Annie Burrows's Blog - Posts Tagged "writing-tips"
P is for...point of view
While I was trying to get my first book published, I read a very helpful "how to" book called "The 1st 5 pages", by Noah Lukeman, which contained a piece of writing advice that stunned me. It suggested that before I even started my story, I ought to decide from whose viewpoint I was going to tell it, and whether to do so in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person.
Er...what?
What is a viewpoint character, I wondered, and what is the difference between first, second or third person narration?
In a nutshell, in case you didn't know either, the viewpoint character is the person through whose eyes a reader will experience the story. The person whose story it is. If it is written in 1st person, it will be "I" did this that or the other. I'm currently reading a fabulous thriller by Dick Francis, who always seems to tell his story in the first person, and comes up with some amazing opening lines because of it. Because he uses the first person, you always feel as if you are experiencing the story alongside someone who has only just gone through it themselves, and is telling you all about it.
2nd person is "you" did it. Apparently this is the hardest of all to write and is rarely used. I can't think of a single example to give you - sorry! 3rd person is "she/he" did this that or the other, and is the most commonly used.
I knew that writing a story is a kind of world-building exercise. I'd always thought of it as painting a picture with words. But this chapter likened it to playing a piece of music, in which any inconsistency with the viewpoint would sound like a clashing, crashing discord, shattering the harmony.
So I read the single chapter dealing with viewpoint very carefully, and then looked at my own current manuscript, as recommended. Firstly, I discovered that I had been writing from my heroine's viewpoint (mostly) in 3rd person all along. Which, coincidentally, turned out to be what Mills & Boon recommended in their guidelines at the time. And since Mills & Boon was the publisher I was targeting, it was a jolly good job too.
I also learnt about the various ways I could make mistakes with handling viewpoint. I could change from the viewpoint of one character to another with bewildering rapidity, I could tell sections of the story from the viewpoint of characters who really didn't matter, and shouldn't have come to the fore, or I could fumble it altogether by having a character say or think something she couldn't possibly have known.
I'd thought my writing was pretty good, before then, but after reading the chapter on viewpoint, that story suddenly seemed full of discordant notes. I had indeed switched viewpoint so quickly any reader would have had trouble keeping up with who was the main player in a scene. I had also written substantial chunks from the point of view of characters who shouldn't have been speaking directly to my reader.
Those errors wouldn't have been errors at all if I was writing the kind of story where it is fine to have several people giving their account of the story. In crime novels, for example, one incident can be related by several witnesses. I've also read family sagas
where the thread gets taken up by someone from the next generation. So long as the change from one character's viewpoint to another is made clear and doesn't confuse the reader, that method can suit certain types of story.
However, since I'm writing romance, and I want to create an intense emotional experience for my reader, it is far better to get right inside my heroine's head, and stay there (unless I need to let people know what the hero is thinking). When the reader knows what my heroine knows, understand what motivates her to act the way she does, it creates empathy. Even if the heroine acts badly, the readers should know why she did what she did, and will therefore still keep rooting for her. Same goes for the hero.
But if I introduce scenes from anyone else's point of view, and take the focus off the main characters, it dilutes the intense emotion I want my reader to feel. There was no need for the woman my heroine (Amity) met in the dressmaker to suddenly start talking to the reader. It was Amity's story, not Mrs Kirkham's. Similarly, I shouldn't have written anything from Amity's brother's point of view, particularly since he was going to die in chapter 4.
Nor should I have had Amity knowing exactly what her brother was thinking, no matter how close they'd been as children, except by reading his body language and taking her best guess.
In fact the only viewpoint mistake I hadn't made was switching from first (which I'd never used) to second or third.
So, once I'd learned about the various types of viewpoint, I then began to think a bit harder about whose viewpoint to use in any scene. To create the most impact for the reader, it's best to think about which character will have the most invested at the time. Who has the most to lose or gain? Since I write romance, I really only have the choice between the hero or the heroine, but it is a point that still needs careful consideration. Do I focus on the heroine's determination to resist the hero, whose rakish reputation has already made her turn down his proposal of marriage more than once, in spite of the almost overwhelming attraction she feels for him? Or do I get inside the hero's head, and let the reader know that this time, he has really fallen in love, and his devil-may-care smile hides his fear of rejection?
Once I'd got the hang of considering point of view, it made a huge difference to my writing. Once I stopped digressing into the mind of the heroine's brother, his commanding officer, a woman Amity met in the dressmaker, or anyone else, the story focussed more closely on my heroine, and her journey of discovery, and therefore became more interesting.
Amity still hasn't found a publisher - but I'm working on it!
Er...what?
What is a viewpoint character, I wondered, and what is the difference between first, second or third person narration?
In a nutshell, in case you didn't know either, the viewpoint character is the person through whose eyes a reader will experience the story. The person whose story it is. If it is written in 1st person, it will be "I" did this that or the other. I'm currently reading a fabulous thriller by Dick Francis, who always seems to tell his story in the first person, and comes up with some amazing opening lines because of it. Because he uses the first person, you always feel as if you are experiencing the story alongside someone who has only just gone through it themselves, and is telling you all about it.
2nd person is "you" did it. Apparently this is the hardest of all to write and is rarely used. I can't think of a single example to give you - sorry! 3rd person is "she/he" did this that or the other, and is the most commonly used.
I knew that writing a story is a kind of world-building exercise. I'd always thought of it as painting a picture with words. But this chapter likened it to playing a piece of music, in which any inconsistency with the viewpoint would sound like a clashing, crashing discord, shattering the harmony.
So I read the single chapter dealing with viewpoint very carefully, and then looked at my own current manuscript, as recommended. Firstly, I discovered that I had been writing from my heroine's viewpoint (mostly) in 3rd person all along. Which, coincidentally, turned out to be what Mills & Boon recommended in their guidelines at the time. And since Mills & Boon was the publisher I was targeting, it was a jolly good job too.
I also learnt about the various ways I could make mistakes with handling viewpoint. I could change from the viewpoint of one character to another with bewildering rapidity, I could tell sections of the story from the viewpoint of characters who really didn't matter, and shouldn't have come to the fore, or I could fumble it altogether by having a character say or think something she couldn't possibly have known.
I'd thought my writing was pretty good, before then, but after reading the chapter on viewpoint, that story suddenly seemed full of discordant notes. I had indeed switched viewpoint so quickly any reader would have had trouble keeping up with who was the main player in a scene. I had also written substantial chunks from the point of view of characters who shouldn't have been speaking directly to my reader.
Those errors wouldn't have been errors at all if I was writing the kind of story where it is fine to have several people giving their account of the story. In crime novels, for example, one incident can be related by several witnesses. I've also read family sagas
where the thread gets taken up by someone from the next generation. So long as the change from one character's viewpoint to another is made clear and doesn't confuse the reader, that method can suit certain types of story.
However, since I'm writing romance, and I want to create an intense emotional experience for my reader, it is far better to get right inside my heroine's head, and stay there (unless I need to let people know what the hero is thinking). When the reader knows what my heroine knows, understand what motivates her to act the way she does, it creates empathy. Even if the heroine acts badly, the readers should know why she did what she did, and will therefore still keep rooting for her. Same goes for the hero.
But if I introduce scenes from anyone else's point of view, and take the focus off the main characters, it dilutes the intense emotion I want my reader to feel. There was no need for the woman my heroine (Amity) met in the dressmaker to suddenly start talking to the reader. It was Amity's story, not Mrs Kirkham's. Similarly, I shouldn't have written anything from Amity's brother's point of view, particularly since he was going to die in chapter 4.
Nor should I have had Amity knowing exactly what her brother was thinking, no matter how close they'd been as children, except by reading his body language and taking her best guess.
In fact the only viewpoint mistake I hadn't made was switching from first (which I'd never used) to second or third.
So, once I'd learned about the various types of viewpoint, I then began to think a bit harder about whose viewpoint to use in any scene. To create the most impact for the reader, it's best to think about which character will have the most invested at the time. Who has the most to lose or gain? Since I write romance, I really only have the choice between the hero or the heroine, but it is a point that still needs careful consideration. Do I focus on the heroine's determination to resist the hero, whose rakish reputation has already made her turn down his proposal of marriage more than once, in spite of the almost overwhelming attraction she feels for him? Or do I get inside the hero's head, and let the reader know that this time, he has really fallen in love, and his devil-may-care smile hides his fear of rejection?
Once I'd got the hang of considering point of view, it made a huge difference to my writing. Once I stopped digressing into the mind of the heroine's brother, his commanding officer, a woman Amity met in the dressmaker, or anyone else, the story focussed more closely on my heroine, and her journey of discovery, and therefore became more interesting.
Amity still hasn't found a publisher - but I'm working on it!
Q is for Quantity. Or Quality?
About once every month, I've been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, I've reached Q which is for Quality. Or Quantity?
Firstly, apologies to anyone who came looking for a new blog post from me in January. I blame Christmas!
Anyway, the idea for this blog came from the RWA conference I attended in New York in summer 2015.
Because one of the workshops I really wanted to attend was intriguingly called "Writing a novel in 30 days - tips tricks and cautions." In 30 days? I'd be thrilled if I could produce a book in less than 6 months. Lots of other writers seem to be able to do it. So why can't I?
One of the ladies giving the workshop opened by saying the fastest she had ever written a novel was 7 days. When challenged as to its length, she told us it was 95,000 words. There were gasps all round. The second lady on the panel claimed 75,000 words in 3 weeks, and the third 60,000 in 6 weeks. And they were all from start to submission. They weren't talking about first drafts!
However, one thing they all agreed on was that they do good first drafts, which don't need much re-writing. They didn't do a lot of plotting either, as they considered it a waste of time. In short, they all just sat down and wrote.
By this time I was feeling very inadequate. My first drafts are generally a total mess and need going over several times before I feel confident about sending them off to my editor. I can sit down and write a story in 4/5 weeks, but it isn't fit for human consumption! My revisions take ages and ages. And ages.
I was starting to wonder if I'm being too pernickety. Perhaps I should just bash out a draft and send it off...
But no. I can't do it. I can't let anyone see my work until I'm sure it's of a certain standard. And my first drafts definitely aren't.
However, as the workshop progressed, and people started asking how exactly these three women managed to write so fast, and still have a life, it became apparent that actually, they didn't. Have much of a life outside writing, when they were going at that pace, that is. One started writing from 8am until 5 pm when she became an empty-nester. One had a husband who worked in a high profile job which meant he wasn't home until 11 pm. And all three admitted that their health suffered. And that they have had to cut back a lot.
Their conclusion was that you have to write the best book you can and don't beat yourself up if it isn't done quickly. In other words, go for Quality, not Quantity. I'd been getting worked up over all the advice I keep reading lately, that I need to bring out books really frequently to keep readers coming back. But they're not going to come back if my book isn't any good, are they, no matter how quickly I manage to get it out there?
I came away from that workshop with the feeling that it isn't just quality of writing that's important, either, but quality of life.
If I lived alone, and needed to fill up my hours with something, then maybe I too could write from 8 in the morning until 11 at night, and produce 4 books a year I could be proud of instead of 2.
But I have a husband, two grown up children, and a borrowed dog to take into consideration. And elderly parents who live at the far end of the country. And I don't want to turn into a heap of blancmange racked through with aching bones from sitting hunched over my computer all day and into the night. I want to get outside with the borrowed dog and go for walks to keep myself relatively healthy. Keep my house the sort of place my husband will look forward to coming home to every night, and for my kids to want to visit from their far-flung homes.
I want quality of life, as well as feeling I've written books I can be proud of.
So it looks as though I'm doomed to only ever turning out 2 books a year - 2 books I can get excited about, that is.
And I must be doing something right. My most recent royalty statement shows that I have now had over one million sales world wide since I started writing full time in 2008.
I am having 2 books released in 2016. In Bed with the Duke is a full length released in May, and there will be a novella in as yet unnamed anthology coming out at Christmas.
Firstly, apologies to anyone who came looking for a new blog post from me in January. I blame Christmas!
Anyway, the idea for this blog came from the RWA conference I attended in New York in summer 2015.
Because one of the workshops I really wanted to attend was intriguingly called "Writing a novel in 30 days - tips tricks and cautions." In 30 days? I'd be thrilled if I could produce a book in less than 6 months. Lots of other writers seem to be able to do it. So why can't I?
One of the ladies giving the workshop opened by saying the fastest she had ever written a novel was 7 days. When challenged as to its length, she told us it was 95,000 words. There were gasps all round. The second lady on the panel claimed 75,000 words in 3 weeks, and the third 60,000 in 6 weeks. And they were all from start to submission. They weren't talking about first drafts!
However, one thing they all agreed on was that they do good first drafts, which don't need much re-writing. They didn't do a lot of plotting either, as they considered it a waste of time. In short, they all just sat down and wrote.
By this time I was feeling very inadequate. My first drafts are generally a total mess and need going over several times before I feel confident about sending them off to my editor. I can sit down and write a story in 4/5 weeks, but it isn't fit for human consumption! My revisions take ages and ages. And ages.
I was starting to wonder if I'm being too pernickety. Perhaps I should just bash out a draft and send it off...
But no. I can't do it. I can't let anyone see my work until I'm sure it's of a certain standard. And my first drafts definitely aren't.
However, as the workshop progressed, and people started asking how exactly these three women managed to write so fast, and still have a life, it became apparent that actually, they didn't. Have much of a life outside writing, when they were going at that pace, that is. One started writing from 8am until 5 pm when she became an empty-nester. One had a husband who worked in a high profile job which meant he wasn't home until 11 pm. And all three admitted that their health suffered. And that they have had to cut back a lot.
Their conclusion was that you have to write the best book you can and don't beat yourself up if it isn't done quickly. In other words, go for Quality, not Quantity. I'd been getting worked up over all the advice I keep reading lately, that I need to bring out books really frequently to keep readers coming back. But they're not going to come back if my book isn't any good, are they, no matter how quickly I manage to get it out there?
I came away from that workshop with the feeling that it isn't just quality of writing that's important, either, but quality of life.
If I lived alone, and needed to fill up my hours with something, then maybe I too could write from 8 in the morning until 11 at night, and produce 4 books a year I could be proud of instead of 2.
But I have a husband, two grown up children, and a borrowed dog to take into consideration. And elderly parents who live at the far end of the country. And I don't want to turn into a heap of blancmange racked through with aching bones from sitting hunched over my computer all day and into the night. I want to get outside with the borrowed dog and go for walks to keep myself relatively healthy. Keep my house the sort of place my husband will look forward to coming home to every night, and for my kids to want to visit from their far-flung homes.
I want quality of life, as well as feeling I've written books I can be proud of.
So it looks as though I'm doomed to only ever turning out 2 books a year - 2 books I can get excited about, that is.
And I must be doing something right. My most recent royalty statement shows that I have now had over one million sales world wide since I started writing full time in 2008.
I am having 2 books released in 2016. In Bed with the Duke is a full length released in May, and there will be a novella in as yet unnamed anthology coming out at Christmas.
T is for time management
On the first Friday of every month, I've been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, I've reached T...so I'll be talking about how I manage my time.
I'm supposed to write two books a year, at 75,000 words each. Every time I get a new deadline, one of the first things I do is to sit down and work out a timetable which will ensure how I get my story in on time.
My last one went something like this:
Due August 31st.
75,000 at 10k per week (or 2 chapters per week) for 1st draft. = 2k per day. Will take 7 and a half weeks.
If start 4th March, should be done by April 30th.
2nd draft - revise 3 chapters per week = 8 weeks (assuming 15 chapters)
should take until June 17th
That should have given me a full two and a half months to do a third draft, which is when I usually have only a few little tweaks to iron out. I was hoping I would be able to get the commissioned story finished, and then spend some time on a book I'd like to self-publish.
But what happened? Well, to start with, my first draft was over 30,000 words short. I'd written all the story I could think of, and the only way I could have put in anything else would have been shameless padding.
Fortunately, the Novelistas helped me with some brainstorming, during which we came up with a new ending. So that my second draft, with a completely new ending, which I managed to finish on June 29th, came in at 64,000 words. Still a bit short, but not too far off for that stage of my drafts, so I was reasonably happy. I still had a full two months before the deadline, although I was by then two weeks behind where I wanted to be.
However, I was going to the Romance Writers of America conference at the end of July, which would mean two weeks off, plus any time necessary to recover from jet lag which always turns my brain to mush. So I thought it would be a good idea to get my 3rd draft done before I flew out.
But then I had an unexpected visitor, who stayed a week. And a teacher husband at home for school holidays underfoot. So by the time I flew out I had achieved practically nothing.
My next entry in my "progress with wip" file reads:
returned to work on August 10th.
Have until 31st to deadline = 3 weeks.
Need to revise 13 chapters = min 1 chapter per day.
I finally submitted the book on September 4th, having spent the previous week hunched over my laptop feverishly typing. And ended up with back spasm, followed by a migraine.
So what had gone wrong with my brilliant plan? Ok - I knew there would be a couple of weeks out at the end of July for the trip to New York, but I shouldn't have had to end up frantically trying to finish by the deadline. I'd worked out that I'd have plenty of free time - I'd even hoped I could work on that self-published book that has been on the back burner for what feels like forever. And this isn't the first time it's happened either. The last few books I have produced have all gone the same way. I've started off with a brilliant timetable, which appears to give me plenty of time, and end up begging my editor for an extension. I'm on my 21st book at the moment, so you'd think by now I would have learned how to write a bit faster than I did to start off with.
So this time, on the recommendation of a blog I read that suggested I should be able to write 10,000 words a day if I followed their advice (cue hollow laughter) I kept a writing diary. To see if I could pick out patterns. Which would show me where I was going wrong. Wasn't I spending enough time at my laptop? I certainly felt as if I was working as hard as I could. So perhaps I was taking too many days off to gallivant - although time spent with the Novelistas wouldn't count, I promised myself. I frequently need their input. (And the home-made cake).
Anyway, what I discovered when I read through my writing diary was this deadly phrase:
Revisions landed.
And everything made sense. Because, when I counted how much time I'd spent on revisions to my previous book, when I should have been ploughing forward with my next one, it came to a shocking total of 6 weeks.
The revisions came in two rounds, the first of which took me four weeks, and the second, two.
Even when I did get back to my wip, I found phrases in my writing diary like:
Spent an hour in afternoon just trying to get my head round chapter 10 again
and
All gone to hell in a handcart coz of revisions. Now need to re date all targets
So, it's revisions that are the culprit. If I hadn't had those revisions, my book would have been submitted in plenty of time, and I could have worked on my own personal project.
So, clearly, when I'm making my timetable for my next book, I'm going to have to factor in those 6 weeks for revisions. And next time, hopefully my writing diary won't have comments like:
Change of plan -
So now I am officially only 1 week behind revised schedule.
Wow. It's going to be tight.
I'm supposed to write two books a year, at 75,000 words each. Every time I get a new deadline, one of the first things I do is to sit down and work out a timetable which will ensure how I get my story in on time.
My last one went something like this:
Due August 31st.
75,000 at 10k per week (or 2 chapters per week) for 1st draft. = 2k per day. Will take 7 and a half weeks.
If start 4th March, should be done by April 30th.
2nd draft - revise 3 chapters per week = 8 weeks (assuming 15 chapters)
should take until June 17th
That should have given me a full two and a half months to do a third draft, which is when I usually have only a few little tweaks to iron out. I was hoping I would be able to get the commissioned story finished, and then spend some time on a book I'd like to self-publish.
But what happened? Well, to start with, my first draft was over 30,000 words short. I'd written all the story I could think of, and the only way I could have put in anything else would have been shameless padding.
Fortunately, the Novelistas helped me with some brainstorming, during which we came up with a new ending. So that my second draft, with a completely new ending, which I managed to finish on June 29th, came in at 64,000 words. Still a bit short, but not too far off for that stage of my drafts, so I was reasonably happy. I still had a full two months before the deadline, although I was by then two weeks behind where I wanted to be.
However, I was going to the Romance Writers of America conference at the end of July, which would mean two weeks off, plus any time necessary to recover from jet lag which always turns my brain to mush. So I thought it would be a good idea to get my 3rd draft done before I flew out.
But then I had an unexpected visitor, who stayed a week. And a teacher husband at home for school holidays underfoot. So by the time I flew out I had achieved practically nothing.
My next entry in my "progress with wip" file reads:
returned to work on August 10th.
Have until 31st to deadline = 3 weeks.
Need to revise 13 chapters = min 1 chapter per day.
I finally submitted the book on September 4th, having spent the previous week hunched over my laptop feverishly typing. And ended up with back spasm, followed by a migraine.
So what had gone wrong with my brilliant plan? Ok - I knew there would be a couple of weeks out at the end of July for the trip to New York, but I shouldn't have had to end up frantically trying to finish by the deadline. I'd worked out that I'd have plenty of free time - I'd even hoped I could work on that self-published book that has been on the back burner for what feels like forever. And this isn't the first time it's happened either. The last few books I have produced have all gone the same way. I've started off with a brilliant timetable, which appears to give me plenty of time, and end up begging my editor for an extension. I'm on my 21st book at the moment, so you'd think by now I would have learned how to write a bit faster than I did to start off with.
So this time, on the recommendation of a blog I read that suggested I should be able to write 10,000 words a day if I followed their advice (cue hollow laughter) I kept a writing diary. To see if I could pick out patterns. Which would show me where I was going wrong. Wasn't I spending enough time at my laptop? I certainly felt as if I was working as hard as I could. So perhaps I was taking too many days off to gallivant - although time spent with the Novelistas wouldn't count, I promised myself. I frequently need their input. (And the home-made cake).
Anyway, what I discovered when I read through my writing diary was this deadly phrase:
Revisions landed.
And everything made sense. Because, when I counted how much time I'd spent on revisions to my previous book, when I should have been ploughing forward with my next one, it came to a shocking total of 6 weeks.
The revisions came in two rounds, the first of which took me four weeks, and the second, two.
Even when I did get back to my wip, I found phrases in my writing diary like:
Spent an hour in afternoon just trying to get my head round chapter 10 again
and
All gone to hell in a handcart coz of revisions. Now need to re date all targets
So, it's revisions that are the culprit. If I hadn't had those revisions, my book would have been submitted in plenty of time, and I could have worked on my own personal project.
So, clearly, when I'm making my timetable for my next book, I'm going to have to factor in those 6 weeks for revisions. And next time, hopefully my writing diary won't have comments like:
Change of plan -
So now I am officially only 1 week behind revised schedule.
Wow. It's going to be tight.
U for Unique selling point
About once a month I've been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, I've reached U...which I've decided should stand for Unique.
When I started out as a writer I didn't want to have to do any marketing of myself. In fact, that was one of the reasons I wanted to write for Harlequin Mills & Boon. I thought I would just be sort of absorbed under the umbrella and become part of their brand. I thought I could just concentrate on writing my stories, and my publisher would do all the publicity for me. And to a large extent, they do.
But I write in what is a very crowded market. There seem to be dozens and dozens of other writers producing the same sort of book I do - Regency Romance. And with the rise of self-publishing, the marketplace has become even more competitive. Why should anyone want to pick up my book and read it, when there are so many others on offer? What is going to keep a reader remembering my books, and coming back for more?
According to marketing gurus, what I need to do is offer a Unique Selling Point. Something that will make me stand out from the crowd.
Fortunately for me, Mills & Boon have been brilliant about helping me develop my "brand". When I first started writing for them, they had a reader panel, made up of fans of specific lines, who would send in a questionnaire about what they liked (or didn't) about each month's books, in return for being entered into a draw for free books. This was a great piece of market research which I couldn't possibly have undertaken myself. And eventually my editor contacted me with the news that what readers liked about my books was the humour. One or two people had already told me that they had giggled when reading certain sections of my stories, so when she asked me if I would mind concentrating on that, rather than on what she termed "my dark side" (which made me feel as if I was perilously close to joining forces with Darth Vader) I agreed.
Because every writer needs to fulfil reader expectation. If you pick up a Dick Francis, you expect the hero to be an unassuming chap who thwarts the bad guys within a setting which is something to do with horses. If you read a Dean Koontz, you expect there to be something a bit spooky going on in the background of the thriller. Even I could see, that within the Harlequin Historical line, some writers tended to create "bad girls", those of the demi-monde, who maybe turn to crime to survive. Others are known for getting in a lot of historical detail. Others write extremely tortured heroes, or go for unusual settings.
I'd already had an Amazon review from a reader who was disappointed that the heroine of the book she'd just read by me hadn't been a virgin. And when I looked back at previous books, I saw that this was something else I'd done without really thinking about it. I'd made my heroines virgins, and my readers had come to expect that from me.
So, thanks to the market research done by my publisher, and a disgruntled Amazon reviewer, I'd discovered what readers wanted from my writing, and I started going all out to provide it. It wasn't any hardship...just a slight adjustment to the way I went about thinking up my plots. I can never resist deflating a pompous character, or inviting someone to share in a joke with me, and I'd already been doing that in my stories without really noticing I was doing it.
But then my publishers did a series of webinars on marketing and branding. By this time even I could see it wasn't enough to simply write the best story I could. We've all moved into an era where we have to have an online presence. Which, they said, should be consistent across all platforms. Which meant thinking up a tagline which expressed what we stood for.
Ulp! As if it wasn't enough learning how to write, and write to a deadline and a wordcount, now I had to promote myself too?
Fortunately, I'd recently had a revisions letter from an editor, saying that my current manuscript (at that point) lacked the "trademark Annie Burrows sparkle".
Aha! That was it - that was what I wanted to offer readers, and what readers seemed to want from me - some sparkle. So my tagline became "Sparkling Regency Romance". Now a reader has a clue what they are going to find within the covers of one of my books. Though I do aim for total historical accuracy, which demands a lot of research and double-checking, not a great deal of that actually makes it to the pages. In the end, what I offer my readers is a light-hearted, fun sort of read.
That is my Unique Selling Point - the sparkle.
What is yours?
When I started out as a writer I didn't want to have to do any marketing of myself. In fact, that was one of the reasons I wanted to write for Harlequin Mills & Boon. I thought I would just be sort of absorbed under the umbrella and become part of their brand. I thought I could just concentrate on writing my stories, and my publisher would do all the publicity for me. And to a large extent, they do.
But I write in what is a very crowded market. There seem to be dozens and dozens of other writers producing the same sort of book I do - Regency Romance. And with the rise of self-publishing, the marketplace has become even more competitive. Why should anyone want to pick up my book and read it, when there are so many others on offer? What is going to keep a reader remembering my books, and coming back for more?
According to marketing gurus, what I need to do is offer a Unique Selling Point. Something that will make me stand out from the crowd.
Fortunately for me, Mills & Boon have been brilliant about helping me develop my "brand". When I first started writing for them, they had a reader panel, made up of fans of specific lines, who would send in a questionnaire about what they liked (or didn't) about each month's books, in return for being entered into a draw for free books. This was a great piece of market research which I couldn't possibly have undertaken myself. And eventually my editor contacted me with the news that what readers liked about my books was the humour. One or two people had already told me that they had giggled when reading certain sections of my stories, so when she asked me if I would mind concentrating on that, rather than on what she termed "my dark side" (which made me feel as if I was perilously close to joining forces with Darth Vader) I agreed.
Because every writer needs to fulfil reader expectation. If you pick up a Dick Francis, you expect the hero to be an unassuming chap who thwarts the bad guys within a setting which is something to do with horses. If you read a Dean Koontz, you expect there to be something a bit spooky going on in the background of the thriller. Even I could see, that within the Harlequin Historical line, some writers tended to create "bad girls", those of the demi-monde, who maybe turn to crime to survive. Others are known for getting in a lot of historical detail. Others write extremely tortured heroes, or go for unusual settings.
I'd already had an Amazon review from a reader who was disappointed that the heroine of the book she'd just read by me hadn't been a virgin. And when I looked back at previous books, I saw that this was something else I'd done without really thinking about it. I'd made my heroines virgins, and my readers had come to expect that from me.
So, thanks to the market research done by my publisher, and a disgruntled Amazon reviewer, I'd discovered what readers wanted from my writing, and I started going all out to provide it. It wasn't any hardship...just a slight adjustment to the way I went about thinking up my plots. I can never resist deflating a pompous character, or inviting someone to share in a joke with me, and I'd already been doing that in my stories without really noticing I was doing it.
But then my publishers did a series of webinars on marketing and branding. By this time even I could see it wasn't enough to simply write the best story I could. We've all moved into an era where we have to have an online presence. Which, they said, should be consistent across all platforms. Which meant thinking up a tagline which expressed what we stood for.
Ulp! As if it wasn't enough learning how to write, and write to a deadline and a wordcount, now I had to promote myself too?
Fortunately, I'd recently had a revisions letter from an editor, saying that my current manuscript (at that point) lacked the "trademark Annie Burrows sparkle".
Aha! That was it - that was what I wanted to offer readers, and what readers seemed to want from me - some sparkle. So my tagline became "Sparkling Regency Romance". Now a reader has a clue what they are going to find within the covers of one of my books. Though I do aim for total historical accuracy, which demands a lot of research and double-checking, not a great deal of that actually makes it to the pages. In the end, what I offer my readers is a light-hearted, fun sort of read.
That is my Unique Selling Point - the sparkle.
What is yours?
V is for Voice
Every month, I've has been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, I've reached V...which I've decided should stand for Voice.
In some ways, this article continues from the one I posted last month, about your Unique Selling Point. Because your voice is going to be a part of what makes you unique.
Publisher's websites are always saying they are looking for fresh new voices. But what do they mean by "voice", I've often wondered? And how am I going to get a fresh new one?
Well, having read a lot of articles about it recently, I've discovered that actually it's quite simple. My "voice" is simply the thing that makes readers recognize me as the writer. It is my personality coming through in my writing.
This explains something that happened when I had my first book published. My husband was rather impressed, and agreed to read it. Even though it was a historical romance, and had a cover with a picture of a couple in a clinch, he read it during his daily commute to work on the train. (Which earned him lots of brownie points.)
When I asked what he thought of it, he said, in amazement, that it sounded just like me. Well, of course it sounded like me - I wrote it! When I asked what he meant, exactly, he explained that the things the heroine said were just the sorts of things he could imagine me saying.
(Which was fine, until a couple of chapters later, he mentioned that he thought the heroine was "a stroppy cow". Half the brownie points earned for reading my book at all promptly deducted.)
But there you have it. Your voice is just your personality shining through in your writing. Your attitudes, your take on life, your values. And in my case, my tendency to stroppiness (apparently - though I think I'm very easy-going.)
Another thing which helped me understand what a writer's "voice" is, happened during a writer's workshop I held, in the days when I thought that because I'd had a book published, it qualified me to teach writing as well. I set the students a very simple writing task - to describe their hero. Every single person in that class came up with a wildly different article. Not only their heroes were different, but so were the reasons for picking them, and the way they described them. Each article told me as much about the person who'd written it, as the hero they'd picked.
Every single writer has their own distinct take on the world, because of the way they were brought up, their values, their interests, and so on. If you were to ask six people in the room where you are now, to describe the room, you'd probably get six wildly different accounts. Some of the writers would describe the room in detail, right down to the style of architrave round the door. Others would focus on the other people in the room. Even the ones who wrote about the other people would each come up with something different. Some would be more interested in what the others were wearing, some on what they were doing. Someone might even take the opportunity to have a dig at you for making them do all the work when they'd paid good money to learn how to write.
So, your "voice" is just you. Your way of putting things.
However, when you first start writing, you will probably emulate writers you admire. It can take time, and practice, to gain the confidence to just be yourself, to allow your own, unique voice to come through in your writing.
Unless of course you happen to be naturally stroppy and opinionated.
In some ways, this article continues from the one I posted last month, about your Unique Selling Point. Because your voice is going to be a part of what makes you unique.
Publisher's websites are always saying they are looking for fresh new voices. But what do they mean by "voice", I've often wondered? And how am I going to get a fresh new one?
Well, having read a lot of articles about it recently, I've discovered that actually it's quite simple. My "voice" is simply the thing that makes readers recognize me as the writer. It is my personality coming through in my writing.
This explains something that happened when I had my first book published. My husband was rather impressed, and agreed to read it. Even though it was a historical romance, and had a cover with a picture of a couple in a clinch, he read it during his daily commute to work on the train. (Which earned him lots of brownie points.)
When I asked what he thought of it, he said, in amazement, that it sounded just like me. Well, of course it sounded like me - I wrote it! When I asked what he meant, exactly, he explained that the things the heroine said were just the sorts of things he could imagine me saying.
(Which was fine, until a couple of chapters later, he mentioned that he thought the heroine was "a stroppy cow". Half the brownie points earned for reading my book at all promptly deducted.)
But there you have it. Your voice is just your personality shining through in your writing. Your attitudes, your take on life, your values. And in my case, my tendency to stroppiness (apparently - though I think I'm very easy-going.)
Another thing which helped me understand what a writer's "voice" is, happened during a writer's workshop I held, in the days when I thought that because I'd had a book published, it qualified me to teach writing as well. I set the students a very simple writing task - to describe their hero. Every single person in that class came up with a wildly different article. Not only their heroes were different, but so were the reasons for picking them, and the way they described them. Each article told me as much about the person who'd written it, as the hero they'd picked.
Every single writer has their own distinct take on the world, because of the way they were brought up, their values, their interests, and so on. If you were to ask six people in the room where you are now, to describe the room, you'd probably get six wildly different accounts. Some of the writers would describe the room in detail, right down to the style of architrave round the door. Others would focus on the other people in the room. Even the ones who wrote about the other people would each come up with something different. Some would be more interested in what the others were wearing, some on what they were doing. Someone might even take the opportunity to have a dig at you for making them do all the work when they'd paid good money to learn how to write.
So, your "voice" is just you. Your way of putting things.
However, when you first start writing, you will probably emulate writers you admire. It can take time, and practice, to gain the confidence to just be yourself, to allow your own, unique voice to come through in your writing.
Unless of course you happen to be naturally stroppy and opinionated.
X is for X rated
x is for X rated...(the steamy stuff)
Once a month or so, Annie Burrows has been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And is dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, she's reached X...
Last month, I asked what I should write about when I got to x, and several people suggested x rated.
I don't think I actually write x rated stuff, to be honest. In my mind, an x rating means erotica. And although I do write some steamy scenes, my main focus is on what goes on inside the heroine's head and heart, not the hero's bedroom.
It's not that I shy away from writing love scenes. I write about people falling in love, and a big part of that process involves sexual attraction. If I didn't include that part of my heroine's journey to her happy ever after, I would feel as if I was leaving out a huge part of her story. But that is what it is - just a part of her story. Sometimes the fact that the hero and heroine make love is an essential part of the storyline, but sometimes it just isn't.
Because, during the Regency period, when my stories are set, single people didn't have the sexual freedom we enjoy today. There was a stricter moral code in place, and harsher punishments for women who didn't stick to those rules. Men sometimes had to make amends by marrying the woman they'd slept with, but by and large, it was the women left with the babies, the women who bore the brunt of society's disapproval, and the children who were left with the tag of bastardy.
Of course, if you were wealthy, there were ways round the rules that bound everyone else. Royal bastards were often given titles and lands. Girls from wealthy families who fell pregnant before marriage would get sent away to remote estates for a while, the child would be given to a humble family who'd receive wages for bringing it up, and the girl subsequently married off to someone who would be prepared to accept compensation for his bride's lack of purity. She wouldn't perhaps pay such a high price for having sex outside marriage, but she would still have a "stain" on her reputation - if anyone were to find out.
However, this means that my heroes and heroines are going to have to think very carefully about sleeping with each other before marriage. Which in turn means I have to think very carefully about how far to let them go if they aren't married. I do aim for historical accuracy, you see, and often I just can't imagine a scenario in which an unmarried couple would leap into bed with each other.
Which means that many of my books end up being what I would describe as "courtship" books. The couple might feel very attracted to each other, they may do a lot of flirting, but they won't fully consummate their relationship until after they are married. Or at least on the verge of marriage. That isn't to say there are no scenes where the hero tries to go as far as he dares. Which makes the ultimate scene, where he can finally make the heroine completely his, all the more satisfying (I hope!)
However, occasionally, I do write what I call "honeymoon" books. And the way I manage to do this is by having my protagonists marry at the outset, thinking they are going into a convenient marriage, and then finding they can't keep their hands off each other. And, because they're married, they don't have to. In fact, they tend to solve a lot of their issues in the bedroom (just like in real life?)
This means that my books don't all have the same level of heat. My 2015 Christmas book, for example, (The Captain's Christmas Bride) started with a girl accidentally seducing a stranger and having to marry him. And him believing that the only thing they have going for them is sexual compatibility. (You can imagine how that goes!)
In contrast, in the novella which is going to be out for Christmas in 2016 my hero and heroine don't get up to anything more than heated glances and one scorching kiss. It just wouldn't have been plausible for people in their situation, you see.
Once a month or so, Annie Burrows has been sharing a very personal view of what it is like to be a writer. And is dealing with themes in alphabetical order. This month, she's reached X...
Last month, I asked what I should write about when I got to x, and several people suggested x rated.
I don't think I actually write x rated stuff, to be honest. In my mind, an x rating means erotica. And although I do write some steamy scenes, my main focus is on what goes on inside the heroine's head and heart, not the hero's bedroom.
It's not that I shy away from writing love scenes. I write about people falling in love, and a big part of that process involves sexual attraction. If I didn't include that part of my heroine's journey to her happy ever after, I would feel as if I was leaving out a huge part of her story. But that is what it is - just a part of her story. Sometimes the fact that the hero and heroine make love is an essential part of the storyline, but sometimes it just isn't.
Because, during the Regency period, when my stories are set, single people didn't have the sexual freedom we enjoy today. There was a stricter moral code in place, and harsher punishments for women who didn't stick to those rules. Men sometimes had to make amends by marrying the woman they'd slept with, but by and large, it was the women left with the babies, the women who bore the brunt of society's disapproval, and the children who were left with the tag of bastardy.
Of course, if you were wealthy, there were ways round the rules that bound everyone else. Royal bastards were often given titles and lands. Girls from wealthy families who fell pregnant before marriage would get sent away to remote estates for a while, the child would be given to a humble family who'd receive wages for bringing it up, and the girl subsequently married off to someone who would be prepared to accept compensation for his bride's lack of purity. She wouldn't perhaps pay such a high price for having sex outside marriage, but she would still have a "stain" on her reputation - if anyone were to find out.
However, this means that my heroes and heroines are going to have to think very carefully about sleeping with each other before marriage. Which in turn means I have to think very carefully about how far to let them go if they aren't married. I do aim for historical accuracy, you see, and often I just can't imagine a scenario in which an unmarried couple would leap into bed with each other.
Which means that many of my books end up being what I would describe as "courtship" books. The couple might feel very attracted to each other, they may do a lot of flirting, but they won't fully consummate their relationship until after they are married. Or at least on the verge of marriage. That isn't to say there are no scenes where the hero tries to go as far as he dares. Which makes the ultimate scene, where he can finally make the heroine completely his, all the more satisfying (I hope!)
However, occasionally, I do write what I call "honeymoon" books. And the way I manage to do this is by having my protagonists marry at the outset, thinking they are going into a convenient marriage, and then finding they can't keep their hands off each other. And, because they're married, they don't have to. In fact, they tend to solve a lot of their issues in the bedroom (just like in real life?)
This means that my books don't all have the same level of heat. My 2015 Christmas book, for example, (The Captain's Christmas Bride) started with a girl accidentally seducing a stranger and having to marry him. And him believing that the only thing they have going for them is sexual compatibility. (You can imagine how that goes!)
In contrast, in the novella which is going to be out for Christmas in 2016 my hero and heroine don't get up to anything more than heated glances and one scorching kiss. It just wouldn't have been plausible for people in their situation, you see.
