Picky, Picky - The Danger of Authors Being Too Clique-y on Twitter #atozchallenge

Photo by Callee MacAulayAs I mentioned yesterday, I just returned home from the Romantic Times convention. I went to a lot of workshops and got some great information. And one of the workshops I went to was about social media and promoting your brand. The speaker was a publicity expert and she had a ton of terrific things to say.

But one of the things that gave me pause was when she started talking about the infamous Twitter Followers vs. Follower count. She said your "popularity" holds less water if your counts are similar. Meaning, you have 5k followers but you follow 5k people. It's assumed that you're just doing the automatic "follow back" thing. So, she recommended putting people on lists--where they don't show up on your follow count and they don't know you're following them but you can still see their tweets.

Well...I'm not sure I agree with this approach. It kind of sounds like the popular girl only being friends with the nerd in private but not in front of her friends. I am patently against the auto follow back (see my post on Enough with the Quid Pro Quo if you want more on that.) However, I think only following your select group of friends or clique is actually missing a great opportunity. I wrote on this a while back on my writing blog, but I thought I'd run it again since this whole "only follow an elite few" advice is still being given.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but here's what I think...

The Danger of Authors Being Too Clique-y on Twitter

In the Twitterverse, there is this impression that you must be really important/supercool/whatever if you have a high number of people following you, but you personally only follow a handful of people. Basically--everyone wants to be your friend, but you only grant that "privilege" to an elite few. (High school never ends it seems.)

Now most people who do this do it not because they're being a "twitter snob" but because they don't want to be overwhelmed by three thousand peoples' tweets. I TOTALLY get that because I follow over 2k people and that got way too hard to manage, so I had to start using lists (in a different way than mentioned above, more on that later). And if you're, for instance, an editor or an agent--where everyone is seeking your attention--it makes sense to limit who you follow only to people you truly have a connection with in some way.

However, I think for an author this practice can really shoot you in the foot instead of helping you. We are writers. We want to connect with readers. We want to sell books and build a fanbase. Right?

So why-oh-why if you're an author would you only follow your "clique" of friends and not follow your readers, the people who are paying their hard-earned money to buy YOUR book?

I know it's silly, but you know how much better I feel about an author if I @ her/him on Twitter and the person responds? All of a sudden, this author's coolness factor has jumped off the charts. It makes me like them more. It makes me want to support them and their books because they are REAL and FRIENDLY and APPROACHABLE. And if they follow me, then wow, I'm really won over.

On the other hand, if I follow an author and they don't follow me (fine), but then they ask questions of their readers/audience and I respond--and get no response or even a general "Thanks to everyone who commented", then I feel a little huffy. Now if you're Stephanie Meyer or Stephen King or whatever, then it's understandable. Uber-fame gets you a pass. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about your average author who has a few thousand followers. 

When they don't respond or acknowledge, plus don't follow--the impression that is left is--this author thinks they are too important/busy/big-time and don't feel like their readers are important enough to acknowledge even after they've asked directly for their help. So when that same author hops back on Twitter and is announcing their book release or contests and asking for retweets--well, I'm just not that motivated to go out of my way for them.

So the question is, as an author, how do you 

a) Make your readers/followers feel important? and 

b) Do so without being bombarded daily with 80 bazillion tweets from people you don't know?

Answer: Lists

Twitter allows you to make both public and private lists. Then you can use a program like Tweetdeck and have your main column be just the tweets of people on that list. For instance, I follow over 2k, but there are only about 200 on my "super awesome people" list. It's private, so no one can see if they are on my list or not. But this makes it manageable to follow, while I'm still able to follow "in general" the other non-list people in another column and can click if something pops up that catches my interest. And if I end up interacting with someone who is not on the list and making a connection, it's easy enough to add them to my super awesome list.

Doing this allows me to have my cake and eat it too. I can have my clique of people who I talk with regularly while not alienating new people who may become great friends or readers or whatever one day.

Now, having said all this, I do not follow everyone back. If nothing catches my eye in their profile, they seem spammy or only focused on promo, or we seem to have nothing in common (or I just don't have time to go through my new follows, which is the most common reason lately), I'll wait. If they talk to me at some point, then I'll probably go follow.

And please oh please don't go follow a whole bunch of people just to drive your follower count up. It's spammy and useless. That's what gives that follow vs. follower count a bad reputation. But if you find someone who interests you, it's just a click.

So what do you think of this method? How do you feel when an author you like interacts with you or follows you? How do you feel if they don't do those things? And do you think someone is less awesome if their follow vs. follower ratio is closer to even instead of lopsided?

The (Not So) Dreaded Synopsis

We've all heard the term the "dreaded synopsis", right? Yes, that horrible beast of thing you have to write summarizing a whole 100k book into just a few scant pages. It's like a dark cloud hanging over you. I know I'm not the only one who queried the agents who didn't require a synopsis first just so I could avoid writing  the damn thing. (Tell me I'm not the only one who did that.)

I mean, what's to like about the thing? You have to cut out parts you want to put in, your voice can get drained because you have so little room to work with, you don't have space to talk about that kickass secondary character you worked in. God, why do agents/editors put us through this form of torture? *insert melodramatic music here*

Okay, so I thought all those things. Every time I had to write a synopsis for a completed book I wanted to bang my head with a blunt object. It was painful. The writing, not the banging, I didn't actually do the blunt object thing. 

So when I got my *cue angels singing* book deal, I thought--yay, down with the queries and synopses for-evah!

WRONG.

Queries and synopses NEVER go away, dude. They just get called different things. The synopsis becomes a proposal and then the query becomes writing your back cover copy. (Yes, you will end up writing a lot of your back cover copy because the marketing department hasn't read your book so probably aren't going to get the blurb just right.)

And guess what, with proposals, now you have to write your synopsis BEFORE YOU WRITE THE BOOK. *plugs ears to block out the collective screams of pantsers everywhere* 

As a pantser, I can tell you I was absolutely terrified of doing this. I don't plot ahead. I don't know what the story is going to look like until I write it. I actually was trying to figure out how I could write the book really fast just so I didn't have to write up a proposal. But alas, I'm not that fast of a writer. And yes, it'd actually be kind of nice to get a book deal and confirmation that said book will be published one day before I write the actual book.

So after going to a few workshops on writing synopses, off I went to draft synopses for books 3 and 4 with deep fear in my heart.

And guess what I discovered?

Writing them before you've written the book is SO MUCH EASIER. Like wow. Like I finished one synopsis each day. For reals. And Sara, my lovely agent, liked them!

And I realized all this time why writing them after is so hard. After you've finished the book, you know every little detail and nuance of your story. You have a buttload of information you're trying cut down to the bones. But all that content can overwhelm you. You can lose perspective on what is most important to get across.

However, when you try to draft it before you've written the story, all you can do is write it in broad strokes. You don't know the details yet, so you only focus on the big turning points. And bam--there's your synopsis. 

I'd heard of people writing queries before writing their books and thought that was nuts, but now I get it. You're not locking yourself into some strict guideline like an outline would. You're just giving yourself a general map. You put yourself on the right highway even though you may take unexpected side streets along the way. It's really been a revelation to me.

So here are my...

Five Quick and Dirty Tips For Writing a Synopsis:

1. Try writing it before you write your story--even if you're a pantser. (Haven't you been listening to my testimonial? "This is life-changing, man"--she says in her Cheech & Chong voice)

2. Set aside a paragraph each for your two (or three) main characters at the beginning and fill in their backstory.

This was something I learned in the workshops I went to. We often get bogged down in the synopsis because we're in present tense and trying to work in the characters' backstories at the same time, which makes things feel disjointed. So just pull the backstory out as a separate thing. You can structure the synopsis with headings like this:

• Hero--His backstory and the important little tidbits about him (one paragraph)
• Heroine--Her backstory and a few things about her. (one paragraph)
• Antagonist/Villain/Etc--one paragraph
• Summary: "As the story opens..."<--This is where the summary starts. Your opening. You can focus on the action now that the backstory is already fleshed out.

3. Don't worry about subplots and all your secondary characters. 

Stay focused on the main plot thread, goal, motivation, conflict, and characters.

4. Don't lose your voice.

I went to one workshop where the presenter said you pretty much have to lose your voice in a synopsis. I totally disagree. I have read and written some very voice-heavy synopsis and think they're more compelling that way. (Note: This is not writing the summary in the voice of your character, but in your author voice and style. If your story is dark and  ominous, your synopsis should read that way as well.)

5. Get in and get out.

Yes, you'll read on some websites that a synopsis can be one page for every 20 pages of prose. Well, really, who wants to write and/or read that long a synopsis? If I wrote one that long, I'd no longer want to write the story because I would've already told it (the pantser brain.) You can summarize a full-length novel in 1-5 single-spaced pages in my opinion. My synopsis for book 3, including the character paragraphs, was 2.5 pages. The one for book four was 3.5. If you're venturing into 8-10 page land, you haven't cut it down to the most important parts yet.

So there, try those things and I bet you'll be able to scratch out that "dreaded" that always precedes the word "synopsis". You may even find it *gasp* fun like I did.

So how do you feel about the synopsis? Have you ever tried writing one before you write the story? If so, are you a plotter or pantser? What tips do you have that help you write a synopsis?

*This is a repost from Fiction Groupie last year. I'll be back from RT Con tomorrow and will return to my normal blog schedule. :)

Man Up: Writing Male POV #atozchallenge

Photo by Mizrak (cc)One of my favorite things about reading and writing romance is the use of both the hero and heroine's POV.  There's something about getting to see inside the guy's head that makes the story so much more interesting to me.  

But writing the male POV (if you're a woman) can be a bit of a challenge (and vice versa for guys writing women).  Men and women have different thought patterns and different ways of being in the world, so if we're truly going to get inside the head of the opposite sex, we need to be aware of those differences.

I personally find male characters fun and almost easier to write than my female characters.  But that may be because in life, I've always been more comfortable around guys (well, when it comes to being friends, once I was romantically interested in a guy, I turned into an awkward mess).  So, I've spent a lot of time with groups of guy friends, have seen how they interact, and of course, I'm married to one, so that helps.  :)

 But what are the differences?  Author Keri Arthur outlined a number of points to be aware of.  (article here)

Men...

Are action-oriented.  Do instead of think about it.

--They aren't going to agonize over whether or not they should kiss the woman, they do it, then deal with the consequences afterward (unless your character is a teen boy, then the insecurity may cause some agonizing and indecision.)

--Ever watch a man shop?  They don't browse and wander.  They know the item they want, go to that particular store, purchase it, leave.

They tend to be less patient.

--This goes back to the action thing.  Sitting around waiting for something to happen or waiting in line is uncomfortable.

They like to be in charge.

--Whether it's cultural or biologically ingrained, men like being the alpha.

Are more visual.  

--This is why Playboy works for men, but Playgirl doesn't interest many women.  This is a very important distinction particularly if you're writing romantic interactions or love scenes from the guy's POV.

--I'm reading Lauren Dane's Coming Undone right now and she had a scene where the hero was looking at the heroine on his bed and thinking about how he felt about her.  But then he stops his thoughts, something to the effect of...he would have delved deeper into (whatever the thought was), but Hello, naked.  The line made me laugh because it was just how I imagine a guy would think.

--So when writing your guy, make sure he takes in the things he can see about his heroine.  Your heroine, on the other hand will be much more about tactile, scents, and emotional cues.  (Women need a plot--that's why romance novels are so popular.)

Are problem solvers

--When I vent to my husband, he starts dishing out advice.  That's now what I want.  I just wanted him to listen.  Men don't get the point of that.  They see a problem, they want to fix it.

Present a confident front

--They try to avoid asking for advice or permission, admitting to being wrong, or hedging ("I'm not sure", "This will work, right?")

Say what they mean

--They won't share every thought they have, but when they do say something it is typically straightforward.

--They don't use euphemisms or flowery adjectives.  Their language (especially if we're in internal thoughts) is going to be more coarse and blunt.

--Don't say things in a passive way.  Instead of "Are you hungry?" he'll just say, "I'm hungry."

Think about sex more than women and see if differently

--According to stats, 60% of men say they think about sex at least once a day, whereas 25% of women do

--"Sex is simpler and more straightforward for them.  That does not mean that men do not seek intimacy, love, and connection in a relationship, just as women do. They just view the role of sex differently. Women want to talk first, connect first, then have sex.  For men, sex is the connection. Sex is the language men use to express their tender loving vulnerable side. It is their language of intimacy." (from WebMD)

See conversations as a means to exchange information

--venting and small talk are not preferred.  This is why when guys hang out together, there is usually an activity involved, whereas women can just get together and chat for the sake of chatting.

Emotion, except for anger, is usually kept under wraps or repressed altogether.

--This is why it's so satisfying in a story when the guy finally breaks down and accepts how he's feeling about the heroine.

--Guys rarely cry.  If your hero is going to cry, save that moment and use it for maximum impact.

Alright, so I know a lot of these sound stereotypical, and not every guy is going to fall into that.  But stereotypes do exist for a reason.  Hope this at least gets you started. 

So have you written in the POV of the opposite sex?  If so, do you find it difficult or fun?  Do you enjoy reading books that offer both perspectives?

*This is a re-post from my Fiction Groupie blog 2010. 

Like Me! - How to Create Sympathetic Characters #atozchallenge

Picture via George Eastman House (The Commons on Flickr)Have you ever read a book that had a protagonist you just didn't like? Did you keep reading? 

For me this is a tough one to answer. I read books for characters. Sure, there are the occasional situations where a story is all plot and still hooks me in (these are usually blockbuster action movies, for the record), but for the most part, I want to connect with the people. So when I start reading a book and don't really like the characters, it can be a challenge for me to stick with it. 

Which got me to thinking, what makes a character sympathetic? And do we necessarily have to like a character in order to enjoy the book? Scarlett O'Hara, Anne Rice's Lestat, Severus Snape in Harry Potter, Eric in the Sookie Stackhouse/True Blood books, Damon in Vampire Diaries, and Sue in Glee aren't very nice people usually, yet somehow stand out as great characters that are hard not to be drawn to. Why?

Because somewhere along the way we find ourselves sympathizing or understanding them. In Glee, Sue is ruthless, vindictive, bigoted, and mean to children. Yet, in one episode we see her fall for a co-worker then get her heart broken, showing that she is capable of love and is probably extremely lonely. It isn't enough to completely redeem her, but it gives the viewer a sign that there are reasons why she is the way she is--her motivation.

And therein lies the key. If your character is going to act in a way that isn't very likable, you have to eventually clue the reader in as to why they act that way. 

Along with creating proper motivation, there are some things you want to avoid in creating sympathetic characters...

Do not make your character perfect

--A character who is totally pure of heart, volunteers with children, donates all her money to charity, wakes up looking beautiful, and is always kind to animals does not a sympathetic character make. Readers can't connect to perfect.

Keep whining to a mimimum

--A protagonist who complains and whines and constantly plays victim is just plain annoying. Readers will root for her execution instead of her success.

A do-nothing

--A hero/heroine no matter how flawed must take action. If the character lets everything happen and doesn't try to do something, then the reader will not be very sympathetic. We like to read about those who are willing to help themselves.

Tread carefully with snobbery or bitchiness

--You can have a bitchy character (i.e. Scarlett O'Hara) but it has to be worked carefully. There has to be that motivation of why they are so abrasive. And no matter what the motivation, if you MC is a shrew all the time, the reader will be turned off.

Beware the cliched sympathy tricks

--Showing your tough as nails hero being kind to children, elderly, and small animals is not adequate. And don't have other characters talk about how wonderful your character is to develop sympathy. Your readers will see through those tired ploys.

Don't throw in some "aren't I awesomely good?" scene that isn't related to the story

--Don't put your MC volunteering at the homeless shelter to show their soft side unless something is going to happen at that shelter to forward the plot

Make the backstory believable

--Don't tack on a whole bunch of awful events just to create sympathy. The backstory, like everything else, needs to be an organic, integrated part of the book. In my opinion, you should not be able to write the book without already knowing your character's backstory upfront. Their history is who they are and will affect every aspect of how they interact in the book. If you write the whole book, then go back and throw in a child abuse backstory to help explain the character's shortcomings, it will show.

Be careful waiting until page 150 to start developing the sympathetic side of your character.

--If you don't offer some morsel for your reader to hold onto, many will give up the book before they get to the "good part". Like I mentioned above, the current book I'm reading has me hanging on because of some foreshadowing and few redeeming moments, but without those ,I probably would have moved on to another book.

So how about you? Have you ever read a book that you just couldn't sympathize with the protagonist? Did you keep reading? Who are some of your favorite anti-heroes (can't help but like them even though they are far from great people)?

*This is a Fiction Groupie repost from 2010. This week I am re-posting because I am at the RT Convention. The normal Friday links round up will return next week. :)

How To Dish Out Backstory In Digestible Bites #atozchallenge

How To Dish Out Backstory In Digestible Bites

Photo by Ken WilcoxIt's that time of the year again--contest judging. I've talked about it one here before, but I think volunteering to judge contests is (beyond being a nice thing to do) one of the greatest exercises a writer can go through. Looking for specific things in other works often helps us develop a more critical eye for our own work. I know it's definitely helped me.

Now when I'm judging, I usually see a little bit of everything--some spectacular things, some really beginner efforts, and everything in between. But as I go through the entries this year for my local RWA's chapter contest, one of the trends I'm seeing is the dreaded backstory dump.

We've probably all made this mistake at one time or another. This is why a lot of people suggest writing your book, then cutting the first three chapters because it's probably all backstory. Now, that's a little drastic, but I think there is a nugget of truth in that.

So today I'm going to cover how to share that history and backstory with the reader without choking them.  Think of backstory like a big steak--you can't swallow the whole thing at once, it must be cut up and devoured in small, juicy bites.  Ideally, these bites will blend so well with the rest of the story, that the reader will barely notice that you've slipped it in on them.

So first let's look at some choking hazards:

Prologue--These are notorious for being solely backstory, which is probably why they've developed a bit of a bad reputation.  Make sure what you have in your prologue (if you have one) can't be sprinkled in somewhere  else instead.

First Chapters--This is where it's most tempting to put in big blocks of backstory.  Resist!  Your story should start in the middle of things.  Readers don't have to know all the background yet, get them to the action so you can hook them.  Pay particular attention to chapters 1-3 in your first draft.  Many times it's where we as writers are working out the story for ourselves (which is fine as long as you go back and cut them during revision).

Alright, now for some ways to blend in that backstory...

Dialogue

This is an easy and obvious way to reveal information to your reader.  However, watch out for the traps with this.

--Make sure that the conversation is realistic and that there is a reason for it to be happening besides slipping in backstory to the reader.

   NOT "I can't believe you cheated on me six months ago with someone half my age." (the guy would already know that)

   INSTEAD "How's your new bimbo? Has she graduated high school yet?"

--Make sure the conversation comes up naturally and not out of the blue.  Something needs to trigger that discussion.

--Use action to break up the dialogue so it doesn't start sounding like an info dump.

Flashback

Where your character relives in their head a past event as it happened.  Unlike a memory, they don't filter the events through their current point of view.

--Be very careful with this one.  Many people advise against flashbacks.  But I think if used correctly and sparingly they can work.

--Something has to trigger the flashback. That memory needs to be brought to mind by some object, situation, person, etc.

--Make it clear that it is a flashback so your reader doesn't get confused.  Some people use italics to help with this.

Memory

Similar to flashback, but the memory is seen through the person's current POV.

--Sprinkle this in.  Like everything else, large chunks of prose on a memory will get tedious.

--Just like the others, the memory must be triggered by something.  Don't have your MC vacuuming and just suddenly think of how her father died (unless it was death by vacuum).

--Can build and foreshadow throughout the story, not revealing everything up front.  For instance, in my category romance, my MC goes to a concert and for a moment she's reminded of a tragic night years ago.  But all I show is that she has a sick feeling and that she remembers to the day how long it's been since she's seen a concert--which lets us know something important happened back then, but I don't say anything about what it is specifically, just foreshadow.

--Ex.) He smiled at her, and for a moment, she was reminded of the boy he used to be, the one she used to love.  (See, that tells us they had a previous relationship and that something changed along the way.  Just enough to whet the reader's appetite.)

Thoughts

Using direct thoughts instead of narrative.

--This doesn't have to be a specific memory, but can let us know that there is something there behind the thought.

--i.e. "Don't you just let go and have fun sometimes?" he asked.  She shook her head and averted her eyes.  "No." Not anymore.

Action

Sometimes you can use some event in your story to relay past events.

--i.e.  A news story comes on TV talking about a cold case murder that relates to your MC.

The easiest way for me to figure out how to put in backstory is to think like a screenwriter.  They cannot tell you things in a movie, they have to show it all.  So how would I convey this information if it were a movie?

Alright, so those are my tips, what are some of yours?  How do you sneak in your backstory?  And do you put down a book if it's pages and pages of backstory to start?

*This week I will be re-running some of my top posts from my former Fiction Groupie site because I am in Chicago for the RT Convention. Hope you enjoy!