Week in Review 9/20/15

Welcome to the week in review for 9/20/15. Egad, where is September going?

During last week's review donnaeve followed up on our discussion about geographical accuracy asking:

The setting is the North Carolina mountains, specifically Jackson County which has the Tuckasegee River running through it. I have all that in there, but I've created a fictional area, a branch off the Tuckasegee called Stampers Creek - which uses the last name of my MC's family. Plenty of folks have named their piece of land or path or trail using their surname. This is okay to do, in my story, isn't it? I.e. no different in my opinion than the fact my characters don't exist either. I don't know why I can't seem to decide, given the responses, if it is or isn't.

As a reader, this would make sense to me. It's authentic if not totally accurate. Sometimes what feels authentic isn't accurate at all: our sense of what criminal trials are like is based on television and anyone who's been involved in a trial at any level will tell you that TV trials are bunk.

And as a side note, I had a brief moment of panic when I wondered if I'd been misreading Tuskegee all these years and it really was Tuckasegee. Nope. Two DIFFERENT places.

Pharosian asked about made up places:

But I have a question: How does the importance of geographic accuracy pertain in a work like Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? In that case, he set much of the story in and around the University of Oxford, but in a fictional college within the university. Sue Grafton made up the town of Santa Teresa for her alphabet murder series. And Lake Wobegon doesn't really exist in Minnesota. There are many such examples where the author wasn't sloppy or lazy, and yet chose to make fictional alterations to an existing place. What is your feeling about instances like those?

As a reader, I'm totally fine with made up places. I only get hot under the collar if you set something in New York City and talk about apartments on Central Park East.

Adele asked a really good question:

Thinking about the geography thing. In my original post, the situation was that the contest entrant had mentioned an area in British Columbia and referred to it as a desert. Well, it is a desert. It gets about 1/4" of rain a year and has sagebrush, rattlesnakes and scorpions. The contest judge did not know that, wrote "Canada doesn't have deserts" and carried on with a diatribe about how important it is to get your geography correct.

So here's the thing. Obviously, the geographic fact of this desert was not known to the judge and also probably not known to agents, editors, and most potential readers. So as a writer, do you think the contest entrant should have tried to explain more fully? Perhaps working in the info that lots of people don't know about the desert? Or was she right to just assume that if she says desert, there's a desert?

Clearly the judge (and I really hope it wasn't me) has forgotten that you really want to verify stuff before you rant about it. I didn't know Canada had deserts but since I know Central Oregon and Eastern Washington are both high desert I'd have checked a map to see if the Canadian location was due north of there.

It's always troublesome when someone judging a contest or reading your query has her facts wrong. There's no way I can think of to avoid it. Even the best of us (or should I say the nit pickiest among us) has made a bunch of mistakes on this.

If you have a situation that no one really knows about (lady bronc riders!) you might include a note that says these are based on real women with a footnote or citation. But generally you just need to write something that makes us believe there is in fact water on Mars.



I mentioned that I welcomed notice about the typos (which I do, and thank you to all who helped with those this week) but hands off the grammar/syntax. That brought this from kdjames:

It's a very small, almost minuscule, consolation that I wasn't the only one who oh-so-helpfully [ahem] offered suggestions on how to re-write your email response re fulls.

I actually DID ask for that help since it was clear that it needed some work. What I meant was people writing to correct something like "umbrage at this callous reception of his magnanimity muttering after him." since the syntax is grammatically wobbly but on purpose for style.

And so far, you've all been very helpfully mute on those liberties I've taken.



And Panda in Chief brought up one of my favorite movies of all time Trouble In Mind. I haven't seen it for years, but I always remember the baby named Spike. And the liberties they took with the Monorail indeed…but it was set in Rain City, so I guess we overlook it, right?



On Monday we talked about using real people in historical fiction:

There was a lot of great discussion about research, accuracy and anachronisms.

I couldn't spell libel right to save my life.



On Tuesday the topic turned to how much platform a novelist needs at the query stage.

the answer is none.

Nicole Roder brought up a very interesting point:

This post is a major relief, thank you! However, I'm still confused, and I wonder if the rest of the agenting world agrees with you on this. (I realize you're the QOTKU, but still.) I've seen other advice online that says that writers need either a blog, Twitter, Facebook, or some other social media presence at the querying stage, and that we must update it regularly, or agents won't be interested.

and this even more troublesome stat:

This is bunk.

I think it's very easy for agents at conferences or on Twitter to make bold statements like that, but if you actually did a study of manuscripts read/manuscripts signed you'd find a far different story.

I simply can't imagine a terrific book coming in and an agent not signing the author because they don't have a website. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, those agents are utter idiots. You can always build a platform. Hell, I can have a website up and running for you in three hours, and that's taking time to make sure all the words are spelled right.

As to that stat of of 62% of agents changing their mind, I call bullshit on that too. Now, if you were to ask me if I've googled someone who's queried me, and found weird ass stuff that makes me NOT want to offer, sure. But I do that stuff BEFORE I request a full. Any agent who invests five -ten hours in reading a full manuscript and then does rudimentary web research and finds a nutjob will only do that once. It's a total waste of time.

I've googled my fair share of writers but often times it's to see if they are as nutty as they sound on paper.

The bottom line is again: write something amazing. That's the ONLY thing you can do better than anyone else. Write something I want to read and we'll figure out the rest later.

And remember that some of these agents making this broad pronouncements are young and repeating what they think is true. Give them a couple more years and they'll tell you stuff based on their own experiences instead.



On Wednesday we talked about inventory novels

Julie M Weathers told us about this inventory novel:

Years ago I wrote a suspense novel called DANCING HORSES. It was about a young cutting horse farm manager who was also a rodeo bareback rider. He'd given up rodeo to manage the farm. Then champion horses started dying mysteriously and he suspected they weren't all accidents so he loaded up his horses and quit.

They weren't. The owner was involved with the mob and had hired a horse hit man, yes there is such a thing, so he could collect on the insurance.

Long story short. One of the MC's horses was a colt the owner had given him that was an embryo transfer from a champion mare. At the time AQHA only allowed owners to register one foal from embryo transfer. Since this colt had been born with a crooked leg, he gave it away. The vet cast it and it was fine. The colt the owner kept had zero talent. The colt he gave away was on his way to becoming a champion so the owner swapped out the horses and altered the markings via freeze branding.

A string of murders ensues to cover up the mess. Colton has hooked up with two Cajun cowboys and disappeared on the rodeo circuit and hit men are on his trail. yada yada.

I love the story. Love the characters. Then AQHA changes the rules so owners can register all foals from embryo transfer. That kind of kills a main plot point.

So, yes, timing is everything. DANCING HORSES will never see the light of day even if I felt like finishing it again. It was good practice.

To which I say: never let the facts get in the way of a good story. You know how many readers are going to know about how many foals can be registered from an embryo transfer? About ten. And they all read this blog.



and Rob Ceres had a very good idea:

Julie, not sure why the rules of today should govern your book. Just set in 2006 or whenever works! Sounds like a lot of interesting and unique plot opportunity here.

In other words, once again, Julie is tormenting us by telling us about books we want to read.



Adib Khoram asked

I'm curious what constitutes "inventory." Are manuscripts "inventory" before they're finished—that is, is a rough draft, or half of a rough draft, inventory? Or are they still concepts until the author has typed "THE END?"

I don't really have a definition for inventory. When I'm talking to clients about inventory, generally I mean novels I can read for possible submission. That would mean finished at the very least.


On Thursday I told you about an author signing event with "That Guy", the one with the ideas you'll write and then split the money with.

Stephen Parks asked

Janet, I’m curious what your author would have done if you weren’t present. Do you go through scenarios like this in advance?

All my clients have blanket permission to send all such inquiries to me. They're also told to send all blurb requests through me, and any requests to read manuscripts. Many of them handle these matters on their own of course, but I consider it part of my job to be there for this as needed.

arstoneauthor asked:

I have to ask, have any encounters with "that guy" resulted in a deal?

I can't imagine they have. I have never heard of any of them getting past the "hey, thanks for thinking of me, but I really don't do collaborations" stage with anyone. Generally writers are going to collaborate with people they know, or people recommended to them by an agent or editor.



Escape Artist Linda (and oh my god, what a great name!) offered this:

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon here. The guy was excited. He got carried away.
Who hasn't done that at one time in their lives? Who hasn't made a little bit of an ass of themselves? We all have. I would rather have naivety out there and the enthusiasm of trying, then those who don't spark or try anything. So, I'm not going to diss the poor guy, for having his "cray-cray" moment, but I'm going to ask all of you to remember yours. Oh yes, I can see you blush. We've all got something to blush over. Remember it.

I think your sympathies are misplaced here Escape. This wasn't an over zealous fan. My god, we've ALL got those moments of shame, myself included.

No, this guy wanted to enter into a business partnership with someone he didn't know, in a field for which he had done no research and had not the faintest clue about how it worked. That isn't even hubris, that's just delusion.

Naivety and enthusiasm are great, but most of us recognize when that's ALL we have to offer, and we do some research, ask questions, or generally just hang around with people who know a lot more till we get some stuff figured out.

The first time I had a social engagement with two agents who were much more experienced than I was, I spake not a word the entire meal other than "please" "thank you" "I''ll have the same thing" and "wow, tell me more."

I knew NOTHING compared to these two and I kept my mouth shut for about a year till I had at least learned enough not to sound delusional.



Why we know Julie M Weathers is a southern lady:

When people tell me I should write this book for them, we'll split the money and get rich, I put my arm around their shoulder and smile. "Oh, honey. That's a great idea. I just don't think I could do justice to it though. This story is all yours. It lives in your heart. Truly. I believe you are the only one who could bring it to life the way it deserves. I know you can do this. Just sit down and write for fifteen minutes every day. You'll be amazed at what you accomplish."

"You know, I think you're right."

"Oh, yes. I'm sure I am. I just know these things."

On Friday an author asked about exclusives, and I used the post to remind readers to listen to all advice with a degree of caution (even advice on this blog)


ProfJMarie(JanetRundquist) put it a lot more elegantly:

There is no one right way for all things.

And LeahB asked a very practical question:

So how would you exclusively query a "no response means no" agent? Put querying on hold for the (usual) 6-8 week window they give themselves? Or hope that by saying "exclusive" they'll respond?

kaitlynsage thinks she's going to Carkoon for this (but she's wrong)

I *didn't* take Janet's advice and agreed to an exclusive R&R and I think I made the right decision.

(I am actually, literally withering away to dust as I wait {it really hasn't been that long. I ought to toughen up}. Despite all my big talk about sending my little manuscript unicorn to find the right pasture, I miss it and I want it to come back and snuggle me.)

AND. As painful as the waiting is, I still think that I made the right decision in doing this R&R exclusively. Said agent put a lot of time and thought into helping me fix what was broken in my MS, and it seems like it's only right to let the person who took the time to work with me have the first crack at the book.

Off to Carkoon...

I think letting an agent have first crack at a revise and resubmit is quite alright. Obviously you don't let them have it exclusively for endless amounts of time, but if you've revised on their notes, giving them a headstart seems fair.

I don't ask for exclusives even on R&Rs because it just takes me so damn long to read things.



On Saturday the question was about holding out for big bucks advance


Gayle Carline makes an excellent point:

As a self-pubbed writer, I feel that this person would not do any better in the self-publishing arena than in seeking an agent/publisher. Yes, any yahoo can write something and throw it on Amazon, but if you want to treat your books as a business, you need to invest in their quality. That means hiring an editor (to touch your baby!), hiring a cover designer (to interpret your baby!), having beta readers give you their opinion of your baby (how dare they?!), etc. In other words, you have to make your books as professional as if they'd come from a publishing house.

Then you place them carefully on Amazon and other sites, and what happens? Strangers read them and POST their opinions as reviews. The horror! (Please note, I am using my sarcasm font.)

Miri Baker has my new favorite word with this:

I get the sense that OP also doesn't trust other people to offer constructive feedback on their wordbaby, either.

Wordbaby! I'd seen furbaby for pets before but never wordbaby! Honestly if you think of your novel as your wordbaby, you'll need to let it sit for awhile till it's at least a wordtween before you send it out. In other words: have developed a sense that the book does need to venture out in the world or it will just stagnate to death there in your computer. I'm not going to tell you your baby is ugly, but I am going to tell you if your tween needs to shape up her on her spelling tests.



Angie Brooksby Arcangioli brought up one of the parts of the post I also found troublesome:

...but at least I'll retain my rights From what I understand, agents deal well at negotiating all kinds of rights for their clients. Which rights are OP considering?

Let me be VERY clear: a publishing contract is a license of rights, NOT A SALE. Writers RETAIN those rights. They OWN them. They are licensing the exploitation of those rights as specified in their contract. The idea that you "give up" or "lose" rights is VERY misleading. Of course, if you didn't negotiate the contract very well, or you didn't have an agent or a lawyer, maybe you did give up your rights. My clients do not.



This just underscores my point that unless you understand how publishing actually works, you'll want to be careful about who you listen to and what you believe.


Which brings us to the end of the week and the very sad news that Jackie Collins has died. Her novels brought a great deal of pleasure to  many readers over the years, and that is, I think, one of the best things you can say about any author.


This coming week, His Holiness arrives in New York. We've got an extra chair for him here in the office in case he wants to stop by and discuss some book ideas.




Subheader of the week;

Ah, writers. We're such a charming mix of towering arrogance and crushing self-doubt. It's a wonder more of us aren't killed in our sleep.--kdjames