Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Drake
Yes, VydorScope, a very great post, indeed. But what a challenge is laid out in those few words. How can we objectively evaluate our covers, and blurbs, etc? I keep in mind, Mickey Spillane's advice that the opening of the current book sells the book and the ending sells the next one. But how do I know how well my judgement of "this rocks" matches the opinion of the reader?
And take covers. I created what I call my "dark and stormy night" cover for my second "Murderous" mystery. Yet, a completely disinterested reader told me it was not that cover but another that was a "five star" achievement. How are we to know? I try hard to write a compelling opening and a satisfying closing, but again, who am I to judge?
In short, I've come to believe it's all a riverboat gamble.
But I'm still out there, still trying, still hoping to catch the brass ring. Thanks for the post. I need to review it from time to time and try to up grade my game...yet again!
It's good to toss this stuff about.
|
It's why God created critique groups.
There will always be "mean people" at critique groups. When they run out of crappy things to say about your book, it's ready. (I'm essentially paraphrasing and lifting wholesale from Annie Lamottt, who said, in Bird by Bird, not to submit anything until your worst enemy in the whole world has nothing bad to say about your manuscript.)
Your questions reflect some of the reasons that, in some ways, the "olden days" worked better for hopeful writers. They labored over manuscripts, submitted them, suffered rejection, got drunk with their friends about each rejection letter, reworked the manuscript, went to various CW classes, got critiqued by their classmates and their instructors, then wrote articles for various magazines/newspapers, got edited, learned stuff from the editing, made more submissions, earned some money from small writing jobs while they polished their craft, and finally got editors who rejected them but might say "I liked THIS but you need to work on THAT," and then honed their best work to the point where an agent would take it, or a publisher would allow it to emerge from the slush pile. This laborious "OJT" taught many writers how to better adjudicate their own work, and it significantly toughened their skins (for which daily, on the KDP forums, I see a massive need). Obviously, this process took
years.
Nowadays, with self-publishing practically the norm, instead of the exception, we see a lot of authors who've pushed the "publish" button excruciatingly early in that process, creating books that are cringe-worthy; instead of
after their 10,000 hours of learning, they've published a book at hour 300, or even hour 160. The results are, 90% of the time, pretty grim, and then they're (understandably) upset that they receive dreadful reviews. They never learned how to write; never learned how to self-edit; never learned to suffer even the slightest criticism or editing, and are
literally stunned that other people don't love their work, or that they can't see what's "wrong" with their book.
Patently, the "Lone Ranger" method of self-publishing has, in my opinion, wreaked havoc with the learning curve of young (by which I mean, unseasoned, not chronological age) authors. Nobody wants to submit manuscripts and even wait a month any longer to see if an agent is willing to represent them, much less wait six months to receive a rejection letter from Random House or an imprint. The digital age has brought upon us a persistent element of "instant gratification" which unfortunately has also infected publishing--of all kinds--and I don't think that in most cases, it's helped authors one iota. I think that sense of "gotta do it now, gotta have it NOW" has hurt more authors than it's helped, simply because they've lost invaluable learning experience in rushing to publication.
Anyway, enough of that: Anna, just find a critique group, or use Critters.org, or one of the others. There are reputable critique groups online, and probably not less than 10 that meet face-to-face somewhere near wherever you live, if you'd prefer that type of environment. Or get a writing buddy--not your BFF, but someone who will be brutally honest with you. Those are the best kind, the really horrid ones. That way, when you write something (sad/funny/scary/heartwarming) and they tell you that they felt it--you'll
know that they meant it. Use Wattpad, particularly if your work is YA or supernatural or romance-oriented. There's a lot of ways to suffer the rough-and-tumble. It's hard, but it's worth doing if you're serious about your career as an author.
Hitch