I write like
Stephen King

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Huzzah! That analysis is based on an excerpt from my unfinished novel, which according to the wisdom of some random autodrones, seems to be written at the same level as a couple of award-winning authors. Nice. As for my latest blog post, it turns out that

I write like
H. P. Lovecraft

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Now, not really being a horror reader or writer, I wasn’t that familiar with H. P. Lovecraft, so I did a quick lookup. Turns out, Lovecraft is considered a cult figure and “a true successor of Edgar Allan Poe.” Not only that,

Although Lovecraft’s readership was limited during his life, his reputation has grown over the decades, and he is now regarded as one of the most influential horror writers of the 20^th century. According to Joyce Carol Oates, Lovecraft — as with Edgar Allan Poe in the 19^th century — has exerted “an incalculable influence on succeeding generations of writers of horror fiction”. Stephen King called Lovecraft “the twentieth century’s greatest practitioner of the classic horror tale.”

I can’t decide if it’s good to be compared to such an imposing personage, or if it’s bad to be compared to someone who wasn’t very widely read in his own lifetime. Or if altogether this means that I should be switching things up and starting to write horror. Well, at least I didn’t get Dan Brown. That would really depress me.

I thought I’d try something from this blog, but the only post I have here that’s really long enough is Down at the Crossroads, a post I did two years ago simply to capture some rough notes about an experience we had on the Blues Highway in the Mississippi Delta. And wouldn’t you know it,

I write like
Dan Brown

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Almost makes me want to give up the craft, but then I reasoned that this post represents rough notes with very little or no editing done on it… not something I’d consider publishable. In fact, except for this one, which came up as (-ahem!-) Chuck Palahniuk, several of my unedited stream-of-consciousness blog posts came up as Dan Brown. And in that context, everything made sense again. And besides,

I write like
Margaret Atwood

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

…which made me wonder why Margaret Atwood apparently doesn’t write like Margaret Atwood.

When I’m writing, I can tend to be too focused on the action and advancing the plot (which isn’t a bad thing!) but too much can leave the finished scene feeling a little sterile, needing deeper investment in descriptives. This is where a thesaurus like Angela’s could be helpful.

In my current writing project, there are a number of scenes inside several different diners where I’ve set some conversation as the characters in this particular road story stop for a bite to eat. Strictly speaking, I need them to sit down, order and eat their burgers (or whatever), have their bit of conversation and move on. I’m typically not focused on the setting of the diner as much as I could be, describing some of the sights, sounds, and smells they find there. These meal stops on the road trip are intended to stop the action just for a bit, so adding more description here would really help not only the scene, but set the right pace for these parts of the novel.

Since I’m in the process of editing some of these scenes now, I think I’ll take a page from Angela’s book and sit down to brainstorm some words and phrases to describe some of these settings. That way as I edit or write new scenes, I’ll have a ready source of descriptors to use. Then of course, there’s her thesaurus entry for ‘diner’ as well.

Take a look at the sidebar on Angela Ackerman’s blog, and you see a long list of these thesaurus entries, covering a wide variety of emotions and settings. Each category list starts with a definition of what that particular thesaurus is, like the one for the setting thesaurus. Her list was clearly a lot of work to compile, but it now represents an invaluable resource in the midst of a writing project.

The first letter I got from J.D. Salinger was very short. It was 1988, and I had written to him with a proposal: I wanted my tiny publishing house, Orchises Press, to publish his novella Hapworth 16, 1924. And Salinger himself had improbably replied, saying that he would consider it.

Read: How a Book Publisher Failed to Get J.D. Salinger’s Final Book ‘Hapworth 16, 1924‘ Into Print — New York Magazine.

It should be obvious that writers, writing about society, would make it a point to immerse themselves in that society. But writers are artists, and like most artists we tend to think of ourselves as outcasts. The label is twofold; our creativity and panjandrum is admired, and our variance from normal nine-to-fives is frowned upon. But the mistake is buying into the outcast label, even cherishing it. Doing so separates us from our audience, making us bitter, and even worse, possibly leading to an aloof, chastising tone few enjoy reading.

Interesting contemplation thread that has me thinking about how writers might keep the reclusive tendencies at bay and opt for socialization. In the right circumstances, this would encourage the craft as it has done for other groups of writers in the past. Hence the photos. The upper one is of the Beat writers, clockwise from left: Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, Peter Orlovsky, Lafcadio Orlovsky, and Gregory Corso in 1956. The lower photo is the Inklings, clockwise from left: J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Owen Barfield. Of course, it’d be lovely to slip down to The Eagle and Child every Tuesday evening, but I must have misplaced my invitation. Or perhaps it expired sixty years ago. Either way, I suppose a writer needs an alternative these days.

Sometimes I’ll go be a camper at some local coffee house with my laptop… at least that’s out in public, even if it’s still dining (and working) alone. Keeps me from going completely stir-crazy, but I don’t think it’s quite what the aforelinked article had in mind.

I’ve always been a publishing person, from the time I spent studying copyright pages in books around age 8 to creating what still look like sophisticated magazines as an adolescent using only a typewriter, pen and ink drawings, and Scotch tape, then photocopying the resulting layouts. I’ve worked in bookstores, typeset professionally, written for newspapers, compiled indexes (or indices if you so prefer), launched titles, designed and created reference works, redesigned magazines and journals, created web sites, and done a myriad other things in the realm of publishing.

And now, I’ve self-published my first novel.

I didn’t self-publish because the publishing process confuses, baffles, or overwhelms me. I don’t need a publisher to figure out discounting, rights retention, royalties, or the mechanics of publishing. I did it precisely because I understand the traditional publishing process, and I didn’t want it or need it.

Some good insight here into what most people tend to think is a straightforward decision — though it clearly isn’t. The discussion that follows gets lively and offers some further insight into the question of whether to self-publish or seek out an agent or publishing contract.

Dear Mr. Brown,

I thought I’d drop you a quick little note — just a helpful little clarification that I thought you might like to receive, from one writer to another. Here it is:

Precarious: pre⋅car⋅i⋅ous [pri-kair-ee-uhs] — prɪˈkɛəriəs

–adjective
1. dependent on circumstances beyond one’s control; uncertain; unstable; insecure: a precarious livelihood.
2. dependent on the will or pleasure of another; liable to be withdrawn or lost at the will of another: He held a precarious tenure under an arbitrary administration.
3. exposed to or involving danger; dangerous; perilous; risky: the precarious life of an underseas diver.
4. having insufficient, little, or no foundation: a precarious assumption.

Related forms:
pre⋅car⋅i⋅ous⋅ly, adverb
pre⋅car⋅i⋅ous⋅ness, noun
Synonyms:
1. unsure, unsteady. (See uncertain.) 2. doubtful, dubious, unreliable, undependable. 3. hazardous. 4. groundless, baseless, unfounded.
Antonyms:
1. secure. 2. reliable. 3. safe. 4. well-founded.

Just thought you should know. You’ll find this definition and more at Dictionary.com, in case you’re wondering. It’s really handy if you don’t have any standard reference tools nearby from publishers such as Merriam-Webster, Oxford, or Roget.

Oh, one other thing… I haven’t bought or read your new book The Lost Symbol yet, but before I do, I wanted to ask one question. Are you still working with the same editor, or did you get a new one for this project?

Go ahead and laugh. I’m the snarky one and you’re the one going from book deal to movie deal. Congratulations, I guess.

Sincerely, etcetera.

Set in a tight-knit fishing community on the western shore of Cape Breton Island, The Bishop’s Man is told from the perspective of a conflicted priest whose role in the church is to cover up instances of sexual abuse. The book draws on the same milieu and many of the same characters that populated MacIntyre’s previous novel, The Long Stretch, published in 1999. (via Quill & Quire)

The 2007 award went to CBC host Elizabeth Hay, who beat out Michael Ondaatje and M.G. Vassanji that year. I guess hanging around the CBC is good for your future Giller prospects. I’ve been making a habit the past few of years of making a point of reading the winner or at least something from the shortlist each year, so now I’ll have another title to add to my to-read list.