My primary qualification for holding forth on publishing are the six years I spent producing Richard Hugo House’s InPrint Series. For this monthly, live forum, I interviewed literary agents and editors from publishing houses and magazines about what makes them say, “Yes!” to a submission.
Someone on Facebook asked for information about maximizing time when on a research trip for a novel. What ho!
Set a time every day to FaceTime or Skype with your children.
Have something else going on. For example, I practice Tai Chi. I knew that there would be a lot of parks where the Chinese community practiced in the early mornings. I made a point to be in the neighborhood park by 6am. I met so many caring locals. They told me great places to eat and insider tips about the city that your characters need to know. One also helped me figure out which neighborhood in Bangkok my main character would live in.
Spend more time on your book than seeing the sights. Limit sight seeing to elements that appear in the book.
Write or edit on the plane. You write; food arrives. Tea arrives. Life doesn’t get better–until your kids arrive!
Use your computer rather than a notebook. On days I used my notebook, I was too exhausted to transfer my notes. Still haven’t.
Go to a library. My novel is set in the mid-90s. In the 90s, no newspaper in Cambodia published on-line. I went to the library at the Hun Sen University and read bound, back issues of newspapers.
Although I am 32 REJECTIONS shy of my goal of 100 for the year, I have somehow SUBMITTED 100 short pieces. As those pieces are reviewed, I expect to hit my goal of 100 rejections. 😀
As of this moment, I have 52 submissions out–short pieces, that is. I submitted my novel, As Far as You Can Go Before You Have to Come Back, to seven different agents. I received a single form rejections. One. The rest: crickets. Even from the agents I knew or had a personal connection to; and those who had asked to review the complete novel as well. Chirp chirp.
Taking a critical look at my submission pages (usually, the first 30-50), I realized that in revising, I had opened the book at a chapter that was, mmmm, well, dull as a opener.
I am re-working on the opening. And the rest of the book. I found a new editor, to give it a fresh eye. Do eyes other than my own refresh a manuscript! I expect to be approaching agents by mid- to late month.
On July 30, 2019, David K. Slay published an incisive, revealing article, CRITICALFEEDBACK AREAS FOUND WHILE REVIEWING SUBMISSIONS. It is an original analysis of submission to Craft Magazine.
Hear are just the first gems:
STRUCTURE (54 percent)
Unclear, inconsistent, lacking form (arc, pyramid, or otherwise); or structure too apparent, too visible; internal inconsistencies, illogical
Narration moves too slowly, too quickly, or is irregular
Beginning / Ending
Starts too soon; ending weak, contrived, or telegraphed
Confusing time or tenses; reader not grounded in time and place
Point of View (POV)
POV choice doesn’t facilitate the narration
IMPACT (39 percent)
First line, paragraph, or page confusing or missed opportunity (see discussion below); story unengaging, unremarkable, little at stake, lacks tension; or impact is “unearned,” using “surprise” endings, melodrama, gratuitous violence, sex, profanity, etc.
CREATIVITY (37 percent)
Too familiar theme, plot, or story; uninspired figurative language; overreliance on adverbs or adjectives, clichés, or stereotypes
LANGUAGE / PROSE (35 percent)
Irregular or unnecessarily complicated syntax; limited vocabulary; distracting rhythm, comma misuse; run-on sentences; excessive amount of grammar or spelling errors
EXPOSITION (16 percent)
Too explanatory, telling more than showing, or too cryptic—suggesting rather than showing; sacrifices clarity for style; imbalance of scene/dialogue and exposition
VOICE (15 percent)
Distracts from the narration, is affected, inauthentic; doesn’t fit the character(s) or narrator; or indistinct from that of other characters
ECONOMY (14 percent)
Overly long, needs to be pruned; repetitive or superfluous words; lacks clarity and concision
Dale Peck is a publishing industry firebrand-genius-superhero. Famous for his eviscerating book reviews, he is the Editor-in-Cheif of what is considered the 8th-best online magazine in the country: Evergreen Review. Two days ago, I received an e-mail from Dale himself:
I just had a chance to read your stories “That Moment in Lao” and “The Great Ultimate.” I really loved “That Moment in Lao” and I’m sorry I missed the chance to publish it, but I really loved “The Great Ultimate” and I hope it’s still available.
Thunk. That was me hitting the floor in a dead faint.
I let him know that The Great Ultimate was certainly still available. (Currently at 8 other, totally unobtainable magazines.) The thing is, I am so convinced that this offer is what the youth call a “punked” that I keep looking over my shoulder for Alan Funt and the Candid Camera crew. And if you get that cultural reference, you are as old as I am. Congratulations!.
I started on it last night: sent out queries for my novel to six agents with whom I’ve had contact sometime in the past 20 years of work in publishing. Today, two of them responded! The first referred me to his co-agent/VP of his agency; the second asked to see the full manuscript.
I will keep you apprised of the over-all progress, probably in my YTDs rather than as each one happens. (That would be a crashing bore, I fear.) But I wanted to let you know about the great start, since y’all are so supportive all the time. Hearts to everybody!