Once you've finished your Great American Novel, how do you go about getting published? You can either shop it out to various publishing houses or get an agent to do that for you. Unless you go the small press, e-pub, or self-publishing route, you'll find that most editors don't accept unsolicited work and won't work with unrepresented authors. Agents have the connections you need to get your manuscript to just the right editor and keep your work out of their K-2 of a slush pile. They will also advocate for you to get a publishing contract that is fair. I'm not going to belabor the Why any further, since there are plenty of blog posts about that. This post is about the How.
Step 1: Finish Your Book
Nonfiction can sell on proposal alone, but with fiction, your agent wants to make sure the book they're representing isn't going to be just another drawer novel (you know, that novel you gave up on after page 50 and have stashed away with your other 50-page magnum opuses).
Make sure your manuscript is polished, and I mean POLISHED! Don't just run spellcheck and call it a day. Your plot and subplots need to hang together in a believable manner. Your characters should feel fully developed and not be cardboard cutouts. Make sure your sentences absolutely sing! I've heard too many horror stories of writers who do Nanowrimo (which is a great way of forcing you to get that first draft on paper, by the way), rush to shop out their 50,000 words, then gripe about the rejection letters that roll in.
Repeat after me: Polish that mutha first!
Step 2: Write Your Query Letter and Synopsis
I find these things intimidating myself. Agent Query and Query Shark have great tips on writing query letters. The query letter is your sales tool, a teaser, the first impression an agent gets of your work. Sometimes it's the only thing they want you to submit before they'll look at a single page, so it has to redefine the word "awesome." To put it on a bumpersticker, you give the book title, word count and genre; then you give a paragraph to summarize the plot (think book jacket blurb) and a tell little about yourself if you've got relevant credentials.
The synopsis summarizes your novel and gives the agent an idea of whether or not you can plot a story efficiently. Condensing your 400-page manuscript into less than five can feel about as pleasant as tearing off your eyelids with a potato peeler; just Google "the dreaded synopsis" and you'll come up with a bazillionty hits. The key is to introduce your main characters, put in the key plot points and leave out the extras like subplots and minor characters.
Agents usually ask for something in the 2-3 page (double-spaced) realm, but you also should have a copy you've condensed to one single-spaced page just in case they ask for the short version. Once in awhile you'll get asked for an outline, which is basically a chapter-by-chapter synopsis (you'll devote about a paragraph for each chapter). It's rare that you'll get that request, but do it anyway. If you don't have it, Murphy's Law dictates that they'll ask for one.
Step 3: Do Your Research
First, make sure the agent you're seeking represents your book genre. It sounds like common sense, but according to a lot of agent interviews, they get so many queries for genres they don't represent. Go to Agent Query, Query Tracker and the Writer's Market to start. Select your genre and get a list of appropriate agents. Cross reference their submission requirements with the requirements on the website.
Follow their submission requirements. Some want only e-queries and others prefer snail mail. Some agents want just the query letter, others want a query and synopsis, and still others want both the above plus some sample pages or chapters. When they ask for sample chapters, they mean chapter one up until whatever specified page or chapter number. Don't get cute and give them something from the middle; you've gotta hook them from the first page. If the agent doesn't specify what to send, you can either send just the query, or send the query, a short synopsis (1-2 pages), and your first 5-10 pages.
Before you do any of that, make sure the agent is legit. If an agent is seeking you out, run. This person probably charges reading fees and sends you off to the book doctor who gives them kickbacks. Legitimate agents have more clients banging on their door than they can handle. Also, a legitimate agent makes their money strictly by commission (15% domestic is the standard). A fee-charging scam artist makes their money in reading fees and kickbacks, so they're not going to shop your manuscript out to publishers. Remember: Money is supposed to flow to the writer.
Also, make sure your agent has the industry experience and contacts they need to get your book to the right editors. If the agent is new, they should have made their bones apprenticing at a reputable agency or working for a legitimate publisher so they can get the aforementioned contacts. You don't want you new agent to have just woken up out of the blue, decided to be an agent and hung out a shingle. That person might not be a scam artist, but they won't be able to get your manuscript out of the editor's slush pile. Check out sites like Preditors and Editors, and go to the Absolute Write Water Cooler forum and check out any agent you have questions on.
It also helps to do a spreadsheet as you go. That way you can put in notes like how long they take to respond, the date you queried, whether you're allowed to query multiple agents in the same agency. Don't blow your wad all at once, either. Query 5-10 at a time and wait about a month to 6 weeks to hear back. Then query 5-10 more. That way you can keep track of who you queried and when. Also, this helps you to see if the query letter you're sending out now is actually working or if you need to tweak it.
In the meantime, keep writing your next book because it's all about the wait now. You will get rejected too. I'm not saying this to be discouraging, I'm just saying this as a fact. Everyone gets rejected, even the greats did at some point.
So finish your book, do your research and start developing that callus on your entire epidermis, because you're gonna need it.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Critique Partners From Hades
Just like with any other social situation, you'll deal with all kinds of people when you join a critique group. If you're in the right group, the differences and diversity should be an asset, because things would get dull if everyone were of one hive mind. That said, if you find any of these types in your midst do what you can to get rid of them:
While they may seem different on the surface (one tends to lean to the right and the other to the left), they both have something in common: censoring and sanitizing your work. They're the ones who wring their hands every time a character lights up a cigarette ("Can't you have a subplot where she's trying to quit?"), takes a drink or lets a cuss word escape her lips. They're the ones who clutch their pearls if your character doesn't recycle, has a single shallow thought in the entire manuscript, or *gasp!* wants to get married and have a baby. Both these people tend to forget that you're writing a story and not a pamphlet on their version of perfection.
The occasional drink, smoke or swear word isn't going to turn your character into a glue-huffing porno queen, but be careful that you're not using those things in an attempt to be subversive. Vices and swearing haven't been edgy since the Lenny Bruce era. Having a character that wants to get married and have babies isn't going to make you the second coming of Phyllis Schlafly, but make sure that character is a fully fledged human being and not a caricature of every biological clock routine in hack comedy.
You just have to be true to your story and to your character. You can't sanitize and PC your book to death, because no matter what you write, somebody somewhere is going to get offended anyway.
Also known as The Shredder, The Hater, or as this article states, The Carb-Free Poop Sandwich Peddler (her post inspired me to write mine, so credit where credit's due). This person only tells you what didn't work in your manuscript and is so stingy with the compliments you wonder if there's a worldwide shortage. You know you've run into one when your Inner Critic starts taking on their form.
Some in this category are so completely in the editing zone that they forget to point out the goods; if this is the case, you can ask them to point out what did work in addition to what didn't to make it a more balanced critique. They're not haters so much as oblivious, and those with good intentions tend to mend their ways (and feel free to correct them when they backslide).
Others in this category are not so oblivious as much as malicious. They're the ones who look at you with narrowed eyes and pinched lips as they tick off everything they hate and equate compliments with coddling. They get personally offended when your first draft doesn't read like a bestseller and accuse you of wasting their time. Ironically, that same person gets mysteriously thin-skinned when forced to taste their own medicine. Remember, their feelings are a precious natural resource while everyone else's are a silly little afterthought.
Their opinions are facts, their word is law, and their narcissism knows no bounds. Some of them are legalists and so hung up on technical correctness the first sign of a bent or broken rule (even if it's done for good reason) sends The Know-it-All scurrying for their red pen. Some of them have an outdated version of the rules and insist that your (correct!) formatting is going to land you in the slush pile. Your manuscript can be cleaner than an operating room, but they will still find something to pick at, even if it's something as innocuous as a typo and belabor that sucker to death, because nothing escapes his notice. Nothing.
Do not confuse this person with The Researcher or The Fact-Checker. Those people know a lot about a lot and will keep your manuscript from looking like a case of Author Research Fail. If they don't know that answer themselves, they know where you might find it. The Know-it-All, on the other hand, merely inflates her knowledge. She gives advice, not to help, but to show you just how much more she knows than you do.
The Special Snowflake
This person can overlap with the above CP's from Hades, or they can be their own special brand of hell. If it's a large group and everyone is given an allotted amount of time to speak, The Special Snowflake feels entitled to keep going once the timer goes off, and also sees nothing wrong with talking over another member's turn. They sometimes neglect critiquing your work or give you the bare minimum of effort, yet they will e-mail a submission well past the deadline and expect you to do a thorough job with it. The Special Snowflake will have an excuse ready as to why the rules of writing and critiquing don't apply to them but if you have a minor infraction, they're ready to read you the riot act. In other words, this person's face needs to meet a tube sock full of nickels.
These CP's are few and far between, and I thank every deity out there for that. If there's only one or two in the group, you and the rest of the members will have to talk to them about their behavior, and if they don't shape up, kick them out. It's hard to do, but grow some ovaries and get it done. If you have a whole group of these types, you're better off finding a new one. Critique groups are supposed to be supportive without coddling you, honest while still being diplomatic, and most of all, they're supposed to keep you wanting to write.
The Moralizer and the PC Police
While they may seem different on the surface (one tends to lean to the right and the other to the left), they both have something in common: censoring and sanitizing your work. They're the ones who wring their hands every time a character lights up a cigarette ("Can't you have a subplot where she's trying to quit?"), takes a drink or lets a cuss word escape her lips. They're the ones who clutch their pearls if your character doesn't recycle, has a single shallow thought in the entire manuscript, or *gasp!* wants to get married and have a baby. Both these people tend to forget that you're writing a story and not a pamphlet on their version of perfection.
The occasional drink, smoke or swear word isn't going to turn your character into a glue-huffing porno queen, but be careful that you're not using those things in an attempt to be subversive. Vices and swearing haven't been edgy since the Lenny Bruce era. Having a character that wants to get married and have babies isn't going to make you the second coming of Phyllis Schlafly, but make sure that character is a fully fledged human being and not a caricature of every biological clock routine in hack comedy.
You just have to be true to your story and to your character. You can't sanitize and PC your book to death, because no matter what you write, somebody somewhere is going to get offended anyway.
The Annihilator
Also known as The Shredder, The Hater, or as this article states, The Carb-Free Poop Sandwich Peddler (her post inspired me to write mine, so credit where credit's due). This person only tells you what didn't work in your manuscript and is so stingy with the compliments you wonder if there's a worldwide shortage. You know you've run into one when your Inner Critic starts taking on their form.
Some in this category are so completely in the editing zone that they forget to point out the goods; if this is the case, you can ask them to point out what did work in addition to what didn't to make it a more balanced critique. They're not haters so much as oblivious, and those with good intentions tend to mend their ways (and feel free to correct them when they backslide).
Others in this category are not so oblivious as much as malicious. They're the ones who look at you with narrowed eyes and pinched lips as they tick off everything they hate and equate compliments with coddling. They get personally offended when your first draft doesn't read like a bestseller and accuse you of wasting their time. Ironically, that same person gets mysteriously thin-skinned when forced to taste their own medicine. Remember, their feelings are a precious natural resource while everyone else's are a silly little afterthought.
The Know-it-All
Their opinions are facts, their word is law, and their narcissism knows no bounds. Some of them are legalists and so hung up on technical correctness the first sign of a bent or broken rule (even if it's done for good reason) sends The Know-it-All scurrying for their red pen. Some of them have an outdated version of the rules and insist that your (correct!) formatting is going to land you in the slush pile. Your manuscript can be cleaner than an operating room, but they will still find something to pick at, even if it's something as innocuous as a typo and belabor that sucker to death, because nothing escapes his notice. Nothing.
Do not confuse this person with The Researcher or The Fact-Checker. Those people know a lot about a lot and will keep your manuscript from looking like a case of Author Research Fail. If they don't know that answer themselves, they know where you might find it. The Know-it-All, on the other hand, merely inflates her knowledge. She gives advice, not to help, but to show you just how much more she knows than you do.
The Special Snowflake
This person can overlap with the above CP's from Hades, or they can be their own special brand of hell. If it's a large group and everyone is given an allotted amount of time to speak, The Special Snowflake feels entitled to keep going once the timer goes off, and also sees nothing wrong with talking over another member's turn. They sometimes neglect critiquing your work or give you the bare minimum of effort, yet they will e-mail a submission well past the deadline and expect you to do a thorough job with it. The Special Snowflake will have an excuse ready as to why the rules of writing and critiquing don't apply to them but if you have a minor infraction, they're ready to read you the riot act. In other words, this person's face needs to meet a tube sock full of nickels.
These CP's are few and far between, and I thank every deity out there for that. If there's only one or two in the group, you and the rest of the members will have to talk to them about their behavior, and if they don't shape up, kick them out. It's hard to do, but grow some ovaries and get it done. If you have a whole group of these types, you're better off finding a new one. Critique groups are supposed to be supportive without coddling you, honest while still being diplomatic, and most of all, they're supposed to keep you wanting to write.
So You Want to Join a Critique Group
We've all been there. Sometimes when you write, you're so close to your work that it's hard to see if the story on paper matches the story in your head. Give it to a friend or a family member and all they tell you is, "It was good," without elaboration; or if you have the friends and family from hell, they'll tell you to burn it, bury it and declare its grave site the illegitimate child of Three Mile Island. This is where a critique group comes in handy.
With anything, there are naysayers. Some oppose these groups, especially if they're mostly made up of unpublished writers, because it's a case of the blind leading the blind. That can be true if you're not careful in choosing your critique partners, and this is why it's a good idea to audition a group for a couple of sessions before you submit your own work.
Others oppose critique groups because they think the stories that make it out of there sound like they've been written by a committee, and that can be the case if you blindly implement every bit of feedback you get.
In the worst-case scenario (and mind you, I'm just generalizing and broad-stroking it here), you'll get the sci-fi guy who thinks your women's fiction novel is too touchy-feely, you'll get the book-club junkie who wants to turn your breezy subway read into an Oprah-approved weepie, you'll get the thriller writer who wants more action in your literary piece, the literary writer who bleeds ink all over your mystery because plots are for the great unwashed, you'll get the erotica writer who wants to turn your chaste-and-sweet Regency into something X-rated, the glamor-lit novelist who hates all that science-type stuff in your technothriller, and the Christian romance author who blacks out every swear word in your Chuck Palahniuk-inspired novel. Now that I've offended everyone and used up my comma-splice allowance for the day, let's move on.
You will want to find the right group for you, whether it's online or in person. Online groups are handy if there's a shortage of writers in your area. If a group is open to the public, you will come across every kind of writing you can think of and have to ask yourself if you're okay with critiquing styles and genres outside your comfort level. Private groups tend to be more focused (prose-only, fiction-only, genre-specific, etc.) and members tend to be more serious about the craft.
Are you trying to get published? If so, it's best to find a group of members with that same goal, because they'll likely be better versed in the writing craft (one would hope, anyway) than someone who scribbles for funsies. There's no right or wrong group to join, just the right or wrong group for you.
It also helps that you have your first draft finished before you start submitting, because it's harder for other members to influence the direction of your story at this point. If you're like me and need a deadline to get you to write that draft in the first place, then at least have a good idea of where you want your story to go.
When receiving feedback, don't feel obligated to use everything that comes your way, especially since you're bound to get conflicting advice. You need to weigh the critiques and pick which ones fit with your vision of your story. Of course, if the majority of the group has the same issue with a particular scene, you need to take note, because they probably have a point (assuming they're not lobotomized or just plain old clueless about certain genre conventions). As my beta reader told me, take what you need and shit-can the rest.
When it comes to critiquing, it helps to know where the writer is in their work. If it's a first draft, don't belabor the line edits, typos, and word choices unless they're so bad they pull you out of the story. The first draft is the time to let the writer know if the plot hangs together, if the characters are ringing true, or if there's anything that makes your eyes glaze over (or if it's so good you miss your stop on the commuter train). Resist the temptation to rewrite their story for them. It's not your book. When in doubt, ask the writer what they're looking for in a critique.
In short, choose your group carefully and don't feel obligated to stick around if it's not working for you. There's always another one you can join. I am also going to recommend you read The Writing and Critique Group Survival Guide by Becky Levine. She goes into more depth than I can in a blog post.
With anything, there are naysayers. Some oppose these groups, especially if they're mostly made up of unpublished writers, because it's a case of the blind leading the blind. That can be true if you're not careful in choosing your critique partners, and this is why it's a good idea to audition a group for a couple of sessions before you submit your own work.
Others oppose critique groups because they think the stories that make it out of there sound like they've been written by a committee, and that can be the case if you blindly implement every bit of feedback you get.
In the worst-case scenario (and mind you, I'm just generalizing and broad-stroking it here), you'll get the sci-fi guy who thinks your women's fiction novel is too touchy-feely, you'll get the book-club junkie who wants to turn your breezy subway read into an Oprah-approved weepie, you'll get the thriller writer who wants more action in your literary piece, the literary writer who bleeds ink all over your mystery because plots are for the great unwashed, you'll get the erotica writer who wants to turn your chaste-and-sweet Regency into something X-rated, the glamor-lit novelist who hates all that science-type stuff in your technothriller, and the Christian romance author who blacks out every swear word in your Chuck Palahniuk-inspired novel. Now that I've offended everyone and used up my comma-splice allowance for the day, let's move on.
You will want to find the right group for you, whether it's online or in person. Online groups are handy if there's a shortage of writers in your area. If a group is open to the public, you will come across every kind of writing you can think of and have to ask yourself if you're okay with critiquing styles and genres outside your comfort level. Private groups tend to be more focused (prose-only, fiction-only, genre-specific, etc.) and members tend to be more serious about the craft.
Are you trying to get published? If so, it's best to find a group of members with that same goal, because they'll likely be better versed in the writing craft (one would hope, anyway) than someone who scribbles for funsies. There's no right or wrong group to join, just the right or wrong group for you.
It also helps that you have your first draft finished before you start submitting, because it's harder for other members to influence the direction of your story at this point. If you're like me and need a deadline to get you to write that draft in the first place, then at least have a good idea of where you want your story to go.
When receiving feedback, don't feel obligated to use everything that comes your way, especially since you're bound to get conflicting advice. You need to weigh the critiques and pick which ones fit with your vision of your story. Of course, if the majority of the group has the same issue with a particular scene, you need to take note, because they probably have a point (assuming they're not lobotomized or just plain old clueless about certain genre conventions). As my beta reader told me, take what you need and shit-can the rest.
When it comes to critiquing, it helps to know where the writer is in their work. If it's a first draft, don't belabor the line edits, typos, and word choices unless they're so bad they pull you out of the story. The first draft is the time to let the writer know if the plot hangs together, if the characters are ringing true, or if there's anything that makes your eyes glaze over (or if it's so good you miss your stop on the commuter train). Resist the temptation to rewrite their story for them. It's not your book. When in doubt, ask the writer what they're looking for in a critique.
In short, choose your group carefully and don't feel obligated to stick around if it's not working for you. There's always another one you can join. I am also going to recommend you read The Writing and Critique Group Survival Guide by Becky Levine. She goes into more depth than I can in a blog post.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
I'm baa-aack!
Wow, that was one hell of a hiatus. I had stuff I had to do, both in the sewing and writing spheres to be specific, and I rescued a little terrier mix a year ago at the end of this month. Charlie says hi, by the way. So I'm back and trying to cultivate my web presence since I'm trying to be a serious author-type lady.
Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Characters and Flaws: The Mad Men Edition
I'm back, and giving you Part 2 of Characters and Flaws like I promised. This post will attempt to demonstrate how equally flawed characters can elicit different reactions from the audience. Also, I just want an excuse to talk about one of my favorite shows ever. Seriously, if you haven't seen Mad Men, you need to do it yesterday! I can wait.
For the rest of you, let's start with the show's protagonist, Don Draper. I'll give you a moment to wipe the drool off your keyboard.
Our ad man is a walking laundry list of flaws. He cheats on his wife regularly (not just casual flings, mind you, but full-on relationships), and hides his past to the point where he pays off his long-lost half-brother to never contact him again (which leads to the half-brother's suicide). He's got the suburban house, Grace Kelly clone wife, and two children, but it's mostly for show. Basically, he's the embodiment of living a lie.
Now let's look at his nemesis, Pete Campbell, weasel-faced bastard extraordinaire.
He too, cheats on his wife (just not as often, because he doesn't have half the game Don does), and once tried to pimp her out to her publisher ex-boyfriend so he could get his crummy short story in The New Yorker. Throughout the first season, he slept with secretary Peggy, played mind games with her and acted like a turd when she got promoted to copywriter (he can't control a woman with new-found self-esteem and hates it). Though he works like hell to get respect in the workplace, his sense of entitlement overshadows his work ethic and talent as an ideas man.
So why does Don get our sympathy and Pete get our scorn?
Don, for all his flaws, still has a code of ethics, no matter how warped we might find it. Sure, he loves his adultery, but he won't use his rank to bang his way through the secretarial pool like the other guys do. Yes, he hides his past, but for good reason: his real mother was a prostitute and his father could rival Mel Gibson in the drunken asshole department. But he raised himself up from his hardscrabble beginnings, reinvented himself from scratch and worked his ass off to get where he is today, and who doesn't love a good rags-to-riches story? Also, his outsider status allows him to side with the underdogs of the world (proto-feminist Peggy, closeted Sal, even his girlfriends go against the grain of society). Empathy and a code of ethics (not to mention charm to spare) go a long way.
Pete on the other hand has no moral code. He'll use any means to get what he wants, including blackmail and flaunting his family name. There is no line he won't cross and that makes us squirm. Sure, we get a little glimpse into his past and how his family has always treated him like a second-class citizen, but instead of giving people the respect and consideration he wants for himself, he perpetuates the cycle of mistreatment. He is slowly redeeming himself through Season Three; he gets along with his wife a lot better now, and he tried to get one of his clients to tap into the African-American market since their products happen to be big sellers in predominantly black cities (he may or may not actually be racially progressive, but he's at least smart enough to realize that a black person's money is every bit as green as a white person's).
Now for the female counterparts, starting with Joan Harris (formerly Holloway).
She gets catty, won't think twice about sleeping with married men, and she wasn't exactly nice to her ex's new black girlfriend (remember the backhanded compliment about Paul being "open-minded?" Yikes!).
Now let's look at Jane Sterling (formerly Siegel).
She too is catty, doesn't mind sleeping with married men, and like Joan, she has no qualms about using her sexuality to get what she wants.
So why does Joan get more love than Jane in the Mad Men fandom?
Like Don, Joan has her own moral code. When she gets snippy at the girls around the office, it is usually for good reason. When you read between the lines, she's offering advice underneath the venom, but if she's too nice, she won't be taken seriously as the office manager (remember, second-wave feminism hasn't happened yet). Also, she gives the phone operators her utmost respect (and gifts!), because without them the agency will go down in flames. Yes, she slept with married men while she was single, but when Roger Sterling offered to leave his wife for her, she wouldn't have it, and she wouldn't be his kept woman either. Joan is her own person.
The "open-minded" comment she gave Paul's black girlfriend, Sheila, is definitely inexcusable through a post-Civil Rights lens. For the time, though, her bigotry was really no different from most people around her (as the civil rights movement picks up steam in later seasons, we'll have to see her reaction before passing final judgment). As loath as I am to defend her remark, Joan would have been just as harsh if Sheila had been white; her race was an easy target, but not the reason for Joan's bitchiness. Just like with her in-office cattiness, that "open-minded" comment was her veiled way of warning Sheila that Paul is a cad and a poseur, and probably using Sheila as a prop for his bohemian image.
What about Jane? Where Joan has depth, Jane is transparent, and like Pete, Jane seems to have no code of ethics. When it comes to any redeeming qualities, her transparency ends here. We don't know if she's truly smitten with Roger (who later leaves his wife for her) or if she sees him as the consolation prize since Don turned down her advances; the scene where she recites that sappy poem to him could have been a heartfelt gesture, or it could have been a ploy to keep the new sugar-daddy around. We don't quite know the motivation behind her giving Roger's daughter an overly expensive bridal gift. Is she trying to make nice with her new stepdaughter (who hates her) or is she trying to show up Mona, Roger's ex wife? As for her cattiness, when she makes a bitchy remark, she tends to make passive-aggressive cutesy faces as if to say, "Oops! Did I say that?" If she at least owned her bitchiness like Joan does, it would give her some integrity.
So my point? Your characters can have as many flaws as you want. Just make sure you pick the right traits to balance them out if you want them to be sympathetic.
And because I'm just a teensy bit in love her, I'll leave you with more Joan:
ETA: This post covers up to Season 3, just so you know.
For the rest of you, let's start with the show's protagonist, Don Draper. I'll give you a moment to wipe the drool off your keyboard.
Our ad man is a walking laundry list of flaws. He cheats on his wife regularly (not just casual flings, mind you, but full-on relationships), and hides his past to the point where he pays off his long-lost half-brother to never contact him again (which leads to the half-brother's suicide). He's got the suburban house, Grace Kelly clone wife, and two children, but it's mostly for show. Basically, he's the embodiment of living a lie.
Now let's look at his nemesis, Pete Campbell, weasel-faced bastard extraordinaire.
He too, cheats on his wife (just not as often, because he doesn't have half the game Don does), and once tried to pimp her out to her publisher ex-boyfriend so he could get his crummy short story in The New Yorker. Throughout the first season, he slept with secretary Peggy, played mind games with her and acted like a turd when she got promoted to copywriter (he can't control a woman with new-found self-esteem and hates it). Though he works like hell to get respect in the workplace, his sense of entitlement overshadows his work ethic and talent as an ideas man.
So why does Don get our sympathy and Pete get our scorn?
Don, for all his flaws, still has a code of ethics, no matter how warped we might find it. Sure, he loves his adultery, but he won't use his rank to bang his way through the secretarial pool like the other guys do. Yes, he hides his past, but for good reason: his real mother was a prostitute and his father could rival Mel Gibson in the drunken asshole department. But he raised himself up from his hardscrabble beginnings, reinvented himself from scratch and worked his ass off to get where he is today, and who doesn't love a good rags-to-riches story? Also, his outsider status allows him to side with the underdogs of the world (proto-feminist Peggy, closeted Sal, even his girlfriends go against the grain of society). Empathy and a code of ethics (not to mention charm to spare) go a long way.
Pete on the other hand has no moral code. He'll use any means to get what he wants, including blackmail and flaunting his family name. There is no line he won't cross and that makes us squirm. Sure, we get a little glimpse into his past and how his family has always treated him like a second-class citizen, but instead of giving people the respect and consideration he wants for himself, he perpetuates the cycle of mistreatment. He is slowly redeeming himself through Season Three; he gets along with his wife a lot better now, and he tried to get one of his clients to tap into the African-American market since their products happen to be big sellers in predominantly black cities (he may or may not actually be racially progressive, but he's at least smart enough to realize that a black person's money is every bit as green as a white person's).
Now for the female counterparts, starting with Joan Harris (formerly Holloway).
She gets catty, won't think twice about sleeping with married men, and she wasn't exactly nice to her ex's new black girlfriend (remember the backhanded compliment about Paul being "open-minded?" Yikes!).
Now let's look at Jane Sterling (formerly Siegel).
She too is catty, doesn't mind sleeping with married men, and like Joan, she has no qualms about using her sexuality to get what she wants.
So why does Joan get more love than Jane in the Mad Men fandom?
Like Don, Joan has her own moral code. When she gets snippy at the girls around the office, it is usually for good reason. When you read between the lines, she's offering advice underneath the venom, but if she's too nice, she won't be taken seriously as the office manager (remember, second-wave feminism hasn't happened yet). Also, she gives the phone operators her utmost respect (and gifts!), because without them the agency will go down in flames. Yes, she slept with married men while she was single, but when Roger Sterling offered to leave his wife for her, she wouldn't have it, and she wouldn't be his kept woman either. Joan is her own person.
The "open-minded" comment she gave Paul's black girlfriend, Sheila, is definitely inexcusable through a post-Civil Rights lens. For the time, though, her bigotry was really no different from most people around her (as the civil rights movement picks up steam in later seasons, we'll have to see her reaction before passing final judgment). As loath as I am to defend her remark, Joan would have been just as harsh if Sheila had been white; her race was an easy target, but not the reason for Joan's bitchiness. Just like with her in-office cattiness, that "open-minded" comment was her veiled way of warning Sheila that Paul is a cad and a poseur, and probably using Sheila as a prop for his bohemian image.
What about Jane? Where Joan has depth, Jane is transparent, and like Pete, Jane seems to have no code of ethics. When it comes to any redeeming qualities, her transparency ends here. We don't know if she's truly smitten with Roger (who later leaves his wife for her) or if she sees him as the consolation prize since Don turned down her advances; the scene where she recites that sappy poem to him could have been a heartfelt gesture, or it could have been a ploy to keep the new sugar-daddy around. We don't quite know the motivation behind her giving Roger's daughter an overly expensive bridal gift. Is she trying to make nice with her new stepdaughter (who hates her) or is she trying to show up Mona, Roger's ex wife? As for her cattiness, when she makes a bitchy remark, she tends to make passive-aggressive cutesy faces as if to say, "Oops! Did I say that?" If she at least owned her bitchiness like Joan does, it would give her some integrity.
So my point? Your characters can have as many flaws as you want. Just make sure you pick the right traits to balance them out if you want them to be sympathetic.
And because I'm just a teensy bit in love her, I'll leave you with more Joan:
ETA: This post covers up to Season 3, just so you know.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Character and Flaws: A Love Story, Part One
Open up almost any writing book and it will extol the virtues of the sympathetic character, which makes sense since most people don't want to read a book if they don't give a damn about who's in it.
Does your main character have to be like Mary Poppins and practically perfect in every way in order for the reader to care about her/him? Ick! No! For one thing, perfect people don't exist. Sure, you might know people who seem perfect, but they have their flaws too; they're just better at concealing them (a skill many of us would love to have). For another thing, perfect characters are boring because they have no room to grow and improve, and part of the fun of reading is seeing how the characters change as the result of the book's events.
Flaws are also a good way to make your protagonist someone your reader can relate to. Of course, you want these to be forgivable flaws. If your main character is a pedophile or a wife-beater, chances are, your reader is either going to throw the book across the room, root for your character's downfall (which had better include dying in a chemical fire), or send you a crap-ton of hate mail and dead rats. But I digress.
Now, these flaws have to be real flaws and not something that only serves to enhance how awesome your main character is. A strategically placed scar that brings out your hero or heroine's fabulous bone structure is not a flaw. Someone caring about their friends too much is not a flaw. People constantly asking your genius hero for help is not a flaw (yes, I've seen this, and let me tell you, it made a great appetite suppressant). Having an oh-so-tragical past is not a flaw either. Google the term "Mary Sue" and you'll see just how reviled these not-flaws are.
Your main character's flaws should be personality flaws, flaws that get him or her into trouble, flaws that s/he has to work through in order to grow as a character. You know, actual obstacles. For example, let's say your heroine has a bad temper. If she were a Mary Sue, this would likely be her only flaw (aside from a tragical past) and she'd have the most adorably bad temper to boot. Everyone in the story would think it's cute the way she pouts (her slightly too-full lips, of course) and stamps her teensy little high-heeled foot whenever she throws a tantrum. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just jealous and will be relegated to bad-guy status.
Your temperamental heroine will be written better than this, of course. Her blow-ups actually get her into trouble and threaten to keep her from reaching her goal, whether it's making partner at her firm or bringing about world peace. Other characters (and not just the ever-so-jealous bad guys) are willing to call her out on her bullshit, and by the end, she hopefully learns that popping off at someone for looking at her the wrong way isn't the best way of going about life. No, she doesn't have to turn into some mealy-mouthed doormat who bakes cupcakes for her enemies (without poison, spit, or ground glass in them, that is), but she should actually know the difference between being aggressive and being assertive. This is character growth.
For another example, let's say your hero has that tragical past after all. The past isn't a flaw in and of itself, but a person's past can inform the way they act and think in the present. If he had suffered a betrayal back in the day, maybe his fatal flaw is that he can't trust anybody and his character arc involves learning that everyone's not out to screw him over. Maybe his cynicism gets him in trouble at a crucial point in the book. Take that not-a-flaw and turn it into one.
Besides the fatal flaws, since you want your characters to be human and believable, they're likely to have a few bad habits, sometimes even full-on vices. Remember, you're writing a novel, not some Fifties pamphlet on moral hygiene. The occasional drink, f-bomb, or joint isn't going to make your character a bad person. Just don't go to the other extreme and use your character's vices as shorthand for their "edginess" (don't get me started on the word "edgy"), because that's lazy and cliched. Habits and vices have to be honest to your character is what I'm trying to get at.
Genres like action movies, superhero comics, and glittery novels about the jet-set tend to have a little more leeway when it comes to how flawless the characters are, because this is what the audience loves and expects. They want an adventure and to live vicariously through these virtual titans. Even then, those characters still have the occasional flaw or two, like Superman and his Kryptonite and double life, or the ruthlessness of the so-called rich-bitch heroine who wants to break through that glass ceiling in your glitter-and-glamor novel.
No matter what flaws you give your characters, their virtues have to outweigh them whether it's a matter of quality or quantity. Stay tuned for Part Two where I give you examples using some of the characters in Mad Men. If you haven't seen it, Netflix it already.
Does your main character have to be like Mary Poppins and practically perfect in every way in order for the reader to care about her/him? Ick! No! For one thing, perfect people don't exist. Sure, you might know people who seem perfect, but they have their flaws too; they're just better at concealing them (a skill many of us would love to have). For another thing, perfect characters are boring because they have no room to grow and improve, and part of the fun of reading is seeing how the characters change as the result of the book's events.
Flaws are also a good way to make your protagonist someone your reader can relate to. Of course, you want these to be forgivable flaws. If your main character is a pedophile or a wife-beater, chances are, your reader is either going to throw the book across the room, root for your character's downfall (which had better include dying in a chemical fire), or send you a crap-ton of hate mail and dead rats. But I digress.
Now, these flaws have to be real flaws and not something that only serves to enhance how awesome your main character is. A strategically placed scar that brings out your hero or heroine's fabulous bone structure is not a flaw. Someone caring about their friends too much is not a flaw. People constantly asking your genius hero for help is not a flaw (yes, I've seen this, and let me tell you, it made a great appetite suppressant). Having an oh-so-tragical past is not a flaw either. Google the term "Mary Sue" and you'll see just how reviled these not-flaws are.
Your main character's flaws should be personality flaws, flaws that get him or her into trouble, flaws that s/he has to work through in order to grow as a character. You know, actual obstacles. For example, let's say your heroine has a bad temper. If she were a Mary Sue, this would likely be her only flaw (aside from a tragical past) and she'd have the most adorably bad temper to boot. Everyone in the story would think it's cute the way she pouts (her slightly too-full lips, of course) and stamps her teensy little high-heeled foot whenever she throws a tantrum. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just jealous and will be relegated to bad-guy status.
Your temperamental heroine will be written better than this, of course. Her blow-ups actually get her into trouble and threaten to keep her from reaching her goal, whether it's making partner at her firm or bringing about world peace. Other characters (and not just the ever-so-jealous bad guys) are willing to call her out on her bullshit, and by the end, she hopefully learns that popping off at someone for looking at her the wrong way isn't the best way of going about life. No, she doesn't have to turn into some mealy-mouthed doormat who bakes cupcakes for her enemies (without poison, spit, or ground glass in them, that is), but she should actually know the difference between being aggressive and being assertive. This is character growth.
For another example, let's say your hero has that tragical past after all. The past isn't a flaw in and of itself, but a person's past can inform the way they act and think in the present. If he had suffered a betrayal back in the day, maybe his fatal flaw is that he can't trust anybody and his character arc involves learning that everyone's not out to screw him over. Maybe his cynicism gets him in trouble at a crucial point in the book. Take that not-a-flaw and turn it into one.
Besides the fatal flaws, since you want your characters to be human and believable, they're likely to have a few bad habits, sometimes even full-on vices. Remember, you're writing a novel, not some Fifties pamphlet on moral hygiene. The occasional drink, f-bomb, or joint isn't going to make your character a bad person. Just don't go to the other extreme and use your character's vices as shorthand for their "edginess" (don't get me started on the word "edgy"), because that's lazy and cliched. Habits and vices have to be honest to your character is what I'm trying to get at.
Genres like action movies, superhero comics, and glittery novels about the jet-set tend to have a little more leeway when it comes to how flawless the characters are, because this is what the audience loves and expects. They want an adventure and to live vicariously through these virtual titans. Even then, those characters still have the occasional flaw or two, like Superman and his Kryptonite and double life, or the ruthlessness of the so-called rich-bitch heroine who wants to break through that glass ceiling in your glitter-and-glamor novel.
No matter what flaws you give your characters, their virtues have to outweigh them whether it's a matter of quality or quantity. Stay tuned for Part Two where I give you examples using some of the characters in Mad Men. If you haven't seen it, Netflix it already.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
So you wanna write a novel
If you've decided to take the plunge into the world of novel writing, I'm not going to discourage you and tell you you're crazy. I'm sure you've got well-meaning friends and family members for that. Okay, I might tell you you're crazy, but I mean it in the best possible way. Trust me on that.
While there are no hard-and-fast rules to the process, a beginning writer would do well to at least learn some guidelines. As you hone your craft and gain more confidence (and the talent to back up said confidence, one would hope), you'll get a feel for when you can and cannot break the rules you've learned before.
It really doesn't matter if you begin with a vague plot idea or simply a character you're dying to put on the page, but you have to be absolutely passionate about what you're writing. Yes, it's a good idea to be mindful of the market since you don't want to shop out a Bridget Jones type of book ten years too late, but don't write a vampire book simply because vampires are the latest thing right now. By the time you write (and revise!) the book, get an agent, and go through the publishing process, that bandwagon book you wrote will likely go out of style.
The point is, you have to love what you're writing or else your readers will be able to smell your apathy like a gallon of Axe body spray on a 13-year-old boy.
In order to write well, you have to read, read, read. You'll find that advice in a lot of books about writing, and for good reason. I was watching a panel discussion on the writer's craft a long time ago and one creative writing instructor (I wish I could remember his name) had some great advice in that vein:
1. Read literary fiction and classics so you'll know what's good.
2. Read popular fiction so you'll know what's appealing.
3. Read poetry so you can learn how to economize your words.
If you still feel like you're flying blind, it would probably be a good idea to buy or check out some good books on writing. The titles I suggest are in no way a comprehensive list, but they'll at least help you get started.
1. Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. Necessary for those days when you need a cheerleader. She's funny, she's irreverent, and she gives you permission to write a bad first draft (or the Shitty First Draft, as she calls it).
2. Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg. This isn't a technical manual on how to write, but once you read it, you'll want to buy a bunch of notebooks and fill them up as soon as possible. Writing begets writing, so anything that inspires you is worth the money.
3. The Weekend Novelist by Robert J. Ray. Since you'll want something more technical, this book serves as a writing class you can stick in your totebag. It covers everything from character development basics to setting to organizing your plot in a cohesive fashion.
4. Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card. Since you can't have a book without characters, this book gives you in-depth information on how to create characters your reader will care about.
So there you go. There's really nothing else to do now but to spread on some butt-glue, grab a chair, and start planning your novel.
While there are no hard-and-fast rules to the process, a beginning writer would do well to at least learn some guidelines. As you hone your craft and gain more confidence (and the talent to back up said confidence, one would hope), you'll get a feel for when you can and cannot break the rules you've learned before.
It really doesn't matter if you begin with a vague plot idea or simply a character you're dying to put on the page, but you have to be absolutely passionate about what you're writing. Yes, it's a good idea to be mindful of the market since you don't want to shop out a Bridget Jones type of book ten years too late, but don't write a vampire book simply because vampires are the latest thing right now. By the time you write (and revise!) the book, get an agent, and go through the publishing process, that bandwagon book you wrote will likely go out of style.
The point is, you have to love what you're writing or else your readers will be able to smell your apathy like a gallon of Axe body spray on a 13-year-old boy.
In order to write well, you have to read, read, read. You'll find that advice in a lot of books about writing, and for good reason. I was watching a panel discussion on the writer's craft a long time ago and one creative writing instructor (I wish I could remember his name) had some great advice in that vein:
1. Read literary fiction and classics so you'll know what's good.
2. Read popular fiction so you'll know what's appealing.
3. Read poetry so you can learn how to economize your words.
If you still feel like you're flying blind, it would probably be a good idea to buy or check out some good books on writing. The titles I suggest are in no way a comprehensive list, but they'll at least help you get started.
1. Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. Necessary for those days when you need a cheerleader. She's funny, she's irreverent, and she gives you permission to write a bad first draft (or the Shitty First Draft, as she calls it).
2. Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg. This isn't a technical manual on how to write, but once you read it, you'll want to buy a bunch of notebooks and fill them up as soon as possible. Writing begets writing, so anything that inspires you is worth the money.
3. The Weekend Novelist by Robert J. Ray. Since you'll want something more technical, this book serves as a writing class you can stick in your totebag. It covers everything from character development basics to setting to organizing your plot in a cohesive fashion.
4. Characters and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card. Since you can't have a book without characters, this book gives you in-depth information on how to create characters your reader will care about.
So there you go. There's really nothing else to do now but to spread on some butt-glue, grab a chair, and start planning your novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)