What’s the Definition of Insanity?

There’s a wise saying that reads: The definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over but expecting a different result!

I’ve also heard it said this way: If you always do what you’ve always done then you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.

The message to me, my own interpretation, is that becoming stagnate is like digging a hole for yourself and then wondering why you can’t get out! I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating this recently for a variety of reasons. First, it’s getting to the end of the year and I tend to get a little reflective during this time as I look back on the past year and look forward to formulating my goals for the coming year. Second, the last year has been one that has forced changes on me. Some of these I have embraced and welcomed, while others I’ve gone into kicking and screaming and digging my heels into the dirt. Finally, I’ve made it a goal of mine to look for ways to improve as a writer, as a mentor, as a partner, as a friend, and as a person.  Change can’t happen when one is stagnant.

As I’ve looked back on the preceding 12 months, I’ve come to understand that the times I’ve struggled most are the times when I’ve resisted the obvious changes I needed to make. There have been so many good things that happened.  In many ways, this year has been one for the record books! My writing world has been filled with exciting events that continue to evolve even here in the final weeks. There was the sale of Death’s Kiss, the sale of a short story entitled Rita, the release of The Deepest Blue, and soon the release of Death’s Kiss. I participated in numerous signings, workshops, and conferences in 2013 – more than I ever have in years past. It seemed like almost every month I had something involving writing (other than my writing group) to participate in. Then came the opportunity to edit a book for one of my publishers, something I absolutely enjoyed and hope to do again! So many changes took place so quickly that sometimes I didn’t even realize they had happened. All of it required flexibility, organization, and the willingness to step outside my comfort zone – something most of us don’t like doing. But not all of the changes I faced were as easy to accommodate.

I had to let go of a lot this year: hopes that I held for myself and others for a number of issues. I know that sounds terribly cryptic, but the truth is, I can’t go into a lot of detail because it’s very personal, and it’s not just about me. Here is one example, though, that truly pushed my limits. I’ve had to let go of a friendship with someone whom I’d been close to for several years. I hate letting go of people I care about, whether through choice or through loss. I don’t give love easily, so when I commit, it’s with my entire heart and soul. Unfortunately, continuing to allow this person in my life was literally asking for continued pain and destruction. For reasons I will never understand, someone who claimed to love me and be my friend was working behind my back to undermine me and hurt me. I’m pretty much a nice person most of the time. I’m not a saint and I have my moments to be sure, but I don’t go out and deliberately try to hurt someone while simultaneously professing to be a friend to him or her. It required some drastic measures to accomplish, but I think I’ve successfully eliminated this individual from my life. It hurt  to do it, but it was a change that needed to be made.

And there are other changes as well. After holding firm to the idea of independence for so long, I’ve finally determined that I need to get an agent, and I am pursuing that even as I write this. After eight years in print, my first three books (the “Hey, Ranger” series) was taken out of print. I will always love those books and I hope one day to be able to do more with that series than the publisher was willing to do. After years of letting it languish, I update my website and I am proud to show it off now!

So what’s the point to all this? Anyone who is close to me will tell you that if you look up the definition of crazy, you’ll see my picture next to it. I move at a fast pace; I’m constantly busy; I’m writing more, editing more, helping other writers, and generally running around like a headless chicken. Things are in a constant state of change in my life: personally, writing-wise, and professionally as well. I don’t think I ever do anything the same way twice, and if that means I’m protected against crazy, well, I’m not sure I agree. But my definition of crazy is what’s keeping me happy, and as the new year approaches, I look forward to more of the same that won’t be the same!

The Future of Publishing

In 1996, I attended my first-ever Children’s Writing conference in Los Angeles. I was about as green as they come, and I soaked everything in like those ShamWows you see advertised at 2:00 in the morning – or maybe I’m the only one up to see that.  At any rate – I couldn’t have gotten off to a better start.  Among the keynote speakers were children’s literature stalwarts such as Jane Yolen, Bruce Coville, Paula Danziger, and  Lois Lowry.  There were editors and agents and people of all levels of influence.

Among the general sessions offered at that conference was one with the ominous title of “The Future of Publishing” – which I just knew I needed to attend. It was given by an editor from Random House, if I remember correctly, and it was ominous indeed. The well-dressed man in his heather-grey suit talked about the “radical changes” that were hurtling toward us writers at break-neck speed. “Rocket Books will revolutionize the way children read,” he said, his arms flailing about. “Electronic publishing is ringing the death knell for traditional printed books.” I remember that line specifically because it struck such a chord of sorrow in me.  I LOVE books!  I have them piled on bookshelves, in corners, on tables, next to sofas and chairs. The thought of reading my favorite stories off a small computer screen was as appealing to me as lunch with my ex-husband and his wife. I’d rather have a root canal without anesthesia, thanks so much.

But here was this giant of the publishing world, Random House, pronounce the death of the hard cover and paper back, and me just entering this brave new world. It seemed my dream would be over before it had actually begun!

The man in the grey suit prattled on and on about “print-on-demand” and “electronic publishing” and other, equally disheartening terms.  I looked around the room and noticed a variety of emotions registering on the other participants faces.  Some were shocked, some bemused, some skeptical, and some like me who looked as if they were attending a funeral of sorts.

 Then a woman from the audience, who I later learned was Judy Blume, stood to ask a few questions.  “How much market share do these Rocket Books account for now?”

“Less the one percent,” came the man’s answer.

“And print-on-demand?”

“Again, less than one percent,” he said, and then quickly added, “but that is the fastest growing segment of the electronic market.”

There was further discussion about the quality and the editing of these products, but the mood of the audience had obviously begun to lift.

So here we are, 12 years later, and interestingly there are still traditionally published books rolling off the presses in record numbers. True, the market has its ups and downs, but phenoms such as Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket, among others, have made certain that the traditional form of publishing isn’t going away anytime soon.

So what of those “revolutionary” forms of publishing?

There has definitely been some headway in the electronic market.  I, myself, have several books loaded onto my iPod. In fact, I heard someone recently say that the iPod is ringing the death knell of the Rocket Book. 

As for print-on-demand – well – that one is hit or miss.  I-Universe, the on-demand publishing arm of Barnes & Noble, has yet to turn a significant profit or to produce a block-buster breakout that shakes the publishing world to its core.  There are on-demand printers in every corner of the galaxy, it seems, but they share several common issues: editorial oversight, quality control, and distribution abilities. 

Many, though truthfully not all, of the on-demand publishers offer little or no editorial service to the books they produce. In some cases, these publishers will offer contracts to anyone who looks like they can write a coherent sentence. Granted there are a few who will ask the writer to work with a qualified editor before the book goes to publication, but these companies seem to be few and far between.

With the computer boom of the ’90s, it didn’t take lake for someone to connect the idea of document printing to the world of publishing.  High-speed printers made incredible progress over just a few short years, and inevitably, someone figured out how to print books. But as with all things mechanical, these printers are prone to errors, jams, and other issues.  Whereas the traditional publishers  have constant quality control in the form of people (and a few hundred years of experience), most of the on-demand companies don’t employ enough people to maintain the level of quality demanded by the American consumer, despite their guarantees that “it’s just as good as XYZ Publisher.”

I attended a book signing a few years back for a guy I went to high school with.  He was signing his third published title.  I had never heard of the publisher, and when I asked him, he told me that it was an on-demand publisher. He proceeded to tell me about how much he loved not having to work with an editor who would try to rewrite his story, but that it was a full-time job, driving from book store to book store, dropping of free copies, hoping to get the manager to carry his books.  He talked about his web site being devoted to selling his book, and how he didn’t think it would be so much work.

I read his first book.  It was a good story, but it really would have benefited from an editor.

He asked about my experience, and didn’t I find it hard to get my books out there.

“No,” I said. “My publisher does all that for me.  And the publicist handles all the contacts at book stores and with the media.”

“How much do you pay for that,” he asked, a bit surprised.

“Nothing,” I said, equally surprised. “That’s just what they do for me.”

A few days later I got an e-mail from him.  “Can I get the name and address of your editor?”

Hmmm.

There are a few on-demand guys who are realistically concerned about producing a product that competes with the big publishers.  Many of the larger traditional publishing companies have started an on-demand branch to stay ahead of the curve.  But the independent on-demand folks face several road blocks: most of the major chains will not carry their books, and since they are not tied into the big distributors like Ingrahms, they have to rely solely on the web for marketing and sales.  And if you’re working with authors who nobody knows, that can be an uphill battle.

It’s true that electronic publishing, like ibooks and on-demand, is a growing segment of the market in publishing, but as far as putting traditional publishers out of business – not likely in the near future.

There is something about the feel of a book; the tactile involvement of turning pages and the visual element of black ink on white or ivory pages.  The traditional publishers will, indeed, need to share the market with these revolutionary technologies, but as was proven in Fahrenheit 451, many of us would still rather die than give up our books.

Common Mistakes

Every writer makes mistakes.  We are human beings, and thus, we make human errors.  One of the best things that any writer can do is learn to become a better self-editor.  Editing and revision are an enormous part of the writing process.  In fact, many writers describe the writing process as an on-going revision process. Understanding that, and understanding that no one gets it right the first time, is an important step in becoming a better writer.

There are certain things that each writer should be alert for, such as basic spelling and grammar issues, but there are also things that writers may be doing that they are not even aware of. One example is the overuse of adverbs, those pesky “ly” words that try to force information on the reader unnecessarily.  Here is an example (and no, I didn’t make this up):

“She stared longlingly into the window, seeking hopefully to find a familiar face. There was her grandmother, patiently sitting by the door.  She sighed wistfully.”

It’s just a bit too much, isn’t it?  As though the emotions won’t be filled in by the reader in the exact way that the writer wants them to be interpreted.  This writer doesn’t trust the reader to understand the scene, so the writer creates the emotions in an inauthentic way by attaching them to any available verb.  It feels stilted and sounds awkward to the reader.  One or two adverbs used on occasion are not bad, but four within a few sentences is overkill.

Here is a similar issue.  Tag lines that try too hard (again, I’m not making these up):

“He stretched his arms.  “Time for bed,” he yawned as he stood from the big chair.”

The problem with this one is that it is really difficult, if not impossible, to talk and yawn at the same time.  This is also true of sighing, crying, laughing, coughing, and sniffing.  The writer in this case is trying to make sure the reader understands how the character feels.  Tag lines were not designed for that purpose.  In Dwight Swain’s book “Creating Characters” he defines tags as being like place markers, meant to help keep the reader straight on who is talking to whom.  The most commonly accepted tags are said, asked, answered, or replied.  Readers skim over them and continue on seamlessly with the story. The emotion and the information should be conveyed by action and the dialog itself, not by the tag that follows or precedes the dialog.  Again, the writer doesn’t trust the reader to get it and is trying to force emotion or information onto the reader where it really doesn’t need to be.

Verb tenses are another place where writers run into problems.  Tense shifts are not only confusing, but they can undermine the believability of a story.  For example:

“And now, here I am, driving home to take my five year old to a play date.  I would probably have to talk to Jake’s mother throughout all of it, when all I really wanted to do was rummage though the host of emotions that were playing in my gut.”

See what happened?  The writer starts with the present tense “I am” meaning that this is the current state of action.  The very next sentence, which appears to be a future projection, should be in the future perfect tense, or “I will probably have to” – the use of the word “would” makes it a past perfect use, meaning this could have happened in the past but it didn’t.  Then finally the writer says “. . . all I really wanted to do . . .” which is a regular past tense verb. 

All this bouncing around in time is confusion to the reader.  What happened when? Did the character have to talk to Jake’s mom or not, or is that still coming?  Readers don’t necessarily want to work this hard to follow a simple step in a story.

Some mistakes are the result of writers just being too caught up in their own words to realize what they’ve said.  They are so busy thinking of themselves as clever that they miss the obvious gaffe in their words:

“She lay back on the bed as he approached her.  She wanted him, wanted to show him her desire.  She rubbed her breasts with relish.”

I kid you not, this is taken from a published book. Author name and title provided on request.  I’m not sure about anyone else, but if I’m creating a moment like this, I certainly don’t want the reader’s attention suddenly shifting to hot dogs, mustard, and little chopped up pickles.

Sometimes a writer gets blinded.  They can no longer see what they’ve written, but they know what they meant to put there.  One of the ways this shows up is the use of the same or similar words used too closely together:

“I couldn’t think of anything else but seeing him again, so last night I called his cell phone and said the tooth was still really bothering me.  He told me to come in this morning.  He isn’t usually in on Saturdays.  So again, we were alone.  I don’t think I gave much thought to what would happen once we were alone.  Probably on purpose, that.  But the thrill of having someone look at me that way again . . . it eclipsed anything else I could think of.”

Too many uses too close together become a distraction to the reader, causing him or her to focus on the words being used instead of their purpose in the story. The writer knew what the purpose was, but found a verbal rut.  It’s like reading with a tick.

Another mistake that bogs readers down is a lot of telling instead of showing.  “Show don’t tell” is one of the cliche’s of the writing world, but it is true nonetheless.  Readers want action and dialog, not lengthy passages of exposition where they talk about talking, or tell about doing.  Readers want to hear it and see it.  Talking about talking is a sign that the writer either got bored at this point, or just didn’t want to take the extra effort needed to script the dialog:

“He told me that he would be graduating and going on a mission.  I pretended to know what a mission was, but I didn’t have a clue. . . . . When he told me it was a mission to convert people in other places to Mormonism, I felt a well of shame and inadequacy fill me.”

Here the writer has a great opportunity for dialog, and a great opportunity to allow the characters to reveal things about themselves to the reader.  But the opportunity is lost because we are told, rather than shown, what happened.

None of these examples are given to say that the story is bad or that the authors are bad.  They are examples of the fact that, as writers, we need to be more diligent about our work.  We all make mistakes, and we all have blind spots in our craft.  The only way to improve is by acknowledging that these issues belong to us and rededicating ourselves to improving.  When we recognize in our own work the need for additional revision, we do our readers a giant favor.  And if we are not working for our readers, then why are we bothering at all?