Hints, Inferences, and Foreshadowing, and Hurting My Future Career as a Writer

[inverarity]

So, I have alluded before to the fact that I have a vague intention of trying to get published one of these days. There are a lot of reasons why I've never made a serious effort to do, and why I'm still spending more time writing fan fiction than I am working on my novel, but let's just say that I pretty much see publishing a novel as something on my Bucket List, not a career ambition; even if I do get published, I'm unlikely to quit my day job. So I don't worry a whole lot about whether I am "building an audience" with my blog (there are also reasons why I don't use my real name here, mostly to do with (1) an aversion to publicity, and (2) there are some really bugfuck crazy people on the internets) or whether I am "hurting my future career" as a writer.

Which is a good thing, because according to Regan Leigh, who has apparently managed to join the Cool Kids Club and become besties with a bunch of other YA authors despite not having been published yet herself, writing negative reviews is something aspiring writers should never, ever do.

Okay, in fairness, that's a guest post written by Leigh's friend Susan Dennard, not Leigh herself. Dennard apparently has written one novel, due to be published next year, and here is what she says:

Trust me: agents google you. If they find your blog/twitter/Goodreads/whatever and see you’ve bashed an author or bashed a book or even declared in the politest of tones that you “disliked the author’s use of alternating first person POV” or you “felt the characters were two-dimensional”, you’re ruining your chances of getting an agent.

(Of course, this is not always the case, but it is often the case. Some agents may overlook this or disagree entirely, but it’s better to play it safe!)

Before I went on sub, my agents warned me to stay professional, keep my online presence calm and clean, and avoid negative reviews, comments — anything. Just like “talking bad” about a book can keep you from getting an agent, it will also keep you from getting a book deal.

Trust me: editors google you. And TRUST ME: editors may love your book, but hate your online presence — and that means you won’t get published.

I don't know either Regan Leigh or Susan Dennard, nor have I read anything they've written (I don't even follow their blogs; I came across that link elsewhere), so I have nothing against them. I'm sure they're perfectly nice people, and I wish them every success in their writing ambitions.

But not to put too fine a point on it, I think Susan Dennard is full of it. I'll risk ruining my chances of ever getting a book deal by saying that.

First of all, on the one hand she says "this is not always the case" but on the other, she pretty much asserts as a blanket statement that if you say anything bad about another author or politely dislike an author's use of alternating first person POV, you're ruined, ruined!

Look, I have no doubt that some aspiring writers do blow opportunities by shooting off their mouths where a prospective agent or editor can read about it. If your online presence is that of an asshole who's always getting into flamewars, yes, I can see an agent thinking twice about whether she wants to work with you. No one wants to be trying to represent a new author who's likely to make herself the next star of fandom_wank, and no editor wants to have her publisher being associated with the latest round of Author!Crazy bouncing around the Twittersphere.

And yes, I know there are authors who have thin egos and will try to shun you/badmouth you if you've said anything negative about them or their writing.

But holy crap, if "playing it safe" and making sure you never offend anyone in the industry by expressing an honest opinion is the price you have to pay for getting published, I'll stick to fan fiction or just put my novel up on Smashwords.

If you write something good enough to be published, yes, perhaps an agent or two might back off if they don't like your online persona, but not every agent is that risk-averse. Susan Dennard's assertion that a negative review of a book you didn't like will make you publishing anathema is, I think, just silly and more self-protection than honest advice.

This meme going around that writers better not say anything bad another writer's books is getting on my last nerve. It seems to be especially prevalent in the YA genre, which seems to be high school-cliquey beyond belief (seriously, all the authors seem to know each other and puff each other up), but I've seen it on a lot of writing sites. I've read more than a few rants from both aspiring and published authors asserting one or more of the following:

1. Writers should not criticize books. You'll damage your career.
   
2. Readers should not criticize books. You're not a writer, so how dare you?
   
3. You should only write a review if you love the book. If you didn't like it, you should say nothing.
   
4. Even on Goodreads and Amazon. People who give books one or two stars are ignorant haters.
   
5. You should only criticize a book if you're a professional reviewer. "Unqualified" people shouldn't be trashing books with their unqualified opinions.
   
6. Professional reviewers are just bitter writer-wannabes and since they can't write themselves, you shouldn't listen to their opinions.
   

Now, obviously (fortunately) not all writers have that kind of attitude. Not even all YA writers do (though most seem to). But it's not uncommon. I am seeing more and more of the same Special Precious Snowflake Syndrome that makes fanfic writers such frail flowers that they explode in wank and tears when someone gives them concrit spreading to the YA authorsphere, I guess as more former fanfic writers manage to become published authors (and usually they write YA because YA is where you can keep writing your shippy squee-fics while calling it pro-fic).

Of course, I also think that in general, I'm not mean or assholeish; I don't write anything that would get me in trouble if my friends, family, or employer were to read it. And I do try not to say mean things about authors personally even if I hated their books. (Okay, I have called Anne Rice batshit crazy. But everyone calls Anne Rice batshit crazy.) But I know for a fact that at least two authors have read my reviews and been unhappy about them. Would I ask them for a blurb for my book were it to be published? No. Would I feel like I could look them in the eye if I were sitting next to them at a con panel? Sure.

For future reference, if someone trashes my writing (as opposed to me personally), I might not like it, but I'm not going to hold a grudge or try to trash that person's writing in return. I hope every author would be grown-up enough not to play these stupid high school games.

It's a good thing no one ever told these authors that you shouldn't bash other authors. And of course no one delivers epic snark like Mark Twain.

Alexandra Quick and the Stars Above

One of these days, I am going to write an epic post about what Harry Potter, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and The Wire have in common, but in the meantime, I'm thinking a lot about the back stories and minor character interactions going on "off-screen" in Alexandra Quick, things I don't write into the story because it would be too tangential, but which affect other interactions. So sometimes I drop hints, or casual references, and I must admit, I take an author's delight in seeing if any readers will pick up on these "easter eggs" and draw the correct conclusion. Of course, people often make the wrong inference. Which raises the question of whether they are really wrong or not, which ties into the whole issue of what's actually "canon" -- only the words on the page? Things the author has said, whether within the books or outside them? Every idea that's in the author's head, even if unwritten? (There is a couple, for example, that I see marrying someday, but not only will it not happen in the series, it will probably never be mentioned even in the Epilogue and if I did mention it, people would say WTF? because even by that time, there probably won't have been enough written to hint at the relationship. But in my head, that's what happens in the future. It's like Cho marrying a Muggle -- canon or not?)

The other thing really gnawing at me right now is laying down sufficient foreshadowing to make everything that follows make sense, without tying myself to something that I want to change later. As I've said before, I'm a loose outliner. I have a general idea of the direction the entire series will take and what the major events and outcomes will be, but there are a lot of details I fill in as I go along, and lots of major plot points I haven't figured out how to connect yet and won't until I get that far. So I want to establish a foundation for them now, but I'm afraid two or three books later I'll be realizing I made a big "Oops!" in book three or four because at that time I didn't know for certain how I was going to resolve things later.

"No. I am your father."

I just finished a big long conversation between Alex and her father -- probably the longest conversation they've had yet. And I'm not satisfied with it. It's probably going to be rewritten half a dozen times even before it goes to my betas. See, he knows lots of things and has lots of secrets, and Alexandra is getting really tired of not knowing these things. A lot of adults have been keeping secrets from her. This sort of thing (important information that the protagonist doesn't know but other characters do) generates a certain amount of tension between narrative suspense and suspension of disbelief, and it's one of the things that really annoyed me about Rowling's plots. A lot of the secrets that were kept from Harry for years (especially by Dumbledore) didn't and shouldn't have been kept secret! Why didn't they sit him down when he first arrived at Hogwarts and say, "Okay, kid, here's the deal, and why your life is going to suck for the next seven years"?

Well, the narrative reason was because authors and readers both love Big Reveals as a series progresses. But the plot reason was... umm, Dumbledore was a tool? No, he wanted to "protect" Harry and give him a few years of blissful ignorance, I guess. Good plan, Dumbles.

So, there is a little of that going on in Alexandra Quick, but I am trying to handle it better. Not sure if I am succeeding. There are reasons why adults are keeping secrets from her. Some are good reasons, and some are just plain selfish reasons, but I hope they at least make sense from the characters' perspective. (Needless to say, when Alexandra learns of these things -- and there are going to be some great big whoppers in AQATSA -- she is not going to think they were good reasons.)

And if I sound like I'm arrogantly being all "I can do better than Rowling," trust me, I know there is plenty of stuff I don't do nearly as well as she did. Alexandra Quick is a tribute to Harry Potter and it parallels the original series somewhat, and yes, sometimes I deliberately address issues because I don't like how Rowling addressed them, but I'm not trying to do a "rewrite, except better" of Harry Potter.

The book, like this post, keeps swelling in size

So, I've just finished Chapter 19, and am at 124,634 words. I think I am at about the halfway point, or perhaps past it. Or not. I can't say how big the final draft will be; I am still aiming to not suffer from book-bloat syndrome and would like to keep it below the length of AQATLB, but it's possible this will end up being the longest book in the series yet. I don't know! Why can't I do a better job of outlining? Arrgh. Some chapters are killing me.

Here, have a wordle. (Click for larger image.)



(Bonus factoid/tease: I know what the titles of books six and seven will be, but I haven't yet decided on the title of book five.)

Comments

[conuly]

"The nicest child I ever knew was Charles Augustus Fortescue...."

One of Belloc's poems, about a man who gets rich by being a miserable suck-up and never taking a stand on anything. What a way to live!

[(Anonymous)]

1. I have no idea where this idea that "professionalism" entails never criticizing came from. Maybe it's my background in philosophy--philosophers show respect by tearing apart each other's ideas.

It may be just a quirk of YA authors, though. Adam Roberts is a semi-famous sci-fi author, and he's been totally ravaging (http://punkadiddle.blogspot.com/2010/03/robert-jordan-wheel-of-time-1-eye-of.html) the Wheel of Time series on his blog.

Really, someone trashing your writing is almost a compliment. They care enough about it to rant, after all. Totally ignoring you is kind of a worse insult. (the whole "the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference" thing)

2. I subscribe to Death of the Author, so I think the author's interpretation of her work is no more valid than anyone else's. I understand that's a minority point of view in fandom, though.

3. The book should be as long as it needs to. In other words, length in itself isn't a problem; unnecessary length is a problem. But as long as each paragraph advances plot or reveals character, don't worry too much about the total length.

4. I'm always amused at how often your characters look at each other. Of course, I have my own writing quirks, so that's kind of glass house territory. >_>

Other things I noticed: "Grue" again (I'm going to be wondering about this for months), "Bathsheba," "pirate" (probably a one-off joke or something, but I have hope!), "seven" and "seventh" (the only number--fetch quest?), "mistletoe" (no further comment).

-TealTerror

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I'm always amused at how often your characters look at each other.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to get rid of all (or at least most) of those looks and stares, but I seem to write them copiously into every conversation. It's definitely one of my hardest-to-break habits.

I'm not sure why Mr. Grue's return is puzzling you so much, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, right! That guy! I knew that! Heh...heh...

...

v_v

-TealTerror

[(Anonymous)]

"there are also reasons why I don't use my real name here, mostly to do with (1) an aversion to publicity, and (2) there are some really bugfuck crazy people on the internets"

Lol, and none of those people read your LJ, no, none at all... ::snort::

Do you need to start putting a quarter in a jar every time you use a form of the verb 'to look'?

So this is real life...

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

If I did, according to the word-count I just did, I'd have over $141 in the jar now. Ouch.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, given that we as humans rely primarily on our sense of sight beyond any other sense, it makes sense that verbs revolving around sight or seeing are fairly common in your story. I wouldn't really worry about it.

~DarkSov

[malinbe.livejournal.com]

I'd much rather read an author that's capable of critical thinking than an author who tries hard to be lurved by everyone in the industry because they'd rather sell than be honest or say anything remotely worthwhile.

Then again, I might not get into an author who I know to be a total asshole. Truth be told, most of the authors I read are dead so I don't really worry about their online presence.
***

Dumbledore was a tool, but also he kept all the secrets from Harry because he couldn't afford to give him the chance to back out. The more you think about it, the more ruthless old Albus seems to be.
***

You really need to replace some "looked"s.

[(Anonymous)]

I have been picking up Ricky Attanasio again, and I hope I shall at least complete the story I left unfinished at least two years ago. But one thing I can say with confidence: two things my story will not have - older characters who know everything - or almost everything - and withhold facts from Ricky because he's too young (or something), and one big single villain with whose defeat the story ends. As a matter of fact, much of the long-term series I envisage is the progressive discovery, by both Ricky and his father (plus a bunch of friends he will acquire along the way, a rollerskating girlfriend, and the Necromancer of Florence) of successive and increasingly dangerous nests of different kinds of evil, which will force the rather powerless Italian Ministry to develop strength or be destroyed. Ricky is going into his own native country like an explorer into the mysteries and terrors of an unknown continent.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The above was to do with your considerations about Alexandra Quick, Dumbledore, foreshadowing, and allied matters. As for good manners in reviewiing - when I was comics reviewing, there was a single writer, Alan Grant, for whom I made up my mind that I would never write a negative review. If he wrote a turkey, I would pass it over in silence and let someone else give him the bad news - comics fandom usually had volunteers enough. But that was because Mr. Grant had been greatly and unnecessarily kind to me, had in fact acted like a complete gentleman, for no reason other than - I suppose - that he is one; and that was my way of saying thanks. I could not imagine doing it for any other reason.

[ardys-the-ghoul.livejournal.com]

I recently lost all respect for an author whose work I enjoyed as a teenager when I witnessed him being a total asshole in an online discussion (I'll do him the service of not mentioning his name, although he really doesn't deserve such a kindness)--because of his total unprofessionalism and his "I Know Better Than You Because I'm a Published Author and Everyone Loves Me" attitude during said discussion. I will likely never read any of his work again, despite the fact that I used to enjoy it: My disgust at his behavior swamps over any and all of those positive feelings.

But I agree with you whole-heartedly; I think a person can be professional and respectful, and still deliver honest criticism; and doing so should not harm a person's chances of being published.

Personally, I would value a well thought out, well-written negative review far more than twenty vapid "OMG, YOU ARE TEH BEST WRITER EVAR!!!" reviews. I would also trust the writer of the former to write a book worth publishing infinitely more than the writer of the latter.

I try to be polite even when I didn't like a writer's work, and I try to acknowledge what a writer does well even if I didn't like the book on a whole. I think if they are serious about their writing, they deserve that much--but by the same token, they also deserve my honest opinion, because I would expect the same treatment in return.

I am serious about eventually being a published author--that is, if I died without having published anything, I would feel very unfulfilled and would probably linger around as a ghost making life hell for the living. But, seriously, I hope to actually get something published within the next year. That goal is not, however, going to prevent me from writing an honest review if I didn't like a book, because I value honesty very highly. And I do agree with Anonymous--indifference is worse than hatred.

All that aside, everyone calls Anne Rice batshit crazy because Anne Rice is batshit crazy. And I didn't love Mark Twain nearly as much before I read "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," but now he's just about my favorite person ever. Seriously, I think Mark Twain was History's First Sporker. (I think there was an earlier example of Epic Snark I read once, but now I can't remember who/what it was.)

Dumbledore--I have to say, I subscribe to the belief that Dumbledore's silence about certain things that Harry really needed to know was selfish, in that he really loved Harry (like the grandson he never had), and couldn't bring himself to say the things he knew would give Harry pain, and kept putting it off until he ran out of time. It's selfish because the fact that it would hurt Harry to know, even though he needed to know, would hurt Dumbledore to tell him. This is quite aside from the fact that not telling him was putting a whole lot of other people needlessly in danger--the "greater good" thing got kind of forgotten for awhile, supplanted by his own personal need to protect Harry.

I also think that the infamous "glint of triumph" at the end of Book 4 meant that Dumbledore, even then, knew that V's usage of Harry's blood gave Harry a defense against death, because he must have known or at least suspected, even then, that Harry had become a Horcrux. I don't think he could have told Harry, "It's okay, you have a defense against death," because Harry had to believe he was going to die fully for his sacrifice to mean anything. Maybe this is obvious to everyone else and I'm just out of the loop, but I had to throw it out there.

I think Dumbledore was being absolutely truthful when he told Harry that he hadn't told him a lot of things because he kept telling himself, "Oh, he's too young to know." It was really for his own benefit, not Harry's--he just couldn't bring himself to say it.

Honestly, though, I think that makes me appreciate Dumbles more as a character, because it makes him seem more human--in the first few books he almost seems omnipotent and incapable of failure. But he certainly did fail, in his duties towards Harry. That's my opinion on the thing, anyhow.

[ardys-the-ghoul.livejournal.com]

Uh, wow, Epic Comment is Epic. Sorry about that.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I like epic comments!

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I would value a well thought out, well-written negative review far more than twenty vapid "OMG, YOU ARE TEH BEST WRITER EVAR!!!" reviews
Far more? I don't know. Considering how scarce reviews are, anyone who lets me know that they enjoyed my work does me a big favour. There is one exception: the person who evidently has failed to get it, who sometimes will actually praise the worst stuff, and do so for reasons that mean nothing to you. But otherwise, even if you can't give more than a row of exclamation marks, do it; there's a poor attention-starved writer out there who will be really grateful to you for them.
Having said that, I do agree that an intelligent neutral or even negative review is more of a compliment to a writer than just the sound of two hands clapping. But not everyone can deliver one, and even the people who only tell you they loved it at least tell you that you have reached someone.

Darn darn darn....

[fpb.livejournal.com]

...that was me up there. Still having trouble with cookies and with an execrable Dell Latitude that should never have been built.

Re: Darn darn darn....

[ardys-the-ghoul.livejournal.com]

I might feel differently if I got more negative reviews.

I want constructive criticism so I can improve my writing, but all I get is, "I like it, you should write more." I mean, okay, it's nice to know that people like what you're writing, but at least tell me what about it you liked. That's what I really mean by that comment: I, personally, as a writer who wants to get better, value well-written negative reviews more than single-sentence positive reviews.

I did make the comment as a personal opinion; I know there are other people who would feel differently, so I don't expect everyone to agree.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_silverfox/]

But the plot reason was... umm, Dumbledore was a tool? No, he wanted to "protect" Harry and give him a few years of blissful ignorance, I guess. Good plan, Dumbles.
It never seemed so off to me - with the small exception that it doesn't go so well with Dumbledore telling Harry in the cave that it's Voldemort's mistake to underestimate underage wizards.
It seems Dumbledore's generally rather secretive. Perhaps he enjoyed being the only one to know, or perhaps the betrayal of Harry's parents by an order member made him more cautious about secrecy. Every person who knows might accidentally or deliberately let it slip in front of a Death Eater. And when he first arrived at school Harry was only 11 and knew nobody in the wizarding world. How could he be sure who was trustworthy and who wasn't, or expected to keep such important information to himself? ("Hey kid, there's this super powerful madman and you need to either kill him or die trying. Be good and don't tell anybody now.")
I'm also getting the impression that there's a bit of a culture gap between Europe and America concerning how seriously adults take children. I consider it pretty normal for an adult, especially a teacher to assume that 'just a child' isn't ready to deal with an issue or shouldn't have to deal with it yet.

That said, Alexandra is American and your creation, so her story needs to make sense from an American and especially your perspective. (Besides a larger variety of reasons can only make the story more interesting.)

[(Anonymous)]

You can certainly criticize another novel in a constructive way--I see no issue with that. That's what philosophers do. They don't "bash" each other or tear each other down negatively. They debate.
I think what Dennard was really trying to say is: think twice before saying something. If you are about to go on submission and you're serious about getting your novel published, then Hells Yah, play it safe! Why put up another road block in your path? But if you also want your agents and editors and readers to accept you--bashing and all--then do so. Will you never get an agent because of that? Well, I guess it depends how nasty and non-constructive the criticism gets. But when you do get an agent, you'll get someone that gets YOU. And isn't that most important anyway?

It's really hard to get published. Really, really hard. Try to remember that when you see posts like Dennard's. And if you've read further, you'll note that this isn't the first novel she's written. Just the first one to make it.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

You can certainly criticize another novel in a constructive way--I see no issue with that. That's what philosophers do. They don't "bash" each other or tear each other down negatively. They debate.
I think what Dennard was really trying to say is: think twice before saying something.

Except Dennard is very clearly saying that even the most polite and constructive criticism should be considered verboten to any aspiring author because some other author might get her feelings hurt and then you will be forever excluded from sitting at the Big Kids Table. I've got no respect for that sort of suck-up I'll-do-anything-to-get-published attitude.

Rhemus wrote

[(Anonymous)]

Keep on writing those negative reviews.

Not only does it give you a list of cliches you should avoid like the plague...

But also, negative reviews give you practise in entertaining your audience.

A writer's duty is to entertain the Audience.

(fanmail)

[(Anonymous)]

Your writing is awesome! I'm a long-time fan of Alexandra Quick, and I'd be sure to buy anything you publish.