Writers Without Borders

/in , , , , /by

Of the many reasons I love living in Colorado, the Jaipur Literature Festival is one of them. Wait a minute. Jaipur? Isn’t that in India? And they have a literature festival? Yes, they do. Known simply as JLF, it’s the world’s largest, un-ticketed event free to all, no matter how rich or poor.

 

The motto of the festival is “Stories Unite Us.” Geographically, Boulder, Colorado is 7,825 miles from Jaipur, but each year JLF brings the city a wealth of international writers, humanitarians, business people, artists, and philosophers. Boulder is one of five locations in the U.S. to host the event, much more convenient for me to participate in this feast of ideas.

This year, JLF Colorado in Boulder was awash in brightly colored banners and saris. Vibrant music and tantalizing smells of Indian food filled the air along with animated discourse. Among the speakers were local authors David Heska Wanbli Weiden and Margaret Coel discussing the crossroads of crime—a topic near and dear to my writing.

 

 

I was fortunate to attend a talk by the famed writer and JLF founder Namita Gokhale. A journalist and award-winning author, she recalled growing up in the mountains in India with her grandmother, who believed a tablespoon of brandy was the cure to all illness. Many of her works dealt with how a culture’s mythology defines behavior. When asked what was a writer’s responsibility, she replied, “A writer’s responsibility is to be irresponsible.”

A simple statement, which at first, struck me as an oxymoron. However, the more I consider her viewpoint, the more I agree. As writers, we need to challenge our strongly held cultural myths, to take risks, to shake our own convictions. That is the true power that all art wields.

For more information on JLF, please see https://jlflitfest.org.

Check Your Rearview Mirror

/in , , , /by

I adore mysteries. As a reader, I carefully scour the page for clues and try to figure out “who done it.” Part of the fun is deciphering which are red herrings. If the ending has a surprising twist, I search out the breadcrumbs leading to the solution. If those tiny hints don’t lead me to an “A-hah” moment, I feel cheated. As a writer in this genre, I strive to balance a surprise conclusion without giving away the ending or misleading the reader. And sometimes that’s a hard thing to do.

Have you ever imagined an ingenious crime and know how the villain did it, but haven’t the foggiest idea of how to solve it? That’s where I recently found myself.

This Photo by Unknown Uthor is licensed unced CC_BY_SASo I decided to borrow an old screenwriter’s trick. In the mystery genre, the reader expects the stalwart detective to have discovered all clues and put them together by the end. So rather than driving my story engine from beginning to end, I threw it in reverse. I wrote the climax first.

Now that I knew how the mystery was solved, I could envision what must have happened immediately prior to that point and write that scene. I repeated this process. By retracing the steps that must have been taken, and only could have been taken to arrive at the ending, I dribbled out the clues in previous scenes. The middle of the story magically filled itself in.

But what is a mystery without red herrings? Just like authentic clues, the false trails can be reverse engineered and sprinkled throughout. The same goes for the B and C plots.

This technique may not work for all writers, but I found it a handy tool. First check your rearview mirrors before shifting into high gear.

Don’t Count On It!

/in , /by

Enough about Artificial Intelligence already. I promised myself I wouldn’t write about AI again. Then a friend shared a recent experience. She planned to drive her granddaughter from Denver, Colorado to Buffalo, New York and wanted to take in some of the sights along the way. After learning about ChatGPT at the local library, she asked for a route and roadside attractions along I-80. ChatGPT obliged with stops to “provide a mix of natural beauty, historical sites, and cultural experiences, making your journey along I-80 from Denver to Buffalo diverse and enjoyable.” Sounds wonderful, right?

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Bonneville Salt Flats, Salt Lake City’s Temple Square, Wyoming Territorial Prison, and the California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada are fascinating and educational. The only problem: all these sights would require a 1,000 mile detour! My favorite attraction was the world’s largest Cheeto in Algona, Iowa, which was a mere four hour excursion off I-80. Other attractions didn’t exist, such as the world’s largest fork in Iowa. On the bright side, ChatGPT didn’t route my friend through Outer Mongolia.

AI developers acknowledge that the software will hallucinate—produce incorrect or fabricated information. So why do these hallucinations matter to us as writers? “Real facts” are important when writing our book. While it seems obvious that non-fiction must be as accurate as possible, fiction readers crave more than only entertainment. They want to come away from our books learning about an era, a career, a technology, or a culture they weren’t familiar with. Fans of police procedural or historical novels are quick to point out that a certain type of pistol only has six, not nine, rounds or buttonholes weren’t widely used prior to the Renaissance.

My friend isn’t alone in getting bad advice from ChatGPT. Ask the lawyers who were sanctioned for submitting AI generated briefs citing nonexistent cases. Or the scientific journal that issued a retraction for an article filled with nonsense illustrations.

My advice: if you use AI, don’t count on the results without independent verification. That’s the safer route my friend took.

Shark versus Machine

/in /by

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Janet Reid, a.k.a., the Query Shark. As an aspiring author, I followed her blog posts on query letters and was fortunate to get a private critique by the Query Shark herself. Her comments and suggestions were spot on, but more than that, she appeared to care about the success of a newbie author. Even after exchanging three or four revisions of my query letter, the Shark emailed she found the perfect comp title for my story.

Who could replace such a publishing icon?

Like most writers, I’ve been educating myself about the explosion of artificial intelligence. I serve on the board of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of MWA and am researching an upcoming talk I’ll be presenting on the current state of artificial intelligence. During my research, I was surprised to learn some writers use ChatGPT for critique. Some even anthropomorphize the software, calling it “Chatty.”

I decided to take Chatty out for a spin. For authenticity, I found a query letter on the Query Shark’s website from July 30, 2023 (https://queryshark.blogspot.com ) to submit for a critique.

So how did Chatty stack up again the Shark? For a comparison, here is Chatty vs. Shark for each portion of the italicized query letter. Let me know which you prefer.

There are stories that never get told, but need to be. TITLE, a 92.000 upmarket women’s historical fiction tells the remarkably true stories of three generations of Italian women as they face World War II, the Fascist Movement, immigration, unexpected pregnancies, and a global pandemic. Challenging societal expectations, they experience the love, loss, and yearning for better that binds us all across generations.

Chatty says:

Shark says:
Clarify the Genre: While you mention “upmarket women’s historical fiction,” it might be helpful to briefly explain what this genre entails or how your book fits within it. This can provide agents with a better understanding of the market positioning of your novel. Are you thinking this is a hook?

(it’s not)

It’s more like the start of a book review.

An effective hook gives us a sense of the problem that drives the book.

Here’s the hook for All Roads Lead Me Back to You by Kennedy Foster [omitted for brevity]

See the difference?

The characters have an emotional component and we see what problem they face.

Vittoria was born in a small town in Northern Italy in 1914. Growing up in the absolute poverty of a war torn country, she longs for better and isn’t afraid to take on anyone, even Mussolini himself to find it. But challenging societal norms takes unexpected turns and soon she finds herself with the broken promise of a soldier, a growing belly, and no ring. 

Anna was born an illegitimate child amidst the height of World War II. Distrustful of men, yet always seeking their attention, she solicits the attention of the boy next door– the one with big dreams, who soon leaves for Canada, asking Anna to join him. She sees a chance for a new land, a new start, a new life. Who needs love when you have an opportunity? 

Grace was born the child of immigrants. Trying to make something of herself, she is tired of trying and quitting a million things – including relationships. No sooner does she commit to completing her master’s degree, then she meets Jax, and everything comes together and falls apart. Suddenly, there are too many choices and one big question: How does one define “better”?

Chatty says:

Shark says:
Condense the Synopsis: The synopsis for each character could be shortened slightly to maintain a strong narrative flow and to ensure that the query remains concise. Focus on the most compelling aspects of each character’s story.

 

 

 

 

 You’ve introduced three characters here, but there’s no plot.

Plot isn’t what happens. It’s not the events of the book.

Plot is choices the characters face and what’s at stake with those choices

You must have plot in a query, even if you’re querying a character-driven book.

You also don’t tell us how these women are connected. (Are they?)

Three generations makes me think they’re related to each other, but that’s not obvious from the query.

Also, by introducing all three characters equally, you can’t focus on the start of the story.

If the story begins with Vittoria, let’s give her more page time. If the story starts with one of the other two, lead with her, give her more page time.

You have a limited amount of space here to engage your reader. Focus on how the story starts.

Vittoria (or whomever) wants to (what?)

BUT, (problem) prevents her.

Now she must (choose a path.)

Get that on the page first.

Then show how the characters are linked.

You do NOT need the details of  Anna and Grace, unless one of them is the main character, not Vittoria.

TITLE would be the love child of Sisters in Arms by Kaia Alderson, Untamed by Glennon Doyle, What We Carry: A Memoir by Maya Shanbhag Lang, and The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah. 

Chatty says:

Shark says:
Comparative Titles: The comparison to other books is helpful for agents to understand the market potential of your novel, but try to be more specific about how your book relates to these titles. What elements or themes do they share? Resist the urge to be clever with comps.

Just say your book will appeal to readers who liked: Sisters in Arms by Kaia Alderson,

Untamed by Glennon Doyle,

This is a memoir. Don’t use NF as a comp for a novel, even historical fiction. 

What We Carry: A Memoir by Maya Shanbhag Lang,

also a memoir

and The Nightingale by Kristin Hannah.

This was pubbed in 2017 so it’s too old to be an effective comp.

If you take a look at the Amazon description of Sisters in Arms by Kaia Alderson, you’ll see there is conflict and tension (which is what you need in the query)

A melding of immigration, identity, I have my master’s in English with an emphasis in Technical Writing, and currently work as a content creator and SEO specialist. When I’m not working or writing you can find me reading a million children’s books to my one and two year old sons (or removing whatever object they’ve found to turn into a sword). I’m passionate about telling untold stories in literature, the stories that make us feel like we aren’t alone. 

Chatty says:

Shark says:
Personal Connection: Your personal background in English with an emphasis in Technical Writing and your work as a content creator and SEO specialist could be highlighted more prominently, especially if these experiences have influenced or informed your writing in any significant way. I am querying you because (whatever).

Thank you for your time and consideration of my submission.

Best regards,

Chatty says:

Shark Says:
Closing Statement: Consider adding a sentence that expresses your willingness to provide additional materials or answer any questions the agent may have. This can demonstrate your professionalism and eagerness to work with them. Thank you for your time and consideration of my submission.

Best regards,

You only need one closing.

Not a bad critique from Chatty but the advice offered is generic and superficial—advice that could apply to almost any query letter. Let’s see how the program opened the critique:

Your query is well-written and engaging, with a clear synopsis of your book and its themes. However, there are a few suggestions to consider for improvement:

And ended with:

Overall, your query effectively conveys the essence of your book and your passion for storytelling. With a few adjustments, it could become even more compelling to agents.

The Shark’s comments aren’t nearly as kind, but that’s because agents and publishers aren’t going to treat writers with kid gloves. It’s a competitive business. Janet Reid’s query critique provides blunt, honest, and actionable feedback from someone who’s spent her career in the publishing trenches.

I can understand the allure of tools like Chatty, but the Query Shark did more than provide a service. She showed aspiring authors what to expect. No offense to Chatty (although I doubt its feelings can be hurt), but a computer program doesn’t care if a writer succeeds. With her generosity and acumen, Janet Reid did. She showed it every time she put out her blog.

R.I.P. Query Shark.