Writing with soul

Unbeknownst to me, my wife of 13 years went through my writing files and read a bunch of my stories. She made little notes at the end of some of the pieces — the kind of notes that non-writers tend to make like: “This is good hon, you should keep going” and “I’m not sure I like this one,” and my personal favorite “Do better with this one. Maybe start over?”

As much as we love it when people read our fiction, general feedback like that has little value outside of encouragement (or, in my case, discouragement). So I thought I would talk to her to get a better understanding of what she thought of my writing overall. 

The main takeaway she had for me was that my writing was very “soulless.”

Soulless.

I can’t think of anything that can gut-punch, cut to the core, donkey kick to the back of the head, a writer any harder than telling them their writing is “soulless.”

I recall I felt like crying. I don’t remember if I did but even writing about it now makes me tear up a little so, yeah, I probably did.

I have a philosophy that when you get feedback from a reader, no matter how much you disagree with what they say — every reader is right from their own point of view.

That makes sense, right? Your perspective is colored by your own personal experience, so the stories you read will be colored that way as well. It’s actually kind of a fun and useful thought: every story is unique to each reader.

But soulless… really, hon?

I had to accept what she was saying to stay true to my philosophy. I had to look at my writing through her eyes and see what she was seeing. And scariest of all, I even had to peer inward.

Eventually I came to understand what she was getting at. My stories lacked both stakes and characters the reader cares about. Those two things are related by the way.

The inward part came later, when I finally understood why I was writing that way. It came down to me not being comfortable putting my characters into really difficult situations — which is kind of silly when you think about it. That’s what conflict is: the difficulty engine that drives a story. Conflict raises the stakes and makes you care about what happens to the characters. The bigger the challenge, the better the payoff.

I did see a slight bump in my acceptance rate after I put my main characters in tighter spots, but more importantly, the stories felt more alive and real.

I learned that acceptance letters may feed my need for validation, but loving what I write feeds my soul.

What do you do to add soul to your writing?

-James

Can a fiction writer stand out in today’s sea of competition?

I saw somewhere that The New Yorker gets half a million unsolicited submissions per year. Let that sink in for a second.

 Half a million.

That’s a serious slush pile.

But I did notice that famous people are constantly getting published in the magazine.  This makes sense for The New Yorker. No matter how good the piece is, why take a risk on an unknown when you can tap celebrities whose names will draw in readership.  We are all beholden to someone or something, publications need content, but they need readership first and foremost.  And this strategy worked on me. I ordered some old issues of the magazine on Ebay and saw that Bob Odenkirk had a piece under their Shouts and Murmers section. Bob is a very funny actor and comedian. I loved him in Better Call Saul.  His piece in The New Yorker, entitled A Biblical Rough Draft, was just OK though. 

Don’t get me wrong, there were some incredibly funny phrases, like one part where he refers to biblical storytellers as those who “tromped from village in floppy sandals, swatting at flies, sipping beads of dew from the undersides of donkeys, and fighting dogs for scraps of meat.” That donkey thing—that’s my kind of humor. But overall, the piece was not nearly as funny as I would have expected. 

I can’t help but think that Bob’s fame played a significant role in him landing that piece. If a complete unknown (like Yours Truly) had written the exact same words, I am sure it would have been rapidly rejected.  We could rebel and shout “The world isn’t fair!” and “They should evaluate the story on its own merits, no matter who wrote it!”  And while I do agree with the idealism of the latter, my belief is that the world is fair. Bob worked hard to obtain fame. Having an inside track to publication is one of the fruits of his labor.  And can you blame the magazine for using the tactic of publishing the work of celebrities? Bob is a very safe bet. Prestigious literary publications, places like The New Yorker, The Atlantic, or The Onion have reputations that could be damaged if they publish writing from an unknown author and it turns out that person is a white supremacist, or a cannibal, or worse yet, a cannibal white supremacist racially-biased to eating only Caucasians.

Okay, so maybe “just get famous” isn’t practical advice. To be honest, if I had this completely figured out, you would have already heard of me before stumbling across this post.

So, what am I doing to stand out?

My strategy is to go wide and deep — but with quality! I am writing every day to generate content, working hard to refine it so that it stands out when it is eventually considered, and submitting all the time. Right now, I have ten stories out for consideration. I figure if my name starts to look familiar to the editors, they will know I am taking my writing seriously.

As a tactic I mentioned in a previous post, I am also targeting a specific market: Points In Case. I am tailoring my writing to fit that market. It will be interesting to see whether this strategy improves my acceptance rate.

I will keep you posted as to how well this works — at least until I get famous and don’t have to worry about silly things like having a “strategy” anymore.

Let me know in the comments below whether you have a strategy for standing out in today’s sea of competition. I am interested to hear your thoughts!

-James

Changing the approach

I’ve heard that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.  For fiction writing there is truth to that, as you have to be a bit insane to pursue fiction writing with an expectation of getting paid to do it.

The saying has me thinking about changing my approach to see if I can a few more land sales.

My current process is:

  1. Wait until inspiration strikes (if ever) and write a story
  2. Find a market that the story might fit and submit
  3. Get a rejection then GOTO step 2

A better approach might be to:

  1. Target a market that suits me
  2. Write something appropriate for the market and submit
  3. Get a rejection and GOTO step 2

The new approach requires me to abandon that whimsical, spur-of-the-moment, writing that occurs when an idea for a story hits me.  There is fantasy in my head that all of the great fiction authors operated by writing whatever the hell they felt like. It feels wrong to force myself to deal with the hand-cuffing constraints of catering to a specific market. My creative side wants its freedom, dammit!

But there is also an analytical side of me that likes this surgical approach — dissecting the stories they have bought, feeling through the structure, the language, looking for the fingerprints in the tales that made those first readers and editors salivate like Pavlov’s dogs.

So who is my victim target market?

I have picked out Points in Case. They do funny well and I do like me some funny.  They publish funny lists and I feel like a funny list is a reasonable bar to hurdle; the word count is relatively low so my thinking is that I should be able to come up with list stories pretty quickly.

In practice, however, making a funny list is harder than it seems. As the individual “funny” items are added to the list, you start to question your ability to determine if something is funny or not.  Sometimes things I think are funny are just weird, or worse yet, offensive.

I have already submitted one list story to P.I.C., which was promptly rejected. I currently have another one sitting with them that I like a lot better. Whether or not it gets accepted is up to the fiction gods at this point (and we know how finicky they can be) but, then again, that’s all part of the craft.

Have you tried writing to specific markets before? If so, let me know in the comments how that worked out for you.

-James

So, I guess it’s been a while…

I intend to resume posting on a regular basis — right now a weekly cadence seems right to me, but I know how fast that kind of deadline can creep up on a person, so don’t hold me to it just yet.

I will add in more writing resources as I come across them. While I am using this blog to share my writing journey, I also intend to share the tools I find along the way.

Believe it or not I actually have been writing and have even landed a few more stories than what I have listed here. I will update my progress and make sure to let you know about any stories I happen to land in the future.  

Also, I have been thinking about setting up a site (or possibly using this one) to publish fiction from other authors.  There is an abundant of supply of short fiction and very little demand, so that might be a good way for me to do my part to help balance things out a bit. Who knows I might even be able to figure out a way to pay authors for their work.

Let me know your thoughts below — assuming there is anyone left reading this blog to have thoughts.

-James

Words to avoid when writing fiction

When I am reading slush there are a few words which indicate I may be dealing with a novice.  Admittedly, this may be my own misconception but I tend to see a correlation between the quality of the writing and the use of the list of words below:

 

Obsidian

This is often used as a material for a weapon, like sword of knife and particularly a magical weapon.  I believe the black glassy nature of the material stirs up darkly romantic notions about it in the author’s mind. In reality it is a terrible material to use for a weapon and almost impossible to mold.

The other use of this word tends to be a fancy synonym for “black”, or at best “shiny black”.

Suggested alternative: Black

 

Klaxon

I think it is the X sound that gives this word an allure.  It’s got a near onomatopoetic quality to it and even sounds kind of alien. I get why someone would be attracted to this word but to me it gets overused and often feels forced.

Suggested alternatives: Alarm, Horn, Buzzer, warning

 

Crimson

Often used to describe blood. In my opinion crimson is usually slightly off from the color of blood – not that I see a lot of blood, I actually try to avoid it.  Google the word and there tends to be a continuum of hues that constitute what could be called crimson.

Suggested alternatives: Red, Maroon

 

I suspect people want to use words that sound cool, to make their writing sound like good writing, but the use of these words tend to have the opposite effect on me.

 

Iridescent

This one is more of a maybe. It can be the best word to use for the situation, but I also often see it forced into prose to flower it up. I will also see it used where I think the author wants to indicate shimmering, which isn’t exactly correct.

Suggested alternative: Pearly, color-changing, or shimmering if that is what is intended.

 

The Resignation

Fine white powder

Ironsoap.com just published my flash piece titled   The resignation.

This story originated from a writing challenge a friend and I had. We used a writing prompt generator to come up with the story constraints.

You used to be able to check it out here:

http://ironsoap.com/2016/06/the-resignation/

  • James

Writing Process Tips

AIC.JPG

 

There is a huge “Ass In Chair” factor to writing. I don’t do it well myself. At home it is too easy to turn on TV or get distracted, etc.  I also fall victim to the mindset that I have to have an idea before I can sit down and write, yet the times I have sat down with no ideas and forced myself to write, something always got written. It’s like priming a pump.

I am not sure if you will find this useful or interesting, but I have written enough to sort of have a process to much of it now:

1. I use strike-through to cross out the parts I am considering removing, but haven’t committed to.

2. I keep notes inline in my story so I can get a feel for where I am going with it, or if I have an idea, etc. I section these off by using: <notes inline in story> I will even put in hyperlinks to information/sites that may be pertinent.

3. I tend to write in small chunks and do a lot of re-reading over the story to iron things out & get the flow of it.

4. I find that most of the time I will throw away the first part of what I have written.

5. I will often write the story out of order, particularly if I know how I want a certain part of it to go.

6. Many times I write sections I know are terrible in order to get the gist of it down. I recolor these on the successive passes.  I think of this as “writing through” the difficulty.

7. I always keep a browser open and in Google type  “define: word”  to quickly get the definition of word I want to use, but am not sure I know exactly. This also shows me synonyms which I will sometimes opt for.

8. I save several dated copies of a story as I write it. This is partially in case it ends up being corrupt or gets deleted, but also in case I don’t like where the current version is going and want to back track.  I have five old versions of my current work in progress.

9. I use both my desktop and my old laptop to write. I keep my writing folder in Dropbox which is shared between these devices, so the story is always up to date in both places.  I find I like to write on the laptop more than the desktop. I often write while standing in my kitchen. I think moving around helps the creative process.

10. A lot of what I do tends to be little tricks to get myself to write.  Like, I will say to myself that I am just going to write a short scene or paragraph — but that always leads to more.  If I am empty, I will often just read over an undone story. I always catch errors or will rewrite sections that don’t flow smoothly.  A lot of times just reading what I have of a story gives me the ramp up to continue on with it.

11. I spend a lot of driving time with the radio off thinking about stories. This is one of the most productive parts of my process because it usually gets me to a point where I want to get the idea written down.

12. I am subscribed to Grammarly.com ($60/year) which plugs into Word and flags grammatical problems with my stories. It’s much cheaper than an editor, but probably only 80% as effective.

 

Hopefully these tips help you, but if nothing else they may trigger you to think about the mini-systems and habits that could be useful for your process.

 

James A. Miller

The stickiness of cotton candy

cotton candy

I landed a piece at Four Star Stories. You can check it out here.

Getting sucked in.

Rabbit hole

The internet does a great job of sucking you into its vast uncompromising realm of interesting crap.  Most of the time you end up wondering why you just spent eight hours looking at super cars when your driver’s license is suspended, but tonight I found posts that really spoke to me — the virtual equivalent of hitting a vein of gold. (I’m not sure if there even are gold veins in mining, but you get what I am going for here.)

Reading Ken Liu’s interview on Fantasy Scroll Magazine, I followed a link to Tobias Buckell’s post on Writer’s and pellets.  Considering my own adventure with parsing rejection letters, Tobias’s post really spoke to me.

 

 

Possibility

 

I received this sweet e-mail from Daily Science Fiction:

James,

We have good news and we have bad news. The good news is that 
your story has made our second round, rarified company that 
more than 90% of submissions do not reach. While half 
or more of our second round stories will not ultimately see 
publication under the DSF rocket, this story has reached the 
final go/no-go before launch.

The bad news--and I promised you some bad news--is that it 
will take us time to make that final decision. Expect an 
additional two weeks or so, but don't be surprised if it's 
a month from today. Thanks for your continued patience, and 
thanks for sending us this worthy submission.

 - Daily Science Fiction Staff