From: nicky.matthews@btinternet.com   
      
   On Monday, September 1, 2014 2:03:10 AM UTC+1, Kevin C wrote:   
   > On Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:57:19 PM UTC-4, J.Pascal wrote:   
   >    
   > > Do you think that even big name authors don't make habitual writing   
   mistakes?  This is what editors are for.  Copy editors to fix the small stuff   
   and Editors to catch the huge clinkers and structural errors. Fresh eyes,   
   because the author knows what    
   they wrote and often reads what they know they wrote, even if it didn't get on   
   the page.    
      
   I agree.    
   >    
   >    
   > Not of this scope. For example, a fantasy mystery written in the first   
   person. I wanted a strong hook, and started immediately after the incident   
   that initiated the mystery. Nothing wrong there, right? It's traditional in   
   mysteries. Plus there's a lot    
   going on that I thought would bring the reader up to speed with key fantasy   
   aspects of the story. However, it created an unsalable manuscript.   
      
   It may have contributed to it, but it is a pretty common mistake and not one   
   to beat yourself up about. How many times do you think published writers   
   redraft? Some people redraft tens of times to fix those kinds of issues.   
   >    
   > First, I failed to establish setting or genre in the first sentences.   
   Second, I failed to establish exactly who the protagonist and his men were.   
   Third, I introduced six or seven named characters in two paragraphs. I really   
   doubt the slushpile readers    
   got beyond that first scene. Worse, *I didn't catch this when I edited it.*   
   And I edited it several times, for I couldn't make up my mind to use first or   
   third person, and eventually settled on first.   
      
   Like I said sometimes you need quite a lot of distance from a piece to see its   
   flaws, or you ask someone else you trust. A fresh pair of eyes will always see   
   flaws and if you agree that they are flaws you fix them. It's not a big deal.   
   I've been writing    
   for years and still make 'beginners' mistakes. The skill, such as it is, lies   
   in reworking the rubbish bits until they're not rubbish anymore. The   
   difference between published writers and the unpublished can be no more than   
   that - a preparedness to fix a    
   broken mss and keep going in the teeth of criticism. Not that I'm saying you   
   should necessarily, but it is an option.   
   >    
   > Now, this is all beginner's stuff. Yet it went completely over my head.   
   Plus, test readers later said that it opened too slowly, so if the poor   
   slushpile reader got beyond that first scene, they probably set it aside after   
   the second. However, if those    
   readers had not pointed out those problems in the first scene, I would have   
   remained oblivious.   
      
   There's a time to worry about slush pile readers but I wouldn't obsess about   
   them. There is a lot of stuff about grabbing attention out there and I do   
   plague my students with making the opening work, BUT sometimes you can do that   
   with an intriguing voice,   
    or an unexpected setting, a compelling character or just really interesting   
   writing. Good writing counts when there are a lot of people who can't write at   
   all.    
   You are obviously not in that latter category because your posts make sense,   
   which puts  you ahead of a lot of people on the slushpile.   
      
   Your work might not be publishable - I don't know, but the fact that you   
   couldn't see its flaws doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Published books   
   have flaws too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)