Writing a Trek novel...

[Christopher]

This is bad advice, IMO. Most (non Star Trek) publishers, in my experience, want to know the book is completely written. The outline is only there to let them know the story hangs together, the first three chapters tell them your writing ability. ... Unless you are the most gifted, brilliant writer on Earth, every manuscript goes through multiple revisions to get it into acceptable shape.

I'm in the process of writing an original spec novel, and I'm diverging hugely from my outline. The outline I have now is just a rough guide for myself. Once I get the manuscript finished and refined, I'm going to need to write a whole new outline/synopsis for the benefit of agents and publishers, one that accurately reflects the finished story.

That's not the way it works in tie-ins, as Dayton says. The studio has to approve your story outline before you write the book, and it's expected that you'll conform fairly closely to what you submitted.

If you want to be a novelist and insist on breaking in with a Trek book, write it from beginning to end. Then re-write it. Then have someone who knows writing look at it and give feedback (you may have to pay someone for this - be careful and do research before handing over any money). Then rewrite it again.

Actually it's best to do that with a non-Trek book. If you're pitching to Trek through the submission process, the outline and sample chapters are all you should write -- particularly since it's likely to be just a "demo" of your skills and may not actually get purchased at all. The point of the Trek submission process is to sell yourself, to prove your ability as a writer and your ability to follow instructions. There's no point in putting all that effort into a full manuscript that may never be sold. Sure, it's valuable for getting practice and experience, but in that case it's better to get your practice with original fiction, because then you might actually be able to market it.

And paying someone to read your work? I'm skeptical that that's a good idea. Generally you should beware of anyone asking you to pay them for help with your writing. Beta readers should be people you trust to give you an honest reaction. People who are trying to get money from you generally don't fall into that category.

 

[Steve Roby]

On paying people to read your writing... this sounds like a job for Writer Beware. There are a lot of people out there making a living by conning wannabe writers out of their money, telling them they have to pay an agent to read their stuff, or pay a publisher to get their book in print. As Writer Beware and others online say, money flows to the writer, not from the writer. I believe some legit writers do offer editorial services for pay, but you need to be careful.

 

[PaulSimpson]

Whereas if you ever were to encounter some of us in person, it would probably make a tremendous difference in whether you'd ever want to deal with us (oh, all right: me) again.

You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment...

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I actually finished my outline, and I didn't like it; actually, I shouldn't say 'finished' because it's not really finished until the book is written.

You're not writing the book, just three chapters. Please remember that or you're giving yourself too much work. You may be accepted into the hallowed realm of ST writers based on your outline and sample chapters but they may not ask you to write the book, they may give you something different to write.

True...true...

Don't be the guy who pulls stuff like this, and you'll be fine...at least, for a while.

^^

Good post, Dayton...!


******

EDIT: Just to add to the comment of having someone pay to critique work: That is a bad idea; as Steve Roby mentioned the people who take your money will only tell you what you want to hear. (I do speak from experience on this; and that self-published short story collection is horrible as I look at it now. Of course, there is the whole idea of 'self-publishing' work, but that's another discussion...lol).

Too, there are websites (or at least a website) that allows authors to get feedback on their work without paying a cent.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Thanks Dayton and Christopher for the clarification regarding the differences between tie-in and non-tie in writing. I freely admit that I know nothing about submitting work to that arena.

EDIT: Just to add to the comment of having someone pay to critique work: That is a bad idea; as Steve Roby mentioned the people who take your money will only tell you what you want to hear. (I do speak from experience on this; and that self-published short story collection is horrible as I look at it now. Of course, there is the whole idea of 'self-publishing' work, but that's another discussion...lol).

Too, there are websites (or at least a website) that allows authors to get feedback on their work without paying a cent.

Would they get feedback on an entire finished novel? For free? Just asking as this seems like a lot.

As far as paying someone to look at your work, I absolutely agree that one should be wary of such things, which is why I noted to research and be sure. But some authors, completely on the level, offer proof reading / editing services. But not for free. If they offered it for free, they'd be deluged with people asking for help and some authors do this (as well as teaching) to supplement income. We all know how difficult it is to make a great living as a full time writer, but this sort of thing helps pay the bills as well without having to work 9 to 5. One-on-one workshopping, that sort of thing.

As you, I too speak from experience.

Again, always research, get references, and so on, but I'd rather pay a reasonable fee to work with an experienced writer than have "some dude" look it over for free and not have nearly the insight or experience to give useful feedback (which - as the author of the work - you are free to take or ignore).

I do agree generally, and I don't want anyone to thing I am suggesting they troll the back of Writer's Digest and pay agencies who say "We want your work!" Just make sure that the author is on the up and up.

 

[Ssosmcin]

On paying people to read your writing... this sounds like a job for Writer Beware. There are a lot of people out there making a living by conning wannabe writers out of their money, telling them they have to pay an agent to read their stuff, or pay a publisher to get their book in print. As Writer Beware and others online say, money flows to the writer, not from the writer. I believe some legit writers do offer editorial services for pay, but you need to be careful.

Exactly, this was the point I was trying to make, but obviously failed. I know of and have worked with writers who help strengthen your work, but don't blow smoke. And they always make it clear that you don't have to do make any changes you are comfortable with.

Never go into any pay situation blindly and never - EVER - believe claims that their help WILL get you published.

 

[Therin of Andor]

This is bad advice, IMO. Most (non Star Trek) publishers, in my experience, want to know the book is completely written.

Yes, that is for original fiction, but the S&S Guidelines for prospective first-time ST authors warn you not to proceed with the rest of the book until after feedback.

John Ordover actually used to suggest getting two full-length, published, science fiction original novels under your belt before attempting to try your first ST tie-in proposal. That isn't how many ST authors broke into it but, as a rule-of-thumb way of proving your abilities and staying power, it sounds like excellent advice to me.

 

[Christopher]

As far as paying someone to look at your work, I absolutely agree that one should be wary of such things, which is why I noted to research and be sure. But some authors, completely on the level, offer proof reading / editing services. But not for free. If they offered it for free, they'd be deluged with people asking for help and some authors do this (as well as teaching) to supplement income. We all know how difficult it is to make a great living as a full time writer, but this sort of thing helps pay the bills as well without having to work 9 to 5. One-on-one workshopping, that sort of thing.

As you, I too speak from experience.

Again, always research, get references, and so on, but I'd rather pay a reasonable fee to work with an experienced writer than have "some dude" look it over for free and not have nearly the insight or experience to give useful feedback (which - as the author of the work - you are free to take or ignore).

Look... proofreading and editing are things that are going to get done by the publisher if they buy your book. That's not what you need beta readers for. You need people who can look at your book from the perspective of a member of the audience, people who are just readers rather than writers and who can tell you whether what you've written is enjoyable and comprehensible to the ordinary reader. A beta reader can be a fellow writer, or it can be a friend or spouse or relative, just so long as it's someone you trust to be fair and honest (and not spare your feelings if they have a valid criticism).

 

[Ssosmcin]

Look... proofreading and editing are things that are going to get done by the publisher if they buy your book.

Yes, absolutely, but I still want the work to be a good as I can humanly get it before they see it. Once you've gotten into the schedule and have all sorts of deadlines, then you do anything you can to get the books done. But when writing to impress in order to get to that point, damn polish that thing until it bleeds.

That's not what you need beta readers for. You need people who can look at your book from the perspective of a member of the audience, people who are just readers rather than writers and who can tell you whether what you've written is enjoyable and comprehensible to the ordinary reader. A beta reader can be a fellow writer, or it can be a friend or spouse or relative, just so long as it's someone you trust to be fair and honest (and not spare your feelings if they have a valid criticism).

Yep, I've done that and, to be honest, I didn't find it as helpful, partly for the feelings thing and also because of the lack of actual specifics. Friends, spouses, relatives came back with: "it's gooooooood." Not helpful. Of course, this is just the people I had, you won't have the same people. But at least another writer can spot things that regular readers might find "just fine" but could be much better if tried some other way.

Let's forget the whole "pay a writer" controversy (since really, I put it in parens with a "may have to" and a word of caution - it wasn't even a B story, it was an aside). "Average Joe Reader" never seemed reliable enough to give me helpful feedback. "It's good" and "it flows" are meaningless on their own. In that situation, I found writing groups to be much better, because at least that are 1) also writing and 2) not necessarily your friends, so they all approach the work on its own and not as a product of someone they don't want to offend. You can find them locally or on line and all you have to do for the courtesy is review work. And working with fellow writers is a nice way to get out of the solitary grind that writing is by nature.

I gotta tell you though, that of the novel manuscripts I've completed, one I did totally on my own isn't nearly as sharp or compelling as the one I did working with another writer (not the story so much as the style). I'm a better writer because of it.

I'm not arguing with you, I agree with your points (and what you do obviously works). The average person can be fine for just seeing if the plot flows and makes sense. But for feedback on stylistic choices, a better result might come from getting feedback from other writers rather than friends or family. But, again, I don't know if tie-ins have to adhere to the same similar styles, which would make all this meaningless anyway. I would like to think there is room for individuality of voice, at least to some degree.

Anyway, this thread's about writing Trek novels, and since that's not my area, I'll just pipe the hell down already. Sorry if, in my ignorance, I threw anyone bad advice on writing for the genre.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ To answer your Trek-related question: Yes, absolutely, the different writers have different styles. David Mack, Christopher, Keith, Una, and so on all have unique "voices" that come through in their writing.

(And then there's me and Kevin. Is the absense of style itself a style? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

The only "style guide" with respect to Trek revolves around the consistent use of terminology and whatnot. ("It ain't no frikkin' away team in the 23rd century; it's a damned landing party!" etc. )

 

[Christopher]

Look... proofreading and editing are things that are going to get done by the publisher if they buy your book.

Yes, absolutely, but I still want the work to be a good as I can humanly get it before they see it. Once you've gotten into the schedule and have all sorts of deadlines, then you do anything you can to get the books done. But when writing to impress in order to get to that point, damn polish that thing until it bleeds.

The point is, it's more important to impress the editor with your ideas, your unique style, your imagination -- not just the generic stuff like proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar. That stuff can be fixed if the story is worth the effort. But the part that's really going to impress an editor is the stuff you can't get from another writer -- it's your own unique voice and inspiration, the stuff that has to come from you. The polish is just the surface layer. It's what's beneath the polish that matters.

 

[PaulSimpson]

^QFT. An editor can and will work with you on the polish, but if the core ideas aren't there (either in fiction or non fiction) then frankly it can be as polished as you want, it won't grab the attention!

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Thanks Dayton and Christopher for the clarification regarding the differences between tie-in and non-tie in writing. I freely admit that I know nothing about submitting work to that arena.

EDIT: Just to add to the comment of having someone pay to critique work: That is a bad idea; as Steve Roby mentioned the people who take your money will only tell you what you want to hear. (I do speak from experience on this; and that self-published short story collection is horrible as I look at it now. Of course, there is the whole idea of 'self-publishing' work, but that's another discussion...lol).

Too, there are websites (or at least a website) that allows authors to get feedback on their work without paying a cent.

Would they get feedback on an entire finished novel? For free? Just asking as this seems like a lot.

As far as paying someone to look at your work, I absolutely agree that one should be wary of such things, which is why I noted to research and be sure. But some authors, completely on the level, offer proof reading / editing services. But not for free. If they offered it for free, they'd be deluged with people asking for help and some authors do this (as well as teaching) to supplement income. We all know how difficult it is to make a great living as a full time writer, but this sort of thing helps pay the bills as well without having to work 9 to 5. One-on-one workshopping, that sort of thing.

As you, I too speak from experience.

Again, always research, get references, and so on, but I'd rather pay a reasonable fee to work with an experienced writer than have "some dude" look it over for free and not have nearly the insight or experience to give useful feedback (which - as the author of the work - you are free to take or ignore).

I do agree generally, and I don't want anyone to thing I am suggesting they troll the back of Writer's Digest and pay agencies who say "We want your work!" Just make sure that the author is on the up and up.

The site I was referring to was American Zoetrope, Francis Ford Coppola's site. (It's pretty good if you know how to gauge reviews).

^QFT. An editor can and will work with you on the polish, but if the core ideas aren't there (either in fiction or non fiction) then frankly it can be as polished as you want, it won't grab the attention!

That is true...

 

[Lorraine Anderson]

(And then there's me and Kevin. Is the absense of style itself a style? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

So that's the secret of your success!

 

[BrotherBenny]

(And then there's me and Kevin. Is the absense of style itself a style? That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

So that's the secret of your success!

Who said it was success? I'm convinced Dayton is one half of the public persona of twomonkeysonatypewriter.com

 

[Lorraine Anderson]

I didn't say that, nosiree... Would I say that?

-psst....brotherbenny... wish I had thought of that....-

 

[BrotherBenny]

Lorraine, great minds almost think alike.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

^ One hundred???

If they're lucky.

I only got two rejection letters before my first sale. Then I got an assload after that.

 

[JarodRussell]

^ One hundred???

If they're lucky.

I only got two rejection letters before my first sale. Then I got an assload after that.

Why that? Was the novel you sold a disappointment so that no one wanted to deal with you?

 

[Christopher]

^That's just the way it works. Making a sale is no guarantee that the rejection letters will stop coming, because editors make that decision on a story-by-story basis. It's not like they'll buy anything from a writer just because that writer has sold something before. After my first two sales, I didn't sell anything else for years. And those first two sales were two years apart.

Rejections are just part of this business. You write something, you market it, it gets rejected, you try again. Heck, even tie-in authors get rejections. I've pitched ideas to Marco and Margaret that they just didn't like.