Mike Duran's Blog, page 82

Interview w/ Port Yonder Press Managing Editor Chila Woychik

Between technology and the recession, traditional publishing is undergoing major changes, giving rise to new models, methods, and varieties of publishing houses. One such fledgling publisher is Port Yonder Press (PYP). Launched two years ago, PYP is just beginning to carve a niche for itself in this brave new world of books. Managing editor and co-owner Chila Woychik graciously agreed to let me grill her about the state of the industry and her own unique vision for PYP. This is the first in a series of interviews I'll be conducting with indie pressers.

* * *

MIKE: Chila, thanks so much for visiting with us. Given the state of traditional publishing, is it safe to say that indie presses are booming? And if so, are the factors that have contributed to this a good or bad thing?

CHILA: Mike, with PYP, if I had the manpower and money, we could easily put out 20, 30, or more books a year. The problem I'm having is finding good enough manuscripts to fit the 10 or so slots I'd like to fill within that period of time.

I attribute this to two elements: 1) though we started out as a crossover press, news of our Christian imprints spread far quicker than the fact that we also cater to general market material.  Maybe Christians are more desperate to get published, or maybe I simply had more Christian contacts, but either way, the ratio was staggeringly unbalanced. And 2) the Christian material that I've received thus far has generally been either mediocre at best or so blatantly "preachy" that I find myself having to blog about these topics in a sort of re-education campaign for Christians (more of that below).

Small Christian presses abound and they're often more than happy to take those "average" manuscripts, especially if they think they can sell 50 or 100 copies to pay their overhead.  I've repeatedly had to say, "No, we don't want that; bring it up a notch, or ten."

We want to be "the small big guy." We want material strong enough to stand up to well known publishing houses. So yes, Port Yonder Press could be booming.  I simply need to find the manuscripts and the help to get them up to the "excellent" status I desire in a relatively quick period of time, not the year and a half that we're currently doing.  If I can't, we'll slow the process down, I'll edit almost exclusively, and I'll wait to find the right authors. (This is not to minimize the amazing input of my consulting staff over the past 2 years.)

MIKE: So what does a small, independent press do that a large, traditional publisher cannot? I mean, why would an author seek a small press as opposed to a NYC conglomerate?

CHILA: Everything balances out in the end—it really does.  What a large publisher can do is obvious: media exposure and far-reaching distribution. Small presses can't compete in either of those two important areas. But what we can offer are things like letting the author have greater control over most every step of the process, from book cover input to text formatting preferences to hands-on editorial assistance to an inordinately large share of the net receipts. We also have far fewer manuscripts to sift through, so will offer an exceptional manuscript a greater chance at publication.

That said, a few of us will not accept the best of the few, but insist on a few of the best.  That's somewhat of a reality check for authors who come to PYP expecting us to accept their slightly above average work.  We ask them to return it to us in a year and be sure it can compete with that "NYC conglomerate."  Let's face it, even with a great manuscript, most authors won't land a spot with a big house, or even a medium-sized publisher.  We're here for those who can, but won't.  If you read a few of my recent posts on my blog, you'll see that I honestly don't think we've even come close to my vision for that yet, but at least that vision is being clarified, and we're learning not to settle for anything below top shelf.

MIKE: From my perspective, there seems to be a lot of illusions about independent presses, the types of quality they will "tolerate," and the insular, perhaps "cliquish," nature of their business. What do you see as the most common myths or misunderstandings about independent presses?

CHILA: Big pet peeve here: "Small presses are a stepping stone to something bigger."  Another one: "They'll take just about anything, do the editing to bring it up to par, and be glad they got you." And as is often said, every myth has at least some truth to it.  Unfortunately too many small presses have perpetuated that mentality via their actions.  And as I frequently retort: "If you think that's us, keep looking." I truly want only the best. If I can't find it, we'll produce fewer books. Period.

MIKE: Many authors have chosen to self-publish and there are some notable success stories attached to their efforts. What advantages do you feel small press publishing offers over self-publishing?

Of course, authors like Amanda Hocking have brought self-publishing a measure of credibility, and I personally think that credibility will grow. Not only are people fed up with big publishers' bullying tactics and most favored status with distributors, but add to that the overnight advances in technology, a slower economy, and the explosion of new avenues for publication: self-publishing will become a very viable option for authors.

Still, I believe having a manuscript reviewed and accepted by a recognized publisher will generally tag an author as being more credible.  The few self-pubbed books I've read in the past 2 years have been average at best. Even with the help of a hired editor, I believe few people have the intuitive book sense to put out a high quality book via self-publishing, at least at this time. I can see smart business people keying in on this (if they haven't already) by helping those authors put out quality material, but always at a price.

MIKE: On your blog, you recently referenced my post The New Demographic: Christians Who Don't Like Christian Fiction. Is Port Yonder Press seeking to address that demographic? And, if so, how do you intend to do that?

CHILA: Yes, and that was a great little read.  Again, via blog posts and Port Yonder Press' Facebook page, I'm striving to replace stale, old, Christian writing ideas, with the reality of our need to write well, first and foremost, write good stories first, without feeling one has to chuck their worldview to compete.  We don't.  We can compete and excel without preaching, without sermonizing, without feeling we need to evangelize the world through our fiction (or nonfiction), while still maintaining honesty, personal integrity, and faith.

Secondly, I work closely with my current authors to hone, sharpen, and distill ideas, to help them say what they need to say without resorting to the same lame tactics we've seen in Christian writing for the past 30 plus years or so. If I could channel C. S. Lewis for them, I would. But as I can't, I'll gladly continue to work with them in this pursuit, the pursuit of great writing as a Christian author (as opposed to "mediocre Christian writing").

MIKE: What are some of the small presses that you most admire and, you think, are putting out some of the best stuff?

CHILA: Hmm. This question's a little tougher. (I defer to my 2-year experience limit.) Unfortunately, I can't point to any fully Christian presses that I know of, that I would go to for their books as an example of "consistent excellence." But then, I can't even say that about ours yet, so it's no slight on them at all. There are several presses I consult with to varying degrees, admire, even love as friends, love what they're doing:  Splashdown Books (Grace Bridges), Marcher Lord Press (Jeff Gerke), Written World (Kristine Pratt), and a few others.

But the two I've come across in recent months that I probably watch the most closely, and admire for their sheer brilliance, are the general market presses: Eight Cuts, and Twelve Books. I can learn from them, and try to do so whenever I have a spare moment. They inspire me, give me courage, inflame me with a desire to succeed.  And I think that's what it's all about.

MIKE: So Chila, what compelled you to start Port Yonder Press? Are you a natural entrepreneur, did you see a void that needed filled, or do you just love books so much that you can't be apart from them?

CHILA: All of the above. Truly. My dad is a small business owner and I've learned a lot from him, watched him daily strive for excellence, saw his integrity and firm gentleness in dealing with employees, observed him listening to the needs and wants of customers.  He was, and still is, a learner, a listener, a man of intelligence and honesty.

And there's definitely a void, a need for excellent small presses who aren't afraid to both reveal their Christian basis and tackle gritty subject matter in a general market fashion. I long to see small press owners push the bar higher than ever before, and as a result, see authors of merit scramble to be published with those small houses. I don't know of many that are doing that. I want that for PYP.

Book lover? Guilty as charged. I'm hopelessly addicted.

MIKE: Finally, tell us a little bit about Port Yonder Press, your aims, objectives, and vision.

CHILA: Port Yonder Press is 2 years old.  I've learned.  I've grown.  I've not yet published the best, but I'm striving to do so.  I have a wonderful (mostly) volunteer staff who's growing with me, maturing in their skills. I can't wait to see what the future holds.

Aims, objectives, vision—it's all the same: to produce EXCELLENT, EVOCATIVE, and ECLECTIC books that get read, and reread, that win awards for their obvious merit, that turn heads, make people feel, beg readers to think, find a permanent spot on bookshelves across America, and beyond.  That's my goal. That's how I feel I can best use my gifts, my life, the talents I've been given and have developed over the past few decades.  That's how I want to be remembered: the gal who wouldn't settle for less—in her life, her writing, her publishing.

* * *

Thanks so much, Chila! If you're a writer and looking for a home for your book, please check out Port Yonder Press. And if you have a comment for Chila about the industry or something she said here, please feel free to leave a comment.

The Music Behind the Words

A fair share of writers do not write to music. At times, I'm one of them. This is probably because I like to talk to myself during the process and music only distracts from my conversation. Nevertheless, there are times when the perfect remedy for a sluggish story is music.

Galley Cat's Find Great Writing Music links to screenwriters discussing the subject of what tunes get their creative juices flowing. I love these kinds of discussions. Having submitted my second book to the editor, I've had time to reflect on the grueling process. And music definitely played a part in it.

Here's a list of some of my recent favorites, songs and albums that lit an imaginative spark, soothed a frenetic frame of mind, or made what was lusterless lyrical:

Soundtracks — Gladiator by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, Let Me In by Michael Giacchino, Master and Commander by Iva Davies, Christopher Gordon and Richard Tognetti, The Beach by Blur and Mory Kante, The Insider by Jan Garbarek, The Social Network by Trent Reznor.
Jazz — Bitch's Brew and Kind of Blue by Miles Davis, Time Out by Dave Brubek Quartet, A Love Supreme by John Coltrane, The Magic Hour by Wynton Marsalis, Storytelling by Jean Luc Ponty.
Dance and Electronica – Songs by Moby, Merriweather Post Pavilion by Animal Collective, This is the Happening by LCD Soundsystem, Saturdays = Youth by M83, Return to Cookie Mountain by TV on the Radio.
Classical – Thaïs: Meditation by Jules Massenet, Cavatina by Stanley Myers,  Adagio for Strings by Barber, Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D Major by Bach, Xerxes, HWV 40 by Yoshikazu Mera, Gymnopédie No. 1 by Erik Satie, Orpheus and Eurydice: Dance of the Blessed Spirits by Christoph Willibald Gluck.
Mood Music and Instrumental — Forest by George Winston, Speechless by Bruce Cockburn, Solo Piano by Tom Howard, Frio Suite by Jeff Johnson and Phil Keaggy, Voice of the Seven Woods by Voice of the Seven Woods.
Rock and Folk — Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here and Animals by Pink Floyd, Ten Summoner's Tales by Sting, Add to the Beauty by Sarah Grove, Ohio by Over the Rhine, Armchair Apocrypha by Andrew Bird, Kid A by Radiohead.

I rarely write to rock music and when I do, the mood has to be specific. In fact, I have never understood how some writers can write to rock, especially the hardcore, raprock, and metal kind. (Are you one of these people? I'd love to know how in the world you can concentrate with Rage Against the Machine.) When I do choose rock, it's often of the more melodic, symphonic variety (see Pink Floyd) or the laid back folksy.

In general, I dislike lyrics in my writing music and feel they're competing with the words in my head. While I love jazz, sometimes discordant and unconventional rhythms unsettle my creative equilibrium. However, during the writing of The Telling, Miles Davis' Bitch's Brew meshed so well with the mood that I kept returning to it. But by far and away, soundtracks and classical are my writing music of choice. (The cello piece by Yo-Yo Ma and the violin pieces, especially the String Quintet in C, on the Master and Commander soundtrack are some of my all-time faves.)

So how about you? What's some of your favorite writing music?

Living Proof of the Living Christ

Don't you love Before and After pics? Well, these two photos are more than just years apart, they're worlds apart. I was 21 and Lisa was 17, the year was 1979, and our worlds were about to be rocked. I had survived a horrible car wreck and an even worse alcoholic home. But I was [...]

When NOT to Take Writing Advice

There's no shortage of advice out there for aspiring and beginning authors. But knowing when NOT to take advice may be as important as knowing when to heed it. I learned this within my first year of pursuing publication. At the time, I was preparing a short story for a contest put on by an [...]

"Redeeming Love" — A Review

Reviewing Francine Rivers' Redeeming Love was, for me, a lot like treading on holy ground. At least, that's how iconic the novel seems to have become in many Christian circles. So several weeks ago when I took the Romance Challenge and pledged to read one Christian Romance novel, Redeeming Love was, as I expected, one of the most oft-recommended selections.

It's hard not to have high expectations going into this book (especially seeing the 760+ 5 star reviews at Amazon) and, try as I might, I couldn't disentangle this praise from my reading. More than once I had to stop and ask myself, What do people see in this book? I'll conclude my review with, what I believe, is the enduring strength of the tale and, perhaps, its primary redemptive quality.

(Note: There are spoilers throughout this review.) In a nutshell, the story is about a prostitute named Angel who is relentlessly wooed by a god-fearing man named Michael. Touted as a retelling of the biblical story of Hosea and Gomer, it's pretty obvious from the outset where this is headed. I felt that knowing this took some punch out of the story. However, employing a prostitute as the vehicle to demonstrate God's boundless, tenacious love, is very effective. Who has not, upon realization of the Bridegroom's great grace and mercy, felt like a used up whore? But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I struggled through this book for two main reasons: Mediocre prose and redundancy.

Yes, Rivers shows flashes of poetry. But for the most part, I found her prose clunky to the point of distraction. There are few complex sentences, which for me, gave the reading an endless staccato feel. Here's some samples of what I mean. Notice the employment (I'd say, overuse) of short, clipped sentences.

Angel hated her life. She hated the Duchess. She hated Magowan. She hated her own wretched helplessness. Most of all she hated the men for their relentless quest for pleasure. She gave them her body but not a particle more. Maybe there wasn't any more. She didn't know. And that didn't seem to matter to any of the men. All they saw was her beauty, a flawless veil wrapped around a frozen heart, and they were enthralled. They looked into her angel eyes and were lost. (Kindle, location 810)

And this:

She didn't want him bothering her anymore. He wanted her. She felt it radiating from his body, but he never did anything about it. He talked. He asked questions. He waited, for what she didn't know. She was tired of trying to think up lies to make him happy. He just asked the same question again in a different way. He wouldn't give up. Each time he came, he was more determined. (1238)

There are many more examples of this stylistic tendency.

Short sentences are important to a story and can provide necessary punch. Too many of them, however, has the exact opposite effect. I labored through Redeeming Love, in part, because of this.

Another bent of the author, one you will notice in the above quotes, is starting sentences with a pronoun.

She hated
She gave
She didn't know
They looked
She felt
He waited
She was tired
He wouldn't give up

I can't recall reading a book where this bad habit is so predominant. It's one I'd encourage every aspiring author to break themselves of. Which is probably why Redeeming Love is not a book I would use as an example of great Christian writing.

My second problem with the book was its redundancy. The story seemed to be covering the same ground. Angel sins. Michael takes her back. Angel falls. Michael takes her back. Angel leaves. Michael comes looking for her. Angel's finally coming around. Michael is there when she does. By the middle of the book, I was tiring. It could be argued that this is the moral of Redeeming Love. We fall, again and again, and God's "redeeming love" finds us. While this works existentially (I can attest to it!), it's a difficult go for a reader. I felt like I was watching Peter Jackson drag out Kong's death to the point of absurdity. After Angel's third defection and restoration, I wanted to stand up and shout, "I get it already!"

I also want to take this opportunity to discuss edginess in Christian fiction. This is a topic I talk a lot about on my website and, frankly, is one of the reasons I decided to read Redeeming Love. You see, many Christians cite Redeeming Love as an example that Christian fiction can be edgy. However, after actually reading the book, I personally see the claim as lacking foundation.

I do not seek out books and films on the basis of their "family friendliness." So this book really didn't push any of my envelopes. There is no cursing and all the references are by implication. Yes, much of the story takes place among prostitutes and in brothels. However, if that alone is meant to be edgy, I'm missing something.

In fact, this G-rated axiom leads to some rather awkward moments. Like this one where the protags finally have, um, sexual relations:

When he kissed her, Angel was lost in a wilderness of new sensations. It had never felt like this, warm and wonderful, exciting and right. None of the old rules applied. She forgot everything she had ever learned from other masters. She was dry ground soaking in a spring rain, a flower bud opening to the sun. Michael knew and gently coaxed her with tender words flowing over her like the sweet balm of Gilead healing her wounds. And she flew, Michael with her, into the heavens. (5223)

"She was dry ground soaking in a spring rain"? She was "lost in a wilderness of new sensations"? She "flew" with her husband "into the heavens"? I'm sorry, but this is corny.

I also find it extremely interesting that Redeeming Love was first published in the general market. From the Wikipedia article:

The book was first published in the mainstream market by Bantam books in 1991. Because it was released by general market publisher, the book did not hold completely explicit Christian content, such as the baptismal scene in the book and Angel's Christian conversion; however, when the book went out of print several years later, Rivers got the rights back to her book and made the additions to the novel. The novel was re-released by Multnomah Publishers in 1997.

Think about this: The book that is considered by many as the "gold standard" for Christian Romance was not first published as Christian Romance.

I find that fascinating. Don't you?

The question I would pose to fans of CBA fiction, particularly CBA Romance, is what this fact says about the book and about the CBA, if anything? Could a book like Redeeming Love be published today in the CBA by a first-time author? Was the book's ABA success necessary for its CBA acquisition? These are just a few questions that went through my mind.

But back to the book.

The strength of the story, in my opinion, is its redemptive arc and its parabolic whimsy. At times I felt like this was less a romance novel and more of a contemporary fable. The author has captured, however crudely, the essence of the Gospel of Grace. Angel, the orphaned girl turned prostitute, exemplifies the sinful wreckage of humanity, our wanderlust, our hardness of heart. And Michael, however one-dimensional he appears, reminds us of the Eternal God who will not rest in drawing us to Himself. It is a powerful, powerful theme. After spending time with this book, and mulling its popularity, I can reach no other conclusion but that its enduring quality lies in its alignment with this profound biblical reality: God loves sinners. Amen and amen.

I've taken a risk in reviewing this book, and I'm sure I'll incur some wrath for it. I would probably give Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers three out of five stars. While I sincerely hope this isn't "the best Christian Romance novel" out there, I believe Ms. Rivers captures something that is essential to good Christian fiction — a portrayal of the hellish depths of human depravity and the vast, unrelenting scope of God's love. And for this, I applaud her.

The New Demographic: Christians Who Don't Like Christian Fiction

My website traffic has tripled in one year. Barring personal or worldwide Armageddon, this month alone, 10,000 Unique Visitors will view deCOMPOSE, all the while inching my way toward a quarter million visitors since Oct. 2005. Humbling, scary, and a bit mystifying.

Apparently, this experiment is working.

But what is working? Some may attribute this growth to tenure, "You've just stuck with it." Others will attribute it to having a great agent or having a book out. Still others will suggest a bump from social networking. And I admit, all those things are probably in the mix.

However, I'd like to think I'm mining a "new demographic." Okay, maybe they're not new. They've just gone unrecognized for so long.

"Faith" and "Composition" are two of my favorite subjects to blog about, especially when they're conjoined. Which is why I ramble on about Christian fiction and related subject matter. It's lost me some readers. But I wonder if it hasn't gained me a few as well. As much as some dislike my critique of the industry, there appears to be legitimate interest in wrestling with issues that relate to Christian fiction.  This is the "new demographic" I'm referring to.

There seems to be a lot more readers who like stories with "faith" elements than CBA (Christian Booksellers Association) publishers are currently reaching.

Many Christian readers just don't seem to like most Christian fiction — at least, what is currently being published as "Christian fiction." I talk to them all the time. This doesn't mean they don't like faith-driven stories and desire a Christian worldview therein, they just don't like the type of faith that drives most Christian fiction stories. Or the types of stories marketed as "faith-driven." Or the quality of writing, the limitation of subject matter, the genre tilt, the… whatever. Either way, the CBA seems to target a small demographic of Christian readers.

Perhaps this is simply a lesson about finding your audience. I don't know. But not a few of those readers appear to frequent this site. I'm just wondering when Christian publishers will recognize this new demographic?

Do "Christian Books" Require More or Less Discernment?

Admittedly, many of those who read Christian fiction do so to escape the world, rather than engage it; they read Christian fiction to bolster, reinforce, and corroborate their worldview, not challenge it. Which leads me to ask, do Christians read Christian books to sharpen their discernment or to give it a rest?

This question assumes that Christians are supposed to value and cultivate discernment. The writer of the Book of Hebrews describes a "mature" Christian as  someone who has "their senses trained to discern good and evil" (5:14). The idea is that good and evil are not always distinguishable. Even "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14), so Christians should be "trained" to look beneath the veneer. False doctrine, evil, idolatry, and deceit are often wrapped in inconspicuous garb.

Question: Do those who read Christian fiction do so to strengthen their discernment or avoid having to use it?

From my perspective, most avid Christian fiction readers believe they need MORE discernment when they read ABA books than when they read CBA books. The "Christian" label is equivalent to a religious "USDA Approved" stamp. No bad beef here! However, let me suggest that it is easier to spot false doctrine in ABA rather than in CBA books.

Let me give you an example. In Christian Romance Novels: Are They Our Harmless Little Secret? author Susan Verstraete asks five questions of the readers of Christian romance novels. This is one of them:

Does it teach idolatry? I know that sounds harsh, but hear me out. If the heroine in your novels is always saved by a lover, that's a false redemption. Christ is our Redeemer, and God is our ever-present help in time of trouble. Our hope is in Christ, not in Prince Charming. No mere man can fix all our problems. Accepting this idolatrous view of romantic relationships will cause you to place pressures on your husband that will end in deep disappointment, if not disaster. Only Jesus can be your Savior.

I think Ms. Verstraete's point has a much larger application than simply Christian Romance. Could it be that what we've come to call Christian fiction is seeded with images, ideas, expectations, and caricatures that are subtly, yet entirely, unbiblical?

Perhaps one of the most common expectations of inspirational fiction is that it contains "redemptive themes." But what does that mean and how does it jive with the Bible's concept of redemption? Have we come to see "redemptive themes" as simply happy endings? Good triumphs over evil. Boy-gets-girl. Down-and-outer becomes up-and-comer. Love wins. Do these expectations conjure a biblical worldview? All that to say, is it possible we've come to portray an entirely biblical theme (redemption), in terms of shallow, feel-good, tidiness?

Secondly, the best vehicle for infiltrating the Christian worldview would not be from secular books but from "spiritual" books. If it's true that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, then wouldn't he be better off appearing handsome, clean shaven, moralistic, church-going, and driving a buggy? Isn't it possible that our notion that we need LESS discernment to read Christian books… devilish?

Reading ABA fiction, for me, is no different than going to a mall, watching TV, reading the newspaper, or interacting with my neighbors. Christians must ALWAYS be discerning. The notion that we don't need to be as discerning when reading "Christian" fiction may be the most dangerous of all assumptions.

* * *

Question:  Do Christians sacrifice discernment by choosing to read only "Christian" books? Do Christian need less, more, or equal amounts of discernment when reading Christian books? Do you agree that one of the best vehicles for infiltrating Christian readers would be Christian books?

Does Traditional Publishing Validate an Author?

Last week, Rachelle Gardner asked her readers this question: Why are you pursuing traditional publishing? While self-publishing gets a lot of press these days, I found it refreshing to hear authors champion traditional publishing. And boy did they fill it up! At this writing, Rachelle's post has 200+ comments, most extolling the virtues of traditional publishing.

In perusing those comments, one of the most common reasons authors gave for seeking traditional publishing was validation.

Mary: "I want the validation from trained professionals that what I write is good."

Heather: "I want validation. I want someone other than myself, my writing mentor, my crit partners saying, 'This is good!' All those people have some kind of personal investment in me. I want to hear from a totally non-biased professional."

Marla: "I want the validation of a traditional publisher. Someone thought my book was awesome enough to invest thousands of dollars in."

Jessie: "For me, it has to do with validation. I have a story that I believe should be told. I want someone else to believe that too. Someone who will believe in it so much they will fight for it."

Amy: "I want the validation. To know that someone besides my husband and my mom thinks I should write books."

While I agree with many of these sentiments, there's a big fat caveat to the "traditional publishing for validation" credo. You see, even though I value traditional publishing, pursued it, and feel validated by it, seeking validation from traditional publishing can be a dangerous thing.

A writer's self-worth, motivation, professionalism, work ethic, and craft, should not require recognition from peers or professionals.

I am not saying we shouldn't seek professional validation and celebrate its acquisition. I'm saying, If you require professional validation in order to continue writing, then you should stop right now.

Writers can be extremely insecure people. Having your book published only compounds that insecurity. Readers will now begin to scrutinize you, your story, and your talent in ways you never imagined. Are you really ready for this? If a writer lacks confidence and personal self-worth, traditional publishing will only intensify their insecurities. Just wait till your editor requests rewrites and the bad reviews start rolling in. It's the equivalent of a literary strip search. No amount of external validity can make up for internal fragility. The writer with self-esteem, inferiority issues, cannot be cured by traditional publishing.

Validation should work on another level, a professional level rather than a personal level. The writer who seeks traditional publishing as a means to bolster their self-worth is asking for trouble. Instead, we should approach publishing as an affirmation of what we already know.

The validation one gets from traditional publishing is best spent on authors who don't require such validation. In other words, they are self-starters, hard workers, attentive to detail, humble, receptive to critique, determined, resilient, flexible, and pretty damn sure they are a good writer, whether or not the establishment says so.  

Yes, external validation is important for an author. However, internal motivation will sustain an author long after the accolades wane.

* * *

Question: Do you agree that a writer's self-worth and motivation should NOT require recognition from peers and professionals? In what ways can traditional publishing make a writer's insecurities even worse? What's the difference between "professional validation" and "personal validation"?

The Tortoise, the Hare, and the Author

My first novel took me maybe a year-and-a half from conception to completion, and the process, while grueling, was relatively smooth. One thing that aided that process, frankly, was having rotator cuff surgery about midway through. Three-and-a-half months off work sitting in front of the computer does wonders for one's productivity. And pant size.

All that to say, my second novel has been considerably more difficult.

This weekend I will officially finish my second novel. Of course, edits are to follow. But for now, the bulk of the work is done. And let me tell you, book two was far more difficult than book one. I plotted it. Researched. Re-plotted. Re-researched. Added POV's. Removed POV's. Re-plotted. Wrote over 50,000 words. Scrapped about half of them. Shelved it for a couple months. Finished some short stories. Re-evaluated my writing goals. Un-shelved it. Re-plotted it. Tweaked some characters. And basically wracked my brain and doubted myself the whole time.

So it's a huge accomplishment to finally wrap this project up. And I feel like I've learned some things along the way. Mainly about myself.

You see, I have a fondness for prose. Sometimes I allow prose to supersede productivity, which means I'm after better not more. This could be a problem, especially when your publisher just wants… more. In other words, niggling over nouns and verbs can really slow a project down. (Which makes me wonder if a career novelist who's a nitpicker is inevitably a nutcase.) Writing, for me, can easily become tedium. Spending hours over a single page, pining for that ethereal, "just right" vibe. Only to realize the sun is setting on my near-perfect… half page.

Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. Building Romans takes even longer.

But between my schedule and my obsession with perfection, it would take me decades to pull off something that meets my perfectionist standards. Really. It's a treadmill that never rests. However, I don't have decades and I'm beginning to wonder if my self-imposed treadmill is getting me any closer to a finish line.

Okay. Maybe it's possible to aim for more AND better. I dunno. All I know is that, at the moment, if I'm going to grow as a career novelist, I simply must sacrifice some of the better for the more. Or to put it another way, I need to lighten up on the perfectionism. Yes, the tortoise will cross the finish line. However, today's publishing industry is looking for hares.

The Myopic Christian Reader

my·o·pi·a  (m-p-)n.

1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred; nearsightedness. Also called short sight.

2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

It is startling how many Christians read only Christian literature. Their defense for this discipline is varied but it usually goes something like this: "The world tears us down and glorifies evil. Christians are called to be separate from the world, discerning, to renew their minds and focus on the things of God. Therefore, reading literature that glorifies God and reinforces a Christian worldview is essential for a believer."

There's a lot of truth to this. And some potential deception.

Prolific blogger Tim Challies recently posted some reasons Why Christians Should Read in the Mainstream. His entire post is worth reading. Here's a snippet from the intro:

Christians read a lot of books. This is a good thing. Christians read a lot of Christian books. This is another good thing. But it's also an easy thing, a safe thing. Though I am glad to see many Christians reading many books, I believe there is value in reading not only deeply but also widely. And this means that Christians should read more than just Christian books—we should read books that are in the cultural mainstream. (emphasis mine)

From my experience, most avid readers of Christian fiction are out of touch with the cultural mainstream. They can cite chapter of verse of the best CBA offerings, while casting a wan, if not suspicious, eye upon the NYT Bestseller list. Their literary world is more like a bunker than a bustling marketplace.

If this is true — that many believers subscribe to a "Christian only" dictum regarding cultural artifacts — there are many possible reasons for it.  I've come to believe that much of our reaction comes down to Challies' second point: Cultural Engagement.

If you want to understand the people around you, why they are the way they are, what influences them, why they make the decisions they do, you will do well to read the books they read. These books explain the ideas; the people live the ideas.

Frankly, I'm not sure that "understanding the people around us" is the primary motivation for why most Christians read. In my opinion, the average Christian fiction reader chooses stories not to engage culture, but to distance themselves from it. We seek books that will bolster our worldview, not challenge it, books that will help us escape the world, rather than engage it.

James Sire, in his fantastic book Discipleship of the Mind, said this about reading mainstream literature:

The best literature makes us feel what it would be like to hold other views of the world. It helps us get inside mindsets very different from our own.

But if you think about it, this is the precise reason why defenders of a "Christian only" model resist reading widely. They want to avoid "get[ting] inside mindsets very different from [their] own." In fact, they believe that engaging other mindsets may taint theirs.

At the heart of this "Christian only" phenomenon is a flawed view of what it means to be "in the world but not of it." Those who read only Christian literature inevitably develop a skewed perspective, not just of the world, but of God's desire for His children in it.

It makes me wonder whether or not what we call discernment is really myopia.

Your thoughts?