OK, so I put “sex” in a post title again. Ease off, though. At least let’s get the NaNoWriMo posts out of the way first.
The bits of the www I’m monitoring at present seem to have finally quietened down on the NaNo front, you’ll be relieved to hear. Maybe that’s because everyone actually doing it has no time to write blog posts on top–mostly–or maybe it’s because Thanksgiving happens around now, ish? Whatever the reason, I only have four NaNo links to share with you this week. There’s one from Anna Staniszewski, who wrote about Beating the Lazies; one from Mary Jo Campbell, who posted at the half-way point; one of the three items posted by Lynn Viehl, who has had a particularly rough week and tried to talk herself back into caring about NaNo in the middle of it; and one from Kristen Lamb, who appears to have given up on NaNo altogether.
All four women are published authors, albeit with varying degrees of experience. It’s interesting–and something of a relief, since I’m pretty sure now that I’m not going to make the deadline myself–to see that none of them have 25,000 words under their belt at this point. Lynn keeps a record of her NaNo output online, though, and it’s very evident from her archives that NaNo isn’t usually so much of a problem to her as it has been this year.
I’d never tried to write a sex scene until the moment it became unavoidable in my NaNo project last week. I’d heard a lot about the difficulties of making it believable and yep, every last one of those advisories was correct. Jen Brubacher added her voice to the choir even as she published an erotic photograph as Thursday’s writing prompt. She couldn’t resist that old gag about size not mattering, though.
Randy Susan Meyers (that’s the lady’s name, not a description) posted a thoughtful article in which she explained that a well-written sex scene can be useful as a means of offering a window into a character’s soul during a vulnerable moment. Tawna Fenske, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoys sex and gets a real kick out of ramping up the heat in her writing. The only thing holding her back is that she doesn’t know whether her readers want monkey sex or tortoise sex. Gosh. Where to draw that line?
Elizabeth Spann Craig had similar issues in her blog post this week. Not over the tortoise sex, no. Just over how much she should tailor her story to her readers or, in the case of her young daughter, listener. Torturing fluffy kittens was never on the agenda, but a character that isn’t allowed to have anything bad happen is… probably not conducive to an interesting tale.
The problem of catering to the reader has ramifications when it comes to handling criticism, too. Susan Dennard posted a short article on Let the Words Flow that should, I think, be mandatory reading for every fiction writer who ever asked someone else’s opinion. In her article, she explored two ways in which authors can–and often do–misuse the criticism they receive for their writing.
As if to back up Susan’s experience, Larry Brooks chose to post an item two days later about the real meaning of rejection. He explained, quite rightly, that when an agent or publisher says “no” to a book, what they really mean is they don’t know. Quite rightly, because–as with Tawna’s monkeys and tortoises–whatever turns on Reader A may well be anathema to Reader B; and Agent C needs to convince Publisher D, who is probably hoping to sell books to both readers (and a few more besides.)
There are times, though, when critique partners or even groups aren’t thinking in those terms and will say “no” simply because they aren’t sold on an idea, which can be quite hurtful for the author. Cheryl Ossola wrote this week about a friend’s “rather skewering experiences” with writing groups, which in turn makes her appreciate her own current group, and especially its leader, all the more.
And finally: If you thought the only way to make it as a poet was by starving in a garret, here’s some food for thought.
