Half is Better Than Nothing

After working through some edits from my latest reader, I have decided to answer half of the question. I'm splitting the story and attempting the rewrites to the beginning and to Finley's and Edward's story lines.

In one of Q. Lindsey Barrett's classes ( I think it was structured revision) she suggested that after you get to a first draft you might want to start over and rewrite the whole thing again - from scratch. The air was sucked out of the room as every struggling writer gasped in horror. Or maybe that was just my response. After laboring for months or years, the idea is almost unthinkable.

I've spent the last several weeks turning the story over in my mind, trying to balance staying true to the original (which is paced very slow and methodical) and allowing Amelia Rider to stand on her own two feet.

Of all the readers who read the whole thing, none suggested that the storyline was hugely flawed. Once they got into it, they seemed to really get into it. So, at this point, it is probably good enough for my shelf, for me to reread occasionally, and to live with all my other stories that are meant for my enjoyment.

But, the challenge is striking. Is it possible to rewrite the beginning in action? Is it worthwhile to show what Finley is up to in Volume Three (something, as a writer, that I always knew where he was and what he was doing but now ponder showing)? Can I make Edward, as valiant, flawed, and virtuous as Valancourt, but propel him into the twenty-first century with a modern feel? I think I nailed two of the three but you would be surprised how hard it is to write a virtuous, twenty-first century male character. Virtuous men, that are desirable to a modern woman, seemed to have gone the way of the dinosaur.

And so, while I don't plan to rewrite the whole thing from beginning to end, I have begun to dismantle the story and to weave the new story lines into the fabric of the tale. I'm departing further from the original than I intended but I started this whole project on a mere whim last October anyway. Besides, what am I afraid of? Are there adaptation police that might arrest me?

In the end, I may end up with two versions of this story for the ol' bookshelf. Or I may try the rewrites and fail in the attempt. It is entirely possible that I might butcher any beauty out of the story and end up in tears at the end of the experiment. But, I have decided that trying and failing is more appealing to me than not trying at all.

I'm plunging in again and as usual I have some songs on my mind when it comes to certain characters. Since I will be attacking Finley the most, I have a little tribute for him.

(And if you are one of the few who has read the story, you know how cheeky he can be.)

Travis
U16 Girls



Bare Jr.
You Blew Me Off




Muse
Uno

Gulp.

The Great Question

In my last post, I talked about some agent interest. However, I also gave the fun facts about publishing (easier to be struck by lighting on a sunny day).

So, the great question that I have been fussing over that last week is what path will I attempt? Should I do the work necessary to change the beginning scene to one of action simply because it might sell better or will I stick with the slow, mournful air that I prefer?

I also have toyed with the idea of writing Finley's adventures post volume two. I've always known what he is up to during that time but I never wrote the scenes because I wanted some ambiguity and a bit of quiet desperation for Amelia. However, Finley is Finley and he is very busy being naughty and devoted. I wish he weren't so fun to write.

I heard back from my latest reader (I know you have probably lost count by now). She has read some of my other work and she always gives great constructive criticism. In addition to my thoughts on Fin, she told me she wanted more of Edward as well. I told her about some of the rewrites I planned and she said she would love to read it again. I rarely say on here what my readers specifically say - they can share it - but I rarely do - but I feel blessed to have such a willing reader who will read the same story more than once for me. It can be taxing and I really appreciate it.

However, I got sidetracked. Who do I think I am? Richard Walter? Ah, back to the point. Most young adult fiction (about 80%) is written in the first person. Ms. Editor asked me why I chose third as opposed to first - since third is less popular for young adult. I told her that I wanted to show some of the other characters (specifically Edward) away from Amelia. (Ms. Editor was the only one of my appointments who had read the original and so she knew what I meant.) Also, the original was written in third (and loosely at times - the way I did it).

Now there are some writers who write the protagonist in first and the antagonist in third. That is one option. I have toyed with the idea. The major rewriting doesn't scare me. Death and Life is in first person and there is something very freeing about writing inside the character's head. However, if I do attempt to write Finley's exploits into the third volume I still think third is the most flexible - some might say too flexible the way I employ it - but since Ms. Editor didn't mind it and there are a few plot points that hinge directly on the movement of perspective, even within a scene, I think I would maintain the fluid way I tell the story and keep it in third.

But, is it worth it? Is it worth it to add scenes and rewrite the beginning?

I think I may try it to see if I can do it. After all, I wrote this adaptation on a whim to begin with - just to see if I could do it.

But, the other question, the question about whether I will ever submit any pages to anyone again is still out there. The chances of succeeding are slim and I am not truly convinced that I would want to have to change my story in a way that would make it commercially viable. Changing a few scenes here or there is one thing but altering Amelia's journey to reflect one that would be punchy enough to sell is another.

This is the question. And, right now, the answer is unknown.

Writers' Conference 2011

I recently attended a conference for writers and I thought I would mark some of my thoughts from the weekend.

First, an overview. It took place over two and a half days and included keynote speakers, lectures, classes, and meetings (both formal and informal) with agents and editors.

Highlights:

Q. Lindsey Barrett -Writer

A middle-aged woman with wild red, dyed streaks in her hair, Q. Lindsey taught several writing classes over the weekend and did a fabulous job every single time. (I'll show you why I think she did a fabulous job in just a moment.)

She spoke at the rate of a hundred miles and hour and I had a devil of a time trying to keep up with all of the incredible writing tips she threw out. My hand didn't thank her but my head certainly did. Excellent!

Marc Resnick - Editor for a Publisher

He talked about the publishing process from the time a writer finds an agent to the time the book hits the shelves. It was a concise, ordered, clear explanation of the very long, sometimes tedious process.

This may not sound like it was tremendously interesting but it was and furthermore he was one of the few presenters that stuck to his topic. But we will get to more of that problem in the disappointment section.

Fun Fact from Marc (who does mostly non-fiction):

It takes about two years from the time you get the book in an agent's hands to the time it hits the shelves. That's if you ever even get your work sold.

Which brings me to the next fun fact. Agents only accept about 5% of what they are queried. And then Editors (publishing houses) only buy about 5% of projects that agents query them.

Conclusion: The odds are stacked against any writer at any given time. And yet we still end up with crap in the book marketplace. Amazing!

Disappointments:

Both Keynote Speakers were a disappointment.

However, the second one really grated on me. His name is Richard Walter and he is a screenwriter and faculty at UCLA. Why did he suck? His keynote address title was, "The Talent Myth: Why a Little Bit of Talent and a Lot of Discipline Will Take Writers Further Than the Other Way Around." Catchy right? However, he proceeded to tell a half dozen stories about how he just stumbled into opportunities at different Hollywood parties. He peppered these stories with political rhetoric that he kept apologizing for and then followed up with more political rhetoric. He didn't ever address the idea of 'a lot of discipline'. What a chump! He wasted my time. I managed to miss his lecture later that morning titled, "Training Hacks and Whores." I think I'll survive without that 'vital' information, thank you very much!

Most of the Lectures Given By Agents

They weren't 'Richard Walter bad' but they also weren't nearly as helpful as I had hoped they would be. Let me illustrate what they lacked.

Several of the agents would start out by saying, "You need a strong beginning."

Okay.

Here is why Q. Lindsey Barrett was such a superstar and maybe it is because she is a writer and not an agent. This is what Q. Linsdey said.

"Start with conflict. Here's the definition of conflict. Two dogs, one bone. Go."

Do you see the difference? The agents information was too generic to be really helpful.

Here's another example.

Agent - "Don't make your character look in the mirror and describe themselves. I see that everyday."

Okay. That's helpful.

Q. Lindsey - "To describe a character pretend that you have just moved to a new town and you have made a new best friend. This new best friend asks about your old best friend. How would you describe her?

'Tell me about your best friend' Technique

***She's a little wild and impetuous, enjoys a cluttered house, and has the sweetest soul of anyone you will meet.***

Use these details to describe your characters rather than tall, blue eyes, and brown hair.

Use the 'best friend gone wrong' details for villains."

While the agent's advice was technically helpful, it was very basic. Q. Lindsey's advice was practically helpful and had depth.

Last example:

Agent: "You have to write a page turner. Subtlety doesn't work."

Q. Lindsey Barrett: "When you are trying to figure out the details of a scene, the details that matter are the ones that show the emotion of the scene. Picture a bar, sawdust on the floor, happy honky tonk music on the jukebox. What is the emotion?

And be careful about crying. If your characters cry, your reader doesn't have to. How else can you convey that emotion?"

To top off all of this brilliant goodness, Q. Lindsey taught a class on Structured Revision. She went point for point and her advice is very helpful. She mapped out what exactly you are looking for in first revision, what you do in second revision, pulling out the highlighters and marking every different sense in the third revision etc, etc.

Feedback

Lastly, I should probably mention the appointments that I had one on one with the agents and editors. You could pitch a project, ask questions, etc. The Editor got an advanced reading of Amelia Rider. All three want to see more.

The first agent wants to see about fifty pages and a synopsis of Amelia Rider and a synopsis and a few chapters of Death and Life. I hadn't planned to pitch Death and Life because (sheepish blush) I haven't done the necessary editing work on it yet. However, she liked the pitch for Amelia Rider and she wanted to know about some of my other projects. She also said I pitched really well.

I met with the Editor next and I think I liked her the best, simply because she asked in depth questions and she had read the advanced reading and so knew what my writing style was like. This was more than a good pitch. This was, "Is it crap or not?" I was also able to ask her what she thought of my lassiez-faire style with regard to switching point of view (something that really bugged one of my readers - but the other readers that I asked said it was fun). Anyway, Ms. Editor said it didn't bother her. She thought I made it work and she wouldn't have me change it. She did want me to start the story in action, as opposed to the mourning scene with a slow beginning, and then she wanted me to flash back to the information. This has been an issue that I have struggled with. I wanted to show the protagonist in her natural setting before I obliterated it (and I do in the trip to Italy) - also for Amelia I wanted to show her mourning her mother. I start the story at a quiet, low point. However, in Death and Life, I start the first scene with my main character already dead, and she flashes back to tell us how she died so I know that value of starting a scene with a little oomph. I will address my thoughts on this conundrum further in the next post.

I met with another agent next after a long day and she also requested to see the project. She wants three chapters.

In short, I don't know if I will go to another writing conference again. But, if I ever get the chance to take another class from Q. Lindsey Barrett, you can bet I will be there.