Elevator Pitches and their Disservice

Should a book be defined in a single sentence? Don’t ask me why this random thought jumped into my head, but it did. Most writers have to create an “elevator pitch” to give to agents and editors. The idea is that you happen to get into an elevator with a top publisher/agent. You have until they get to their next floor to pitch them your grand novel. What would you say? 

I hated coming up with pitches…I don’t know why I put that in the past tense because I still do. They are horrible. A page? I can rock that summary. Although, a publishing house once asked me for three pages and I had the hardest time. When I first started, I would sit down with agents at conferences. We were given 15 minutes to sell ourselves…which is actually a lot better than a one-page query letter. But part of this was the idea to “pitch” the book in a sentence. Keep it simple. Tell me the gist. But also wow me. 

I haven’t pitched my work for a while, but I still have to summarize my books in a sentence. Amazon actually has a section on one of their reading sites where you summarize a book in one sentence. I forget what they call it, but it was something like the insanely short summary. I had to practice this art when creating bookmarks last year. 

But I got to thinking….should a book even be able to be defined in one little sentence? I think this goes along with the idea that publishers want cookie-cutter novels. They want something they can “easily” sell. But is that something I want to read? The books I love the most are the ones with two or three plot lines. In suspense novels, I love the authors who can twist multiple storylines that seem unrelated and tie them together (besides the whole they are relatives). I wondered if they could define the book in one sentence. Sure, we can come up with general statements. Lord of the Rings is an adventure to destroy a powerful ring that corrupts its owner. But, it seems a disservice to J.R.R. Tolkien’s series to summarize it in just that one sentence. That series is so much more than that.  Likewise, I can say J.K. Rowling’s series on Harry Potter is about a boy coming to terms with his parent’s death and his legacy while taking on a wicked sorcerer. But, again, the story is so much more than that. 

As you can see, I’m not very good at making a sentence compelling and gripping, but I start to wonder if we lose something in the summation. Do we turn into those movie trailers that are nothing like the actual movie? Books should have layers. They should have a complexity that shouldn’t be defined in a sentence. And if they can be, then maybe they are too simple to keep my interest. Or maybe that’s just me.

Three Worst Writing Advice

One of my writer groups had an interesting discussion the other week. We discussed the worst writing advice ever given. I found it interesting what some writers decided was the “worst” that I actually like. I also found it interesting which ones appeared on their lists in general. I sat back and started to think about what advice I have discarded over the years.  So, here it is, my three worst writing advice encountered over the years.

1.       Draw up a plot outline and/or character outline. I agree on two areas with this piece of advice. The first is that plot is important. I have been helping a young girl with a story she’s trying to write. Throughout the critique process, I kept asking her if she knew where the story was heading. This is probably an unfair question. For me, I know how I begin and how I want to end. Over the course of writing, I figure out the details from point A to B. If she doesn’t know the ending, then she at least needs an idea of where she wants to go. Also, I agree that character development is important. It is good to know my characters. Where I stray from this is when people pull out extensive diagrams. They map every single detail of the plot. They dive into an extensive back story of their characters, dissecting them like a psychologist. I find the process too stifling and cumbersome. Spending all of our time mapping and planning doesn’t work when, halfway through, creativity happens and everything changes.

2.       Join a critique group. I know, I know. This is highly used advice. Here’s why I caution against it. Most critique groups will be filled with people who set out to “critique” and yet many don’t know how to provide constructive criticism. Some just want to tear a piece down simply because it is not how they would have written it. It’s not that writer’s shouldn’t seek advice, but don’t seek it constantly and don’t seek it just anywhere. It should be in a structured environment where constructive criticism is taking place. Sometimes that’s hard to decipher individually, we’re too close to the situation. Therefore, maybe do so in a structured environment like a creative classroom.

3.       “You can’t.” There is a lot of advice out there about how to write a novel. You can’t start with a prologue. You can’t write in the omniscient. You can’t, you can’t, you can’t. Most of the time, they’re wrong. What they should say is writing omniscient is hard to do properly, so maybe stray away from it. Or agents tend to hate prologues because of this. It doesn’t mean you can’t do either, but when you do, it has to have purpose…the same is true with anything regarding a story. 

So, what’s the best? Keep writing. Can’t publish the first book? Keep writing. Stuck? Keep writing. That’s the only way to grow, develop, and, ultimately, become successful.

Monday's Quote: Mae West

"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." ~ Mae West

This seemed to be the most popular post last week. I can see why. It reminds me of the movie Dead Poet's Society, where the teacher proclaims students should embody the "Carpe Diem" motto. Seize the Day. Live for the moment. Of course, that idea sot of back fires on one of the students when he seizes the day in a way his parents disapprove. Not only that, but then he continues to disregard their views without ever having a conversation with them. I can relate to that after teaching teenagers. They are convinced their side won't matter anyway. I guess that is a topic for another conversation.

I agree with the idea of seizing the day as long as it is done intellectually. Don't jump off a bridge and claim you were seizing the moment. But, take advantage of the opportunities that arise. Don't let fear hold you back. I constantly have to tell myself that. I always try to push myself out of my comfort zone. Do I like it? No. But I grow. And I live. And, hopefully, in the end I can say that I have done it right and I am satisfied.

Want more quotes? Follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

How Sidekicks Can Help a Series

I had the conversation where interest was shown in a series mainly due to the sidekicks. That got me to thinking about how sidekicks can help enhance a series (and/or ruin it). In fact, I think the strongest tool a writer has is the sidekick. The first reason is because a sidekick has the potential to add some comic relief to the situations. They are the ones who innocently trip our protagonist up. They are the sarcastic characters. They are the jokesters. They are not strong enough to be the lead, but their weakness is what makes them loveable. We want to see them protected by our main character. The second reason is because the sidekicks can be switched around. What I have noticed in a longer series is the need to keep things fresh. The story has to keep changing and each book needs to feel new. But, like a relationship that endures, after a while the “spark” is gone. That doesn’t mean I don’t like the main character anymore. I just know too much about them. They are not “new.” Some series switch what characters play the “sidekick” in each novel. Typically the switch depends on the plot and which character would be around in the given situation. This also opens the opportunity to provide a new character even if a series is five or more books in. The character can arise in the new situations and then stay. 

I think sidekicks play a bigger role in novels than readers realize. For instance, I sat back and thought about which novels/movies are made successful by the sidekick, which ones would flop if the sidekicks were removed? Here is my list, but I would be interested to know if you have any. 

1. Despicable Me: I’m sorry, but the minions make this movie. In fact, I don’t think I would even like the movies (which I absolutely love) if they were gone. Gru is okay and his plot line is interesting, but the minions are what keep my attention as Gru goes about his business. They are funny. They are innocent. And, most of all, they show me that there must be a redeemable quality about Gru (especially in the first movie), which keeps me interested in his plot. 

2. Dresden Files: this is a series that switches the sidekicks, so I thought I’d just list the series. He has fairies and vampire relatives and a talking skull. All of which provide comic relief and all of which keep the series new. In fact, when I was getting bored, he introduced a medical examiner who enjoys Polka and I was right back into the series. 

3. Pirates of the Caribbean: I guess you could argue that Jack Sparrow is a main character, but I see the first movie as a discussion about Ms. Swan’s kidnapping. He plays less of a lead role, in my opinion. And, if that character was not done well, the movie would not be the same.

Can Writers Move Away from Genres?

With all of the award shows and singing competitions, I keep coming across the same concept in music: genre shouldn’t matter. In other words, Kelly Clarkson should be able to sing pop, country, or whatever strikes her. In fact, she was quoted during December as saying she enjoyed doing her Christmas album because she could write without having to worry about what genre it sounded like. The idea is that we should appreciate “music” not the genre. Country should sell in the pop realm and vice-versa. We should even blend the genres.

I started thinking, as I always seem to do, about the writing world. When I first got into the business, I remember going to conferences and agents proclaiming a “red flag” to them was when an author started saying “my work is a blend between.” In other words, they wanted one genre, not a mixture. The argument is that publishers know how to sell something cookie-cutter, thereby agents can’t sell them something “new.” Yet, with all of the self-published work arising, I began to wonder if the writing industry is moving away from genres.

It seems to me that authors have always wanted to just write their story. They don’t want to worry about where it fits in the market, but just want to be creative. However, I think it is important to remember our audiences. A writer can create a story they think is great, but if they want to sell that novel then others have to think it is great as well. So, should we walk away from genres just because there is no longer an outside source demanding them?

I think we shouldn’t. However, this isn’t to say that every fantasy novel should look the same and that every mystery should look the same, but they should share elements. In fact, I just finished reading a fantasy novel where the only “fantasy” aspect to it were stones that held certain healing traits. I ended up not liking the novel because it didn’t live up to my expectations of a fantasy novel.

How do I know the expectations? I read the genre. That will help define what should and should not be in a novel. Can a fantasy book have some romance in it? Sure. In fact, I find I can’t read a novel anymore without a sense of romance in it. But does that make it a romance book? No. We therefore shouldn’t say it is a blend between the genres. Ultimately, I think that is the mistake the music industry has. Can there be a blend. Yes. But fans of certain genres are to going to like a song with too many elements from another. The same is true for novels. 

So the story is important. Should we try to focus more on story than fitting a mold? Absolutely, otherwise it’ll become too boring. But, should we blend so far that we lose sight of the genre (and therefore the target audience), I don’t think that is wise.

Monday's Quote: Coco Chanel

"Success is most often achieved by those who don't know that failure is inevitable."~ Coco Chanel

This was the most liked on my Facebook page last week. I can see why. I agree the secret to success is to not acknowledge the idea of failure. I discussed this last week as well. Failure is highly probable. The odds are definitely not in our favor. The universe asks us how much we want our dreams. But, if we behave as if it is not an option, if we believe there are no other options, then we have to succeed. I live my life believing this.

I do understand that this may be a delusion. I may wake up one day and not have what I desire. But, if I wake up one day and am in the exact same spot, then I have no one to blame but myself. I should be ever learning, ever changing and moving forward (even in small increments). But I can never give up. That is the key.

Have a happy Monday!

Want daily quotes? Follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

How to Make a "Bad" Character Loveable

I decided to do this week’s quote as a continuation on Wednesday’s discussion. The idea is: could a lead character be a “villain” and still gain interest. My initial idea was no because of a new cop show on NBC. However, I started to second guess that decision when thinking about a show I love “the Blacklist.” Therefore, I have come up with the most “lovable” leads with strongly questionable characters. After making this list, I am ready to say why they work while the cop show does not…in my opinion.

1. Michael Corleone, The Godfather. A son who inherits a mafia empire, he begins the series as an “honest” citizen. Then he is pulled into the family business and spends the rest of the time trying to survive while always wanting to get out. Why does he work as someone people want to follow? I think in part we sympathize with his plight. In a way, he did not “choose” this lifestyle. It was handed down to him, almost pressured upon him. Then the series became a curiosity. Can he get out? Can he make the business clean? The evils he commits along the way are excused because it is part of the life he was thrown into. Kill, or be killed.

2. Raymond “Red” Reddington, The Blacklist. I thought long and hard about why I like this character so much. It really has nothing to do with the actor, because this is the first time I really like him. The character was not thrown into the life. He chose to leave the CIA for a life of crime. Why he chose is unknown and irrelevant. He admits he’s a criminal. But he is also very charismatic. Part of what makes him acceptable is that he does not disguise who he is. He does not pretend to be innocent. And he always has a reason for what he does…in his own mind.

3. Iago, Othello. I had to throw one literature character in here. Most people think this play is about Othello. I believe it is actually about Iago’s revenge upon the general. He may be twofaced toward Othello and his men, but Iago tells the audience from scene one what his intentions are and why. Then he goes about orchestrating a master plan, manipulating Othello toward demise. His motivations are those the readers can clearly understand. He is not simply psychotic. He was driven toward his endeavor.

So, what do these characters have in common and why do I care even though they are “bad.” They never deny who they are. Their deplorable acts are justified by the life they chose. They have charm, and they are not simply “insane.” I can see their motivations, even if I don’t accept it. And they never trick me. A dirty cop doesn’t work for me because it is a contradiction. Cops are supposed to be good and honest. Taking bribes is not justified in that particular line of duty.