A Fond Farewell

Since late October 2013, I’ve posted only once on this blog and that’s because my hopes—plans for it—have gone awry.

          When I began this writing blog back in September 2012, I had high hopes of sharing with you my adventures with publishing. I’d seek an agent for the novel I was writing and explore that search with you.

         The agent would find a publisher/editor and I’d let you know about today’s contracts and negotiations.

         The manuscript would go through the publishing process and I’d have a title and cover that you and I could ooh and ah over. Then would come publication and together we’d climb aboard our luge and zoom down the slope of sells and reviews, of readings and signings, of working with social media and the publisher’s marketing department.

         Only one part of that has happened—the agent search last September, October, and November. I’ve e-queried many agents but found no one interested in a historical novel about Palestine in the first-century of the CE.

         Wanting to be published again, I thought perhaps that a memoir might have a better chance of interesting agents and editors. And so I set out in January to collate all my convent stories from my on-line memoir blog Coming Home to Myself. I realized I had many more stories to tell about those nine years, and I hoped to do so this year.

         Because life happens, I haven’t done any collating or writing since the new year began. Moreover, I find myself loath to begin. The project just seems boring to me. And my best writing has always come from the wellspring of my own passion and curiosity.                                                    

What I’m both passionate and curious about right now—and what has held my interest since sixth grade when we studied ancient history at St. Mary’s Grade School—is Bronze Age Greece. Last summer I worked on a first draft for a novel that takes place there in around 1250 BCE.  It may be the first book in a trilogy or I may just continue writing and tell the whole story in a longer book.

         I know, deep down, that the writing itself is the bread, the sustenance. And that getting published is the slathering on of creamy butter. The first is more important than the second. And yet, I do so love butter!

         However, getting publishing—if that ever happens again—is in the distant future. So that leaves little to write about here. And that was what I wanted to share with you.

         Thus, I’ve decided to cease writing on this blog. Anything I have to say about my writing life will go on the other blog, which is, of course, the story of my life. Writing has been a big part of that story. So there is some serendipity here.

         One of the new adventures in my life is memorizing poetry again as I did when I was in my teens. The poem I’m memorizing right now is “Ulysses” by Alfred Lord Tennyson. It ends with these lines:

 Though much is taken, much abides; and though

     We are not now that strength which in old days         

     Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

     One equal temper of heroic hearts.

     Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

     To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield

Those words speak to me and convey what motivates me to continue writing. I have stories to tell—on my memoir blog and in manuscripts. I trust that the blog postings will be read. And I trust also that if my writing is for the good of the Universe, it will be published. But I have no control over that. I have control only over what I do and how I respond to the vicissitudes of life.

What I will do is write when I have the time and health and inclination. I will strive, seek, find. There is no yielding when one’s desire to do something leads them to great happiness in the very doing. As to the uncertainty of life—I’m in for the long haul!

         Thank you for following this blog through the past year and a half. Let’s hold each other’s heartwishes in our visualizations, prayers, and thoughts. May all we do be for the good of the Universe. Peace.

Photographs from Wikipedia.

A Novel's Beginning Scene

Here’s an update on what’s happened in the last week with The Reluctant Spy. I sent eight e-queries. In seven of them, I pasted in, per each agency’s web site instructions, a number of pages from the manuscript. The pasted sample ranged from five to fifty pages. I was able to send out three on Monday, one on Wednesday, and four on Friday.

         Within that same time, two of the eight agencies declined to represent the first-century Palestine novel. Still, this is just the beginning. I continue to believe that at least one or more agents will ask me to send the entire manuscript of 122,000 words. Then of course there will be the anxious waiting to see if, after reading, an agent will want to represent the historical novel.

         While all this has been going on, I’ve been considering the opening pages of the novel. Somehow the first scene has never felt right to me.

         Late last night, after staying up until 1:30 am to finish an intriguing mystery, I turned off the light and thought about the beginning of the novel I’d just finished reading. That led, quite naturally, to thinking about the beginning of The Reluctant Spy.

         Several years ago, an author asked me to read her manuscript for a historical novel. After doing so, I asked, “Do you like your main character?” The simple question startled her. Somewhat disconcerted, she admitted that she wasn’t sure any more.

         I explained that if she, the author, didn’t like the character, readers wouldn’t either. Readers need to be pulling for the protagonist. So in the first scene in which the main character appears, she or he must be shown in a way that will attract the readers' empathy and concern.

         Last night, I remembered that conversation and realized that in The Reluctant Spy I hadn’t followed my own advice—the novel begins with a scene in which Ephraim displays the darkest parts of himself to a man he considers his rival. Thus, the readers' first impression would probably be negative. That impression might color everything else they subsequently read abut him.

          Yet within a number of pages the story shows the strength of Ephraim and the burdens of his life. He then becomes a sympathetic character . . . and thus reader-friendly.

         So at 2:00 am this morning I sat here on this computer chair and began to reconstruct the first fifty pages. Now the novel begins with Ephraim showing himself in a good light so that readers will, I hope, root for him throughout the rest of the story.

         By the time readers come to the original opening scene, they will better understand why the main character is jealous and angry. They’ll understand, I hope, that like all of us, he is human. That is to say—flawed.

         After reorganizing the first fifty pages, I’ve ended up with a new first chapter and a more sequential telling of the story.

         I’m pleased with this decision, which was made on St. Michael the Archangel’s feast day—Michaelmas. That’s significant to me because just this past Thursday I found a slim manuscript about angels, which I’d written in 1995. Reading it again, I found myself wondering if it held any promise.          

          Perhaps Michael is now watching over me and has helped me find the right beginning for The Reluctant Spy.

         For many years, I’ve believed that I had fourteen guardian angels—my own, given to me at birth, and thirteen others, whom other humans had declined. All of them have stood by me in difficult times.     

         This week I, along with Michael and those fourteen guardians, will continue to send out queries. But I’ll be even more hopeful because the beginning is right. Peace.

When's a Manuscript Ready to Publish?

In early June, I posted that Judy Healey—a friend and published author of historical fiction—was reading “The Reluctant Spy,” a novel I’ve written that takes place in first-century Palestine. Judy suggested that I explain unfamiliar words, such as jasper ring and tamarisk, and clarify the difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Responding to these suggestions will take little time or effort.

         Her bigger concern—one demanding a restructuring of the first third of the novel—was the dynamic between two of its characters: Ephraim and Daniel. She wanted to know the background of their dissension much earlier than I provided in the novel. I had presented their past in several scenes sprinkled throughout the first third of the manuscript. I hoped this would intensify tension and suspense. That didn’t work for Judy.

         While in Minnesota recently, I enjoyed a working lunch with her. Having read only the first third of the novel, Judy believes its main thrust is the story between Daniel and Ephraim.

         For me, as the author, that thrust is between Ephraim and Yeshua. That’s why I began the novel with a scene between the two of them. However, Yeshua does not appear again with Ephraim until nearly a third of the way through the book, when Part II begins in the Galilee. Then the story line becomes theirs. In the latter part of the manuscript, Daniel re-emerges several times. He’s the catalyst of the ongoing need for Ephraim to attach himself to Yeshua, a man for whom he has only contempt.

Orchards in the Upper Galilee.

         Back in January an editor read the manuscript and made suggestions that led to the deletion of 9,000 words. She thought the novel was ready for publication. So after returning from Minnesota, I was left with a conundrum: to publish the novel as is per the editor’s counsel or to change the first third per Judy’s recommendation.

         Unable to untie this Gordian knot, I asked a friend, who’s a prolific reader although not of historical novels, if she would read the manuscript. I gave her a series of questions to consider in her reading. She’s now gotten back to me. Here’s her e-mail response:

I just finished "The Reluctant Spy" and found it fascinating! I don't usually (almost never) read historical novels because I generally find them to be slow.  I tend to skim through the descriptive parts and to read only the narratives thoroughly.  I determined to read every word of your book and I'm glad I did. Yours required a lot of description in the beginning, but the pace picked up at about page 20 and stayed strong throughout.  

         There are quite a few instances of incorrect punctuation and random typos and spaces that need to be corrected.  

         I loved Ephraim’s conversations with God/Hashem.  

         I felt I got a true understanding on why the characters, especially Ephraim and Yeshua, acted as they did.  

         The only suggestion I can make is to make sure you get it published!

Model of Herod’s Temple at the Israel Museum.

While my friend’s response delights me, I’m still perplexed.  Judy is a published author so her opinion sways me. And yet I know that any reading of a third of a novel over a three-month period needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We seldom hold the intricacies of a book in our heads for three months when we do sporadic reading.

         On the other hand, a friend often cannot be objective even when trying hard to be. Still, this friend has been honest with me before when something I wrote didn’t work for her. Perhaps only those first twenty pages of the novel need recasting.

         Given these three responses, I’m befuddled, wondering if I need to hire another professional editor—Judy gave me the names of two who have helped her—or if I need simply to go for publication.

         As you read this posting—in the United States or Great Britain or Australia or wherever you are—please send me your best thoughts about this manuscript. The truth is I’m confused, wondering if I need to continue to fish or if I should cut bait!

Judy's Reading of "The Reluctant Spy"

In my May 5 posting, I shared with you the first response of a friend—July Healey—to the manuscript for The Reluctant Spy. Judy is an established writer of two historical novels published by HarperCollins to excellent reviews. In April, she offered to read my manuscript when I told her the beginning of the novel was giving me trouble. Last Saturday, she sent me the following e-mail:        

I think The Reluctant Spy is a terrific story and you have told it well. Everything I have to say is embroidery. You have well developed characters and a strong plot line. . . . You have done a wonderful job here. Best, Judy

But a fine editor—like the one I had back in December whose sound advice enabled me to delete 9,000 words and tighten the story line—does more than simply give an overview of her first response to the manuscript. Truly gifted writers and editors find what doesn’t work and suggest solutions. And Judy knows what to look for. On Wednesday, I received the following in-depth comments from her about the first 86 single-spaced pages:

Plot and character: 

Several strains feed the animosity of Daniel and Ephraim and, to a lesser extent, Ephraim and Yeshua—or rather Ephraim for Yeshua. The first case seems based on Daniel’s childhood envy of his father’s pride in Ephraim and the betrayal of Ephraim by studying the Pharisaic tradition rather than Sadducean and his concealment of this. For me, the character of each of these men and their relationship forms the core of the story. 

However, it’s taken me some time to piece this together. What would have helped me earlier is the following:

·      Clear understanding from the outset of the difference between the two traditions.

·      Understanding the relationship of Daniel’s father to Ephraim: How had he come to live with the family? Why was Daniel’s father paying for Ephraim’s education? How could he not know where Ephraim was studying if he was paying the fees?

·      Clear understanding early on (rather than much later) of how Daniel and Ephraim parted.

·      What, exactly, is Ephraim’s relationship to Daniel now? In some scenes he seems excessively obsequious, although once in a while he musters the character to challenge Daniel. Ephraim is awfully tough on God but can’t stand up to Daniel. I think, especially early on, there should be more resistance on the part of Ephraim.

·      Daniel is the most interesting character in the book to me, so far, although the portrait of Yeshua is fascinating. Yet Daniel seems relentlessly vicious. Why?

·      I expected more of a reaction when Daniel tells Ephraim that it was his testimony that led directly to John’s death. I think you should do a little more with that scene.

Herod's Temple at the time of Yeshua.

Bridging your knowledge of the times with the readers’ ignorance:

• You are steeped in the times and the words of the times but your reader is not. Every historical fiction writer faces this challenge and we each address it in our own way. One way is to have a glossary of terms so the reader can flip back when she comes upon an unfamiliar term
• Another is to add more description when you use an unfamiliar term. “Jasper ring” for instance. We don’t care that you know the right word. We want to see it. Describe it for me now and I’ll continue on in the story. But without the description, I’m only faced with the fact that you have esoteric knowledge that I don’t have and I am annoyed and halted in my reading. “Tamarisks.” What are they? What do they look like?
• Most of these words can be embroidered with little effort. Honor your reader’s ignorance rather than displaying your knowledge of the time.
• But the larger problem is that of helping the reader early on understand the difference between Pharisees and Sadducees and, by understanding, enter into the tribal world these characters inhabit. This is core to the story.
• It’s really good Dee. I know it will be published. But that strategy is another story!

             Judy has now sent me her comments written on the margins of the first 86 pages. When she completes her reading, I’ll get busy determining which of her suggestions work for me. But already I can see that I need to work on delineating relationships and making Ephraim more believable. I’ll share more with you as I receive Judy’s comments. Peace.

The Ongoing Saga of the Palestine Novel

Two weeks ago I shared with you my disappointment that I’d not heard back from the four agents to whom I’d sent an e-query about my polished manuscript on first-century Palestine. I’ve since received two form rejection letters. One put this whole process in perspective with the following words:

Our agency receives over 700 submissions per month and we only take on a few new clients per year. With the publishing industry being extremely competitive we need to feel a strong conviction when representing your work. While it is not for us another agent may well feel differently.

Just think, 700 submissions per month. That’s 8,400 a year. I’m finding agent names in the book 2013 Guide to Literary Agents, which gives “updated and submission information for more than 1,000 literary agents seeking new clients.”

If, and that’s a big if, all these agents receive 8,400 submissions per year—and some must receive more, some less—then that’s 8,400,000 e-mails sent out yearly by writers like myself. I picture millions of e-query sent to all these agents. Sent with hope and expectation, anxiety and eagerness, heartwishes and visualizations. Those e-queries just swirl through the Ethernet to computers in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere! Can’t you see the flurry of speed?!?!? It’s a marvel.

And just think of all the writers sitting at their computers typing novels and exposés, memoirs and cookbooks, humor and how-to books! It boggles the mind.

Now for the “late, breaking news.” The historical novelist Judy Koll Healey—who has been a good friend for many years—has offered to read The Reluctant Spy. 

In an earlier posting on this manuscript, I mentioned the help she gave me in 2002. Since then, she herself has had two highly successful historical novels published by HarperCollins Publishers: The Canterbury Papers in 2005 and The Rebel Princess in 2010. Both take place in twelfth century England and Europe.

In return, I’ll read an early draft of the final manuscript of her Canterbury trilogy, which she’s working on now. The truth is that determining the problems with someone else’s manuscript is often much easier than realizing what’s amiss with one’s own. As the weeks pass I’ll share with you Judy’s “take” on what I’ve written.

When someone reads our work, we hope for honest criticism. And we hope also that we will listen to that person’s critique with an open mind while separating the wheat from the chaff. That’s the hard point for any writer—recognizing the suggestions that work while resisting those that don’t.

Sometimes a reader makes suggestions that don’t work because they miss the expectation we have for a scene. But even those suggestions can prove helpful for they bring to light something that’s not working in our story. As given, the suggestion won’t work for our plot, but if we look at it from several different angles we get a new perspective on what might work in the manuscript.

This is what happened for me during the first two weeks of January when another fellow writer and friend read the manuscript and made suggestions as to how I might strengthen the tension and create a less lengthy book. She found whole scenes that could be deleted and others that could be cut considerably. She also suggested a change in emphasis in one chapter. I used her suggestions to delete 9,000 words from the manuscript and to polish much of the prose. Her reading was invaluable to me.

Now Judy is reading and I’m hoping that she, too, will find ways I can improve the story. Meanwhile I’m working on the first book of a Bronze-Age- Greece trilogy. I hope to tell you more about that soon.

PS: Many agencies have more than one agent, so perhaps there are only about 600 agencies, each receiving 700 queries a month. That would skew my math. But that’s still a lot of queries a year—and a lot of writers!

“Autumn Leaves,” attributed to Tina Phillips is from freedigitalphotographs.com

The Contest Entry Day Dawns

The entry day has dawned for the Amazon/CreateSpace contest, which opens this evening at 11:01 pm CST. Let’s begin with the blurb announcing the contest:

The Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award Contest is right around the corner. You won't want to miss this incredible opportunity to win a publishing contract with Amazon Publishing. The Grand Prize winner will receive a $50,000 advance, and four First Prize winners will each receive a $15,000 advance. Now in its sixth year, this international contest promises to be the best yet.

If you’ve had time to read my recent postings, you already know that this contest requires each entrant to paste in or upload a 300-word Pitch, a 5,000-word Manuscript Excerpt, and the Complete Manuscript of up to 150,000 words.

         With the help of two friends—see my posting this past Wednesday on my other blog—I prepared eight contest pitches, some of which gave away more plot details than others. One of those two friends suggested that for inspiration I read the inside dust jacket flaps of novels I’d enjoyed. I did so and came up with eight approaches that might be intriguing enough to keep me from being eliminated in the first round.

         Yesterday, Saturday January 12, the second friend and I narrowed the eight down to two. She selected the paragraphs from each that most captured her attention. I then wove these together to come up with a final pitch.

         Over the holidays, that same friend read the 130,979-word manuscript and made suggestions as to what might be cut, what tightened, and what expanded. So in the past two weeks, I’ve deleted 8, 904 words even while expanding two scenes to make them more plausible. The manuscript now stands at 122,074 words. That’s good—more in line with what publishers are looking for in length.

         Instead of 494 manuscript pages, I now have 470, which would translate into a book of about 325 pages.

         The excerpt must be between 3,000 and 5,000 words. The important thing is to end the excerpt with a cliffhanger that will whet the judge’s appetite and entice her or him into reading the entire manuscript. So I’m entering 4,848 words that end with a word that hints at the main character’s secret life.

         Tomorrow, guests are coming to visit for a few days with the cats and me. I'm really looking forward to their stay. After they leave, I’ll get back to my regular postings, to my reading of all your blogs, and to my leaving comments to let you know just how much I enjoy your sharing.

         You’ll be hearing from me soon!

         Peace.

Photograph from freedigitalphotos.net by anankkml. 

Winnowing Words and Pitches

On January 14, I’m entering the Amazon/CreateSpace novel-writing contest. This past Wednesday I posted the salient points about it on my other blog. Most—if not all of you—follow that blog. If you don’t or if you haven’t had time to read that posting, you might want to click here so as to appreciate the contest requirements.

         I’m entering with a manuscript entitled The Reluctant Spy. Regular followers of this blog have already read several postings about the nineteen drafts of that manuscript I completed as I worked on it the past thirteen years.

         Since Wednesday, I’ve been editing, cutting, and polishing the nineteenth draft. In my Wednesday posting I mistakenly said it was 127,000 words in length. When I actually started working on it, I used “word count” and discovered it was 130,979. Publishers today, or so I’ve read, like a debut novel to be around 120,000 words, so The Reluctant Spy is a little long.

         Given this, I was surprised to learn, when reading the contest rules, that Amazon/CreateSpace will accept manuscripts up to 150,000 words. Nevertheless, I’d like to get the text down to about 122,000 words so that if the judges eliminate it in any of the five rounds of judging, I’ll have a better manuscript to pitch to agents in the coming months.

         During the past few days, I’ve been able to delete around 5,000 words; the manuscript is now down to 125,962. I have another week to work on deleting—if possible—about 4,000 more words and on composing the “Pitch,” which is an essential part of the entry. For myself, I think that writing the 300-word pitch will require more skill than writing a 122,000-word manuscript.

         Why?

         Because crafting an intriguing pitch that will entice the contest judges into reading the 3,000 to 5,000-word manuscript excerpt requires an ability to get to the novel’s essence. That’s not a skill I’ve honed. Poets do this all the time; I circle around the periphery of a topic, getting closer and closer to essence, but taking a multitude of words to hit the bull’s-eye. As a storyteller, I’m more of a gestalt writer.

         If you’d like to read some sample 300-word pitches from past winners of the contest, please click here. Then you’ll understand why I’m a little stressed about pulling this off.

         Today and for the next week, I’m asking for your visualizations, thoughts, prayers as I work on this pitch. I plan to write a first draft tomorrow—Monday—and fine-tune, fine-tune, fine-tune for an hour or so each morning until the contest entry date of the 14^th.  The rest of each of those days, I’ll work on getting the manuscript ready.

         During the month of February, the contest judges will read the submitted 10,000 pitches and winnow them down to 2,000. That’s the first cut, which will be announced at the end of the month.

Winnowing rice in India.

         During March, they read the 2,000 excerpts to arrive at 500 promising ones. During April, they read the 500 completed manuscripts and narrow them down to 25. During May the count goes from 25 semi-finalists to 5 finalists. And finally, with the help of Amazon readers like yourself, to 1 grand-prize winner in late June.

         I’d be pleased—truly—if I made even the first cut. The pitch can make that happen. So I have my work cut out for me. I’m going to print the words Essence, Summary, and Intrigue on a post-it note and stick it to the top of my computer as a reminder of what I’m trying to do!

         Peace.

The two photographs are from Wikipedia.