Search options (Page 11 of 32)

Semi-colons can make sentences flow better, as Temple points out, they control the pauses, as well.  But if you're a serial killer trying to pretend to be ignorant, never use them to disguise your educational status--the police are on to that.

Hey, Gacela:  Good to see you alive. My thoughts on self-publishing vs using an agent or a publishing house. Well...Yates was self-published, so was Tom Paine, and Piers Anthony decided to go that route after a while.  I mention that because some people think it's somehow inferior to be self-published.  But in the best of time, publishing houses have their own criteria, and they respond to the market, speaking of crap.  Edgar Rice Burroughs decided to try and publish his stuff because he thought he could write as badly as the best sellers.  Turns out, he was right.  Ayn Rand wrote an unpublished short story, "The Simplest Thing in the World." (How did I get ahold of it, if it was unpublished.  Leonard Peikoff, her literary executor published it, as well as her laundry list, and everything else written by her.)  In it the author is being criticized by his friends and family--why not just write something popular and make a living at writing?  He would try, and every time, he ended up writing something profound, epic, and heroic, i.e., not popular.  It would be sort of like trying to write for Designing Women and the only thing that comes out is Gone with the Wind. 

This isn't to say that you can't write brilliantly and get an audience for it.  Ayn Rand is an example of that. Her first published novel, The Fountainhead, was almost rejected.  The first reader put his job on the line, Random House reluctantly published it, and they did, as you say publishers do, killed it with lack of advertising.  Only, it refused to die.  People heard about it, word of mouth, and it became a bestseller.  Suddenly, her earlier novels, "We the Living" and "Anthem" were published, and she could write her own terms for her next novel.

Fritz Leiber wrote for a writing buddy and he returned the favor.  It was years before a magazine would print his stuff. And this was back when people were starved for fantasy, as SF was the thing, not fantasy, so most magazines were geared to that genre.

In today's market, you have the Big Five publishing houses, who only publish stuff that already sells.  No room for innovation, and little for new authors.  There are some small independent publishers, but they are quirky. 

I've not made much from my writing, but I just bought a hardback book by a theoretical physicist with my hard earned royalties from Kindle.  Before that, I published a couple of things and my earnings, combined, were about $300.  My kung fu mentor and business guru tells me that I should write self-help books.  It's good advice, but I nearly choked because I recall the scene in Newhart where he approaches a literary agent without telling him who is is to get his honest appraisal of his writing.  His character made a nice income from self-help books.  He presented "literature" to the agent and asked him--do you think I could be as successful as Dick Lauden? (Newhart's character's name)  The agent snorted, "You aim high, don't you?"  lol  On the other hand, a philosophy professor wrote a logic textbook that was used in all classrooms, and he bought a condo in Hawaii with the profits.  It all depends on your goals.

Personally, I write for myself, and the few adventurous souls who want to travel with me.  I will probably do some self-help books, but that is a separate enterprise.  I make my living from my tutoring (another entrepreneurial enterprise). 

Suin, I think you're doing the right thing.  See if an agent will take you on, but if they don't self-publish.  A little marketing will generate a little income; a lot will generate more.  And you can start the marketing very cheaply. For instance, you can say, in a post, hey, guys--I have three novels at Kindle, and I know you haven't seen how they end.  Only $2.99 each; the price of a coffee at Starbucks and I won't call the police on you.  So, what are you waiting for?

I read about some of them a while back. I want him to maintain an angelic aura, so my best course is probably to have events occur at the orphanage that seem to be someone attacking Connor's foes. As noted earlier, it could be someone working to defend him from his bullies or someone working to get him blamed for revenge-like acts that happen to his bullies, including the priest who doesn't like him.

Dirk, angelic isn't namby-pamby.  The angelic hosts that fought with the Hebrews weren't exactly Disney fairies (although lately, they've been growing a pair, too).  One could read the Infancy of Jesus as parables about someone who is developing supernatural powers and not knowing how to handle them yet.  You might want to make the supernatural attacks on Conner's enemies ambigous as to origin. Did he do it, like Morbius in Forbidden Planet, who didn't realize that the Krell monster was an objectification of his own Id?  Or is there Someone else involved.  If so, who?

In fact, the way to make any compelling character is to introduce conflict.  The conflict beween using and misusing supernatural power is a great one to play with.  In most people, there is a moral evolution--from good and evil based on fear to the few (like Jesus) who base it on loyalty to being.  Why not make part of the story turn on Conner's moral development into a truely good man?

Again, the story of Jesus, looked at biographically and not Christologically gives a model.  There were lots of supernatural forces at work in his story--from the temptation by Satan to his raising from the dead.  For the young Connor, you might look at the Infancy of Christ, a collection of scriptures that didn't make it into the Bible (for good reason, I might add).  Jesus used his supernatural powers in ways I'm sure would make the adult Jesus wince.  It made me wince, anyway.

I just came across this thread, and yes, it sounds delineated.  Context is all important and if you stick to that, you should be fine.

It's a great idea, John.  Now, get someone to make it a contest.

Hah!

j p, tell that to James Joyce.  lol  Actually, I agree, although it doesn't have to be what the MC is trying to accomplish, something could be done to him or her. I'm pretty classical in my approach to plotting--protagonist<----->nemesis---->Rising Action----->falling action----->End brought about by protagonist's action.

Ken and Barbie.  There, I said it, and I'm proud.

I had to look up dispensationalism, I thought it might be another word for 'belief in the Rapture.'  Turns out it means that Christian historiography should emphasize it as the story of God, and not of the salvation of humanity.  I find it an interesting departure from the early Church (1st century AD). One of the early church leaders (you might say, *the* early church leader) said once, "The law is made for Man, not Man for the law." Dispensationalism was a reaction to modernism and liberalism, but it goes against the whole theme of the gospels--that we have a god who is willing to sacrifice for us and doesn't demand that we sacrifice for him.

Dirk:  Yes, The Lord of the Earth is a good title.  I presumed it had something to do with Satan, or somebody suitable Satanic when I saw it.  You need to stand out from the crowd, so great that you researched it.  I'm glad that your series will be totally unlike Lord of the World, although since it's a hundred years old and recommended by the Pope, it would probably actually enhance your marketability that there was such a book. 

I'm not super-familiar with Catholic Theology (I know there are 95 errors at least. lol).  My theological background, in descending order of eminence: the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Dr. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Bishop N.T. Wright, and Reinhold Niebuhr. Wright makes a convincing case that the Apostle Paul believed in a physical resurrection (I suppose it's hard not to believe when you meet the guy in the flesh twenty-five years after he died).  The crux of his trial before the Sanhedrin was the truth of the literal resurrection.  The Pharisees said they could believe that Jesus could be a spirit (ghost) or angel, but not a physical being after death. The crux of Christian morality, for Paul, was based on there being a physical resurrection awaiting Christians that was modeled after Jesus, although there would, in this life, be a spiritual resurrection ("born again") that is metaphorical in nature.  He also points out that the concept of resurrection implies a period of true death (at least three days, lol) and that there was no consensus as to what happens between death and resurrection.  Some at the time believed in going to Heaven, others even in reincarnation.  (There were at least three cases of reincarnation mentioned in the NT--one by Jesus, and two by John of Patmos.  I'm referring to Elijah's reincarnation as John the Baptist and Moses and Elijah's in Revelation. 

LaHaye, who is your chief competitor in this field, makes a persuasive case for Revelation being a future history, although despite what he says, there are clearly metaphorical elements to the book. Most scholars take the woman running in the desert with her child to be a metaphorical reference to Mary and Jesus, and we know that 1/3rd of the stars are not going to be thrown to Earth.  This could mean that they will wink out, go 'unnova,' or a lot of other things, but they won't literally be thrown to the Earth. Even LeHaye ends up taking a part of Revelation in a metaphorical way.  The sign of the beast won't literally be written on one's forehead--instead, it will be a microchip that will be implanted that will allow us to have instant digital trades and be located by the authorities.  A smartphone implant.  Maybe.  But that's not the literal interpretation.

I don't spend a lot of time reading theology.  My chief avocation is to tell the tale of a descendent of a pagan goddess who was twinned at birth, and so lacks full divinity.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your books.