Hello everyone!
Today I wanted to take the time to talk about the famous information dumping that can happen when writing a book. We all do it. I've done it and still do sometimes, even in a second or third draft. We need to learn to recognize when we have dumped too much backstory in one area of our manuscript.
Here is an excellent example of how not to info dump. I recently watched the Netflix movie Bright. After the first two minutes of the movie, I knew exactly what kind of world the story took place in and even a bit of history without one word spoken. How? Here's a small spoiler for those who haven't seen it.
Graffiti. The opening credits show graffiti and street signs from all over L.A. They show us that this is a world that contains orcs, elves, humans and other magical creatures living alongside each other. It even mentions a dark lord and civil unrest between the races. With a few flashes of images and no dialogue, we have already learned our setting, what our characters' races may be, and that there could be an underlying tension between races that could affect the plot.
Now, isn't that just magic in and of itself?
I know what you're thinking, "Okay, that was a movie. We have to explain everything with words, without using these famous info dumps." Right you are, my invisible antagonistic friend. You have to find your own graffiti. You have to discover a way to introduce your characters and setting in an interesting way that will keep the reader's attention. You have to show (and not tell, of course!) the reader a setting without going on for ten pages about the way a city looks and why. You have to explain a history without a prologue that tells you every little detail about it. You have to establish a character's backstory without them sitting down with their best friend and rehashing their entire existence. (Because really, who does that in real life? Nothing irks me more than characters who sit around and talk about topics they both already know as fact for no other purpose than to give the reader this info.)
It is always easier said than done.
The trick is being able to recognize when you have left info dumps in your writing. If a beta reader or editor points them out to you, even better. Then you have to use what I like to call the sprinkler effect. Take that information and sprinkle it all throughout your story. Not only will this help with info dumps, but it could make for more interesting writing.
Instead of knowing Amy's entire past at the beginning, perhaps we are shown small pieces of her past here and there through flashbacks, off-handed dialogue, or her own inner thoughts. Her character could become more mysterious and interesting if we find out more about her gradually.
Maybe we discover the setting by following our main character as they go for a jog in post-apocalyptic New York, skirting abandoned cars and leaping overturned hot dog stands. Later, she may show us her thoughts about missing the time before the great war/plague/invasion that left the world this way. Or maybe she hears an old song and it brings back a memory of her pre-apocalypse life.
You have to find your own system that works for you.
Good luck, writers. The best way to research how to help with your own information dumping is to read. Read other amazing books that bring you into the story in ways that don't give you pages and pages of why Jimmy hates his mother. Discover a way to use more imagery and everyday circumstances to show the rain forest the story takes place in.
Have fun and happy writing!
Being a published author does not mean my writing is perfect. I am by no means a master of the English language and flawless when it comes to editing my work. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone.
Luckily, I have great friends who look out for me and let me know when I've make a boo-boo with my published works. I even have a few awesome beta readers who rip my story apart (in the best of ways) before I put it out there for the world to enjoy. I do the same for my author friends.
But sometimes things are missed (Because everyone makes mistakes, right?) and I have to go back over my work to do some rewrites or further editing of the story. This year I plan on returning to my older works and fixing them up. It will take some time, but I want to reread everything with fresh eyes and try to catch all the typos or plot holes I can.
I honestly think every writer should do this from time to time. My writing style has evolved a lot over the past few years and though I may not want to change story lines or characters themselves, I may want to change how I present them in my stories. I'm also a bit wiser when it comes to editing issues. Yes, only a bit wiser. I still throw quite a few "rules" out the window.
Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will have a collection of improved works to show off and some peace of mind that I did my very best in presenting them to you, readers.
Hope you pick up one of my books to entertain you this year. Happy reading!
Reading some articles and feedback on the net today and caught myself shaking my head. I was torn between agreeing with some people's claim that beta readers are unnecessary and being offended because, well, duh!
It had me sitting back and thinking about my experiences with other beta readers and as a beta reader myself. I may have touched on this subject before but I want to revisit it due to some resent events that both baffled and angered me. But I digress, beta reading.
Here is Wiki's definition for you, for those who have no idea what I'm talking about:
"An alpha reader or beta reader (also spelled alphareader / betareader, or shortened to alpha / beta), also pre-reader or critiquer,
is a non-professional reader who reads a written work, generally
fiction, with the intent of looking over the material to find and
improve elements such as grammar and spelling,
as well as suggestions to improve the story, its characters, or its
setting. Beta reading is typically done before the story is released for
public consumption. Beta readers are not explicitly proofreaders or editors, but can serve in that context.
Elements highlighted by beta readers encompass things such as plot holes, problems with continuity, characterisation or believability; in fiction and non-fiction, the beta might also assist the author with fact-checking."
That is the basic gist of it. Some betas do take the time to do a read for editing mistakes though some only look for content issues.
As far as others beta reading for me, I have had mixed results. I have asked perfect strangers to beta for me, which is, in my opinion, the best way to do it so your relationship doesn't affect what they say. (Except when I beta, because I don't care who you are, I will tell you what I really think.) I usually just ask if they read the genre, give them a summary/blurb, and ask for opinions and if they see any serious issues. I might give them a few questions to answer depending on the book itself. I have had some people take months and months to read this free, unpublished book I just trusted them with, and only get back with me to say that they enjoyed it. Really? That's it?
I had a few people say they liked the genre, the blurb sounded great, then a few weeks later, tell me they couldn't finish it because it wasn't anything like they thought it would be. Although I think I'm pretty clear in my summaries, I gave them the silent salute, thank them for their time, and move on. I won't pretend that my writing can't be really intense sometimes and I know it is not for everyone. I have no illusions that some people won't hate it.
I have also had people reply with pages and pages of notes about why they hated this, that, and how I should rewrite the entire story to make it sound how they want. I had one person take a short story of mine and basically cover it in red ink. They thought everything was wrong. Umm, sorry. This is my story and I will be telling it in my own voice, thank you.
I have had some really great experiences, though. People who give me detailed notes about areas they thought needed help. They were honest but not jerks about it. These are the ones I will go back to again. This is the kind of results that we as writers really need. Honest but not brutal. Truthful without coming across as a know-it-all asshole.
But, it seems, every writer is not of the same opinion as me. I beta read for friends on occasion and I also do it as a side job for a small company that does line editing as well. I have also had mixed results with this because writers, like anyone, are so different. We might all write, but we do not all think alike. Hmm, that rhymes...
You have some writers who do it all for the money. To them, writing is a business and they will change their story in whatever way they need to to make it appeal more to a wider audience.
Some writers are all passion. They write how they want, sales be damned. They are putting their story out there because it needed to be told.
There are also writers who write because they love it, but are so unsure of themselves and afraid of others' opinion of their works, that they may never actually publish. Or they will but won't really promote it or make a point to tell friends and family.
There are always authors that fit in more than one category, I mean, we aren't robots, but this is a generalization. You may be none of these things. My point is, what you are looking for with your writing can affect how you react to a beta read and exactly what you want from it.
Some writers just want to be told that they are the best. They can't take any kind of constructive criticism, no matter how you word it, and refuse to change anything.
Some writers are waiting on pin and needles for your input. They just need to know what you thought about their work and what was wrong with it. They would change everything you suggested because they doubt their own creative power.
There are those in between as well, of course. I like as many opinions as I can get so I can weed through and see if I can find a common thread. If five people tell me that one chapter is really bad, I'm probably going to rewrite that chapter.
It takes all kinds in this world and writer's personalities and opinions are as varied as the color spectrum.
The problem is, you never know what you are going to get from Joe Blow off the street. Do your research on who you ask to beta read for you. If you ask someone who seems interested but their Goodreads account says they have only read two books this year, I seriously doubt that they will be helpful to you. Make sure they are well read in your genre. Make sure they have the time to take actual notes about it. Make sure they understand exactly what you want from them. Don't be afraid to give them your own questionnaire, if they don't have one that they use already. (Some do but just because they don't, doesn't mean they are amateurs and won't take excellent notes.)
So, to conclude this super-frickin-long post, many people feel they don't need a beta reader because they have had bad experiences before. I sympathize with you, truly. It is enough to make me want to strangle people. Because you really, really, don't need a bad beta reader. That is just a waste of your time. But if you find a few good beta readers, stick with them! Their input could be very valuable.
I am an avid reader. I have been writing since childhood. I recognize most editing mistakes, though I am sure to miss some because, you know, the whole being human thing. I have read in multiple genres but the ones I enjoy the most, I have read hundreds of books in, therefore I can recognize cliche scenes and plot holes a mile away. I give people professional, if not sometimes snarky, feedback that is thoughtful and detailed. I get paid to do this because I do a damn good job.
I'm not stating this to get you to hire me. I'm stating this because I feel like writers should not give up this vital part of the publishing process because of a few bad apples. Good betas are out there and a few suggestions can go a long way to making a story go from okay to un-put-downable.
Look at it this way: would you rather have a beta tell you your book needs some serious help before it is published or have a bunch of reviewers say so after it is published? On the internet, where millions of people can see it?
You know how it is. You tell someone that you're a writer and they give you an amused look. Like it's not a real job. Like it's some side project that you do for kicks. It's cross stitching for dreamers.
I don't know about you guys but writing is hard work. Yes, it is WORK. You spend hours researching, editing, perfecting your craft, pitching ideas to friends, editing some more, throwing out entire chapters, rewriting, agonizing over dialogue, some more research, on and on putting your sweat and blood and endless hours into your work.
At least, that's what you're supposed to do.
A problem I'm constantly seeing these days with everything being online is that when it comes to indie writers, some are just straight up lazy. Yeah, I said it. Self publishing has made us into lazy writers. Without the threat of an editor and publishing house looming over our shoulders, we think we can just throw any old thing out there and with enough promotion on our part, it'll become an instant gem.
The problem is, it's working.
I've read a lot more indie books in the last year than ever before and I have to say, only about 40% of them were well written. The others had problems that a little more time and effort could have easily fixed: too short, too long, too descriptive, not descriptive enough, too many grammatical errors, formatting problems, etc. Things that an editor would have caught but since a publishing house was totally bypassed, no one did. And getting your neighbor who reads a book a year to look over it for you, does not count as getting a beta reader.
The saddest thing is that those 60% that ranged from "needs some work" to "burn this bitch and start from scratch", were the ones that had over ten reviews each and were spammed all over the net. They were getting more attention than the authors who'd really put the time in. What is this nonsense? You're telling me that you have the time and money to market your book that well, that often but you can't get a serious beta reader or hire an editor to proofread it for you?
This is why, sad to say, that when I start reading a book and realize that it's self published, I can't help but cringe a little. Because these days, I honestly don't know what I'm getting. And that just isn't fair to those indie authors who do all the research and spend all the time and have the aching necks and wrists from hours spent over the damn computer screen.
The publishing world kinda sucks these days. It's uneven and unfair. If you have the cash to spend, you can get your work published, even if it's crap. The rest of us have to work our asses off and can't get half the reviews.
So, what I'm saying is, indie authors, put in the time. Don't be lazy. I still believe that anyone can write a book. Anyone. But no one can write a book in a week and think it's ready for publishing.
And if you do write a book in a week and get it published, I wouldn't suggest asking me to read and review it for you. You should have asked me to beta read for you first because notes I give you beforehand are for your personal use to help you out. A crappy review is there on the net for the entire world to see.
