J.S. Frankel's Blog

Stepping up...

For every writer, there are certain stages in their development. When they first start out, they make mistakes. Grammatical ones, errors in pacing, character development--whatever. That's natural, and it's to be expected.

At that stage, many reviewers will forgive those mistakes. "Oh, it's their first or second novel. They're growing, developing."

No, not all reviewers will be that lenient, but many are, I've found. Goodness knows, I made my share of mistakes back when I started. (I still make them, only far fewer).

At the second stage, though, after your fifth book or so, the reviews can and often do become harsher. Those who read your earlier work expect more. They expect tighter pacing, better and fuller character development, a more cohesive plot--the woiks. And because they do, their reviews reflect that.

Is that a bad thing? No, not necessarily. It forces the writer to up their game, draw on every bit of effort, inventiveness, and ingenuity they can come up with. Most rise to the challenge. Some don't.

It all depends on the genre, of course. Writing certain genres demands basic ideas. Or, the fancier plot devices are eschewed in favor of certain things. (Hardcore erotica that verges into porn comes to mind. There, great writing isn't a priority. The emphasis on sex scenes is, but I digress...).

For other genres, it's imperative that the writer continue their development. The question is how. Below are a few basic steps. I realize that there are many, but these are the basics. One, they go back to their prior work and see where it can be improved, the ol' woulda shoulda coulda thing. I've done that, and it works well.

Structuring your writing for pace and flow is incredibly necessary. Many newbs or semi-newbs tend to write long, run-on sentences or add in too much unnecessary detail. Both are not useful. Say what you want to say, and then move on.

I'm very much a minimalist writer. Anyone who's read my work can tell you that. I'm very much influenced by the late Elmore Leonard who said to cut the fat and leave the meat. (Paraphrased). I've used that mantra ever since my second novel and I'll continue to use it. It works for me.

Number two is to make a plan. I realize that many writers are pantsers, and if it works well for them, fine. More often than not, though, pantsing leads to a lack of cohesiveness.

Making a plan doesn't have to involve a lot of preparation. Some basic notes on what happens in each chapter, what the characters say and think, what happens next...they'll all work and work well. All it takes is a little forethought and you're golden.

The third way is to employ the watchful eyes of beta readers. Beta readers can and should be merciless--but tactful--in their assessments. In my earlier days, I never employed beta readers. I relied on my own sense of what was right, and my editors often suggested ways to improve what I'd written.

However, in the past couple of novels, I did ask a few people to beta read for me. Fight Like A Woman comes to mind. It was a gender switch novel with a lesbian love angle, so I asked the most obvious people for help.

And they delivered. I had a few lesbian writers/readers go over the manuscript in order to make sure I wasn't screwing up somewhere along the way. Sure enough, I did mess up here and there, and they set me on the correct path. So, for the not-so-newbie writer, beta readers are invaluable.

Finally, know your weakness and focus on them. All writers have them, even if they're loathe to admit it. All writers have strengths, which they're quick to play up. Mine happen to be action and dialogue. (See what I did there?

With weaknesses, you have to improve them if ever you're going to be taken seriously.

So, now you know what to do. Writers have to continuously up their game. Up yours.

Numbers are just that...

Something to think about. We use numbers to make sense of the world around us. We collate and crunch and quantify, and either it's one or more. (Okay, negative integers need some love, too!).

Bottom line: we tend to judge things in terms of numbers on how 'good' something is. In some cases, it's totally apt. A baseball player who hits .300, has 30 homers and 100 RBIs is better than one who hits .250, has 18 homers and 88 RBIs. All other things being equal--games played, defensive ability, etc.--the first player one comes out ahead.

In the publishing world, it's a different story, so to speak, and no pun intended. Lower is always better--or is it?

I'm not so sure. I've read books that were in the 1.5 million category and considered them better than those in the top 100.

We all know the purchase of one book can alter rankings by a million or more, and we tend to be drawn to the lower numbers.

But lower or higher isn't necessarily a good indicator of how good the book is, unless it remains in the top 100, or, let's be generous, the top 10000 for a few weeks. Even then, it's a matter of opinion.

A reviewer once said that I should be better known. I'm not going to disagree. (Winks). That's not bragging; it's what they said.

However, to GET known, your books have to be purchased and read first, so when you go 'zon shopping--or shop at another site--forget about the numbers. Check the blurb, the synopsis, the reviews, and then decide.

Just my thoughts for the day.

Many people have called me "prolific" vis-a-vis me turning out novels. Well, not to toot my own horn too much, but, yes, I've been quite productive. That is a fact, as over thirty novels in the past five years are any indication. Other writers have written more, and others far less.

To me, being productive--not to be confused, unfortunately, with being successful in the financial sense (darn!)--simply means budgeting your time to do what you love the most.

Many writers have complained that they don't have the time in which to pen their work. I get it, I really do. They have full-time jobs, family, friends, social functions, pets...the list goes on. And many people simply love procrastinating. (I do, too, so I get that as well).

I also work--not as often or as much as I'd like, to be honest--and I have my wife to take care of. However, I still get stuff done, and below is a basic primer on how to get sh!t done and still have a life left over for yourself.

If there's a secret to being productive, then it's budgeting your time. Of course, family comes first, as it should. If you have children, young children, or children with special needs, then they MUST come first. Same deal if your spouse or your parents need care.

But, if you want to get that novel done, here are a few 'hacks' (and I really don't care for that word, preferring to use tips, instead) to help you along.

One: set aside a chunk of your day or night to writing. Get your thoughts down, save the file, and then do whatever else needs to be done. That time is your time, so don't let anything interfere unless your SO/child/parent needs 'round-the-clock care.

Two: in line with the above suggestion, don't worry about perfection. Some writers can't abide by writing down anything less than what they consider to be perfect. In contrast, I never worry about that. I simply get the basics down, leave notes on what happens next, and finish writing for the night.

You can always edit later on. Always. You can't edit what ain't there, and you can't worry about perfection, for that's a nebulous concept. Just get those all-important thoughts down and keep on keepin' on.

Three: limit social functions if they aren't helping you. I know many people love going out, going to bars, hoisting a few, kicking back, etc. Nothing wrong with that. But if boozing up cuts into your writing time, then why bother? You have to decide which is more important to you.

Four: get your zzzzzzzs in. Many writers tend to burn the candle at both ends. I've done that, but my health eventually suffered. While it seems cool to write late--and sometimes, if you have a deadline, it can't be helped--in the long run, it's counterproductive.

Five: take care of you! This is perhaps the most important tip of all. In the past couple of years, I've suffered health issues that have prevented me from working at full capacity. High blood pressure, herniated discs, and this year, colitis and ileitis have really done a number on me.

As someone once said in a movie: "You can't arrest the bad guys if you're dead." In the same vein, you can't turn out a good novel unless you're well enough to write it. So take care of you. Get your health checked regularly. Trust me. You'll be glad you did.

Okay, long title, but bear with me. First, here are the definitions, and then I'll get to the nitty-gritty of it all. Basically, sympathy means feelings of pity or sorrow for someone else's misfortune or a group's misfortune.

Empathy means the ability of understand and share the feelings of another person or group of people. The difference between the two is often blurred, but in empathy's case, it involves putting yourself in the shoes of another. Sympathy simply means feeling badly for someone, but not getting emotionally involved, as it were.

As John Steinbeck once wrote: "It means very little to know that a million Chinese are starving unless you know one Chinese who is starving."

Is that a bad thing, not getting involved? No. It's a coping mechanism of the human mind, a kind of distancing we do in order to keep ourselves emotionally stable. That's how I see it, anyway.

Okay, back to how it made me improve as a writer. When I started out in this crazy world we call writing, I didn't really think beyond the surface of those concepts. My focus was on action, first and foremost, and it's something I excelled at.

However, as time went by, I began to see that I was simply going through the motions, an almost paint-by-number scenario, which made what I wrote too predictable. Not bad, but sort of predictable.

It was only when I got in touch with my empathetic side that I learned to step into those shoes of another. Having my own health take a dive on me pushed me one way, and having friends who were in that disadvantaged community pushed me somewhere else. I began to identify more with those whose health wasn't the best, because I was now there. (I still am).

All right, now here's the part which is bound to piss some people off. I feel the same way about the LGBT crowd. No, I'm not gay or transgender, but I have friends who are, and when I wrote about certain topics--lesfic and gender switching, for example--it helped having a certain amount of empathy for those who'd been messed over not only by laws being passed or repealed, but also dumped on simply for being different. That has never sat well with me. Ever. It never will.

How does this all equate to better writing? It forced me to seek a deeper emotional side of what it meant to be in those other peoples' shoes. It gave more depth to the human side of the characters I created, and it gave me a broader understanding of the human condition.

Now, does this make me a leftie, as those on the right sometimes say? Does this make me a snowflake?(That term has always amused me). If you're for LGBT rights, then you must be a leftie, or so some people think.

Well, to be honest, I happen to be right-wing on a number of issues, mainly free speech, the second amendment (although I can't see owning a semi-automatic, but that's just me) free trade, and more.

But when it comes to equal rights, don't tell me that's a universal concept, because it clearly isn't. It isn't in a number of foreign countries, and it's been eroded over the years in the pro-Western countries by lawmakers who don't have the best interests of everyone at heart.

That's how I see it, and that's why I sometimes include it in my writing. If nothing else, what's happened to friends of mine, what's happened to me over the past year or so, has developed my empathatic skills. This is my experience and mine alone. And the fact that my writing has improved, immeasurably so (n my view, if no one else's) shows that having a little empathy can go a long way.

I've always written YA Fantasy, with the occasional foray into more adult-oriented literature. I like YA because of its immediacy, its freshness, and its willingness to challenge the status quo, in many cases. You can do an awful lot with a fantastic premise, and if it's done right, it can please any reader out there, no matter what their age.

For me, it's truly magical. Not in the sense of waving a wand, no, but in how people find each other and learn to relate to each other as well as finding out more about themselves. This is the key for me: how the protagonist(s) learn and how they have to step up, sometimes against impossible odds.

The selling point, though, is something that I'd like to address. On FB and Twitter, to a lesser degree, it's the adults who are vetting the books, not their kids.

While I do agree that in the case of younger tweens and teens (i.e. 12 to 15 or so years of age) the adults should have a say in what's bought and what isn't--and, after all, it's the adults who are buying these books, by and large--I think that they tend to view the stories in terms of what's acceptable to them, not necessarily what their children would like to read.

I would certainly hope that they consult with their children over what they want. Me, I write clean. I keep the swearing to the bare minimum, and most of my novels have zero cussing. (Unless you count "damn" or "pissed off" as swearing. On occasion, I've used the S-bomb, but nothing more than that).

Same deal with sex. If the story calls for it, then I include a sex scene, but do it in a fade-to-black kind of manner. Other writers will differ in their approach, as is their right.

Overall, though, I think that I can offer something that appeals to everyone. That's what I'm aiming for: a good story that entertains, enlightens, and that satisfies the readers.

How to write memorable bad guys/gals--that's what someone once asked me. "Shouldn't they be as three-dimensional as the good guys/heroines?"

My answer: yes--and no. It all depends on the POV and how much backstory you put into it. For me, this is how it goes.

If you're writing first-person POV from the MC's side of things or even third-person limited, he/she can realize what kind of a nutcase they're dealing with, either through what the baddie says and/or does, or, conversely, the MC could read it somewhere or see video footage.

That's actually quite easy to set up. It isn't lazy writing, per se. It's only lazy if someone says, "Oh, he's bad" and there's no evidence as to why. The baddie has to physically demonstrate their evilness, even if it's making a phone call that ruins someone else's life and they grin while doing so.

If the novel is third-person omnicient, then why not flesh out the baddie by showing what they do, their mindset, their rationale for being bad, and so forth? Sure, it takes more effort, but then you'll have a well-rounded villain, not some cardboard cutout.

Now, how quirky should you make them? Personality-wise, I wouldn't pen a character who says, "I'm gonna murdalize ya!" Not only does that sound cartoonish, it really doesn't set up the final showdown with the 'oomph' you want. It's perfectly fine if a henchman or henchmen are drooling sociopaths, but the chief baddie? Uh-uh.

I prefer to my villains them speak well, not use contractions very often--if at all--and have them fairly to very well dressed. Then, as the book goes along and their plans go awry, I can set them up as becoming progressively more unraveled.

Finally, they become so desperate and off-kilter, they're ripe for the picking. I've done that with a number of novels, chiefly Ether, and Fight Like A Woman, and it worked out well those times.

Should they have other quirks, like Blofeld with his kitty? Well, you're the author. You decide. Some are obsessively neat. I did that in one novel where the nasty person was always dusting their shoes and flicking imaginary lint off their shoulders. I also gave them an eye twitch that got progressively worse as the novel moved along. Zero complaints about his portrayal.

Ah, now we come to the big decision: should your antagonists be redeemable? It depends on the story. If they've already slaughtered droves of citizens, I really can't see them regaining their honor. And if you toss in brainwashing/mind control, that's lazy writing, to my way of thinking. I'm not saying that some villains can't be redeemed; many great stories have shown just that.

But for me, if they're redeemed, then there's no conflict, anymore. If there's no conflict, then the hero/heroine has nothing to do. Their quest is over, and their attempt for growth has been stymied. That's precisely why I don't redeem my villains.

So, what to do? Either jail them or kill them with fire! I usually have them meet their doom in a rather gory manner, as far as the standards of YA will let me.

I don't get graphic--okay, in The Undernet, I did--but I give just enough blood to make their passage to hell a justifiable one. In only one case did I ever imprison the chief baddie--that was Catnip 5, the final novel in the series, and that was more satisfying than just killing him.

At any rate, this little primer on doing villains is just that--a primer. The rest if up to you.

Agendas...

Every day, we're bombarded with messages, advertising, spam, regular PMs, and troll posts. Sometimes, it's just plain difficult to ignore it all. Sure, you can always block those offenders and their offensive posts, but, like the Hydra, cut off one head and two more shall take its place.

For the record, I learned that reading Greek mythology, not from Captain America. ;)

The first paragraph deals with outside forces we cannot always control. But, as writers, this is something we can and do and should pay attention to. Why? Read on.

We all have our personal biases in politics, religion, matters of sexuality and orientation and more. And it's only natural that some of those things may be featured in our novels. I can tell you quite honestly that I've used all of the above at one point or another. No, not in every novel; a few.

Really, I have no agenda save one: I want to tell a good story. Nothing more and nothing less. However, if it means making fun of a political figure for their utter venality or stupidity, if it means calling someone out on their fat shaming tactics or their bigotry, then, hell yeah, I'm all for it.

However, being one-sided is NOT the way to go. There is something called balance.

Writing a polemic against this or that doesn't work, either. It's called preaching, and that's a cardinal sin when it comes to storytelling. Sure, the people who think the same as you do may love it, but if you're trying to find new readers, then slamming them over the head with a mega-rant would turn a saint to the Dark Side.

I can't begin to tell you how many stories I've read that could have been great if and only if the author hadn't stooped to ranting and shouting their 'cause' for the whole world to see. A skillful writer would have couched their opinion(s) in a subtler way. Those writers couldn't.

Now, having an opinion ain't a bad thing. Being pro-this or anti-that isn't terrible, either, and supporting your cause through writing is fine.

But if you rant, if you rave, if you simply present a diatribe against something or someone without any balance or sense of fairness, or worse, if it contributes nothing to the narrative, then why the hell would you toss that in there? That makes no sense to me.

So, for what it's worth, have your say in your novels. Present the case, as it were, and let the readers decide. But if you do, try to be fair and see both sides. I realize that in some cases you can't and other cases you shouldn't, but, for me, being balanced is what it's all about.

JMO for the day.

Don't be afraid of failing. Be afraid of not trying.

This is a rule that everyone should adhere to. It's simply an affirmation of taking chances. I've forgotten how many times I've heard from wannabe writers saying, "I want to write a book, but I'm afraid no one will buy it or even read it."

Well, if you don't try, you won't know. It's that simple.

Look, I understand your trepidation. I've been there. My first novel sold about twenty copies. Sure, I was discouraged, but I didn't stop.

I was also told by some agents, publicists, and fellow writers--as well as a few not-so-well-meaning people--that I had no chance in succeeding. If I'd listened to them, then I wouldn't be here now, thirty-three novels out there and more on the way.

No, I'm not rich. I wish! But I am productive, and I chalk my low sales up to lousy marketing--which I'm still learning about and better late than never--than to bad writing. If you doubt me, check out my reviews. Just sayin'...

But I was never afraid to try something new in writing. I started out writing first-person. It was a big jump for me to do third-person limited. It worked, first with my Catnip novels and with others.

I started out writing from a guy's POV, because I'm a guy and you write what you know best, yes? I wrote The Menagerie, the Lindsay/Jo trilogy, and the upcoming What The Gods Allow from a woman's POV.

Was that daunting? Yes, because it required a different mindset. Was it easy? No. But I wanted to stretch and grow as a writer, and that meant taking a chance.

Even doing gender switch novels such as Twisted and Fight Like A Woman required a different mindset, and I'm proud of both books, especially the latter, although I had a blast in writing both of them.

The bottom line is that I overcame my fear of messing up and dared to try something new. And that's what all writers should do. Who cares if it isn't good? Who cares if it doesn't work? What it provides is experience and the possibility of gaining knowledge, and that knowledge can be put to good use somewhere down the line.

So, for what it's worth, don't be afraid of screwing up. We all do, even the big names out there. But you can be damn sure that they didn't let fear hold them back. And it shouldn't hold you back, either.

For the writers out there who say they aren't appreciated for what they do, or who say that others don't appreciate what they do...

You are.

Writers are the ones who dream, who create. So do other professions, but where else in the world do you get to go to the center of the Earth, to alien worlds, to meet monsters and anime characters and the person of your dreams? Okay, Hollywood and NASA, but they're limited. A writer's imagination is not.

Writers sacrifice their free time, sleep, social functions, family (at times, although they shouldn't) and social standing, in some cases.

Writers, like all the other artists out there, wear their product on their sleeves, as it were. They put their thoughts out for the general public to view--on full display--and have to live with the result of those 'exhibitions'. Sometimes those comments will be positive, and other times, the critics will savage their work and make them wish they'd taken up shoveling road apples for a living.

Writers live hand-to-mouth in some cases. They suffer for their craft. They have to deal with certain individuals who want, want, WANT! everything for free. "Oh, you're a writer, you can afford to give away a freebie!"

Please. Stop...just stop. Comments like those are guaranteed to set me off.

Writers go the extra mile to make sure their product is ready. That times time and effort in equal amounts for relatively little return. And why do they do it? It sure as hell ain't for the money. If I added up all the hours I've labored on my manuscripts and charged 10 bucks an hour, I'd be wealthy. So would a lot of other people. But life doesn't work that way.

Writers write because it's imperative they do so.They have their reasons. I have mine--to tell a good tale.

So the next time someone says that writers have it easy or that they don't work hard or sacrifice certain things, point them to this article and tell them to suck it. I--italics on 'I'--appreciate what other writers do and what they go through. I can only hope that my readers appreciate what I've given up along the way. Maybe they do and maybe they will.

In the meantime, back to writing.

This is for those writers who are at a crossroads in their thought processes vis-a-vis writing or not writing. They've probably been told they should give up, the competition is too fierce, their books aren't good enough, they have no talent...yada ad infinitum.

Okay, here's the scoop the way I see it. I have to be honest and I make no claims on being the best author around. I think I'm good, but I also realize there is room to improve on every front and I'll get back to that later.

One, you have to be realistic. There IS a lot of competition out there, traditional as well as self-published. That means you're usually going up against a LOT of authors in your genre, so your novel had better be good. It had better be better than good, NOT just in your mind, but in the minds of your beta readers.

I've read novels that had absolutely no right to be on the market. Poor to non-existent grammar. Overuse of adverbs--and I was guilty of that in the beginning, too--derivative storylines, flat characters...the woiks. And every single one of them was self-pubbed.

Yes, I've read many self-pubbed novels that were superb and I can give names, if you like, but the ratio of bad self-pubbed to bad trad. pubbed is something like 11:1 if the Interwebz is half right.

Whatever the case, if you can't write a comprehensible sentence, then you shouldn't publish and expect to be taken seriously.

Two--and this is in line with what I said above concerning improvement--you should try to get better in every facet of your writing. In the beginning, I had zero narrative sense. I was good at writing action scenes and dialogue, but my narrative sucked.

So, I got to it, studied what everyone else was doing right and what I was doing wrong. I developed my own style, simple, but effective. And the reviews show that I've improved.

However, that isn't enough. You have to strive for improvement in every aspect of what you write in every book you write. Be it narrative, dialogue, crafting realistic characters...whatever. Keep improving.

The Japanese use the term 'kaizen' in the business world, which loosely translates as 'neverending improvement' and that makes sense. So, get to it.

Finally, what if you have some skill and others discourage you? That's the biggie. My answer is: don't listen to them. If they offer honest critiques, yes, DO listen. But there are those who tear others down because they can, because they've never attempted to write anything of note, and because it makes them feel good to drag others down to their level.

I was told when I started out that I had nothing to offer. I didn't listen to them. I was told that I should just give up, do something else...that kind of thing. I didn't listen.

I'm on book 35 (?) now, and I still don't listen to those who have nothing constructive to say. You shouldn't, either. Constructive advice, yes. Destructive comments, no. If I'd listened to my detractors, I wouldn't be here now.

I'm still writing. So should you be writing as well. My two yen for the day.