Writer's Report 2.0

It seems Alice Hoffman didn’t like a review done by Boston Globe freelance book critic Roberta Silman.

Besides giving a critical review of Hoffman’s The Story Sisters, saying, “This new novel lacks the spark of the earlier work. Its vision, characters and even the prose seem tired.” Ms. Silman also gave away much of the story plot.

This so angered Ms. Hoffman, she got on her Twitter account and tweeted to her considerable following of readers that, “Roberta Silman in the Boston Globe is a moron.”

Now Hoffman didn’t start out this way, she at first defended herself saying, “Girls are taught to be gracious and keep their mouths shut. We don’t have to,” and continued, “And we writers don’t have to say nothing when someone tries to destroy us.”

But it seems the more she wrote the angrier she got and then went on the offensive. Besides the “moron” comment Hoffman also stated “Now any idiot can be a critic,” and even tweeted Silman’s phone number and e-mail address, encouraging her readers to “Tell her what u think of snarky critics.”

Once Ms. Hoffman cooled down, she obviously regretted her knee-jerk reaction to the review.

Come Monday morning she deleted her Twitter account and in a prepared statement in part said, “…in the heat of the moment I responded strongly and I wish I hadn’t. I’m sorry if I offended anyone. Reviewers are entitled to their opinions, and that’s the name of the game in publishing. I hope my readers understand that I didn’t mean to hurt anyone and I’m truly sorry if I did.”

The King of Pop, this master entertainer and tortured soul isn’t even gone a week and the big publisher’s are already cashing in as the Associated Press reports:

NEW YORK – The “instant” books on Michael Jackson are coming soon.

People and Life magazine each are preparing commemorative editions, due in August. Tribute books from Triumph Books and Whitman Publishing, both titled “Michael Jackson,” are due by the end of the week.

Ian Halperin, who has written about such musicians as Kurt Cobain and Celine Dion, had been working on a Jackson book when the singer died last week. Halperin’s book, “Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson,” is due in late July.

Who said the publishing process is a long drawn out affair? I guess not so much when there’s quick cash to be had.

And you thought it was tough getting published in the U.S.?

Check out what Chinese authors have to go through:

Here is the Chinese Lanugage version of the book publishing flowchart for our WR2 readers in the East.

A Spanish grandmother who became an Internet sensation after dubbing herself the “World’s Oldest Blogger” has died at 97.

Maria Amelia Lopez, who died Wednesday, began blogging from her home in Galicia two years ago, winning over a large fan base of readers with her eclectic mix of commentary and nostalgia infused with a sharp wit.

Maria Amelia Lopez

She was introduced to the Internet when her grandson set up the blog as a gift to mark her 95th birthday.

“Today it’s my birthday and my grandson, who is very stingy, gave me a blog, when I was 95 years old … and my life changed … now, I can communicate and interact with the world.” she wrote on her first post on amis95.blogspot.com on December 23, 2006.

It proved a great escape for Lopez writing about personal health problems, from trips to the doctor to bouts of dizziness, to her opinion on current events and modern day life.

Using a mix of humor and nostalgia she shared her experiences of getting old and enlightened readers about life during the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

Lopez blogged from her seaside home in Muxia, on the Galician coast, where she was born in 1911. Her musings quickly earned her followers from across the world and she clocked up more than 1.5 million visitors to her blog. Her fame even saw Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero drop in for a chat.

In recent months Lopez was increasingly posting video messages on her blog instead of written texts because cataracts impaired her vision.

In one of her last postings in February she said: “When I’m on the Internet, I forget about my illness. The distraction is good for you — being able to communicate with people. It wakes up the brain, and gives you great strength.”

Her family left a posthumous post, thanking readers for their support. “[There were] 880 days when her blog made her happy… the support she needed to enjoy her last days of life,” they wrote.

“When somebody leaves after 97 years, living with joy from the beginning to the end, we can’t be sad. Wherever you are, grandmother, you will read these comments, all of them without doubt. She will laugh at some, will learn with others, she might get annoyed at the specific ‘language’ used in some … but she will be happy reading all of them.”

This article from CNN: Worst Places to be a Blogger, is a stark reminder to let us not take for granted the fundamental Freedom of the Press we enjoy here in the U.S.

“Myanmar — also known as Burma — is the worst place in the world to be a blogger…A military government restricts Web access and throws people into jail for posting critical material…”

“… One Burmese blogger, Maung Thura, is serving a 59-year prison term for circulating video footage after Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the Committee to Protect Journalists says.”

and Zombies???

That’s right, author Seth Grahame-Smith has taken a classic literary novel of romance and humor and turned it into literary hybrid horror novel.

Smith gives top billing to Jane Austen on the cover of the book because as he admits in an interview he retained 85% of the original text of the story, but endowed the Bennet sisters with martial art skills to deal with the shambling undead.

I first heard about this mashup-novel when I was listening to Mike Mennenga and Mike Stackpole on their Dragon Page Podcast. I’m a fan of zombie novels and movies and couldn’t help but smile and think how frikkin clever this is.

Although Mike and Mike had not read the book, they admitted it is probably pretty good as it ranks very high in Amazon, but they think much of that has to do with the novelty of it. In addition, they panned the process of taking a classic novel available in the public domain, and turning it into some sort mashup hybrid. While they think this sort writing may produce a couple of good, fun to read books, ultimately, however, it will churn out a heap of crappy ones as well.

I agree, but it does sound like a lot of fun though doesn’t it? Just imagine the spin you could put on a story like Othello?

When I started looking into Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, it was fun reading how many people enjoyed this modified classic, never having even considered touching a classic beforehand. It was equally fun seeing the literary crowd howling in outrage over this “abomination”.

My daughter has the patience and zeal to read the old classics and is a HUGE Jane Austen fan. I sent her a couple of links about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies thinking she might come down on the side of the outraged crowd – but was interested to hear her opinion.

To my surprise she was receptive of it thinking it’s “very cool” and would get a copy once she finished with her finals in a couple of weeks.

The original version of Pride and Prejudice is classic regency chick lit – which I would never read, but being a Zed-head, I think I’ll get a copy of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and take a chance. Who knows, I might even like it…

Heather Armstrong began blogging in 2001. She was fired after writing about her job and co-workers on her blog. After eight years, more than 6,900 posts and 1.5 million visitors a month, Heather’s brutally honest and often hysterical musings have been turned into the memoir, ‘It Sucked and then I Cried: How I Had a Baby, a Breakdown, and a Much Needed Margarita’ published by Simon Spotlight Entertainment.

It’s a humorous look at life, relationships, dealing with depression, childbirth and parenthood.

In this recent USA Today interview, Heather talks about her blog and the new book:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-03-25-blogs-heather-armstrong_n.htm

Or listen to Heather on this Podcast interview from the bat segundo show:
http://www.edrants.com/segundo/heather-armstrong-bss-276/

Even better, read Heather’s daily blog entries and pics at Dooce. You are guaranteed to be entertained.

This is the last installment of Dialogue and the Art of War, by Randy Ingermanson.

Yesterday, Randy discussed Point of View and gave examples of how changeable and dynamic dialogue can be just by shifting the POV from one character to another. Today, he explores the subtle language beneath spoken dialogue by using Subtext.
_____________________________________________

Dialogue and the Art of War — Part 5

The Subtlety of Subtext

In the last four issues of this e-zine, I talked about why dialogue is not like “real conversation”, about what makes good dialogue, about the importance of using dialogue tags, and about why Point of View is essential to great dialogue. I made the point repeatedly that dialogue is war.

Let’s remember that there are hot wars and there are cold wars. You don’t need bombs and bazookas to have a war. Sometimes war is a subtle thing, with spies and tea-time diplomacy and softly muted threats on the Red Line to Moscow.

In this issue, I’d like to talk about the use of subtlety in dialogue. In a word, I’d like to talk about Subtexting.

The message received is not always identical to the message sent. For two reasons: People don’t always say what they mean. People don’t always hear what they’re saying.

Let’s look at an example of this in the work of a master of subtexting — Jane Austen.

We’ll take a passage from PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. To summarize the story, our heroine Lizzy Bennett meets an eligible but extremely arrogant and wealthy young man, Mr. Darcy. They clash immediately, and Lizzy is sure he’s the last man on earth she’d ever want to be involved with. She treats him with such a bold impertinence that he is gradually attracted to her.

When he finally asks her to marry him, she rejects him flat out, causing a crisis in his life which teaches him to learn to control his pride. Meantime, Lizzy is learning from Darcy’s friends that he is quite a bit warmer on the inside than he is on the outside. When Lizzy learns that Darcy has paid a large amount of money to quell a scandal in her family, she realizes that she has seriously misjudged him. But neither he nor she seems able to break the interpersonal logjam between them. Until . . .

Darcy’s wealthy aunt, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, hears rumors that Darcy wants to marry Lizzy. Lady Catherine is shocked and outraged, since she intends that her own daughter should marry Darcy. She assumes that these rumors were begun by Lizzie, based on her belief that Lizzie is like herself — willing to do anything in order to get what she wants. Lady C. immediately travels to Lizzie’s home in the country to confront her.

Lady Catherine completely lacks any tact or civility, and in the scene that follows, she says exactly what she thinks, never hearing her own message that Lizzie is no more than a worm to be squashed. Lizzie defends herself with calm politeness. The subtext of her message is that Lady Catherine is a complete idiot — which is true enough.

It’s a battle of wits between two strong personalities. Lizzie’s words are all politeness, but make no mistake — she returns every insult of Lady C.’s with compound interest. My commentary on the subtext will be shown in square brackets.

To the text, then, with Lady Catherine launching the first volley:

“You can be at no loss, Miss Bennett, to understand the reason of my journey hither. Your own heart, your own conscience, must tell you why I come.”

Elizabeth looked with unaffected astonishment.

“Indeed, you are mistaken, Madam. I have not been at all able to account for the honour of seeing you here.”

[Randy sez: Lizzie is perfectly polite here, but she feels no honor in seeing Lady C. here. The irony goes right over the Lady's head, however.]

“Miss Bennett,” replied her ladyship, in an angry tone, “you ought to know, that I am not to be trifled with. But however insincere you may choose to be, you shall not find me so. My character has ever been celebrated for its sincerity and frankness, and in a cause of such moment as this, I shall certainly not depart from it….”

[Randy sez: It's typical of Lady C. that she characterizes her own amazing rudeness as "sincerity and frankness". As we noted last month, everybody thinks they're the good guy. Lady C. interprets Lizzie's ignorance of the rumor as "insincerity" because she assumes Lizzie knows as much as she does.]

“… A report of a most alarming nature, reached me two days ago. I was told, that not only your sister was on the point of being most advantageously married, but that you, that Miss Elizabeth Bennet, would, in all likelihood, be soon afterwards united to my nephew, my own nephew, Mr. Darcy. Though I know it must be a scandalous falsehood; though I would not injure him so much as to suppose the truth of it possible, I instantly resolved on setting off for this place, that I might make my sentiments known to you.”

“If you believed it impossible to be true,” said Elizabeth, colouring with astonishment and disdain, “I wonder you took the trouble of coming so far. What could your ladyship propose by it?”

[Randy sez: Touche, Lizzie! You've called her an idiot while affecting to be concerned for the trouble the lady has gone to.]

“At once to insist upon having such a report universally contradicted.”

“Your coming to Longbourn, to see me and my family,” said Elizabeth coolly, “will be rather a confirmation of it; if, indeed, such a report is in existence.”

“If! do you then pretend to be ignorant of it? Has it not been industriously circulated by yourselves? Do you not know that such a report is spread abroad?”

“I never heard that it was.”

[Randy sez: Lizzie has scored another point by noting the obvious fact that Lady C.'s visit will only fan the flames of this rumor. Again, her subtext is that Lady Catherine is a fool. Here, it feels like the two are reading from different scripts. Lady Catherine assumes Lizzie is behind the rumor. But Lizzie really has never heard of the rumor -- though she welcomes it.]

“And can you likewise declare, that there is no foundation for it?”

“I do not pretend to possess equal frankness with your ladyship. You may ask questions, which I shall choose not to answer.”

[Randy sez: The subtext of Lady C. is that Lizzie is so low-born that such a marriage is not even possible. This is an insult and is not true. Lizzie is the daughter of a gentleman and has the same social standing as Darcy, only less wealthy. Lizzie picks up the word "frankness" from Lady C. and with heavy irony uses it as a replacement for "rudeness".]

“This is not to be borne. Miss Bennett, I insist on being satisfied. Has he, has my nephew, made you an offer of marriage?”

“Your ladyship has declared it to be impossible.”

[Randy sez: Lizzie scores a direct hit. Only an idiot would ask if an impossible thing has occurred. But again, it's subtext. Lizzie politely reminds Lady Catherine of what she said earlier.]

“It ought to be so; it must be so, while he retains the use of his reason. But your arts and allurements may, in a moment of infatuation, have made him forget what he owes to himself and to all his family. You may have drawn him in.”

“If I have, I shall be the last person to confess it.”

[Randy sez: Lady C.'s subtext is, "Lizzie, you're just a slut who lured my poor nephew in." Lizzie's subtext is, "You're an idiot to think a slut would admit to such a thing." The ground is bloody here with subtexted insults. We skip the next couple of paragraphs to get to more subtext.]

“Let me be rightly understood. This match, to which you have the presumption to aspire, can never take place. No, never. Mr. Darcy is engaged to my daughter. Now what have you to say?”

“Only this; that if he is so, you can have no reason to suppose he will make an offer to me.”

[Randy sez: Again, Lady C.'s subtext is that Lizzie is a conniving little home-breaker. Lizzie's subtext is that Lady Catherine is irrational, since Darcy is an honorable man who would never make an offer to one woman while engaged to another. But Lizzie holds a high card here that she hasn't shown Lady Catherine. Darcy has already proposed to Lizzie some months earlier, and she rejected him then. So Lizzie knows that Darcy's "engagement" to Lady Catherine's daughter is no engagement at all.]

The scene goes on for a few more pages, but we’ll let it rest here. Lizzie has won this battle — decisively. Note how restrained her words have been. Lizzie does not need the F-word, the B-word, the A-word, or the S-word. She uses her wits and a forceful subtext to deflect the full frontal assault of Lady Catherine’s wrath.

The scene is all the more powerful for it.

_____________________________________________
Award-winning novelist Randy Ingermanson, “The Snowflake Guy,” publishes the Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine, with more than 15,000 readers, every month. If you want to learn the craft and marketing of fiction, AND make your writing more valuable to editors, AND have FUN doing it, visit: http://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com

Download your free Special Report on Tiger Marketing and get a free 5-Day Course in How To Publish a Novel.

In this fourth installment of Dialogue and the Art of War, Randy Ingermanson talks about Point of View.

Yesterday, Randy whimsically used Dilbert (to great effect) in presenting how to eliminate Dialogue Tags while strengthening the dialogue in the process. By adding Point of View it further enriches the dialogue and gives it even more depth.
_____________________________________________

Dialogue and the Art of War — Part 4

Point Of View

In the last three issues, I talked about why dialogue is not like “real conversation”, about what makes good dialogue, and about the importance of using dialogue tags. In all three cases, it comes down to showing conflict, not telling it. Dialogue is war and you need to show the battle in all its gory glory.

This month, I want to add another dimension to this discussion. The key point is that every war has a “good side” and a “bad side.” (That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, it ain’t necessarily so.)

The “good side” is Us. The “bad side” is Them. War is all about Us against Them. And so is dialogue.

More precisely, dialogue is about Me against Them.

And that brings us to the topic of Point of View (POV). Those of you who’ve ever heard me speak or have worked through my Fiction 101 series know that there is only one goal for the novelist: You must give your reader a Powerful Emotional Experience. Period.

There is no substitute for this. Everything you do as a novelist should be directed to creating that Powerful Emotional Experience.

Remember that emotion is centered in a character, the POV character. In any given scene, there will be ONE POV character. Your goal as a novelist is therefore extremely simple: Put your reader inside the skin of that POV character and give your reader the same Powerful Emotional Experience that the character is having.

Do that and you are a novelist. Fail to do that and you are forever a wannabe, because even your mother will yawn through your writing.

I’m being dogmatic here because I’m right and every published novelist in the world knows it.

How does this relate to dialogue? Simple. In your dialogue, there are two sides: Me and Them. “Me” refers to your POV character. “Them” refers to everyone else.

You MUST show your dialogue through the lens of your POV character. You must.

Remember the wretched dialogue we looked at last month? (If you’ve forgotten, you can look it up in the archives on my web site:)
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/ezine/index.php

Last month, we buffed up that wretched dialogue by adding in action tags. This month, we’ll make it better by choosing a POV character and showing the entire dialogue from within the skin of that POV character. In fact, we’ll do it twice, from two different POV characters. (Warning: it’ll still be wretched dialogue, because you just can’t rescue this abomination, even with proper technique.)

Dialogue #1, from Dilbert’s POV:

“Why are you late again?” Bossbert leaned back in his chair and twirled his pointy hair with his pudgy fingers.

Dilbert smoothed his tie again. The thing still wouldn’t lie flat. This had to be that laundry woman’s fault. She hated him — that was it. “What makes you think I’m late? By Hawaii time, I’m early.”

“Go help Wally.” Bossbert bit into a donut. Jelly ran down his fingers onto the carpet. “He’s behind again.”

Dilbert was sick to death of helping Wally, but he was even more sick to death of arguing with Bossbert.
“Where is he?”

Bossbert shrugged. “How should I know? Just find him!”

“OK, OK, no need to get huffy.” Dilbert tossed his briefcase into his cubicle, grabbed his coffee cup, and scurried down the hall. At least he was rid of the pointy-haired demon from –

“Alice has the design documents.” Bossbert padded along behind him.

Dilbert wondered if life could possibly get any better than this.

Asok the intern raced out of the coffee room. “Dilbert, help us get Wally out of the trash compactor!”

Dilbert’s heart began racing, but he was pretty sure Asok’s news was too good to be true.

Bossbert whacked his hand against his pointy hair. “This place is a zoo.”

Dilbert stared at him. Could you die of irony?

* * *

Dialogue #2, from Bossbert’s POV:

“Why are you late again?” Bossbert leaned back in his chair and twirled his hair with his fingers, wondering what kind of sad excuse Dilbert was going to make this time.

Dilbert smoothed at his tie like he did every day. It sprang back up again like it did every day. “What makes you think I’m late? By Hawaii time, I’m early.”

And how was a boss going to get anything done with an employee like that? Maybe the only hope for Dilbert was osmosis off the star employee in the group. “Go help Wally.” Bossbert bit into a donut. Jelly ran down his fingers onto the carpet. Alice had probably sabotaged the donuts again. “He’s behind again.” And no wonder, when all Wally’s teammates were such screwoffs.

Dilbert got that helpless look on his face that could drive you nuts if you let it. “Where is he?”

Bossbert shrugged. He was not going to let Dilbert get to him. He was NOT. “How should I know? Just find him!”

“OK, OK, no need to get huffy.” Dilbert tossed his briefcase into his cubicle, grabbed his coffee cup, and scurried down the hall.

That kind of evasion was just typical of the little worm. Bossbert wasn’t going to let him off the hook. He hurried after Dilbert. “Alice has the design documents.” You had to spell things out for a guy like Dilbert.

Asok the intern raced out of the coffee room. “Dilbert, help us get Wally out of the trash compactor!”

Bossbert whacked his hand against his head. Thirteen months and fifteen days till retirement. IF these monkeys didn’t give him a stroke first. “This place is a zoo.”

* * *

Like I said, there’s not a lot you can do with a scene this horrible, but we did our best here. In Dialogue #1, we showed the war from Dilbert’s side, and Bossbert was the bad guy. Everything Dilbert does has a reason. Everything Bossbert does is inane.

In Dialogue #2, it’s the reverse. Now Bossbert is the smart guy, and Dilbert is the dork.

We achieved these effects with a little interior monologue woven into the dialogue. Interior monologue is the train of thoughts inside the POV character’s head. A little interior monologue goes a long way toward getting your reader inside the skin of your POV character.

Of course, you need more that that to write great dialogue. You need stakes. And in the Dilbert/Bossbert scenes above, there really aren’t any stakes. Next month, we’ll look at some examples of scenes with stakes that are a bit higher.

_____________________________________________
Award-winning novelist Randy Ingermanson, “The Snowflake Guy,” publishes the Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine, with more than 15,000 readers, every month. If you want to learn the craft and marketing of fiction, AND make your writing more valuable to editors, AND have FUN doing it, visit: http://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com

Download your free Special Report on Tiger Marketing and get a free 5-Day Course in How To Publish a Novel.

_____________________________________________
Tomorrow: “The Subtlety of Subtext”
_____________________________________________