The Writers' Police Academy

I'm not fazed by or opposed to firearms. My only gripe with them--like giants lacking furniture and living in a Lilliputian world--are the folks with 20/20 vision squeamish in letting someone borderline legally blind to try shooting. It's a serious uphill battle for us, and I'm of the mindset to say, "Hey! Anything you can do, I can do better/And I may do anything better than you!" *grin* And if Jeff Sorenthal, the first-ever blind person to scale and summit Mt. Everest, can do that, I can shoot a firearm. He had guides, yes; guns have laser sights and scopes these days. The technology's just dazzling; the naysayers are so 18th century.

My families were big in hunting, skeet shooting, rifling, and occasionally crossbow hunting. Desperate to give it a go, but the adults were always shook to the marrow in letting me try because I'm albino and have borderline legal blindness on the legal blindness side, I pouted and sulked on the sidelines. But, there's a wicked writing academy I'm itching to get to this September, and it's hosted by the HOWDUNEIT Forensic Series author, POLICE PROCEEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS, Lee Lofland. I'm hoping I'll try a few rounds; if I have someone better sighted with me when I hold a gun not scoped or with a scope on the firearm. This way, I know I'll do fine.

I didn't like my stepdad much when he was with my mom, but I did love shooting and hunting (motorcycles, too, but he never had one, darn it :)). Anyway, he had a .22 and an old one at that. I forget the maker, but did know the bullet and I still have that casing someplace. He asked out of the blue if I wanted to go. Putting aside my feelings and striking an uneasy alliance with who he was, I jumped at the chance, and looked through the scope. Once the crosshairs were trained, I made sure my mounting arm was locked, but not overextended, put my index finger on the trigger, and pulled.

The sound was like I'd blown a cannonball round and the ringing it left in my ear was incredible. I didn't mount my left hand/arm, which gave me a nasty kick to my thumb, and I offered the desert the loudest, nastiest combination of swear words I knew how. He laughed at me and said though I didn't hold the butt grip tight enough, but for my first--and only--shot fired, I did it right.

"What do you mean," I asked. "Did what right?"

He nodded at the ridge some fifty years away from us that Sunday afternoon. "Go look."

I did. Lying in the Arizona sun, eyes wide open and looking more like an exploded jar of strawberry preserves than endtrails, lay a buck jackrabbit. The casing from that bullet was warm in my pocket and burned my thigh as I looked at that kill. Oh, sure, rabbits die all the time, but this one had its belly ripped open. From a single shot fired. By me. I wasn't sure how I felt about it, especially since I didn't see nothing in the scope but sagebrush and an empty Miller Lite can he'd mounted on a post. But if what cops say is true about having to shoot people to stop a crime and feeling torn up inside over it, I got an inkling of their same feelings on that day. Even though my stepdad explained it was friendly fire and it sometimes happens, I never went again, because my stepdad refused to use clay or paper targets after that.

When I was around four or five, my auntie and uncle, both up in years and living in central VA, reminded me of the time when he'd scored a buck. I did remember that, too: it was a beautiful black and brown deer, with antlers that reminded me of polished wood. It was strapped to the hood of their car, and I asked will it get up and walk away, since its eyes were still open. They said no, it wouldn't since it was dead. I found it grisly fascinating, but complicated to pinpoint how I felt, even though the tears flowed anyway. It wasn't because of my age then, but the shot it took. I've still mixed feelings about hunting and the result of such things, but I'll never oppose it on the surface.

As a writer, I'll harness these feelings and use them in my works because they're certainly going to be easier to convey in storytelling that way. And I'm hoping to get to this retreat--"conference" is such an overused word, isn't it?--to pick the brains of an ME, a detective, a cop, and to really feel a firearm and an arrow in my hands again. Because like the website says: Better to sweat it in the brunt work now than to have JERSEY and the Pedregon/McGuinness Chronicles bleed red ink later.

As for that buck's meat? Nope, never got any venison from the shot. And to this day, I've yet to try some :). My uncle took the deer head to his men's hunting hall and had it mounted, though.

~Missye

Vanity Press + Self-Publishing + Prints-On-Demand = I$ it Worth The ¢ost?

I take back EVERY good thing I said about Red Rose Publishing. It is a SKEAVY, SLEAZY PIMP of a vanity press/POD outfit. The editors, knowingly contributing to this garbage, are pimps-in-training, the desperate writers--in the guise of hungry and not too strong to handle rejection--are the prostitutes.

Me: "Hi. My name is Missye and I was once a pimp with Red Rose Publishing. I haven't pimped a single, lonely, desperate writer/prostitute for a whole day!"

Editors of Pimps in Vanities/PODs Anonymous: "Hi, Missye!"

I was a Content Editor with that vanity for eight months and quit on January 12, 2010. If what Hope Clark says about what Harlequin's doing is true--and it appears so--this bunch is part of that. The writing there, if nothing short of disastrous, was coupled with the fact this publisher--and sadly, editors--knowingly misled these folks into thinking their stories were good enough under the guise of romance writing, for publication. I've notified their (so-called) head editor and the owner of my resignation, not in part of the house's state of affairs, but I think I'd read someplace once where romance writing was the place where any/all genre first drafts went to see the light of day. Never mind the fact the owner told me she never took first draft submissions (she did). Never mind the fact I'm told if I wanted an editing gig there, I had to take an MS assigned, even if it didn't move me to work on and this was industry-standard (it's not, since editors and agents cherry pick their projects, so this was news to me--and to all of you :)). Never mind also, this head content editor--the 3rd in a year--says I don't know how to edit if I have to correct the writers, and, more or less, wanted me to ghostwrite their works, babysit the writers, and they get the credit. What did I get in return? Arguments. Complaints, Whining. Egos. Sass. Overall ingratitude. And expected to work for pennies, if not free, no less. But what cemented me walking was when this head editor mentioned she'd nothing to do with the mechanics/minutiae of the MSs going out. Since she didn't cover it, it didn't concern her. I'm about the zen and art of the writing craft, and getting savvy to the business, b/c I'm a writer first. RRP is about milling formulaic books, excusing the most shoddy writing there possible, thinking these poor souls are published and this deceptively opens doors for them. While there, I had a helluva time turning that bureaucracy ship around when I told my writers stable about craft honing; each of them, through the corrections, whined and cried like stuck pigs.

If I ever do that with my stuff through a crit group or with an editor, please shoot me :).

Things happen for a reason. Out of mud comes the lotus, and I will emerge stronger from this swampwater. As for the six reads I won't get paid for--and don't want pay for, as I see this is in part as paying dues--I am PROUD to have been part in Clark's novel-shaping--and which has representation and placed in the Top 100 in Amazon's Breakthrough Novel Writer's Contest in 2009. I'm honored to have been part of Sharon Pennington's freshly minted MONSTERS & MANGROVES; and for helping to shape Paul Lawrence's PLAGUE OF SINNERS read, I think released in the UK. This editing/critiquing process made me a better editor and a damn talented/being formed ever still, writer. That said, RRP's loss. And writers--and editors too, always, always, always beware--if, that is, you want to be accepted in the circles that matter.

And the nicer thing: I'm back in bed with my McGuinness fellows and will put this novel's first draft to bed before April 30th. (Aw, c'mon, get your minds out the gutter, you know what I mean. Sheesh. :))

Thanks for reading. You guys, as usual, ROCK!
~Missye

Happy Twnety-Ten!

I've been dark forever, I know. Sorry for that. Between my move to Gettysburg from Baltimore, sporadic Internet access with the weather and its evil twin Windows 7 (which is quite frosty to a Mac's OS) and just sheer laziness, this blog's not been updated forever.

Enough of that. Back to the grind.

I got to thinking as I'm editing a MS and thought it a good post here: I know it's often said the writer gets and holds final call in what stays or goes in their story--but when does the editor get final say on that story the scribe holds dear? In other words, when is tinkering with it too much killing the story? When does a writer let it go and say enough is enough? And, when does a writer let their ego know enough to trust the editor's keen insight to know what is and what's not working in their manuscript?

I've seen a recent MS in a crit group that, sadly, the writer's taking FOREVER for the point of the story to move me enough to keep reading; I did to more or less find out where and when the story would jump off. After still remaining in the single digits of the group member's MS, I called it quits on reading more of it and suggested they begin afresh with my notes in mind.

Mechanics aside--structure and plot are symbiotic in nature and more on that later--all the good editing and writing reference books tell me, as does the current crit group I'm part if, with the take-no-prisoners competition for the minds and hearts of consumers in these challenging economic times, author Terry Brooks of the fabulous writing reference SOMETIMES THE MAGIC WORKS, noted: books are the cheapest form of entertainment, and the one leisure where time is invested. With People owning a never-ending parade of Bacchanalia-esque digital joy to keep their eyes glued to pixels, is it little wonder I say/crit to writers to get to your story's point faster? You've got an entire book to keep them enriched in your story; why take forever GETTING to that point?

Sophocles put Oedipus, King of Thebes smack in the center of a dilly of a problem and nothing but conflict, tension, suspense and a sobering, but (debatable) satisfying ending came from it. If you're taking forever to get to your story's point, character's endgame and plot's problem--or at best, not foreshadowing any of these points--not only will you have a whale of a crappy ending, but your readers won't get that far, because your hard work will end up back on the library shelf, refunded money, or worse: in the trash.

I'm still--yes, still--getting the first draft of JERSEY DOG out of me, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've got a boatload of fat to trim from it, but I'm not eager to get my name on a spine to stoke my writer's ego knowing it's not ready. However, the idea's planted firmly in mind and the first ten pages I did show a professional pair of eyes to gave me the green light to go for it lock and stock, but I know the rewrite will be vastly different from the original. And . . . the point will be gotten to far faster than what my original shitpile is, now.

I need readers. I also need an editor and a paying public to believe in my works. That won't happen unless I've slogged my way through a serious round of edits and paid my dues through this unforgiving industry. As Gordon Ramsay says--I think wisely-- "I only accept negative reviews; I know what to improve upon when I do." Weird? No. Go for no; you'll always get a "Yes!" someplace.

Take the hits, hone the craft, tell your ego to stop acting like the east end of a westbound horse, and dig deep. You'll get to your story's point far faster--and I might fall in love with it at first sight after all.

Happy New Year!
~Missye

The Reluctant "I"

I've learned TONS from my Nashville SCBWI Mid-South Conference this September past. Three big things stood out for me, though. Well, and you know, if I listed everything here, you'd be bored to tears and find the next Westbound Ocela train as fast as it's permitted to speed the rails.

But first:

Big, heartfelt thank yous to The InGenuity Depot Followers! Kudos and props to you all for patiently waiting when this blog would get out from "the dark," and following my writing triumphs and tribulations through my WIPs gestations. You guys rock--and you always will.

On with the show!

Caroline B. Cooney, author of THE FACE ON THE MILK CARTON and some seven dozen other reads, mentioned during the conference and JERSEY DOG's first ten pages crit, "I'm not a fan of first person narrative because it takes the writer FOREVER to let the reader know who this person is! With third person," Cooney stated, "the reader gets to know who this person is right away, puts a name to a character and gets right in the character's life and story. First person takes far too much time--pretentiously expecting the reader to, too--to let us get to know their troubles, their name, their concerns."

Paraphrasing mine, but that aside, other than her personal preference--which Cooney said was third person in leisure reads and her works--she holds a rock-solid point. Melville gets right to Captain Ishmael's name in the first line of MOBY DICK, but apart from that, I can't think of many first person reads that do what Melville did. S.E. Hinton's classic first novel THE OUTSIDERS takes some four pages until we know who Ponyboy Curtis is; some five pages until we know who Texas McCormick is in TEX--but that's not totally fair, since, well, the book's the kid's name, so technically, this one gets a pass, as does Twain's HUCK FINN and Dickens' DAVID COPPERFIELD. Older boileroom private eye reads get right to who their "I"s are, too. For the most part, now with Cooney's scrutiny in mind, yesterday's and today's first person reads take pages long to let the reader in on who they are. And we writers don't have that kind of time or luxury anymore for pages of nameless first person narratives.

Why the reluctance? I'm not really sure. The point logically valid, we're in the age of instantaneous gratification and having a satisfied bottom line to that gratification. We should get to the point of naming the "I"s in the stories (and in plot, too), because, as rotten as this is the case, we'll hold a bookstore browser's attention all of 30 seconds or less no matter which book they pick up. You can have a whale of a story, but if someone finds something wrong with the book--be it you said the person's name too early or too late in that 30 second span--it won't get bought. Period.

*******

I found myself real hesitant in seeing Cooney about JERSEY DOG's first ten pages. Although I knew going in they were an initial mess and the solution eluded me for some reason--it's a tighter open that'll make the revision process more fun, thanks to her ideas--after Cooney's badass boot camp of rapid-fire style writing, and her having over eighty books in print, AND the fame in MILK CARTON (also a Lifetime TV movie), AND getting my tuckus handed to me in my day's prior crit to BREATHE the person could've found something else nice to say about it aside from "I liked the setting," AND learning her stance on first person, I had a good grip on what a spent dishrag went through in cleaning a 300 person service. I was scared green, kids, and I don't scare easy. Instead, I got the tear up crit AND a confidence boost: Loving the writing aside, she also loved the risk of unsafe writing I did for my McGuinness guys, and their finding a corpse how they did, and loved that I usually wrote that way. I told her--in a stunned voice, mind you--it's what I grew up on when I read books; my sister fared better with dollhouses and tea parties during childhood than I did. I wanted to live those boys' adventures, get dirty, play rough, and yeah, okay, I admit it, kiss the cute guy grungy from the Dumpsters and day's sweat and grime.

How long did it take me to get to my nameless "I?" Seven pages.

But someone like Cooney, even through the grungepit of a first draft, saw what I did, imperfections and all--and buoyed me in spite of the imperfections. I'm still glowing from the crit--and after my move to Gettysburg, PA, I'm getting right back into JERSEY's and BREATHE's adventures.

No longer am I a "reluctant I."

*******

When you write first person, remember "I" is a pronoun, too. And with writing, you can still, even in first drafts and in third person, watch the overuse of this little word and its sibling variations. Me, my, we, us, ours can be minimalized; we're still going to know you're writing in first person, but this overemphasis of the "I" should be downplayed.

In Brian Kiteley's amazing writing tool THE 3am BREAKTHROUGH, he's got Lesson One titled "The Reluctant I." Here, he challenges the writer to do this exercise in 600 words, using the "I" reference three times only, and once must be in the title of the piece. I was like, "Dude, you're nuts. No way!"

But it works! As often as you'll peeve readers in the overuse of pronouns--and this habit outright makes an editor or agent pass on you, regardless of story--you'll have a reader re-reading your story to catch what they thought they missed: the lack of the "I" landmarks there. Think of it as unnecessary and distracting word clutter. Don't you want your readers engrossed in the characters and story, as opposed to you, through your "I" reference, being pretentiously intrusive in your character's story?

On that, I reluctantly bid you all a lovely adieu. Next stop: Gettysburg and ghost hunting!

~Missye

Hello SCBWI Fans from Music City!

I'm learning so much great info here, gang, from perfecting my story's elevator pitch to the "No 1st person present for you!" exercise on the "Don't Think, Just Write!" exercises this morning. Sure, sometimes it was conflicting information--but this is where we as writers (in the Brian Kiteley skein/blogpost prior) need to discern that sometimes, not everyone's end-all, be-all is a fit for you. Tell your character's story from the gut, from the heart and from the soul. It'll be a good one. And don't you DARE let anyone edit that out.

I'm also getting my first-ever, first of two partial MS critiques from an agent. Tonight: Chris Richman will give me his what's hot (what's good and why)/what's not (what's going and why) vibe on BREATHE and my guy, Zak. I'll mos def let everyone know how that goes.

BTW--gots love for you, Caroline, and there's a lotta adventure in JERSEY and BREATHE, but I'm sticking with 1st person. . .past :). Two outta three ain't bad.

Gotta fly, gang! I'll post more soon.

~Missye

Brevity. Unconventional. Screwball. Threshhold.

This, my friends, means B. U. S. T. If ever you got stuck for writer's block, or faced a mocking blank page--or even stared at the wall--this post will recommend you, dear followers, what to read and how to CRUSH your writer's block to smithereens.

Brian Kiteley penned this unimposing THE 3a.m. EPIPHANY reference. What I found in its pages--and you may, too--opened a world of resonating colors, yummy sounds and in-depth tastes that pushed my writing to the outer edges of . . . organized pandemonium. Take, for example, the Ph. D's exercise #2: "The Reluctant I." You are permitted to use this 1st person POV just twice, in 600 words, and once MUST be in the title of your piece.

How's that for "screwball"? Or is it "twoball"? :)

Part of the reason we've got writer's block, yes, is laziness. Who wants to write something so out there it's too out there for consideration? Yet, it's that wackiness--the semantics of "Duck, Rabbit, Duck!"--that makes this reference so damn goosebumps thrilling. And a must in every serious writer's library.

The second reason? Get out your own way, stupid!

In Kiteley's sequel, the award-winning author expects each and every one of us reading this 4a. m. BREAKTHROUGH reference to train the writing instincts so you can write naturally, not put pen to paper--or pixel letter to screen--for the masses. You can't ever write by committee, and if you do, your work is goosecrap. This reference expects you to take your writing to places you knew instinctively, but was either critiqued out of it, edited out of it, or self-doubted out of it. Not anymore. As I select my writing tools, weapons and "irons" by sense of smell, I, like you, was sometimes told, "You're a great writer and keep your 'What If. . . ?' imagination sharp and voice, sharper. .Just fit it in this box. Do that, you'll be a helluva writer. Do it not. . .mediocre is all you'll be."

Being on the edge makes for mediocre writing? Since when? Brevity, unconventional, screwy, and on the threshold of something incredible that covers your soul in a rainbow is bad, how? If the literary, artsy-fartsy types don't get it, it's "too mainstream." If the mainstream types can't class it, it's too "avant-garde." And if it's neither, both will argue why it's the other one.

As the former mayor of NYC, Ed Koch, would always say to his nit-picky critics: "WRONG!" Stop!

Go BUST things up a little when creating. Keep it short. You'll be amazed how surgical and clean you are, you genius wordsmith you :).

~Missye

Tense Present, Tense Past. . .Is That The Question (Or Was That WAS. . .?)

This site will go dark this Monday and will resume with a fresh post on Tuesday.

A member of my Writing Well crit group posed a very good question regarding his novel. He asked if it's best served to write his story in present tense or past tense.

Being the (usual) dissenting voice, I offered my perspective that might be a good fit for his puzzle (barring other writers who shared their great, though limited IMO, views one the topic):

"Daniel",

I can understand how writing in present tense in first--or even third--is daunting. But it's not limiting in any scheme of things. You're so used to saying "said" or "did", "moved," or "ran" b/c that's how you're acting in life. When you speak to someone and mention what you'd done, you're speaking in the recent past, but it's still present past. Technically, as we write, it's present past, b/c in the now, timewise, it's not/past/present/future at the same time. And, it'd be really weird to speak of your actions in the present-present--I run, I sleep, I drink--b/c it isn't what you do. So, yes, it's limiting in timeframe, but not limiting in story--unless you keep the story shorter than you'd intended.

I know you don't write kid-lit like I do, but quite a few YA/MG authors wrote in present tense and did so beautifully. One comes to mind: Paula Danziger and her stories were told in the immediacy factor. If your story has to hold an urgency to it that may NOT work in past present, go for present tense. Granted, many here have already said it's hard to write that way, and it is. But your story dictates in which tense it should be told, and which tense would it serve better in. If it's better served in past, leave it in past. If it's better served in present, leave it in present. And, Danziger's known not just for her books but for her amazing footwork in first person present. I've read her books for years; you forget she's writing that way and get into the story.

Another one who tells a great story in first person present: Joan Bauer. She wrote a kid lit book--that has plenty of adults in it with adult situations going on--called STICKS, and again, it's the immediacy factor this story holds that drove the use for first person present in the first place. Same for K.L. Going's SAINT IGGY, and James Patterson's MAXIMUM RIDE reads too. It can be done. It's hard as hell to do. But it's the story you're telling that'll dictate how it best feels to tell it in.

Good luck. We're always here to help. :) I say go for it, first person present. If anything, I think it'll force you to make sure your plot's airtight and your characters are spot-on and deep enough to care about.

I've never been too irked over people writing in first present, really, because a good story gets told however it needs telling to make it a fine, memorable read. But, as the proverbial expression goes "too many cooks spoil the soup," so do too many hands passing through your story kills its intimacy, urgency, luster and heart. I'll never disagree with getting your story read by a set of trusting eyes to find holes you're too close to see. But I heartily stand on the premise of too many people tweaking the tweaked, the perfection is tweaked from it. Someone getting what you meant, your voice, your rhythm, versus someone else calling your perfection "sh*t" is the antithesis of you growing and shaping as a writer. That's exactly what you don't want with your work, or mine with mine.

I've got more to say on this topic with a conference call link I'll post here next week: The "new" new math in writing. What's that? Gotta tune in to find out :).

So, what say you on present tense verses past tense? Does it work, does it not work--and most important: why?

Happy Labor Day weekend!
~Missye