ŷ������

I think this whenever I hear about people who complain that the ‘popular�� novel wasn’t really that good because it didn’t do this or that. It didn’t tick this box or underline that particular technique. But obviously it did something, because the public latched on to it and wouldn’t let go. And yes, I guess you could say that the public is mindless and many of them follow the latest trend just because it’s the latest trend, but there always has to be a leader to start it off, a mind who was engaged by that passion.

So which is more important �� the well crafted sentence or the passion? I think they are equally important. It’s clear that passion will win many, but some will only be won over by technique. If you’re trying for as diverse an audience as possible, I think you need to be proficient at both, but rest assured, you’ll never please everybody. Someone will always have an axe to grind.

I have a lot of trouble living up to this statement. Even when I was the editor of a magazine and writing for it as well, I was too ashamed to call myself a writer, mainly because I didn’t have a degree that said I could write.

It can be difficult to consider yourself a writer if you haven’t been published, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t. Earning a degree in writing doesn’t mean you are, either. After all, writers write, they don’t just have bits of paper saying they can do it. If you want to be a writer put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. Let the words flow. Then and only then will you be a writer. Once you are doing that, you are one of us.

I’ve recently been having an animated discussion in one of the forums on ŷ������.

One of the posters there claims that Stephenie Meyer, author of The Twilight Saga, was dishonest because she changed the definition of the substance her vampires are made of. While I personally cannot see the contradictions in the information he/she has posted, that may be because anything scientific causes my eyes to glaze over.

But the question I wanted to ask here is, if she did change it deliberately because the earlier definition couldn’t hold up under scientific scrutiny, does that mean she has been ‘intellectually dishonest��?

I have argued that fantasy elements don’t usually hold up under scientific scrutiny anyway, because by their nature, fantasy elements are never going to hold up in the real world. That’s why they’re not in the real world. But should she have stayed consistent to her original definition, or was it better that she changed it, if that’s what she’s done?

This makes me tremble in fear when I think of my own book, which will be released in just a few weeks. I’m sure it has contradictions galore. Will I come under pressure to change them? Will that make me ‘intellectually dishonest��?

If you’re a fan of Meyer’s work, I’d like to hear your take on the matter. If you’re an author, I’d like to know if you’ve encountered this problem in your own writing. So if you’d like to share your wisdom with me, please feel free.

To see the conversation on goodreads, go here: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/9...

Boy, am I glad to hear that!

I heard another well known author say the other day that the first draft is never the one that is published and that’s so true, but I think that might surprise a few people who are starting out as writers. It is certainly something that is good to remember.

If you are starting out as a writer and you get something back from a publisher saying that your book still needs work, don’t despair. All books do. It’s difficult for an author to be objective about their work because they are too close to it. Having an independent evaluation can be a real help. I recommend getting your book edited professionally. The benefits are enormous, and publishers and agents will see the difference immediately.

There are quite a few people out there who offer this service, with varying degrees of experience. I offer an editing service myself. If you’re looking for an editor, I’d be happy to offer my services. Just contact me and we’ll see what we can do.

But certainly, don’t think your story has no hope just because someone says that it needs a lot of work. It’s knuckling down to do the work that makes the difference.

I wish I could say this was true for me. Rejection is something I hate with a passion. I’m already dreading my first bad review (something that is inevitable!) because I know it will be difficult to handle. But handle it I must.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Rejection means you tried in the first place, which is a battle in itself. It makes you better than the person who never tried. They didn’t have the courage to open themselves up to the possibility of rejection. You did. That should be something we celebrate.

When I wrote my screenplay it was absolutely terrifying to try to market it, especially from Australia. My screenplay was set in England in 1885, so it wasn’t likely that filmmakers in this country would be interested in it, although I did try them. It was like pulling teeth for me to put together a list of five companies a month and send them a query letter. I always felt relieved when it was done.

I usually didn’t receive any replies. All the replies I did receive were rejections, including one attached to an ominous letter from the company’s legal department for sending them an unsolicited query. However, with one of my rejections I did at least hear something good. I was told that my screenplay was well written. That was something, and I hung onto it, even as they went on to say that they didn’t think it was commercially viable. At least it was written well.

I had a little more confidence when I was sending The Heir around for expressions of interest. And of course, even finding an interested party, while certainly an achievement, led to more ‘rejection��, as my book was sent around for professional edits. It’s hard to hear someone tell you what you need to change before it’s acceptable for publication. It’s even harder if you believe the change is impossible for your story.

But in the end, I got up to bat. I deserve plaudits for that. And I’m still stepping up to the plate, especially as my book launch draws closer. I’m still as nervous now as I was then, but I’m not going to stop. Who knows? Maybe I’ll hit a home run.

This is so true. Let’s face it, most of us read books simply for entertainment. It’s the same with TV and movies. Most of us want something, first and foremost, that will take us out of the every day and provide some enjoyment.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that your writing shouldn’t be profound. Most people like to find a moral of some sort in the story; something the writer is trying to communicate. But if your writing is only philosophical and abstract, it may impress the most high brow reader (at least, they’ll pretend to be impressed because they think it makes them look clever ) but you’ll lose most other readers at the same time. Entertain the reader, and slip the truth you’re trying to communicate in through the back door. It will be more effective that way.

It can be tricky to write the beginning of a novel. That ideal starting point can be elusive, especially when you’re trying to grab the reader’s attention immediately, while introducing them to your world and everyone in it. It can be difficult to find that spot that engages the reader’s interest while establishing your story.

One of the best opening scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie is the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is instantly engaging, beginning in the middle of one of Indiana Jones�� adventures. The story, at that point, has nothing to do with the overall plot, but it introduces the audience to its style and pace, which is a break-neck one. I think this can be a useful way of engaging an audience, especially if your plot is one of those that takes a while to develop. Engage them with a bit of, not necessarily unrelated, but additional action to draw them in, and they will become intrigued. Most readers will stay with you through thick and thin if you engage them at the outset.

This is an old saying, but does it apply to a novel or any sort of writing?

Certainly the climax of a novel is often my favourite part, as I experience the terror of what my protagonists are going through and what they have to defeat in order to achieve their goal, so what comes last is clearly important. But should we save our best for last? Should we save our best at all, or should it be something that permeates the entire book?

And this isn’t true just of writing. It strikes me how wrong this phrase can be. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to ‘save�� our best at all, but to apply it to as much as we can as often as possible. And added advantage is that, the more we use it, the better it will get.

James Bryce said that ‘The worth of a book is to be measured by what you can carry away from it��.

If you’re like me, then the books you read leave indelible marks on your soul. I often find when I read a novel that part of it remains with me (depending on the type of book it is). This is why I steer clear of book of certain genres, like horror. I know I will be left with impressions that may well disturb me, both in waking hours and in my dreams, for years.

So I think I agree with James Bryce. But I think that worth will be different for different people. Some people will be impressed by one story and some by another.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a sign of a good book, either. Some books that I have felt were terrible have left impressions on me, although it hasn’t always been more than just the realisation that the author needed a better editor! Sometimes it can be just a word or a phrase, and the mark is there, possibly never to be removed.

So books can be dangerous things. They can also be the most beautiful thing in the world, opening a doorway to realms previously unexplored.

What makes a book great? Is it something that can be measured?

I’m not sure it can.

There’s no doubt that technique helps. If you follow the techniques laid down in writing, you will be more successful in communicating with the reader. Since most books set out to communicate something, technique is a good thing if it helps with that. But does technical brilliance alone define the greatness of a book? Does technical brilliance come into it at all?

I guess it depends who’s doing the judging. Naturally, people who understand those techniques and try to utilise them will notice if another writer deviates from them. But does that mean the book is a ‘bad�� book? When we all view books so differently, is it possible to say which books are ‘bad�� which are ‘good��?

What do you think?