Common neo-pro mistakes: Wiscon panel 70

Common neo-pro mistakes
#70, Sat. 4 pm
Mary Anne Mohanraj, Joan Vinge, Forrest John Aguirre, Theodora Goss, Schelly Renee Steelman

The panel’s topic was how to move on and get better after that first sale or two: what lifts someone up above the level of competent. (I went for future reference.)

This was a somewhat disappointing panel. I suspect that actual neopros trying to figure out how to turn a sale or two into a career might have been frustrated (and I suspect there is no such advice, anyway). Much of the advice seemed more basic: I’m a beginner, and I’d heard some of it before.

That said, there were many useful tidbits. And the idea of striving for richness and complexity in every aspect of a book, including plot, world, and emotion, is one that I’ve been thinking about ever since.

* DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEOPROS AND BEGINNERS

Mohanraj said she sees different errors from rank beginners than from those who have sold a few things but are not selling regularly.

She said neopros have a certain basic competence. They can handle the elements of story like plot and characters, and write perfectly competent stories, but can’t tell why some of their stories sell and some don’t.

Vinge said she’s seen stories at Clarion that are great but never sell. None of the stories are flawless.

Goss contrasted the attitudes of neopros with those of beginners. A pro is at a level where it isn’t personal, it’s about the writing, she said. Pros look for tough critiques. She said she was lucky in that after she attended Clarion, she was invited to join a writer’s group in which everyone else was a pro writer. The crits they gave were long, thorough, sometimes harsh, honest, and never cut anyone any slack.

Steelman said that people can get so focused on the craft that they forget why they started writing in the first place. She said she was losing the joy of writing because she was focused on getting the next one done and turned in.

Steelman said everyone has an achilles heel, and makes the same mistake over and over again.

Goss said pros know their stories are being read, and think of how that person will be reading. Certain things in a story are supposed to have a certain effect, or make the reader feel a certain way.
Aguirre said you can’t think of he reader all the time. Mohanraj said it’s a dialogue with the reader and yourself.

Mohanraj said people shouldn’t try to write to market. The neopro level is a great level to play around in, because you have competence at the basics.
Goss agreed that it’s a good place to start breaking rules.
As an example, Steelman said writers could learn how to break grammar and still keep the flow of the prose.

Goss said the one rule is to keep the reader’s interest. Mohanraj called that seduction – what is the writer doing on each page to keep the reader with them.

Vinge said some stories have bad prose but a good plot, others may have exquisite prose but no story. She said there’s nothing more disappointing than reading something lovely and finding it hollow inside.

Vinge said no one ever fully masters their craft, and some don’t even care, but a good writer keeps trying.

Vinge said some beginners start at a higher level, perhaps because they have more talent or they read more, or for other reasons. They tend to be better critters, because that links to being able to see what’s wrong in their own work.
Mohanraj said having more initial talent does’t mean anything. Someone in her Clarion class has dazzling talent but hasn’t published anything in the eight years since Clarion because he’s lazy and won’t finish things.
Vinge said some people are afraid of their own success.

* CRITIQUING

Regarding critiques, Vinge said it’s important to learn who’s giving good advice and who gives bad advice, and how to tell the difference between the two.
Writers need to read others’ works and see why one story is better than another story.

Goss said crits point out places where the story gets boring, themes that don’t work, characters that aren’t authentic. Pros will push you to try something different. She said the best thing is that everyone says something slightly different, and they’re all good, trained readers.

Mohanraj said beginners are very picky, until they learn to offer a larger-level critique. They can then use those skills on their own works.

Vinge said two people should complain before you take it seriously, and one of those two people can be you.

Mohanraj said different people give different types of critique. She was part of a college graduate student group and an SF group. The SF group caught factual mistakes and the college group could miss those, but talk about characters and issues. She said it’s valuable to train your critting skills to do a variety of critiques.

Steelman advised writers to join a writing group and actively critique as many other people as possible. That teaches how to read more critically, because people are too emotionally involved in their own work.

* CONFIDENCE (RELATED TO VOICE)

Another difference that Goss pointed out is in voice. Someone who’s been writing for awhile has a consistency of voice (that was someone else’s phrase, I think) that creates confidence in the reader – the reader knows they can put themself in the hands of the writer.

Aguirre said he looks for a voice that gives the reader confidence from the beginning.

None of the panelists had specific advice on how to create that confidence. [I suspect there isn’t any.]

* VOICE

Aguirre said that as a beginner, he had a hard time figureing out what voice was.
Mohanraj said that beginners need to worry about technical aspects first, like plot or characters, rather than voice.
Goss said it’s easy to make mistakes about voice, and that people have to keep writing and writing. Voice comes out after practice.

Mohanraj said writers don’t always have the same voice, but they do keep a consistent voice within a single book.
Goss said something about different voices (for?) different characters. Vinge called it writing through the voice of your character. Words get tinged by the character

Vinge said you learn something from everything you write. She suggested people try different kinds of things, such as humor.

Mohanraj said she looks for style and use of language. A minimal style doesn’t necessarily help or hurt a piece, but if a writer can manage a lush style, go for it. It will stand out because most stories are told with workmanlike prose.

Aguirre said control is a big part of that, keeping prose from going too purple or too flat. Mohanraj said she has a good handle on short lengths, but in writing her first novel she has to go punch up the prose.

Goss suggested writers develop an ear for words. Practice, read, and read widely.
Mohanraj recommends reading out loud.
Aguirre suggests getting in the head of the narrator, not just the character.

* COMPLEXITY

Goss said the writing of neopros and beginners has a difference in complexity. She said when she critiqued novels written by college students, they were so focused on one aspect (e.g. Plot) that other aspects (the world) lacked complexity, leading to a novel that was “thin”. She said she thought the students either didn’t know much about their story’s environment or deliberately simplified it because they didn’t yet have the experience to handle the complexity. She said that for her first pro sale, she completely rewrote the history of England.

Goss said knowing lends authenticity to the story, because the stuff in your brain isn’t as complex as what’s in the world.

Vinge doesn’t believe in writing what you know, and you can suggest that there’s much more than what you’re describing. Mohanraj said you can imply complexity.

Mohanraj said stories are often generically white and male. She said specificity and blend of details can lend a richness to stories, as well as make it more complex.

Mohanraj said richness and texture is important. Also the richness and intensity of emotion. If she doesn’t care at the end of the story, it’s failed.

Vinge said some people prefer to read a well-written story with no emotion because it scares them. Mohanraj said she doesn’t think about those readers.

Aguirre mentioned someone whose background notes were half as long as the book. Vinge says if she gets stuck, she does more background. It doesn’t have to be done up front.

* SURPRISES/UNUSUALNESS

Goss said it’s better to write an unexpected story than one that’s just like all the other submissions. Aguirre said many stories telegraph the ending in the first sentence.

Mohanraj said writers lock themselves into some things up front, and that makes it hard to have surprises. If the writer isn’t getting to the next paragraph and making up something neat, the editor won’t be surprised.
Vinge compared it to having a road map but not knowing the bridge is washed out.

Mohanraj said to be suspect of your first impulse because it might be everybody’s first impulse.

* OTHER COMMENTS

Aguirre said writers should read nonfiction and widely outside their fields. He has a degree in African history and was raised in the military. Lots of stories come from digging through an encyclopedia.
Vinge suggested the Discovery and History channels as a shortcut.

Goss said to develop a relationship to the world as a writer, so that you’re always getting story ideas. Steelman: notice stuff in public. Aguirre: keep a notebook with you.

Mohanraj also appreciates leaving a story [that she’s read] and still thinking about it days later. She said good story material involves a conflict that is difficult to resolve, and asks difficult questions.

Comments Off on Common neo-pro mistakes: Wiscon panel 70

Filed under Writing

Comments are closed.