Comments Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: Campus Police? Didn’t know novice writing was a crime! LOL Which only goes to show, the internet IS NOT the be all and end all of research! Awww, but everything we read on the RSS blog is absolutely and always true, right Gwynlyn?? Come on, tell me it’s so! Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: Absotively, posilutely, Bev. We tell it like it is—to the best of our knowledge. The two ‘dumb’ questions I had when I first started writing were, “What the heck are POV and GMC? Piece of_____(I couldn’t think of a single thing that started with a V to replace the S in the abbreviation I was used to)? General Motors Corporation? Me too, Laure. First contest I was ever in, a judge said I switched POV too much. First I had to figure out what she meant. And then I couldn’t understand why it was a problem. Why is it a problem? I’m reading a book now by a NYT bestseller and she tells me the POV of anyone and everyone. And it bothers me only because…I can’t do it. One second I’m in the lead characters head, and out of the blue, she’s talking to someone who isn’t even a secondary character, and I get his/her POV for a split second. Now, the author is from England. Maybe it’s a geographical thing, but the publisher is American. I was told it could be done if done well, but who’s to say if you’re doing it well? Do we have to wait until we are established?  Shea Berkley says: I’ve read books where they head hop all the time and loved them, but it’s rare. Not very many writers can pull it off. Authors head hopped in the 80’s all the time, but it was done so poorly, I think people got sick of it. Doing it well is when a reader can read the story and not notice when it’s being done, meaning a writer has to pay special attention to transitional sentences, which of course, no one likes to do, thus, badly executed head hopping. Just my take on the phenomenon. Shea, now that I know more “rules” I find it more jarring. I tend to read more to learn, than enjoy. I find it disconcerting when authors go into the POV of unimportant characters. I’ve read a few books where they’ll go into anyone’s head. Personally, if I’m seeing from their point of view, I think they are going to be important to the story. I keep looking for more of them through the rest of it. When they aren’t there, I get irritated. Larry McMurtry does it really well and I think I had just read Lonesome Dove when I started writing my first manuscript. So I thought headhopping was the way to go. If you can do it like he does, it’s wonderful. Some genres seem to frown on it more than others, romance being one.  Darynda Jones says: I thought head-hopping was the way to go forever! Then I read an article, and it said to sit back and imagine your favorite scene/s from your favorite book/s. Picture them in your head. Replay them again and again. Now think about the POV. Chances are, those scenes were all written from one POV and one only. So naturally I had to research this. I reread about five of my favorite scenes and even though every one of the books was written with multiple POVs, indeed those scenes had only one POV. I just found that very interesting.  Elisa Beatty says: I’ve always heard “head-hopping’s okay if it’s done well,” but (even though I like multiple POVs fine when “done well” in non-romance novels), I much prefer one POV per scene in romance. For me, I love to go deeply into one person’s emotional perspective at a time, and stay there for a whole scene. A shift in POV dissipates the building wave of emotion. Also, romantic tension / conflict depend so much on differences between the hero’s and heroine’s perspectives and on their misunderstandings and misreadings of one another’s actions, words, motives. So I prefer to have one character trying to interpret the other for a scene, and in the NEXT scene or chapter get the other character’s take on what happened. I love, love, love it when you realize the other character felt / thought /wanted something very different from what the other believed (as long as the other character’s interpretation wasn’t just boneheadedly stupid). Staying in one POV at a time mimics all the mystery and struggle of trying to figure out another person as you fall in love. What is GMC, Laurie?  CJ Chase says: Goal-motivation-conflict. If that leaves you still scratching your head, get Debra Dixon’s book GMC: Goal, Motivation, and Conflict. It is a very good resource that explains all three parts. If you don’t have it, buy it. I’ve attended other workshops and read other books on the topic, but hers is probably the easiest to understand and apply. Good book for both beginning and not-so-beginning writers. Shea Berkley says: The condensed version … G = Goal. What a person wants. M = Motivation. Why that person wants that particular goal. C = Conflict. What stands in the way of that person reaching that goal. There are tons and tons of writing books out on this subject, though not ever teacher calls this aspect of writing by the same acronym. Plot and Structure by James Scott Bell is fabulous. He’s a wonderful teacher and is fun to boot. Darynda Jones says: Plot and Structure is one of my favs, Shea! Awesome! Elisa Beatty says: I puzzled for a long time over what the difference between Goal and Motivation really was. The way I think of it now is that Goal is on the surface (the practical thing that the character wants), Motivation is underlying (the deeper emotion..and therefore the more important, interesting, character-revealing part). Three characters might have the same goal: winning an Olympic gold medal. But one might be motivated by the reward of multi-million-dollar endorsement deals. Another might want to win because his father and grandfather won that medal, and he’d take great joy in upholding the family tradition. A third might be on his third attempt after failing twice, and his marriage and family have already fallen apart under the pressure, and winning this medal is the only thing that will make him like a worthwhile human being and let him reclaim his life. Those motivations would create three very different stories. Ah, thanks all for the explanation and resources. I’ve heard of Goal, Motivation, and Conflict but never heard it called GMC (or if I did I never connected the two). Thanks for the helpful post!  rita says: Campus Police It was a bit irritating at the time, Rita. I really wanted a CP of my own….whatever it was. It’s probably totally obvious, but why shouldn’t you put your name on your ms when you submit it to a competition? Is it basically the same reason some universities make you submit your papers anonymously – to get rid of any chances to favoritism? For the GH, the website said you can put your name on it if you want, and I went back and forth in my mind several times before deleting my name because of all the advice I’d read saying to never ever put your name on a ms for a competition. CJ Chase says: Yes, anonymous to reduce the chance of bias (for or against the author). Some of the people entering may be members of the local chapter, have positions in RWA, etc., where their names are known by the contest judges. Of course, some manuscripts spend enough time on the contest circuit that judges start to recognize them by title, so you’ll never get rid of all bias. And once you are published, your name will be on every page of the story. The first year I entered, Katrina, I put my name on my manuscript, and now wish I hadn’t, because my writing was soooooooo bad. My first manuscript was so bad, I actually ended my entry mid-sentence. There it was, fifty pages, done. The judges must have laughed and I’m grateful I didn’t put my name on it.:) Lol, Bev. My first entry was similar. I thought the page count meant that’s what you were supposed to send in. I did fudge and make sure the sentence was complete, but it was an awful ending. I can’t even remember the sentence now, but it was something about the heroine’s eye color. Elisa Beatty says: *blush* The “ending on a hook” thing is something I’ve JUST figured out. Painful, painful. I figured it had to do with bias, which is why I was confused when the GH page on RWA’s site said you could put your name on your ms if you wanted. Glad I didn’t! Thanks again for your helpful tips and advice! Shea Berkley says: I’ve been doing this writing gig so long, sometimes I forget there are a whole lot of people who don’t know the acronyms we throw out there. For the longest time I would get certain aspects of writing mixed up. There are two different types of POVs we talk about and then there are two different types of ARCs. I only knew about the arc that had to do with character, as in a character’s story arc, but sometimes when people talked, I couldn’t put the word into context. Drove me crazy. Then someone brought their ARC to a meeting and there on the cover — Advance Reading Copy. I was so used to taking classes through RWA, that I wasn’t familiar with an acronym from outside of it. When I joined the NaNoWriMo boards, my local forum was talking about MC’s. Took me forever to deduce that meant Main Characters. Shrugs. Darynda Jones says: I think our questions are like a ladder. I have learned so much over the years that I sometimes forget how ridiculously naive I was at one time. My first contest entry was enough to make a sane judge cringe. While my early questions were things like, “How do I show instead of tell?”, “What is proper formatting?”, “What font should I use?”, I have stepped up the ladder and now have questions like, “Is this something with which I should bug my editor?”, “What kind of promotion should I be doing?”, “Have I died and gone to Heaven?”, you know, the usual almost-published quesitons. But they never stop, that’s for sure. Maybe once I have about 20 published books under my belt, they’ll slow down. But I’m not holding my breath. Questions are like a ladder, well-put Darynda! I’m going to dig out some old entries and take a look. I know I put question marks by a lot of the acronyms, and I learned so much from those early contests. I’m always amazed at how sharing this writing community is. Hi Bev & Sisters, I’d like to know why historicals with very graphic sex scenes aren’t considered romantica. Or are they? I know the difference between erotica and romantica. What am I missing? Thanks!  Diana Layne says: Ok, I’m gonna take a stab at answering this. I thought romantica and erotica was sort of the same thing as pertaining to women’s fiction. I think it all is in the spin you put on the story. I’ve read books I consider erotic but there’s still a romance, and I’m thinking this is the difference, and you can correct me if I’m wrong. Romantica is sexually explicit but at the heart a romance story where the sex is used to show the heroine’s growth, to create some realization about herself. While erotica can be just a woman’s sexual journey, where she learns about herself via the sex but her journey doesn’t really have a romance focus. The story is all about her. (and great sex obviously) While I think the “hot” historicals, the journey for the woman is all about the romance and what love teaches her about herself–the sex is just a side bonus in those stories. I’m theorizing here based on what I’ve read, so it’s entirely possible I’m wrong. Have you had a rejection or a CP tell you that a book you thought was romantica was in reality a hot historical? Hi Diana & Vivi, No, I haven’t been rejected or have someone tell me I write/not write romantica. I just couldn’t understand why there is a “romantica” label. I have to be honest and say I’ve never read anything labeled erotica, but I’ve been around the block a time or two and can imagine the heat level contained therein. I write historicals with very descriptive sex scenes. I suppose they could be called romantica, but then I know of a pretty steamy romantic suspense (written by one of your own–R.H.) that could be called romantica, too. I’m on the verge of thinking it shoud be another sub-genre of romance. I’ve picked up historicals where the author slammed the bedroom door in my face, and others where they’ve invited me in and pulled up a chair to the bed so I could get a better look. When reading a new author the only way to know is to pick up the book and hope you’re not disappointed one way or the other. Thanks for your very good answers! Lis’Anne I believe “romantica” is a trademarked term belonging to Ellora’s Cave. But it is essentially the same as “erotic romance”. In terms of why very hot historicals don’t get an erotic tag – that seems to be more about how the publisher markets them than the way they are written. Though it is possible that the distinction has to do with the frequency of the graphic sex scenes or how pivotal a role they play in the plot. Perhaps an Erotic Romance is one in which the sex is not only graphic, but also a central plot theme. Different people will draw the line between spicy rom & erotic rom in different places. Meh, I still think it has more to do with author branding/marketing. If an author is established mainstream and begins writing progressively hotter, she can get away with a lot more heat before she earns the tag “erotic romance”. You think? I’m no expert on erotic romance by any stretch and I can’t write historicals to save my life, but that’s my two cents. My understanding is that the difference lies in the, um, thrust of the story. In a romance, you can have a whole lot of hot sex, BUT you could tone down that sex and still have essentially the same story. (Obviously, different lines are going to have different guidelines about how spicy, varied, and inventive said sex actually is.) In erotica, the sex is an integral part of the story; you couldn’t remove it and still have a complete story. The best example I know of this is Louisa Burton’s work. There is utterly no way you could remove the sexual components of those books; you couldn’t even tone it down and have the stories accomplish the same emotional journeys for the characters. So focusing on the individual acts themselves is kind of like focusing on the trees instead of looking at the big picture of the forest. Those factors come into play once you define which story you’re telling, but the basic definition of the story occurs at a different level. signed, Elisa Beatty says: Interesting answer… that makes sense. Thanks! Thanks Doranna. You had my attention at ‘thrust’ lol. I might check out Louisa Burton. Great question, Lis’Anne. Need to draw on our historical SIsters for that. Answer coming… Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: Okay, here’s my $.02 Sex for the sake of sex is erotica. This includes but is not limited to multiple partners, S&M, bondage, etc., and is not necessarily limited to the focal characters. Romantica is hot (okay, maybe paint-peeling sizzling) sex between h/h. It can include (pulling on my diplomat’s hat here) less traditional sexual relations, even kinky to the point of “ya gotta be kidding me. Can people really DO that?” but remains within the parameters of the two seeking the HEA. Hot Historicals are hot, but while the framework of what is considered traditional relations has changed and may include a spanking or “silk-scarf” bondage, these are nuances for this couple, not the norm. The norm is gratifying for both without resorting to things some readers would find distateful (or horrifying!) Yes, the content has changed—quite a lot—since I first began reading historical romance. Lots of errors on the road to understanding what the readers want, but in that same span of time the reader has become much more sexually aware. Women have become freer to voice their likes and dislikes, to take some responsibility for their sexuality, to expect a degree of satsifaction that few even knew they could have, let alone demand. (I’m trying to do this without becoming graphic. If I’ve failed, please let me know.) Today’s book is written for the women we’ve become, not the women we were back in the mid-1900s. Rob & Laura Petrie and their twin beds will never again happen on prime time television. Excellent answer, Gwynlyn! Hmmm…if erotica is sex for the sake of sex and there’s no romance, then why does RWA have an erotica category? I’m just musing and not necessarily expecting an answer. I’m not advocating this genre be removed from RWA, but I don’t see how it can be a sub-genre of romance. BTW, I have absolutely nothing against erotica! Good point. Maybe that’s why there’s no erotica category in the GH. Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: Okay, sticky but doable. Erotica is 1)Not erotic romance, and 2) sex is purely to tittilate. (I just know there’s some teenager out there laughing his/her little fanny off right now. Grrrrrr…..) Erotic romance must have an emotional connection. A slave whose master falls for her, a pretty woman not edited for TV, etc., where the sex is the primary characterization and the relationship develops from it as opposed to creating the emotional bond or intimate attraction first. Okay? Are we better now? Are we done embarrassing the old broad? LOL Elisa Beatty says: Great answer, Gwynlyn–that’s really clear, and sounds right to me. rita says: Great answer. I’m saving this for future reference. Diana Layne says: Loved your answer, Gwyn, exactly what I meant but you said it so succinctly. However, you said: “Hot Historicals are hot, but while the framework of what is considered traditional relations has changed and may include a spanking or “silk-scarf” bondage, these are nuances for this couple, not the norm. The norm is gratifying for both without resorting to things some readers would find distateful (or horrifying!)” I raised my eyebrows at the traditional thing and how it’s changed…well, I remember, and don’t know if there’s any others old enough to remember, but anyone read the first historicals when Kathleen Woodiwiss first opened those bedroom doors? Rosemary Rogers? Jennifer Wilde (aka Tom Huff). Those writers would shock a few readers these days as well…seems like we’re kinda coming full circle on the sex in historicals. Great discussion, love it, thanks for asking Lis’Anne (cool name btw.) I was there when the bedroom door opened! Jenny and Steve’s story wouldn’t cut it today, but at the time it sure did answer a lot of questions my 13 year-mind yearned to know. Thanks for the name props, Diana. It’s what my sister calls me. Elisa Beatty says: Oh, yeah–I was there for Woodiwiss. Literal bodice ripping. And, as I recall, borderline and even not-so-borderline coercive sex (”excused” by alcohol or mistaken identity or some such thing) which wouldn’t be tolerated as mainstream today. I vaguely remember a scenario in which the sea-captain hero mistakenly believes the heroine’s a prostitute who’s been brought to his bed…. I’m not really sure what those books contributed to my burgeoning adolescent sense of what sexuality was about. (And I worry about the gender politics of the Twilight books, and what they’re teaching teenage girls about romance…) Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: Change “Traditional” to “missionary” or something along those lines as opposed to “round the world” or any of a dozen euphemisms. Even the “coerced” part of early romance remained more or less “traditional.” If you see what I mean. Like I said, difficult to keep within the family friendly rating on this one! LOL I’m not exactly fure what romantica is, but when writing erotica you leave the bedroom door wide open, and let the characters do whatever floats their boat in the most graphic way until they are sexually sated. At least that’s the way I write it. In the end, everyone goes home with a smile plastered on his/her face but not necessarily together. With erotic romance, the bedroom door is also left wide open and the characters sexually satisfy their partners in the most loving and explicit way. They not only have a smile on their faces at the end, they get to live happily ever after, as well. Elisa Beatty says: Good way to make the distinction. Thanks! I may be too late, but what should the word count be on a single title contemporary? I thought it was 90,000 to 100,000 … but the only reference I found to a word count online was 85,000. If that’s the case, I’m going to have to start hacking! Hi Arlene. I’m not one of the Ruby Sisters, but the figure I’ve seen most often is 80-100,000 words. Which gives you quite a lot of room for maneuver. Don’t go hacking Arlene! As Katrina said, 80-100,000 is common. And it depends on the publisher you’re targeting. Just check their guidelines. And they can change so be true to your book and don’t worry in advance. Yeah, pull up your your fav publishers on the Internet (fun activity on a Saturday) and you’ll see they vary. Thanks. I’ve been trying to finish this story, and realized I only had 5,000 words to go to get to 90K. But then I started to wonder if I could wrap it all up in 5K words … and if, because books are shrinking, it would have to be even shorter than that.  Kashia McDonald says: I am a new writer but I struggle with the question of whether I should write my novel around the beginning of the story or the end of the story? Basically, I would like to know should I write around knowing what the end of the story will be or only how the story starts?  Kate Parker says: Hi, Kashia – The answer is, it depends. Are you a pantster or a plotter? A pantster (I’m one) is a writer who writes by the seat of her pants. A plotter works from an outline she’s developed before she writes the first sentence, so she knows the whole story, or at least the main events. Hi Kashia. This is going to sound very Yoda, but you won’t know the answer until you finish writing ‘The End’ for the first time. The biggest mistake I made on my first novel was continuing to revise the beginning chapters over and over. My writing mentor kept on telling me to write forward, but I felt the need to fix all the things that people said weren’t working. I finally did write forward and when I came back to the beginning, it was clear this time what needed to be changed. It’s likely that you’ll revise the story and go through it one or more times after you finish it. Don’t get stuck worrying about the beginning or the end right now. All those things may change once you find what the heart of the story is. When I wrote my second book, I was able to stay much closer to the outline and the opening and ending have changed little from first conception. But that was after learning what I needed to change from my first story. Figuring out your process is part of the process, but for now I think the best advice is just write forward. Good luck!  Shea Berkley says: This is a huge questions! I love it, but dang, there is not enough room on this blog to answer it thoroughly. Everyone is different, Kashia. I’m a pantster, but I know my ending. I just don’t know how I’m going to get there. Other people need to work out the details and then write. Others don’t like to know anything, like Kate. The pros and cons to each of these methods depends on you as a writer. So ask yourself, will you still feel passionate about the story if you know where you’re going? If so, then you might want to plot it out. The great thing about plotting is that it doesn’t have to be a chapter by chapter experience. If you just plot out your black moments, then you can write to each black moment. There is a sense of security in that many authors like and thrive on. But if that is even too much, then there is no one to say you can’t just sit down and start writing. A story will appear, but one you’ll definitely have to refine and possibly scratch huge portions before the end product is saleable. Writing is a great adventure. Good luck and keep us posted on how you’re doing. I also don’t know how my story ends when I begin writing. I’m trying to be better about waiting until I have some idea where it’s going before I begin writing. I used to have an idea and just go from there…a first line or page or scene. If I knew how it ended and everything that happens in between, I’m not sure I’d be so gungho to write it.  Cassie Kammel says: Sometimes I find that when I am trying to write and experience “writer’s block” I will have a glass of wine. It is usually only a glass but I often find that the creatively flows much smoother. I am curious if other writers experience this as well. Kate Parker says: Peanut butter M&Ms work for me. Of course, that means I’m always on a diet. Cassie Kammel says: I like the M&Ms as well but I know what you mean about the dieting. Got to be careful about! But they help Having a little glass right now. Sometimes it helps to loosen things up. Other times, the wine just makes me sleepy. If you have something that works, definitely go with it. I think I’m brilliant when I’m tipsy. The reality check comes when I re-read it after I’ve sobered up. Oddly enough, sometimes it’s really, really good stuff. Other times… not so much. But I’ve never tried wine to get over a block. Usually I swim. It always clears my head and gets the story flowing. Cassie Kammel says: Thanks. Sometimes I think I’m brilliant as well. And sometimes, when I reread it, I am amazed at what I write. Fort the most part I can make it flow but everyone once in while a glass of wine works to create the juices. Elisa Beatty says: Water in many forms is a great imagination-unblocker: swimming, shower, even just sweat (get on the treadmill). I definitely go for the glass of wine as well…though not generally while doing any of the other three. Gwynlyn MacKenzie says: I like a glass of wine now and again, but I often find doing something mindless, like folding laundry or weeding the garden, sets the subconscious free because you aren’t ‘trying’ to make it work. And it certainly helps, when you have your EUREKA! moment, if you can just drop what you’re doing and go. Shea Berkley says: I’m not into wine, but I do love me my Coca-Cola. If I’m in a rut, I’ll slam back a couple cans and then bam! I can’t keep my hands busy enough. When I run out of cola, my darling daughter #3 will go to the store with me and at the top of her lungs she’ll say, “Geesh, mom, stop tweekin’. Let’ me get a candy bar and then we’ll go score you some coke.” The looks people throw us. My kids are real adorable … not!
|
|
|||||||||||
LOL to the campus police, Bev! This does remind me, though, of how lucky we are these days to have the internet at our fingertips for research purposes.
It’s great, isn’t it Vanessa. When I first started writing, I was always digging out reasearch books or calling up experts. Now it’s just a click away. Although sometimes, like CP, it can be misleading.