[JayScore]

Fiction writing I know little about, (reading it, I know a lot) but the only way to see if it's any good is to get opinions from others - interested others. It's no good getting a critique about a science fiction novel from someone who never reads the genre.

Diana Gabaldon, who wrote the excellent Outlander series, was, from the beginning of her writing career a member of a writers group/forum/network. So, join such a club, but join sincerely hoping that fellow members are brutally honest. The X Factor TV prog clearly shows the dangers of friends and family not being honest. (And, if you are ever asked your opinion on someone's work, whatever the field, you be honest, too. Anything else will just end in tears.) Criticism can be hard to take at first, but once you get to know those who are giving good and valid criticisms, it not only gets easier to take, but becomes positively sought. I think to be successful, in any field, requires the ability to recognise the huge value of accepting criticism. It is a pity that many, many people are frightened to criticise negatively, and think you want to hear only the good. If you do, then you will fail.

If all is well, and you've got through the pain of hearing your baby maligned, offer it to reviewers at any newspaper or magazine, and especially genre-specific magazines, and haul it around the bookshops, and send it to distributors. The latter two make a lot of money from selling your book - even as author AND publisher your cut is small - distributors want around 60%, bookshops a little less. They will know (probably) if it's likely to sell. If they think it's got a chance, then it probably has. But don't forget that many of the best writers got mountains of rejection letters before being published. So you can't rely totally on anyone's judgement. Those trusted critics really are hugely important, and will help you continue to present and present again, and again.

Yes, the editing and proof-reading is crucial, but the quality of that is related to the quality of those doing the work. In a free English-language newspaper on the Costa del Sol, I read an article wherein the author used, "could of" and "should of". Authors do not have to be highly literate; their role is purely that of the story-teller, but editors and proof-readers absolutely must be. I've encountered much more, obviously, but that one irked. I have little time for whinges about usage and spelling - split any infinitive you want, boldly go wherever you like, even spell honour, "honor", I won't bat an eyelid, but the incorrectness of "should of" grates massively. (And now every subsequent poster here is going to use "should of", "could of", "might of", "must of", etc., etc., just to annoy me. Children. Water, duck, back.)

And, there are quirks. Stephen King only ever uses, "awhile", when what he means is
"a while" - space between the indefinite article and the "while". I am aware that some US dialects use the single word, but it is not correct in every circumstance. He is the only US writer I read who does this. It's his quirk, and the editor lets it go. It annoys me, but on a scale of one to ten it's about a sixteenth annoyance. (For those interested, another thing that annoys me is such as, "He looked round." What, he appeared circular in shape? Choose your words carefully. "He turned round." is even better as it involves him changing shape, magically.)

I don't go along with the idea that one cannot edit and proofread ones own work. It depends entirely on the individual. I'm pushing sixty, and I absolutely know what I am good at, and what I am crap at. I am excellent at writing instructions, instruction manuals, and editing and proofreading, and my literacy level is very high, and I adore creating alphabetical lists. However, I have the maths skills of a meerkat - simples, the diplomacy of an alligator, and the gardening skills of a swarm of locusts. Know yourself. Don't argue, accept. We are all different, and we all have different skills and abilities. Recognise this. Makes life much easier.

It also helps if you're a celeb. Read Pamela Stephenson's biog of Billy Connolly. Awful writing. Juvenile. But it got published, and sold well. What was the editor doing there, I ask. Didn't matter, Billy's always been big and hot, and Pam was well-known, and the content was more important than the prose. Selection is difficult to explain. The plot of, "The boy in striped pyjamas" was likewise juvenile, and the story involved, throughout, a pun that only works in the English language - in a novel set in Germany, and featured a concentration camp perimeter fence that was never patrolled, and the security of which was compromised so that a boy could climb under it. Seems luck plays a big part in everything, even writing and getting published. (Good example there of a too-long, too many claused sentence, but never mind, eh? - (As Nietzsche once remarked.) )

The diary of Adrian Mole is a good read for aspiring authors. Adrian's attempts at writing, producing only purple prose, are both funny and eductional.

Also, get "The writers and artists yearbook", a thesaurus, a dictionary (use it), and see if you can find a copy of Keith Waterhouse's, "The aberrant apostrophe." Thus armed, talent and skill remain your only potential adversaries.

Write on.