From the Trenches: Self-Publishing Pioneer

A story we've all heard almost didn't make it, because the author trying to publish it was rejected so many times. She heard the word "no" from publishers so much, in fact, that she decided to self-publish -- just like so many of today's authors. The thing is, she did it way back in 1902...more than a hundred years before the Kindle existed. 

Beatrix Potter started writing as a child. She invented her own secret writing code and started recording the events of her life as young as 15 years old. As a girl, she often secretly brought small animals into her house. She loved writing stories, but Beatrix Potter also has a scientific mind. She tried to publish a paper about fungi and algae, but because she was female she couldn't submit it. Her parents tried to find suitors for Beatrix as she became of an age to marry, but she rejected them all and retained her single status against their wishes.

Her Own Way

She wanted to be a writer. Beatrix submitted a children's book and accompanying drawings to several publishers, but it was rejected many times.Finally, she self-published the book at her own expense. All the drawings were done in full color, something Potter's youngest brother Norman insisted upon. The book was also made in a small size, because she wanted it to be easy for children to hold in their small hands. 

 

That self-published book was The Tale of Peter Rabbit, which would go on to become one of the most beloved children's books of all time. Frederick Warne & Company eventually published the book on their dime, though they didn't have a lot of hope for it. It sold nearly 30,000 copies that first year, and Beatrix Potter went on to write 22 more children's books. She introduced young readers to characters like Squirrel Nutkin, Benjamin Bunny and Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle. 

Beatrix Potter wrote and drew for the rest of her life, and ended up getting married while in her 40s. Today, young children still read Peter Rabbit and watch animated movies about the rabbit that stole into the garden when he shouldn't have. Beatrix Potter wrote in the trenches when women were supposed to be getting married and having children instead, and when she heard the word no she decided she didn't need any old publisher, anyway. She became a huge success in her market, but before she did it Beatrix Potter was an indie author, too.

Writing 101: Going to Extreme Lengths

Would you read a novel with more than a thousand pages? Could you even pick it up? In a modern world where any question can be answered in seconds and entertainment is accessible from a dozen different electronic devices, how long is too long when you're writing a book? Lots of writers struggle with writing full-length novels, because there's a whole lot of words involved, but at the opposite end of the spectrum you have a few who do something that's even worse: they write too much. If you're going to extreme lengths in your books, it might actually be a serious problem you need to address.

Book Length

I saw a forum thread, the other day, where a writer was asking how many words you have to write to technically create a book. I've addressed the question of book length before, but I didn't address a big book problem that some writers don't even realize exists: going to extreme lengths. 

When is a Book Too Long? 

The longest actual novel ever written, according to some sources, is Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. The paperback version of the story (measuring at close to 9 inches) is 1,534 pages long. In total, the book is just shy of a million words long. I haven't read the book, so I can't say whether or not it's too long, but I can say this: I just plain don't have the time to find out. 

Writers love to write, and good for you. But if you just let yourself go, you might end up with a few thousand (or even a few hundred thousand) words too many. When is a book too long? When I'm bored, that's when. 

I don't think about the books I write in terms of pages or chapters; I think about them in terms of scenes. Each scene I write in my books serves some important purpose -- it conveys information, or progresses the story, in some way. For example, if I need to show a deep, history-filled relationship between two characters, I can convey that information over four different scenes if I like. I can write about the two going out together, maybe having an intense phone conversation, possibly talking together at school. But I can, just as easily, convey that information using just one scene.

I don't have the time, or the inclination, to read pages and pages of descriptions of the same thing or the same event. I don't necessarily need to go out to the club with the characters in your book four nights in a row to understand that this is how they live; you can write that scene brilliantly just once, and in one line say "we went out to the club again for the next three nights" without giving me a full blow-by-blow of similar events from the first scene. Unless something is actually happening, I don't need to waste a bunch of time reading about it. 

With every chapter, or scene, or paragraph you write, ask yourself some questions to see if you're going to extreme lengths: 

• Does the reader need this information? 
• Is the reader getting this exact information anywhere else in the book? 
• Is there a better way to convey this information? 
• Does this serve a purpose that isn't being served by another piece of writing elsewhere in the book?

The world moves fast, and there are a ton of books in it. There's lots of stuff to read, and you want every moment of your book to be compelling, engaging and interesting. If readers feel like they're reading the same thing over and over, they aren't going to be very pleased with your writing. 

The Epic Novel

That said, there is merit to be found in the epic novel. Gone With the Wind and Doctor Zhivago, for example, are giant books and they both became lengthy movies because of it. Yet both are popular, and well-loved, both in spite of and because of their size. Some stories are huge, and don't lend themselves to being split into multi-volume collections. If you are certain that every part of your book serves a purpose and there's nothing extra and it's still coming in at an epic length, then it's okay. Some stories just happen to be big, but you have to continuously be aware of your length and make sure you're doing everything to keep it reasonable and keep every page exciting. Don't write for writing's sake.

When a Book is Too Short

You don't want your book to be too long, full of unnecessary words, and boring. But on the other side of the coin, you don't want your book to be too short, either -- especially if you're going to charge full price for it. Young adult novels, children's books and short story collections are generally smaller in size than full-length novels, but if you're writing for an adult market you should have a story that requires at least 50,000 words. Nicholas Sparks' The Notebook weighs in at a mere 49,000 words, a length many publishing houses would consider a novella and not a full-length novel. Brevity is a fine quality, but you can't call something a book unless it actually is one.

Sometimes, you might need to take a little more time with your writing. Read your book, and make sure that your readers are going to "get" everything. You can write that "Gwen and Stacey were good friends from way back," but I won't really absorb that information well without the proper context. You'd be telling me, and not showing me, this relationship. Why not write a scene of a memory from their past? Show me something that happened, something that illustrates this closeness, or perhaps how this friendship was forged. One sentence isn't likely to make a big impact, but a descriptive scene certainly will. I don't want to feel like I don't have a good handle on Gwen and Stacey's relationship the entire time I'm reading the book; I don't want to wonder about their history and feel like something's lacking. When a book is too short, it might be due to the fact that you aren't giving me enough information. See where your story might be lacking, and add the necessary scenes to paint a better (and bigger) picture.

Death: Official Trailer Revealed

The official trailer for Death (Deck of Lies, #3) is here! I'm unveiling it here first, but soon you'll be able to find it on Smashwords, Goodreads and Twitter. As always, you can tell me what you think of it in the comments section. 

Writing 101: Sneaked vs. Snuck

How many errors have snuck past you in editing? No author can get through an entire book without making a mistake (and I personally can't seem to get through a single paragraph without them), but it's not entirely your fault. Words are confusing, and they have lots of different forms that only adds fuel to the fires of bafflement. But if the wrong usage of a word sneaked past you in the past, you can prevent it in the future -- just learn which one's right. In the epic battle of sneaked vs. snuck, which word will win?

Sneaking in the Past

By and large, books are written in the past tense. Some authors do create their books using present tense, but past tense is the most popular...and this makes it difficult to chose the right word forms. Words like sneak, which have more than one past tense form, really only exist to make your job difficult (that's my theory, anyway). 

So, which one's right? Both of them. Whether you're using sneaked or snuck, either can be used in your book and remain correct. Sneaked is older; it's been in use for about 5 centuries. Snuck originated in the United States only about a hundred years ago, but in the past century it's spread to all English-speaking (and English-writing) countries. You can find either word in major, prestigious publications and popular books around the world.

Some traditionalists, however, absolutely hate the word snuck; it's still too new for some of the old school grammarians. But if you're writing ebooks, I say embrace any and all word trends. No word that's over a century old can be considered "new" when dictionaries are updated every single year.

Books on Film: Mary Poppins

One of the most iconic characters of all time is also the most confused. Mary Poppins on the page isn't a whole lot like the Disney version that would become famous three decades later. Mary Poppins was heavily adapted for the screen, yet the film version is probably more well-known than the book that came first.

The Book

Mary Poppins was published in 1934 by P. L. Travers, and it became only the first in an 8-book series that would spawn decades and even generations. But the first book created a legendary character that all children, young and old, recognize immediately...as Julie Andrews. 

Like the Disney film, the book revolves around the Banks family. They live at Number Seventeen Cherry Tree Lane in London. In the book, Mr. and Mrs. Banks have four children, not two. In addition to Jane and Michael, there is a pair of twins named John and Barbara. Mary Poppins arrives at the house on a gust of wind quite soon after Katie Nana, the nanny, storms out of the family home in a snit. 

Mary Poppins is cross, stern and vain -- but also magical, and wonder follows wherever she goes. They go on a trip around the world using a compass, experience a tea party on the ceiling, meet a bird woman, even celebrate a birthday party at the zoo with the animals. At the end of the book, the west wind blows Mary Poppins away from the Banks family because her work is done.

The Film

Disney released their Mary Poppins in 1964, with a then-unknown actress in the title role. Julie Andrews was a rising star on Broadway but she wasn't anyone on film...until 1965. Andrews scored the Oscar for her portrayal of Mary and became a legend as a result.

Rumor has it that Walt Disney himself tried to get the rights to the book as early as 1938, but Travers turned him down because she didn't want to see an animated version of her book. It wasn't until she was granted script approval, in 1961, that she relented and let him make the film. 

It's still one of the best Disney ever made. Putting the script and songs together alone took around two years, and Julie Andrews almost didn't do the role. Other actresses, like Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury, were being considered because the book Mary was prim and cool. Andrews was much warmer, but Walt Disney wanted her for the role after seeing her performing on Broadway. When Audrey Hepburn was confirmed to play the lead in the film version of My Fair Lady (a role Andrews had hoped to get), she agreed to become Mary. 

With Dick van Dyke in the supporting cast, the Disney version of Mary Poppins became a fun, musical tale filled with grinning chimney sweeps and colorful characters -- not to mention, animated friends. It's a true Disney flick...and in true Disney fashion, it was changed and re-arranged to no end with very little regard to the original narrative. They'll do it to history, they'll do it to any book.

What Got Adapted?

Mary Poppins isn't pretty. Nor is she sweet and charming and fun. In fact, she's rather cool and quite stern (which is why Bette Davis was considered for the cinema version). Jane and Michael are quite a bit worse than the movie would have you believe. Many little things are changed throughout the plot. 

Bert hardly appears in the book; his role was greatly beefed up because why wouldn't you want more of Dick van Dyke? He does go with Mary to the country through the painting...but not with the kids. Admiral Boom is mentioned but once in the book, only in passing. The entire chimney sweep scene in the movie is fabricated; there isn't really any reference to Bert being a chimney sweep in the original story. The bank run is also a fabrication for the film; it just doesn't happen.

The overall theme of the story was also changed, in my opinion for the worse. The book is more focused on the children. Mary Poppins is there to teach them how to use their imagination, and be better people. In the movie, she changes Mr. Banks and makes him less of a workaholic so he spends more time with them.

That said, Mary Poppins is still one of the most wonderful movies Disney's ever made, and a true classic that everyone should keep watching. The narrative of the book isn't a cohesive thread exactly; the way it's written, it reads more like a book that should be read to children. It's a perfect book for bedtime, and a sweet read for older people. But if you're going to give the original a try, brace yourself for a lot of differences.

Second Time Around: The Gospel of St. Luke

A while back, I blogged about a novel that's based on one of the books from the Old Testament. It's only fair to give equal space to a novel that's based on one of the books of the New Testament -- one of the most well-known and beloved, in fact.

The Original 

The Gospel of St. Luke, often titled simply Luke in the New Testament, details the life and times of Jesus Christ. No matter what you happen to believe, you're familiar with the unusual story surrounding his birth: a young, virginal girl is visited by an angel. The angel tells her that she will bear a Messiah, the son of God Himself, through immaculate conception.

Mary, the young girl who is chosen for this task, faces censure and trouble. Her husband, Joseph, proves to be an understanding man. He takes his wife away to have her baby, which they'll raise together, and the infant is born in a manger because they can find no shelter at he inn.

More than two thousand years later, this event is still celebrated around the world as the holiday of Christmas, the birth of Christ. It's celebrated on December 25 annually, though many scholars agree that if Jesus was an actual person he was most likely born in the summer time. Whether or not you celebrate it, you're familiar with the original story. You probably don't know much about the much more modern remake.

The Remake

It's bold to re-make a story that's two thousand years old. To re-tell a story that billions of people are familiar with...that's downright crazy. But this is what John Case does in The Genesis Code.

The book stars, appropriately, in a small church in a little Italian town. A parish priest is going about his usual day, but his whole world changes when he takes the confession of a world-famous physician. The priest immediately makes the journey to Rome...to Vatican City.

Over in America, an entrepreneur named Joe Lassister is about to have his world shattered, too. The head of a successful investigative firm, Joe receives a middle-of-the-night phone call to tell him that his only sister and his nephew are both dead due to a tragic house fire. An as-yet-unidentified man was also involved in the tragedy, suffering tramatic burns while trying to escape the scene. Joe knows something is wrong immediately, and begins to use all his considerable resources to unravel the strange mystery.

Joe soon discovers that his sister Kathy and nephew Brandon aren't the first mother and son to die in tragic house fires recently. He begins working backward until he discovers the clinic where Kathy was treated for infertility and artificial insemination, and learns that every other woman treated at the clinic has perished.

Every other woman...except for one. Joe attempts to track down the sole survivor and her child, a quest that's complicated by the fact that the former patient is also a former celebrity. Once an up-and-coming Hollywood actress, the patient has dropped out of the public eye and into deep cover. Joe at lasts locates the woman, who is calling herself Marie, after an exhaustive search.

He has no way of knowing that, one the other side of the world, the Vatican is already buzzing with things Joe hasn't yet begun to understand. There is a small religious sect at work within the walls of the Holy See, and they're protecting some pretty frightening secrets. The man who is still recovering from his terrible burns is actually a hired hitman...and a devout religious fanatic.

How does it all tie into the original book that inspired this modern-day remake/retelling? If I tell you that, I'll give away the best parts of the mystery (and you know how I love mysteries). Suffice it to say that by the final page of the book, you'll definitely understand. The Genesis Code is part re-telling of an old story, but it's thoroughly modern and its story is completely new. It's chilling, it's mysterious, it's well-paced -- it's an all-around great read, whether or not you're a fan of the Bible.

Another Amazing Review for Justice

 "Justice is AMAZING!"

 "This is an EXCELLENT book - it doesn’t matter if you label it as YA, suspense, thriller, drama...the perfect amount of romance, action and secrets to resolve."

Ruty at Reading...Dreaming has reviewed Justice, and I'm pleased to say she's given it 5/5 stars. Visit the blog to read the full review. 

The July release celebration for Death is ongoing, so you can download a FREE copy of Justice at Smashwords with the code SSWIN to see how your review of the book compares!

From the Trenches: Fortunate Son

One of America's most well-loved writers is also one of the unluckiest. Jack London faced rather miserable circumstances early in life, and before he found fame and fortune he had a mailbox stuffed full of ugly rejection letters. You can still see some of them today, on display at his famous estate. There are almost enough, in fact, to use as wallpaper. 

Jack London was born illegitimately in California to a single mother. As a child, London was raised by an ex-slave and worked in a cannery. As a teen, London worked on fishing and sealing boats before he returned to land to attend high school at 19. 

He loved to read, and as a natural extension of his love of words began to write when he wasn't working in the canning factory. London submitted many early poems, short stories and poems to publications throughout California in his early years of writing, but received rejection in return. His mother committed suicide when he was 21. Devastated by this and by his biological father's subsequent rejection, Jack London decided to quit school and went into the wilds of the Klondike. 

It would change him, and his writing, for ever.

Being Wild

Jack London joined the Gold Rush in 1897, sailing to the Klondike with his sister's husband. When he returned to California a year later, he was motivated to become a successful writer -- and now, he had the perfect setting to give him a good start. Using the backdrop of the Klondike, London began to write his first novel. He was offered 5 dollars for it from The Overland Monthly, and almost decided to give up on writing.

But he didn't. He received much more money for this story "A Thousand Deaths" and began writing more. It was a lucky coincidence that new printing technologies were also available for the first time, creating a magazine boom and a huge need for lots and lots of words. In 1900, London made thousands of dollars from his writing.

He sold his iconic work, The Call of the Wild, to the The Saturday Evening Post and Macmillan in 1903, and it cemented his career. As planned, Jack London became a successful working writer. Jack London was the highest-paid and most popular author and short story writer of his day, drawing on his own exciting experiences out in nature to craft vivid tales the public still devours. His book The Sea-Wolf was used as the basis for the first full-length American movie ever made.

Jack London didn't commit suicide, as urban myth would have readers believe. He developed kidney disease, possibly stemming from his days in the Klondike when his health was quite poor, and died of renal failure. He wanted to be a writer, and he was -- it's a story with a happy ending, not a sad one. 

You can see Jack London's history if you visit the House of Happy Walls, a museum decided to London established shortly after his death. Here, there are almost 600 rejection letters on display that London received from editors and other literary types during his career. Many writers could use that many letters to completely cover their workspace in wall-to-wall rejection. It didn't stop Jack London, who worked in the writing trenches with ambition firing his brain...and proved them all wrong.