Writing 101: What's It Like to Write Full-Time?

Lots of authors have "day jobs." This is because writing books really doesn't pay well, unless you're a prolific bestseller like Stephen King or you write a runaway hit like Stephenie Meyer. In perusing forums, a hobby that's eating away at much of my free time, I've discovered that many indie authors dream of the day when they can become full-time writers. But be careful what you wish for. It's time to find out what it's like to write full-time.

Writing All the Time

I am a full-time writer, and it's not glamorous. It's not even convenient. What's it like to write full-time? It's like having 5 different parents, or rowdy children, demanding something from you every single second. And it's a whole lot like staring at a screen for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Out of the 80-plus hours you spend writing in a given week, you're incredibly lucky it you get to spend 5 of them writing something you actually want to write.

Many full-time writers are freelancers, like myself. Many of them receive income from several different sources, and continuously seek out new freelance opportunities. I currently work regularly for three different outfits on strict deadlines, irregularly for another outfit on very tight deadlines, and two others whenever the wind blows. That means I may do writing work for up to 6 different employers during any given week, and any of them may come back with rewrites. Sometimes they might even do it on the same day -- like Friday, around 5 in the evening. Lots of times, they want what they need ASAP, and give me a 24- or 48-hour deadline. 

I write, on average, 5 to 10 different pieces a day ranging from 250 to 1000 words in length. Out of those 5 to 10, I might get to choose the headline and all the content for the entire piece twice. The other three to eight times I start writing something new, I'm writing what I got told to write...and even on those two I might get to choose, there are very strict formats and requirements I must meet. Sometimes, even the words are chosen for me. My job is to put them in a reasonable sort of order. I don't always get to insert amusing anecdotes, and many times I might not be inspired to write one anyway. The tone I write in might also be chosen for me, until very little of my own native writing voice remains.

In other words, it's a job. The writer who writes full time still has a boss -- and it's quite likely that they have several. Editors are persnickety, and sometimes vague, and there will be times when you wish a reviewer would come along and tear your indie book apart before you have to rewrite this how-to article even one more time. Sometimes it's scary. A gig that seems solid might change all of a sudden, because a website got bought out or an editor got fired or a search algorithm on Google got revamped. Suddenly you're making less money, and everything is insecure. Then tax time comes, and real terror enters your life. And while you're typing away 80-something hours a week, everyone around you will actually get to have a life.

Often, you'll be lonely. You're staring at a screen all day, writing about dull subjects with words you don't even get to chose and answering to editors who may only address you as "freelance writer." You'll get the feeling that you're replaceable, and you'll get a taste of the massive competition out there every time you reply to another freelance job opportunity. 

But you'll be a writer, using your words to make a living. Every once in a while, you might have the chance to revel in that. It's kind of fun when you say that you're a writer to someone who doesn't realize how really un-glamorous it all is. 

Writing all the time is just great, until you've actually got to do it to keep food in your belly. Then it gets annoying, and scary...and lonely. If wrecking your eyes and answering to too many bosses is your idea of a good time, you're ready to do it.

However, know this: when you write full time, you have to make an effort to keep loving the act of writing. When it goes from hobby to job, things change...and writing can be very, very hard to love then.

Three Books to Rebuild the World

So, I'm obsessed with The Time Machine, the story by H. G. Wells. I've always been fascinated by time travel, and as a point of fact I very sincerely believe that Back to the Future, and not Star Wars, is the best movie trilogy ever created. Wouldn't it be amazing to go back in time? Or even better, to go forward? But time isn't the main reason I'm obsessed with the story, why I find reasons to bring it up all the time (and spend a ton of time getting completely blank stares in return). It's because of the way the story ends...and not even the way it ends on the page. 

That's the Power of Words

In the original short story, the main character doesn't have a name and he comes to a very vague end. The reader sees him leave in his time machine, and he's pretty much never heard from again. It's not the greatest of endings (sorry, Mr. Wells), and that's why it got changed for the 1960s film adaptation. 

In the film version of the story, the Traveller's name is George (after Wells himself), and he takes something with him before he leaves London for the second time. After he leaves in the machine, presumably for ever, his colleagues notice something strange in the library.

Three books are missing, only three. The time machine isn't quite like a tricked-out DeLorean -- it's got shite storage space. So George takes just three books, and goes back into the future that he found. And one of the men asks "which three books did he take?"

The other man, quite seriously, gives him a level look, and he responds "which three would you take?"

I've been thinking about that damned scene for ten years. I mean, I just can't get it out of my head. It could be that my mind is just blown from the idea of living in a world with only three books, but I've never been able to stop thinking about it. 

Which three books would you take? I just can't answer the question. Three books to rebuild the world...it's a tall order. In my extensive research on the subject, I've seen every idea under the sun. A first aid book. A book about engineering (for like, literal rebuilding). A history book. The Bible. 

And maybe he grabbed The Joy of Cooking, you know? The people he found in the future were eating weird stuff, and nobody wants that. Every time I think about three books I would just have to have, one fiction novel leaps immediately to mind. I understand the uses of a first aid book, sure, but who the hell wants to live in a world without fiction? Wouldn't you want to take just one amazing novel with you, and plant that seed somewhere it could sprout? 

Thinking about those three books makes me crazy every single time, and I repeatedly go back to it. I've never been able to put together a reasonable list, not once. The dictionary? The complete works of Edgar Allen Poe? The history of the world? Carol Burnett's memoir? I just can't do it. 

I would not be able to rebuild the world, because I would have been standing in front of those library shelves long enough to actually really need a time machine. I could never choose just three books. 

I would have taken them all, or maybe waited for Doc Brown to come along in the DeLorean. Could you rebuild society with just three books? Give me your list, and maybe I'll finally be able to put an end to this sick obsession.

Writing 101: How to Fund Your Book Habit

What's the secret to being a better writer? Read a lot. Now, you've got to figure out how to fund your book habit without going broke. 

Easier Reading Isn't Always Cheaper

Ereaders like the Kindle have put hundreds of books in every reader's hands, but the easy availability of ebooks doesn't automatically equal cheaper reading. Even if you set a spending limit, buying books adds up quickly. Suppose you never spend more than $5 on a book. Read three books a week, and you're $15 in the hole before you get your next paycheck.

It starts to add up. There are ways to fund your book habit, however, and get your reading material...and no, I'm not going to tell you to go to the library.

• Swap: Visit Paperbackswap to list the books you're willing to trade, and get the books you want in return. The website connects book lovers who want to swap, and makes it easy for you to keep yourself in fresh reading material.
• Review: Start reviewing books on your blog (oh, and start a blog) and ask for review copies outright. If you advertise a review policy on your site, you will get requests. You can also look for books you might like on Goodreads and contact the authors directly about getting a review copy. Stick to indies and lesser-known authors to make it easier to get those free books. You will have to follow through, however, by writing an honest and thorough review.
• Trade among friends: Start your own trading circle among your friends and associates, and swap books to get your hands on new stories. Arrange a get together once a month and trade out books. It's kind of a fun way to visit with friends, and you may enjoy exploring their reading material.
• Kindle lending: You can trade ebooks with friends, too. Authors who have opted into the lending program allow you to send their books to your friends' Kindles. They get to keep the book for about 30 days. Start a reading circle with your friends and keep track of  all your Kindle books to create your own lending library.

Find your own creative ways to fund your book habit (and despite the hidden tone of that, I'm not advocating theft!), and keep on reading. What they say is true. Reading more can make you a better writer, even if you're reading something bad. Read books in your own genre, and read other indie authors, and keep improving your craft.

Books on Film: Pygmalion

You know how they say that no matter what you write, it's all been done before? They're 100% correct. Pygmalion, you will find, is a plot line that still appears in modern story all the time...and it was written two thousand years ago.

The Book

Chances are pretty good that no matter what you want to write about, your main theme was already written into a play by the Greeks, or Shakespeare, and likely both. Such is the case with Pygmalion, which revolves around a now-classic plot. It appears as one in a series of epic poems written by Ovid back in BC. In this early version, it's about a sculptor who falls in love with his own creation.

I can relate to that. Don't all writers fall in love with certain books, certain characters, maybe even just a paragraph? In the story, the sculptor (he's the title character) takes his love to the alter of Venus, and she is transformed into flesh. It ends happily.

And it's a familiar theme. Remember Pinocchio?

Pygmalion is better-known to modern audiences in a different version, however. George Bernard Shaw turned it into a play in 1912, and he set the story in then-modern London. The story revolves around phonetics professor Henry Higgins (he's Pygmalion under an anglicized name), who makes a bet that he can turn a guttersnipe of a Cockney flower girl into someone who will pass for a duchess at a fancy party.

It's a bet that's just too thrilling to turn down, and soon the game is afoot. Higgins will teach the flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, how to speak properly -- like the finest of English ladies. The play is a joy to read, but only if you do so out loud. Eliza's broad Cockney speech is recaptured in words you have to speak to understand. Do it the right way, and you'll learn how to speak proper Cockney.

Higgins does win the bet, and in the original version of the play Eliza finds her own strength and leaves him. George Bernard Shaw said this was the statue coming to life -- Eliza would stand without Higgins, and on her own. But the story was written for the stage, and audiences wanted the happy ending. Directors began to change Shaw's ending, sending Eliza back to Higgins at the end of the story instead. Shaw spent years fighting for the integrity of the original story.

Shaw wrote his version of the story for entertainment, and it's good stuff. So when entertainment evolved, the story was adapted...though, not much.

The Films

Pygmalion became a film in 1938 with Wendy Hiller starring as Eliza Doolittle. Shaw was involved with the production, which very closely follows his play. A ball scene is added, along with a few other smaller scenes, to lengthen the story. It's a very English production with very English actors, and perhaps that's the best way to view it. This version of the story contains the play's most famous line: "Walk? Not bloody likely!"

Trust me, it was extremely controversial at the time. The stage actress who first said it was known for having said it for the rest of her days, and Wendy Hiller similarly raised eyebrows when she screeched it in the film version. But the ending was tweaked a little. Eliza leaves with Freddy, but returns to Higgins in the end...though in what capacity she's returning is left very unclear. The 1938 adaptation of Pygmalion was nominated for several awards, including Writing, Best Actor and Best Actress.

But I urge you to opt for the 1964 version instead, or at least watch both. When the story was adapted for the big screen again, it became a comedic musical...starring Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison. My Fair Lady is one of the best musicals ever made, and my personal favorite. 

The film is technically an adaptation of an adaptation. Lerner and Loewe used Shaw's play to craft their stage musical, and this is where we get the score and the film version of My Fair Lady. The role of Eliza Doolittle was played by Julie Andrews on the Broadway stage, and New York fans wanted her for the movie. But it was to be a big-budget MGM production, and the studio wasn't about to go with an untested star who, at that time, had not been in a single film. They chose Audry Hepburn instead...and Julie Andrews was drafted by Disney to star in their big musical, Mary Poppins.

What followed is Hollywood legend. Audrey Hepburn worked hard to play Eliza, mastering several different dialects and painstakingly recording each and every number (the entire 170-minute film is chock-full of them). Rex Harrison, who could not sing, played his part with so much vigor and flair it earned him an Academy Award. How good was he in the role? He played the part on Broadway, and legend has it that when Cary Grant was asked to play Professor Higgins on film he said "I won't be in the movie. I won't even go see the movie if Rex Harrison isn't in it." 

My Fair Lady also earned Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director, and practically swept the Academy Awards that year to earn a whopping 8. It did not receive a nod for the Best Actress category, despite Hepburn's hard work. That Oscar was won by Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins. Hepburn wasn't nominated...because she was purposefully snubbed.

After Audrey Hepburn recorded all her songs for the role of Eliza, those involved in the film decided that her voice wasn't good enough. Veteran movie singer Marni Nixon was selected to re-sing all the songs but "Just You Wait," a tune where Hepburn's harsher chorus worked just fine. Nixon's voice was also dubbed into The King and I, starring Deborah Kerr, and West Side Story for Natalie Wood. The Academy Awards wasn't impressed that Audrey's singing voice wasn't a part of the film, and she was completely ignored that year in favor of Andrews.

Pygmalion was made into a film again in 1999, this time without the music, to become the teen flick She's All That. The poorly-named comedy is fairly cute, but it's a pretty big departure from the original.

What Got Adapted?

 Musical numbers notwithstanding, My Fair Lady is a pretty faithful adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion. The ambiguous ending closely echoes Shaws, and Rex Harrison is wonderful in his final number. A few things are expanded (like Eliza's learning scenes and the big ball), but they add onto the original story instead of changing it. If you haven't seen it, shame on you. My Fair Lady is an absolute must-watch.

Writing 101: When Characters Fall in Love

Love is a big focus of February, and it commonly crops up in books. By no means is love limited to the romance genre (though this genre is dedicated to the emotion). It appears in mysteries, horror novels, suspense tales, science fiction, YA...well, we don't have all day. When characters fall in love, you've got to write it in a believable way. Otherwise, I won't feel the love...and then, what the heck is the point of having it in the book? 

Lovely Stereotypes

When characters fall in love on the page, authors are always taking a risk. Love is perhaps the hardest of all emotions to define, and it's certainly difficult to recreate in fiction. How does one describe the euphoria...and the unspeakable pain? The deep longing for togetherness...and the desperate fear of losing one's own independence? 

Yeah, it's hard to write about love. I know this because I've seen so many authors get it totally wrong. Look out for common love traps in your own writing, because you want me to smile instead of gag when I get to those romantic scenes. 

• At First Sight: You're a genius if you can pull it off without sounding trite. Love at first sight is one of the most common elements used in fiction, so you're running the risk of a tired plot if you're employing it. It helps if you don't base love at first sight solely on looks. Give your main character more depth than that.

• Codependent: While it may not be spelled out, codependent love is prominent in fiction. The hero or the heroine falls so deeply and irrevocably in love, they cannot even exist without their love. That sounds romantic and all, but it's actually a mental illness of sorts. Let us as authors refuse to create codependent love on the page, lest we give rise to the wholly mistaken notion that everyone in the world must be paired up to be happy. Break ups and independence are good for characters. Codependent, I'm-going-to-die-without-you love is not healthy and it certainly isn't romantic. My own personal opinions on the matter aside, it's also bad in your writing. You don't want to weaken your main character, or turn readers off of them. It is very difficult to like a character who lacks their own sense of identity and independence. 

• Unrequited: It's hard to write about unrequited love because it's one of the most painful emotions to experience. Loving someone who does not love you back, and perhaps never will, is a terrible torture. It's also a great subject for fiction if you get it right. For this to work, you've got to have balance. Readers don't want to spend the entire book wallowing in sorrow, so remember to lighten things up a bit here and there. You've also got to show readers why the main character is in love with this other person. Really, you have to make us fall in love with them, too, in order to understand and really connect with the story. If I'm not feeling the pain of loving this person, I'm not really feeling the words.

• Illicit: Love that shouldn't blossom can be exciting in any story -- if it wasn't, Romeo and Juliet wouldn't still be popular 400 years after Shakespeare's death. Affairs and other types of illicit love are perhaps the most difficult to write about, because you're setting your characters up to be hated. It's hard to root for characters who are doing the wrong thing, so you've got to really show the readers different reasons to get on board with it. Your characters have to be very likable in other ways, perhaps even have some misguided and noble notions for cheating, unless you want them to be disliked. 

• Returned: Sometimes, the object of your character's affections may also feel the blush of love. It's sweet when both characters are fully in love, but you've got to add tension to maintain my interest. If everything is sunshine and roses all the time, where's the plot of the book? I expect the couple to hit some bumps in the road, maybe even to have some knock-down drag-out fights. Why? Because that's what love is like. Sometimes it's the worst feeling in the world, and sometimes it's terrifyingly close to pure hatred. Make your love three-dimensional, especially when it's mutually realized between the couple in question. 

• Triangle: Love triangles are the thing in YA fiction right now, but not everyone's writing them well. The triangle is a delicate balance of emotion and decision, and it's hard to keep a character tottering on the edge of that cliff. Before you write it, understand it. Why can't the character decide on a love interest? Why are two love interests into this character in the first place? What are the differences between the love interests? What are the similarities? And, most importantly, how does it end? 

Writing About Love

It's never easy to write about love. It's such a big emotion, and everyone feels it differently. Sometimes, I'm 100% convinced it's not even real -- that's how bloody confusing love really is. It's just about impossible to find it, to keep it, to deal with it and to manage it, so writing about it can make you sweat blood. It does help if you have been in love before you try to write about it, and that's really the best advice I've got for the topic. So soak in the emotion of the day by falling in love with someone, and go write about it. Happy Valentine's Day! 

On the Edge with Justice

"I was on the edge of my seat by the end and I stayed up until one am to finish it then immediately downloaded book two." 

"There are many more interesting characters to round out the cast, each with their own secrets and mysteries. To be honest I'm not sure our main character can trust a single one of them."

Justice (Deck of Lies, #1) has been reviewed at A Thousand Lives. Read it to find out why the reviewer gave the book the highest possible rating!

Writing 101: What Agents Really Mean When They Say...

Do you know how to interpret the rejection letters you get? Figure out what agents really mean when they say your book "isn't the right fit" or "doesn't meet our current needs," and figure out what you need to do to start getting some different answers. 

Interpreting the Literary Agents

Literary agents speak in a polite code couched in metaphors...and it practically takes a degree to figure out. I myself have received many, many hundreds of rejection letters, so I can speak with some authority when I say that rejections are all very similar. You'll see the same vague phrases over and over, and it's easy for authors to make themselves crazy staring again and again at those words.

Stop staring. It's time to decipher those polite phrases, and figure out what agents actually mean when they say what they say. 

• Form Rejections

Just about every author has received form rejection letters. These are generic slips of paper or emails that may be so impersonal they actually start with "Dear Author" instead of your name. It's just a few short paragraphs, or maybe just one, that says they aren't "seeking new submissions at this time" or the manuscript "doesn't sound like it would be a good fit" or perhaps it's because they just "aren't the right agent for this particular work." Some of them are smart enough to shift the blame to themselves, but truthfully that isn't helpful to you.

Because no matter how the agent tries to frame it, the impersonal form rejection tells you that one of the following is true: the agent didn't think the work is marketable, the agent already has projects that are very similar to yours, or the agent just didn't love it. They have to love it before they're willing to think about taking it on.

How to respond: The agent didn't give you much to go on, and there's a reason. First things first: re-read your entire manuscript with an editor's eye. Double-check all your mechanics, formatting, grammar and punctuation. If you didn't get the courtesy of a personal response, it could be due to errors within your submission. You should also re-write your query letter, make it more interesting, and try harder to "hook" agents with your letter. A boring query letter is very likely to get meaningless "no" response.

• The Personal Comment

If you are quite lucky, you'll get a comment tacked on at the end of a form letter, maybe even a signature signed in actual ink. If this happens, be amazed and pleased with yourself. This means the agent who's signing the letter actually did read what you sent, and they felt very strongly about you or your writing. It's hard to feel good about a comment that still tells you no, but you should. It means you're very close. 

Of course, a tacked-on comment at the end of a form letter isn't going to tell you very much. In all likelihood it's still going to say something sort of generic, like "just not right for me" or "didn't love it as much as I hoped I would." But something about your writing did grab them, that is definitely true. Otherwise, they would not have bothered to scribble the note. 

How to respond: Write back, and say thank you. It sounds weird to write thank-you notes upon receiving a rejection, but that's what you ought to do. Be polite, and maybe that agent will be more receptive to you when you send another query letter. Maybe they'll even respond in more detail. Probably nothing will happen, but that's the business. Once you jot off that email, go back to your manuscript. Check over the first few chapters; this is the part that sells the book. If your first two chapters too excessively detailed or too exposition-heavy, that warrants a rejection. Get to some action, quick, in order to grab onto the reader (and the agents). Perfect these chapters, tweak your query letter, and try again.

• The Detailed Letter

Very rarely, if your work is quite good and just a fraction short of being ready for publication, you will receive a detailed rejection letter. The agent may point out specifics that you need to change. The best case scenario is a "revise and resubmit" letter, in which the agent asks you to make specific changes and invites you to re-send the manuscript for their viewing. Work very hard to follow their instructions and take your time before you resubmit. You just got a do-over. That's like winning the lottery.

How to respond: In most cases, however, the detailed letter will still be a rejection -- with vague instructions that don't mean much. Review those comments carefully, and read them more than once. After that first reading, after your guts have been ripped out, put the letter away. Wait a week. Read it again, and then take a look at your work. Try to absorb the criticism you've received, and respond in kind. Tweak your query letter, and try again.

You're going to get rejected. Many of the greats have also been rejected. You should keep writing, and keep trying. But you should also fix your work, and keep revising it. The further you move up the rejection ladder, the better you're getting as a writer.

Writing 101: Sound Effects

It adds a lot of depth when you add sound effects to your books. Known in the literary world as onomatopoeia, it's the act of writing out a word that resembles a sound. Wheeze, for example. But like all good things, too many sound effects can ruin any story.

Whizz, Bang, Boom

 

Sound effects are fun, even when they appear in print. A sneeze is executed with a kerchew, a laugh becomes a hearty har har. You might even get wild and throw in a splunk or two. Some scenes almost require a word effect or two, something to really bring the events on the page to life. You want the reader to be able to hear the coins drop in the fountain, not just see them. 

Just don't make it a distraction. Your readers don't want to be treated to a splat or a buzz every third paragraph. When onomatopoeia is used too much, it brings attention away from the story instead of adding to it. Use it judiciously, and those sound effects will have a much bigger impact.