[Radthorne]

And now, Caitlin, having read your post, I think what I then posted fit quite nicely into those sentiments.

It takes a certain mentaility to get something out of workshops, or Clarion, or writer's groups. If you have a group that shares your vision, then it can be very inspiring. But if everyone writes in a completely different way than you, and has trouble with your way, then it can be a frustrating experience. I'm rather on the loner side of the fence, taking my feedback, as I noted, from other readers mostly. And when pros read my work and provide input on the technicalities that I can improve upon, I do so and am grateful for it. But I'll be sticking with my multi-POV and big plots! For that's my vision of how to tell a story, and the way my creativity works.

And, if you feel a need to dash off and write some fiction, we'll keep your forum warm for you until you return! :)

[Caitlin]

I've been told by some very experienced and very well meaning writers that I should not have more than one POV, should focus the story on a single main character, should not have more than a single main thread plot, etc. etc. (I can feel KatG itching to type a reply, saying those folks are full of baloney).
Which they are! Just like the well-meaning ones who insisted that my single POV story (Telling, that is) with single plotline just didn't and couldn't work; that I needed other perspectives if I wanted to tell any sort of compelling tale. I was also told that "Something Big Has to Happen on Every Single Page" - which may be true for books like my second one, but definitely wasn't true for my first. Rules, workshops, how-to's: yes, take what you can from them, and accept with gratitude the well-meaningness (is that a word?!) with which all the recommendations are made. But know that nearly every reader will have an opinion; and know that yours counts most.

And now I have to clarify: it's also important not to be defensive and knee-jerky about feedback. Meaning: I absolutely felt defensive and knee-jerky the first time I talked to my editor about the first (and second) draft of Telling. But once the feeling passes (usually quite quickly), it can be a thoroughly invigorating experience to absorb and take advice. I think it's intuition, again, that leads. You just know when criticisms are good, solid ones - even when you wish they weren't true. Likewise, you know when critcisms are more about the person giving them than they are about your writing.

OK. Now I really, really have to go to bed. :)

[alison]

I should be doing the washing, myself ... :eek: But at least I cleaned out the fishtank.

And now I have to clarify: it's also important not to be defensive and knee-jerky about feedback. Meaning: I absolutely felt defensive and knee-jerky the first time I talked to my editor about the first (and second) draft of Telling. But once the feeling passes (usually quite quickly), it can be a thoroughly invigorating experience to absorb and take advice. I think it's intuition, again, that leads. You just know when criticisms are good, solid ones - even when you wish they weren't true. Likewise, you know when critcisms are more about the person giving them than they are about your writing.

I've probably gone on about this somewhere else (I do tend to go on, much more than you Caitlin); but you are absolutely right. I was lucky, in that I learned very early in my writing life how to collaborate with an editor (just good luck) and when it came to the novels and working with an editor, I had left the knee-jerky thing behind. It might, on the other hand, make me rather demanding... I expect quite a lot and I get vocal (in the nicest and most polite way, of course) when I feel that I'm getting sub-standard advice. You do know in your gut when an editor makes a valid point; I find it exciting when a well-considered comment suddenly illuminates a difficulty, and you see how to make the book better. Because, ideally, it's all about the common goal of making the book as good as possible. I get worried or even upset when I get formulaic advice ("books like this should...") but the best editors don't do that. They're reading your book, not some generic stereotype.

Kevin, I know exactly what you mean about "professional" feedback. Well, I guess there's a whole industry out there full of how-to books advising you to get your first plot point happening by page 13 and so on, and creative writing courses that draw graphs on how to write a short story (I'm not exaggerating, a friend of mine had a lesson like that). I avoid that stuff like the plague, because I'm sure no one ever wrote a marvellous book that way (they might have written a competent book). It leads to the kind of thing that says Radthorne should not be writing an ambitiously structured work because it's "wrong", even if it's perfectly readable and clear. That's not seeing the wood for the trees. There are such things as professionals who still retain the ability to be simply readers, I've known a couple, and that way you get the best of both worlds - that naive readerly response plus know how.

[Radthorne]

I should be doing the washing, myself ... :eek: But at least I cleaned out the fishtank.
And with luck you weren't so distracted that you tossed the fish into the washer... :rolleyes:

[alison]

And with luck you weren't so distracted that you tossed the fish into the washer..

:eek: Just checked! Thank god you alerted me! Well, at least now they're very clean...

[KatG]

Writing seems to me very often a question of faith, of staying true to that little flame no matter what threatens to blow it out.

Ooo, that's going in my quote file, Alison. Or possibly posted over my desk.

As you know, Alison, my book is multi-POV, has a fair number of characters, two main plots and several subplots. I've been told by some very experienced and very well meaning writers that I should not have more than one POV, should focus the story on a single main character, should not have more than a single main thread plot, etc. etc. (I can feel KatG itching to type a reply, saying those folks are full of baloney).

Well, when three quarters of the fantasy and sf genre titles out there contain multi POV formats, multiple plot lines and a substantial number of main characters, yes, that would qualify as baloney. (Not to mention all the award-winning, literary titles and bestselling thrillers that use multiple POV's and multiple plots.) There are of course not any rules to writing fiction, in case you still had any doubts there Alison. :) But I can't imagine a guidebook called "There Are No Rules!" selling very well. People expect guidebooks to guide them, after all, as in tell them what to do.

Caitlin -- agents and editors are spotting what they think are problems and coming up with possible solutions. Part of that process is to persuade the author to that argument. One of the ways they do this is to say that the market requires it, that it will play better in the market, that so and so who is big in the market did it this way so you should too. Sometimes, the publising person sincerely does believe that about the market -- after all they don't have a lot of time either and they can't read everything -- and sometimes they just have their preference/view and invoke the market as a boogeyman. It works particularly well with newly published authors who haven't figured out yet that they don't have to do everything their agent or editor tells them to do.

So it's usually best to ignore the "market" part of the advice, from a pub pro, another writer or someone else. But, like Alison said, you do know it in your gut if they've hit on something that's not right in the text, something that you just didn't see at first because you're too close to the dratted thing. A lot of times, an editor, like less experienced readers, will spot a problem but mistake the cause of it -- this spot feels flat, I think it needs faster pacing -- when actually it's flat because there's not enough of the main character's pov or something -- and then you get to play detective to work that out. But unless the author is the person who does that, it's not usually going to work out in revision. An editor may indeed be a writer-thinking reader, but the writer is the one who has to write the thing. And if that writing porocess involves going to ground in a cave and keeping everyone out, so be it.

[Caitlin]

And if that writing process involves going to ground in a cave and keeping everyone out, so be it.

And, if you feel a need to dash off and write some fiction, we'll keep your forum warm for you until you return!
Funny thing: we've always had pet rabbits (ones that are litter trained and hop freely about the house, chewing wires and wood panelling). Your quotes re: getting away from it all and writing (something I brought up in a previous message) have made me realize: I'm the Rabbit Riter! Or Wrabbit Writer, perhaps. I frequently need to burrow away from noisy predators and mind my own vegetarian-ish business. (I only have two children, however, which is where the analogy falls apart.)

Thanks, Kevin, for offering to keep my forum warm if I need to do the bunny-hop thing! You're doing a fine job already. :)

And as for Alison...
I do tend to go on, much more than you Caitlin)
You're fabulous, dahling! ;) I adore anyone who can match my loquacity, whether written or verbal. I don't think I'm giving an accurate impression of said loquacity here; you'll have to meet me in person sometime. Then we'll see who wins the "going on, and on, and on" (and at breakneck speed) award.