Guest Post: C. Lee McKenzie Shares Her Latest Release

This is typically an "off" week for me, but I wanted to share some fun stuff with all of you while it's timely. Many of you already know C. Lee McKenzie as the author of Double Negative, The Princess of Las Pulgas, Sign of the Green Dragon, and many more young adult & middle-grade books. What you may not know is that she once gave me a donkey named Donkey to keep my pig, Live Bacon, company, came to my house for coffee, brought me homemade jam as a housewarming gift, and brought a yak named Hannibal to my backyard, but thankfully took him home with her at the end of the day.

But that's a tale for another tellin'. Today, I'm letting Lee take the reins so she can tell you about her newest book, the third in the Adventures of Pete and Weasel book series.

Lee, I'm so glad to have you as my guest, and can't believe it's been so long since you were here last. Enjoy yourself! My readers try their best not to be threatening.

***

I know you've just finished the A to Z, so I consider you a hero. I didn't do it this year. I just couldn't with two books coming out in the same month. Anyway, I love being here today on your blog during this launch. 

Some Very Messy Medieval Magic
May 15, Dancing Lemur Press, LLC

Some Very Messy Medieval Magic is the third book in The Adventures of Pete and Weasel. Alligators Overhead was the first and The Great Timelock Disaster the second. Instead of writing a tagline to explain what this series is about, here's the trailer that sums of the three books very quickly.

Here's how this latest adventure begins. 

         By the fourth week of eighth grade, everybody in class, including know-it-all, Curtis Lamont,  decided that having Dr. Dread Wraith as a teacher until June was going to be worse than a bowl of turnips for dessert.

The pop quizzes weren’t even a surprise anymore because he gave one almost every day. And all any kid had to do was squirm when Wraith was giving one of his lectures on the theory of general relativity, which nobody—even Weasel—had ever heard of, and he’d slap them with detention.

They cringed every time they heard his name. It was a cringe-able name after all. Pete wanted to tell the kids the reason Dr. Dread Wraith called himself that, but he didn’t want to bring up how their sub was really a bigwig in the Cross-Temporal Consortium of Witches and Wizards. Or that he had to go toe to toe with bad dudes like Genghis Khan. Like Wraith told him, without his bone-chilling name, he didn’t have the clout he needed.  

If Pete did explain all of that, then that would lead to having to explain how Wraith, who wasn’t really a bad guy, just a menace of a teacher, had followed Pete and Weasel back from their last time trip.  And that. . .well, that was just too much for any eighth grader to swallow.

All my books are available online. 

Some Very Messy Medieval Magic is available at these locations. 

AMAZON . B&N . KOBO  . SMASHWORDS . YABC 

Print ISBN 9781939844460 / EBook ISBN 9781939844477

Order through Ingram, Follett, or from the publisher

EBook available in all formats 

My publisher has created a library request letter that I'm including. If people want to check out the book, rather than buy a copy, this is one way to make that possible.

Editor's Notes #28: Parentheses in Fiction: Do They Break the Fourth Wall?

Breaking the fourth wall: this stems from a theatrical term. The "fourth wall" is where the audience sits—they're basically looking "through" it when viewing a traditional stage with three sides. If an actor spoke a line directly to the audience, he broke the wall, removing that separation.

I think one of the toughest things for a writer must be finding a way to say everything he wants to say while keeping the reader entertained and not bored or overwhelmed.

Sometimes, however, an author needs to pop just a bit more information into the narrative here and there, and there's some disagreement as to the best method of doing this. The one I'm going to focus on today deals with a character's thoughts.

In a first-person POV, every so often I come across a writer who uses parentheses in the thought process, and I've got to tell you, it bugs the crap out of me.

I didn't understand. All my brownies were gone, and Kat was the only person who'd been in my kitchen. (I'd known her for years and couldn't imagine her doing something so unthinkable.)

Why are there parentheses in the first place? This is not really any different from the rest of the thought, and it follows through with the "why" of my confusion about the brownies.

I've also seen things like this:

He saw the officer coming toward him, and recognized his old friend, Jim, from military school. "How in the world are you, buddy?" (He remembered spending holidays with Jim and his wife, going to his children's birthday parties, standing by him during loss, and more. They'd had too many adventures to count, lost track of each other over the years, and now here he was, assigned to the same base.)

In the above situation, by the time the "buddy" responded with "Not so bad," I'd already forgotten what the answer was in reference to and had to reread. And what about this?

I knew I had to check the basement to find the source of the awful stench. (I had noticed the smell days before and had tried to pretend it wasn't there. Why did I buy this haunted house, anyway? And what made me think I could avoid the basement for the rest of my life?)

More often than not, using parentheses for thoughts in a novel can be a negative experience for the reader. It's almost like the author is physically tapping you on the shoulder, saying, "Oh, and I forgot to mention this, but . . ."

Parentheses can have a more "formal" feel to them, whereas an em dash—most writers' favorite form of aside—is slightly informal in nature. Em dashes feel more like when you're talking to a friend . . . let's say an Italian friend . . . and she can't quite stay on track because she feels the need to add the odd detail here and there. Not bad, because you can still follow the story. But parentheses remind me of when someone puts a hand to the side of his mouth and whispers, "She's completely crazy, you know," while talking loudly in positive tones.

Breaking the fourth wall can be jarring, a reminder that you're reading and thus a pulling from story immersion . . . unless you're a character in Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair or any of his Tuesday Next novels—in which case, the characters are fully aware that they're characters in a book but they need to keep living their lives anyway. In his case, though, that's the way the story is designed, so it's more a whimsical tool rather than a diversion, cleverly done and entertaining.

In Fix Your Damn Book! How to Painlessly Self-Edit Your Novels and Stories by James Osiris Baldwin, his view is clear:

"Brackets/parentheses should be avoided as much as possible in fiction. You can get away with it in some kinds of novels (expository, experimental, some first-person point-of-view books), but they tend to annoy readers and editors if used too often or at all. You especially should never use them during dialogue unless you're planning to break the fourth wall. Replace them with commas or em dashes. Brackets in non-fiction are fine (within reason)."

Brackets (parentheses as they are known more commonly in the US) are found more often in business documents, so that might contribute to the overall feel of wrongness in fiction. A happy skimming of the Chicago Manual of Style can give you a good idea of how many things are great in technical manuals or propaganda, but NOT okay in fiction writing. Parentheses rank right up there.

As I was working on this blog post, in fact, my hubby, who has read G.R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series multiple times, showed me a passage he just happened to be reading in the third book, A Storm of Swords, and said, "Doesn't this look weird to you? Why are these even here?" and he pointed to this:

Then came some strolling pipers and clever dogs and sword swallowers with buttered peas, chopped nuts, and slivers of swan poached in a sauce of saffron and peaches. ("Not swan again," Tyrion muttered, remembering his supper with his sister on the eve of battle.) A juggler kept a half-dozen swords and axes whirling through the air as skewers of blood sausages were brought sizzling to the tables, a juxtaposition that Tyrion thought passing clever, though not perhaps in the best of taste.

Is it just me, or did any of you also picture Tyrion looking away from the feast and directly into a camera (or the reader's eyes) and saying that line? That one line in parentheses pulled me away from saffron and peaches and feasting, and it took more than a few lines to get me back to the story, rather than my awareness of the writing.

One person describes it as such: parentheses "joggle" in the same way footnotes "joggle," like someone bumping your elbow to get your attention; it's also described by others as "intrusive" and "jarring." Who wants their writing to be intrusive and jarring?

The answer is: no one. Authors want to keep their readers engaged and lost in the world they created. Period.

Do I Have to Love a Genre to Edit It?

As a reader, I can choose whatever book strikes my fancy, and if I don't like it once I've gotten part way into it, I can simply stop reading it.

As an editor, the "put it down" option is nowhere to be found. If I take on a job, I finish it. That's what I'm hired to do. So there's the question: Do I have to love a genre to edit it?

The answer is a big fat NOPE.

I've edited a decent number of books from a decent number of authors, and it goes without saying that those authors don't all write at the same level of skill. If a book isn't ready for edits (major issues), then that's one thing, but if a book is ready and I take on the job, it's now a matter of accepting that the writing level is either good or waaay good. Genre really doesn't factor in.

[I should clarify: genre is only a factor if someone asks me to edit erotica. I'm no prude, but I don't think editing erotica is compatible with my job as assistant to the worship leader at a large church. Call me crazy if you must, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.]

Anyway, I've found that, regardless of my typical reading preferences, the genre of a book I'm editing doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. I've been pleasantly surprised at how much I've enjoyed certain books I wouldn't think to pick up for pleasure reading. Now that my kids are no longer of the age where I sit down to read to them—and we did read aloud to them well into their teen years as a nighttime thing so we could all enjoy a good book at the same time—I rarely pick up juvenile fiction, or even young adult fiction, and yet I enjoy editing those books when they come my way. Part of it is, I think, that it reminds me of how much discovery is out there for kids who read, and part of it is that I've just worked with good writers who tell an entertaining story.

The one thing I have to be cautious about (and I don't think I actually do this, but it's always good to be alert) is to not change an author's voice while editing something I'm not really enjoying. A few years ago, I agreed to read/review a novel for someone who approached me through Goodreads. I was between edits at the time and thought it would be nice to do a new author a favor. The book was science fiction, which I love, so I thought it would be enjoyable.

Silly me. The book was not enjoyable. It was a confusing read, because it was full of time travel and the dialogue was written in the present and future tense at the same time . . . and it took me a long time to get into the flow of it enough to read without constantly rereading. It also pushed an agenda, which I do NOT like in works of fiction, even when it's a viewpoint I might agree with. It was super lengthy, too, and was only the first part in a ten-part series, from what I gathered.

The bottom line: even though I was beta/review-reading this and not really editing per se, I had to be careful to not let my (lack of) enjoyment cloud my judgment of whether the book was ready to publish. The book was written skillfully, and the author did a heck of a job self-editing (which I would never recommend to anyone as a general rule). Though there were many things I would have wanted to change, it was just fine the way it was. I felt like a huge success just by being able to give a neutral opinion when I did my report. I told the author of my struggles with it, but she actually loved my review and thanked me for separating my reading tastes from the quality of the writing.

It may be difficult, but editing should not be a matter of opinion. I try to think of it like a doctor thinks of his/her patients. Wouldn't you always want to deal with the pleasant people who are fit and attractive? Or be the dentist whose patients all have great teeth?

Editing is like that in many ways. The manuscript is the sum of its parts, and it's my job to make sure all the parts are in the condition they're supposed to be in so the whole is at its best. It's not my job to judge whether the parts are attractive to me personally, because those same parts, when put together as a whole, will be attractive to someone else.

Editor's Notes #27: Hooked On a Feeling

Writing fiction is all about plucking at people's emotional strings, whether you're aiming for tender feelings, indignation, laughter, fear, or any number of the bajillions of things that encompass the spectrum of emotions.

How do you get people to feel what you want them to feel? I've gotten steaming mad at a character's stupidity or self-centeredness. I've also laughed along with a protagonist who happens to be a serial killer. [Only semi-related side note: if you've never read anything by Tim Dorsey, you're missing out on an absolutely entertaining killer named Serge and his sidekick, Coleman, as they enjoy everything Florida has to offer. "Quirky" is not quite the word for it. I came across the "why dead people show up in later books" section of Dorsey's site, and couldn't believe how many more books he's released since I last picked one of his off the library shelves. And now, back to our regularly scheduled program . . .]

The classic "show, don't tell" is one way of getting those emotions across. Think about it: if you're telling someone about a traumatic event that happened to you, they're going to respond in a completely different way depending on whether you're listing "this happened, and then this happened," or whether you're trembling and fighting back tears as you struggle to choke out the words. Why would writing a scene be any different? Show how a character is physically dealing with things, and you're on your way.

With a sympathetic character, you can create a sort of bond between the character and the reader, so there's a bit of investment there. This can be brought about in a funny way, like how you just can't help but root for Tuck Watley (Tuck Watley: Freedom Fighter Fighter by Brandon Meyers and Bryan Pedas) because he's just so . . . well, he's indescribable, but trust me, you're rooting for him for the sheer entertainment value. Or you can root for the underdog who's been screwed over way too many times, because everyone's been treated or judged unfairly at least once in their life. Or maybe you can even root for Nick or Kevin from S.K. Anthony's series, The Luminaries, because they're incredibly sexy, yet intelligent good guys who are also some of the baddest guys around. Whatever tugs at you will pull you in if it's done well.

You could also create a character who is NOT sympathetic, and make the reader hate him. The emotion is still a strong one, and they'll not forget him easily. However, take care to not make him unlikable in every way—I edited a book once where a character was such an absolute jerk that I couldn't stand him . . . and he was supposed to be one of the protagonists. I ended up telling the author that I didn't even care what happened to him and would not want to keep reading if I had bought the book. Fun fact: turns out this particular author (who I knew was actually a skilled writer) had cowritten that particular book and was not happy with the other person's contributions (that awful character being one of them). All that was needed was a neutral voice (mine) to allow the author the necessary backup to break ties with the other writer and redo the book completely.

Letting your emotions into the writing can be an odd thing. If your character is insane, I'd imagine it's a tough call for exactly how crazy to write him. Will people think he's over-the-top freaky? Will they think you're like that in real life, and that's how you write crazy so well? Will they think you're wimpy if you're a guy who writes a really tender scene? Do writers even care if anyone thinks they're writing from experience? I need to know these things.

Have you ever written anything really strange and wondered what someone would think of YOU after reading it, even though it was fiction?

Better Late Than Never: It's a Book Review!

So hey, apparently I forgot that I was supposed to have a blog post ready for last Thursday. And didn't remember until tonight (a week later) and still didn't have something ready to go. Usually I'm a little more organized than this, but life has been happening a lot in my little world, and things have just dropped right out of my brain without telling me.

Since I had nothing but a couple drafts sketched out and nothing really ready to go, I thought perhaps I'd do something I rarely do here: a book review. Typically I'll promote some of the books I work on, and those are more hit-and-miss deals than anything, but I almost never review a book I've simply read for pleasure.

Today I break all the rules to bring you a brief review of Tuck Watley: Freedom Fighter Fighter, Book 1 of the Tuck Watley series by our very own A Beer for the Shower guys, Bryan Pedas and Brandon Meyers.

I should preface this by saying that I almost never get the time to read for the sake of reading. And reading is my default "what to do when there's down time" activity, so I don't waste time reading crappy stuff. Anymore, I don't bother continuing a book unless I'm completely captivated by the first chapter.

I should also say that being a book snob doesn't mean I only read classics. I'm a snob in the sense that I won't waste the effort on a poorly written novel, or one that's lacking in creativity. I'm definitely not a snob when it comes to genre. Humor in the style of Douglas Adams works as well for me as an epic from Tolkien, incredible science fiction, heart-stopping old-school Stephen King horror, or an autobiography.

But this . . . this book . . . I can't even adequately describe what I felt while reading it. First of all, you need to get it. I don't care who you are: if you like to laugh your butt off, get it. Read it. Butt = gone. Seriously. I have no butt anymore because I laughed it off.

Tuck Watley is, as best I can gather, an idiot. But no, he's a genius. Or lucky. Or I don't know what. Just when you think he can't be any more of an inept boob, he comes through with the solution to what's troubling America and solves a case in the most unlikely way.

Tuck works in government surveillance—protecting the American people from . . . themselves?—and the scenarios he encounters are both over-the-top ridiculous and incredibly believable, given the state of our country. His escapades remind me of Inspector Clouseau (Pink Panther), with every bit of clumsy success attached to them. He has a sidekick, DB, who is the muscle of the operation—and who would never, ever be mistaken for the brains.

I can't go into details without giving spoilers, but I have to say that this was a book I had a hard time reading without laughing out loud, or trying to read portions of it to whoever was sitting near me at the time. Brandon and Bryan are not only witty, but they manage to make even the most dorky, immature, bathroom humor hilarious to a full-grown adult, and it's all due to their skillful writing.

These guys are hilarious. I already knew that from their blog, A Beer for the Shower, but after reading Tuck Watley, I have even more respect for the fact that they know how to express themselves not only in a short web-comic a couple times a month, but for the long haul of a full-length novel. Anyone can have a funny one-liner, but what really impressed me was that I did not stop laughing from page one all the way through the end. Yes, some of the jokes were totally juvenile, but you know what? They were still stinkin' funny, and mostly because of how cleverly the writing was done. And I have to add, of course, that as an editor, I was overjoyed to read something that was edited well in addition to being written skillfully.

This is the first book I've read from Meyers and Pedas, but it certainly won't be the last.

Editor's Notes #24: Points of View Part 2—How Do I Choose?

My previous post began to explore points of view and how to choose which one is right for your story. Many of you said your characters dictated what POV they wanted you to write from. I'm not surprised. Though I suppose an author can have one that's more comfortable for his writing style, each story is unique and should never become a cookie-cutter presentation. Nobody wants boring and predictable, after all.

We've already explored the first-person point of view, with its advantages and limitations; the next step is to look at the third-person point of view—a commonly-used way of showing what's going on in more than one head.

The four major players are the same: author, narrator, viewpoint person, and protagonist. However, their roles are divvied up differently this time.

In the third-person POV, the author is still the author, but that's pretty much the only similarity. The narrator doesn't actually participate in the action this time. The author and the narrator in third-person POV are the same . . . but they aren't, which can be confusing. Whereas there's a clear line to divide the author from the narrator in a first-person piece (because the narrator is the viewpoint person), the narrator in a third-person story is seen by the reader in a different light.

Harvey Chapman (from the Writers After Dark link I shared last time) explains it like this:

The author of a novel is a real-life person who has made up the events and written the words. 

But in order to feel like what we are reading actually happened, [we] readers need to forget about the author and imagine instead that the words have been written by a kind of invisible witness to the events—a person with godlike powers, perhaps, who can look down upon reality from above and describe it to the readers. 

The crucial point here is that this godlike narrator, as unlikely as such a figure might be, witnesses something that actually happened—whereas authors merely write about events they have made up. 

And so readers will ignore the author's name on the novel's cover and imagine instead that they are being told about the events by someone who actually witnessed them firsthand.

Also unlike the first-person POV, the narrator is not the story's viewpoint person. The narrator in a third-person POV is basically someone who gets us from here to there: this happened, and let me tell you all about it. Otherwise, narrating is kind of a thankless job: readers care about the characters, not the narrator . . . so, dear Narrator Person, please don't give us your opinion. Just enough facts so we can picture it all in our heads, and then step aside so the characters can speak.

Next is the viewpoint character, but the third part of this three-part series deals with viewpoint, so I'll only touch on it here. In short, if you tell the story through one person's eyes, there's a single viewpoint. If you choose to write from multiple viewpoints, different sections or chapters will feature different eyes to see through—aka different viewpoints. This deserves a good deal of detail, so look for it in my next post in two weeks.

Finally, the protagonist comes into play. The protagonist in a third-person POV novel is the leading or central character. The character the book is written about. The main attraction. The big Kahuna. He or she is the entire reason we're reading this story.

The protagonist may or may not be the viewpoint character. If you have a single viewpoint, then the protagonist will most definitely be your viewpoint character. However, if you have multiple viewpoints, there's no guarantee that these two roles will mesh. Imagine reading a novel based on two of my favorite cartoon characters, Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy (yes, I'm an unapologetic fan of SpongeBob). Mermaid Man may be the protagonist, but perhaps his adventure is told through Barnacle Boy's eyes. Sidekicks come in handy that way. And since sidekicks typically idolize the heroes whose sides they're kicking, it might be a pretty good gig to have if you're the hero, because your story from his view will make you sound even better than you are. Unless you have a rotten, bitter sidekick who has always wanted to be #1 but you've never given him the chance to shine. In that case, "interesting" is probably the best you can hope for.

Until next time, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Not all of them . . . just the good ones.

Editor's Notes #23: Points of View Part 1—How Do I Choose?

I have this glass (from one of my favorite websites, Despair, Inc., home of demotivational everything), and in addition to always making me smile, it reminds me that different people can look at the same thing in a variety of ways. Often, this helps to fill out the bigger picture of an issue. Other times, it only serves to confuse things, like when writing a book.

It takes real talent to write from multiple points of view. Some people do it without even realizing it, but that's not what we're discussing today. Well, maybe we'll use those people as bad examples, but for now, the ones we're talking about today and next time are those writers who actually do it on purpose.

When an author sits down to put pen to paper—or fingers to keyboard, or crayon to napkin, or Sharpie to forearm—the story that flows usually takes on a voice that's easily discernible. Sometimes it's in the form of a first-person narrative, sometimes a third-person "outside voice."

There is no "right choice" that an author can make for every occasion. Each book's POV choice should be as individual as its plotline. It all depends on what you hope to accomplish, and that's where a few guidelines help.

I recently read an article featured on the Writers After Dark website, titled "The Complete Guide to Point of View," by Harvey Chapman. Not only did the post feature the two most common points of view (first person and third person), but it linked to another article (same author) which explained the logic behind the different choices. According to Chapman, many authors are tempted to skip the fundamentals and simply look at the pros and cons, but there are a few things which should be understood before choosing.

The theory and logic behind choosing a point of view boils down to the roles of four people: the author, the narrator, the viewpoint character, and the protagonist. Now of course, the author is the author, but the narrator (the one who tells the story as compared to the one who writes the story) takes on a different role, depending on the POV chosen.

In the first-person POV, the narrator is also the viewpoint character. We see what he sees, but only what he sees. This can keep things simple and focused, but can also be tricky in a few ways. Anything that happens "offscreen," so to speak, can only be learned through conversation or eavesdropping. In other words, if the main viewpoint character wasn't there, it didn't happen . . . unless the event is discovered through other means.

First-person narrative also has the tendency to give us a not-so-objective "truth" as we read along. Think of any occasion where there is more than one person. There will be, of course, more than one opinion, and each person is sure his is the right one.

Chapman's article points out another interesting aspect of the first-person narrative: because a first-person narrator/viewpoint person is retelling something that happened in the past, the viewpoint may change, depending on whether that action or event happened in the immediate past or many years ago. As he states, ". . . if a forty-year-old adult tells us something that happened to him as a thirteen-year-old kid, that makes the narrator twenty-seven years older than the viewpoint person. And which of us can claim to be the same person at forty as we were at thirteen?"

The first-person narrator/viewpoint person may also be the protagonist, but this not a hard and fast rule. The person telling the story may just as easily be recounting a tale that happened to his best friend.

The important part is to know why you're choosing the point of view you're working with, and the rest should sort itself out much easier as the writing progresses.

Part 2 of this post will explain these roles (author, narrator, viewpoint person, protagonist) in the context of the third-person point of view.

Do you have a favorite POV to write from, do you have to think about it at great length, or does each book just present itself to you with a POV already chosen by the characters? I'm curious.

Editor's Notes #20: What Makes You Stop Reading a Book? Part 2 of 2

So in Part 1 of this topic, I told you all how I never allowed myself to stop reading in the middle of a book . . . until I started reading some really horribly written stuff when I got a Kindle a few years ago.

Now that I've given myself the okay to JUST STOP, I've found my tolerance level has gotten lower with each passing year and each subsequent novel. The hours in any given day are much too precious to waste on a bad book. I read for money when I edit. I read my Bible each morning. I read and correct my daughter's writing assignments. I read for my day job when my boss gives us a book for the management team to discuss, chapter by chapter. IF there is any time left between editing jobs or assigned books, I read for the sheer pleasure of it. Needless to say, if there's no pleasure involved, I'm not going to bother reading for long.

Here are a few things that will make me put a book down and never look back (unless I'm physically throwing it over my shoulder in the trash):

• No edits. This is a nonnegotiable item for me. If there are grammar/spelling errors, poorly constructed sentences, misuse of words, or worse (though I can't imagine what "worse" would entail), that book practically shuts itself.
• Characters that are caricatures or stereotyped. The bad guy who has no depth because he's always bad, and not even interestingly bad . . . just "B" movie bad. The protagonist who's good at everything: sports, school, parents love him, no zits . . . you get the idea. The mysterious stranger who's not even mysterious for a good reason. The wise elderly person. The clumsy beautiful girl with low self-esteem.
• If I have no desire to read beyond the third chapter. I need to care about someone—anyone—or something that happens in those first few chapters, or I'm done. If I find myself skimming to see if it gets better, then why continue?
• Unrealistic dialogue. If an author writes a seven-year-old child into a book, that child should act and speak as a seven-year-old child, unless it's a creepy book where the child is possessed by an ancient being who speaks like . . . um, an ancient being . . . and everyone knows this isn't the way that child would normally speak. 
• Plot inconsistencies. If I am confused, I tend to think that's everyday life. However, if I'm confused while reading fiction, I'll flip back through what I've read to see if I somehow missed a major plot point. If I haven't missed anything and I'm still confused, then I'm going to assume the plot somehow went from A to C without a Point B in the middle. This happens when an author makes major structural changes from draft to draft but neglects to look at the work as a whole to see if it still makes sense. Every detail matters, and that's where a good beta reader will be indispensable prior to a book's release.
• Believability. Even the craziest fiction has to have some degree of believability or the reader will be drawn out of the story time and again. I always think of Martyn V. Halm (whose Amsterdam Assassin novels are pretty terrific and incredibly well written, by the way) talking about verisimilitude and his insistence that things at least seem like they could be real in order to keep the reader immersed in the created world, no matter how out-of-the-box that world may be.

I'm sure I have many more peeves that cause me to be harshly judgmental* about a book someone may or may not have worked hard at writing, but these are the biggest ones that come to mind easily. *Let's face it: I'm only kind and tactful if I already like the person.

What makes YOU stop reading? Do you look for things I haven't listed here? What's your number one deal breaker that causes you to shout, "Enough!" I'd love to know so I can add it to my own list of things to gripe about. And if you've read the list above and recognize something you do in your own books, then my best advice is STOP IT. Stop it and get a beta reader to politely and tactfully tell you all these same things, only for money.

I've placed a good guideline below. If you get "BINGO" from any of your manuscripts, it's time to start rewrites so others won't stop reading.

Coffee Chat 21.0 with S.K. Anthony: Make Mine a Double . . . Negative

Hey, guys!
SK here. Boy, is Lynda in for a—Donkey, shhhh! Sorry, where was I? Oh, I'm waiting impatiently for Lynda to wake up and join me for Coffee Chat. I have someone special here today for Lynda's 101st post: the one and only guest who's ever been thoughtful enough to gift us with our pet Donkey: C. Lee McKenzie! And she brought us— . . . oh, I hear steps . . .

ER: [Stares incredulously at Donkey, strapped to a chair in the kitchen.] Oh, SK, you've done a lot of things in your day, but—well, first of all, where on earth did you find a booster seat big enough for a DONKEY? And why on earth is he in the—

CLEM: [Jumps up from behind Donkey.] ’Tis me, the soreprise guest.

ER: [Faints dead away.]

[Thirty minutes later. Lynda is calm and Donkey is back outside, running around with Live Bacon and AndyAndy.]

SK: Sorry, ladies . . . I thought it'd be funny. But Lee, thank you for joining us today! Don't worry about Lynda, she'll be fine. It's not our problem she can't take a joke.

CLEM: I had no idea she’d topple like that. Can we do it again? That was so amazingly fun! Oh, sorry, Lynda. Let me help you to the chair. [Looks to SK.] I really am sorry. Tell her so when she can process again. Please.

SK: I will. [Nods.] She’ll blame me anyway. See that murderous look? It’s all for me. But I’m about to make it better with coffee. A cup o’ Joe always cheers her up. We’ll even give her whatever you have in that bag you brought. What did you bring? It smells delicious! [Wipes drool.] Oh, and you’ll definitely be in her good graces since you even brought her a book to talk about.

ER: [Takes coffee and gulps it down.] More, SK.

Did I hear something about a book?

SK: YES! You know that formula rule thingy? One positive and a negative makes a negative. Well get this: apparently, a Double Negative makes . . . wait for it . . . A BOOK!

CLEM: Come to think of it, I should have gotten two books out of that formula. I was never good at math.

SK: Good thing we don’t care about math too much around here. So this Double Negative book, I think I can relate to your Hutchison McQueen character. Gets in trouble, eavesdrops and memorizes what he hears? A boy after my own heart. Ahem, way to throw a hint in there about his reading.

CLEM: I did a lot that eavesdropping and memorizing in school, too. Are we related? You’re kind of silly. (No offense, but I mean Bacon? Donkey?) I’m kind of silly. You seem to like coffee. I like coffee. You like Lynda, too. And I find her a joy. She makes me laugh, and she falls for our pranks.

SK: Hutchison seems like he’s full of layers, Lee. Would you say his personality and behavior came to you easily? What separates him from other characters you’ve written?

CLEM: For one, he’s a guy. My other MCs are of the other sex. Small difference there. Otherwise, I think they have a lot in common—big problems that kids shouldn't have to manage alone, older people in their lives that either are helpful or hurtful, some growing pains and reversals of attitude.

Hutch came fully formed and ready to go. All I needed was a place to put him and a series of events to make a plot that wouldn’t put people to sleep. [Nudges Lynda.] Stay with me, Lynda. I haven’t finished yet.

ER: Oh, I'm awake, all right. At least I think I am. I could have sworn Donkey was in my kitchen, and that can't be right . . . [Shakes head, looking confused.] Anyway, Hutch does sound fascinating. So many people have issues they assume no one else has, or can understand, and they end up feeling very alone. Putting on the tough guy act only works to a certain point.

How difficult was it to write from a guy's point of view? I've heard people criticize JK Rowling for writing some of Harry Potter's dialogue to sound like how a middle-aged woman thinks a teen guy feels, but not how a teen guy actually feels or speaks. Did you run Hutch's dialogue or thoughts by a few guys to see if he sounded authentic, or do you simply have a good feel for that sort of thing? I read a snippet of the book, and he sounds guy-ish to me.

CLEM: JK and I discussed the matter of middle-aged women and young boys. Wait! That didn’t come out right. We discussed the matter of middle-aged women writing teen boy dialogue and how challenging that was. She knows nothing. I tried to set her straight, but she’s on to new ventures and busy counting gold. As to my technique . . . I turned to my male brood for input.

ER: And by the way, your jam is delicious! I'm so glad you brought some—and not another large animal.

CLEM: Oh, no! I forgot Hannibal. Just a sec. Won’t be a moment. [Grabs jam and hurries to the door. Leaves. Returns shortly with empty jar.] Sorry about that. I forgot my yak. He needed a jam fix. Now where were we?

SK: But . . . I didn’t even get to taste the jam after Lynda took the jar away. That’s it. I’m not buying that Hannibal any cute boots.

ER: But—the jam— [Suddenly realizes what Lee just said.] A YAK? [Mutters to self.] Pleasepleaseplease let that be her ride home.

[To Lee] I thought maybe you'd had some words with JK. She could really use some advice from a strong writer like you. Honestly, I have no idea how she would have managed if you hadn't been helping her out all these years.

CLEM: You’re the first to mention my role in her success. Thank you, Lynda. Here. [Reaches into bag and presents a new jar of jam.] Hannibal should be on a diet anyway. So about JK. Did you notice her switch to a new genre? [Points finger at self.] But enough about JK. Let’s talk about something more exciting.

SK: I love you, Lee. Can I get a jar of—no? Okay. [Sinks in chair.]

You know what’s exciting? Your cover. I really like the colors and the pose, and I think it fits perfectly with the blurb. Maybe next time if you need some models, you’ll call us up, huh? For the female characters, that is.

CLEM: I audition models on Sundays about 5a.m. You’d be perfect for my next book. But you have to leave Donkey at home. I haven’t written a part for him. Glad you like the cover. I wanted a flowing gown, pink I think, but they said I had to write a different kind of book to get one of those.

SK: So that jam?—err, how long did it take you to write Double Negative? What was the most difficult part of writing it?

CLEM: [Takes jam from Lynda and hands her a napkin.] Sharing is good, Lynda.

And about your question, SK . . . Oh, here’s a small spatula. Lynda left a bit of jam in the bottom.

The hardest part was starting the darned thing. I had one idea that maybe I should start with Hutch already in Juvie (translation: Juvenile Hall). Then I thought, “That’s depressing and there’s usually orange involved in Juvie, so my book could become confused with that other one, the Orange Is the New Black. Have you heard of it? Not many have, and I wanted my book connected to winners. Nothing personal, Piper. It’s all about marketing.

And SK, if you change your mind, Hannibal wears size 20. He prefers open toes so the polish shows. [Reaches across the table, takes napkin from Lynda and gently swipes her chin.]

ER: Oops. Thanks, Lee. You're a doll. [Compulsively continues to check chin for jam "bonuses."] It's your own fault, really, for making such delicious jam. And to be fair, I hadn't quite noticed I'd started eating it straight from the jar, or I would have shared earlier . . . I think.

Ahem . . . weren't we talking about a book or something? Since SK asked about the most difficult part of writing it, you know I have to ask if you had a favorite thing about writing Double Negative that made the process unique or particularly satisfying for you.

CLEM: Typing THE END was pretty darned satisfying. I didn’t think I’d ever do that. But seriously . . . I can be that for a sec, right? Good. Putting different generations together in a story is always a challenge, especially when each older character must contribute to my teen's story, but not take over. When I can get that together, I’m really happy. I loved Maggie (70+) and I loved Jimmy (40s). I really wanted them to have their own stories, but I wanted Hutch to out-shine them. I think I made that happen. Readers will tell me if I didn’t. Believe me. They will really tell me about that.

SK: Oh yeah, readers will share their honest opinions. That’s for sure. In general with your books, but especially with Double Negative, what message do you want your readers to get from your work?

CLEM: When I started the book, I wanted teens to follow Hutch through the roughest of times and see him, not only survive, but start toward a decent life. When I’d finished, I’d become an advocate for literacy. That happened because of what I found out about illiteracy in the U.S.

Here’s a stat that will set Donkey on his ear: 33% of people (over 7 million) living in the L.A. area are illiterate or semi-illiterate! I really want kids to appreciate their ability to read and pass that on.

[Smiles at SK and ER.] And I’ll bet you thought I was just a writer out to make the big bucks.

Thanks for the fun and a chance to yak it up about my book. Please ask me back and I’ll bring more jam, promise to keep Hannibal outside, and not play any more practical jokes.

SK: No more practical jokes? [To Lynda] Does she know us at all?

ER: I have to wonder. But I still like her just fine.

You can find C. Lee McKenzie most often at her own blog, The Write Game, and you can find her books, including (but not limited to) Double Negative, on Amazon, Evernight Teen, and other places. We're so glad she visited us today! And we're even more glad she took Hannibal the Yak home with her.

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here. 

Coffee Chat 18.0 with S.K. Anthony and Stephen Fender

During today's Coffee Chat we'll be discussing—what is that smell? I could swear I smell blueberries . . . [Enters the kitchen to find S.K. pulling some yummy-smelling things out of the oven.] Scones? And are those . . . bannocks? What's up with the Scottish treats? I thought we were having cinnamon rolls today.

SKA: Oh, Lynda! You’re so cute. It’s okay to try different things once in a while you know—and today I felt Scottish! I’m so excited it’s my first time making bannocks; I burnt the first three sets but I think I finally got it now. By the way, you’re all out of oats.

ER: I suppose I should be grateful we're not having haggis, right?

SKA: [Looks over Lynda’s shoulder to see through the window.] Uh huh, sure. I can try to make you haggis. Sorry, I mean no. No haggis. Whatever. Umm, why don’t you let AndyAndy outside to play with Live Bacon? Go, go! Open the door. [Grins.]

ER: C'mon, AndyAndy. [Looks outside.] S.K., is it Girl Scout cookie season again already? There's a really tall Girl Scout down the street, walking our way. I mean, really tall.

SKA: No, that’s just Stephen! I told him to come over for Coffee Chat so we can discuss his new release.

ER: But why is he—is he wearing a—?

SKA: Well, because you like kilts, and he’s gullible. I told him first time guests must wear them and he agreed. It was so easy! I can’t believe we never tried that before. Never mind that I usually end up kidnapping our guests, he came willingly and look at them legs—miles and miles. Ahem, I think we should make our coffee Irish.

ER: I'm starting to think we'll have to. I hope he doesn't talk to any of our past guests, because they'll blow it about the kilt thing. Best to keep him sequestered. [Looks back out the door.] He's almost here. I hope I don't have a tough time acting casual about it. I LOVE kilts!

SKA: I know! We'll tell him it's against the rules to mingle with past guests. Oooh, here he comes. Play it cool, Lynda. [Waves casually as Stephen walks up to the door.] Hi, Stephen!

SF: Can I come in? It's a little breezy out here.

ER: Hey, Stephen! Welcome to my—and sort of S.K.'s—home. Um . . . I was actually thinking it might be a great day to have our Coffee Chat outside. Wasn't I just saying that, S.K.?

SKA: Ooh [winks at Lynda] yes! That's better than sitting inside where we had everything set up.

SF: [Pulls kilt down to cover his knees, then looks around worriedly.] Are you sure? Someone might . . . see me.

SKA: Well, if you'll let your guard down, we can stay inside.

SF: Yay. Sounds GRRREEAAAT.

ER: [Sighs heavily.] Yeah, come on in. So as usual, I didn't realize we were having guests [shoots a glare at S.K.] but this is pretty cool that you're here, since I was going to tell her all about the fourth Kestrel book.

And the kilt is just a bonus. [Clears throat.] What I mean to say is, I'm glad you're following the first-time guest rule about wearing one.

SF: So I can't change into pants yet?

SKA: That's neither here nor there. How does it feel to have your fourth Kestrel book out?

SF: It feels great, bordering on spectacular. It's nice to be back with my old Kestrel Saga friends.

SKA: I hope you were kind to them. The title In the Presence of My Enemies has my heart racing for Shawn and Melissa. With the crazy adventure they're on, every bit of luck they can get—courtesy of you—will be greatly appreciated by us fans. What can you tell us about this part of their journey? Give us a teaser!

SF: In the words of George Takei: "Oh myyy!"

After the battle with the Meltranians above Second Earth (at the end of the novel of the same name), our heroes find themselves nose to nose with Kafarans, their once-hated enemies, who are now presumably fighting alongside the intrepid Sector Command fleet.

The new novel takes off right from that point.

A band of high-ranking officials come on board the current Sector Command flagship, the Rhea, and inform the crew that a cease-fire agreement has been reached with the Kafarans, and they are now considered a "temporary" ally in what is assumed will be a war against their common foe, the merciless Meltranians.

However, their combined forces will still fall short of an assured victory. They need one more ally in their cause, and it's one Shawn has extreme reservations about. He, along with a small team, sets out on a diplomatic mission to recruit a band of cutthroat pirates into the upcoming campaign.

However, things go sideways rather quickly, and the team members soon find themselves in over their heads. 

ER: Normally I would think "great, bordering on spectacular" is just hype, but I really thought it was great, too. There was more action, more tension, more places, new characters, a serious death—all that good stuff. As an editor, it felt good for me to be back on familiar ground with characters I know; I'm betting the Kestrel Saga fans are just as eager to get back to it as well.

SF: I hope they are. I think this is the best one yet. 

SKA: Hmm, I've been observing you—no reason—

ER: Uh huh, me too—also for no reason—

SKA: —and I've come to the realization that you're a man of few words. I really hope it has nothing to do with my scones.

Anyway, how do you find inspiration to put down thousands of words into a book? Do you draw from real life? Like, did you physically have to fight against Kafarans and Meltranians? Or is it just a love for sci-fi or . . . well, what is it?

SF: It's all of those things, really. Writing is like playing a board game designed for six, but you're only playing against yourself. You have a lot of roles to fill, and everybody has to want to win for their own reasons. I have to fight against myself all the time, and the only edge I have is ultimately I know who is supposed to win.

SKA: I love that! A game of multiple players but we play only against ourselves. Very true.

ER: I guess I never thought about a writer having to "be" each character—with each one wanting to win, of course, or survive at the very least.

SF: Of course, there is a deep love of science fiction in there. Also a deep understanding of the dynamics of a good space opera. 

ER: [To S.K.] I’ve been the recipient of the “it’s a space opera, not a space infomercial” speech. Trust me, the man knows and loves his science fiction.

SKA: So tell us, is there a favorite scene, aspect, or approach you had while writing In the Presence of My Enemies? Something that might have been different from the previous three books in the Kestrel Saga?

SF: There's an aspect—well, more of a revelation—that in order to overcome the impossible, you sometimes have to let things go.

You can't climb Everest with 300 pounds of gear. You've got to keep what's important and drop the rest. That goes doubly for emotional baggage. 

ER: We can talk about your emotional baggage after we've enjoyed more of S.K.'s "special blend" coffee. But that other baggage . . . do you always know ahead of time what's important, or does the list of "keepers" morph a bit as the story unfolds? 

SF: Baggage is important to back story. You can convey a lot with just a little bitterness about something that happened "in the past." It's also a good goal for your characters to get over. It shows growth, and no reader wants to read characters over a long arc that never grow beyond the first few pages of book one.

SKA: Yes! For good character arcs, they need to have baggage, and in order to grow they need to drop it . . . like it's hot. Mount Everest isn't for the faint of heart, after all.

ER: I like when baggage is hinted at, rather than spoon-fed to the reader. One of the things I like best in the Kestrel books is that the characters aren't growing and changing so quickly that it's unrealistic. It feels a lot more natural this way—a gradual change, just like in real life.

I know you're an outline-maker, Stephen, so I guess my next question deals with wanting to know how closely you stick to it. Do your characters surprise you?

SF: I love outlines, and I love diverging from them. It's hard to begin to write without a blueprint, but I give my brain plenty of freedom to go beyond the foundation. So yes, my characters often surprise me. 

SKA: So what can we expect from you in the future? What are your current projects?

SF: Well, I've got Kestrel Saga Book 5 in the works, which I'm really excited about. I've also got something of a wacky sci-fi space comedy on the drawing boards.

ER: That makes me want to watch Spaceballs.

I'm pretty sure I'll be begging you for snippets of Book 5, probably even before we let you leave today. No matter that you haven't written them yet. I think the sign of a great writer is that you can do these things off the cuff for special friends who feed you scones and great coffee. Just start talking and we'll type it all up for you. It will actually make your job easier, if you think about it.

SF: Well, I don't know about snippets, but I can tell you that Book 5 will tie directly into events that took place in Origins: Traitor Winds.

I can also tell you that Book 5 will feature some courtroom drama, with one of our heroes taking a fall.

ER: Oooooh! If that's what you can tell me, I can't wait to hear what you can't tell me.

Oh. Wait a minute.

SF: I can't tell you what the cover is going to look like, but I can tell you the working title is World Killers.

ER: Nice title! Sigh . . . the cover . . . am I going to be on this one? I think it's pretty selfish of you to always have your own photograph on those things. 

SF: If you connect all the letter e's on page 178, it makes a picture . . . of something.

ER: I can hardly wait! I'll have to write down the page number so I don't forget.

SF: It's representative of an abstract version of a flux capacitor. Which, of course, makes time travel possible.

ER: You artists. If it's "abstract" that only means I can't argue with you that it doesn't look like what it's supposed to look like. And I’m not entirely sure what time travel has to do with my picture being on your covers.

SKA: It’s an abstract connection, Lynda. And now another Coffee Chat rule: you must absolutely share a line from the book with us. A favorite one, obviously . . . and GO!

SF: [Laughs.] How am I supposed to pick ONE line? There are thousands of them, and all are amazing.

ER: Mine was "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . ."

SKA: For me it was "It was a dark and stormy night . . ."

ER: But enough about the books we’ve written. What about yours? A favorite line, please.

SF: If I were to choose a favorite line or verse, it would have to be this one. It was written as an epigraph, and is a quote from the President of the Unified Collaboration of Systems on the eve of declaring war against their new enemies:

“The skin of evil has no one color; the voice has no one pitch. Its origins have no set date, nor was it born in any one particular place or have one ultimate destination in mind. But it has an agenda, it has an unquenchable hunger, and it lives and breathes on the sufferings of others . . . and it must be stopped, even if it’s the last thing we do. Nothing short of the continuation of our very way of life depends upon it.”

ER: Also a favorite of mine from the book! Readers can see these and a whole lot of other great passages by going to Amazon and checking out Stephen's newest book, In the Presence of My Enemies, Book 4 of the Kestrel Saga.

Head on over to Stephen's website to find out about his other books, or the latest sci-fi project he's supporting.

[An hour later, all coffee gone, waving and watching as Stephen walks back down the driveway . . .]

ER: [Puts down binoculars.] So do you think he'll fall for the "second-time guests wear swimsuits" line?

SKA: I dunno. Guess we'll have to invite him again someday.

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here.