Mobsters and Writers

In what many consider a classic American movie, Godfather II, the mob financier Hyman Roth tells Michael Corleone, "This is the business we've chosen."

I pause to take stock and reflect on Kindle by the Sell's first ten posts. I hope they have proved helpful to my fellow authors or at least helped frame thoughts and options. One in particular impressed me because the GR community responded with a collective yawn to the July 30th posting on the subject of Query Letters. I can only conclude, despite the enormous difficulties the non-writing aspects present as well as the formidable marketing obstacles, self-published authors embrace their independence and accept the challenges as part and parcel to "the business we've chosen".

In confirmation, Amanda Hocking's meteoric and improbable rise to self-publishing success proved for many an endless source of fascination. As if her very unlikeliness made it possible to finish the next chapter, acquire the next review, gain the next GR friend, and thus perhaps curry sufficient favor with the very fickle literary gods.

Many who put up websites in order to say 'yes' when asked if they had one, PM'd to express dismay at the effort needed to make it a viable marketing ally. None imagined having to wear another hat labelled 'website guru' and yet, when confronted with the cost of hiring one, that same implacable, dogged determination to soldier on rose to the fore. I will admit to a sense of pride and awe in my colleagues.

I will further admit an earlier corporate life, before I reincarnated as a writer, made the technical requirements of a modern independent author an easy transition. Still, writing a novel is far more difficult than the HTML needed to make your website an unflagging marketing assistant.

Many also felt no need for a success that extended beyond the quiet satisfaction of finishing the novel that had been a lifelong dream. That every few weeks brought an encouraging review from an appreciative stranger was all the reward they needed from 'this thing of ours'. There is a lot to be said about 'quiet satisfaction' and my admiration for them has only grown.

So all in all, I can't say if this blog after ten postings met my expectations. I had none. In fact, not knowing where it would lead mirrored the same eager anticipation in writing a plot where an unpredicted twist or turn can emerge without warning. What it has done, however, is deepen my appreciation for a group who refuse to let anything diminish their desire to write.

In a poignant scene from the first Godfather, Don Corleone says to his son, "I never wanted this for you. I wanted you to be the bigshot." Michael gently responds, "We'll get there, Pop. We'll get there."

Such as it is, that's enough business, let's turn to the creative side.

It seems that 1st person novels are all the rage today so of course, I'm going to speak about the 3rd person. It never occurred to me I would write in anything else so I never even bothered to research it. For me, omniscient existed only as a divine attribute. I did, briefly, consider the 1st person but as a fiction writer thought it too confining. I salivated at the prospect of making a reader the proverbial fly on the wall, privy to all the delicious details, listening to a group of characters, aware of the lies, deceit, and mischief behind the innocent conversation.

It is my style to keep nothing from a reader. I hold in contempt that most wretched of literary tricks, the red herring. Arming the reader with all the facts entices them to anticipate future events. Shattering expectations with unpredictable twists and turns is the foundation of suspense.

Thus it surprised me to come across an article in which the author posited that most novelists avoid the 3rd person as too difficult. I read on to discover my understanding of it a simplistic one.

I had, of course, already learned the 3rd person had the imposing title of omniscient but here came two more: multiple and limited. Some of the eggier egghead periodicals go so far as to create two additional subcategories, objective and subjective. I'll leave it to the more ambitious to investigate them but I cannot escape the sense they simply exist to give MFA professors something to talk about.

Limited third person also has a narrator but only provides the thoughts and emotions of the protagonist. I'd be very interested in anyone who can recommend a book employing this viewpoint. Multiple third person again has a narrator but increases the number of characters whose thoughts and emotions are available to the reader but not to the all-encompassing extent omniscient does. Learning their existence did not tempt me to abandon omniscient. Again, as a fiction writer, why shackle my imagination?

Nonetheless, I welcome my 1st person colleagues to comment on their decision. Not to justify it. None is needed or expected. But simply to provide us the basis for all wisdom: perspective.

Lastly, as I wrote this blog I uncovered a hidden gender bias. I've always assumed, that is, 'heard' my narrators as male. I'm curious if any of my male colleagues hear theirs as female. How do female readers hear theirs? Is it possible for a writer to deliberately give a narrator gender? What purpose would it serve? When I read my next 3rd person story will I hear...her?

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.