The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Danielle L. Parker:

An interesting anecdote.

Let me add a bit from my experience: I am a female who started as a programmer (Fortran was the first stuff I wrote). I went through 15+ years in IT and Telecomm and ended up as a project manager who often worked with R&D testing buggy software... for huge complex CRM systems.

And I was often the only female among men doing the job. And the better you are, the tougher you are in the job, the less your male colleagues will even think of you as a woman.

I am reminded of a story I heard about an American woman who was sent to do business with the Japanese during what was no doubt the height of the gender gap there. Eventually they simply treated her like a man. Right down to the obligatory social events at the late-night karoke bars.

Men are by nature competitive, and I know from experience that the IT business is one of the most competitive there is. Enjoy the kindliness you get now from men who are actually probably quite happy you're at the fumbling around stage. When you get to the, excuse me, emasculation stage--when you're as good at their job as they are and better--things will change. And you won't like it.

Real-life experience, sister. But good luck. Keep plugging. You'll learn the technical stuff if you want to, and damn the torpedos. Keep at it.

Re #803 (Elliott) and #802 (Paul):

You're quite right. I should be on those sequels! Your friend has marvellous conviction, all the same. A series of 10?!

It's interesting how when we first start writing, we don't even REALISE we are bad, or that we WILL improve.

I delivered such a primal shock to a man at a writers' critique group. He started his book with a teenager's dull essay to his teacher... I told him even teachers had to be paid to read those, and it made a bad start to his novel. His face grew red, and he told me afterwards he was about to throw me out the door. We take it HARD when we get that first shock.

But we do learn if we keep at it and listen. I, too, wrote a tome as a first book--none of this start small for me; this was 150k words!--and sent it out with happy expectations, crashed at the rejections, sulked and pounded my heels, and then went on in more of a furious "this isn't going to stop me" mood than anything else. I wrote the second novel. Which did sell.

Now I've at last revisited the primal tome, and wow. How my eyes have opened! Weak verb constructions; overwriting (saying in 50 words what only takes 10)... it's all there. It didn't sell, and it didn't deserve to, in that condition.

I like to think I can look back on what I'm writing now in five years and see how I can improve IT. Isn't that a nice thought? Like your friend, Eliott. Onward, but hopefully, always upward.

But you know how I learned? Well, a lot of it was due to several kind editors, who rejected my book, but still took the time to write and say, "Dear, fix up the weak verb constructions", and so forth.

You can learn from rejections, too. I thank all the editors who cared enough to write back with specific suggestions.

Though I always think hard about what the editor says, sometimes I discard the advice still. Advice on HOW to write is something I almost always follow. That is, technique, grammar, etc.

But on WHAT to write, the content, the themes, the setting... rarely. That's what I consciously intended; that's MY story. If they don't like that, I am happy to take my story elsewhere.

Sadly some editors don't take to works too far outside their box. Vampires selling well? We want more. Elves, dwarves, Tolkien rehashes... we're comfortable with them! Bring 'em on!

But something totally new? The rare editor may snatch it up, but a lot of others stop dead just due to, say, an unfamiliar setting. I know; they've written me back and said they couldn't get into it. They did not have the imagination to make the leap.

My current work in submission (given up for dead in the land of Tor) features a far future gladiator in a setting somewhat reminiscent of Old Rome (but very much far future. The gladiator is genetically engineered, and becomes the head of a cloned army). I got a rejection yesterday (not from Tor) and the editor said he simply couldn't get into a sci fi riff on Rome. I wrote back and told him Robert Silverberg had already done it. (Of course it wasn't Silverberg's best book, but I couldn't resist reminding him one of sci fi's grand masters hadn't found it too out of the realm of sanity, either).

So will I change my setting because of the editor's comment? No. There are specific reasons... and that Roman-like setting has symbolic meaning, too. That's the book I intended to write.

But I can't explain such things to a rejecting editor.

It's really indulgence on the part of the writer to write back and make any comment on a rejection other than "thanks for your time" (though sometimes I can't resist indulging myself, either).

That editor just couldn't make the leap. And editors are so overwhelmed, from what I have seen, they can't help but look for ways to weed out the workload. I expect any day to read "we only read organically printed paper" or something to be a submissions requirement, just as a way of whittling down the slush.

So you just say thanks, and look for one who has the imagination. Onward we go.

Here then to kind editors who manage to find the time to prod a new writer in the right direction, and to those with enough imagination to make the leap to something different from the usual fantasy stereotypes! We don't have enough of you.

Danielle

Re #799 from the wise Mr. MacDonald:

"Start high and work your way down" (Quote)

Yes, indeed. That's exactly what I'm doing!

Didn't Ursula Le Guin have 5 books sitting in her desk before she "made it"? Perhaps that's urban legend, but I seem to recall reading that once. Paying those dues, again!

The only problem I have is with books that have planned sequels (whose prequels have not yet sold). It's hard to concentrate on a sequel--and I've got two I should write, already--when the prequel hasn't yet found its "home".

And perhaps it is just a lot harder to write sequels than first novels of a series. I often wonder how George R. R. Martin--or, say, Stephen Donaldsen--keep track of all the "threads" in their vast epics!

Anyway... to all those other writers out there: remember this. There's a reader somewhere for almost ANY book. I learned that, working as a librarian, seeing books by what I considered poor writers fly out the door while authors I considered far greater sat on the shelf. Some of us like mustard, and others spit.

And if there are readers for almost any book, there must be EDITORS for almost any book. One commentator on this thread already mentioned the widely diverse responses received to a submission from different editors.

I had the same experience. I had editors tell me "start with the action!" while others say "explain background before getting into the action!"

Two dramatically opposed opinions, aren't they? Do you then suspect one editor might like, say, Tolkien, and the other might be a fan of, say, R. A. Salvatore or some other slash-and-bash?

If I, for example, rave about, say, the works of Neal Asher or Charles Stross, I have plenty of friends and fellow readers who can't stand either one, for reasons perfectly valid to them.

That's not to say authors shouldn't evaluate what editors are kind enough to write back in their rejections (and if they write at all, I consider it a compliment, even if I rabidly disagree with WHAT they wrote).

Evaluate it, and make up your own mind. Don't start carrying the donkey on your back because someone told you to.

The same editor who told me, in my most recent rejection, to "explain background before action", also told me my work was "too experimental and disorienting". Did I agree with him?

No, but I thought about it before I discarded the advice, and I valued the fact he actually wrote me a note in his own handwriting. So don't be so down on those personal rejection notices, folks.

Hey, what happens when this thread reaches the #1000 posting? Does someone win a prize... er, maybe the booby one? :)

Danielle

Hey Mr. MacDonald! Someone's actually reading down to entry #796? I was resigned to my little voice fading in the wilderness, like my submission!

Well, others have had a far worse tale of woe to tell about lengthy submissions than my since-Februrary (of this year). So I'm not bitching.

But it took me 4 months to WRITE the story. As you can see, I've now exceeded that in MARKETING time.

And wow, marketing is hellish, however joyful writing is. I can almost feel for those writers who won merely posthumous glory. Anything for a quiet life, eh? Save the blood pressure, and quietly pile the tomes in the meantime, like Kafka.

It's not that I blame editors for those delays. I can guess the sheer volume of submissions they have to deal with.

But the lengthy response time does play havoc with the "simultaneous submissions" rule. Do I want to wait a year to get back a rejection slip, or even a positive response? No, and I won't.

I set myself a rule that I give a publisher 2-3 months to get back to me with SOMETHING after my initial submission. If I don't hear any news during that time period, in my mind I write them off, and send the work elsewhere.

And I try not to get too upset about the delay, and hope the editor, if he/she ever digs out my tome and decides to contact me after all, will understand if it's gone elsewhere already.

You just have to balance: how badly do I want XX Big Name Publisher to have my work? Is it worth a year's wait? 6 months? Early gratification, or postponement with diminishing hopes?

To me, 2-3 months of total silence is it. That's all it's worth. We all have to make decisions, even if they may not always be the best ones for us in the long run.

But good things can happen. I was dumbfounded, when I DID send my work out again, (giving up on Tor), to get an answer back from the second big publisher in ONE week. That was the fastest response time I have EVER had, from any publisher, small or large. (Other than the generic auto-reply "Not taking submissions").

My book has passed first reading, according to them... but the editor also told me second reading was backed up and would "take a long time". How long is "long"?

I don't know, but since I heard back from them so promptly, I am a lot more willing to be patient.

This isn't in any way meant to slur Tor. They must get a mountain of slush simply from being the world's biggest sci fi publisher (I think).

I simply don't see how the response time issue can be resolved given the volume of submissions received. I simply got very, very lucky with that other big publisher, is all I can say. And luck does often play a part.

Sure the system is skewed against new writers. As I've read in these posts, having an agent does mean your submission takes precedence. New authors can't easily get agents... they don't have a revenue stream. Having an agent tells the publisher the work "might" be better than average sluch, but it also means new, first time authors have a harder go of it.

Is there a solution to that Catch-22? I don't see one. I consider it part of paying my dues as a writer.

Look at how long Raymond Chandler wrote before he made the big time. Five years of poverty on the ranch, or something like; he commented he had paid too high a price for his art.

I look at it this way: I don't expect big publishers to take a new writer on (though I may get lucky, who knows, and so may others). That's why I give it a shot, and then pass on to the next option if I have to.

So I'll pay my dues without complaint. If you're a good writer, you can make it in the smaller/mid-tiers first. AND comfort yourself that if you DO, then one day, the big ones will call YOU.

Hey, it's a nice fantasy, anyway. I really enjoy it. :)

Danielle

Possibly others have made this point; I skimmed,but this thread is getting long.

Mr. Stross (hey, Charles, eat up your books, and have reviewed several on Bewildering Stories) had an interesting comment earlier: WHY do authors take rejection so hard? We're adults, so why?

I don't think it's because newbie authors have this yen to be a world-famous celebrity with loads of money. Most writers stay out of the public spotlight.

And few writers are glamorous celebrites. I once attended a conference of writers... and what a shock. I thought, heck, this looks like the last librarians' gig I went to! Many were erotica authors, and I wonder how many readers knew just how old, overweight, out of shape, fustily dressed, and eminently ORDINARY those creators of
exotic sexual encounters actually were! There's the reader in the sweaty throes of the heroine's passion, in bed right with that gray-haired granny who wrote it.

No, I think the motivation, and the reasons for the rejections hitting so hard, are entirely different.

I've run several writing/critique groups in my time. What struck me was how intense people are to SHARE their creative works. THEY JUST DESPERATELY NEED READERS. It's a deep-seated need to involve others in their fantasy worlds (and ALL books are fantasy worlds).
Bad writers have this need just as deeply as great writers.

Why do we write, in the first place? We create a fantasy world. We're not writing for fame, glory, or money. And we're like actors without an audience if we don't have the readers. It's a strange psychological need in almost all of us who write.

That's why writers get so desperate. They urgently crave to share their worlds. One responder here said "like an infant". Yes, so it is to writers. Are we going to find it easy to stay calm?

That's not to say we shouldn't apply reason, as many others have said. The author may have the deep craving to share, but nothing says others have to enter into their fantasy (which at least is being acted out on the page, not real life).

What I try to remember when I write is that writers are manipulators. You have to think of your audience when you write, just as an actor doesn't act for himself, but for his viewers. Good writing is lIke a singer who effectively conveys emotion in her voice. We have to evoke emotion and interest in our readers. Who would listen to a shrill singer? We get what we deserve if we can't hit the notes.

Great site, and hey, perhaps now I can point out we're not all crazed needy authors. My submission to Tor in Feb. has totally disappeared without a trace. I gave up on it, but I sure didn't send any dead rats in the mail.

We can be graceful losers too. :)

- Danielle L. Parker (and an author, of "The Infinite Instant")

Comment statistics for Danielle L. Parker on the Making Light blog

Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.