Besides an overhaul of the last 3 chapters (my current ending is unsatisfying, but I was unsure how to fix it. Thanks to beta input and much thought, [I think] I do now.), pretty much the only thing standing in my way of finishing MAGGIE is about 20 items on my final polish checklist.
Unfortunately, I've left these things to the end because I can't make my mind up about them. They are beta suggestions I like, but don't necessarily like for this novel. I can't find fault with them, except... in my gut, I don't feel like they fit my vision of PRODIGAL MAGGIE.
I know I can only overanalyze for so long before it becomes ridiculous. I want to discard the last beta suggestions because I feel they don't fit my vision of the book, but I'm worried about doing so because... what if my gut is tricking me and I really just don't want to make the intricate changes the suggestions call for?
I don't think that's the case, but... I'm confused. And the more I think about it, the more I confuse myself.
Suggestions, bloggy friends? Writing wisdom says go with your gut, but how do you know if your gut is telling the truth?
Showing posts with label betas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label betas. Show all posts
May 03, 2011
February 16, 2011
Crit partners as royal marriages
Critique partners are like royal marriages.
For centuries, it was customary for royals to marry only those of their social class, both to maintain 'pure blood' (hmmm, sound familiar?) and to strengthen diplomatic ties with other nations. As a result, nearly all European royal families are related. A king is far more willing to broker peace rather than declare war if his child or grandchild, cousin, niece or nephew sits on the throne of his 'enemy.'
(Though war against family isn't always unavoidable - most famously during World War I, when King George V of Great Britain was forced to declare war on his cousins Czar Nicholas II of Russia and Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany.**)
Wars and cousins aside, critique partners are like royal marriages in that they further relationships and create bonds between aspiring authors, as well as forge interwoven networks of people with similar passions.
Carefully chosen critique partners are a great diplomatic tool in that, assuming these writing partnerships stem from or result in friendship, should a crit partner achieve success, you have not only a great ally in writing, but one with an audience and influence.
It's the accepted notion that if a writing buddy achieves success before you, you will be jealous — but a critique partner getting published, gaining a popular following, hitting the NYT bestseller list — that can only help you.
(See: the joint awesomeness of Stephanie Perkins and Kiersten White. Stephanie and Kiersten write completely different genres, but both blog and tweet about one another's work, widening their exposure for no reason other than they believe in one another and want to see each other do well.)
That's not to say you should choose your critique partners solely for social and diplomatic advantage. Not only is that not nice, but it might rule out potential critique partners that could do your writing a world of good. Maybe you know someone who isn't interested in publication, or maybe isn't a writer at all, but is uncanny at rooting out plot holes and making you dig deeper. That sounds like a pretty good crit partner to me.
My thought simply is, think carefully about your critique partners. Choose ones who are of your 'class,'* talent and commitment-wise. Choose ones who are kind and generous and will be there for a blurb or a guest post or a contest when they hit the big-time.
And if you are blessed enough to hit the big-time yourself, be willing to do the same for your critique partners.
*But let's forget about the pure blood thing. We <3 Mudbloods in writer-world, right?
**In doing research for this post, I came across this extremely interesting book which I will now be buying. I think I could read biography and memoir all day long and not get sick of it.
For centuries, it was customary for royals to marry only those of their social class, both to maintain 'pure blood' (hmmm, sound familiar?) and to strengthen diplomatic ties with other nations. As a result, nearly all European royal families are related. A king is far more willing to broker peace rather than declare war if his child or grandchild, cousin, niece or nephew sits on the throne of his 'enemy.'
 |
| King George and Czar Nicholas - Note the family resemblance. |
Wars and cousins aside, critique partners are like royal marriages in that they further relationships and create bonds between aspiring authors, as well as forge interwoven networks of people with similar passions.
Carefully chosen critique partners are a great diplomatic tool in that, assuming these writing partnerships stem from or result in friendship, should a crit partner achieve success, you have not only a great ally in writing, but one with an audience and influence.
It's the accepted notion that if a writing buddy achieves success before you, you will be jealous — but a critique partner getting published, gaining a popular following, hitting the NYT bestseller list — that can only help you.
(See: the joint awesomeness of Stephanie Perkins and Kiersten White. Stephanie and Kiersten write completely different genres, but both blog and tweet about one another's work, widening their exposure for no reason other than they believe in one another and want to see each other do well.)
That's not to say you should choose your critique partners solely for social and diplomatic advantage. Not only is that not nice, but it might rule out potential critique partners that could do your writing a world of good. Maybe you know someone who isn't interested in publication, or maybe isn't a writer at all, but is uncanny at rooting out plot holes and making you dig deeper. That sounds like a pretty good crit partner to me.
My thought simply is, think carefully about your critique partners. Choose ones who are of your 'class,'* talent and commitment-wise. Choose ones who are kind and generous and will be there for a blurb or a guest post or a contest when they hit the big-time.
And if you are blessed enough to hit the big-time yourself, be willing to do the same for your critique partners.
*But let's forget about the pure blood thing. We <3 Mudbloods in writer-world, right?
**In doing research for this post, I came across this extremely interesting book which I will now be buying. I think I could read biography and memoir all day long and not get sick of it.
December 20, 2010
Beta reactions
(For the purpose of this blog, the terms beta and critique are used interchangeably.)
PRODIGAL MAGGIE is my first novel, so I'm still new to the critique process, both as a critiquer and the critiquee. Heck, I didn't even know what a beta was until about a year ago.
And let me tell you, I had so many fears:
I worried my betas would think MAGGIE was total garbage, or they'd say it was good while secretly detesting it. I worried they wouldn't get my book. I worried they would tear it to shreds (deservedly or not) and I would be left devastated and discouraged.
But I have awesome betas, and my fears were completely unfounded.
I've received preliminary (good) feedback from several betas already, but today I received my first full critique in the mail. I read the summary sheet Sarah so kindly included, flipped through my manuscript, page by page, taking in her thoughts, and then set it aside to let the information stew (I'm waiting to tackle my next set of edits until after the New Year).
First, I am so impressed and appreciative of Sarah's thoughtful and thorough critique. MAGGIE will be a better book because of her feedback.
Second, I was pleasantly surprised. According to Sarah's critique (and this may change as other betas' feedback trickles in — though I hope it doesn't), I have a lot less to fix than I thought. It seems most of the problems are fairly minor. They will require hard work to fix, but there's no ohmygoodness I hate this entire subplot or, your main character is unrelatable or, worst of all, this book is boring.
The majority of the issues she raised, I either sorta knew it was an issue but was hoping it really wasn't, or I didn't realize it was an issue but completely agree it needs fixing now that I'm aware of it. I finished writing the end of MAGGIE in the middle of the night and was incredibly uncertain as to the effectiveness of it. But, there didn't seem to be much of an issue with the ending, which makes me go whew!
Sarah also allayed my fear that MAGGIE was not strong as a stand-alone novel. I've got a basic plot for a sequel drawn up in my head, but I think I'd rather explore other ideas before jumping back into Maggie's world. And assuming I do ever get published, I'm not sure if I'd rather go the Kiersten White/Andrea Cremer route and debut with a series, one book published directly after the other, or the Jackson Pearce route, in which she writes one stand-alone at a time.
And, on a slightly different note, you know how you sometimes read something you wrote and are happily surprised by how good it is?
Well, since Bear's been reading MAGGIE, every once in a while he'll burst out laughing and point out a phrase or sentence that is completely bizarre. As in, if I read the phrase in someone else's manuscript, I would think they were on something. I can't recall examples at the moment, but next time he happens across one, I'll try to remember to share it.
It's funny because with some sections of my book, I recall very specifically where I was and what I was doing when I wrote it, and with others, the words feel alien and apart from me. And these bizarre little phrases feel very alien to me. Not because they're bad — heck, I know I'm capable of bad writing — but because they're just that darn strange.
What about you? How have your recent beta experiences (as the author or the beta) gone? Do you ever find phrases in your own writing that surprise you?
PRODIGAL MAGGIE is my first novel, so I'm still new to the critique process, both as a critiquer and the critiquee. Heck, I didn't even know what a beta was until about a year ago.
And let me tell you, I had so many fears:
I worried my betas would think MAGGIE was total garbage, or they'd say it was good while secretly detesting it. I worried they wouldn't get my book. I worried they would tear it to shreds (deservedly or not) and I would be left devastated and discouraged.
But I have awesome betas, and my fears were completely unfounded.
I've received preliminary (good) feedback from several betas already, but today I received my first full critique in the mail. I read the summary sheet Sarah so kindly included, flipped through my manuscript, page by page, taking in her thoughts, and then set it aside to let the information stew (I'm waiting to tackle my next set of edits until after the New Year).
First, I am so impressed and appreciative of Sarah's thoughtful and thorough critique. MAGGIE will be a better book because of her feedback.
Second, I was pleasantly surprised. According to Sarah's critique (and this may change as other betas' feedback trickles in — though I hope it doesn't), I have a lot less to fix than I thought. It seems most of the problems are fairly minor. They will require hard work to fix, but there's no ohmygoodness I hate this entire subplot or, your main character is unrelatable or, worst of all, this book is boring.
The majority of the issues she raised, I either sorta knew it was an issue but was hoping it really wasn't, or I didn't realize it was an issue but completely agree it needs fixing now that I'm aware of it. I finished writing the end of MAGGIE in the middle of the night and was incredibly uncertain as to the effectiveness of it. But, there didn't seem to be much of an issue with the ending, which makes me go whew!
Sarah also allayed my fear that MAGGIE was not strong as a stand-alone novel. I've got a basic plot for a sequel drawn up in my head, but I think I'd rather explore other ideas before jumping back into Maggie's world. And assuming I do ever get published, I'm not sure if I'd rather go the Kiersten White/Andrea Cremer route and debut with a series, one book published directly after the other, or the Jackson Pearce route, in which she writes one stand-alone at a time.
And, on a slightly different note, you know how you sometimes read something you wrote and are happily surprised by how good it is?
Well, since Bear's been reading MAGGIE, every once in a while he'll burst out laughing and point out a phrase or sentence that is completely bizarre. As in, if I read the phrase in someone else's manuscript, I would think they were on something. I can't recall examples at the moment, but next time he happens across one, I'll try to remember to share it.
It's funny because with some sections of my book, I recall very specifically where I was and what I was doing when I wrote it, and with others, the words feel alien and apart from me. And these bizarre little phrases feel very alien to me. Not because they're bad — heck, I know I'm capable of bad writing — but because they're just that darn strange.
What about you? How have your recent beta experiences (as the author or the beta) gone? Do you ever find phrases in your own writing that surprise you?
November 09, 2010
A beta request
I've got more betas lined up than I can shake a stick at.
BUT
I am still lacking a beta who meets the following qualifications:
To my knowledge, none of my blog or Twitter followers fit this description. If you meet the ↑ above qualifications ↑ and would be willing to critique my manuscript (or know someone else who might), please contact me at abby@abbystevens.com.
Also — if you are willing, I would be very grateful if you could help me spread the word about this on your blogs, Twitter, etc!
BUT
I am still lacking a beta who meets the following qualifications:
- Native Irish or has spent a long period in Ireland (Northern or the Republic of, either is fine)
- Comfortable critiquing my Irish characters' linguistic patterns: word choice, slang usage, sentence structure, etc. (for Irish English, not the Irish/Gaelic languages)
- A writer, preferably of YA
To my knowledge, none of my blog or Twitter followers fit this description. If you meet the ↑ above qualifications ↑ and would be willing to critique my manuscript (or know someone else who might), please contact me at abby@abbystevens.com.
Also — if you are willing, I would be very grateful if you could help me spread the word about this on your blogs, Twitter, etc!
July 06, 2010
Don't send out the YorkiePoo Brigade!
Happy Belated Independence Day!
In case any of you were thinking of sending your YorkiePoo on a mission to rescue me, I just wanted to pop my head out of my editing cave and let you know that a.) Yes, I'm still alive and b.) Yes, I'm still editing.
Thank you to everyone who left positive, encouraging comments on my last post. I've been keeping up with 90% of the blogs I Follow, and I've been popping onto Twitter occasionally, but I haven't been commenting much. I miss the blogging community, but my thought is that there's no point in being a writer/blogger if I never finish my MS.
My deadline to have my MS beta-ready passed a week ago, but I am still working. I've learned a lot by setting this goal, and it has helped me immensely.
Although my original plan was to edit straight through, I ended up working with a beta throughout, so I have been making corrections as I go along, which has actually worked out great! Setting this goal (and not reaching it) has taught me that, while writing is the best. job. ever, I still need room to be, in the wise words of Maggie Stiefvater (and I so cannot find the link to the blog she wrote about this, so if you have it, please leave it in the comments), I must be something other than a writer.
I've worked harder than I've worked in a long time during the last 3 weeks, but once my husband gets home from work, I want to spend time with him, and once the weekend hits, my life is full of family and fun (and okay, chores). I need recharge time.
Rachelle Gardner posted a blog called How to Become a Better Writer: 11 Completely Non-Writing-Related Ideas that I think every writer should read. It's so true and exactly captures how I feel about the writing/recharging thing.
So yes, I didn't reach my goal in the time I allowed. But I learned that, for my pace and temperament, I didn't give myself enough time. I didn't set a realistic goal. I've learned I just can't writewritewrite with no recharge. I know some people gladly do it, but I'm just not built that way. I want to write, do something else, write, do something else, write, do something else.
And to show you a little of what that 'do something else' entails for me, I wanted to share what I worked on yesterday (while watching HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE, no less):
I got the idea for this painting from a home renovations magazine. This is what I hope for it to look like when I'm finished:
*Heads back to my editing cave again.*
See you in a week or two!
June 15, 2010
Goal
I have set a major goal for myself. It will require me spending less time online for the next 2 weeks. A less strict version of No Internet Distractions Week, if you will.
My goal?
Finish this round of edits through the end of the novel and finish combining chs. 1&2, which will hopefully put me in the position of being ready to send out to betas.
There. I've publicly declared it. Scary, scary, because if I didn't share at least then no one would have known if I fail. But I won't fail, right?
Right.
Because it's all up to me.
My goal?
Finish this round of edits through the end of the novel and finish combining chs. 1&2, which will hopefully put me in the position of being ready to send out to betas.
There. I've publicly declared it. Scary, scary, because if I didn't share at least then no one would have known if I fail. But I won't fail, right?
Right.
Because it's all up to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You might also like...
