Writers in the Storm

by Margie Lawson

Considering all the elements of writing, dialogue tags are like clothespins. When you’re hanging clothes on a line, they have an important job to do. But no one truly values them. Clothespins become rough and faded and cracked, but we keep using them.

Just like writers keep using the same overused dialogue tags that only do one job. They tell the reader who said those words, but they don’t do anything else.

It seems like writers grab the first clothespins that pop into their mind to tag dialogue. They keep the clothes on the line, but they don’t add depth or interest or big-time power.

So many missed opportunities to share important story stuff like subtext. Grab that emotion. Get it on the page!

I’m in the camp of writing experts who recommend avoiding words like said and asked. They may be somewhat invisible, but they’re annoying in audio books. And they add zero subtext.

Most writers know to avoid using adverbs as dialogue tags. A quote from Stephen King nails that point.

I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops.

Stephen King went on to say this too:

I insist that you use the adverb in dialogue attribution only in the rarest and most special of occasions . . . and not even then, if you can avoid it.

You have zillions of better choices. Don’t rely on said and asked and adverbs and we’ve-read-them-too-many-times words like whispered and murmured and demanded.

If your attribution could end in ‘ed’ like the words above, avoid them. You can do better.

I’ll share lots of better choices.

Consider the Character’s Emotional Set

What’s their mood? Does anything in the previous paragraph trigger a reaction?

If so, you need to include that subtext, their emotional reaction. And your dialogue tag is a perfect place to share that all-critical subtext. You could use:

—a facial expression

—a dialogue cue (describe their voice)

—a visceral response

—an emotion-based action

—a thought that shares how whatever triggered them impacted them emotionally

Of course, anything you write is better if it’s something the reader hasn’t read before. Not clichéd. Not overused. You can give anything a fresh twist with just a word or two or ten.

We’ll start with some dialogue tags from Laura Drake.

Amazing Gracie, Laura Drake, 4-Time Immersion Grad, RITA Winner

1. Laura Drake could have written:

She looked back at her sister.

But Laura really wrote:

Her head whipped back to her sister, thoughts whirling in a dust-devil dance in her mind.

Analysis:

Laura added alliteration and a compelling cadence and made that tag so much more interesting. And dust-devil dance is not just alliterative, it’s themed to the setting. Laura gets extra credit for theming.

See how a dialogue tag can carry double or even triple its weight?

2. Laura Drake could have written:

“Plans change, okay?” She lowered her voice. “Can I stay a couple days?”

But Laura really wrote:

“Plans change, okay?” When her words bounced off the too-close walls, she dialed back the volume. She didn’t want more questions. “Can I stay a couple days?”

Analysis:

What does ‘too-close walls’ share with the reader?

They pick up that she feels trapped there. All from Laura Drake choosing to add TOO-CLOSE which freshened that tired cliché and shared the POV character’s truth.

And that’s one of the things that makes writing strong. Sharing truths.

3. Laura Drake could have written:

He said, “Okay.”

But Laura really wrote:

The weight in his voice was a siren blaring, warning her to say no. But she owed him, if only for being so good to Mazey. “Okay.”

Analysis:

Check out all this subtext. Laura shared a quality in his voice with a metaphor that she amplified with that warning to say no. But the next sentence explains why she ignores his warning and says okay. Critical stuff that the reader needed to know.

4. Laura Drake could have written:

Mazey looked at her. “I’m worried about you.”

But Laura really wrote:

Emotions flashed across Mazey’s face, each too fast to catch before another replaced it. “I’m worried about you.”

Analysis:

What did Laura Drake do?

She added emotion by writing what I call a flicker face expression. Just like what happens in real life.

Here’s a Dialogue Run – from the first chapter of Amazing Gracie.

If you only have two characters in a scene, you don’t need to tag every paragraph of dialogue. Just tag every third or so paragraph. There are fewer tags in this short passage, but it still works.

Dialogue Run – Two sisters are talking. The first line is from the POV character, CJ, who served in the Army. The alternate lines are from her little sister who is nine years old.

“You’re the smartest of us. You know that?”

“Maybe. But you’re the bravest.”

She held in a snort. “Nope. You’re the bravest, too.”

“How’m I brave?”

“You live here full time.”

“It’s not so bad. You survived.”

“Long enough to know it’s not easy.” She felt bad, not staying and helping Mazey—somehow. But she had a trip to take. A promise to keep. They lay quiet for a time. Mazey’s breathing evened out, and CJ thought she’d drifted off.

“You asked me why I like rocks?”

“I did.”

“Rocks don’t leave.” She flipped onto her side, away from CJ. “They never let you down.”

Analysis:

Lots of emotional power at the end of that passage. The reader knows that their mom pays more attention to her loser boyfriend than she does to her young daughter, Mazey.

The dialogue tag – about CJ feeling bad, not staying and helping Mazey – shares CJ’s guilt. That’s a powerful tag.

Dialogue runs pick up pace. Use them!

A Certain Mercy, Linda Dindzans, 7-Time Immersion Grad

1. Linda Dindzans could have written:

Fortuna looked at Zera.

But Linda really wrote:

Fortuna patted her belly and belched.

Analysis: Fortuna is a big, boisterous commoner, and that belching tag fits her so well. Love the alliteration with the B words and the assonance with the rhyming vowel sounds. We can count on Fortuna to make the reader laugh!

The next example features Fortuna too.

2. “You look as if you would be sick. Are you so soft-hearted?” Some new notion seemed to flicker across the big woman’s face, and she squinted and peered at Zera. “Or perhaps you are with child?”

Analysis:

Linda tagged Fortuna’s dialogue with a flicker face expression. And it’s perfect!

Evil’s Deadly Divide, Jenn Windrow, 6-Time Immersion Grad

1. Jenn Windrow could have written:

“Let’s make this fast.” I held out my hand to her.

But Jenn really wrote:

“Let’s make this fast.” I held out my hand to the last person who needed to be saved.

Analysis:

Wow! What a difference that tag makes! And it’s the truth. Our POV character is saving this woman’s life.

Read it out loud. Hear the perfect cadence? And she backloaded that sentence with a power word: saved. Smart!

2. Jenn Windrow could have written:

“What’s your name?” I asked.

But Jenn really wrote:

“What’s your name?” I asked, trying to hide the fangs that frightened her.

Analysis:

The reader knows that the POV character is a vampire. Two power words in that smooth sentence, fangs and frighten. And it’s alliterative too.

3. Jenn Windrow could have written:

He paused. “Alexis, when I first recruited you—”

But Jenn really wrote:

His pause was like a slow-moving stake to the heart. “Alexis, when I first recruited you—”

Analysis:

Love it! I shared another themed example – so you’d remember to do this. You’ll theme some of your dialogue tags. Right?

And that slow-moving stake to the heart adds tension. That tag adds big-time emotional power.

5. Jenn Windrow could have written:

He smiled. “I have to admit, I’m surprised but pleased.”

But Jenn really wrote:

His smile wasn’t smug or smarmy, it was pure and angelic. “I have to admit, I’m surprised but pleased.”

Analysis:

Every smile has a message behind it. Writing a plain smile, or a one-descriptor smile doesn’t share much subtext. You can do better!

Jenn deepened characterization with two descriptors sharing what the smile wasn’t, and two descriptors sharing what it was. Smart to set up that contrast between what expression the POV character expected to see and what she really saw.

Before I Called You Mine, Nicole Deese, Immersion Grad, ACFW Carol Winner

1. Nicole Deese could have written:

“That I’m single.” Those three words hung in the silence.

But Nicole really wrote:

“That I’m single.” Those three words hung in the silence like a dead weight, exposing me in a way I rarely allowed.

Analysis:

Nicole Deese did something she learned in Immersion class. She shared the emotional impact on the POV character: …exposing me in a way I rarely allowed.

Sharing emotional impact is so important, I have a 90-minute webinar on that topic. Game-Changing Power: Sharing Impact on the POV Character. Now you know.

2. Nicole Deese could have written:

He reached over and patted my leg.

But Nicole really wrote:

He reached over, covering my socked foot with his hand and giving it a squeeze.

Analysis:

It happens in real life, but I’ve never seen that squeeze-her-foot on the page.

Watch your mind-video of all your scenes. What could that character do now, right before or after that line of dialogue you wrote? What do you see happening in your video?

Meaningful action can share emotion too. I see that foot squeeze. I feel the emotion.

3. Nicole Deese could have written:

At this, Melanie huffed.

But Nicole really wrote:

At this, Melanie huffed. And not the could-be-considered-a-cough kind of huff, either. It was definitely a you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me huff.

Analysis:

I’m a big fan of what I call hyphenated-run-ons. You can write fresh and give the reader a treat too. If they fit your character and your scene, use them. I love how Nicole played with this huff!

The Paris Widow, Kimberly Belle, 5-Time Immersion Grad, USA Today and International Bestseller

1. Kimberly Belle could have written:

He smiled at her. “Madame, I must insist you come with me.”

But Kimberly really wrote:

His smile was like ice water on her skin. “Madame, I must insist you come with me.”

Analysis:

Kimberly used a simile to share the emotional impact of his smile on her. Fabulous!

You may already know I teach writers lots of cool rhetorical devices and how to use them to add emotion and intrigue. You can use them to make your dialogue tags fresh too. If you want to learn twenty more, check out my lecture packet on rhetorical devices.

2. Kimberly Belle could have written:

“You don’t know the code to open your husband’s phone.” His tone is condescending.

But Kimberly really wrote:

“You don’t know the code to open your husband’s phone.” He doesn’t phrase it as a question, and the condescension in his tone makes me want to flip the table, Jersey Housewife style.

Analysis:

Ha! She wants to flip the table, Jersey Housewife style. Kimberly used the rhetorical device allusion to share that rush of emotion for her POV character. Kimberly played fair with her readers. It doesn’t matter if some of them don’t know that reference. They know her character wanted to flip the table, and that emotion slams into them too.

3. Kimberly Belle could have written:

“Enjoy Luxembourg. Say hi to Stella.” The line goes dead before I can respond.

But Kimberly really wrote:

“Enjoy Luxembourg. Say hi to Stella.” A fist clamps down on my heart. The line goes dead before I can respond. I suck in a shaky breath, scrubbing my face with a hand. The day seems to be getting hotter, the crowd behind me louder. The client knows where I am. Worse, she knows my weak spot is Stella.

Analysis:

The visceral response comes first. Because it must. Always.

The stimulus is the dialogue. If you have a visceral response, it is always immediate.

You get why Kimberly wrote the other sentences. Especially the last two. The stakes keep getting worse and worse. Perfect!

The Best Friends, Christina Delay, 6-Time Immersion Grad

1. Christina Delay could have written:

She shrugs.

But she really wrote:

She shrugs, purses her lips, all who-cares.

Analysis:

Love how Christina gives the reader more insight into this character. And the way she shares her style, all who-cares, shares power too. Plus, it’s fun.

2. Christina Delay could have written:

“Lily’s the type of girl you just like,” I whispered.

But she really wrote:

“Lily’s the type of girl you just like.” My voice is soft, raspy, unrecognizable.

Analysis:

Powerful dialogue cue! Christina used two rhetorical devices in that short six-word sentence.

1. Asyndeton –– I call it The No And. She left out the predictable AND after the last comma. She made that sentence carry more of a punch.
2. Zeugma –– The last thing is not like the others. The first two descriptors share qualities of her voice. The last descriptor is different. It shares how her voice impacts her, and it boosts emotion too.

3. Christina Delay could have written:

Evan shakes his head slowly.

But she really wrote:

Evan shakes his head slowly, side to side like the slow, careful swing of an elephant’s tail.

Analysis:

I treated you to another themed tag. The POV character is a zoologist. Such a beautiful sentence.

4. Christina Delay could have written:

Detective Lake’s voice was loaded with anger.

But she really wrote:

All the friendliness has dropped from Detective Lake’s voice, and what’s left over is an electric storm. One that’s buzzing around, about to strike.

Analysis:

Wow! What did Christina Delay do?

She shared that he’d been friendly before, but now he was stomping mad. And intent on stomping her into the ground. Only she wrote that idea a lot better than what I just wrote.

But I amplified my version the same way she amplified hers.

We both took what was happening in the first sentence and made it a lot worse in the second sentence. And we also made her his target.

Just sharing that someone is angry doesn’t share the magnitude of their anger. Is his anger like a cat or a lion? In fiction, go for the lion.

Wrapping Up:

Sheesh! That’s a long blog. Thanks for hanging in there.

This blog scratches the surface of dialogue tags. And there are lots more square miles of surface to scratch and scrutinize.

I didn’t even mention a huge category of dialogue tags that I identified and teach. I coined the term Dialogue Cues, and came up with six types: Tone, Inflection, Pitch, Quality, Volume, and Rate. They share the subtext, the psychological messages behind the dialogue.

Drop by my website –– www.margielawson.com –– and you’ll see several webinars that cover subtext, including how to write fresh dialogue cues and facial expressions. So critical to make your scenes carry emotional power!

Don’t grab the first clothespin your fingers touch. Dig deeper. Write a dialogue tag that makes your writing bestseller strong.

Post a comment, and you’ll be in a drawing to WIN a WEBINAR!

As always, a big shout out to all the WITS gals for inviting me to guest blog. Thank you!

About Margie:

Margie Lawson left a career in psychology to focus on her true passion—helping writers make their stories, characters, and words carry psychological power.

An international presenter, Margie’s taught over 200 full day master classes in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and France, as well as multi-day intensives on cruise ships in the Caribbean. She’s also taught 5-day Immersion Master Classes across the U.S. and Canada and Scotland, and in seven cities in Australia too.

Check out her website–– www.margielawson.com. You’ll find 38 webinars, dates for Immersion classes, and Lawson Writer’s Academy, which has over 30 instructors teaching online courses. The learning is fun, and the payoffs are on your pages.

Top Image by Jenn Windrow

by Piper Bayard

Artificial Intelligence. AI. With all of its many uses, some writers have embraced AI’s capabilities to hone their manuscripts. Others shun the programs altogether. Meanwhile, grifters are making a fortune with “scam books.” It all leaves me wondering:

• Is AI a writer’s best friend?
• How much AI use is too much?
• What does the law have to say about it?
• Will AI be the end of authors?

It’s just a fact that AI has become an integral part of writing in today’s world. Corporate employees use it to take notes during meetings. Students use it to perfect and sometimes altogether write their compositions. With a few prompts, gamers use AI to produce detailed profiles of characters and objects.

A friend of mine at the CIA even uses it to clean up her emails, as in, she writes what she really wants to say to her colleagues and then gives her AI the prompt, “Make this polite, firm, and professional.” It transforms, “What the hell are you thinking . . . ?” to “Perhaps we should consider . . . ?” That sort of AI usage is all well and good for the general public, except the students’ cheating, of course, but at what point does AI use become unethical for professional writers?

 A Little Test

In an effort to explore the topic, I conducted a little experiment on X a while back. I asked the X-verse population whether it matters to them if authors use AI in the writing and production of a book. I asked if they would like a notation of some kind on books to indicate whether the content was at all generated by AI.

Fifty-seven readers and authors responded. To a person, the readers said it does matter to them, and they would like a symbol to designate books that are free of AI content. A couple of authors, however, supported the use of AI for editing. One even argued with me that it is impossible to write a book in this modern world without using AI, pointing out that Spell Check is a crude form of Artificial Intelligence. The divide surprised me and left me with yet more questions about the ethical use of technology in writing.

Authors’ New Best Friend?

In the December 8, 2023 edition of Literary Hub, Debbi Urbanski tells about her AI journey, in which she asked Large Language Models (“LLMs”) questions, gave them prompts, and evaluated what they turned out. She says that most of the writing was bad, but that eventually, with the right prompts, some of it was good. Urbanski even used a bit of the product in her own work.  She encourages a collaboration between AI and authors to produce better books, and she cites to several AI/Author collaboration excerpts to show how chatting with Baby Skynet can actually produce a superior product.

Also, in a February 21, 2023 Reuters article, Brett Schickler openly admits to using AI to produce a 30-page, illustrated children’s book in a single day and putting it up for sale on Amazon. He says he plans to use AI to write and sell many more of these books.

Amazon’s position on this? In the process of publishing a book on KDP, the program asks if any part of the book was created by Artificial Intelligence. An author simply answers yes or no. To the best of my knowledge, Amazon does not follow up on this to find out if people are lying.

And what is creative product? AI programs like ChatGPT are only as good as the prompts they are given. Some authors will put in terrible prompts and get terrible results. Other authors will enter more sophisticated prompts and, like Ms. Urbanski, end up with useful text. Are the prompts, themselves, enough “creative product” for the author to claim the resulting text as their own?

Scam Books

That said, according to an article which appeared on The Authors Guild’s website on March 15, 2024, AI is fueling an entire scam book industry. The scammers are most prone to targeting new releases, publishing “companion” books in the form of summaries, workbooks, and guides. Many of these appear for sale on the site within 24 hours of a book release.

According to Fair Use law, companion books which provide substantial analysis and commentary without copying an abundance of the original work are within the law. However, the AI-generated companion books have little or no analysis or original content. While it is certainly arguable that they infringe on copyright, authors must prove that fact at their own expense. I don’t know how much you folks are making with your writing, but I know I certainly don’t have a “Copyright Infringement Lawsuit” column in my monthly budget.

Unfortunately, some scammers are so bold that authors cannot ignore the infringements, and there are currently several lawsuits that authors and screenwriters have brought against companies that were using AI to scrape their books and create AI-generated books based on the content they harvested. Some authors have added language to their websites and books forbidding the use of their work product for AI training. It is not yet determined how effective this language will be in an infringement case.

Some Help from Amazon

At least one author had a bit of success when AI infringed on her copyrights. According to an NPR article on March 13, 2024, author Kara Swisher published her memoir, Burn Book, only to have AI-created fake biographies of her popping up on Amazon. She immediately sent a note to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy. Amazon took the fake biographies down. However, for those of us who are not on such close terms with Andy Jassy, scam books, including the companion books, fake biographies, plagiarized books, etc., continue to be a major problem on Amazon and other publishing platforms.

What Do The Courts Say?

Actual law regarding the use of AI in publishing is quite new and still shaking out. Meanwhile, AI tech companies are reveling in the Wild West of legal uncertainty. It will take years before the lines are clear, and then, no doubt, some other new technological development will be challenging them.

Many of the current legal questions regarding AI writing center around the concept of “authorship.” The US Copyright Office only recognizes copyright in works “created by a human being.” AI product is dependent on prompts given by humans. Therefore, does a human being “create” the work of an AI program?

In 2022, Dr. Stephen Thaler was denied copyright by the US Copyright Office when he tried to register a visual artwork created “autonomously” by an AI program called the Creativity Machine. He sued, and the US district court upheld the denial of copyright, saying that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.” At this point, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Copyright Office is unlikely to grant copyright for text produced from feeding prompts into AI.

This raises yet more questions. Can authors even legitimately claim copyright if they partner with AI in their writing? How much is too much?

As for the legality of scraping copyrighted work to train AI, the jury is still out, with many authors and their attorneys waiting to find out if big tech can appropriate their work for this use. Have a seat and put your feet up. It could be a while.

Are We Training Our Replacements?

In using authors’ works to train AI, some authors say tech companies are literally using us to train our own replacements. Many authors seem certain it will never happen, and that AI will never be good enough. For example, AI translations of books get pronouns wrong, particularly when translating from Chinese. AI text is often stilted and unnatural, and it rarely flows like it does from a human, making the current AI books too obvious.

Some authors argue that we will never be replaced by AI because the books are just plain bad. It’s possible, but then, we have all seen 50 shades of literary abomination occasionally top the leading bestseller lists. AI text is only as good as the prompts given to the programs, and people are getting better and better at their prompts. At this point, LLMs can, indeed, be used to write entire books, and dumping AI fiction into Amazon has become quite a cottage industry.

Speaking from my personal experience, I do see cause for concern. As the writing partner of a 50-yr veteran of military and intelligence field operations for the past fifteen years, I have daily watched AI become more sophisticated in social media. Back when I first made accounts and announced my writing partner was a broadly-experienced participant in the Shadow World, China, Russia, Iran, South Korea, and others flooded our website with hits, comments, and even threats. At the time, it was mostly actual humans, but there were some AI accounts even then. They were clumsy and easy to spot.

Change Over Time

Over the years, China and others have used the information harvested from the electronics in our homes and businesses, as well as hired language trainers, to create more sophisticated AI social media programs. At this point, I would say a substantial percentage of the social media propaganda accounts are actually AI. They have become so polished that what was once laughably obvious now makes me pause to consider, and I’m not always certain what I am looking at anymore. They really are that good. I personally believe it is only a matter of time until the same is true of AI-generated books.

IMHO

For myself, I do not use AI to create any of my written content or visual art, and I put this symbol on my books to indicate that. Feel free to copy it and use it if you like. Perhaps it’s because I’m tired of learning new technology. Perhaps it’s because I’m extremely literal in my perception of what constitutes writing that is “created by human beings.” The fact is that we all have our positions on this topic, and we must all fight our way through the shifting sands of technology, copyright, and publishing.

What is your position on the use of AI in copyrighted works by authors? Do you use AI in your writing? If you do, how much do you use it? What seems fair and right to you? Thank you for sharing your human-created answers.

* * * * * *

About Piper

Piper Bayard and Jay Holmes of Bayard & Holmes are the authors of espionage tomes and international spy thrillers. Please visit Piper and Jay at their site, BayardandHolmes.com. For notices of their upcoming releases, subscribe to the Bayard & Holmes Covert Briefing. You can also contact Bayard & Holmes at their Contact page, on Twitter at @piperbayard, on Facebook at Piper Bayard, or at their email, BayardandHolmes@protonmail.com.

Though crafted with advice and specific tips for writers, SPYCRAFT: Essentials is for anyone who wants to learn more about the inner workings of the Shadow World.

“For any author, this is the new bible for crafting stories of espionage.”

~ James Rollins, New York Times Bestselling Author of The Demon Crown

All post photos purchased from DepositPhotos by the author.

Belanger, Ashley. (2024, March 11). “Nvidia Sued Over AI Training Data as Copyright Clashes Continue.” ARS Technica. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/novelists-sue-nvidia-to-stop-spread-of-ai-models-trained-on-copyrighted-books/.

Bensinger, Greg. (2023, February 21). “Focus: ChatGPT launches boom in AI-written e-books on Amazon.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-launches-boom-ai-written-e-books-amazon-2023-02-21/.

Limbong, Andrew. (2024, March 13). “Authors Push Back on the Growing Number of AI ‘Scam’ Books on Amazon.” NPR Morning Edition. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1237888126/growing-number-ai-scam-books-amazon.

Staff. (2024, March 15). “AI is Driving a New Surge of Sham ‘Books’ on Amazon.” The Authors Guild. https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-driving-new-surge-of-sham-books-on-amazon/.

Staff. (2023, September 20). “The Authors Guild, John Grisham, Jodi Picoult, David Baldacci, George R.R. Martin, and 13 Other Authors File Class-Action Suit Against OpenAI.” The Authors Guild. https://authorsguild.org/news/ag-and-authors-file-class-action-suit-against-openai/.

Urbanski, Debbie. (2023, December 8). “Why Novelists Should Embrace Artificial Intelligence.” Literary Hub. https://lithub.com/why-novelists-should-embrace-artificial-intelligence/.

Zirpoli, Christopher T. (2023, September 29). “Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law.” Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922.

By Sarah “Sally” Hamer

Humans are judgmental creatures. We look at ourselves in a mirror on the way out of the door and make a decision as to whether we look good enough to go outside. We might fluff our hair or touch up lipstick or straighten a collar, but we’re still judging. Is it good enough?

• Good enough for what?
• For whom?
• For what occasion?
• Who sets those darned rules, anyhow?

How we judge ourselves comes from our culture and our upbringing for the most part.

Humans are hard-wired to live together in groups, small or large, and the groups around us are intimately engaged in what they will accept in our behavior and appearance. In some cultures and time periods, for instance, a man is not allowed to have facial hair. But other cultures and time periods not only expect that facial hair but will judge a man for not having enough. Whatever enough is. We obey those social rules at the risk of being ostracized and laughed at and, in some cases, even thrown out of the group.

So, what does this have to do with writing?

It works in exactly the same way.

We are our own toughest critics. After all, we create something deeply personal and give it to the world to tear apart. Writing is an intimate process, and we have so many chances to distrust ourselves. We know that EVERYTHING we write will be judged by somebody, so we judge it first. And, for some people, it never goes any further.

After all, it’s supposed to be perfect, right? But we set impossibly high standards for our work, comparing it to everything we’ve ever read. We write, then edit, then write and re-edit, and can find it very difficult to be satisfied. In fact, the quest for perfection can be so paralyzing that the manuscript never goes out of the door.

If that’s not bad enough, we’re judged by everyone who reads anything we write. People have opinions, formed by their experiences and ideas. Different people like different things—in fact, if we all liked just one book, there would only be that one book. So, each of us has likes and dislikes that sway our reading decisions. What kind of books do you like? I’m into happy endings and dragons. It’s not a good story without dragons, right? But what about the people who would never purchase a dragon book? They’re certainly entitled to their own opinion and to buy—and read—what they want.

But too often it turns into judgment. If I like those dragons, do I have the right to tell you that you are wrong if you don’t like them?

Finding the right fit.

Part of the problem also is that commercial fiction has an entire wall of pigeonholes that books are supposed to fit in. Finding the right pigeonhole can be an entire class of doubt on its own. Most of us do research on what we think is acceptable to the audience we want to read it. If we’re writing a romance novel, for instance, there are established and pretty darned specific rules. It’s probably not as carved in stone as it used to be when I first started writing decades ago. But back then, even the best-written book in the world wouldn’t be published by the “big” houses, if it didn’t mean the accepted criteria.

Other genres can be just as restricted: a mystery almost always has a dead body and a puzzle to solve. Suspense stories allow the villain to be known, even to the protagonist, but it’s a cat-and-mouse chase from beginning to end. Major fantasy sagas almost always have a mysterious character who leads an innocent unknown hero/ine into an adventure. And the list goes on and on.

So, we judge our writing.

• Will it fit in the established pigeonhole?
• Does it need to?
• What if we just want to write what we want to write?

Honestly, it depends on the WHY of writing. Why are you writing? Often when I’m talking to a new writer—or even a more experienced one who hasn’t accomplished what they want—I find that some of us are writing for all the wrong reasons. And, even worse, sometimes we’re selling our soul.

Writing to publish is completely different from writing for oneself.

What reason are you writing? Is it to publish? (I remember when Snoopy from the Peanuts comics wrote his book on his typewriter on top of his doghouse and sent it off with a letter to the publisher – “Just send the check when you get this.” Would it be that easy!)

Publishing requires a subset of skills that not all writers have or are willing to acquire. It takes marketing skills, writing to a target audience, social media presence, and a whole bunch of other things that some people just aren’t up for.

The question I often get from that “newbie” is, “If I write a book, I’ll make lots of money, right?” Wrong. Well, it’s possible. Of course it is. There are many people who do just that. But it’s such a small percentage of writers that it may not be worth all the work that goes into it.

So, ask yourself:

• WHY do you write?
• Is your judgment of your WHY based on a set of standards you may not wish to meet?
• Or, do you write because you want to learn how?
• Does it come from your heart?
• Are you learning what type of a writer you want to be as you write?
• Do you believe in yourself?

Because, bottom line, there is hope. Set your goals. Understand what you’re trying to accomplish.

Give yourself a chance to find your inner voice. Then, you’ll never have to worry about what someone else—or your own internal critic—thinks.

* * * * * *

About Sally

Sarah (Sally) Hamer, B.S., MLA, is a lover of books, a teacher of writers, and a believer in a good story. Most of all, she is eternally fascinated by people and how they 'tick'. She’s passionate about helping people tell their own stories, whether through fiction or through memoir. Writing in many genres - mystery, science fiction, fantasy, romance, medieval history, non-fiction – she has won awards at both local and national levels, including two Golden Heart finals.

A teacher of memoir, beginning and advanced creative fiction writing, and screenwriting at Louisiana State University in Shreveport for over twenty years, she also teaches online for Margie Lawson at www.margielawson.com and hosts symposiums at www.mindpotential.org. Find her at info@mindpotential.org.

Tip Image by Vilius Kukanauskas from Pixabay