Archive for January, 2009

Out of Order

Friday, January 30th, 2009

Writers know that there are two kinds of writers.  People who plot.  And people who make the plot up on the seat of their pants.  I’m some kind of Frankenstein amalgam of the two; I like to say I plot by writing.  The truth of the matter is, I usually have a pretty good idea of the larger events in my book when I start writing: the black moment, the mid-book crisis, and maybe a few intervening events.  But the small stuff, the engine that drives the book from point A to point B, is usually made up on the fly.  In fact, it’s so made up on the fly that I usually make it up after I need it, and that is because I write with absolutely no semblance of order.

I’m at the frightening place in my manuscript where I have a good smattering of scenes written, but no more than a few thousand contiguous words…. anywhere.  My manuscript is like a pile of confetti, with random pieces from beginning, middle, and end all piled together.  I jump ahead to scenes I know are coming, rather than beat my head against scenes I’m not sure about, and then jump back to fill in blanks.  That means that there’s some point–erm, that would be now–when I don’t really have a work in progress so much as a series of disconnected flashes, punctuated mostly by question marks.

Filling in those question marks is actually the most fun.  For instance, last week I figured out how the hero is going to solve a problem that crops up near the end of the book.  I wrote that scene, and realized that in order for the solution to be effective, the hero was going to have to rely on the availability of, some item.  Let us call it Dingbat A.  Now, you never want to have your hero reach into his bag of tools at the crucial moment and say, “Aha!  Dingbat A!”  Not unless you want your readers to complain that Dingbat A comes out of nowhere and is a complete deus ex machina.  You cannot do this unless you are writing episodes of Inspector Gadget.  So that means that I had to have a scene earlier on where Dingbat A is introduced.

Of course, you also never want to have an earlier scene where you say, “Oh, Dingbat A.  How I love thee.  I foresee that you might be useful, in the event I am set upon by ravening were-hedgehogs.” Because then your reader will get to the were hedgehogs and say, “Oh, for crying out loud, just use Dingbat A already.”  Ideally, you want to introduce your reader to the solution to Big Problem sideways–that is, you want to make Dingbat A present, or even better, problematic, rather than showing it as a potential solution.  (A side benefit:  This makes your characters appear smarter than they are.  Nobody needs to know you thought of the solution first and then figured out how to hide it in plain sight.)

I realize that all this sounds horribly circuitous.  Welcome to writing a book with Courtney.

In any event, I had this great idea for a scene that introduced Dingbat A.  It was sexy.  It wasn’t about Dingbat A, although you can see Dingbat A in use–and that’s always a good thing, because that means it’s a scene that’s a nice piece of misdirection.  Plus, it was funny, which is always a bonus.  It made me realize why I write my books out of order.  Because, you see, the scene starts at the point when my hero and heroine have Colonel Draven tied up on the floor and covered with petticoats.

You probably don’t think there’s anything odd about that (or at least anything odder than what I have said so far) and I suppose there isn’t.  But what I really really want to know is–Who is Colonel Draven?  How have they tied him up?  And why the hell are they covering him with petticoats?

Thus arises the minutiae of plot.

Happy Birthday, Harlequin!

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

In case you haven’t heard yet, Harlequin (my publisher!) is 60 years old!  That is a lot of years of awesome romances, and they’re celebrating by giving away free books.

Head over to http://www.harlequincelebrates.com to find out more.

New Agent in Town….

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

If you don’t get Kristin Nelson’s newsletter, you might not know that there’s a new agent in town!  Sara Megibow, who has been Kristin’s literary assistant for several years, is going to start acquiring projects.  Sara has this to say about what she’s looking for:

I love super sexy and intelligent romances. In the sf/fantasy world, I am looking for the story and characters to be as compelling as the world. In terms of YA and MG, I am excited to see more projects set in the real world (as opposed to vampires or werewolves, although, of course, those are still okay). Finally, I am itching for some fabulous historical fiction (like MISTRESS OF THE ART OF DEATH) or multicultural fiction both for younger readers and the adult market.

If Sara is half the agent Kristin is, she is going to be absolutely superb at agenting–and knowing how intelligent and competent she is, I fully expect that she’ll be every bit as good as Kristin.  I can’t wait to see the first sales on Publisher’s Marketplace with Sara’s name attached.  I’m sure it won’t be long.

Well Witched

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009

I tend to read a wide variety of books, including fantasy and science fiction.  And that means that I have gravitated towards YA reading much, much more than I did, say, five years ago, because quite simply, some of the best fantasy out there is coming out in YA.  The label “young adult” or even “middle grade” can be confusing for people who don’t remember what they read when they were in middle grades, and were young adults.  The label doesn’t mean that the themes are dumbed down or that the books are less carefully crafted.  Often it means that the genres are harder to peg–where would you have placed Markus Zusak’s “The Book Thief” in the adult world?  Literary fiction? Historical fiction?  But then there is that paranormal element, too, since it’s narrated by death.

In short, I love young adult books to death, and I’ve read more great fantasy and science fiction in YA in recent years than I have in the regular old adult sections.

Over the weekend, on a whim I picked up a copy of Frances Hardinge’s Well Witched.  I’d read her first novel, “Fly by Night” many many years ago.  I don’t even think I bought it myself.  As I recall, it was a gift from a friend who personally the author, who also knew that I was a Harry Potter fanatic and thought I might like it.  In retrospect, now that I am an author myself, I suspect my friend hoped I would become as fanatical about Hardinge as I was about Rowling, and I’m sure that my lackluster response was probably disappointing.  I read it.  It was fun.  I thought it was a decent first try.  I didn’t love it, though–I thought the main character was a little flat and the world building a little dry–and I promptly forgot about the author.  I’m not even sure why I picked up this book (which has the much cooler title of “Verdigris Deep” in the UK but apparently that’s too inaccessible for us slobs in the US audience?), except that I was itching for a fantasy and my local Borders didn’t have “Inkheart” in stock. (A tale for another day–HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE, BORDERS?)

Several hours later, I emerged, blinking, into the light.  Well Witched is everything I love in a book.  It’s fraught with moral ambiguity.  The villains  are never identifiable.  The plot construction is tight.  There is character growth both subtle and deep.  Oh, and the main character has tiny eyes that grow on the back of his hand.

There is no romance in the book, but it has the thing I love best about romance:  A boy who learns to appreciate things he’d never seen about the people he loves, who not only grows literal eyes, but learns to see figuratively deeper.

I adore the fact that ten year olds will read this book, and I hope that adults will, too.

RITA eligibility, part II

Monday, January 26th, 2009

I mentioned the RITA kerfuffle briefly last week.  There’s been some discussion on the rwa-org listserv (ha ha, “some” discussion) about it, and one of the things that has come up is a not-quite verified comment that “mass produced” means “listed in the Ingram’s catalog as returnable to the publisher.”

To which I have to say. . . wha?

Let’s see if I got this one right.  RWA’s goal is to advocate for authors and to advance romance publishing.  Got it–fine, I understand that.  Good.  Publishing is in turmoil.  I won’t say “in crisis” although surely it is a crisis for the editors who were fired, the imprints that were closed, and the authors who were abandoned in the dust-ups that are still ongoing.

And one of the major issues–one that I have seen listed far and wide from industry professionals on nearly every side of the fence–is the somewhat byzantine system of returns.

I understand this might not be the actual criterion used by RWA for defining “mass-produced” since I did not see an official proclamation.  I also understand that it probably was not chosen with great forethought–just that when push came to shove, someone had to come up with a definition and that was it.  But if you’re going to advocate for authors, can you not use as a criterion of minimum professionalism something that people believe is killing the publishing industry?

Squee! Amazon knows I exist!

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

I realize that this is the sort of blog post that will make everyone realize exactly how obsessive one (and by “one” I am slyly referring to “me”) can be about all things authorial.

So, I do not have a book on Amazon, in case you were wondering.  No.  I do not even have an author page on Amazon.

What I have is a slice of an inkling of an existence on Amazon.  Try this.  Go to amazon.com.  Go ahead–open it up in another window.  I’ll still be here.  I’m waiting.

Okay.  Now in that big search box, start typing “Courtney Milan.”  Start typing it–don’t finish!  Wait for Amazon to give you search suggestions.  It will start out thinking you are searching for calendars or cell phones.  Then, as you type in more letters, it’ll suggest coldplay and coupon codes.  By the time you hit the “R”, Amazon will have figured out that maybe you mean courtney love.  Yes, yes–you love Courtney–but not that Courtney, or at least not that Courtney at this moment.

It isn’t until you get into the last name that I appear.  courtney milan, right below courtney martin.  I know, I know.  It is the least exciting thing in the whole wide world.  You can’t even believe I made you go to Amazon to see it.  In fact, you are probably thinking I might be crazy.

Because what I am announcing is something like this:  Squee!  I am now a figment of Amazon’s imagination!

Oh, we takes our joys as we can find them, we soon-to-be-published-authors.

So, does Amazon know that you exist?  Are you a figment of Amazon’s imagination?  And if so, how many letters does it take Amazon to imagine you?

Bad at Querying?

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

Everyone knows that if you want to get published, it helps if you can write a really damned good query letter.

But what if you can’t do that?  I mean, what if you try to write a query letter–and by “try” I do not mean “give up after the space of an afternoon”–I mean, try and try and try to write a query letter over the space of months, and still don’t get anything that you love?  Some people say that this is a sign your manuscript has fundamental flaws in plot, or that you are a bad writer.  But since this happened to me, I’m going to tell you that it’s possible you are just a bad querier.  Being a bad querier doesn’t make you a bad writer; it just makes you a bad querier.  Think of it like this–you can be bad at flirting, but still be really, really good in bed.

So what do you do if you are bad at flirting–uh, I mean, querying?  Obviously, my path to publication is not one everyone can follow, but it was hardly the only path to publication.  And, knowing that I was not particularly good at querying, I did not hang all my hopes on the slim possibility that I would win Sherry’s query critique, and the even slimmer possibility that she would read my pages as a result, followed by the completely anorexic possibility that she would like what she read.  I had a lot of irons in the fire.  Here’s some of the things I considered.

Ways to Skip Querying

If you can’t query, it makes sense to try to find ways to get your material in front of an agent through some other means.  Here are some that I tried.

  • Networking. If you know someone who likes your writing, who has an agent, ask them to recommend you.  I didn’t ask Sherry to recommend me to Kristin–she offered–but I did ask a few other people, who said yes.
  • Networking (part II). I volunteered to do things, like give a workshop at the Beaumonde’s annual conference.  One of the multi-published, award-winning authors who attended my workshop ran into me a few days later and said she’d enjoyed my workshop so much that she’d mentioned me to her agent, who wanted to see more.  Someone else (who had also judged me in a contest) later told me she’d mentioned me to her editor, and her editor had asked to see my manuscript.  At the time, I had an agent and we were already on submission (with offers on the table), but I really appreciated both those efforts–and you can be sure I would have followed up on them.  If you are bad at querying, it helps to put yourself out there.  It may never pay any dividends–in fact, when I volunteered to do the workshop, I never imagined there would be dividends; I just thought I’d done a lot of useful research that might help other historical romance writers–but if nobody knows who you are, nobody can help you out.  And believe it or not, a lot of published authors–including multi-published, award-winning authors–really do want to help out younger writers.
  • Conferences. I went to Chicago North’s Spring Fling Conference, where I pitched to two agents (one of whom was Kristin) and one editor.  All three requested materials.  Of course, this depends on your having a good pitch, but believe it or not, I found it much easier to pitch in person than on paper.  I think it’s because expectations for in-person pitches are lower, and since I’ve spent time as a lawyer, I probably have more experience handling my speaking-out-loud anxiety.  Also, most agents are too nice to say “no” in person.  Take advantage of that.
  • Contests. I specifically entered contests that had agents listed as the final judge.  To be honest, I am surprised that more people do not do this.  Editor judges are well and good, but I wanted to get an agent first.  So I targeted contests with agent judges.  Of course, my manuscript that ended up getting published fared exceptionally unevenly in contests, and so I never finaled in any of those contests–but don’t think I didn’t try it!
  • Critiques. At the point when I signed with Kristin, I had not yet bid on agent/editor critiques, but these are offered every so often from various auctions.  I got a lot of mileage out of Anna Campbell’s critique from Brenda Novak’s auction, and at the point when I signed with Kristin, I had already scoped out the agents on the list there.  Let’s be frank–this option is very, very expensive, and I hadn’t decided if I was going to do it.  But you do get your pages in front of the agent in question.  It’s useful.  But the price is so high that unless you really don’t mind donating that money to charity, it makes much, much more sense to attend a conference where your agent-of-choice will be, in order to pitch to her (and others as well).

Ways to Make Agents Request From a Query (despite not nailing the pitch paragraph)

Of course, you’ll notice that all of the items on the list above have a serious cost–money or time or connections, none of which are infinite.  So I also focused on ways to make an agent request my manuscript from a query, even if I never managed to nail that pitch paragraph.

  • Contests, again. In my case, since there are a lot of RWA chapter contests, and it’s never clear to an agent or editor how competitive the individual chapter contests are, I thought it was important to have something Big in the bio paragraph.  For romance writers, there is one main Big contest:  The Golden Heart.  I read everything I could in preparation for the Golden Heart.  I stalked the Wet Noodle Posse’s blog in November, when they talked about what to do.  I polished and polished my synopsis and pages for both my eligible manuscripts.  There are no guarantees, of course, and I was lucky that one of my two manuscripts finaled.  But it wasn’t just luck.  I had done enough research that I knew I should end on as strong a hook as possible, that I needed to have my best, cleanest pages there, and that the synopsis was far more important than I had originally thought.  I hoped that if I could say “I am a Golden Heart finalist,” that the agent reading the pages would give me bonus query points that would make up for a subpar pitch paragraph.
  • Homework. I had a list of agents.  I did a scary amount of research on the agents on my list.  I don’t just mean looking up who their clients were.  I mean, googling them for any and all interviews about what they were looking for; reading numerous client books, to see if my voice/style seemed like something they would be interested in.  For every agent on my list, I had several bullet points, so that when I actually sent the query, it would start with something like this (but obviously targeted for the agent):  “Dear Agent Y, You’ve said before that you are looking for strong, smart heroines in historical fiction.  If your client X is any indication, you do a great job finding them.  I hope you’ll be interested in reading more about Jenny Keeble, an independent, intelligent woman who has made the best of a bad lot in Victorian Britain. . . .”

    To give you an idea, by the time I pitched Kristin, I had not read Ally Carter’s “Cheating at Solitaire” (I couldn’t find it), Becky Motew’s “Coupon Girl” (ditto), Cheryl Sawyer’s first two books (ditto), and Jenny O’Connell’s nonfiction.  Everything else that she’d sold, that had been released?  I’d read it.  And Kristin wasn’t the only one whose client list I went through so voraciously.  I love reading, and I figured that the more I liked someone’s client list, the more likely it was that they’d like me.  There was not an agent in my top ten list where I hadn’t read books by at least three clients, if not more.  (Besides, I really do love reading, and an agent’s list is like a list of recommendations.)  I wanted to be able to truthfully and clearly convey that I thought I was a good fit for her list.  So I did my homework.  I did a lot of homework.

  • Voodoo. I have to admit, I had a very firm idea in my mind who I wanted to represent me.  I was also terrified of jinxing it, and so I didn’t tell anyone what my list was.  Seriously.  My critique partners asked me when we were in Vegas, and I think I gave them some really vague ridiculous answer that wasn’t even true.  Was it because I didn’t trust them?  No.  It was because I didn’t want the universe to overhear and decide to taunt me Odysseus-style.  I was sure that it would, given half a chance.

    I am not normally a superstitious person.  In fact, I probably lean toward hyper-rational.  But occasionally (and I blame you for this, Mom) I indulge in ridiculously superstitious impulses.  This was one of them.

  • The bio paragraph. I’ve done a few things that are different and interesting, perhaps even among writers.  I wanted to make sure my bio paragraph captured that without going over the line into boring the agent with credentials.  That being said, given a choice between saying “I am a personal assistant,” and saying, “I am Oprah Winfrey’s personal assistant,” you always want to say the latter.  (But given a choice between saying “I am a personal assistant,” and “I am Joe Blow Off The Street’s personal assistant,” you are just a personal assistant.)

So there you have it.  If you’re bad at querying and you didn’t win a critique from Sherry Thomas, you still have a lot of options.  Don’t let a little thing like being bad at querying stop you from getting your manuscript read.

Oh, and one final thing?  If you are bad at querying, you’ll probably get fewer requests for pages.  That means that every request you get must count.  Seriously count.  And that means, especially if you are bad at querying, your pages have to be damned, damned good in bed.

Thanks

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

This is what I had hoped to see on Day One.

It pays few political dividends.  It doesn’t jumpstart the economy or do anything to address the hard problems of health care, education, or energy efficiency.

It just shows integrity and a commitment to the rule of law.  It demonstrates that the oath he swore to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution had real meaning other than lip service.

Thank you for this one.

Why you need an agent

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009

A long while ago, Moonrat wrote a lovely post on why you need an agent.  It’s nice to see someone say this from the editorial side of the desk, and I’ve kept that post in mind all these months.

I do have to add one thing that I know now that I didn’t know a year ago.  A year ago, when I was looking for agents, I looked at publishing deals as the end-all be-all.  More was better.  More money was better.  More debut sales were better.  And to a certain extent, that’s true.

But agents do a lot of work after the deal, too, to make sure that the relationship between author and publisher is productive and fruitful.  I’m in e-mail contact with a lot of writers–a lot of debut authors in that crowd–and while I can’t break confidence to give any specifics, I feel like over just the last week, I have seen a million scenarios where someone has said, “Help!  What do I do about X?”  X might be a deadline the author has to miss because of an unexpected sickness, or a miscommunication with an editor, or a question about what to do in such-and-such a circumstance.  Any number of things.  In all of those instances, it turned out that the right answer was, talk to your agent.

If your agent is just there to make the sale, she’s not helping you along in your career enough.  Her goal should not just be to negotiate a great advance for you (although she should do that, too).  She should also make sure you get the support and help you need so that you deliver a great book and get the maximum push from the publisher, so you earn out your advance and you both start earning royalties.  When you’re trying to decide on agents, don’t just look at sales.  Talk to clients and see what the agent does for them behind the scenes.  Don’t just look at first sales; look at what they do for author’s careers as a whole.  Your agent is your partner in your career; choose someone who will take your success as seriously as you take your own.

(In case you are wondering, my agent is surely one of the best.)

Weapons of Mass Production

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Many of you who are remotely involved with RWA know that there is a huge kerfuffle right now about the current guidelines for entering the RITA.  This year, the following provision found its way into the RITA eligibility requirements:

Be mass-produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher in print book format.

That clause, “mass-produced” is where things get dicey.  What does it mean for something to be mass-produced?   Well, I’m not entirely sure.  It weeds out self-published books (but so does the non-Subsidy line).  It weeds out fly-by-night e-presses that have a contract with PublishAmerica so that authors can see their books “in print” even though there is no distribution program connected to the print program.  But it also weeds out authors at some very respectable e-publishers with strong print programs–Ellora’s Cave, Samhain, and the Wild Rose Press are all examples that spring immediately to mind.

My immediate, knee-jerk response was that this seemed like too much weeding for me.  But having now read through volumes and volumes of messages on the rwa-org listserv, I am now completely confused.  Certainly, some of the things that people have put forward (not allowing Passionate Ink to call themselves the Erotic Romance Special Interest Chapter?  Huh?) seem downright discriminatory.  But there are some real problems with every alternate solution I’ve seen put forward.  And the ultimate inclusionary answer–allow every printed book with the appropriate copyright date–runs smack-dab into the question: What is the purpose of RWA?

We don’t allow non-romances to be entered into the RITA.  Maybe someone has written the best non-romantic mystery in the entire world, but nobody thinks that it should be allowed into the RITA, even if it is in some sense objectively better than every published romance during the year in question.  So that’s something that’s easy–we’re not wholly about inclusion in the first place.  We do draw lines.

Likewise, I can see a clear rationale for saying that self-published books are ineligible for the RITA.  After all, the purpose of RWA is to provide an organization of writers of romance who are pursuing professional publication, and although a handful of self-published authors go on to make mega-bucks, the vast, vast majority of them–99.9999%–don’t make enough that they would have to declare the earnings on their taxes.  (This is not to denigrate self-publication; just to say that I don’t believe self-publication is professional.  It can be the first stepping stone to professionalism–just as sending an agent a query letter is a stepping stone to professionalism–but it’s not itself professional.)

So now we get to the thorny issue of e-publishers.  Now, e-publication is not at all like self-publication, and I don’t want to imply it is.  But let’s face it–some e-publishers are pretty damned sketchy.  I’ve heard of e-publishers who require authors to cough up the money for their own cover artwork, a practice I find extremely shady.  And then there are some e-publishers who are not shady, but just gormless–who will buy all rights associated with a book, for the length of the copyright term–and then be able to sell only a handful of copies.  I don’t think that RWA should be supporting publishers of either type, print or electronic.  There are limited resources available for running the RITA and judging the books in question, and I don’t see why RWA should have to waste those resources on the unethical and the gormless.  RWA is about professionalism, and although it may hurt a writer’s feelings to be told that the publishing company that accepted her book is either devious or dumb, I just think that signing away your copyrights to a devious and/or dumb company is just not the act of a professional writer.

BUT–and this is a huge but–there are a lot of e-publishers out there who are neither devious nor dumb.  Instead, they are extremely nimble and savvy.  They make a lot of money, both for themselves and for at least some of their authors.   I would have a hard time saying that someone published through the best e-publishers was not “professional.”  But RWA has chosen to draw the line between the gormless and the savvy primarily by means of giving out an advance of at least $1000 for a published novel.  This is true in part for PAN membership (although you can circumvent that by sending in a royalty statement), and true in larger part for getting space at National conference.  And so the question is:  Is getting an advance necessary for professionalism?  (I think not.) And if it is not, what alternate criteria could we use?

(Someone put forward the argument on the loop that advances were some kind of necessary symbol for professionalism, because they guaranteed income without risk.  I seem to recall that some major print publisher has experimented, at least with some authors, with a no-advance system, and instead implemented profit sharing.  Which is a lot closer to the Ellora’s Cave model.  Don’t get me wrong; I like an advance.  But I just don’t think it’s the only way to be professional.)

I had never really thought about what RWA meant for the published author.  I’ve always seen RWA as kind of a romance writer’s association, and now that I am published, I had never actually asked myself what I wanted it to do for me.  Aside from accepting our workshop proposal, that is.

I still don’t know what the right answer is, and I think you can find problems with every solution I’ve seen put forward.  I like inclusion.  I also like merit.  I would prefer inclusion here that encompassed more merit, but I would disprefer inclusion that encompassed dismerit, if you catch my drift.

Right now, having read through a whole heap of hurt, confused messages coming from both sides of the fence, here is what I think:

1.  I really want there were some way to be more inclusive of professional e-published authors.

2.  I am so glad I am not on the Board of RWA, because I am sure whatever they come up with for 2010 will tick off a lot of people.

3.  And since I am not running for the Board, and have no intention of doing so, and since I have no good solutions, only a sense that the problem is really, really hard, I should probably not bash anyone.  Except the people who said that Passionate Ink couldn’t have “erotic” in their name, because that is just crazy.


Courtney Milan’s Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
entries (RSS) and comments (RSS).
content © Courtney Milan, 2006-2009
author photo © Jovanka Novakovic | bauwerks.com
cover copyright © 2010 harlequin enterprises limited
cover art used by arrangement with harlequin enterprises limited. all rights reserved.
® and ™ are trademarks of harlequin enterprises limited and/or its affiliated companies, used under license
home \"home books \"books about \"about contact \"contact faqs \"faq articles \"articles