However, he does zero in on something I've felt frustration at also. When agents give advice on what they want to see, it's usually a list of what they don't want to see. And when someone pins them down for what they do, in fact, want to see, the answer tends to be nebulous:
"I'll know it when I see it."
"Just write well."
"I'm looking for voice."
I do rein in my frustration about this matter, however. Who hasn't worked a job where every mistake you make is pointed out to you, but no one notices all the things you do right? Figuring out what's wrong is always easier than figuring out what's right, and agents are human. They have the same trouble all of us do with seeing what works in the face of what clunks. Our brains just naturally fixate on the clunks.
Also, agents are not obligated to help any of us figure out what works. That's our job as writers, and we should take full responsibility for it.
Agents are also not--and this is where I begin to make my point for today's blog--educators by trade.
Sure, they want writers to give them what they're after, and we writers would love to know exactly how to do this, so it seems logical they should want to teach us.
And some do try, but they're not educators. Is it any wonder they aren't necessarily doing an amazing job of it? And given they do it for free, have we any right to complain about that? It's never a good idea to criticize a volunteer.
The real reason Mr. Mayer's post got my attention is because it made me think about why I write this blog--the Meaty Monday posts, at least. I'm trying (and often failing, I admit) to do what we all wish the agents could and would do--explain the nuts and bolts of what works rather than what doesn't.
I think all writers should try to do this. We aren't necessarily educators either, so there's no guarantee we can help one another any more than the agents can help us, but unlike agents, writers have a good incentive to teach.
There is nothing like trying to explain a concept to someone else to force you to get it straight in your own head too. I swear, I got a degree in physics without really understanding a lot of first-year physics; I learned that stuff properly after I graduated, when I had to teach it.
Offering critiques--i.e. trying to teach someone else what you've kinda-sorta figured out yourself--is the thing that will help you completely figure it out. Teaching helps take you from creativity-by-instinct to creativity-by-expertise. It's one of the things that turns you into a professional writer.
Agents try to educate writers out of generosity and, ooh, maybe a wee smidgen of weeping frustration over the contents of their slush piles.
Writers have a much better reason to teach, which is why we should stop complaining and take over the job of educating one another. The advice of agents should just be icing on our own big, rich cake.
~~~~~~~
What do you think? Should writers try to share their skills with others, or is teaching yet another distraction from our main job--writing? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
8 comments:
old saying:
Those who can, Do
Those who can't do, Teach.
Those that can't teach, Administrate.
Those who can administrate, Well we elect them.
I think it is great if you try to share your skills with others. You end up teaching yourself as much or more than you teach others. You learn by teaching; what people easily grasp and what you need to change so they aren't scratching their head to try to follow you.
If you leave your audience scratching their head, they will likely close the book on you and move on. If you can learn how to keep that from happening by teaching others what you have learned so far, I say fantastic for you.
You likely are also building your loyal readership by doing so. In general, people like to help people who help them so you are investing in your future in a way.
When I got my degree in Physics, I was always at least a semester behind in grasping the lessons.
But yes, the best way to learn about something is to teach it. And the time when my writing improves the most is when I participate in critiquing - both giving and receiving.
But here's the thing - I don't think what they are looking for can be taught. We can improve the technical aspects of the writing, polish it up, make it clean and tight. But there's that spark, that voice, that hook, that certain something that will tug at an agent's (or editor's) string and make them stop the presses.
And if they hit that, there may be a lot of technical things wrong with the manuscript or it might be nearly there. I think it's a balance equation: really cool idea, hook, voice versus technical maturity. If the scales are heavy on the cool side, it doesn't matter that there's a lot to fix technically (sometimes).
But getting that cool idea into the right hands that will see it as a really cool idea is tricky and requires tons of perseverence and a thick skin. And technical maturity helps a lot when the idea is cool but not quite outstandingly freezing.
I really do think that writers are going to be the best writing teachers nowadays, because nodoby else is doing a good job of it. Agents and editors, aside from not being educators, are also not writers and don't really look at books from the writing side no matter what they think. They really just don't know about it. And if you read anything about literature that comes from academia (and believe me, I've read a lot of that), you'll find that it prepares you to read and analyze books, but not to write one. So it comes down to a sort of apprenticeship for writers, but let's not forget that simply reading great books and trying to write well is better for us than reading any writing blog (including mine!). All that having been said, I want to make sure that I've agreed with you and made it clear that I believe writers can only benefit from sharing ideas and talk about craft.
Eek! I'm way behind on chatting back to people! (See next blog post for the reason why.)
Sarf: *snicker* I had only heard the first two lines of that before. :D
Heather:
You likely are also building your loyal readership by doing so.
I don't know if blog followers necessarily would translate into book readers, but certainly that's the point of creating a professional blog--you want to hang onto people's interest in an age whether there's so much "Ooh! Shiny!" to distract them.
Sarah: I think the process of learning the "magic" is a very slow, personal one, but that it's fuelled by learning all the stuff that's easier to teach, like craft.
People who come in wanting to learn the secret to making magic will be frustrated, but the ones who have a dedication to simply getting better will eventually learn to write stories that sing.
Scott:
[L]et's not forget that simply reading great books and trying to write well is better for us than reading any writing blog
Or writing book! You're correct that knowledge has to be ingrained by practice before it can be implemented effectively.
With the caveat I am not a fiction writer, I just hang around with them :-)
I find the advice of the husband and wife team of Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch to ring true versus my observations of the industry and writers that I know.
They have a lot to say about what you should write and agents. Some of it, especially regarding agents, annoys some people. Granted, some of the advice goes against "common wisdom". However, when you read the explanation, it makes a lot of sense. I particularly respect that Smith says take what works for you, throw away what doesn't.
The websites are:
http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/
http://kriswrites.com/
In one of Smith's blog posts on agents, Laura Resnick related why she no longer uses an agent. Resnick is speaking at the Write On Vancouver (http://www.rwagvc.com/wov2010/index.html) in May ... I'm tempted! She sounds like an person with lots of interesting things to say.
Dale: You should probably read Editorial Anonymous' recent post. She has some good points to make too (along with a cheap shot at the end, unfortunately.)
I also can respect the "throw away what doesn't work for you" attitude, because I think that's a natural step in any writer's career--realizing you have to go with your gut even if everyone's telling you it's unwise. Fear doesn't lead to good art or a strong career.
Plus, even when something is a mistake, occasionally it's one of those mistakes you have to make in order to learn what you need to do instead.
Ah, the was the post Smith was referring to on twitter! Thanks.
I'm not sure that blogger has really read Smith's posts, or maybe I misread them. He and they don't actually seem that far apart from each other. I've found that some of his individual posts can be taken as overly negative.
It's interesting that it's an editor commenting on agents. An editor's perspective and context is different from an author's.
And wow, that is quite a cheap shot at the end. Given what little I know about how much Smith has made from those works, I'd imagine he's laughing all the way to the bank doing something he loves to do.
Post a Comment