I hadn't done this for three years because when I met my husband I suddenly had five more bookshelves of books to go through at home. (He's a big fan of speculative worlds, too. We were made for each other. )

So I went out, headed to "New Releases", and flipped through a few up-and-comings. (It must be noted, by the way, that fully half of the new releases were old releases in new dustjackets.)

The first thing I noticed was the first person POVs and present tenses. More than a few were even third person present tense.

Story lines were so dizzyingly complex that it was hard to understand what they were about, even with the help of the publishing blurb.

I attempted the 13 line rule. Some of them fit it, others did not. The prose was very poetic and artfully done, but combined with all these present tenses I flashbacked to English class, where I had to read some other student's clever piece of work that was written just for the sake of cleverness.

I then went through the rest of the aisle. All the old standbys were there. Asimov, Heinlein, Tolkien...the Douglas Adams section had grown to two shelves, just as the Tolkien section had done when movies were released.
There were about fifteen or so other authors I'd read, but so many more that I hadn't.

Suddenly I saw a new cover that reminded me of an element in my ongoing, unpublished fantasy story. I panicked and opened it up. It had a widely different plot, of course, but there were enough similarities to make me realise something:

My creation is not as unique as I'd thought.

Worse, it's written in a style that's not even pulling with the current POV trend.

For all you experienced authors out there, I'm sure you're chuckling right about now. But it really was a humbling experience, to take a hard look at what's "on the market".

Why should I even bother to write a fantasy that no one else would want because it resembles world X or world Y?

"Because I'll read it," said my guy, but it still hurt. I like my characters and I like my world; but compared to what I saw, they seem like hobbits next to dragons -- sweet and heartfelt, but no dark, cutting-edge vision of complexity.

I suppose I'll just have to write it, anyway. A) because of the practise, and B) because I really do enjoy the places and people I've created, and enjoy the hours I spend daydreaming about them. Only now I'll write knowing full well that I'm not as stunningly
original as I once thought I was.

So -- this was my bookstore smackdown. Anyone else get a reality check this way?

-- Varishta

First of all, if present tense is a trend I won't be reading much new stuff that's coming out. Hate is not a strong enough word for it. I LOATHE it. As far as I can tell, though, there is plenty of third person limited omniscient still out there and I think it's still the prevalent trend.

Second, why are you writing? I understand the dream, really I do, but do what you love.

After the first two pages, most of the novels did have an identifiable "hook".

Oh, and I am doing what I love. It's just that someone put a bee in my ear that said no matter how much I wrote for myself, I wasn't a true "writer" unless I was published in some form.

In my opinion:
Writers write. That's all that it takes.

I get the same flak from people who say real artists are only in museums.
I don't believe that. Artists create artwork. The artwork does not have to be in a museum to be enjoyed.

The quote says the difference between a writer and one who says he/she wants to be a writer is just a postage stamp. When you cut through all the wordiness, the meaning behind the quote is this: what makes you a writer isn’t the number of stories you've sold, but the fact that you've tried. You’ve made the attempt, or are in the process of making the attempt, or are seriously thinking about making the attempt. I believe it's the effort itself that makes us writers. And therefore anyone can be a writer. Good or bad, inexperienced or a battle-scarred veteran…anyone can take that extra step up to the plate.

Now authors, on the other hand, are those persons who have been formally published. That doesn’t mean they’re not writers (or more than writers)… they’ve merely graduated into another category of writing. Their efforts have paid off.

The fact that you're here at Hatrack, striving to improve your skills (like the rest of us), makes you a writer in my book. And that’s my take…take it for what it’s worth.

As for bookstore depression, I can identify a little bit. Two years ago, while strolling through the SF aisle at my local bookstore, I came across a book titled “Star Corps: Book One of The Legacy Trilogy” by Ian Douglas. My jaw hit the floor, right before I stepped on it. I had written a SF short story years before that had been titled Star Corps: Legacy, with a very similar plotline to this book (I found this out after snatching the paperback from its tight fit on the shelf, nearly taking the other similarly wedged books with it). Needless to say I was surprised, disappointed, and received a bit of a wake-up call.

There are so many people out there (writing) that it is nearly impossible to come up with a story that’s wholly original. I wouldn’t even dream of calculating the odds. But there is one important thing to consider. Even if your story sounds like some other tale on the shelf, it will not be that other tale unless you deliberately try to make it so. It is your story, written in your own style. I’ve read many published short stories and novels that resemble other similar tales, even down to the title (like my bookstore incident). I was still able to enjoy those works for their individual merits (and nitpick them for their individual faults…I can’t help it). My second point is this: don’t worry about how close your story sounds to something that’s already been published (unless that published work is a word-for-word copy of yours and you don’t remember sending it in under a pseudonym!). If you concentrate on your story, and put enough effort into it, chances are it will turn out pretty darn original in the end.

Okay…I’m finished.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

I take both less as depressing than as warnings. My cutting-edge visions of complexity tend to get lost about halfway down the pencil, a lot like the details of dreams. But, as Inkwell pointed out, complexity is the product of effort. If you really enjoy your characters, other people probably will too.

They were there, Mystic. I shoulda called Agent Mulder.

Thanks for your take. I think I'm being needy at the moment. You know, the whole, "Oh, I'm not good enough so I'll whine instead of write" mood that strikes from time to time.

quote:

---

Story lines were so dizzyingly complex that it was hard to understand what they were about, even with the help of the publishing blurb.

---

This has been a problem with sci-fi for quite some time now. The space opera seems to have died, replaced by books that read like NASA technical manuals.

I know there's a fan base for the HARD SCIENCE fiction, but that's all I see being published these days.

Fantasy can be just as bad, as far as the complexity of things. It took me a while to get into Kushiel's Dart as that seemed to be pretty complex. I only was able to finish it as it came highly recomended, from a trusted source. I ended up liking it, but it was complex.

Second, A quote from OSC in his book on "How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy"

quote:

---

The novelty and freshness you'll bring to the field won't come from the new idea's you think up. Truly new idea's are rare and usually turn out to be variations on old themes anyway. No, your freshness will come from they way you think, from the person you are; it will inevitably show up in your writing provided you don't mask it with heavy-handed formulas or clichés.

---

I think your style will set you apart from the rest. If we were all given the task of writing a story based on the same basic idea, each one would turn out vastly different because we are all unique individuals.

quote:

---

I mean, look at all the romance novels. How many different ways can you write boy-meets-girl???

---

Well, there's always girl meets boy....

Thanks for putting my mind a little more at ease; I just was floored by how out of touch I'd become with speculative stories.

After some more thinking, I've decided that I might have a chance of crafting an OK novel -- even if it's not meant for mass-market publication -- not because I'm a super-talented writer, but because I'm determined enough to put thoughts into words and have a deep well of Real Life experiences to draw from.

quote:

---

Posted by Varishta:
Thanks for your take. I think I'm being needy at the moment. You know, the whole, "Oh, I'm not good enough so I'll whine instead of write" mood that strikes from time to time.

---

If you think you've been 'needy,' read this...

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/002251.html

You're not being needy. That's needy.

Besides, you can probably channel your pseudo-neediness into that determination and RL experience to achieve a superb literary work. If not, you'll at least know better than to listen to my advice.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

I'm going to chip in my two cents and disagree on even this one. The Greeks and Romans just happen to have some of the first recorded stories. This doesn't even mean they were the first to record them: most things we attribute to the Romans really came from the Etruscans, but sadly, their books got burn. If we look further back, we have cave-art. Not all cave-art tells stories, but some do. I know I said this next part elsewhere, so forgive me if I sound like a broken record: Homer didn't whip out the Oddessy out of thin air. He wrote down an old legend/myth in a new and exciting way that was then rehersed by schoolchildren. Just like Shakespeare wrote down stories in a different way, and schoolchildren now have to learn them (as someone above pointed out). People have been telling stories for a very long time. Language is one of the things that makes us human. I don't know if there were even any truely "new" plots for the Romans and Greeks to write down. And what about the other writing cultures? Egyptian? Maya? Maybe it would be better to say that the Romans and Greeks laid the fondation for modern literature...

Edited to say: I tried to get the top line to do the "quote" thing...but quite obviously failed.

And remember the market is fluid. What's hot now won't be in three or four years (or even one). Never write for the market, just keep track of what's up and coming and how it's doing. Watch how they push certain novels and how some get lost in the shuffle.

And read, read, read. Even some stuff you hate. It not always fun but I think it's important. It keeps you out of your rut. I'd even go so far as to say, read a novel that sucks (or what you think will suck). Though the experience is painful (I've done it several times) I think it's also uplifting.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I loved my idea until I was reading a book about the perils of publishing picture books that had some terrible statistics such as 95% of new books in the field being by celebrities or established authors (I actually think it is even worse now). But the nasty bit came when I read a sentence that said something like: the editor's desks are full of manuscripts about seagulls not wanting to be seagulls anymore and triangles wanting to be squares--only occasionally does something truly good or original come along.

Yuck. And here I thought my idea was a good one.

The Penman

Long after the penman's hand is stilled
might his words be ever known
Well into another life
may their content be ever shown

Just tiny characters spread in fashion
telling others his thoughts in time
Displaying his soul with words reborn
may they find a place divine

To someone covered in a veil of gloom
may he brighten this persons day
For two lovers who have divided souls
may he help them go on their way

To someone lonely may they be a friend
and show that someone cares
To help fill that lonely void inside
as they climb life's frightening stairs

For those whose heart has been cast aside
might his words help reel them in
Delivering form loves dark waters
and help brighten their lives again

With his tiny pen in hand
he prays he may bring some laughter
And fill a heart with love and hope
that will last forever after

A penman to some is useless no doubt
and his words will settle upon deaf ears
For others they will bring new life
and an eye that's slightly teared

It's not so much that you shouldn't put your heart into something. Absolutely, you should! But it's not the only thing that matters, unless your ownly goal is to write for yourself and never let anyone else see it. But then if that were the case, you probably wouldn't be here.

I've always written "from the heart" -- but that doesn't automatically mean everyone will understand what my little beating heart has to say.

I now see that writing for an audience that doesn't know you is like learning another language. You can have the most wonderful collection of thoughts, but if you don't bother to learn the language of Universal Writing properly, you can't translate; your ideas come out as gibberish. Maybe pretty or intellectual-sounding gibberish, but gibberish all the same.

-- Varishta
who now thinks that "gibberish" looks funny after writing it several times in a row.

I define it as meaning realistic SF, where you make an effort to use real science to get the reader to believe the story is plausible. That's how almost everyone that likes "hard" SF defines it. It doesn't mean that you explicate the science in the story, though that was one common technique for making SF "hard" in the old days.

I think that most people that claim to not like "hard" SF are using a different definition, most commonly thinking that "hard" SF means over-explicating everything. That's not what it means. Editors certainly aren't saying that they want mountains of explication. They just want believable science. That's all.