Are you and your manuscript ready for submission?

by: Joelle Charbonneau

There is a question that I get asked pretty frequently by aspiring authors.

“When do I know my work is good enough to submit?”

Ha! Fun question. Unfortunately, there isn’t a really good answer to that question. I mean, that’s kind of like asking “When do I know if I’m in love?” You know you’re in love when you feel it. I guess Dr. Phil or Cosmo might have some kind of cool questionnaire to fill out to make sure, but knowing you are in love is a gut feeling. Kind of like figuring out if your story is ready for the submission world. Although, the idea of a questionnaire is kind of fun. I mean, wouldn’t that be great if there was a check list you could go through to make totally sure you and your manuscript are ready for the submission process? So, with that in mind, and in honor of Chuck Wendig who loves lists, here is 15 ways an author can know a manuscript is ready for submission. (Yeah – Chuck would have come up with 25, but I’m not as cool as he is. So maybe he’ll find another 10 to add to the list.)

1. The manuscript is finished. Yes, that’s right sports fans. You need a beginning, a middle and an end. Two out of three won’t cut it. I don’t care that it takes agents and editors months and months to read a submission. Don’t submit the beginning now and get around to writing the end while you’re waiting or them to fawn over your brilliance. Do that and you’re going to be waiting a hell of a long time. You might have that kind of time to kill. I do not.

2. The manuscript length fits genre parameters. Yes, I know your novel is special. It requires 200,000 words to fully develop the characters and the fifteen storylines that eventually converge into one ending. But if you are writing genre fiction I’m fairy certain that particular word count is going to get you a lot of head shaking and not much else. No one is going to get excited about a story that is over twice as long as the genre conventions. Yes, there are exceptions to the rules. A book can be a little longer or a little shorter, but unless you’re Stephen King no one is going to offer you a contract on a book that defies the genre standards. Do your homework. And if you start telling me you need every one of those 200,000 words and not a single one can be cut—well, let’s just say I’m probably not going to believe you.

3. You’ve proofed your book. No typos should be a given. And yes, this is easier said than done because while word processing programs are fabulous, they look for words that aren’t in the dictionary. They aren’t going to find the words that are spelled correctly, but aren’t the word you were looking for. Only you can find those. A typo won’t sink your manuscript, but a bunch of them is a sign of a sloppy writer. You don’t want to be a sloppy writer.

4. Your book is not printed on pink, scented paper. While Legally Blonde’s Elle Woods makes the whole pink scented resume seem like a brilliant idea, it isn’t. And you probably think I’m joking about this, but people do it. They print queries (yes, some places still want printed queries although I haven’t a flippin’ clue why) on floral, colored, scented paper. Now often the scented part is an accident. Smokers might not realize that the cigarette they have been enjoying while stuffing their query envelopes has been preserved in the envelope for the agent or editor to enjoy. I’ve heard dozens of stories about animal hairs, smoke, crumbs and other tidbits being added to queries to give them that personal touch. This is a personal touch you do not want. Trust me!

5. You’ve opened the book with a fabulous hook. Remember that agents and editors get a lot of submission. Thousands of them during the course of a year. You don’t get to hope they read far enough to get to the good part. The first line better be the good part. And the line after that. And the one after that. You have to hook them fast and then pull them into your story. If you find yourself saying “if only they read X scene” you know you aren’t ready for submission. Because that scene should be your first scene.

6. You’ve cut your prologue. Nope, I’m not kidding. You know that prologue you think is brilliant and you love. Cut it. Honest! I’m not being mean. While I know you poured your heart and soul into that prologue, I can promise you now that agents and editors aren’t going to read it. Most industry professionals I’ve talked to say that when sample pages come with a prologue, they skip the prologue and turn to chapter 1. 99.9% of all prologues get axed. And the ones that survive are typically the NY Times Bestsellers who are basically allowed to do whatever the hell they want because…well, they’re a NY Time Bestselling author. When you get to be a NY Time Bestseller, you can have a prologue, too. I promise. Until then—put it under your pillow so you can cherish the memories.

7. Your first chapter ends on a fabulous, page turning hook. You know those authors that you love to curse out because they kept you up all night reading when you should have been getting sleep. You want to be one of those people. If your characters go to sleep at the end of a chapter, your reader will probably remember that they are supposed to get rest and put the book down. End the first chapter in a great hook and the reader will flip the page with you and suffer at work for it the next day.

8. All your chapters end on a fabulous, page turning hook. See above. Don’t settle for a mediocre chapter hook. Make them all rock.

9. You don’t have more than one point of view per scene. Okay, this one might annoy some people, but I really think this is an important rule for authors breaking into the biz. One point of view in a scene is pretty standard. Are there authors out there who use multiple points of view in their scenes. Yes. These are those same authors who get to use prologues. They’ve been at this a really long time and get to break the rules. Unfortunately, you have to follow the rules for a while until you’ve earned the right to break them. Sorry!

10. You’re manuscript starts in action. If you start with “It was a dark and stormy night.” you’re going to be in trouble. Pick a scene where the main character has something at stake. Put them in a situation with conflict. This will pull the reader in and at the same time allow the reader to really learn about your main character. The best way to get to know someone is to see how they respond to difficulties.

11. You’ve cut the boring parts. A favorite NY Times Bestseller that I know loves to talk about cutting the boring parts. Anything that slows down the plot or the pacing no matter how lovely the writing needs to go. Sorry!

12. The plot resolves in a logical way. For some reason a lot of manuscripts I’ve seen feel like they use Monty Python’s Holy Grail as inspiration for their ending. The plot is racing along and then the author realizes the book is 100,000 words and they need and ending fast. So BAM – they end the book. The killer is revealed. The love story is resolved. Only there wasn’t a build up to either. The ending comes out of nowhere. While a book that is too long is bad, so is a book that cuts corners to ensure it isn’t too long. Nothing is more depressing for a reader than an unsatisfying ending. Give us a payoff worthy of all the words that came before.

13. You’ve done your homework. This means you’ve actually figured out who your target audience is for your book and you have a list of appropriate editors and agents to submit to. It doesn’t matter how brilliant your work is, if you don’t send it to the right people you’re hosed.

14. You’re prepared for rejection. No, I’m not being doom and gloom by assuming you’re going to get rejected. Rejection happens. It doesn’t matter how high up the publishing ladder you go – you are going to get rejected. And when you’re on the bottom rung (and I know that rung because I hung out on it for a really long time) rejection is almost a guarantee. Just because your manuscript is brilliant doesn’t mean the editor or agent you’ve submitted to will have space on their list for it. Sometimes you need to knock on a bunch of doors before someone opens one. Sure, we all hear stories of the person who got an agent on their first query and landed a publishing deal a week later. That could happen to do, but you need to assume it won’t. If you go into the process with realistic expectations you’ll be a happier person. Trust me on this!

15. You are ready to begin the next project – because every book you write makes you a better writer. When that agent or editor comes knocking, you want to be able to show them you are a pro.

If you have answered yes to all all of the above - have at it. And good luck! Remember that publishing is a marathon, not a sprint. Everything from queries to manuscript submissions to the book landing on the shelves takes time.

Back Up and No Sweat

by

Scott D. Parker

My Mac died this week, and I didn’t even sweat it.

I have a MacBook Pro, late 2007 model, and it’s been a workhorse for lo these five years. As a child who grew up as computers grew up, having all my music, picture, home movies, docs, files, applications all in one, compact little metal box that I can take anywhere is really like science fiction. Like all of us in this year 2012, basically everything of importance is on our computers.

And mine, apparently, gave up. From all the troubleshooting things I did, it appears that my logic board—i.e., memory board—might have failed. Or it may be a power thing. What it is not, however, is a drive failure. So, despite the fact that I experienced that awful sinking feeling when the Mac would not wake from sleep, all my Stuff is safe and sound. Well, it is now, once I copied it all to another hard drive. Sure, I had to crack my laptop, but I’ve done it before and it’s no big deal now.

The biggest drawback is my music. I can’t access it or listen to it throughout my workday. I’ve still got the music on my iPod, but I dislike having ear buds on for long stretches. I’m going to reassemble the Mac and take it up to the Apple store and let the experts give a look. As odd as it sounds, I partially dread their verdict. I’m not a guy who must have the latest and greatest. I prefer to have my few tools, be they electronic or analog, that just plain work, that work so well that I don’t have to think about anything other than my task at hand. That’s what my Mac was for me: the perfect tool that I could use to write, edit movies, listen to music, watch videos, and I didn’t have to think about the tech specs, the RAM speed, or anything. It just worked. What I dread is that the costs of repair might be too steep, that leads to the inevitable conclusion: if I’m going to pay that much for a repair, why not just buy a new machine. For some, this would be exciting. And, to be honest, it is a bit exciting. But, if I have to choose that route, the day I most look forward to is not the purchase date, but the date in which the machine is set up To Just Work.

What isn’t a drawback, however, is a writing tool. A little over a year ago, after reading a lot about minimal computing, I saw the upside to working with text files. Just about any application can read a text file, no matter the OS. I’m not tied to a particular document type that may only be readable with a respective application. And with syncing via Dropbox and my own obsessive backup system, I can easily port my text files anywhere, including this, my work PC. Now, the one application I do miss is Scrivener. It is my go-to application for story manipulation—the moving around of scenes, timelines, etc.—but not always story generation. I write anywhere and on anything, paper, plastic, or pixel. In fact, my iPod, with a Bluetooth keyboard, is often all I need. Heck, I’ve written more than one of these posts on my iPod without a keyboard.

What am I saying today? Backup all your stuff, and do it on a regular basis. Pretty obvious advice, but sound advice. It’s not a matter of *if* your computer will crash, it’s when. Get into the habit and ingrain it in your computing life so much that when your machine fails, you won’t break a sweat (unless you just wrote “The End” and hadn’t saved yet). Also, if you can, be application agnostic. Don’t be tied into only one writing application. Remember, back in the day, the writers with typewriters had only one, basic method: enter text on paper, the analog equivalent of a text file. It might just save you some heartache.

Song of the Week:

John Legend and the Roots performing “Dancing in the Dark”. In advance of the new Bruce Springsteen CD dropping next week, Jimmy Fallon has been having Springsteen Week on Late Night. Monday and last night, Springsteen himself showed up. The middle days had three performers—Kenny Chesney, John Legend, and Elvis Costello—cover the Boss’s songs. Legend’s jazzy, piano-laced, slow burn rendition of one of Springsteen’s signature tunes is incredible not just for its restraint, but for the emotion he wrings out of the lyrics. The electric piano solo section of the piece reminded me of The Bad Plus and their reinterpretations of modern rock songs. Fantastic.

Oh, and for more Springsteen stuff, check out Jay's post from Thursday.

Papa Don't Preach (Or; Show Don't Tell....Again.)

By Jay Stringer.

Apologies for my absence last week. It seems getting ill is my bodies favourite new thing lately. The post I had in mind was a good 'un about subtext. It will show up over the next few weeks, but it also ties into what I'm writing today.

My friend Steve (of the Slide Into My Hand podcast) forwarded me a link on Monday to this open letter to Bruce Springsteen. He then asked me what I thought of it. Because he's annoying like that. He likes to lock my brain up in complex questions. Springtseen himself has stated he still supports the candidate, but from the sidelines;

"I'm not a professional campaigner and every four years I don't think I'm going to pick a guy and go after him......

....I prefer to stay on the sidelines. I genuinely believe an artist (is) supposed to be the canary in the coal mine and you're better off with a certain distance from the seat of power."

I see two separate issues at play in this story, and I'd like to hear your views on both. But first, hey, you've got to sit through mine.

As to the main issue, It's fair to say I agree completely with Springsteen's current stance. I agree with it so much that I plan on stealing the line about the canary as soon as the dust has settled, and start passing it off as my own.

I've written many times before, both on here and my own site (my solo side-project?) that I like to draw a distinction between being social and being political. But even putting that concept aside for the moment and simply using the term political to cover all, I think there's an important line. In Bruce I've always enjoyed many of the things I come to crime fiction for. It will come as a new concept to precisely nobody reading this to hear Bruce compared to Pelecanos, Steinbeck, or other greats of crime fiction. We do it all the time, it's a cliche at this point.

Nevertheless, it carries truth to it. In albums like NEBRASKA, THE GHOST OF TOM JOAD and DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, what we have is social fiction, and a writing style that fits with any of the names we like to throw around in comparison. We have stories that mine that wonderfully rich seam; the gap between the haves and have-nots. The corruption of power, the trap of ambition, and the poverty of hope.

His politics was never a secret -once he started to form his own politics more as he grew- but it was also something that didn't need to be fully stated. Of course he had opinions, string ones, but they were best served by fuelling his work, and by giving direct answers to questions.

Given how string an influence he was on me at a young age, it's probably no surprise that this became my default setting for what an artist should be. Point to what's wrong and rage at the failures of those in power, but don;t get up on the podium and tell us who to vote for. It would be grossly unfair to single Bruce Springtseen out as the only person who drifted across that line over the past decade-or-so in mainstream music. More and more we saw musical celebrity used as a means to an end on the campaign trail. Sometimes we even saw the musicians pick up their instruments and start attaching their songs to the campaigns.

That's their choice to make, of course, but it was a point when I started to tune out to each of them, and I realised it was because of that crossing of the line that I had drawn. If we ignore my social/political distinction for now and just stick to the one word; I realised I have no issue with songs that had political messages in them (in fact, I often turn to them) but I fall away when they step over into party politics. I think crossing that line is actually demeaning the art. It's making it something less, it's mutating it into propaganda.

I had similar problem's with Steve Earle. Though I'm sure he still sleeps fine at night despite some limey having issues with him, I've never fully recovered the affinity I had with his post-rehab work since THE REVOLUTION STARTS NOW.

To give another example; Paul Westerberg. We know Westerberg's feelings on war. We know his thoughts on feminism, gender equality, mental health and gun control. We know of his caring for those suffering from depression and we know his (complex and not judgemental) views on suicide. And we know all of this because, since 1981, he's given us a body of work that speaks for him on each thorny issue. But, 30 years on from his first release, do we know who he votes for or if he's religious? No, and we don't need to know.

(I actually know the answer to both questions, because I'm a fan and I sought the answers out, but I had to go looking.)

I love music that is socially conscious and politically aware, but I don;t wan to be preached at, and I don;t want either music or the artist to become attached to a particular horse in the rigged race of party politics.

And I carry the same principle over into literature (because really, it's all writing.) When we read of the problems of unemployment, drugs, hopelessness and frustration in these novels, we get a sense of the author and it's not hard, usually, to make an educated guess if we want to. But the work speaks for them. And, more importantly, the work speaks of the real issues, not of the partisan ones. I've felt angry at myself on the occasions when I've crossed the line that I talk about so much, and I strive each time not to do it again.

So that's the first issue that comes out of all of this, for me. I agree with where Bruce was up until the previous administration, and I agree with where he seems to have come back to now. Have opinions, sure. Everybody does. But know that having an opinion doesn't mean you have to campaign, and trust that your work speaks for you. In fact, I could some it all up in that last thought; trust the work.

But I did mention that there was a second issue that I saw coming off all of this, and one that ties back into that open letter. It's not so much a call for artists to come out and tie themselves to campaigns, as it is saying that certain artists opened the can of worms and maybe they have a responsibility to see it through. As much as I would rather Bruce stick to his current position, does he have a responsibility to stay out there on the trail after doing it to such an extent in the previous two elections? Are these musicians cutting and running by not seeing things through and holding the 'new guy' to task as publicly as they did the 'old one'? That's a genuine question I'm asking there, because it's one without an easy answer.

So there you go. Firstly, I think that writers (of all formats) should let their work do the talking for them, and that they shouldn't cross a line into telling people who to vote for. I think they should trust in their art. Do you agree? And if not, which artists who've "crossed that line," do you think have handled it best?

And secondly, once an artist has put themselves out there and tied themselves so publicly to getting "their guy" across the line, do they have a responsibility to stay out there and see things through, just as the candidate does?