'd try to explain how it works, and they'd assume I could just sign up with an agency (a bit like how you can sign up for a talent agency). Then I'd have to let them know that, actually, my work had to be good enough and, as of yet, it hadn't passed muster.

These enquiries, while well-meaning, tend to become tedious and sometimes downright depressing. With my current WIP, I've only told close family members, and those who happen to google me ;-) I don't really want to talk about it in person (unless I have super-dooper good news, of course!). It's like rubbing salt into a wound when I'm trying hard to convince myself there is no wound. If someone asks me what I did on the weekend, I'm no longer going to say, "I was working on my book". And yet I like being open online, as other writers know what this road is like. So there is the potential of "real life people" keeping up with my tumultuous process. At the moment this compromise seems to be working, but at times it feels like a double-life.

How public are you with your writing goals and progress? Do you like to talk about where you're at?

Downton Disappointment

I'm interrupting my semi-regularly scheduled programming to rant about the last episode of Downton Abbey, which screened in New Zealand last night. The penultimate episode was very enjoyable, promising so much for the finale. But it was so disappointing, it made me wonder if they found out they had a second season just before writing it... it seems like all they were doing was setting up the next set of plot arcs. The episode forgot important plot points, while throwing in incongruous twists for no good reason. My main quibbles were:

1. The next test for Mary and Matthew's relationship was supposed to be her confession. Would he still love her once he found out the truth about Mr Pamuk? The risk was all on her side, and there was never any doubt of him being a worthy recipient of her affections.

Instead the writers just forgot all about this, and Mary didn't even tell him. Instead they added a ridiculous pregnancy, which could cause Matthew to fall from his position as heir. It became all about whether Mary should risk her future material security by accepting him. I couldn't care less about that - of course he'd make enough money as a solicitor to support them if she loved him enough. The point was whether she could make herself vulnerable, and if he'd be accepting. I was crushed at the end when the writers just let the tension dissolve away, and the relationship with it.

2. It also seemed that Thomas was to be eliminated before the next season, but not with the justice he deserved. As the evidence mounted, his guilt was proven. But instead of being called to task by Lord Grantham, he was allowed to resign to assist with the war effort. Again another conflict just fizzled out. Why? (I will say that I never liked him and I'm glad he'll be gone, but no doubt another villain will take his place)

3. The plot with O'Brien was another failed device. If the pregnancy just served to end the M&M happily-ever-after, why have O'Brien behave so badly only to remove the barrier and suffer no consequences? Perhaps she will suffer the fallout in the next season, unless guilt is the only punishment. However like Thomas, it only seemed natural that some sort of comeuppance was due to her for her sins during this season.

4. The arc with Bates and Anna seemed to progress with Anna's discoveries about the past. But when presented with an opportunity for more revelation between them and a furthering of the relationship, Bates just says again, "I can't tell you," and Anna retreats as if this satisfies her. Where is the spirit she showed in the previous episode, when she protested her love? At least we get to see that Bates is actually interested, but will he ever fight for her, or at least explain why he won't? I thought he was a stronger character than that.

The sibling rivalry was well done; deliciously vile. And I like the hints of more to come between Sybil and Branson, but the plot about her liberal tendencies sort of evaporated too. No doubt outside events will have a larger part to play in season 2. I just hope the writers do the characters and dramatic tension justice. I could do with less scenes of Mary crying too. And here's hoping that Matthew will be back as he was really the only romantic hero!