United Kingdom Magzines

NOVEL WRITING INTENSIVE RETREAT by Steven James & Robert Dugoni

I just had to let you all know about this excellent 3-day novel intensive retreat presented by bestselling authors Robert Dugoni and Steven James, who are both engaging, charismatic, knowledgeable presenters as well as talented authors. I've attended seminars by both of these authors at Thrillerfest, and both of them always speak to a packed room of attentive followers madly taking notes!

They're only accepting 10 participants, so register soon!

Here's the link to their website: http://novelwritingintensive.com/Home.html

Novel Writing Intensive
Oct 10-13, 2013

Johnson City, Tennessee

Have you always dreamed of having your novel published?

Are you looking for an expert critique of your first 50 pages?
Do you want to know if your novel is ready to be submitted?

Award winning novelists and writing instructors Steven James and Robert Dugoni would like to help prepare your work for that next big step: submitting it to an agent or publisher. They will evaluate part of your manuscript for its strengths and weaknesses, have classroom teachings on how to better craft your story, and work with you in a small group setting to help prepare your novel for the next step in the publication process.

If you're ready for intensive instruction to improve your writing, and if you're serious about taking your manuscript to the next level, we hope you'll be able to join us in October for a time of in-depth teaching, growth, and encouragement.

We look forward to seeing you soon!

—Steven James, critically acclaimed author of the Patrick Bowers series and Placebo
—Robert Dugoni , New York Times bestselling author of The Conviction and Murder One

Plato's Objection to Poetry

Unknown 08:53 poetry

Plato was the most distinguished disciple of Socrates. the 4th century BC to which he belonged was an age of inquiry and as such Plato’s chief interest was philosophical investigations which form the subject of his great works in form of dialogues. He wasn't a professed critic of literature and his critical observation isn't found in any single book. They lie scattered in seven of his dialogues, more particularly in the Jon, the symposium, the republic and the laws.

He was the first systematic critic who inquired into the nature of imagination literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and provocative. He was himself a great poet and his dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.

He gives the theory of mimesis (imitation) The arts deal with illusion or they are imitation of an imitation,
Twice removed from reality. As a moralist Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He says that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea/truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him. He believed that truth of philosophy was more important than the pleasure of poetry.

According to him all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in the “Republic” that ideas are the ultimate reality. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus, chair is once removed from reality. Thus, poet/artist takes man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus, artist deals in illusion.

Plato’s three main objections to poetry are that poetry is not ethical, philosophical and pragmatic, in other words, he objected to poetry from the point of view of education, from philosophical point of view and from moral point of view.

It is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions, it is not philosophical because it doesn't provide true knowledge, and it is not pragmatic because it is inferior to the practical arts and therefore has no educational value. Plato than makes a challenge to poets to defend themselves against his criticism. He ranks imitation on a lower plane than narrative, even through his own works read like dramatic scripts. It appears as through his reasoning is that imitation of reality is not in it self bad, but imitation without understanding and reason is bad.

Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appears to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, emotional comedy part. The reader of poetry is seduced, in to feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an apparition of poetry is incomparable with an apparition of reason, justice and the search for truth. He suggests that poetry causes needless lamentation and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and happiness. It numbs are faculties of reason for time being, paralyses the balanced thought and encourages the weaker part of soul constituted of the baser impulses. Hence poetry has no healthy function, and it cannot be called good.

To him drama is the most dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating thing that he/she does not understand. Plato seemingly feels that no words are strong enough to condemn drama. Plato felt that all the world’s evils derived from one source: a faulty understanding of reality. Miscommunication, confusion and ignorance were facts of a corrupted comprehension of what always strives for truth.

His primary objective in the “Republic” is not come up with the most righteous, intelligent way to live one’s life and to convince others to live this way. Plato’s question in book X is the intellectual statues of literature. He statues that, the good poet cannot composed well unless he knows his subject. He who does not have this knowledge can never be a poet. Plato says of imitative poetry and Homer, a man is not to be reverenced more than the truth. Plato says this because he believes that Homer speaks of many things of which he has no knowledge, just as the painter who paints a picture of chair doesn't necessarily know how to make a chair. His point is that in order to copy or imitate correctly, one must have knowledge of the original. Plato says that imitation is twice removed from the truth. Stories that are untrue have no value, as no untrue story should be told in the city. He states that nothing can be learned from imitative poetry.

In book II and III Plato’s main concern about poetry is that children’s mind are too impressionable to be reading false tales and misrepresentation of the truth. Plato reasons that literature portrays the Gods as behaving in immoral ways should be kept away from children, so that they will not be influenced to act the same way.

Plato has some very negative views on the value of literature, he also states the procedures that he fills are necessary in order to change poetry and literature from something negative to something positive. He does feet that some literature can have redeeming values. Good, truthful literature can educate instead of corrupting children. Plato does not want literature to corrupt the mind, he wants it to display images of beauty of grace.

The Rivals: Anti-Sentimental Comedy

Unknown 08:47 Drama

Undoubtedly Sheridan’s purpose in writing “The Rivals” was to entertain the audience by making them laugh and not by making them shed tears. “The Rivals” was written as a comedy pure and simple. Though there are certainly a few sentimental scenes in this play yet they are regarded as a parody of sentimentality. The scenes between Falkland and Julia are satire on the sentimental comedy

which was in fashion in those days and against which Sheridan revolted.

A brief examination of these sentimental scenes would clearly reveal that Sheridan’s intention was to poke fun at the sentimental comedy of the time. We find both Faulkland and Julia absurd. The true character of Faulkland is indicated to us by Absolute’s description of him as the “most teasing, captious, incorrigible lover”. Faulkland’s own description of his state of mind about his beloved Julia also makes him appear absurd. He says that every hour is an occasion for him to feel alarmed on Julia’s account. If it rains, he feels afraid lest some shower should have chilled her. If the wind is sharp, he feels afraid lest a rude blast should adversely affect her health. The heat of the noon and the dews of the evening may endanger her health. All this is funny and certainly no to be taken seriously. Sheridan is here ridiculing the excessive solicitude and concern which an over-sentimental lover like Faulkland experiences when separated from his beloved. Sheridan seems to be pleading for mental equilibrium even in the case of an ardent lover.

Sheridan continues to portray Faulkland in the same satirical manner. When Acres appears and is questioned by Absolute regarding Julia’s activities in the countryside, Acres replied that Julia has been enjoying herself thoroughly and been having a gay time. Now, a normal lover would feel extremely happy to learn this. We expect the same reaction from Faulkland because he had assured Absolute that he would feel happy “beyond measure” if he were certain that Julia was hale and hearty. But his actual reaction is quite different and greatly amuses us by its absurdity.

In both his interviews with Julia, Faulkland betrays the same absurdity. In the first interview, he complains to her of the mirth and gaiety that she as been enjoying during his absence. He wants to be loved for his own sake and for no particular reason and he also expects her love to be “fixed and ardent”. In short, his whole manner of talking to her and his soliloquy at the end of this scene reveals him in a still more comic light.

The second interview again shows him a ridiculous light. He subjects Julia to a test in order to convince himself of the sincerity of her love. The author’s intention is to show the absurd length to which an over-sentimental lover can go, and the author expects us to laugh at this kind of lover.

Even Julia suffers from an excessive sentimentality and she too is made to appear absurd and ridiculous for that reason. The manner in which she describes her lover toLydia shows the kind of mentality that she has. In the two interviews with Faulkland, Julia is again over-flowing with emotion. We smile at the way she behaves; we are amused by her excess of emotion; we mock at the abject surrender to her lover and her repeated attempts to make up with him.

Lydia too is an over-sentimental girl though in a different way; and she too becomes the subject of ridicule in the play. Her romantic ideas and her romantic planning appear absurd to us. She wants not the usual routine marriage but a runaway marriage. Now all this makes us laugh at her superficiality and silliness. These absurd notions have been derived by her from the sentimental and romantic stories to which she is addicted. The collapse of her romantic hopes disappoints her greatly but amuses us a good deal.

The manner in which the other characters have been portrayed is also evidence of the anti-sentimental character of the play. Captain Absolute is a practical man and though he assumes the name and status of Ensign Beverley, he would not like to forfeit the rich dowry which Lydia will bring him. Mrs. Malaprop is a conventional, practical woman whose attitude to marriage is business-like. Sir Anthony to is a practical, worldly man. Bob Acres is a country boor with no romantic or sentimental pretensions but towards the end of the play he shows that he is more practical than anybody else by saying:

“If I can't get a wife without fighting for her, by any valour, I’ll live a bachelor.”

Then there is Sir Lucius who is absurd but not because of nay sentimentality. One reason why he is absurd is because of his insistence on fighting duels. But he does not want to fight duels for the sake f any sentiment.

When Sheridan himself fought a couple of duels for the sake of Miss Elizabeth Linley, there was a strong emotion behind them, but here we have a mockery of dueling and we are made to laugh at the manner in which these duels are arranged.

The Life Of John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) by G. P. Landow

Unknown 08:44 Biography

John Ruskin was born on 8 February 1819 at 54 Hunter Street, London, the only child of Margaret and John James Ruskin. His father, a prosperous, self-made man who was a founding partner of Pedro Domecq Sherries, collected art and encouraged his son's literary activities, while his mother, a devout evangelical Protestant,

The Life Of John Ruskin (1819 - 1900) by G. P. Landow

early dedicated her son to the service of God and devoutly wished him to become an Anglican bishop. Ruskin, who received his education at home until the age of twelve, rarely associated with other children and had few toys. During his sixth year he accompanied his parents on the first of many annual tours of the Continent. Encouraged by his father, he published his first poem, 'On Skiddaw and Derwent Water', at the age of eleven, and four years later his first prose work, an article on the waters of the Rhine.

In 1836, the year he matriculated as a gentleman-commoner at Christ Church, Oxford, he wrote a pamphlet defending the painter Turner against the periodical critics, but at the artist's request he did not publish it. While at Oxford (where his mother had accompanied him) Ruskin associated largely with a wealthy and often rowdy set but continued to publish poetry and criticism; and in 1839 he won the Oxford Newdigate Prize for poetry. The next year, however, suspected consumption led him to interrupt his studies and travel, and he did not receive his degree until 1842, when he abandoned the idea of entering the ministry. This same year he began the first volume of Modern Painters after reviewers of the annual Royal Academy exhibition had again savagely treated Turner's works, and in 1846, after making his first trip abroad without his parents, he published the second volume, which discussed his theories of beauty and imagination within the context of figural as well as landscape painting.

On 10 April 1848 Ruskin married Euphemism Chalmers Gray, and the next year he published The Seven Lamps of Architecture, after which he and Effie set out for Venice. In 1850 he published The King of the Golden River, which he had written for Effie nine years before, and a volume of poetry, and in the following year, during which Turner died and Ruskin made the acquaintance of the Pre-Raphaelites, the first volume of The Stones of Venice. The final two volumes appeared in 1853, the summer of which saw Millais, Ruskin, and Effie together in Scotland, where the artist painted Ruskin's portrait. The next year his wife left him and had their marriage annulled on grounds of non-consummation, after which she later married Millais. During this difficult year, Ruskin defended the Pre-Raphaelites, became close to Rossetti, and taught at the Working Men's College.

In 1855 Ruskin began Academy Notes, his reviews of the annual exhibition, and the following year, in the course of which he became acquainted with the man who later became his close friend, the American Charles Eliot Norton, he published the third and fourth volumes of Modem Painters and The Harbours of England. He continued his immense productivity during the next four years, producing The Elements of Drawing and The Political Economy of Art in 1857, The Elements of Perspective and The Two Paths in 1859, and the fifth volume of Modern Painters and the periodical version of Unto This Last in 1860. During 1858, in the midst of this productive period, Ruskin decisively abandoned the evangelical Protestantism which had so shaped his ideas and attitudes, and he also met Rose La Touche, a young Irish Protestant girl with whom he was later to fall deeply and tragically in love.

Throughout the 1860s Ruskin continued writing and lecturing on social and political economy, art, and myth, and during this decade he produced theFraser's Magazine 'Essays on Political Economy' (1862-3; revised as Munera Pulveris, 1872), Sesame and Lilies (1865), The Crown of Wild Olive(1866), The Ethics of the Dust (1866), Time and Tide, and The Queen of the Air (1869), his study of Greek myth. The next decade, which begins with his delivery of the inaugural lecture at oxford as Slade Professor of Fine Art in February 1870, saw the beginning of Fors Clavigera, a series of letters to the working men of England, and various works on art and popularized science. His father had died in 1864 and his mother in 1871 at the age of ninety. In 1875 Rose la Touche died insane, and three years later Ruskin suffered his first attack of mental illness and was unable to testify during the Whistler trial when the artist sued him for libel. In 1880 Ruskin resigned his Oxford Professorship, suffering further attacks of madness in 1881 and 1882; but after his recovery he was re-elected to the Slade Professorship in 1883 and delivered the lectures later published as The Art of England (1884). In 1885 he began Praeterita, his autobiography, which appeared intermittently in parts until 1889, but he became increasingly ill, and Joanna Severn, his cousin and heir, had to bring him home from an 1888 trip to the Continent. He died of influenza on 20 January 1900 at Brant wood, his home near Coniston Water

A Comparison between Laughing and Sentimental Comedy by Oliver Goldsmith

Unknown 08:39 Drama

The theater, like all other amusements, has its fashions and its prejudices; and when satiated with its excellence, mankind began to mistake change for improvement. For some years tragedy was the reigning entertainment; but of late it has entirely given way to comedy, and our best efforts are now exerted in these lighter kinds

of composition. The pompous train, the swelling phrase, and the unnatural rant are displaced for that natural portrait of human folly and frailty, of which all are judges, because all have sat for the picture.

But, as in describing nature it is presented with a double face, either of mirth or sadness, our modern writers
find themselves at a loss which chiefly to copy from; and it is now debated, whether the exhibition of human distress is likely to afford the mind more entertainment than that of human absurdity?

Comedy is defined by Aristotle to be a picture of the frailties of the lower part of mankind, to distinguish it from tragedy, which is an exhibition of the misfortunes of the great. When comedy therefore ascends to produce the characters of princes or generals upon the stage, it is out of its walk, since low life and middle life are entirely its object. The principal question therefore is whether, in describing low or middle life, an exhibition of its follies be not preferable to a detail of its calamities? Or, in other words, which deserves the preference? The weeping sentimental comedy, so much in fashion at present, or the laughing and even low comedy, which seems to have been last exhibited by Vanbrugh and Cibber?.

If we apply to authorities, all the great masters in the dramatic art have but one opinion. Their rule is, that as tragedy displays the calamities of the great, so comedy should excite our laughter, by ridiculously exhibiting the follies of the lower part of mankind. Boileau, one of the best modern critics, asserts that comedy will not admit of tragic distress:

Le Comique, ennemi des soupirs et des pleurs,

N'admet point dams ses vers de tragiques douleurs.

Nor is this rule without the strongest foundation in nature, as the distresses of the mean by no means affect us so strongly as the calamities of the great. When tragedy exhibits to us some great man fallen from his height, and struggling with want and adversity, we feel his situation in the same manner as we suppose he himself must feel, and our pity is increased in proportion to the height from whence he fell. On the contrary, we do not so strongly sympathize with one born in humbler circumstances, and encountering accidental distress: so that while we melt for Belisarius , we scarcely give halfpence to the beggar who accosts us in the street. The one has our pity, the other our contempt. Distress, therefore, is the proper object of tragedy, since the great excite our pity by their all; but not equally so of comedy, since the actors employed in it are originally so mean that they sink but little by their fall.

Since the first origin of the stage, tragedy and comedy have run in distinct channels, and never till of late encroached upon the provinces of each other. Terence, who seems to have made the nearest approaches, yet always judiciously stops short before he comes to the downright pathetic; and yet he is even reproached by Caesar for wanting the ' vis comica'. All the other comic writers of antiquity aim only at rendering folly or vice ridiculous, but never exalt their characters into buskined pomp, or make what Voltaire humorously calls a tradesman's tragedy .

Yet notwithstanding this weight of authority, and the universal practice of former ages, a new species of dramatic composition has been introduced under the name of 'sentimental comedy', in which he virtues of private life are exhibited, rather than the vices exposed; and the distresses rather than the faults of mankind make our interest in the piece. These comedies have had of late great success, perhaps from their novelty, and also from their flattering every man in his favorite foible. In these plays almost all the characters are good, and exceedingly generous; they are lavish enough of their 'tin' money on the stage, and, though they want humor, have abundance of sentiment and feeling. If they happen to have faults or foibles, the spectator is taught not only to pardon, but to applaud them, in consideration of the goodness of their hearts; so that folly, instead of being ridiculed, is commended, and the comedy aims at touching our passions without the power of being truly pathetic. In this manner we are likely to lose one great source of entertainment on the stage; for while the comic poet is invading the province of the tragic muse, he leaves her lovely sister quite neglected. Of this, however, he is no way solicitous, as he measures his fame by his profits.

But it will be said that the theater is formed to amuse mankind, and that it matters little, if this end be answered, by what means it is obtained. If mankind find delight in weeping at comedy, it would be cruel to abridge them in that or any other innocent pleasure. If those pieces are denied the name of comedies, yet call them by any other name, and if they are delightful, they are good. Their success, it will be said, is a mark of their merit, and it is only abridging our happiness to deny us an inlet to amusement.

These objections, however, are rather specious than solid. It is true that amusement is a great object of the theater; and it will be allowed that these sentimental pieces do often amuse us: but the question is, whether the true comedy would not amuse us more? The question is, whether a character supported throughout a piece with its ridicule still attending, would not give us more delight than this species of bastard tragedy, which only is applauded because it is new?

A friend of mine, who was sitting unmoved at one of these sentimental pieces, was asked how he could be so indifferent? "Why, truly," says he, "as the hero is but a tradesman, it is indifferent to me whether he be turned out of his counting house on Fish Street Hill, since he will still have enough left to open shop in St. Giles's."

The other objection is as ill-grounded; for though we should give these pieces another name, it will not mend their efficacy. It will continue a kind of mulish production, with all the defects of its opposite parents, and marked with sterility. If we are permitted to make comedy weep, we have an equal right to make tragedy laugh, and to set down in blank verse the jests and repartee's of all the attendants in a funeral procession.

But there is one argument in favor of sentimental comedy which will keep it on the stage, in spite of all that can be said against it. It is of all others the most easily written. Those abilities that can hammer out a novel are fully sufficient for the production of a sentimental comedy. It is only sufficient to raise the characters a little; to deck out the hero with a riband, or give the heroine a title; then to put an insipid dialogue, without character or humor, into their mouths, give them mighty good hearts, very fine clothes, furnish a new set of scenes, make a pathetic scene or two, with a sprinkling of tender melancholy conversation through the whole; and there is no doubt but all the ladies will cry and all the gentlemen applaud.

Humor at present seems to be departing from the stage, and it will soon happen that our comic players will have nothing left for it but a fine coat and a song. It depends upon the audience whether they will actually drive those poor merry creatures from the stage, or sit at a play as gloomy as at the Tabernacle. It is not easy to recover an art when once lost; and it would be but a just punishment that when, by our being too fastidious, we have banished humor from the stage, we should ourselves be deprived of the art of laughing.

REVISING, EDITING, AND POLISHING YOUR NOVEL

Unknown 02:52 cutting word count , Jodie Renner , Jodie Renner Editing , polishing , revising , revision , save on editing , self-editing , write tight

by Jodie Renner, editor, author, speaker

Follow Jodie on Twitter.

This is one of three popular articles I wrote and took as handouts to the panel I was in called
"How to be a Masterful Editor - of Your Own Work" at Thrillerfest in New York in July 2013.

See the article below, and scroll down for links to the other two related articles on revision, self-editing, cutting word count, and saving on editing costs.

Congratulations! You’ve finally finished the first draft of your novel! Give yourself a huge pat on the back and go out and celebrate! Then put it away for at least two weeks while you concentrate on other things, before going back and starting on revisions.

Here’s a logical, workable approach to the revision process that produces good results:

1. After you’ve finished your first draft, put your story away and concentrate on other things for a few weeks or even a month. Let the story percolate in your subconscious for a while.

2. Meanwhile, share some or all of your story with a critique group or send/give the manuscript to volunteer “beta readers” — smart, savvy people who read a lot of fiction in your genre. Tell them that at this point you’re looking for big issues only — parts where they felt excited, confused, curious, delighted, scared, worried, bored, etc. For suggestions and a list of possible questions, see my blog post, “15 Questions for Your Beta Readers -- and to focus your own revisions” on The Kill Zone blog.

3. After your break of a few weeks or so, collect the reactions of your volunteer readers or critique group. Go through them and note any that you really like; perhaps ask for clarification of suggestions or more details.

4. Save a new version of your manuscript under the current date and go through the whole thing, revising on-screen for big-picture changes only. Incorporate any new suggestions you like, and re-save each new version as you go along, using the current date in the file name.

5. Big-picture editing: Reread your manuscript from start to finish, making separate notes only on big-picture changes you’d like to make, such as plot, structure, characterization, point of view, pacing, etc. Delete or condense any boring scenes. Maybe start some scenes and chapters later and end earlier, or change the order of some of your scenes or chapters.

– Does your basic premise stand up to scrutiny? Do all of the major plot points make sense? Do you notice any inconsistencies in timing, setting, character or plot? Consider rearranging some chapters or scenes, or changing the chapter breaks to earlier or later.

– Is your opening compelling enough? Clear enough? (See my blog posts on your first pages: “Act First, Explain Later” and “Those Critical First Five Pages,” on The Thrill Begins blog.)

– Are your characters complex enough? Is your protagonist charismatic and likeable but with inner conflict? (See “Creating Compelling Characters” on The Thrill Begins blog.) Do you have too many characters? Is your point of view all over the place? Anchor it in one of the main characters most of the time. (See my articles on Point of View, POV 101, POV 102, & POV 103, on DP Lyle’s blog, The Writer’s Forensics Blog.)

– Does the story drag in places? Is there enough conflict and tension? Suspense and intrigue? (See my book Writing a Killer Thriller.) Revise, condense or delete any scenes or even chapters that lack tension and intrigue and don’t drive the story forward.

6. Find your (or create a) story outline and “to-do list” or plan of action and update it as you go along, taking into account advice from your beta readers or critique group, as well as your own ideas. Check out my post, "Creating a Scene Outline for Your Novel" on The Kill Zone blog.

7. Once you’ve done that, send your revised story to a freelance editor, or share it with your critique group or a few more volunteer readers – preferably ones who haven’t read an earlier version.

8. Once you get feedback from beta readers, change the font of your manuscript to one you really like and print it up to read, rather than on the screen. A different medium will help you look at it with fresh eyes. Also, find a comfortable spot in a different setting, away from your computer or normal working place to read it. All three of these little tricks will help you see the manuscript as a reader instead of as a writer.

9. Stylistic editing: Now go back to the beginning and start editing for wordiness, voice, style, and flow. Streamline your writing to make every word count. Take out whole sentences and paragraphs that don’t add anything new or drive the story forward. Slash excess wording, repetitions, or overexplaining. Take out unnecessary little words, most adverbs and many adjectives, eliminate clichés, and pump up your nouns and verbs to bring the action to life. See my book Fire up Your Fiction (Style That Sizzles & Pacing for Power) for lots of revision tips with before-and-after examples.

10. Dialogue: Read just the dialogue out loud, maybe role-playing with a buddy or two. Do the conversations sound natural or stilted? Does each character sound different, or do they all sound like the author? Amp up the tension and cut down on any empty phrases, overly wordy monologues, stilted, overly formal language, complete sentences, too-perfect grammar, etc. See my blog post “Writing Effective Dialogue” on The Thrill Begins blog.

11. Proofreading: Now go through and do a basic copy edit and proofread for grammar, spelling, and punctuation, or get someone who’s really good at English – or better yet, a freelance fiction editor or proofreader – to do it.

12. Change the font to a different one, for example Georgia, and print up the manuscript, double-spaced. Sit down with it and read it through once with a piece of paper under the line and keep moving the paper down the page. Then read it out loud, crossing out excess words and sentences, and noting changes and suggestions between the lines, in the margins, or on the back.

13. Open up the screen version and add these new changes into your document.

14. Repeat last two steps as needed, until your manuscript is compelling and polished, before sending it off to a literary agent or acquiring editor, or self-publishing. This whole revision process could easily take several months. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot by putting it out too soon.

15. Better yet, at some point along this process, send your manuscript to a reputable freelance fiction editor so you can get a professional, unbiased look at it from someone familiar with the genre and up on current fiction-writing techniques, reader preferences and industry standards.

Copyright © Jodie Renner, July 2013

Is your book too long? Check out these concrete tips: “How to Slash Your Word Count by 20-50% – without losing any of the good stuff!”

Jodie Renner is a sought-after freelance fiction editor and award-winning author of the multi-award-winning Captivate Your Readers, Fire up Your Fiction, and Writing a Killer Thriller, as well as her handy, clickable e-resources, Quick Clicks: Spelling List – Commonly Misspelled Words at Your Fingertipsand Quick Clicks: Word Usage – Style and Usage Tips for Busy Writers and Editors. She also presents at writers’ conferences and judges books and stories for contests, including for Writer’s Digest. Her blog posts appear alternate Mondays on the award-winning blog, The Kill Zone. Find Jodie on Facebook and Twitter.

July 2013