Welcome to the Booby Hatch

I'm a Picture Book Illustrator but this past Spring a story began to form in my brain (sounds painful right and it was:)
I began by sketching it out in storyboard fashion. I thought I had a vision of how the story would go, how many pages it might take to tell it, the type of art (sketchy b/w) I would need, the limited wording I wanted to use.
Well, after a while I realized I had far too many sketches for any pic book I have ever seen. I stopped, thinking perhaps it best to put down the words on paper that were going through my head as I drew.
That made it worse, because my vision for the book was completely thrown by the amount of writing I was doing. This was NOT what I had planned. It was suppose to be simple, few words, perhaps a speech bubble here and there, thought bubbles for the dog character. Now, words were flowing to match the number of images and I found myself panicking.
Now, I really don't know what I have here. Is it the quirky sort of pic book I had planned, no. Is it a story book, no. Is it a graphic novel, maybe but how do I tell. Is it a mid grade novel, can't be, I'm not a writer!!!

This is the time for a good critique group.  They will help you sort out which things are working best about the project, and you'll be in a better place to decide its shape from there.

How do writers sort this out and is it normal or at least common for a writer to begin a work and then have it take over? Do Authors always know what sort of manuscript they will end up with or is it sometimes a surprise even to them?

Of course it's a surprise sometimes.  These are creative endeavors; they are supposed to have some life of their own.

Lastly, when the story starts talking back to you and you to the story, is it time for the jacket and wagon?

If that's your definition of crazy, every SCBWI conference is a looney bin.  You have a LOT of company.

Does the Gold Medalist in Swimming Need to Know Gymnastics?

Do you think editors and agents have different (lower) standards for writing that's submitted by an author-illustrator as opposed to someone who's "just" an author?
As you can imagine, I am a writer who can't draw a cube.
Some of the feedback I get from my agent has really challenged me to reach for something a lot higher with my writing. Then I see some books that are being published, and it's like they got some kind of pass. I feel like if I sent my agent a story like that, he'd send it right back to me and wouldn't even consider showing it to publishers.
Are the standards different for an author-illustrator if the art is good enough to sell an otherwise lackluster story?

If a submission wins me over partly with writing and partly with art, should I think less of it than the submission that won me over solely with writing? Both verbal storytelling and visual storytelling are talents, and both are strengths in a book.

So the answer to your question is yes, in some cases it's ok that the writing isn't as wonderful as in other manuscripts since there's such strength in the art.

It's not ok to feel these people got a pass-- they still had to submit something powerful. Just like you do. If you sent me a manuscript whose development of setting was non-existent but whose plot-development and characters were wonderful and made the manuscript worthwhile all by themselves, it would be ridiculous for me to reject it, right? Just because your strengths aren't what some other people's strengths are?

Don't think of yourself as being in the same race with author-artists-- think of yourself as being in the same Olympics. If you both end up on the winners' stand, it will be for different skills, but your accomplishments will both be worthy of the honor.

Quick Answers!

I have a fantastic story and concept for a series of childrens picture books. I have several books in rough draft and one completed. Do you recommend that I complete the other books and consider them all a single transcript or just submit the first picture book (20 page) with a reference to the series?

First book only. Please see the tag 'series and sequels' in my sidebar.

I was hoping you could answer my question as I've searched around and haven't been able to find an answer. I submitted my story to a few online critique groups in hopes of getting it polished up for submission. I've been a bit paranoid about submitting since I found
all these publishing and agent blogs online. But after getting my critiques back, no one could agree, on anything. And it was pretty split down the middle on who liked and didn't like it as a whole. I'm just curious, that if I'm getting such a wide range of comments, could it mean that this story is lost cause? Or do I need to seek out some other readers?

Well, here's the helpful thing about the people you meet in critique groups: They're showing you what they're writing. That means you can tell if some of them are really not such great writers, and so possibly not fantastic judges of writing, or if they have a lot of opinions about picture books but don't write / read picture books themselves. Maybe you should try some more crit partners before you decide one way or another.

I had part of a ms critiqued at a conference recently. The editor liked it and asked to see the full. Between the time I submitted this ms for critique and the actual meeting (about 4 months) I decided to revise the story. I explained that to the editor at the critique session and she said she was looking forward to seeing it when it was done. Within a month’s time of the critique meeting I submitted the revised ms to my agent for review. He made some good suggestions which I followed. I resubmitted a few weeks later and now agent has told me he doesn’t have time to reread it again for several months. What do you think of that, and should I be concerned that if I wait too long to get the ms back to interested editor that that interest will wane?

Several months? Um, yeah. Send that to the editor now.

Skippyjon Jones and the Audience Participation

I'm delighted but baffled by the success of the Skippyjon Jones books. The rollicking plots and language seem to barely sit still on the pages. I speak both English and Spanish yet I still need to read the books several times to get a handle on reading them aloud to my kids. I could be wrong but I imagine that this is the case for most people the first time they read one of these stories. I searched your blog for your thoughts on it but I'm just not quite satisfied. Why do you think people are attracted to the writing in the Skippyjon Jones books? Thank you for taking the time to read this message.

THIS is a case for the COMMENTS! Readers, chip in.

Is Quirky a Good Thing?

Is it ever worthwhile to de-quirk a novel?

My book has one seriously odd character: a home-schooled narrator. The consensus among replying agents, however, is that the voice is just too "quirky". Fair enough, but now what?

Is a complete re-write in order? And a re-query to follow?

Or should I trash the manuscript, hit the bottle, and move on?

Yes, sometimes it is worthwhile to revise this sort of thing.

Quirky can be great-- it can mean charming, funny, unique. But "too quirky"... If you're getting a lot of this feedback, I would start to wonder if what the agents really mean is weird and distancing.

The right amount of quirky reminds people of themselves, their own uniquenesses. Too much, though, and you can lose your audience, especially among kids, who can be pretty judgemental about weirdness in others.

Still there are good examples of very unusual behaviors and world views that absolutely work for the book they're in... Because the author has taken the trouble to make them make sense for that character-- to show us why they have these quirks.

I would suggest that you ask yourself which of your character's quirks are serving the character development enough that it's worth going to the trouble of showing the reader why the character has those quirks... and which quirks you maybe just added for "flavor"-- as a shorthand for character development. I have a hunch that some of those quirks just aren't earning their keep in your story.

Children vs Adults

I once read that children books should also be designed to target parents since they are the ones buying the books. I would think that there is some truth to that since parents probably look at content and often times decide for their kids. Do you have any words of wisdom on this?

Yes, that's absolutely something we consider in publishing, especially in picture books.

Picture books are most often bought by the adult for a child. Once you get into books with chapters, it's a more even mix of kids shopping with adults who pay vs adult shoppers alone. But yes, even then, the adult holds the purse strings and may refuse to buy something they disapprove of.

Is it possible to write a bestselling book that by far appeals mostly to adults and leaves children cold (or even creeped out)? Yes. Favorite examples include Love You Forever and The Giving Tree. You may have noticed that many people who are serious about children's books abhor and detest those books for their wildly dysfunctional relationships, but lots of adults get all mushy over them. So the authors (and their estates) can feel in need of therapy all the way to the bank.

Is it possible to write a bestselling book that by far appeals mostly to children and which outrages and disgusts adults? Yes. Favorite examples include Captain Underpants and Junie B Jones. You may have met upright people who abhor and detest these books for their bathroom humor and bad grammar, but lots of children will read them because they're funny. So the authors can feel juvenile all the way to the bank.

But here's what we're mostly shooting for: books that serve children-- their needs, their tastes-- and that will get by the gatekeepers with a minimum of fuss.

A certain amount of sympathy for parents is not out of place-- it's a tough job raising kids; a heroic job. That doesn't make laziness acceptable, and I'm one of many who think that if you know how to discipline your children, no amount of undisciplined-character exposure can undo the training your children get at home. But it does make tiredness acceptable, so I'm sympathetic to parents' preference for shorter bedtime reads.

A huge amount of sympathy for children is always appropriate. Being a child is a tough job; a heroic job. One of the things we fight in slush all the time is people who want to write for children and really don't know much about children at all. (Why do they do this? I would never decide to write for wombats. It perplexes me.)

In terms of audience, my recommendation: Children first, always. Adults advisedly.

Sexy, Sexy Armadillos

The Rejectionist has a little news flash for you: MFA programs may not help you get published.

Let me preface this by acknowledging the truth that Writing of True Genius can elevate any topic, no matter how dull or off-putting to the public's sensibilities. A 500-page novel about the sex lives of armadillos? Great!

Good, now that that's out of the way: You're not a genius.

Have you been Highly Educated in writing? That's wonderful. You've spent years thinking about what makes writing good, and practicing those skills, and caring, and god knows we need more of that. The slush pile blesses your heart.

However, what MFA programs tend to instill in writers is an appreciation for their fellow writers as sole audience, because through all that workshopping, your fellow writers are your sole audience.

Guess what? If you want to be published, writers are not your audience.

Now, this is not an argument for the dumbing-down of literature. I wholeheartedly do NOT want ANYONE to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I want you to appeal to average people, who need books as much as you do (and possibly more). Average people are not stupid, but they're less smart about literature than you are. And that's ok! And you should think it's ok, too.

Average people will happily read a Work of Fine Literature and be AMAZED and CHANGED by the experience, but they won't even pick the thing up if it's about the sex lives of armadillos, you know? (Or working-class alcoholic armadillos in snowstorms.)

If, however, it's tightly plotted and about something people can identify with, then you're on your way to moving the hearts and enlightening the minds of thousands. Your publisher loves you! Your readers love you! And your MFA program can barely recognize you, now that your head is completely out of your butt!

Multiple Personalities Unite!

I'm having a writer's identity crisis. Highlights accepted and will be publishing an easy reader story of mine, an editor is considering my middle grade historical, and I've written a YA murder mystery and am presently writing a YA dystopian sci-fi. I am not so confident that I think that I can do it all. But I do love it all. Should I follow only what I've had success in? Or should I write stories that I love and embrace my split personality?

If you haven't been writing very long, then I recommend you write what you love, and write a lot of all of it.

If you have been writing for a while, then my experience is this: some writers really do write for all kinds of age groups successfully. If you're one of those, congratulations.

And other writers, having written all the genres and age groups that they love for some time, look back on that writing and realize that while they love all those genres and age groups equally, their writing has been strongest in one or two of them.

It's easy to love what you're working on now, or have recently finished. But the manuscript you're still really proud of after you've written several more can tell you something powerful about who you are as a writer. And if you figure that out, congratulations indeed.

More Quick Answers

When I submit a manuscript to an editor, is it a good idea to include my (children's book related) blog with my contact information? Is this something an editor would be interested in?

Sure, it wouldn't hurt.

My agent is pitching my YA novel. Controversial subject. (But not chick lit or about vampires in any form.) I have received a few thoughtful, longish rejections, each with faint or nice praise. I agree with the critiques and am doing some revision. Is it best to wait for more comments or do significant revision now?

This is something to discuss with your agent. Tell her you're thinking of revising, and wonder if she should stop sending the manuscript out until the new draft is ready, or if she would rather keep pitching it while you rewrite. Whatever decision you come to should make sense to both of you.

I've received a fair number of "good" rejections from editors over the years with favorable comments in spite of the rejections. Several editors have invited me to submit other work. I have continued to submit work to them (picture books) as well as other open houses. The difficult spot I find myself in now is that I am considering trying to get an agent to open doors to closed houses. However, as I have already submitted some of my manuscripts to numerous publishers, I'm afraid that I have, in a sense, tied an agent's hands when representing my work. Should I give up on the idea of finding agent representation for some of these manuscripts or should I wait until I have something new that has not yet been submitted?

Because I'm not an agent and I don't know who you've been submitting to, I can't be sure whether your previous submissions will hamstring a potential agent. You might be able to find an agent now--as long as you're up front with him/her in your initial contact about where the manuscript you've sent them has already been shopped, and why (those personal connections sometimes make a difference). Your chances may be better, though, with a brand new manuscript.

I am writing my first YA novel; extremely to succeed. I have all these thoughts in my head and sometimes find it challenging expressing them, not only because writing genuinely is hard, but because Spanish is my native language. I just purchased two books on writing YA and quit my job to finish my novel. I know, my mother-in-law said I was crazy. Then again, "nothing ventured, nothing gained". What does it take to be a great writer? What advice you would give to someone really willing to follow it? A million thank yous from Puerto Rico.

There are different definitions of what makes a writer "great", and the ways that different writers go about being their version of great varies a great deal, too. So unfortunately there is no simple formula for greatness. But I do strongly recommend reading every day and writing every day, faithfully and persistently, and wanting to live the rest of your life that way. Greatness is not achieved through a passing interest or periodic dabbling, and most writers' first work (or works) do not get published. I can tell you at least that no one ever achieves greatness by wanting to be a writer-- only by being one.

Addendum: some great writerly advice from Patrick Rothfuss, courtesy of Maine Character.

Take Four Lefts, and Then Ask Someone Else for Directions

My husband and I have written two novels together (one MG/YA and one Chapter Book). There are no human characters “featured” in either. We’ve gotten what appears to be interest in both (“excellent writing”, “well developed worlds”, etc.), but have not been able to entice an agent. Recently, one major house, after the editor (from a conference) requested a full and responded that he loved our MG/YA manuscript and went through the scenes he liked the best, said that his “boss” did not like the idea of animals having human characteristics. We’ve gotten that response from a number of professionals at SCBWI conferences we’ve attended. When they hear that there are no human characters in our completed manuscripts, they turn us down without looking at the work. So, my question is are we just looking in the wrong places or is this a market trend and both projects should just be shelved for the time being? Alternatively, should we take this as a “sign” that the projects just need more work?

There do seem to be some people who have a bit of a prejudice against animals as main characters. This doesn't make much sense, because there are plenty of very popular books of this sort*. So you may not have found the right house yet.

But it could mean the manuscripts aren't quite ready yet, too. I think that because animals as main characters take a little extra suspension of disbelief, when it works, it works, and most people will recognize it. And when it doesn't work, when somehow it's not quite convincing enough, people fault the animals instead of the believability.

Have you ever asked someone for directions to a place, and their response was "Oh, you're lost." Yes, yes I know I'm lost. That's why I need directions.
The toughest thing about feedback is that it's subjective. The second toughest thing is that sometimes people can only tell you you're not there yet, and when they try to guide you in the right direction, they're pointing the wrong way.

*Poppy series
Redwall series
Warriors series
The Highway Cats
The Underneath
Firebringer
Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIHM
Watership Down
Guardians of Gahoole
etc etc.

On the Effort Meter, This Manuscript Is Reading 'Sisyphean'

Is having a good idea for a middle grade novel enough in publishing? What I'm trying to find out is at what point is a manuscript considered to be too much work? What does "too much work" mean from an editor's perspective? Do you ever encounter situations in which your love of a book makes the "too much work" aspect not as important and insurmountable?

I'm not absolutely sure how to answer this question. If you mean, is having a good idea enough to excuse a phenomenal lack of writing ability, the answer is no.

As I've mentioned before, ideas are not everything. If everything about the writing needs work, then it's almost certainly too much work for any editor, no matter how good the idea.

That said, there is wide variety in types of writing strengths. Some writers are great at dialogue; some at setting; some at character; some at plotting; some at mood. The best writers are good at pretty much all of these, but if your writing is hitting just one of these qualities in a way that is particularly compelling to the book's audience, then that may in fact be enough. Maybe.

Every editor weighs how much she likes a manuscript against how much work she thinks it will be to edit it. Do you have a bad habit of adding adverbs to all your dialogue tags? That's irritating, but it's also EASILY FIXED. Do you simply have no idea how to show, not tell, and your fantastically plotted novel is by turns condescending and boring because of it? That's irritating, and ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX.

And there's also the question of the author's ability to receive one correction and run with it. I've critiqued first pages that had a pernicious fault, like overuse of adjectives. The author thanked me kindly for my input and asked if she could send me the whole manuscript. Sure, ok. When I got the manuscript, that fault had been fixed on the first page AND NOWHERE ELSE. People like this are a long, long slog to edit.


One of the misconceptions editors meet most often among non-editors is that we can fix anything. No, we can't. We don't have superpowers. Our ability to make anything better depends on our ability to convey to the author what's working and what's not working and why, and the author's ability to apply that knowledge. In order to edit anything, it has to be the author who fixes things, not us.

If an author simply can't write, well, no one can fix that.

The Driver Who Gets the Car Stuck in a Ditch Does Not Get to Ask Me if I Enjoyed the "Trip"

I recently re-read The Little House in the Big Woods. I love Laura as a character, but I was struck by how plotless the book is. It has a structure--that of the year. And it has a sort of Robinson Crusoe charm, as we learn how to do everything from skinning a pig to making maple sugar. But what about plot? How important is plot in a book for grade-school age children?

A plot is a good idea.
Is it possible to create a charming and readable book without a plot? Yes, if you're talented enough. Is it possible to create a charming and readable book without a plot and in which practically nothing happens? Ditto.

However,

a. Let's remember that we're talking about Advanced Writing here, so please please PLEASE do not assume you can write your very first book without a plot or occurrences of any kind. Probably not your second, either. And maybe none of them.

If you construct a car, people are going to expect to see it go someplace. If you create one of the most fascinating and beautiful cars ever, then maybe people won't mind if you don't create it with an engine and they can only watch it sitting there for 300 pages.

b. When you decide to think about other books in comparison to the book you are trying to sell DON'T COMPARE IT TO BOOKS THAT WERE PUBLISHED MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO PLEASE YOU ARE KILLING ME. Such decades-old books are still selling partially because of their writing... and partially because they're old and "classic" and adults (aka 'people with money to spend') remember them fondly from their own childhoods. Not because people would necessarily choose them over new books if those classics were new themselves.*

*please note I have nothing against the Little House books and reader outrage and/or allegations of slander are unnecessary. Certain other "classics", however...

Back to Front

When an agent/editor asks for the first three chapters of your fiction manuscript, does that include the prologue (prologue, chapter one, chapter two) or is the prologue optional?

If your prologue is optional to the story, then you can leave it out of your submission.
But then if your prologue is optional to the story, I'd recommend you leave it out of the book.

I get a little itchy when faced with a prologue; experience says most prologues will be better as chapter 1, or worked piecemeal into the main story, or left out entirely.

The place for backstory is not the front of your story.

Writer's Block Is a Problem of Butts

I am a 26-year-old woman and work as a Feature Writer / Reporter for the Daily Star in Dhaka, Bangladesh. I have always been passionate about writing, but lately I feel as if I am going through this block which is simply lasting for too long. Not many writing workshops take place here. What can I do to improve my writing skills (reading skills as well)?

No doubt my readers can suggest writing exercises and even some online workshops. And I'm sure there are online comparative literature courses.

But what will improve your reading skills? Reading. Read the types of things you want to be writing.

What will improve your writing skills? Writing. As Jane Yolen says, "Butt. In. Chair." If you're experiencing writer's block, it may be that you can't write what you want to write yet, but it's perfect malarkey to think that you can't write. Sit down and start writing, whatever it is that comes out.

Parent Ex Machina

Some of you will be familiar with the term deus ex machina. But for those of you who aren't, the OED says:

"A power, event, person, or thing that comes in the nick of time to solve a difficulty; providential interposition, esp. in a novel or play."

It's not a good thing. It's cheating.

The term comes from the time in performing arts when, if the plot had gotten hopelessly away from the main characters and the playwright had utterly written himself into a corner, suddenly GOD INTERVENES. In the form of a figure lowered into the scene in a basket. Yeah, seriously.

So the hero is suddenly face-to-face with the dragon, and oh whoops, that's right, he lost his sword to that boggy tart in act 2, crap, I didn't think of that. So all he has now is a salad fork... well, shit. Oh! I know! GOD INTERVENES and turns his fork into a bazooka! Ta-dah! That's some good plot writing, huh?

No. It's some crap plot writing, and the reason is that the only satisfactory way for a conflict to be resolved is for THE PROTAGONIST TO INTERVENE. That's what your damn protagonist is for!

Now, in children's books, this is a particular problem. It's especially tempting, because children experience outside powers that providentially interpose themselves all the time-- they're called parents. Parents swoop in to solve kids' problems, give them things they couldn't have gotten by themselves, and save them from danger. That's real life.

But it's not real storytelling. So the next time you're tempted to lower a parent or other powerful adult into your plot to make things easier, DON'T.

To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton,
We don't tell children stories to teach them that there are dragons. Children know there are dragons; they meet them every day. We tell children stories to teach them that dragons can be slain.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Norrell

In your experience which is better: two shorter fantasies that follow a similar time line, each complete in themselves (a sci-fi example would be Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow), or a great fat novel that included all the story lines at once?

I've read that publishers want to know they'll have more than one book out of an author, but from the stuff I see on the shelf lately it seems big books are quite popular too. (I ask, of course, because I'm working on a project that has reached the point when I have to choose which way I'm going).

I think that preference is going to vary per editor and house. More likely, the editor will prefer two books (more revenue), but in terms of what you write, you shouldn't base this decision on what a hypothetical editor wants. Do what will serve the story and your audience best.

Goddamned Poets. Always Thinking They're So Artistic and Poetical... Why, In My Day...

I was wondering if I could pick your big brain about novels in verse...Specifically YA novels in verse. I have only just discovered them and have read some knockouts. (I Heart You, You Haunt Me, Far From You, and What My Girlfriend Doesn't Know).

What are your feelings about novels in verse? Is there a market for them right now?

They're cool, but can be harder to sell. A wide segment of the population is vaguely (or even pointedly) suspicious of poetry. This makes little sense to me personally; I think poetry is wonderful. But you can't discount it.

Some people look at poetry and see that it can serve a more focused approach toward language; it can be fun; it can be beautiful; it can be moving; and as it takes up more space than it does time, it can be very accessible to kids who don't want to sit through a whole novel.

But other people don't know what to think about poetry. Why doesn't it just speak and/or format itself like normal writing? (Is it because the author is pretentious and thinks she's better than me?) Why is there all this damn white space on the pages? (Is it because the author is lazy and didn't want to write a whole novel?) Why is some of this stuff so oblique, forcing me to think about it or even guess at what it means? (The only reason an author would want to say something in a way that the reader can't follow is if the author doesn't like the reader, right?)

So many people end up suspecting (or even feeling quite sure) that writers of poetry are pretentious, lazy jerks who dislike the people who read their poetry. These people need a gentle welcome to the idea of a novel in verse.

How edgy can they be?

YA is getting edgier and edgier. As long as it's not edgy for the sake of edgy, I say go for it.

Should they be in first person?

Who cares?

What is the general word count?

Ask Amazon.

How do I format the thing when Word wants capitals and proper punctuation?

Good question. Do your best.

As Ursula Nordstrom Said, "No, I Don't Have Any Children. But I Was a Child, and I Haven't Forgotten a Thing."

In Fear and Loathing in Children's Books you made a comment about writing for the group you identify most with, and the need to recognize where that is as quickly as possible. Could you expand on that? And what about people who write for more than one age (especially as their children pass through those ages they're writing for)? Is that an example of reading producing like? (Assuming here the writer is reading to his/her children.)

Some authors seem to have a fairly specific internal age; very likely it's the age they remember best from their own childhoods. When they write for this age, it sounds right; it feels right. Their characters' thoughts and speech and action feel inimitably their own, which comes both from the author's deep empathetic connection to the characters, and from the respect that empathy engenders.

There are other authors who seem to have vivid memories of a great deal of their childhoods, and can write empathetically and respectfully for a wide range of ages.

And then there are authors who, no matter how much they love their own children, cannot truly remember what it was like to be a child at all, and so should not be writing for children. This state leads to the earnest, kind, well-intentioned, and utterly disrespectful talking at children rather than to them.


People who remember childhood well not only remember how they thought and felt at a particular age; they know that in a profound way, children and adults are equals.

Because we are all equally human.

Fear and Loathing in Children's Books

Would it put off a publisher if a picture book story showed both a parent and child being frightened of monsters? From one of your previous posts about layers of meaning, a child could read a whole lot of negative things into seeing a parent being scared.

That is correct.

Most stories seem to avoid that by having the parent either absent, reassuring, or disinterested/disbelieving.

Exactly.

Is this a tried and trusted formula, or is there some leeway - such as Michael Rosen's We're Going On A Bear Hunt?

There is some leeway--there's some leeway in pretty much every "rule" out there. But this is something to be very careful with.

Let's think about We're Going On a Bear Hunt. Most children do not have a built-in fear of bears (the way many do of monsters); after all, many children's books are about cuddly bears. So bears as a plot element are not automatically the source of anxiety other "bad guys" are. The bear in this book offers a mild thrill --just slightly more than an excuse to play at running away-- rather than a source of real conflict. And there's a dose of humor in this book that takes much of the sting from the bear's tension.

The book also doesn't complicate the ending with psychological extras-- when the family is home, they're safe. Period. The book tells small children what they already know and want to believe-- that there are scary things out there, but home is absolute safety, like a law of the universe.

Older children, of course, can explore the idea that home is not so safe.

And very young children can also enjoy stories where the bad guy/source of fear is dealt with a bit differently (Go Away, Big Green Monster; the goblin story in Little Bear's Visit; There's a Monster At the End of This Book; Mrs McMurphy's Pumpkin), but it must be dealt with sensitively. If you can't manage to empathize with the fear that small children feel --to understand in your gut where it comes from and what allays it-- then don't write that kind of story for them.

Many writers seem to have an ideal age range--the one they themselves most strongly empathize with-- and it's an important thing to recognize yours.

Whenever you don't know your audience, you're writing for the wrong crowd.

How Many Legs in "Buffalo"?

On his blog, Nathan Bransford once said that he can often tell when someone will almost positively never be published from their query letters.

Yes, that's true.

It seems likely that most of these people have no sense of this, as they are continuing to query.

Indeed.

The next logical step in this self-destructive thinking pattern is that I may be one of these people myself.

So my question is, when should an author give up? Is there any way to tell if I'm just a crap writer and it's never going to happen? I know you'll say you shouldn't be doing this if you don't love it, etc. But in reality, although I enjoy writing, I don't love editing and revising and all that jazz. In fact, I hate it. If I knew I'd never get published I'd just give up on that bit and stick to blogging and leaving comments on blogs to fulfill my need to communicate with the world.

I know, you hear things like, "Crazy people don't think they're crazy."-- and it makes you think, "um... I don't think I'm crazy. Does that mean I'm crazy?" Writers live a great deal in their heads, and sometimes it gets a little crowded in there, huh?

It's sometimes hard to bring across to people to whom writing with clarity comes naturally, but editors and agents get piles of queries from people who are barely competent to scratch a drawing of a buffalo on a cave wall, and who would probably manage to misspell even that.

I can tell from the way you wrote this letter that you have a fine grasp of the English language, the use of its grammar and punctuation, and are capable of putting ideas in logical order without unnecessary repetition.


You know the quote "I don't know art, but I know what I like"? There are plenty of people like that in books, as well. On the one hand, it's fine for people to like whatever they like, and especially in children's books I am a proponent of readers reading whatever makes them want to read more.

But when it comes to writing, yes, there's the rub. "I don't know writing, but I know what I like" just doesn't fly when you're trying to create writing rather than just consuming it. Would you say "I don't know electricity, but I know what I like," before attempting to wire a house? Would you say, "I don't know brain surgery, but I know what I like," before picking up a scalpel?

Perhaps writers who are secretly worried they're terrible and don't know it could cast their minds back to their high school and college days, and ponder how well beloved they were of their English teachers. Did your teachers give you high marks on your writing? Or did you get every paper back with misspellings and ungrammatical constructions marked in red, and points withheld for style? Have you been complimented on your writing by people who read a great deal in the same field for which you're writing? Or have you been complimented on your writing by people who think of the comics page as their primary encounter with written language?


There's no need to love every part of the industry-- truly, there's no one who does. There are difficult, exhausting aspects no matter which role you have. You've got to love some part of it, and love that part a lot, for that very reason.
And you've got to recognize it when your own imagination is trying to stab you in the back. ;)