The Blessing of Good Editors and Proofreaders

I read a couple of really nice reviews of Sweeter than Birdsong today. I was so grateful to the readers, as I always am, for taking the time to write such thoughtful comments.

I was also overcome by thankfulness for my editors and proofreaders.

Sweeter than Birdsong had a long and challenging composition history, chiefly because it went through two significant rewrites over the course of three years. Without my editors, Ami McConnell and Meredith Efken, and my copy editor Becky Monds, it would never have reached the vision I dreamed up for it. But with their help, it made it through and is now a shiny, polished creation. It's so rewarding to see readers respond to the book as a whole, readers who haven't been through two or three drafts like my wonderful critique partners! I get to see the novel again through readers' eyes, now, and this is an amazing feeling after such a long development process. Plus, this was the first novel I ever wrote, and there's something particularly precious about seeing that first manuscript realize its potential.

I want to tell you how terrific the copy editing/proofreading team at Thomas Nelson is. Here are a couple of examples. At one point, I had made a passing allusion to something classical(I won't name it, so you won't get distracted if you're reading the novel). The proofreading team is SO good, and so detail-oriented, that they came back to me and asked whether that thing I named existed in 1856, citing a reason why it might not have. While it did, in fact, exist, their care for accuracy was just wonderful. The proofreaders also suggested that I switch the order of two chapters, and when I went back and looked at it again, I thought they were absolutely right. That's a big deal, and not necessarily something they had to mention to me at that point in the proofing process. But because they cared about producing the best work, they were looking for anything that might need changing, and their contribution was huge.

Here's another example that's even better, because I can give specifics. As some of you know, my books are based on real people. In the afterword of the book, I use Kate Winter Hanby's full name, Mary Kathryn. I spelled Kathryn in that way because I have visited the Otterbein cemetery in which her gravestone bears that name. But the proofreaders checked the spelling of her name, and discovered that one reliable source lists it as Katherine, not Kathryn. (How great is it that the proofreaders even checked her NAME!)

I went back to the director of Hanby House and asked her what she thought. She said that in her opinion, the more reliable of the sources is correct with Katherine, because the gravestone was erected by later admirers, not by Kate's family. And here's another complicating fact: on her marriage license, Mary Katherine Winter is listed as Mary C. Winter!

So the proofreaders who read the novel checked everything, taking nothing for granted. And the result was excellent, which was especially important because we had a fast, fast turnaround on the line edit and missed a few things before galleys. I can't imagine better proofreaders, copy editors, or developmental editors than the ones who have blessed my work. And I don't even know my proofreaders' names! So, proofreaders, if you're out there, know that I would LOVE to thank you in person some day. Maybe I can worm your secret identities out of Becky. :-)

Did you know that novels went through this many edits? I didn't, before I went through the process. If you had all the time in the world, you could possibly do all these edits yourself, though even then it would be impossible to match the combined expertise of five professional readers at the top of their professions! But once authors go under deadline, there just isn't always the time to catch everything personally.

How do you catch your errors in the editing process? Do you have any tricks to recommend?

Twentieth-Century Historical Novels

For those of us who spent decades of our lives in the twentieth century, the idea of a twentieth-century historical can seem odd. Hey, that was MY century! How did I become a relic? ;-)

But the reality of it can't be denied. Twentieth-century historicals run the gamut from the Edwardian grace of Downton Abbey to the cultural upheaval of the Vietnam war. At this point, even the 1980s probably qualify as a setting for nostalgia fiction.

I've read three twentieth century inspy historicals in the last year or so, so the subgenre is on my mind.

The earliest set of the novels was Allison Pittman's Lilies in Moonlight, a story about a buoyant flapper on the run from her painful childhood. She must come to terms with the more serious side of life when after a night of partying, she stumbles into the garden of a wealthy but scarred WWI veteran. I loved the author's vivid portrayal of the cultural moment in which the pre-WWI world represented by the hero's aging mother runs full tilt into the Jazz Age and the first intimations of 'female liberation.'

The next story, chronologically, was Bonnie Leon's colorful and well-researched romance Wings of Promise, which shows the challenges a female bush pilot faces in the late 1930s in Alaska. Here's another pivotal time for American culture, just before World War II broke down barriers and sent women into factories and business in unprecedented numbers. This author was very astute to set her story in Alaska, where the frontier aspects of life made gender-based job restrictions a little more relaxed than they were in the lower 48 states. Still, the heroine faces challenges from the men in her professional world, who react to her femininity in extreme ways and are unable to separate it from her professional identity. This is the only realistic way to depict the situation, and I appreciated it. Few 1930s era men would be able to see women in the workplace in the "gender-neutral" way favored by twenty-first century companies.

The last novel in my reading series was Catherine West's Yesterday's Tomorrow, an intense romantic drama about a female journalist who goes to Vietnam and butts heads with an anatagonistic male photographer. Vietnam is not a common setting for romances, but Catherine West pulls off the combination of tragedy and redemptive events with aplomb. The 1970s push us along the line between the past and the present. The young adults of that time were so different from today's young adults in ways that we tend to forget, but there are also universal experiences of young adulthood that make Yesterday's Tomorrow resonate in the twenty-first century.

Considering these novels chronologically would make for a thoughtful discussion as certain themes and historical developments pop naturally to the surface. It makes me want to run the kind of study for adults that educators sometimes plan for children, in which the study of history takes place through literature. Wouldn't that be fun? To have a book group committed to history that arranged its readings by theme or period? You could arrange them in a linear way, as I've described the three novels above, or you could study two or three historical novels together that were all based in the same period, and compare and contrast them. Or, you could read a work of fiction in conjunction with a history of that decade, and see how they matched up.

It only works if you use the novels of authors who really care about reflecting the actual historical moment about which they are writing. Many historical romances show very little of the larger cultural scene, and instead turn a narrow lens on one man and one woman who might have lived at almost any time in history because they aren't obvious products of their cultural time.

All three of the books I've mentioned here are truly historical fiction rather than romances with a little historical flavor. The real historical fiction is the kind I enjoy, though I know people who prefer less historical setting and an exclusive focus on the relationship in isolation from the bigger picture of its time. It's all a matter of taste.

How do you feel about historical novels? Will you read a novel from one era and not another? Do Regency historicals give you hives? All opinions welcome as you will probably make me laugh, and you always make me think.

Publishing, Popularity, and Politicians

I've been reflecting lately on how marketing works in the world of CBA publishing.

I want to preface this post by saying that I believe in the mission of inspirational publishing, and that's why I write books for this market. I believe there must be a place where books with a Christian worldview and Christian characters will not be rejected out-of-hand, as they are in many secular markets.

But today, I want to talk about the nuts and bolts, the aspects of CBA publishing that have nothing to do with message and everything to do with the non-missional side of publishing. Because like it or not, there are moments when who we are as writers may come into conflict with the necessities of business. It happens in every industry, because businesses are part of the world and can't always be ideal.

So here is a very practical post about the everyday experience of CBA publishing, setting its mission aside for the moment.

CBA publishing is somewhat different from mainstream publishing because the circle of publishers and writers--and even readers--is so much smaller.

This has advantages and disadvantages.

The chief advantage is that it may be easier to break in because it's a smaller market.

The chief disadvantage is that one's personal popularity in CBA circles is likely to affect success. As people will sometimes say it, "It's a family, it's a small world."

Some people may not consider the influence of personal popularity a disadvantage. Some people are natural politicians: good at persuading and charming others, good at never saying anything disturbing or out of place.

And popularity is not necessarily a bad thing--sometimes it is earned by the truly compassionate, the truly good, the truly unselfish.

But popularity also has another face: the face of the Politician.

The Politician may be a likeable person, and may have many sincere virtues, but what distinguishes the Politician from others (for the purposes of my post here) is that his chief concern is popularity. It outweighs all other factors in most situations. The Politician always considers first and foremost how an action will LOOK to others, because that is the most important factor in remaining popular. And that's why, in the political world, some people have become popular and then been unmasked as imposters. Because Popularity does not always represent Truth.

Which brings me to my point.

Everybody knows that if you want to be popular, it's usually a good idea not to tell the whole truth. Truth is hard. Truth challenges. And most people are more likely to gravitate towards people who make them feel good. Popularity tends to be feel-good, not challenging. That's why Jesus appealed to some but not all. That's why he ended up on a cross.

So here's the problem, for most writers.

A good writer is the opposite of a Politician. A good writer values Truth, first and foremost.

But the Politician is more likely to succeed, in a world dominated by self-marketing, because writers who value Truth first have a natural tendency to dislike politicking, with its emphasis on superficiality and saying the right thing rather than the true thing.

And though the Politician may be successful, and may be a nice person, his work is less likely to tell challenging truths. To preserve his popularity, the Politician will tell the 'nice' challenging truths, the ones that appear deep but don't really stir at the deepest levels. Because when Truth gets powerful, it divides as well as uniting. This is why some editors will 'blandify' the work of their authors. They see it as their job, in order to make the author as popular as possible. (I'm so blessed that my editor doesn't blandify!) Every now and then, a challenging book will break out, but it's more likely to happen to a feel-good book that doesn't contain anything controversial. This book won't be very realistic, because reality is intrinsically controversial, no matter how faith-infused your worldview.

I have over-simplified in this post, admittedly. People come in all kinds of gradations between valuing truth and valuing popularity. But I wanted to bring up the point because at heart, I'm a Truthteller, and that's why I'm a writer. And so I want to know what you think of this tension between popularity, marketing, and truthtelling. Because having learned a few things in my time behind the scenes in publishing about the difference between appearances and reality, I haven't yet seen anyone talk about it.

How does this affect you? How do you handle the occasional conflict between Truth and the desire to be popular? How do you handle it in your writing?

Vlog: Why You Need 18th Century Fashion

Want to support my novels? Pre-order Sweeter than Birdsong. By doing so, you give it a better chance to be taken *seriously* by booksellers. I mean, look at me. Don't I deserve to be taken seriously? LOL!

Oh, and I should clarify something, for those who need to rush out and augment their wardrobes pronto. The website I meant to mention was www.recollections.biz, not dot com.

The appeal of Downton Abbey: the historical genre unleashed

Here are some reasons for the appeal of smash hit miniseries Downton Abbey.

People like beautiful things.

Beautiful costumes, beautiful buildings, beautiful people. And I don't mean 'beautiful people' as in the People magazine version. Sure, Matthew Crawley and Lady Sybil might make the cut for world's most beautiful people. But many of the other characters in Downton Abbey are beautiful in a different way, like Lady Mary. She's not exactly a pinup girl: there's something quirky about her looks. But she's beautiful because the unconventionalities of her face make her interesting, absorbing to watch. And there are many other sumptuous beauties in the series: jewelry, the red velvet of a dress, the austere, perfect place settings of a dinner table.

People like to root for good guys and against bad guys...and then sometimes find out the bad guy was actually good, or vice versa.

Downton has more than its share of alluring villains: but unlike a typical soap opera, the story is so well-written and well-acted that the villainy seems quite real, surprising in its cruelty but understated in all the right ways. What happens is outrageous: the way it's told and acted is elegant and multidimensional.







But people also like to see family conflicts in which it's difficult to tell which sister/mother/in-law is in the right.

In the sisterly triangle between Mary, Sybil, and Edith in Season 1, none of the sisters is exactly evil, but each has a pretty wicked moment. We can all relate to family conflicts in which each relative would try to claim the high ground, but none would really deserve it.








People miss rules, restraint, and subtlety.

The problem with our let-it-all-hang-out culture is that when there are no rules, we can't have the thrill--or dread--of seeing rules broken and the consequences. So in order to have a constant tension between restraint and freedom, we have to step back in time, to when it actually mattered if a servant spoke out of turn, or if a lady behaved dishonorably.




People are starved for the pleasure of a quality historical saga embellished with the beauties of its time, because so few have appeared in film in recent years. The miniseries is the perfect medium to satisfy this hunger, because it does what only novels can do otherwise: tell a long, rich, multi-layered story unlimited by the rigorous rules of a feature film.

Are you watching Downton Abbey? What makes it appeal to you...or not?

The Difference Between a Crit Partner and a Beta Reader

Eeek! Yahoo! I can't believe I've met my deadline and I have more freedom to revisit friends' blogs, and generally live a more normal life. That can all start tomorrow, as it's getting late and said deadline was JUST met. Whew.

So, having just given my third novel to several readers before giving it to my editor, those readers are on my mind. I'm so grateful for them! I have two types of reader: my critique partners, and my beta readers.

What's the difference? I'll give you my version, and then maybe some of you will have more wisdom to add, or a different perspective.

Critique partners are other novelists. They read like writers. Often, they read the book in chunks, giving me corrective advice as they go so I don't go off in a bad direction. Critique partners have an obligation to be constructive. Does that mean we always beat around the bush? No--we can be very frank. But MOST importantly, we try to avoid subjective opinions in favor of craft, we try to consider the other writer's intentions, and if we make a criticism, we should always suggest a way to fix the weakness we are noting in one another's work. That's a rule of constructive criticism in general: you don't just go in and say "I don't like this." You say: "This character trait or behavior isn't working for me. Maybe if you did this instead, it might make it work." When critique partners go in with blanket criticisms and no suggestions to help, things get messy, and some talks may need to happen between partners! Now, your crit partner may not always agree with the proffered suggestions, but that's OK. What matters is that you offered your brainstorming power, so your crit partner sees you are trying to help--or so you hope. :-)

Beta readers are NOT other novelists. They are novel-readers only. I have wonderful beta readers: two of them are well-read in my genre, while one of them is more a literary fiction type who loves a good historical novel. They're very smart and very analytical. But in my beta readers, I don't necessarily expect a writer-type opinion. What's really valuable from a beta reader is the subjective reaction. I *want* to know if a beta reader likes the heroine and hero for completely subjective reasons. I don't need to hear suggestions from a beta reader about how to fix things, though of course suggestions are always welcome! But they're not under the same unspoken agreement of professionalism as a critique partner.

One of my beta readers combines the qualities of both a beta reader and a crit partner. She gives me a subjective reaction, but she also often suggests a corrective measure. (And her subjective reaction is pretty objective to begin with!) Overall, though, I call her a beta reader because she's not a novelist, but an excellent nonfiction writer. Her viewpoint is invaluable as someone who has read a *ton* of good novels but doesn't write them.

What do you think about the difference between crit partners and beta readers? Do you have both types of reader, or just one? What's most valuable to you about their feedback?