Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 79

Are we on the verge of a second Civil War?

For a while now I have watched our country ripping itself
apart politically and socially. It’s not the first time this has happened.

In the late 1960s when I was a college student I witnessed leftist students opposed to the war in Vietnam burn down the student union building on the campus of the University of Kansas.

[image error]Death at Kent State, 1970

I was in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention when street
fighting erupted between the police and demonstrators. I remember Kent State
University on May 4, 1970 when 28 Ohio National Guardsmen fired 67 rounds at
students protesting the war in Cambodia, killing four of them and wounding nine
others.

During a period of less than four months in the summer and
fall of 1969, eight bombings by the socialist-inspired Weather Underground and
the Red Army Faction rocked major institutions in New York City. Both groups
had the mistaken belief that they could bomb ideologies they opposed out of
existence.

According to FBI statistics, the United States experienced
more than 2,500 domestic bombings in just 18 months in 1971 and 1972. I
remember some of them well. I covered them as reporter for the Chicago Tribune. The groups behind these
attacks included the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army, the Symbionese
Liberation Army, the New World Liberation Front, the FALN, the “Family,” and
the United Freedom Front.

What does any of that have to do with what’s going on in our
country today? At first glance, not much. Nobody is protesting the war in
Afghanistan the way the war in Vietnam was opposed.

Yet, here we are on the verge of a new Civil War in which some misguided nuts want to obliterate our capitalist republic and replace it with a half-baked system of socialism. Never mind that socialism has failed everywhere in the world it has been tried.

Instead of the egalitarian utopias that socialism promises, it has oppressed workers, wiped out individual incentives and freedom, and guaranteed that the ruling hierarchies thrive like drones in a bee hive populated with obedient worker bees.

As this is happening, those on the right are girding
themselves for what they see as a war to protect the constitutionally protected
rights that millions of Americans have fought and died for since the 18th
Century.

They see politically correct speech constantly eroding the
First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

They see the persistent wearing away of the Second
Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms against an omnipotent and
possibly tyrannical central government. It’s no secret that socialist-leaning
Democrats prefer a strong, Washington-based central government.

[image error]The face of the Democrat-Socialist Party

They hear the chants for a unrealistic Green New Deal, a
guaranteed wage for everybody—even for those unwilling to work, free college
educations, the end of cows, mandated single-payer government-run health care,
and the murder of newly-born infants—otherwise known as infanticide.

We even have Democrat Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez promising to provide progressive activists with an “enemies” list
of moderate Democrats who dare to work across the aisle with Republicans.

So, are we on the verge of a second Civil War? Will we
repeat the violence that almost destroyed our country between 1861 and 1865
when some 650,000 Americans died?

The political and societal signs are there as identity
politics is turning us into a nation of competing tribes. Only the violence is
missing. But it may not be far away.

Below I am reposting a fascinating article by Jeff Lukens, a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, a non-profit coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets.

At the end of Lukens’ piece is a link to a short talk Michelle Malkin gave at the recent CPAC convention in National Harbor, MD.  Click on it. You won’t be disappointed.

Read on . . . .

Is a Second Civil War Coming?

By Jeff Lukens

Civil wars are horrendous and bloody affairs. That’s why we
should avoid them.  They happen when two sides cannot settle on who
runs the country.  When they can’t reconcile the matter through
elections, the country falls apart.  When one side does not accept
the election results, we have a countdown to a civil war. 

Does the fact that Democrats are rejecting a duly elected
Republican president really mean they don’t accept the results of any election
they don’t win?  If so, we may be already nearing America’s Second
Civil War.

It is no secret that Democrats and Republicans are more
ideologically divided than in recent years.  Parts of the country
detest the other parts.  Coastal elites dislike flyover
country.  The blue states despise the red states, and vice
versa. 

We may now be near a point comparable to
1860.  Modern Democrats hate President Trump as much as the Democrats
of old hated President Lincoln.  Democrats repudiated Lincoln for
opposing slavery, and modern Democratic leaders are repudiating Lincoln’s
belief that the government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.  Then
as now, Democrats are on the wrong side of history.

[image error]

The average conservative and the average liberal disagree on
the vast majority of the issues, and in the few cases where they can agree,
each won’t support the other out of sheer tribalism for his side.  Since
Democrats can’t win the argument with reason and facts, they try to intimidate
us into silence.  While Trump is their focus, we should know that the
loathing is really against normal everyday Americans.

The Constitution plays a central role in the
disagreement.  On the right are those who believe in its use as a
restraint on government that can be altered only by a broad consensus through
the amendment process.  Conservatives believe that natural rights are
created by God and that government cannot invent or alter them.

On the Left are those who believe in the living
Constitution.  This is a notion that the document is outdated and
should change easily.  The main method for doing this would be
judicial rulings bypassing Congress and the voters.  Basically, they
just make it up as they go along. 

The Left’s reach is broad.  Leftists have been
able to take over schools and indoctrinate our young people.  They
have taken over nearly all the news and entertainment media.  The
conservative side, conversely, has lost in these areas because it never fights
back with the ruthlessness of the Left. 

Lawlessness is now reaching across the United States, which the news almost totally ignores.  The same networks that spent two years with wall-to-wall coverage to push the Russia collusion hoax are now refusing to report the documented attempt to remove our duly elected president by means of a Deep State silent coup.

[image error]

The Left overwhelms the courts with legal actions designed
to bog them down so that nothing conservative can be accomplished by
Trump.  Democrats will concede nothing without a
confrontation.  Lefty goons clash and threaten aggression with open
immunity.  They shout down speakers at colleges; they block airports,
bridges, and highways.  They take over college buildings, offices,
and state capitals, and they terrorize individuals in their
homes.  Not only does their violence succeed, but they succeed just
by threatening violence. 

Democrats threaten the peace by advocating programs intended
to deny the rights of average people to speak and worship freely and to defend
themselves.  Never mind that millions of Americans are ready to
hazard life and limb to preserve these rights.  Moreover, many of
them vowed to do so when they served in the armed forces.  When push
comes to shove, they will not shy away from defending their families, their
homes, their values, and their country. 

While leftist liken their behavior to combating tyranny,
they are actually combating anyone with whom they disagree.  While
their socialist agenda is losing ground with average Americans, leftists are
doubling down, assaulting verbally, and sometimes physically, anyone who
opposes them. 

Ask yourself, why are liberals always angry?  Why
are they so vulgar?  Why do they slander and push fake labels like
racist, sexist, and homophobic?  Why do they engage in
“emotional outbursts” when challenged?  Why are they
violent?

The answer is that when they don’t have facts to support
their arguments, they must resort to intimidation.  The narrative is
designed to keep people in a constant state of fear, thereby forcing rage and
violence.  They want us divided by race, class, religion, political
affiliation, and more. 

All they care about is control, and they will do anything to
hold on to it.  They want to keep people poor and in need of government
assistance.  The bigger the government, the more power leftists
possess.  When we are in need, we are weak.  Divided, we
are weak.  When we are weak, we do not fight back.  When we
are united, strong, and independent, we think for ourselves and challenge what
we are told to believe. 

This is a dangerous time.  Americans in 1859 had no idea of the cataclysm that lay ahead for them just a few years later.  Nothing is certain, and hopefully we will avoid a similar disaster.  We may have differences, but America is profoundly good and needs only sensible corrections that reasonable people can agree upon.  We hope and pray that our differences do not escalate into a Second Civil War.

h

The Lost Years of Billy Battles’ an “Official Selection” for New Apple Literary Awards

I’m sharing a little good news today. ‘The Lost Years of Billy Battles‘ has been named an “Official Selection” in the HISTORICAL FICTION category of the Fifth Annual New Apple Literary Awards.

The Lost Years of Billy Battles is the final book in the award-winning Finding Billy Battles Trilogy. It was published in June 2018.

It is also a finalist for a Goethe Award from Chanticleer International Book Awards (CIBAs). The Goethe Award is presented to winning books in the Post-1750s Historical Fiction category.

[image error]

Here is a short blurb about the book along with a few reviews:

As Book Three of the Finding Billy Battles trilogy begins it is 1914 and Billy is in Chicago with his wife, the former Baroness Katharina von Schreiber living a sedate and comfortable life after years of adventure and tragedy. That changes with a single telephone call that yanks Billy and Katharina back into a life of havoc and peril.

Persuaded by a powerful old friend to go undercover for the U.S. government the two find themselves in Mexico during the height of the violent 1910-1920 revolution. There they grapple with an assortment of German spies, Mexican revolutionaries, devious political operatives, and other malefactors.

[image error]

Subsequently, tragedy strikes and
Billy vanishes leaving family and friends to wonder what happened to him. Where
is he? Is he dead or alive? What provoked his decades-long disappearance? In The Lost Years of Billy Battles, those
questions are answered, and the mystery behind Billy’s inexplicable
disappearance is ultimately revealed.

Recent Reviews:

“A rewarding and eloquent ending to an epic adventure and well-lived life. This final account of Billy Battles does not disappoint.” Carrie Meehan, – Chanticleer Reviews

“This is the third book of the Finding Billy Battles Trilogy, and what a book it is. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire series. It kept me thinking about the storyline even when I was not actively reading. I suffered a huge letdown when the story ended because I was very engaged with the story and wanted to read more. The characters are very easy to get to know and to become attached to. Their adventures provide a great history lesson. Prior to reading the series, for instance, I was totally unaware of the US involvement in the Philippines and the ‘invasion’ of Veracruz. I am wondering and hoping that there will be a follow-on book. Gwen Plano, Author of Letting Go Into Perfect Love.

The Lost Years of Billy Battles concludes the ‘Finding Billy Battles’ trilogy with an exploration of years of kidnapping, deception, political intrigue, and adversity in the early 1900s. Billy’s story and his globe-hopping adventures, narrated in a series of candid, engrossing descriptions, will lead any newcomer to look for the other books in the trilogy while providing prior fans with a satisfying, gripping conclusion to the saga of Billy’s life and its many unexpected turns. One pleasure of this book (and the series as a whole) is that Yates doesn’t just tell Billy’s story. He recreates Billy’s voice and perspective to craft a saga that is thoroughly engrossing and vivid: “You would think when a man entered the sixth decade of his life that he would be settled and reasonably contented. I thought I was that man. I was wrong.” Its chatty, homespun narrator’s voice cements events with an original perspective often tempered with a dose of humor: “I didn’t know it at the time, but, as my mother used to say, I was about to go up Fool’s Hill on the slippery side.”  Diane Donovan, Senior Reviewer, Midwest Book Review

“This well-written conclusion to the Billy Battles Trilogy is its crown jewel. The characters are so vivid and compelling it’s hard to believe that this is a work of fiction. Astounding imagery puts you right in the thick of things. In more ways than I can count, this book is a masterpiece.” Marcha Fox, author of the Star Trails Tetralogy Series.

“Ron Yates is a master of
historical fiction. The Lost Years of Billy Battles is an epic finale to an
incredible lifetime.”  Scott Skipper, best-selling author of Artifact and many other titles.

“Exclamations all OVER the place about this wonderful trilogy! Why does a trilogy only have three books! I was absolutely heartbroken to see Billy Battles’ story end. I loved all three of Ronald Yates’ books. His prose is exquisite. He transports the reader to so many different times and places; it’s a cliche, but you really do feel as though you are there in all these distant places with the characters. The characters will stay with me always, especially Billy. The books in this trilogy are epic and absorbing. They are all page-turners. I never wanted any of them to end. Heidi Mastrogiovanni, screenwriter and author of Lala Pettibone’s Act Two & Lala Pettibone, Standing Room Only.

 “A perfect finish to a masterful series
expertly written and researched as only award-winning author Ron Yates could
do. The characters were terrific!” John
Howell, author of Circumstances of
Childhood.

Dumb People in Congress

Today, I am reposting a recent article by author and actor Michael Knowles, who also hosts the Daily Wire’s The Michael Knowles Show.

In his article, Knowles discusses how sadly ill-informed American Millennials are when it comes to such critical topics as economics, socialism, capitalism, and America’s system of representative government, otherwise known as a Republic.

The ignoramus leading the harebrained charge of the grossly oblivious is Democrat freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York. AOC, as she is now referred to, apparently slept through all of her college classes on economics, civics, and the history of such homicidal socialist despots as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceasusescu.

[image error]

Otherwise, it defies logic to understand how Ocasio-Cortez can propose such loopy ideas as the Green New Deal and her foolish opposition to Amazon’s proposal to open a second headquarters in Long Island City, Queens. Because of the hostility of AOC and a few other fatuous socialists, Amazon backed out of an agreement that would have created 25,000 to 40,000 badly needed jobs and, according to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, would have added some $27.5 billion to city and state coffers over a 25 year period.

One can only hope that once AOC’s naïve fanaticism wears thin on the more rational and moderate members of the Democrat Party that she will be consigned to America’s growing scrapheap of like-minded crackbrains.

Here then is Knowles’ commentary. Enjoy it or weep. The choice is yours.

By Michael Knowles

The majority of American Millennials identify as socialist, according to surveys by both Reason-Rupe and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. That’s the bad news. The good news is that just 32 percent of Millennials can define socialism.

The
frequently-wrong but never-in-doubt freshman Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., may indeed be the voice of her ignorant generation.

During
an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Anderson Cooper asked Ocasio-Cortez, “When people hear the word socialism, they
think Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela. Is that what you have in mind?” He
neglected to mention the vicious socialist regimes of Cambodia, Ethiopia,
Poland, Romania, North Korea, and China, among others.

Ocasio-Cortez retorted, “Of course not. What we have in mind—and what of my—and my policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden.” In fact, her economic proposals bear little resemblance to British and Nordic public policy.

[image error]Ocasio-Cortez

As early as the 1950s,
Britain began to privatize its social security and pension programs. By the
1990s, as decades of socialism caused economic growth to stagnate, Sweden
followed suit. Neither Sweden nor Norway mandates a minimum wage, and Britain
demands a minimum wage well below Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed $15 per hour.

Britain and Finland
offer a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, and all the nations
she names have lower rates than her proposal of 28 percent. None has a health
care regime as socialistic as her proposed Medicare-For-All scheme, which
constitutes a full federal takeover of health care.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of economics and foreign affairs typifies her generation. Despite holding expensive degrees in both Economics and International Relations from Boston University, Ocasio-Cortez threw up her hands in exasperation during an interview on Margaret Hoover’s “Firing Line” program, laughing, “I’m not the expert on geopolitics.”

Fortunately for her,
in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king; and among a blithely
ignorant generation, the lightly educated activist is congresswoman.

The seed of Millennial
miseducation, which grew into the Tree of the Lack of Knowledge as activist
educators substituted ideology for scholarship, is finally bearing its rotten
fruit. According to one survey, one third of Millennials believe President
George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.

Over 40 percent of
Millennials have never heard of Mao Zedong; another 40 percent and 30 percent,
respectively, are unfamiliar with Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara. Two-thirds of
Millennials cannot identify Auschwitz, and 22 percent have never heard of the
Holocaust, twice the percentage of American adults on average.

Millennials might not know much, but according to a 2016 Harvard survey, they know they don’t support capitalism, with 51 percent of young adults rejecting economic freedom.

[image error]

During the 2018
midterm elections, the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed 42 candidates
for local, state, and federal office across 20 states. Of those candidates, 24
won their primary campaigns, and 18 won in general elections. Millennials have
largely cheered them on.

Raised in the United
States after the fall of the Berlin Wall, these young Americans have been
sheltered both empirically and academically from the myriad horrors wrought by
socialism throughout history. And so the problem worsens.

Socialism is an
economic disease born of envy and ignorance. Unfortunately both abound in our
present politics. The sickness has found an attractive spokeswoman—perhaps,
sadly, the voice of her generation.

Michael Knowles is an
author, actor, and hosts “The Michael Knowles Show” at the Daily
Wire. Follow him on Twitter @michaeljknowles

America, the angry, miserable, and suicidal

I occasionally post about the threat posed to freedom of speech in the United States by some politicians, academics, and television pundits masquerading as journalists.

That’s my topic today.

As a former journalist, it is a subject that I feel strongly about—especially when I hear people who claim to be journalists insist that there should be some restrictions on speech. To hear a journalist say something like that is akin to a minister or priest revealing that he or she no longer believes in God.

When I left active journalism and became a professor and dean at the University of Illinois, I witnessed disturbing restrictions of free speech on campus in the name of inclusiveness and political correctness. In an ill-advised effort to coddle the habitually offended, “safe spaces” were created where the constantly aggrieved could retreat when they heard a comment they didn’t like or agree with.

In my humble opinion, this is NOT the role of a university. If anything, a university should be a place where ALL ideas can be heard, analyzed, and debated. It should not be a place that censors thought and free expression. Ironically, that’s exactly why the concept of tenure was created. Tenure guaranteed that professors who stated ideas or theories that administrators disagreed with could not be sacked for expressing those ideas and theories.

Sadly, the objective of tenure today has less to do with academic freedom and much more to do with unassailable job security. Too many professors today refuse to allow energetic classroom discussion of ideas they disagree with—a paradoxical twist to the raison d’être of tenure.

Incessant attacks on the Bill of Rights in general and the First & Second Amendments, in particular, should concern every American. These are bedrock freedoms that are the backbone of our Constitution.

[image error]

Americans tend to take these rights for granted and I fear that only when they have lost them because of a misguided obsession with uniformity of accepted political and social thought will they fully understand the depth of their loss. Of course, then it will be too late.

America will have then become a nation that embraces the failed policies of lock-step socialism, rather than a democratic republic that cherishes personal freedom, free enterprise, and individualism. It is disconcerting for me—a former Democrat—to watch the party I grew up with shift so far to the left that now mainstream Democrats are calling for America to embrace socialism.

Socialism is a failed ideology. It strips people of incentive with its “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” philosophy. It gives the government too much control over the lives of its citizens. If you want to live in George Orwell’s “1984” or Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” then, by all means, embrace socialism. I hope I’m not around to witness the destruction of the country I love and served as a soldier.

Today, in America, many people are too quick to condemn opinions and attitudes they disagree with as “hate speech.” In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union says there is no such thing as hate speech—there is only free speech. I don’t always agree with the ACLU, but in this instance, they are correct. The remedy for dealing with so-called hate speech is more free speech. Yet, all we hear today in America is the vicious vilification of those who disagree with us.

Unfounded allegations of racism, bigotry, hate speech, etc. have taken the place of rational discourse and dialog. The result is a nation in which reasonable and cogent debate on such issues as free speech, gun control, illegal immigration, racial equality, border security, etc. is thwarted by biased and impenetrable minds that are bolted shut.

I hate to sound so pessimistic but given the state of intolerance and ill-advised identity politics that is embracing and suffocating our nation today, I am not optimistic about the future. We are currently gripped in the most ominous cycle of malicious personal attacks and malevolent political destruction I have ever seen.

[image error]

Whatever happened to “we can agree to disagree” while we examine one another’s arguments? Instead, those on the other side of an argument are branded bigots, racists, sexists, fanatics, zealots, jingoists, and even criminals.

When you have elected officials calling for the incarceration and even the assassination of the President of the United States, as a state senator from Missouri once did, it tells me our tradition of a loyal opposition is in grave danger.

When we as Americans refuse to listen to opposing ideas or views, I fear our parochialism and narrow-mindedness will drive us down the slippery slope toward annihilation and that will herald the end of one of human-kinds most noble experiments in self-governance and individual freedom.

At that point, the torch America’s iconic Statue of Liberty has held in her right hand since 1886 will be extinguished and the world will have re-entered a new Dark Age.

When that happens, God help us all.

Of course, given our nation’s rampant secularism, its denial of God, and its approved rejection of the sanctity of life, I suspect pleas for God’s help will go ignored.

As the Bible says: You reap what you sow.

 

Interview re Historical Fiction on the New Books Network

The link below will take you to a podcast/radio interview I did a while back with C. P. Lesley of the New Books Network about writing historical fiction. Ms. Lesley is herself the author of six historical fiction novels set in 16th Century Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible.

The interview focuses on the first two books in Finding Billy Battles Trilogy (Finding Billy Battles & The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles) and the challenges of recreating the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[image error]

Here is a part of Ms. Lesley’s introduction:

Journalism, history, biography, memoirs and historical fiction overlap to some degree. The first two focus on provable facts, but the facts must be arranged to form a coherent story, and that requires an element of interpretation, especially in history. Biography and memoirs demand even more of a story arc, although still devoted to a specific person who once lived or still lives.

And historical fiction, although it departs from that fundamental reliance on what can be documented or evidenced by creating imaginary characters or putting words into the heads and mouths of real people, nonetheless relies on creating a “you are there” sense of authenticity that cannot exist without considerable research into how people in a given time and place dressed, talked, ate, traveled, and socialized.

Finding Billy Battles and its sequels, The Improbable Journeys of Billy Battles and the forthcoming The Lost Years of Billy Battles occupy this space between journalism and fiction.

To read more and to listen to the interview, click on the link below to go to New Books Network and the podcast.

I hope you will enjoy the discussion.

http://newbooksnetwork.com/ronald-e-yates-the-improbable-journeys-of-billy-battles-xlibris-2016/

The Pros and Cons of Beta Readers

Today, I am reposting a great article from Belinda Pollard, a writer, editor, writing coach, and former journalist from Down Under. That’s Australia, not that other place where none of us ever want to wind up! Belinda recently posted a survey she conducted about the pros and cons of Beta Readers, also known as “First Readers.” I found it enlightening, and I hope my fellow writers out there will also. A lot of what she learned from her survey are things that I have also experienced. Read on.

By Belinda Pollard

I conducted a survey via my mailing list asking about people’s experiences with beta readers. I received a rush of responses – 50 in the first two hours alone. Thank you all so much for your input! Clearly, many writers think it’s valuable to get manuscript feedback, but also sometimes struggle with the process.

[image error] Belinda Pollard

Beta readers are the superheroes who give us feedback on our draft manuscripts.  People use the term in various ways, which is absolutely fine, but when I use it, I’m referring to a volunteer rather than a paid professional. I call a paid professional an editor, proofreader or writing coach.

I’ve seen feedback, when it’s appropriate and used intelligently, transform not just books but writers, which is why I’ve written a whole book on the topic: Beta Reader Superhero Writer’s Handbook.  (This informal, self-selected survey formed part of my research for the book.)

I’m the Number 1 fan of beta readers, but I’ve also encountered problems in the process myself, and spoken to lots of others about their frustrations. This survey was about diving deeper into the pros and cons to figure out how to make it work better.

The biggest problems

My first survey question was: What is the biggest problem you face with beta readers? I deliberately started with an open-ended question which allowed people to tell me whatever came first to their minds, without any prompting from me, and without them knowing what others might be saying.

Out of 146 responses, there was a surprising (or not-surprising??) number of common themes.

Forty-six people said that their biggest problem was finding the right beta readers – people who were right for the genre, had the necessary skill, could understand the beta reader role and knew what was expected of them.
Forty-four people said they had trouble getting beta readers to return their feedback fast enough, if at all.
Twenty-four people said beta readers were too nice and had trouble giving useful criticism.
Twelve people said they received feedback that had too little detail to be any use.
And seven respondents said people insisted on correcting typos when it was not what they wanted from a beta reader.

I’ve got some possible solutions, but first, let’s look at the rest of the results.

Expectations

I asked what writers most wanted to receive from their beta readers. These graphs show the responses.

[image error]

Fix typos and grammar– most writers saw this as only slightly important or not at all important. If that surprises you, check out this article on why correcting detail is not often the best task for a beta reader.
Tell me if my book doesn’t make sense– the vast majority of writers saw that as very important.
Show me possible solutions to the problems in my book – this was more evenly spread, from slightly important up to very important. These answers might vary according to the confidence of the writer and the insight of the beta reader.
Tell me what they liked about it – this one tilts towards important to very important. I think this element often gets overlooked in detailed critical feedback, and yet those authentic positive statements give the writer courage to persevere with the enormity of the rewrite.
Alert me to wrong information – the majority saw this as very important.
Big picture feedback, e.g., too many characters or events in the wrong order (fiction & memoir), or for non-fiction such things as poor structure, weak arguments, etc. – the writers in my survey overwhelmingly saw this type of feedback as very important.

Bad experiences

I asked the respondents whether they’d had any bad experiences with beta readers. Many of them expanded here on what they’d said in Question 1.

Many of the bad experiences they reported related to getting exceptionally negative feedback from a beta reader, without any sense that the book was redeemable. Some found this crushing. Conversely, some were disappointed that they’d received only positive feedback, but it had been too brief and shallow to be any use. Others told of people fixating on small details and missing the main point, while some referred to arrogance from their beta readers. There were also multiple reports of beta readers being too slow or never submitting any feedback.

Good experiences

Thankfully, the question about whether people had good experiences with beta readers also received plenty of responses. These are some of the things that were mentioned:

Beta readers revealed both strong points and weaknesses, discovering inconsistencies such as names or character details that accidentally changed. They spotted things that weren’t plausible or didn’t make sense, moments that might confuse a reader, and times when the manuscript became boring. They noticed phrases or words that were used too often, helped reduce wordiness, and caught ‘obvious’ problems that the writer hadn’t noticed. Some contributed specialist skills or technical knowledge.
Writers reported beta readers who brought a professional attitude and creativity to the task, who mentioned what they liked about characters, and explained parts of the story that resonated. Their feedback helped writers strengthen the ending.
Writers reported beta readers who were kind, honest, encouraging and generous, who asked intelligent questions and sparked wonderful conversations while presenting criticism in a respectful Some particularly appreciated the opportunity to ask more questions of a beta reader later.
Some writers mentioned beta readers who gave helpful, concrete suggestions on such issues as readability and how to improve the clarity of the author’s voice – without trying to turn it into someone else’s voice.
Beta readers helped writers see their manuscript possibilities, resulting in a better book.
Writers mentioned feedback processes that generated better results after they started giving more detailed briefings to their beta readers (I was particularly thrilled about this – see my suggestions below).

Beta reading for others

The next question asked whether people had done beta reading for other writers. The good news is that most had found the experience rewarding, but there were a few glitches along the way.

Many said they felt honored to be asked, enjoyed being first to read it, and loved helping Many enjoyed offering big-picture feedback, and said it worked best if the writer and beta reader were a good fit, and they liked the book and the genre.
Some preferred not to read manuscripts that were poorly written or still a rough first draft. Some wouldn’t read for random writers, but only for people they knew.
Some declined beta reading because they were time-poor, or the timeframe was too tight. Others were very selective about beta reading opportunities, because of the substantial time commitment. Some felt embarrassed that they were ‘slow’ beta readers.
Some beta readers reported finding the task draining, stressful and harder than they expected. Some felt overwhelmed or even scared.
Some found it a challenge to be helpful without being hurtful, hard to be honest without being discouraging, and feared they probably gave too much detail.
Some were disappointed that the writer didn’t seem to benefit from their input or know how to use it. Some felt frustrated when the author didn’t adopt their suggestions, but others were relaxed about whether or not their suggestions were used.
Some didn’t enjoy the process because their author was offended, and some felt their author just wanted flattery. Others were annoyed when they received no thanks for their feedback.
On the plus side, some said the writer’s appreciation made their task worthwhile. They enjoyed seeing a writer wrestling with how to make a book work and were particularly satisfied to watch a writer they’d helped go on to great things.

There were other benefits, too. Some learned a lot about writing from reading other people’s drafts with a discerning eye. They learned from the way different writers worked and became more aware of their own mistakes and possibilities.

Solutions?

My methods are shaped by my work as a developmental editor over a couple of decades and years of trial and error getting useful beta feedback for my own manuscripts and helping my editing clients get beta feedback for theirs. I try something, observe what worked and didn’t work, and then I test it again.

Let’s look at some brief suggestions for how to solve the main problems listed above, which boil down to three main issues:

Finding the right beta readers.
Getting the right type of feedback.
Getting feedback fast enough.
Finding the right beta readers

I recommend that at least some of your beta readers do not come from random requests. See these resources:

How to find a beta reader
What makes a good beta reader
Chapters 3 and 4 of the Beta Reader Superhero Writer’s Handbook, including how to find specialist beta readers.


Getting the right type of feedback

Choosing the right people is obviously important, but managing our communications with the beta reading team also has a powerful impact on the quality of feedback we receive. Try these resources on approaching and briefing a beta reader:

The initial invitation
Practical details
A sample briefing document
Chapters 6 to 8 of the Beta Reader Superhero Writer’s Handbook.

Managing our response to feedback can also make a huge difference:

Chapter 9 of the Beta Reader Superhero Writer’s Handbook covers how to get the most out of feedback. The right techniques can sometimes turn what seems to be ‘poor feedback’ into surprisingly useful information.


Getting feedback fast enough

Sometimes we’ve chosen people who are too busy or not motivated, BUT sometimes we simply need to communicate effectively about when we want it, and why we want it at that time. Gentle, polite reminders can also make a big difference.

We also need to manage our own expectations. Most of our beta readers have busy lives, and it might take them several of their precious relaxation-days even to read the manuscript (fitting it in around other responsibilities) – let alone think carefully and creatively about their feedback.

Whenever possible, I allow 3 to 6 weeks for my beta readers, and a similar length of time for me to process the feedback, before any publishing deadlines. It’s not always possible – sometimes timelines are tight.

But it’s when I’m doing other things over a period of time that my rewriting strategy gets a chance to mellow and mature in the back cupboard of my brain. So as the years pass and I see more evidence of the cost of rushing the process, I’m fighting more and more for that longer timeframe for both me and my beta readers.

What are your experiences with beta readers? What has worked for you? Scroll down and join the conversation below.

Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing: Annotated

At least once every year I find it useful to take a look at the late Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing. It is sage advice from a master. Every writer should read these rules and remember them. I’m doing my part by posting them here at the beginning of 2019 for your edification and enjoyment. 

I began reading Elmore Leonard’s books before I knew anything about writing or even that I wanted to be a writer. Back then, a lot of his books were westerns filled with gritty characters, compelling stories, and robust, convincing dialogue.

I remember reading Last Stand at Sabre River and Hombre, both of which became successful movies. Later, after Leonard had moved from westerns to crime and suspense stories, I read Mr. Majestyk, The Big Bounce, and the Moonshine War.[image error]

From 2010 to 2015 I watched with great pleasure the TV series “Justified,” based on Leonard’s book “Raylan” and partly written by Leonard. It has run its course, but I encourage you to take a look at the series. I am sure it is available on Netflix. Timothy Oliphant plays Raylan to a “T.”

Elmore Leonard was a writer’s writer. Not only could he spin a great story, but he could also create characters you loved to hate or hated to love and some you simply learned to tolerate because they made the other characters interesting.

If you like reading William Faulkner or Thomas Wolfe, you probably will not like reading Elmore Leonard. As brilliant as those two writers were, their stream-of-conscious narration probably drove Leonard nuts.

Leonard believed the writer should never get in the way of the story. (NOTE: See “Hooptedoodle″ at the end of Leonard’s rules)

I am not sure when Leonard wrote his 10 Rules of Writing, but I found them a few years ago and filed them away.

Some of you may already know those ten rules, but I am betting a lot of you don’t. So let me share them with you today. Read them, consider them and most of all, and try to follow them when you write your books. I think you will be glad you did.

Here they are in Elmore Leonard’s own words:

These are rules I’ve picked up along the way to help me remain invisible when I’m writing a book, to help me show rather than tell what’s taking place in the story. If you have a facility for language and imagery and the sound of your voice pleases you, invisibility is not what you are after, and you can skip the rules. Still, you might look them over.

[image error]        Elmore Leonard

1. Never open a book with weather.

If it’s only to create atmosphere, and not a character’s reaction to the weather, you don’t want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead looking for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways to describe ice and snow than an Eskimo, you can do all the weather reporting you want.

  2. Avoid prologues.

They can be annoying, especially a prologue following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in nonfiction. A prologue in a novel is backstory, and you can drop it in anywhere you want.

There is a prologue in John Steinbeck’s Sweet Thursday, but it’s O.K. because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: “I like a lot of talk in a book and I don’t like to have nobody tell me what the guy that’s talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks . . . Figure out what the guy’s thinking from what he says. I like some description but not too much of that. . . Sometimes I want a book to break loose with a bunch of hooptedoodle. Spin up some pretty words maybe or sing a little song with language. That’s nice. But I wish it was set aside, so I don’t have to read it. I don’t want hooptedoodle to get mixed up with the story.” (NOTE: I already violated that rule in my Finding Billy Battles trilogy. Sorry, Elmore. I won’t do it again.)

      3. Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary. (NOTE: I learned this important rule in journalism school at the University of Kansas. It has served me well.)

     4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said” …

…he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost anyway) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances “full of rape and adverbs.”

     5. Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.

     6. Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose.”

This rule doesn’t require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use “suddenly” tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.

    7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apostrophes, you won’t be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavor of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories Close Range.

     8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

In Ernest Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants, what do the “American and the girl with him” look like? “She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.” That’s the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.

     9. Don’t go into great detail describing places and things.

Unless you’re Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language or write landscapes in the style of Jim Harrison, but even if you’re good at it, you don’t want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill.

And finally:

     10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can’t allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative. I attempt to remain invisible, not distract the reader from the story with obvious writing. (Joseph Conrad said something about words getting in the way of what you want to say.)

If I write in scenes and always from the point of view of a particular character — the one whose view best brings the scene to life — I’m able to concentrate on the voices of the characters telling you who they are and how they feel about what they see and what’s going on, and I’m nowhere in sight.

What Steinbeck did in Sweet Thursday was title his chapters as an indication, though obscure, of what they cover. “Whom the Gods Love They Drive Nuts” is one, “Lousy Wednesday” another.

The third chapter is titled “Hooptedoodle 1″ and the 38th chapter “Hooptedoodle 2″ as warnings to the reader as if Steinbeck is saying: “Here’s where you’ll see me taking flights of fancy with my writing, and it won’t get in the way of the story. Skip them if you want.”

Sweet Thursday came out in 1954 when I was just beginning to be published, and I’ve never forgotten that prologue.

Did I read the hooptedoodle chapters? Every word.

And there you have it: Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing. They are well worth remembering and following. Of course, there are some who believe there are no rules when it comes to writing. I don’t believe Leonard himself felt his ten rules were inviolable. To me, they seem like common sense–especially when it comes to avoiding the dissemination of hooptedoodle.

 

 

An Idea for Marketing your Books via Book Excellence Awards

If you are struggling to market your book, then you are not alone. There are more than one million books published each year, and 80% of these books sell fewer than 100 copies. All authors, at some point in their career, have faced the challenge of getting attention, making sales and standing out from the competition.

If you can relate to this, what are you supposed to do?

Well, the answer lies in strategic marketing, because you can’t sell a book if no one’s heard of it.

One of the best ways to strategically market your book is by entering a book award competition. Book awards demonstrate that an author is credible and provide third-party verification of the quality of a book. I have entered several and have been fortunate to have won a few awards.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post. I want to introduce my followers to an international book awards competition called the Book Excellence Awards, where I was an award winner. More than just an awards competition, the Book Excellence Awards provides understanding on how to navigate the book marketing world to help you make a big impact with minimal time and effort.

[image error]

Six Grand Prize winners receive more than USD 30,000.00 in prizes that are designed to help skyrocket visibility and book sales. All winners and finalists receive a prize package worth thousands of dollars. Also, just for applying to the Book Excellence Awards, you will receive a book marketing course valued at $500. So, there’s no risk. When you apply, you can start learning to market your book effectively.

[image error]

Reviews of the Book Excellence Awards have been positive. Previous winners and finalists have doubled their book sales, garnered attention from film producers, received distribution in bookstores and increased their visibility and media attention.

Additionally, authors who have won awards are often featured in the national media. They’ve been invited to speak at conferences including TEDx and Talks at Google. Some are Amazon and USA Today best-sellers.

[image error]

The Book Excellence Awards can help you succeed with your writing and publishing journey, with results and benefits that last a lifetime.

To learn more, visit: https://bookexcellenceawards.co/Book-Excellence-Awards-Application-p116611189?afmc=1v

What have you got to lose?

Full Disclosure: As a Book Excellence Awards Winner, I recently became an independent Book Excellence Awards Partner.  I am NOT an employee. As such, I receive referral payments from Book Excellence Awards. Also, the opinions expressed here are my own, and not official statements of the Book Excellence Awards.

 

Meet Mary Adler, #RRBC Spotlight Author for January

Today, ForeignCorrespondent is pleased to host author Mary Adler, who is the Rave Reviews Book Club’s first SPOTLIGHT AUTHOR of 2019. You can find the link to her entire tour, which began on Sunday, January 13, at https://ravereviewsbynonniejules.wordpress.com/spotlight-authors/

Mary is sharing an excerpt from her exciting mystery debut novel, In the Shadow of Lies: An Oliver Wright WWII Mystery. Book Two in the award-winning mystery series is entitled: Shadowed by Death. Both are available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07JD526JT?ref=series_rw_dp_labf

Take look!

YOU CAN GO HOME AGAIN

PART TWO

In You Can Go Home Again, Part One, I wrote about how my writing allows me to spend time with people and places I have loved that are now gone.  The following passage from In the Shadow of Lies: An Oliver Wright WWII Mystery involves Lucy Forgione—more than loosely patterned on my grandmother—and her friend Edna Hermit, her best friend in real life.  Dom tried to kill Lucy’s nephew Steve and blame it on Nate, Mrs. Hermit’s son. Maurizio, the man known to be hiding Dom has just come into the Cafe Avellino.

[image error]

 

Lucy heard a familiar voice and peeked around the door. Maurizio was flirting with the counter girl while she made sandwiches for him.

            Lucy whispered to Mrs. Hermit.

            “He’s the one hiding Dom. We need to get help, tell someone he’s here.” She tried calling her nephew again. Still busy. She wished Nate were there.

            The bell over the door rang. Maurizio crossed the street and got into a green coupe. Dom looked out the passenger window.

            “Come on, Edna. We have to follow them.”

            “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but why don’t we call the police?”

            “Because he’ll get away!” She grabbed Edna’s arm. “Can you drive?”

            “Drive what?”

            “There. The chicken man’s truck. The motor’s running and I don’t see him.”

            “I drove the truck on the farm when I was young.”

            “Then get in, and let’s go.”

            “Lucy, we can’t.”

            “Dom hurt my nephew and your son was blamed.”

            Edna needed no more urging. Lucy struggled to pull herself into the truck, and Edna jumped into the driver’s seat. She pressed the clutch and ground through the gears until she found first. They hopped through the alley and turned left after the green coupe. It was several cars ahead of them, stopped by the wigwag at the railroad crossing where a long freight train lumbered out to the bay.

            Edna had the driving fundamentals down, but no practice. Lucy had to give her credit—she only stalled once. They rolled down the windows and listened to the chickens cackling behind them. Soon they were crawling up MacDonald.

            “I think I’m getting the hang of it.”

            Lucy’s feet didn’t touch the floor. She bounced in her seat, grabbed at the dash, the door, anything to keep her balance. When they stopped at a light, a man grabbed a crate of chickens and ran. She wagged her hand in the air.

            “Madonna. Now I owe the chicken man for a crate of chickens.”

            “And that highway robber didn’t give you any coupons for them!”

            They laughed, perhaps a bit hysterically, as what they were doing sunk in.

            “We stole a truck and we don’t know how many chickens.”

            “We didn’t steal them, Edna. We’re taking them for a ride.”

            Traffic began to clear. Soon they were only two cars behind.

            “Dom knows you, Lucy. Get out of sight!”

            Slimy produce and God knew what else littered the floor.  “I’m not going down there.” Lucy snatched a bandanna from the rearview mirror and tied it over her head. She would wash her hair when she got home. More than once. “He knows you, too.”

            “He won’t recognize me.” Edna winked at her. “We all look alike.”

            The coupé climbed into the hills, and Edna struggled to hang back without stalling the truck. The car pulled onto a dirt lot. Lucy turned her back to the window as they passed the men and drove around the bend. The truck stuttered.

            “Edna, what are you doing?”

            “It’s not me. I think the truck is running out of gas.”

            With that, the truck stopped. Edna tried the ignition; it ground but wouldn’t start.

            “We need a phone.” She jumped out of the truck and gave Lucy a hand down.

            Lucy looked into the back.  “I think the chickens are cold and want to go to sleep.”

            They found a tarp in the truck and pulled it over the crates, Lucy hopping up and down to reach her side. She hushed the chickens. “Shh. Go to sleep. You should be happy you went for a ride in the fresh air. You could be in someone’s oven.”

            “What now?”

            “We have to call Harry. Tell him where Dom is.”

            Edna pointed at The Grand Canyon Chateau sitting like a dowager aunt on the hill above them. “I heard they’re closed for remodeling.”

            “Let’s hope their phone is still in order.” Lucy smoothed down her dress. “You stay and watch in case another car comes.  I’ll go find the phone.”

            “I should come with you.”

            “No. Keep watch. If a car comes, you can get its license number.”

            She climbed the road to the chateau, now respectable after its rowdy past as a speakeasy. No one was there, and the door was locked. Paint buckets and ladders littered the porch. She hoped she wouldn’t have to use one to get to an open window on the second floor. She walked around the building and tried the windows until one slid upward. Luckily, the sill was only a foot above the porch floor. She crossed herself, hiked up her skirt, and climbed in.

[image error]

 

Follow Mary online:

Twitter – @MAAdlerwrites

Facebook – https://maryadlerwrites.com/

Author Bio:

Mary Adler was an attorney and dean at CWRU School of Medicine. She escaped the ivory tower for the much gentler world of World War II and the adventures of homicide detective Oliver Wright and his German shepherd, Harley. She lives with her family in Sebastopol, California, where she creates garden habitats for birds and bees and butterflies. She is active in dog rescue and does canine scent work with her brilliant dogs — the brains of the team — and loves all things Italian.

 

What if Readers Hate Your Characters?

Do readers like the characters you create? Do they have redeeming qualities even if they do terrible things? Do readers “bond” with your characters? Are they sympathetic or pathetic? What makes a “likable” character? Today, I am reposting commentary from author and writing coach Marylee MacDonald. In her always enlightening comments on writing, she raises those questions and provides some revealing answers. Read on. You will not be disappointed.

What The Heck Are Likable Characters?

by Marylee MacDonald

Have you heard the term “likable characters” tossed around in your book group or circle of writing friends? If you’ve been in the writing biz any length of time, you may have even received e-mails from agents: “I didn’t find the protagonist likable” or “I just didn’t fall in love with your character.”

Fifteen or twenty years ago, I’d never heard the term “likable characters”. Then I began hearing it, and hearing it more often as my friends and I tried to find agents.

For a long time I struggled to discern the meaning of “likable characters.” Now I understand that agents and editors use “likable characters” to describe a feeling of distaste.

[image error] Can you create a character as likable as Jane Eyre? Readers feel a bond with her, and they’re rooting for her to find a way past the roadblocks to her happiness. Image from Flickr via The British Library.

“Likable characters” is shorthand for “I g,ot no pleasure from reading about these people.” The term is a signal that the agent would not enjoy living vicariously with your imaginary friend.

The Importance Of The Reader Bond

Agents, and readers in general, want to like and bond with your characters, especially your main character. In this blog post I’m going to talk about character likability and reader bonding.

What makes readers like some characters and detest others? I’m not speaking about villains here. We all know that a good villain is one readers love to hate. I’m talking about protagonists. These are the folks readers are supposed to cheer for. Flawed they may be, but on the whole our protagonists must capture readers’ hearts.

In case you’d like more on this subject, I’ve put together a free report on creating fictional characters. TIPS ON CREATING MEMORABLE CHARACTERS

An Empathy Exercise On Likable Characters

Let’s start with an empathy exercise, meaning let’s see how it feels to stand in published author’s shoes. Imagine you’re the author of a published book, and you’re glancing through Goodreads to find out how average readers feel about your latest offering. (At the bottom of this page, you’ll find the authors’ names.)

******************************************************************************

Writer #1

These stories are dreary and devoid of any joy, humor, hope or beauty.
What’s the point of wasting time in a book where you can’t relate to any of the characters??!
…the stories are…brutal in a deep, almost subconscious, unintentional way, and they lack empathy

 Writer #2

Some stories are developed enough to impart quiet wisdom; others, though, are mere sketches, with one-dimensional characters and pat, trite resolutions.

 Writer #3

I disliked the character of Abby and despised her mother-in-law…
I kept reading hoping that the plot would lead to some redemption—did not happen.
Why should I care about these shallow characters that I haven’t developed any kind of connection to?

 Writer #4

He writes dialogue as if he hasn’t actually talked to another person in months, much less a woman in her twenties, like his main character.
The characters are pretty unbelievable. All the female characters are described as beautiful but mostly neurotic or actually insane.

Writer #5

The female characters are terribly drawn, with a misogynistic undertone…
Plotless, misogynistic garbage with a dismal worldview.
Not much depth to the characters, especially the women –the term “misogynist” frequently came to mind.

What did you think as you read these verdicts? Punch in the gut, right? So, listen up because you don’t want these kinds of comments about your book.

Create Likable Characters Right From The Start

One of the biggest puzzles for all authors is how to make readers and agents fall in love with our characters. We love our imaginary people, warts and all. Our characters are our children. But, readers do not necessarily have to love the little brat throwing a tantrum in the grocery store. Readers lead busy lives, and they make snap judgments. They won’t wade through an entire book waiting for the payoff–the day when the brat turns into an angel.

To be blunt about it, readers do not like characters who are negative, nasty, bitter, stuck, depressed, or hopeless. This makes common sense. If we have a friend caught in an endless loop of negativity, we give up on them. It’s no fun to hang out.

When you’re writing, try to avoid having the following:

shallow characters;
clichéd characters;
misogynists, racists, or homophobes. *****************************************************************************

The Issues of Misogyny and Stereotypical Females

Let’s start with the issue of misogyny. Readers say that Writers #4 and #5 objectify women. Is each of these (male) authors attempting to create a misogynist like Humbert Humbert in Nabokov’s Lolita? 

[image error]

[image error]

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.”

The opening of Lolita is one of the most evocative first lines in fiction. We forgive Humbert Humbert, the old reprobate, because he is unrepentant, and because he is funny and self-aware. One difference between his book and the two books maligned by the reviewers above could be this: Right from the beginning, Lolita is a particular girl, not an amalgam of body parts.

In workshop manuscripts I often see women reduced to a few physical characteristics, those that might ignite that Humbertian flame in a man. Even so, I’m sorry to see readers faulting Junot Díaz. (Oops! I let the cat out of the bag.) He’s really one of our finest writers. Maybe it’s as one of the Goodreads’ reviewers said: Díaz himself has admitted he can’t write women.

If a male writer can’t write women, that’s a problem. The female half of his readership won’t make a strong emotional connection with the characters he creates. It’s all too easy for men to project their sexual fantasies onto women, and women can spot that a mile away.

It may also be true that readers’ tastes have changed. Nabokov was a writer of his time. As writers in our contemporary world, we know that words have the power to wound. It’s not a matter of political correctness, but of empathy. We want to have empathy for all the characters in our books, to have that kind of deep understanding that creates a close author-reader bond.

By the same token, women writers need to watch out for creating shrill, bitchy females. The evil mother-in-law. The catty sisters. If you read between the lines of what the readers above are saying, you’ll see that readers don’t like stereotypical females. These characters hearken back to the way we felt about cliquish girls in seventh grade.

Let’s endow our characters of all genders, races and sexual orientations with the dignity and complexity of real people. If we do that, we can give readers what they desire.

Readers want to see themselves in the characters they’re reading about. If a woman can’t recognize herself in a book she’s reading, that creates a problem for the author. Bad reviews.

Readers Want To See Themselves

If readers want to read about folks who are, in some way, “like” them, then it follows that these characters must be “likable.” This doesn’t mean characters have to be Miss Goody Two-Shoes, but it does mean the characters should have positive characteristics.

Why? Because readers are more likely to bond with goodhearted characters. Characters who have a pure heart also generally have a conscience. Conscience and purity are admirable qualities that spill over into other aspects of a book. A character with integrity allows you, the author, to plant a moral compass at the very center of your plot. Readers who crave redemptive endings will be looking for that.

The Imaginary World

We’re writers, but we’re readers, too. As readers we step outside our ordinary lives. We accept the writer’s invitation to live inside her or his world. In exchange for the gift of our time and attention, we want several things:

characters from whom we cannot look away;
characters we can like, admire, and cheer for;
characters who show something pure about themselves;
characters who are multi-dimensional;
and characters with whom we can identify.

Take yourself back to childhood, and remember the characters you loved and the magic you found in books. If you can create that same magic for readers, you’ll earn their loyalty.

Answer Key

Writer #1 is Alice Munro, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. This beloved Canadian writer obviously hasn’t won over everyone.

Writer #2 is Maeve Binchy. This prolific and bestselling author may have gotten a bit lazy.

Writer #3 is Anne Tyler. Anne Tyler is one of my favorite authors, and I’ve often used her novel, Ladder of Years, as an example of how to plot. Her latest book, A Spool of Blue Thread, didn’t grab readers the way her earlier books did. Note that readers react to the female characters the way they would to people they actually know.

Writer #4 is Jonathan Franzen. Readers panned his latest book Purity. “He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the German Akademie der Kunste, and the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.”

Writer #5 is Junot Díaz. ” He is the author of the critically acclaimed Drown, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, which won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award, and This Is How You Lose Her, a New York Times bestseller and National Book Award finalist. He is the recipient of a MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship, PEN/Malamud Award, Dayton Literary Peace Prize, Guggenheim Fellowship, and PEN/O. Henry Award.”

You can find more of Marylee’s thoughts on writing at her blog: www.maryleemacdonaldauthor.com