“Come with me,” he said.
“I can’t,” she said. “They’ll punish me.”
“I’ll protect you,” he said.
“You can’t,” she said. “No one can.”

Perfectly acceptable dialogue. Assuming you already know who “he” and “she” are in the scene, there’s no doubt whose dialogue is whose.

But some people are vehemently opposed to dialogue tags. They’d much rather use action to convey who’s saying what:

“Come with me.” He reached for her hand.
She snatched it away from him. “I can’t. They’ll punish me.”
He touched her cheek. “I’ll protect you.”
She shook her head. “You can’t. No one can.”

Each bit of character action conveys who speaks each line of dialogue. This works too. The action adds to the scene by revealing some of the inner conflict and motivation between the characters.

So which is preferable? Dialogue tags or action? Neither. It depends on the scene. Using strictly “he said/she said” in a dialogue-heavy scene can result in “floating head syndrome” where the reader isn’t quite sure where the characters are or what they’re doing. In the above example, you only get a hint of what the relationship might be between these characters. The action example shows that intimacy more clearly.

But over-using action to identify the speaker can bog down the dialogue. If you want a fast-paced dialogue exchange, you don’t want to insert character action every time the speaker changes. In the above example, the use of action gets a bit clunky.

The solution is to vary your use of dialogue tags and action. You can even omit both when it’s clear from the context and dialogue who’s speaking. Here’s an example from Tankborn. To give it some context, Devak has just told Kayla that it was his brother who was supposed to take his father’s place, not him:

“Why didn’t he?” Kayla asked.
“He’s dead,” Devak said. “The lowborn Sheffold riots.”
A dim fact surfaced now. “Azad Sharma.”
Devak nodded. “My half-brother.”
“Then you—”
“I’m the child he gave his life to save.”
“But they never meant to kill him.”
His gaze narrowed on her. “Of course they did. He went in as a peacemaker. He’d befriended some of the lowborns, but they betrayed him.”
“That’s how the trueborns tell the story,” Kayla said.

The point is not to get caught up in using only one method of identifying the speaker in dialogue. You wouldn’t want every paragraph in your book to be the exact same length, or have the same number of words in every sentence. You wouldn’t use the same adjectives over and over. You vary your language so that the reader finds your work engaging. And in the case of dialogue tags and action, you use them to clarify the speaker, to describe action, and reveal conflict or motivation.

He started with the five to avoid: Deus Ex Machina, Infodump, Agenda, Series Degradation, and Disjointed Elements.

Deus Ex Machina translates literally to “god from a machine.” In Greek plays, there would be a point near the end at which a god or gods would be lowered via a mechanism to the stage to tie up all the loose ends and solve the story problem. You want to avoid a device like this in your writing, instead making sure that your main characters have completed their goals themselves.

Infodump is a particular bane of speculative fiction. Our world-building may include invented language, created flora and fauna, a political system, religion, etc. If we lay this all out in the first few pages, our readers’ eyes will glaze over. Kirk mentioned a few tricks to avoid infodump. Use a smart foil (that sidekick that seems to know everything, a la Hermione Granger). Plant an artifact that reveals information (I used this device in Tankborn; my MC Kayla finds a journal). Have the characters do some research. You can also use dialogue and action (although I would recommend taking care with dialogue that is too expository).

Agenda is a problem when the author has an axe to grind and uses their book to hone the blade. For example, the author could use the light touch of satire to get across the point that partisanship in politics is sending us down the road to ruin, or he/she could write a heavy-handed, hit the reader over the head diatribe against politicians taking sides.

Series Degradation pretty much speaks for itself. The first book in a series is great, the next is quite good, the third is okay, etc. This is only an issue for those writing series.

Disjointed Elements refers to a story that has too many things going on in the story. It’s a paranormal-romance-science-fantasy-adventure-thriller. If you can’t describe your story in a succinct query letter paragraph, you might want to take a look to see if you’ve crammed too many unrelated elements into your plot.

On to five things to master. First on the list was Make Something New, although Kirk covered that one last by way of a writing exercise. Next, Voice and Dialogue, then Pacing, Good Research & Added Value, and Name with Meaning.

With Voice and Dialogue, you want to vary your dialogue amongst your characters. Each character’s dialogue should be clear and distinctive. It’s okay for a character to have an accent, but it should be accurate.

With Pacing, you want to make sure you don’t run out of steam at the end. Make sure you have an actual climax.

For Good Research & Added Value, Kirk used the example of Michael Crichton. In Jurassic Park, Kirk felt the details about genetic engineering were a fascinating part of the story. He didn’t feel the same about Congo, and found it a difficult book to get through. Make sure your research adds to your reader’s enjoyment.

Finally, Name with Meaning. Use names that a) make sense to the reader and that b) the reader can pronounce. Ten consonants in a row with random apostrophes inserted might not make the best name for your characters or creatures.

Kirk got around to Make Something New at the end. On the reverse side of his handout, he listed ten each of typical speculative settings (e.g., zombie apocalypse, college of special abilities), character archetypes (evil sorcerer, homicidal creature), and elements (e.g., cryogenics, magical items). The trick was to combine these into a new take on a story. We had some great contributions from the attendees.

I also attended a mile-a-minute presentation of SF/F fiction for children (PB to YA) given by local librarians Patricia Castelli and Marilee Clark. It was pretty cool to see how passionate Patricia and Marilee were about the books in their collection. It was also nifty to see Tankborn listed under “Other new teen books of note” in the YA section.

I finished the day with my editor Stacy Whitman’s talk on Writing Cross-Culturally. She started with some thought-provoking questions. Who gets to write what? Who reads multi-cultural books? The word multi-cultural is controversial–does it exclude white people? Some prefer to use inter-cultural or diverse.

She said if you admit you’re ignorant about a culture, you’re less likely to brazenly write mistakes. Sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know.

Other issues she discussed was how to attract people of color to publishing. Also, when writing historical fiction, how do you make language choices? Some historically accurate language is offensive in the present day.

She talked about four approaches to writing multi-culturally:

Invader–someone who arrives without warning and claims entitlement without reason
Tourist–someone who is sincerely interested, sometimes in the way but willing to learn
Guest–someone with a long term relationship with the host whose relationship is reciprocal
Native

A resource for those interested in writing Native American culture: oyate.org.

Questions you may not know to ask when writing multi-culturally (these can be found on Stacy’s blog):

Who are people loyal to?
Who are people responsible to?
Who gets respect?
How do they ensure fairness and efficiency?
How do they control their emotions?
Who’s in charge of their fate?
What time is it–absolute or flexible?
How do they handle guilt vs shame?
How different are men and women?
How do they handle personal space?
Do they look forward or back?

All in all, LTUE was a fantastic experience. There was a real wealth of information for the beginning writer and plenty of networking opportunities for the established author. I’m looking forward to attending next year.

By the time I arrived at LTUE it was noon. I completely missed the James Owen keynote speech , but I made it in time for the “How to Write a Good Short Story” panel. This was a good one, packed with excellent information from Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury, Heather Frost, Eric James Stone, and moderator Dan Willis.

Here’s what I gleaned from the workshop, based on my notes:

A short story must focus on one aspect of a character or the situation that character is in. You have to restrict what you focus on. One panelist described it as a snippet of the character’s life. You’re looking at that one isolated moment.

The writer should use unity–one character, one problem, one setting, one effort against the story problem. You’re not writing episodes as you would in a novel. You should find the one distilling moment in this character’s life and write about that.

Dan asked the panelists how a short story should be structured. One panelist said you have to leave out a lot of things. You can’t have traditional beginning & middle as you would in a longer work. Two ways shared that described where to start: You should start at the climax. You should start close to the end.

You should enter scenes late and leave them early, especially conversations. You can trust the reader to fill in details.

Also, in a short story you should cut the number of scenes, characters, and sub-plots. Reduce the complexity of the main plot. In a short story, you should tell, don’t show, particularly for the character’s backstory. And as one panelist said (quoting Doc Smith), shoot the sheriff in first paragraph.

One panelist discussed the characters inner story versus her outer story (I use internal/external conflict to describe the same thing). A character has an emotional truth that is quite separate from the physical details. The story must include those emotional truths, no matter what the plot is.

One panelist gave the example of tomato surprises in which a short story writer spends much time building up the story, then at the end says, this is what really was happening and it’s entirely different from what you’ve been reading up to now. The character was actually dead, or a dog, or an alien. That device would be better used to start a novel.

Dan asked about outlining short stories. The general consensus seemed to be that a short story doesn’t need an outline. A more complex story might need outline but if that tool is used, it will be quite brief. There is sometimes a need to lay out scenes, but in general, it’s easier with short fiction to keep a whole story in your head.

Writing short, the process is more like cutting away everything that’s not a short story. A short story is a sprint as opposed to the marathon of a novel. You can break the rules more with short fiction. For instance, you can experiment with style. One panelist mentioned writing an entire story using only monosyllabic words. It was effective in a short story, but it would probably drive a novel reader crazy.

Dan asked how do you know when it’s done? One panelist said that instinct tells him what the story length will be, based on the concept. Another said that the story is over when the character solves the story problem. You should ask what the character stands to lose and what they can win. When either of those happens you’re at the end.

Kathleen discussed at length Orson Scott Card’s four story structures, Milieu, Idea, Character, Event. These all end in a certain way, for instance a Milieu story (e.g., a fish out of water story) ends when the main character decides to leave the unfamiliar territory they’ve discovered (i.e., go home) or to stay. There are more details here about these four structures.

Dan asked what are editors looking for. Answers: Someone interesting in an interesting place and situation. No boring people. Cut out the boring stuff. A character with attitude is good. One panelist commented that they hates most when all of the story is working then the end sucks. Another Orson Scott Card reference–everything in a story has to fight for its right to be there. Also, editors are more interested in authors they can work with (e.g., who will make requested changes). The suggestion: Get beta reader, someone other than your mother.

Dan asked about the market for short stories. Two helpful links, duotrope.com and ralan.com. Also, read the magazines you’re targeting. Writing contests are also a great place to submit your work. The Writers of the Future contest was noted as a particularly good one.

You should make a list of possible markets and rank them (by whatever aspects are important to you, e.g., pay). Send the story to each place on your list, starting with the highest rank and work your way down. You can also publish it yourself, but because of distribution issues, that option should probably be at the bottom of your list.

After the short story panel, I attended Kirk Shaw’s “The Good and the Bad: Five Things to Do and Five Things to Avoid in Writing Speculative Fiction,” but this post has gone on long enough. Instead of appending all the excellent detail from “The Good and the Bad” here, I’ll report on that workshop in my next post.

The nighttime view from my hotel room.

I should confess up front that I got to far fewer workshops than I’d planned today because I spent so much time talking to some really great people. I’d slept in a little so it was 10am before I traversed the obstacle course of road construction to the UVU campus. This involved dashing across streets, serpentining around the roundabout, and bobbing and weaving amidst crazy drivers.

My intention was to catch the rest of the panel discussion, What Exactly Does an Editor Do? that included my editor, Stacy Whitman. But before I got there, I crossed paths with an unpublished writer who had just finished a book and wanted to know what happens next. We ended up finding a quiet corner while I explained to her about agents and submissions, pointing out the pitfalls she might encounter. So I didn’t walk into Stacy’s panel discussion until about the last 15 minutes.

Next stop was Middle Grade Books for Boys which Stacy was moderating. My main focus is on young adult, but I do have one MG book that I’ve considered expanding into a series, so I wanted to get more information for that age group. The panelists were Tyler Whitesides (Janitors) and E.J. Patten (The Hunter Chronicles).

First, they clarified the basics. The age range for MG is 8 through 12, and the length is 50,000 to 70,000 words. It isn’t just a matter of age or length, though. The themes of an MG book have to be age-appropriate. The stories are more adventure-based and if there is any romance, it’s puppy love.

They mentioned that some MG series do transition to YA within the series (Harry Potter is a prime example), but in general, there is not as much of a market in YA for boys. Boys tend to go directly from MG to adult fantasy. Boys also love non-fiction.

A writer should think about what boys like to figure out how to write for that market. Characters should be a year or two older than the target audience because kids read up. Age 13 is probably the top age for MG characters.

Boys like slapstick and potty humor. Kids in general like familiarity and will read the same books over and over.

After the MG panel, I got caught up in another conversation or two and so arrived late at the panel discussion on self-publishing. Since I’ve self-pubbed some of my backlist, I was interested in what new information I might glean. I confess (again–I must be channeling my Catholic upbringing), I was a bit put off by some of what was presented in this panel. When asked “what works” in the way of promotion, the answers varied from the “throw whatever you can out there, maybe something will work” to “book bombs so you’ll be on the bestseller list for a day.” A couple suggestions sounded reasonable–put up a free short story to entice readers to check out your book, and also to look for long term success rather than immediate short term results.

One panelist’s answer to “What do you find frustrating?” was that formatting, editing, and promoting take so much time, it impacts how much time there is left to write. Where I see myself as a writer, these folks have to be publisher/writers and I don’t think the proportion of writing to publishing would satisfy me.

But here’s what really raised my hackles. At one point during the Q&A, someone in the audience asked “So, should I self-publish first, or go to the traditional route first?” The panel’s answer–self-publish first because a traditional publisher might discover you that way. I wanted to stand up and shout, No! That’s not how it works! Your odds of having a traditional publisher discover your self-pubbed book out of tens of thousands are as bad as hitting the lottery. Self-publish if that’s what you believe in, but don’t do it as a route to traditional publishing. I kept my opinion to myself. Well, until now.

Next up, a screenwriting related workshop I had arranged ahead of time to jump in on. Michaelbrent Collings and Blake Casselman were kind enough to let me horn in on their already scheduled panel. They had planned for the panel to be entirely Q&A so I fit in pretty well. I like to think that I brought something to the discussion having spent a number of years writing screenplays.

I headed to lunch (side note: it is apparently possible for a 3 Musketeers candy bar to age to the point of rock-hardness, based on the one I bought at the UVU cafeteria) then retraced my perilous path back to the hotel for a break. After my R&R, I again danced around Orem traffic to return to campus, got lost for a bit in the IT department (thank you, help desk for getting me on the wireless network), then found Stacy again. She introduced me around to a few more people, I got into a few more lengthy conversations, and never did make it back into a workshop. My bad.

Stacy and I connected again later and she introduced me to the lovely ladies who became my dinner companions (Gwynne Meeks & Audrey Gonzalez). She also gave me an intro to James Dashner (The Maze Runner) with whom Stacy promised she would “hook me up, Utah-style” for dinner Friday night.

Japanese Pan Noodles at Noodles & Company with Gwynne and Audrey, back to UVU for the tail end of Stacy’s last panel (where I learned about a story featuring an LDS vampire systematically killing her family–cool!), then we added another new friend, Brittany Heiner, and the four of us ventured out for incredibly yummy ice cream at Cold Stone.

I am full of knowledge and tasty ice cream. It has been a perfect day.

After the talk, we went out to Sakura, an all-you-can-eat sushi restaurant. A dangerous place for me to be since I l-o-v-e sushi. I ate more than I should have, but it was oh, so good. Particularly the Twin Dragon roll. Yum.

My impression of Utah (or Orem, anyway): a little chillier than home, desert-like (well, it’s a desert–what do you expect?) and dry-dry-dry. I thought the Sacramento area was dry. My skin was flakier than a pie crust (okay, that imagery is pretty eww). Nice people.

Now off to LTUE.

Also, I consider Tankborn to be a fairly cinematic book (seeing as how it originated from a film script). It seemed to me the best way to make an effective trailer for the book would be to use a script and live actors; i.e., to essentially create a short film, which would be pricier than I could afford.

Without a bottomless budget for said short film, I had to consider a different design for a book promotion video. I’m fortunate enough to have a good friend, Frank Casanova, who owns a production studio, The Studio Center. I’d previously produced a couple of short films with Frank  (check out Sweet Tooth here). So I contacted him in early October 2011, and we did some brainstorming via phone and e-mail about how to proceed.

Having read an article about creating and releasing a series of videos, Frank and I tossed around ideas of how to create content for multiple videos. I thought that an interview format would work well. I’m comfortable with doing live interviews and have been on camera a couple times before.

My original concept was to set things up in a talk show format. Frank is also good on camera and as a former radio personality, he has a great voice. I thought we’d both be on the set and he’d ask me the questions and I’d answer. But he nudged me away from that idea, suggesting I be on camera by myself.

Eventually, we settled on a design for the videos. It required that I come up with a number of questions in advance, as well as formulate how I would answer the questions. Frank agreed to do the camera work and his brother Fred Casanova was kind enough to agree to do the editing work.

While the idea was still fresh in my mind, I created my list of 15 questions. For at least my own purposes, I categorized the questions by type: Intro (introducing me and Tankborn), Characterization, Multi-Culturalism, World-Building, and Role-Playing. I also devised five “fun” questions which would be edited in if a video required additional length. You’ll see one of my fun questions in the very first video. My goal was to keep the videos at about two minutes, since that’s my personal attention span for a YouTube video. Anything much longer, I tend not to take the time to watch.

I’d intended to set up some studio time in October right after my brainstorming session with Frank. Life had other ideas, however. Two deaths in the family, not to mention the end of year holidays, delayed production of my videos until January 25, 2012.

A few days before V-day, thanks to a referral from Frank, I found a makeup artist to “make me beautiful” for the camera. I also baked several dozen chocolate chip “thank you” cookies to take down to the studio.

With the family issues going on in my life, I didn’t prep my answers for the questions until the day before the shoot. This isn’t quite as crazy as it sounds, since I’d done numerous interviews for blogs where I’d answered questions similar to the ones I’d devised. So the answers had been percolating for some time, at least subconsciously. Also, when I’m presenting in front of people I know I work best speaking off the cuff, using a bullet list. In this case, the “person” I would be speaking to was the camera (and Frank standing next to it). But the extemporaneity coupled with the bullet list works far better for me than trying to memorize a bunch of material.

I developed a bullet list of three to five points for each of the 15 questions. The sample at left, which I used for the first video, shows the format I used for my bullet list. This first question starts the video series.

My plan was to glance at my bullet list right before answering the question. Knowing I might forget my points, I also wrote individual keywords on cards for Frank to hold up next to the camera. The night before, as I ran through my bullet points using my keyword cards to trigger my memory, I had no idea how well my process would work during the shoot. I paper-clipped together the keyword cards by question so that Frank could easily reference them and got everything I would need packed up, including my box of Tankborn author copies.

I arrived at The Studio Center at 8:30am. Since the makeup artist hadn’t arrived yet, Frank and I went into the studio to work out how we wanted the set to look. He pulled out an interesting looking bookshelf and I loaded it up with copies of Tankborn. The section of the stage where Frank would be shooting the videos had been painted a nice medium blue. He added a lighting effect that dappled the wall behind me with cloud-like white. I wanted to be on my feet since that’s how I’m used to presenting, but I was worried I’d move around too much. So I compromised by half-leaning against a tall stool to anchor myself. Another stool beside me held my stack of bullet lists. As you can see in the screenshot above, neither appears on camera in the finished videos.

After my session with the makeup artist, we started the shoot at about ten. Starting with the first question, Frank grabbed a stack of keyword cards and read the question printed on it out loud. This was for my benefit (so I would know which bullet list to glance over) and also so that Fred would know which video was which when he was later editing. When I let Frank know I was ready to start my answer, he’d hold up the first keyword. While I began to speak, he’d flip to the next card so I’d have a chance to mentally prep for the next bullet.

That part of the process worked great. Out of the twenty questions asked and answered, I only flubbed four times, such that it required a re-do. There’s also one video that I’m going to need to fix because I later re-thought what I’d said and decided I wanted to edit that out. But we pretty much sailed through the shoot in about an hour and a half.

The editing part of the process, of course, took much longer. Fred got started while Frank and I broke for lunch, then later I sat looking over Fred’s shoulder while he worked. I’d supplied Fred with the creature artwork Lee and Low had commissioned artist Matthew Leese to do for the tankborn.com website. Fred used a portion of the artwork background for the graphic card background. He also included the creatures and flora on the graphic card. When I realized the Tankborn cover font would be perfect for the question text, I sent an emergency e-mail to my editor and luckily caught her right before she left the office. She e-mailed Fred the font.

Fred, of course, did most of the work, but I contributed in small ways (like suggesting the font). We worked together to add in the five fun, silly questions/answers, making sure they fit with whatever more serious question we appended them to. When we thought we were finished, then realized we needed music in the background while the graphic cards displayed, I picked the music. Frank has a good-sized collection of royalty-free music and the titles on the CD cases weren’t always enlightening. I lucked out when I found a very cool Indian music piece that fit the mood of Tankborn beautifully.

We finally finished around 6pm. The next day, Fred sent me preliminary videos and I had him tweak them a bit. I had a link to the final videos two days after the shoot. An hour and a half of shooting, many hours of Fred’s work in the editing bay, and I have 15 videos to share about my book.

Lee and Low will be putting the videos on their YouTube channel over the next two weeks. Here’s the first one.

With John Green’s incredible book, the timing of my reading it could have been better. I’d just lost my dad (on January 9th). So reading about doomed teenagers just tore the grief right out of me in a flood of copious tears. I can point up no “fault” in Fault. It was hilariously funny and heartbreaking in turns.

On to the dilemma. Book reviews. I’m a published author, and someone who works hard getting my book, Tankborn, and my name out there. Like many of you, I’m also a member of Goodreads. When I remember, I put up the book I’m currently reading, although more often than not, I either don’t put it up until I’m partway through a new book or I never add it to my list at all.

But when I have put a book up, then finished it, Goodreads of course wants my rating and a review. If I loved the book, no problem. I give it four or five stars, sometimes write a few lines of a review, then go on my merry way.

But what happens if I really didn’t like a book? It could be that it was just not my cup of tea. It might have started out great for me (love those Kindle samples), but then I realized it wasn’t what I thought it would be.

In other cases I end up reading a book that really sucks. To my author eye, it’s lacking in basic craft, the voice is blah, the plot turns are silly, the ending is kinda stupid.

If a book just wasn’t to my taste, if it was otherwise good but went in a direction I just didn’t like, I try to be fair. I’ll rate it maybe a 3-star, then state in my review that it’s a personal thing, no real judgement of the book. But if the book is in my view really dreadful, I don’t say a thing. I don’t rate the book, I don’t review it at all. Why? Because I know as an author how awful a scathing review can be. Why should I contribute to another author’s angst? Why risk having readers come across that review and thinking, Man, this Karen Sandler is a real witch?

So I hold my tongue. It’s not like the world is waiting with bated breath for my opinion. There are plenty more people out there willing to review the books I don’t like. Let them speak their mind.

So, am I being prudent? Or cowardly? Should published authors review other authors’ books on sites like Goodreads?

Or should we just keep our mouths shut?

This exchange is based on something mentioned in passing in Tankborn. It’s from Kayla’s and Mishalla’s past, when they were ten years old.

Mishalla: Kayla! KAYLA!
(Kayla runs along the riverbank toward Mishalla)
Kayla: What? What’s wrong?
Mishalla: (almost crying) I stepped on a sewer toad. It’s all squished between my toes. Don’t you dare laugh at me!
Kayla: I wouldn’t, not ever.
Mishalla: Is it going to poison my foot? Why’d you tell me to take off my shoes?
Kayla: Better muddy feet than muddy shoes. Your nurture mother hasn’t the dhans to buy you a new pair.
Mishalla: Better muddy shoes than poisoned toes. I think my foot is numb.
Kayla: Can you walk?
(Mishalla shakes her head. Now she’s really crying)
Kayla: Maybe if you wash your foot off in the river?
Mishalla: Maybe…Oh, no. The Brigade is coming. Across the river. Two of them.
(Kayla looks)
Kayla: We have to go. Now!
Mishalla: I can’t. I can’t feel my foot.
Kayla: Then I’ll carry you.
(she starts to pick up Mishalla)
Mishalla: Wait! Get the sewer toad.
Kayla: What? Why?
Mishalla: I want to hide it under my brother’s pillow.
(Kayla grabs the dead sewer toad and Mishalla wraps it in her skirt. Kayla picks up Mishalla and runs with her back home).

You know what a wall-banger is. It’s that book in which you invest some time reading. You try to plow your way through it and maybe even read it all if you’re one of those people who feels compelled to finish every book you pick up. But at some point in that process, the lack of writing craft or the poorly structured plot or weak characterization or crappy ending gets to be too much and you fling that book against the wall in disgust.

Of course, since the book in question was on my Kindle, I didn’t literally fling it against the wall. Those suckers are pretty sturdy, but I’d hate to see my Kindle meet its end due to my fit of pique.

And I should mention that there are readers out there who considered at least one of my books a wall-banger (they didn’t like how one of my characters met his end). So I’m not guiltless in enraging readers.

But the thing is, the wall-banger I gave up on last night was actually a pretty good book. That is, it had some great world-building, a fascinating premise and interesting characters.  About the first third of the book kept me riveted.

But then a peculiar literary affectation started jumping out at me more and more. The author seemed to be enchanted with gerunds in lieu of verbs. Many, many sentences started with a gerund, and never got around to becoming a complete sentence by use of a verb. Going on and on. Running one sentence after another in this way. Driving the reader a little bit crazy. Creating an irritating narrative.

You get the picture. If the author had used this literary device only occasionally, interspersing it with sentences with nice, active verbs as he did in the first third or so, he wouldn’t have gotten on my last nerve. As it was, I started editing his prose in my mind as I read. I’m pretty quick with mental editing, having written a fair number of books, but it does get tedious. It didn’t help that about the time this gerunding was going into hyperdrive, the plot slowed to a crawl.

And now back to why God made editors. I took a peek at who published the book after I’d abandoned it. Best I can tell, it was self-published. This is not a commentary on self-publishing, because I do see that as a perfectly respectable way to get your book into the hands of a reader.

But I firmly believe that without an independent professional editor laying eyes on that manuscript, it’s going to have problems. This book’s author might have had writer friends give him feedback (I’m guessing yes, because much of what I read was quite well-written). But I’m guessing a professional, working editor never worked on the book.

If she had (and I say she because all but two of my editors have been women), she would have noticed the author’s overuse of gerunds. She would have suggested he be more sparing in his use of that method of laying out the narrative. She would have cut back on those long, overwritten paragraphs that caused my eyes to glaze over, would have showed him ways he could cut to the chase and allow the gem that lay beneath his verbosity to come to the fore and sparkle.

The book seems to be doing quite well on Amazon, if its ranking is anything to go on. So maybe I’m just full of it in my opinion that an editor can make a difference. Maybe the quality of your prose doesn’t matter as long as you sell books. But I doubt I’ll ever pick up another book by this author. And I doubt I’d recommend it to anyone.

Here’s what I think. Characters in your stories, whether they’re male, female, or some fictional other-gender, have to be complex. They have to be complicated. On the surface they can be simple and seemingly one-dimensional, but as the reader gets to know them, as they peel off layer after layer in the course of the story, the character should become more and more compelling, more and more relatable and appealing (if we’re talking hero/heroine) or more and more repellent (if we’re talking villain).

So that kick-ass character Mindy was talking about, if she’s able to use her strength and martial arts skill in every situation she encounters, if she can immediately solve every problem that she encounters, your story is gonna be b-o-r-i-n-g. (Side note and confession: I found the first HP book a bit boring because Harry seemed to solve his problems too easily.) If on the other hand you set your heroine up as that kick-ass girl/woman, seemingly invincible, then introduce her Achilles’ heel, whether it’s physical (think kryptonite) or emotional (think Katniss’s sister Prim), the reader will care about what happens to that character and will be more engaged in the story.

In my opinion, an emotional Achilles’ heel trumps a physical weakness every time. Katniss faced innumerable physical threats in The Hunger Games, but her love and caring for Prim, Peeta, and Gale made her far more vulnerable than did anything thrown at her in the Arena.

In my own book, Tankborn, Kayla is physically abused more than once by the enforcers. But while those blows are painful, she shrugs them off as part of her life as a GEN slave. Where she’s truly vulnerable is through the threat of having her self ended by the trueborns. She’s terrified of being wiped away, her personality erased by trueborn enforcers. I would think that any of us can relate to the fear of our mind, memories, our entire being torn away from us in retaliation for the most insignificant infraction.

So your main characters have to be complex. They have to be the actors in the play you’ve set for them. They can’t drift along in the story letting others take action while they stand back and watch. That’s the danger of a “weak” heroine/hero. While they can appear weak, they have to be layered enough to have an inner store of strength  so that they can be the one to change their world.