A comment in yesterday's post made me want to follow up on it today. Mridu Khullar noted that you should certainly keep writing, if only because every time you write, you improve. And I wanted to emphasize the truth in this statement - something I've said before on this blog, but since it's a new year and I have some new readers, I know that it's worth mentioning again.

Here's why: someone recently wrote in with the question (which I haven't yet posted) of whether or not my debut, The Department of Lost and Found, was the first manuscript I'd ever written. (Apologies to long-time readers of this blog if you've heard this story before.) In fact, it was not. I'd written another manuscript before The Department - said manuscript landed me an agent and was what I believed to be GENIUS. Before I even signed with an agent, I had envisioned the movie, seen my name on the bestseller list, was convinced that this book was going to be a BIG BOOK.

Weeeeeeeeeeell, not quite. The book got some nibbles from editors but ultimately, didn't get an offer. My agent and I parted ways soon after that when she told me that The Department, which I'd written in the meantime, would (and I quote), "Do more harm than good for my career."

In retrospect, that first manuscript was HORRIBLE. WRETCHED. SO GOD-AWFUL that I literally could never bring myself to reread it in the years since. I mean, it just stunk. But I didn't know that at the time. I knew that - in hindsight - by writing a better book. After I'd written The Dept, and thought I might return to that original manuscript and see if I could revisit/resell it. No way, no how. It wasn't even worth providing CPR to.

So how did I write this better book? Well, with some help from that agent, who took the time to point out where I was telling not showing, as well as noted when I killed the reader with exposition. But I also did it by reading, reading, reading writers whom I admired. I did it by being IMPARTIAL to my writing - cutting, deleting, recognizing that however beautiful a sentence might be, if it's not necessary to the book, it got axed. I did it by taking my ego out of it - that first manuscript was, in fact, so far from genius that I needed to step back and realize that I had a lot to learn. I never used a critique group because by the time I found my new agent, The Dept manuscript was already in good shape - but certainly, I would have. And when I wrote my next book, Time of My Life, I realized that I'd improved even more (some people disagree - hee, that's fine too)- there's an endless learning curve when you're a fiction writer. And though writing The One That I Want was a huge struggle for me, there is NO DOUBT that I never could have written that book without having written the ones before it. They're like dominos stacking on top of each other - only with skill sets instead of tile pieces.

So my point here is that even if you're not published: keep writing. I wasn't and I did. And that's how I got here today.

Question of the day: Although part of me gets inspired from reading all the "stories of success" of various authors, I can't help but feel totally defeated and discouraged at the thought of just how MANY people there are out there scrambling towards the same goal, where there's really only standing room for a few of us in the genre particularly, but in the market as a whole. How do you stay confident and inspired? Or more importanly, motivated?

Question of the day: Do you feel the current state of the economy is dictating what books are being published? For instance, my second novel is about a mother caring for her adult daughter who suffers from a chronic illness. I am struggling to find an agent for it, although all my rejections are personal. You were able to write about cancer and yet didn't scare away agents, why is writing about diseases now so taboo? Everyone says that my writing is great, yet they say that the subject matter is a tough sell right now. Arrgh!! I wanted this to be my break-out novel and it's not breaking anything but my heart. I've written a third novel in the meantime and my publisher is gobbling it up, but I had hoped to have an agent by now to help me. What would you do, wait to see if the second book can find an agent or go ahead and sign the papers on the third book even though I'm sure the contract will be bad? Do desperate times call for desperate measures or is patience a virtue on this one?

I'll offer a third suggestion: since your newer book is the one that's generating the heat, why don't you shop that one around to agents? I wouldn't sign a contract that I know is going to be crappy, but an agent can certainly take a crappy contract and make it a better one, AND, hey, you never know what other offers an agent could get you. If your previous manuscript just isn't getting the job done, set it aside, and you might discover that as time goes on, your wound will mend...especially if you sell the next one. :) And once you've sold the other one, who knows, maybe it will open doors for the one you have your heart set on right now.

I think the key is not to get too, too, too invested in one manuscript, such that it can divert the trajectory of your career. A lot of us have had that ms, the one that we poured every ounce of ourselves into and that ultimately didn't sell, but I'll tell you what: I am so grateful that I didn't get hung up on that specific ms and that I moved on from it, because if I hadn't, my career would be DOA right about now.

As far as the first half of your question, I'm going to devote a separate post to it because I think it's a worthy discuss to have in and of itself.

Good luck and hang in there! BTDT. Other readers who have BTDT, can you weigh in and help her out?

So I'm hesitant to post this because I really don't want to seem like I'm whining (because I'm not a whiner), but it's been on my mind lately, so what the hell.

Part of being an author is getting reviewed. We know that. Sometimes, we might not like it, but we know it all the same. In fact, as the years have gone on, I've more or less numbed myself to reviews (after the first initial weeks of a book's release when you really don't know what the reaction will be). I mean, some people are going to like it, and some people aren't, and that's life. Really.

But I've made it a point, on Goodreads, for example, to only highlight books that I've enjoyed. Why? Because I know that authors are out there reading their reviews! And I'm always sort of surprised that some people can say such terrible things so publicly about an author or his/her works. I KNOW this sounds weird. I know it! I know that negative reviews serve a purpose to steer other people away from wasting their time reading said book. But still! I still find it negative reviews to be shocking, I don't know why.

Maybe it's because, as an author, I truly believe that it's an accomplishment to write a book, much less get it published, and so I'm not going to disparage what anyone else does. Could that be it? Yeah, maybe. Or maybe it's just that I don't like tearing someone down when I know the hard work that goes into it, and I also understand that, as noted before, if something isn't my cup of tea, that doesn't mean AT ALL that it won't be anyone else's. Maybe it's because, unlike a TV show or a movie, which are collaborative efforts and have a lot of cooks in their kitchens, a book is really the work of ONE person, and I think it's gutsy for that ONE person to put him/herself out there in such a vulnerable way. But regardless of my reasons (and obviously, I'm still mulling them over), I simply will not critique another author in public. It is my golden rule. I don't see the service of it to anyone. (Again, yes, steer someone clear of it, I get that, but isn't it also just as productive to instead point them toward something you like?)

I don't know. I don't know what my real point is here. Ha! I just read a review (not of my work, I'll note) that I thought was fairly rude and disparaging, and I thought, "I'll bet dollars to donuts that the author sees this," and had a momentary pang for her. I think part of the problem is the anonymity of the web: people write terrible things - not just about books, of course, but about celebrities, in blog comments, all over the place - that they're not accountable for. And I'm not talking about middling or lukewarm reviews. I'm talking about the really eviscerating ones that sort of raise your eyebrows and think, "WOW!"

Anyway, I really don't want to come off as sounding lame/whiny/ungrateful for this job that yes, exposes me to criticism, but offers some wonderful other benefits. It's just sort of me talking about this out loud and wondering if people realize that authors really do see your blog reviews/Amazon reviews/etc. I'm not suggesting that anyone alter their review to spare the author's feelings...really. That's part of this biz. But...I dunno. Am I making sense to anyone????

Question of the day: I have a question about big-time magazines...Last year I got an FOB assignment from one of my dream publications. Obviously, I was thrilled, and worked my booty off to make a good impression, do what the editor wanted, etc. It seemed like all went well. But when the article came out, it looked 80% different than the piece I sent in. The editor hadn't asked for any rewrites. I guess I'm wondering...is this normal? Should I be discouraged or just chalk it up to the editing process? I'd like to send the editor more ideas, but am a bit hesitant to do so. Do you have any advice/thoughts on this?

Ah, yes, I have so been there, done that. You file a piece that you think is perfect, receive positive feedback, and then voila, rush to the newsstand when it comes out, only to find that it's nearly unrecognizable! And your stomach drops because you think it must suck.

The surprising truth of the matter is that often times, it doesn't mean a darn thing. Some magazines and editors - and the only way to get a feel for this is really through repeat work - are very, very, very into making it look like "their" mag, with "their" voice, in "their" format. These types of mags tend to edit just about everything, even from long-term writers.

That said, certainly, there are some editors who want their writers to nail the voice, etc, right out of the gate, so that they have less work to do (fair enough request), so sure, at times, this could be an indication that she wasn't pleased with the work. But, given that she didn't ask for revisions, I wouldn't necessarily infer that in this instance. It could be that once they had the info that you drafted, they envisioned the piece differently or as a box, not a narrative, etc, and it was just easier for her to repackage it. There are a lot of reasons why she might have changed it.

I think the best thing to do is simply to keep pitching her. If she assigns you something else, I'd just chalk it up to her/the mag's style and not give it a second thought. You could also easily send her an email and say, "Hey, I just wanted to be sure that you were satisfied with this, given that the published version was so different." I HAVE done this with one editor in the past, and she was totally pleased with my work (and I've since gone on to work with her many, many times) but had to make some changes to it for reasons that were out of my hands.

So don't be discouraged...this isn't a big red flag...and definitely, you can investigate and find out more. Anyone else out there been in this situation? What did it mean in your case?