Improvements to your craft?

Over the first few years that you spent in a serious effort to complete and publish a novel, how did your craft/skill/technique change and/or improve?

Did you start out weak on grammar and spelling, with dramatic improvements over time? Did you discover appropriate use of passive voice? Did you switch from third persion omniscient to first person? Did you develop your ability to understand your characters, add subtexts, foreshadowing, plot twists, etc., etc., etc.?

What I'm looking for here is assurances that writers often start out weak in one or more areas and that they then hone their skills until they finally hit the market at the right time with the right novel and it gets published.

What I don't want to hear is that most published writers were strong right out of the gate and their success boiled down to finding somebody who would trust in the manuscripts being offered. I don't want to hear that because I can see plenty of weaknesses in the manuscript that I'm working on, and wonder how long it will take me to work through the improvements needed to make it marketable.

I hear stories of authors who pushed a manuscript for years before it got published. Were they making modifications to it and/or rewriting it as their craft improved, or did they just have to wait for the right opening? I can imagine both situations happen, but is there anything to suggest that the former is more typical for a first novel to be published?

All of this is assuming traditional publishing houses - advances, royalties, etc.

JB

well--

That's a lot of questions.

I won't say that writers come out of the gate perfect. In fact most (I'd say all, but there are exceptions) first novels never see the light of day.

No matter how much tech of the craft you know, there is a process of learning the art of it. You write a novel and you learn from it and you move on. Each story you finish should bring you closer to a publishable novel.

Many writers never move beyond that first novel--they keep trying to change and perfect it to find a publisher when the truth is that many first novels just are not good enough.

So, yes, you will improve as time goes on.

Shawn

How long does it take to become a Broadway-quality actor? A master cabinetmaker? A virtuoso pianist? An Olympic skater?

Remember this: Writers (at least novelists) are part of the entertainment industry -- and the audiences do not give an A for Effort.

I do think most successful writers were pretty strong out of the gate in most areas. Most I've known write pretty well right from the start. From my experience, what is usually lacking right out of the gate is knowing what a good story is, and to a lesser degree, knowing enough about the business side of writing.

It seems to be learning what a good story is that slows many writers down, not writing skill, and certainly not grammar and punctuation. Learning such basics as grammar AFTER you start writing is a lot like learning the basics of how to drive after you're in a car doing ninety on the freeway.

But I will say this. The successful writer who goes years and years without selling anyting is fairly rare, and it usually happens because that writer has only one project he spent too long writing and too long marketing.

It seems to me the norm is for successful writers to at least sell something within two or three years of starting to write seriously.

Well, Uncle Jim has said (I hate to paraphrase him when he's right here and can say it better himself - so please correct me if I'm wrong) that some authors find a publisher for their second book before their first. If you find and read these, it may become apparent to you why that is.

I just finished Helen Fielding's (of Bridget Jones' Diary fame) first novel, Cause Celeb, and it was really uneven. I was shocked, actually (since I'd assumed it was written after, not prior to her others - until I reexamined the dates in the front cover.) Helpfully, she'd listed copyright to herself several years before, so I also got a lesson in why it is not to do that. It does look pathetic to see that she'd finished it so many years before it saw publication.

In this first novel, she jumps around bizarrely in time - the first chapters alternate between scenes 5 years apart and it feels needless and confusing. Suddenly the time jumping is over and things progress linearly, but by then I was expecting the jump. She has too many indistinguishable characters and the ones that aren't are often stereotyped, badly - the noble African, the English twit - and some feel like they come right out of the movies, she could have named one "Hugh Grant" for how she wrote him. There are times when she hits a mood or a conversation right on and well and there are good things in there, but overall the book was pretty rough.

That said, I thought her writing in Bridget Jones' was snappy and funny and very well done. So I think it's safe to say some writers have done their improving right out there in public for us to see and learn from.

I ask partly because I walked right into software engineering, and was extremely good at it right from the start. I was a natural. And the best engineers in the business are also naturals (don't get me wrong, many were far better than I was). I asked for the opinions of experienced writers because i wanted to know if the best in the field were the naturals or if most folks just work at it and develop the skills that they lack.

Right out of the gate, my ability to develop characters stinks. I'm able to think logically, which is why software worked for me. But to introduce emotional, seemingly-irrational behavior into my creations is at the other end of the spectrum from the software stuff. So it's going to take a while to build the skills that go into character development. In fact, I'm finding that building those skills is requiring a certain amount of growth at a personal level.

In software engineering, the people who developed certain skills that they didn't have innately never performed at the level of the naturals. If the field of writing is dominated by naturals then I wouldn't expect to ever be more than an also-ran. If most find at least one or two aspects of writing difficult, then I'm stepping into a field that I have some hope of doing well in.

JB

Natural ability

I worked in software engineering. I was mostly self-taught, in a field of computer science grads.

Still, I had learned how to use a computer, understand memory allocation, learned the various programming languages and tools. I didn't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll go get a job at Microsoft, with no experience whatsoever."

Similar thing with music. Various teachers over the years, on several instruments, said, "You have natural talent that cannot be learned; you were born that way." Yeah sure, but I still had to master the physical properties of the instruments and making musical sounds. Even playing by ear (for I was largely self-taught that way before letting teachers steal the joy) took many hours of practice.

How many hours and years do you think you spent learning the skills to become a software engineer? We know that because one knows how to use a computer, does not mean they can invent software. Nor can one write novels because they know how to write meaningful sentences. Novels are a whole nether art form, imho.

Over the first few years that you spent in a serious effort to complete and publish a novel, how did your craft/skill/technique change and/or improve?

Click to expand...

Practice practice practice. That is the key. In the beginning I thought, "I'll get this done, set a schedule, then ship this puppy; I did it with all those software products, this ain't no diff." I was wrong.

When I realized I was wrong, I had to reckon with going on as a novelist, or doing something easier, like Windows programming. (No way in Hell!)

I do have natural story-telling ability, an eye for detail in syntax, more plots than I could write in a lifetime. Putting it all together in a long, creative process, is where the blood sweat and tears are eeked out. Also, I study technique constantly, always looking for ways to improve. It's a life-long process and commitment; it is a marriage.

In baseball there are those rare, gifted, 5-tool players like Willie Mays and Andre Dawson who can run, field, throw, hit and hit with power. But the majority of the pros and most of the superstars can only do two or three things very well and are adequate, or even weak in the others.

By all means recognize your weaknesses and work on them but don't ignore the concept of playing to your strengths. Few can write dialogue like Elmore Leonard so they wouldn't attempt a book that's half dialogue. If you have an orderly and precise mind you might be a whiz at writing about a logical, problem-solving detective who is baffled by some of the emotional people he has to deal with (<--just a probably-lame fer-instance).

I think part of the mysterious-to-some concept of "finding your own voice" is emphasizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.

How many hours and years do you think you spent learning the skills you need to become a software engineer? We know that because one knows how to use a computer, does not mean they can invent software. Nor can one write novels because they know how to write meaningful sentences. Novels are a whole nether art form, imho.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we're talking about different things. I don't mean that I had some instincts that were well-aligned with software development, making it easier for me to move along in the field. I mean that software development was ludicrously easy for me. It was all intuitive, from soup to nuts, Digital to Microsoft. Did I learn stuff? Absolutely. But again, the learning was trivially easy.

On the flip side, I also do woodworking with vintage tools, using vintage techniques. It's tough. It's difficult. I've never heard of anyone who just picked up the tools and started blasting out furniture. Because we just don't have intuitive understandings of the implications in design and construction of grain direction, density, moisture content and so on.

So I was curious to know if there was an observed pattern in authors. Is writing more like the world of software, where there are clear standouts who just do it effortlessly, or is writing more like the world of vintage woodworking, where everyone works to develop the craft?

We all love the stories about the author who fought tooth and nail, rewriting and editing constantly to get their manuscript out the door for years. However, I suspect that few people like to circulate the stories of the authors who sit down and write upwards of 10,000 words a day, all of it ready for publication.

JB

Computers are a science; writing, and your woodworking example, are "art". I'm a "natural" in computers, also, but that's because if you do "A", "B" WILL happen. If you write "A" plot, you don't get "B" in writing. It just doesn't happen.

It's a hell of a lot of work for me to write, even though I write "faster" than most people I've met so far in the business. I HAVE written my one million words (literally), and am in the middle of rewriting an 80k word novel that I will be LUCKY to keep 10% of by the time I'm done (and I fully expect to have over 100k). Basically, I can crank out WORDS with the best of them, but making them the RIGHT words is not only work for me, it's an art form.

Go back through some of Uncle Jim's examples of how he makes each word matter. That's how I'm line editing, and that's how I'm rewriting entire plot arcs to make everything matter, and to make an audience care about my characters and plot. Working on theme and having something to say, and being able to say it, all of those are things that have slowly improved over the millions of words I have written.

If you want a good example of someone who WORKS at writing, see if you can find a copy of James A. Michener's writer's handbook : explorations in writing and publishing

My point was, how much time did it take from first exposure to computer tech to becoming an engineer. (no answer required, merely a thought.) I thought we were talking the same thing. Yeah, computers are a breeze to use, but one still has to put in time to learn, as you mention.

In terms of writing, your example as a woodworker describes my process as a novelist. Music is easier, and I've know musicians that no amount of learning and practice provided the talent, the gift I was born with. It's been my nightmare that I'm in their stead as a novelist. I don't want to think about it right now (Today's re-write session was rough.)

espz's point about A leading to B is perfect. I used to think I could grind out a novel by working 14 hour days, 7 days a week until the sucker was ready to ship. I have worked at it that hard, but so much of it was crap I had to cut, it wasn't an efficient way to work. I hope for that to change over the years. (There have been numerous life/death circumstances during my years as novelist, but I keep plugging away.)

Another twist that ads frustrating amounts of time to my completing novels is that my best comes from writing by hand. That I'm an expert computer user, and know all the cool features does me no good until I get the raw material on my legal pads typed into the machine.

But it's not as bad as what Michener went through with his million-word manuscripts and exacto knife, per his Writer's Notebook espz noted.

I've one caveat: I wrote a 50k word novel for fun last Nov. entirely on computer, in addition to my regular writing. I had at least one 10k-word day. Some of the material was publishable in short form. I couldn't have accomplished this when I first began writing novels.

I've heard the first novel takes five years, and subsequent novels less and less. That's the learning curve.

Living a writer's life has humbled me. Amen.

eace

If you know software engineering, there are lot of tools to help you write, believe it or not.

Project management tools: Great for organizing your writing projects.

Pert Charts: use them to plot out your character's path. Critical plot junctions, big set pieces, end points, etc.

Spreadsheets/Presentation software like Powerpoint: great for organizing your scenes. It's the rich man's version of index cards.

Charts: I use them to chart my plot development as well as conflicts. The up-down curve are great to gauge the pacing --the curve moves up toward the "climax"...

Pseudo-code: if you know programming, then you can use your pseudo-codes to construct a scene's logic. Works very well with screenplay, too.

The answer that I'm getting indirectly through all of this is that the majority of published writers just work at their craft. That struggling with it is just the way it is. That 'natural writers' are generally in the minority, contrasting with other fields that are chock full of people with natural talent that can carry the day for them.

I say that because nobody is offering examples of 'natural writers' who breeze through this stuff in an instinctive way. Writing is like pounding a hole in a brick wall. With your head. One way or another, everyone finds it tough to do.

JB

Even "natural writers" need tools and skills, which are developed over time. Hemingway or Morrison wasn't born Nobel-caliber. I'm sure they looked at their first works and uttered, "What crap did I write!"

Writers like them have the raw talent (perhaps that's what you call "natural writer") but every diamond needs to be polished before they can shine. Talented writers have their gift already, and they tend to learn faster and are able to grasp the "secrets" more easily. They still have to learn and improve.

Re: Improvements to your craft

I ask partly because I walked right into software engineering, and was extremely good at it right from the start. I was a natural.

Click to expand...

But does this mean you innately had all the knowledge you needed to become a software engineer? Or did you have to learn the tools of the trade -- such as different programming languages?

>>I say that because nobody is offering examples of 'natural writers' who breeze through this stuff in an instinctive way.<<

I think that for many people certain things are instinctive, even if others aren't. For me, for instance, a sense of how to pace and structure has been there from the start; it's one of the few things I've never had to work at. Also an ability to create atmosphere through action and detail. Dialogue, by contrast, I had a lot of trouble with initially--and being able to convincingly (and subtly) portray my characters' emotional states and reactions is something I've had to seriously struggle with over the years. The whole showing-not-telling thing. But this, which began as a weakness, I now think is one of my strengths. So hard work does pay off.

But I'd agree that it's often like pounding a hole in a brick wall with your head.

- Victoria

choked on chock

That 'natural writers' are generally in the minority, contrasting with other fields that are chock full of people with natural talent that can carry the day for them.

Click to expand...

I didn't get that from the posts; in fact the opposite. Trying to warn you that just cuz you're good some definition at engineering, (whatever that means, because that's a very broad field wherein some roles require creativity and some are grunts) don't expect writing to be easy.

Einstein was naturally highly intelligent and creative, and I don't recall him saying anything was ludicrously easy. Maybe he's a better role model.

Keep in mind most writers are wordsmiths, and definitions of easy and natural will be subjective. On these boards, there are people who whipped out early, successful novels. Michael Crichton wrote novels while he was in medical school. Read his autobio, Travels for detail. He's an example of what you're seeking. But keep in mind, despite awesome talent that made it "easy" he had lots of other ed., unlike you in your engineering role who walked in the door with no prior learning.

The answer that I'm getting indirectly through all of this is that the majority of published writers just work at their craft. That struggling with it is just the way it is.

Click to expand...

I thought people were being pretty direct. How about Stephen King who says, "Go become a brain surgeon. It's easier." IMO, King is one of the most naturally talented writers ever, but even he got a degree in English, and wrote for 20 years before success with Carrie. Boy was I worried when I read that in his autobio!

Like Victoria

I had strengths, pace, plot, characterization--I had the show don't tell down right out of the gate. I could tell a good story, but i had to work at getting my words to paint the same pretty picture in my head.

my big one: description! Things happened in a vacuum and I still have to work at making sure to include description.

I think "natural writer" is not the right word--maybe "natural story teller"--the writing part is work. We see a perfect vision in our head, and when we look at the words on the paper they don't match the vision in our head.

The learning comes from practicing to make the words paint the same picture in our head.

You are ahead if you realize that your words don't paint that picture and that you need to work on the craft. Many new comers think their first words are golden and that it is the readers whoa re at fault if they see something wrong.

Shawn

Re: Like Victoria

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>description! Things happened in a vacuum and I still have to work at making sure to include description.
<hr></blockquote>

Shawn,

Description is my weak area. If I'm not careful, I end up with mostly dialog. Questions I struggle with: How much description, when, etc. What steps did you take to improve your use of description?

I'm convinced that writing is a skill that can be taught.

Given a basic minimum of talent, the rest comes from learning, training, and practice.

Lawrence Block, in one of his books on writing (not sure of the title at the moment), tells the story of a friend who quit his job to become a novel writer. Of his first novel, Block says, "Word for word, it was as bad as anything I've ever read." But the man persisted, he improved, and he went on to make a living writing novels.

It's a craft. It can be learned. Some people may have a harder time than others learning the basics, and some people may simply have more to learn, but it can be learned.

On description

A writer has to remember that there are 6 senses ( I say six because often a character will "sense" something is about to happen) I'd look at a scene and ask myself--What does Sam see? What does Sam hear? What does Sam smell? What does Sam feel? (what does the carpet feel like and so on, not emotions here physical feelings) What does Sam taste? (Yes, taste--that awful nasty taste of skunk when you take too deep of a breath after an encounter with one and so on) (Don't forget the taste of the food in a restaurant as well it can add a lot o f description to the scene--melting buttery flavor compared to rancid butter flavor give the reader an idea of a fancy restaurant vs a fly infested greasy spoon)

And the sense of intuition--Does Sam feel watched? If appropriate.

And you can add small stuff as well.

Sam parked his car at the curb and made his way through the doors of the restaurant and sat in the booth at the far end of the room. The waitress came his way and he ordered coffee.

First off this is a a lot of telling. And while we know just what Sam did the scene lacks the description to show us not only Sam but his surroundings as well.

Sam parked his Nova in the only shade on the street Trash littered the curb and when he kicked it away from his car, a rotten smell slunk its way up his nose. He quickly made his way to the faded blue front doors of the restaurant. Using his elbow, he pushed the old fashioned swinging doors inward.

Stale cigarette smoke and the pall of meals long ago fried in lard filled the air with a rancid smog. He made his way over the gray cracked linoleum covering the floor to a booth at the far end of the place. The red plastic seat cushions had been repaired with silvery duct tape. Careful to avoid the dirty threads sticking up from the mess, he sat in the booth.

And so on--I think you get the idea.

By looking at your scenes and asking the sense questions you can come up with descriptions. Also remember, though, you don't want to describe things that the POV character is very familiar with. Like his home entry hall--you wouldn't describe it like a Realtor seeing it for the first time. You don't think about what color your carpet is when you walk in the door--carpet you've seem a million times before, unless something is different--like a big yellow stain in the middle that the dog left behind. Then you ask the sense questions--

Shawn

Re: On description

Shawn - what a great, concise piece on description. Love it!