Just because I'm a writer and have been published doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. I do. I make 'em all the time. In fact, some of the worst mistakes I make in writing, I don't even see until someone smugly points them out to me. Usually, that person is one of my current or former students, and more often than not they are pointing out a mistake for which I've beaten them about the head and shoulders. So I'm not perfect. In fact, if it weren't for beta readers and editors, a great many writers would never make it to print. What I want to do, however, is point out a few of the most common mistakes with the hope that you will learn to avoid them.
See, I'm not saying "be like me" or "do as I say, not as I do." What I'm saying is, I want you to be better than me.
Had - Had is bad. I've typed that phrase over a thousand times. Several professors questioned me on it. But I stand by it. "Had," when used in anything other than the indication of former possession (he had a ball, but now he doesn't) or distant past is just plain wrong. Here's the thing... If you're talking about something that happened just moments ago, "had" doesn't work. It's not the word you want. "He had come into the room" vs. "He came into the room." See the difference? The first one was an example of something he did repeatedly over a long period of time. The second one, he walked in just a moment ago.
Excessive Adverbs - We've all been told that adverbs are just a way of defining a verb. He ran quickly or whispered softly or screamed loudly. the problem with adverbs is that they're largely superfluous, and they are perhaps the most overused part of speech since the "had." To wit: How does someone run? Quickly. Do you know anyone who runs slowly? Okay, yes, some people do, but the expectation in the written form is that, if a character runs, he's doing it quickly, thereby making the word "quickly" superfluous and redundant. Of course there are exceptions, but they apply when something happens that is out of the norm. For example, "He ran slowly. In this case, slowly is not the expectation, so it's necessary. You also run the risk of what we used to call "Tom Swifties," which is an adverb that so mimics the meaning of the verb it modifies as to render it superfluous, but comedically so. For example, she sang musically. Well... Yeah. Singing is, technically (in most cases) musical. If it's not, there's something wrong with your character's singing voice. "I don't know where we are," said Tom lostly.
Right or Left - Who cares? Does it really matter whether a character's right or left hand is the one that got slapped? Do we say that when we speak? Do we say "I hurt my right hand?" No, we don't. Right or left, it doesn't matter. What matters? Hand. I hurt my hand. I got hit in the temple. I put the keys in my hand. He stepped on my foot. See? Right or left, who cares. It's a superfluous piece of information that really does nothing more than muddy up your writing. Unless there's a specific purpose for the mentioning of right or left, leave it out.
You - When you write, typically, you're writing in 3rd or 1st person. And as such, the reader (or the audience) is stuck behind what we call "the fourth wall." This is the invisible wall that is removed so we can get a glimpse into the lives of characters that sit in that three-camera set-up of sitcoms. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch an episode of The Big Bang Theory. See how we only see the apartment from one side? Ever wonder what's on that 4th wall? The audience, that's what. So when you, the writer, use the word "you" (as I'm doing here frequently), it should only be done when directly addressing the reader. In theater, this is called an "aside." In literature, this is known as "annoying" and "distracting."
Starting - More often than not, I come across statements that say "he started to run..." or something of the like. Perform an experiment with me. Start to run. No really. What you'll see is that there is actually a moment between not running and running, but "starting" to run is nothing but intention. There's no movement there. So if someone "started" to run, I'm left to wonder what stopped him.
Distancing and Filters - Look, I get it. We all want the reader to know what our characters saw, felt, heard, etc. It's called description. But we also want the reader to become thoroughly absorbed in the story, right? So writers tend to use filters. "He saw," "She heard," "they knew..." They're all sensory of one sort or another. But here's the thing: Every time you use one of these, you're reminding the reader that "hey... You're reading a story, and being told the story second hand." There is a way to draw the reader in further, to deepen the POV: Remove the filters. Consider the difference: "He heard birds sing" vs "birds sang." In the first instance, we are told what he heard. But in the second, we are there with him. We hear it when he does. We know what's going on.
Weak Words - I see words like "this," "these," and "those" all the time. And guess what. They're a cop-out. Words like "this," "these," and "those" are lazy. They're weak. And worse, they make your prose read like stereo instructions. The three words listed have their proper places, but their place is not in your narration. Ever.
Its vs It's - It's really quite simple. "IT'S" is a contraction. It means "it is." "Its" is used in all other cases. Period. There's no debate here, no questions, no exceptions. It's simply how it is.
Your vs You're - Again, easy. "Your" means possession. Something that belongs to you. Your ball, your bat, your nervous breakdown. "You're" is a contraction which means "you are."
There, They're, and Their - I see this one butchered all the time, and, frankly, it pisses me off. Someone wasn't paying attention in junior high school. So for those who still haven't grasped it, "there" is spacial. "Here or there," "go over there," "what's that over there." "Their" means "belonging to them." "Their car." "Their rugby team." "Their funeral costs." "They're" is a contraction which means "they are." "They're going to murder me when they find out what I've done with their schnauzer, which a buried over there."
So there you have it. Ten of the most common mistakes I come across in creative writing classes. There are more. Sooooo many more. But these are the most common, outside of basic grammar and punctuation (which are for a whole 'nother blog). Hope this helps someone.
Showing posts with label gentleman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gentleman. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Common Mistakes: The Ten Deadly Sins
Labels:
advice,
character,
cliches,
creative,
creative writing,
errors,
fiction,
gentleman,
griffins,
horror,
improvement,
instruction,
learning,
MFA,
novels,
POV,
process,
publishing,
seton hill,
writing
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Traditional Vs. Self Publishing
Recently, I stepped into a mire of goo the likes of which I haven't seen since I owned an 80lb dog. I since deleted the post, but it got me thinking. For the longest time (well, since I got into writing and got my first book published), I've been a staunch proponent of traditional publishing. I've always been the guy out there yelling about how traditional is the way to go, that they are the gate-keepers of our craft and profession, and a thousand other arguments that fill message boards and professional organizations with vitriol and bile. But it got me wondering. Why is self-publishing so reviled?
I was born in 1971 and my childhood was spent in the 70's. There were no "indie" bands that I knew of around that time, and when I was in Junior and High School (1980's), it was cool for everyone to have a demo. Indie bands were the thing. I still have a demo of the Beastie Boys, and I can recall when Metallica was an unsigned act that was killing it in the local clubs. And I recall, back then, the big question was "who are they signed with?" in regards to music. If the answer was "no one," the retort was usually "then they can't be any good."
It was bullshit then.
When I graduated High School and went off to college (I went to the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in Pasadena, California for a couple of years), indie-music was still huge, and growing. But there was a new phenomenon on the horizon: Indie comics. The big two (Marvel and DC) got too big for their collective britches, and a whole world of creative independent artists and writers got together and said "screw them, we'll do it ourselves!" And they did. And again, there was a stigma about whether their work was any good because it didn't go through the big houses.
It, too, was bullshit.
Which brings us to today. I went and soul-searched a little and realized something: I can be a bit of a snob at times. Today, the big publishers are running scared because of indie (notice, I didn't say "self") publishing. They're being more selective (meaning they're not buying as many manuscripts), circling their wagons (which means many are going out of business and being bought up by others of their kind), and branching out (which means creating a "pay for publish" branch… I'm looking at you, Penguin) in an attempt to stop the arterial bleeding that is coming from the publishing industry today. And you get dinosaurs like me, who seem to have become what we used to revile. But that's not entirely true. I'll get to that in a moment.
Why is it that indie music and indie comics and indie films get love and are heralded as fierce and creative and brave, while indie publishing is not? As a good friend, and someone I respect (Joe "The Pope" Borrelli) said, let the public decide. What is it that separates musicians, artists, film makers, and such from writers? In all honesty, nothing. It's art. It's their interpretation of art. And there are truly shitty examples in every category. There also lurks brilliance.
Many years ago, I was a critic for a newspaper, so I was inundated with indie music on cassette (yes, I'm that old), and I found that 80% of it was crap. The folks making said music needed to go back and learn to play their instruments, needed to learn a modicum of music theory. Needed to actually listen to music to see where they were going wrong. But the other 20%? I still listen to them. When I did film and book reviews for Dread Central, I was greeted with a similar percentage of garbage. But then, every now and again, brilliance. Some of the books I got were offensive, not from their content, but by the sheer gall of the writers involved calling themselves authors. Does that sound elitist? Maybe it is. Maybe it offends me that I've spent years making serious study and effort to hone my craft, and yet anyone can plug in a computer, jump on Createspace, and publish anything they want. Seriously. But the big question is, should it offend me? Probably not. The public will decide, Mr. Borrelli. The public will decide. And while certain titles exist that cast the whole independent publishing movement in a bad light, hasn't that always been the case with indie music, film, and comics?
But wait, you say. What about the old arguments about the publishers and labels and big dogs of the creative world being the gatekeepers? Yeah… That's also bullshit. Many of them are run by bean-counters now. And while there are many micro and indie presses, they are no guarantee either. Many of them (like Raw Dog Screaming Press and Permuted) take great pains to come off as professional and hire good editors and put forth an excellent product. Lots more don't, and, no, I'm not going to name names. Let's face it, there are no guarantees today.
So now it comes down to it… I still prefer to be traditionally published. Everything I've ever written has been traditionally published (except for one book that was done for charitable reasons). But does that mean I won't eventually be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and indie publish something? Probably not. There may come a point when I decide to indie publish, and it will be on my terms. But if anything, I'd like to offer the following advice for folks who do, or who intend to indie publish.
I was born in 1971 and my childhood was spent in the 70's. There were no "indie" bands that I knew of around that time, and when I was in Junior and High School (1980's), it was cool for everyone to have a demo. Indie bands were the thing. I still have a demo of the Beastie Boys, and I can recall when Metallica was an unsigned act that was killing it in the local clubs. And I recall, back then, the big question was "who are they signed with?" in regards to music. If the answer was "no one," the retort was usually "then they can't be any good."
It was bullshit then.
| Pictured: That opinion |
When I graduated High School and went off to college (I went to the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in Pasadena, California for a couple of years), indie-music was still huge, and growing. But there was a new phenomenon on the horizon: Indie comics. The big two (Marvel and DC) got too big for their collective britches, and a whole world of creative independent artists and writers got together and said "screw them, we'll do it ourselves!" And they did. And again, there was a stigma about whether their work was any good because it didn't go through the big houses.
It, too, was bullshit.
![]() |
| Not quite the easy button... |
Which brings us to today. I went and soul-searched a little and realized something: I can be a bit of a snob at times. Today, the big publishers are running scared because of indie (notice, I didn't say "self") publishing. They're being more selective (meaning they're not buying as many manuscripts), circling their wagons (which means many are going out of business and being bought up by others of their kind), and branching out (which means creating a "pay for publish" branch… I'm looking at you, Penguin) in an attempt to stop the arterial bleeding that is coming from the publishing industry today. And you get dinosaurs like me, who seem to have become what we used to revile. But that's not entirely true. I'll get to that in a moment.
Why is it that indie music and indie comics and indie films get love and are heralded as fierce and creative and brave, while indie publishing is not? As a good friend, and someone I respect (Joe "The Pope" Borrelli) said, let the public decide. What is it that separates musicians, artists, film makers, and such from writers? In all honesty, nothing. It's art. It's their interpretation of art. And there are truly shitty examples in every category. There also lurks brilliance.
Many years ago, I was a critic for a newspaper, so I was inundated with indie music on cassette (yes, I'm that old), and I found that 80% of it was crap. The folks making said music needed to go back and learn to play their instruments, needed to learn a modicum of music theory. Needed to actually listen to music to see where they were going wrong. But the other 20%? I still listen to them. When I did film and book reviews for Dread Central, I was greeted with a similar percentage of garbage. But then, every now and again, brilliance. Some of the books I got were offensive, not from their content, but by the sheer gall of the writers involved calling themselves authors. Does that sound elitist? Maybe it is. Maybe it offends me that I've spent years making serious study and effort to hone my craft, and yet anyone can plug in a computer, jump on Createspace, and publish anything they want. Seriously. But the big question is, should it offend me? Probably not. The public will decide, Mr. Borrelli. The public will decide. And while certain titles exist that cast the whole independent publishing movement in a bad light, hasn't that always been the case with indie music, film, and comics?
But wait, you say. What about the old arguments about the publishers and labels and big dogs of the creative world being the gatekeepers? Yeah… That's also bullshit. Many of them are run by bean-counters now. And while there are many micro and indie presses, they are no guarantee either. Many of them (like Raw Dog Screaming Press and Permuted) take great pains to come off as professional and hire good editors and put forth an excellent product. Lots more don't, and, no, I'm not going to name names. Let's face it, there are no guarantees today.
So now it comes down to it… I still prefer to be traditionally published. Everything I've ever written has been traditionally published (except for one book that was done for charitable reasons). But does that mean I won't eventually be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and indie publish something? Probably not. There may come a point when I decide to indie publish, and it will be on my terms. But if anything, I'd like to offer the following advice for folks who do, or who intend to indie publish.
- Do yourself a favor and hire an editor. Not your buddy from down the street, but someone who actually knows what they're doing. Yes, it's expensive, but then, so is publishing. And it's worth it to present yourself in the most professional and polished manner possible. Book reviewers (who drive your sales) are unforgiving when it comes to books full of typos.
- Invest in good cover art. A good cover can sell a truckload of books. Bad cover art can make your stuff come off as amateur and childish.
- Either hire someone to do your layout for you, or really learn how to do it. InDesign is an expensive program, and so is Quark, but you're talking about your chosen career. It's an investment.
- Learn the basics of promotion. Network and market your ass off, learn how to book signings, and figure out how to get the most reach for your dollar.
- Surround yourself with a good team. Beta readers, editors, artists, layout… Everything. They can make or break you.
- Be ready to smile and avoid coming off as angry. *ahem*
So maybe I am a dinosaur. But, unlike big lizards of old, I prefer to change and adapt, and I reserve the right to change my point of view. I'd also like to note that I know several (not lots, but a few) independent published authors who have gone on to great things (Rhiannon Frater leaps immediately to mind), and I respect them and their work. I'm not going to change my opinion when I see a book that I think is crap, and I think most folks reading this have known me long enough to know that I don't ever apologize for my opinion. If I think it's crap, I say it's crap. But to those offended by my (unintentionally) controversial remarks, I have one thing to say:
Mea culpa.
Signed your Gentleman Dinosaur
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



