Slowing Down the Pace

When I speak, write, or drive, I have a habit of going too fast. I'm trying my best to slow things down, but sometimes it feels like, despite my best efforts, I still just end up with people who can't understand what I'm saying, an MS that doesn't flow, and traffic school.

As far as writing goes, how do I slow down the pace? I guess my habit is just getting from scene A to scene B, and I'm not good at the middle stuff that fleshes things out and makes it all flow. I typically go back and add more detailed description to try and help, but what else can I do? What do you do to round out scenes and fill in the in-between-scenes stuff?

Adding detail and description is one specific thing I've thought of to help pace my writing (again, let me know your other ideas), but I've tried to think of ways to counteract my break-the-speed-limit habit in a general way. Meditation. Daily gym-ing and veggie eating. Ambient nature sounds while I write. Telling myself its okay to slow the freak down .

I think its just going to take time and practice. Because a nice controlled pace is not my habit, I'm not even sure exactly how or what one specifically does to keep that pace in writing, so I could really, really use your advice and ideas. My hope is that once I work out how to slow things down, I'll be able to make it work for me better and better.

Of course, we don't want things too slow either. Then it's in danger of becoming dull. But there's a balance, and since I tend towards the speedy side, I thought I'd see if I can get your advice for pulling things back towards that balance.

So...help?

Sarah Allen

Making the News

There's a technique or strategy that I've been talking about with my dad in terms of my social media job; but I think it could be very useful for writers too. I thought I'd get your ideas on how to really make it work.

The strategy is this: keep a list of journalists in your field from online journals and newspapers all over the country and then contact each of them with a story when it comes out. For us writers I guess that would mostly mean book reviewers or journalists in the publishing industry. This isn't groundbreaking stuff. In fact its pretty basic publicity. A good idea, but pretty basic.

So I'm wondering how we use the media to the best advantage. Getting published is news, certain levels of sales is news...but is that it? How do we keep the buzz going in the interim?

I suppose we're getting in to publicity stunt territory here, but maybe that's not so bad. Our first and foremost priority is to our craft, of course. That's as it should be. But we might as well do what we can for marketing, yeah? So what kinds of things can we boring, average, middle-of-the-WIP writers do to generate a little media buzz?

This is where I need your ideas. I've thought of a few: maybe organizing some kind of event, like a read-a-thon, book drive, or even a blogfest or some kind of online event. You could do some really awesome things, and the publicity would just be an added bonus. What other kinds of big-event, news story type things can you think of that we writers could generate ourselves?

There are two key points to this, I think: First, to keep whatever you do writing/book related so that the publicity generated is about you as a writer more than some random thing. Second, make sure you connect directly with the journalists on your list so they're aware of the story you have ready for them. From what I've heard, what with deadlines and being lazy, journalists love being spoon-fed.

Social media is fun, fantastic, and amazing for connecting directly with people. But as far as getting some real buzz going, I think this is probably one of the best strategies we have short of having some really good luck. Do you agree? Do you think this could work, and what ideas do you have to put the strategy into action? Or is it all too mercenary and vulgar in the first place?

Sarah Allen

Dichotomy is good

One of my favorite stories so far from the New Yorker '20 Under 40' collection is a story called 'The Warm Fuzzies' by Chris Adrian. Its hilarious and kind of genius. Its somewhat of a coming of age story about a girl in a large Christian family who go around and play Christian music in a family band and have a slew of foster kids that come through for short periods of time. The dichotomy in this story is that this young girl wants so badly to be obedient and good and love her family; however, she also has this voice in her head that says nasty things and mocks everyone around her. What she says out-loud and what her inner voice says are sometimes very different, and that's what makes this story so interesting.

I think that's the key to interesting characters, and particularly interesting dialog. There should always be a little bit more to what they're saying. We're drawn in. We want to know where the two voices really are different, and where they're actually not as different as they seem.

Don't we all feel like that sometimes? An inner dichotomy? Sometimes its not even that we're pulled in different directions necessarily, but that we've got some seemingly mismatched things inside our heads? I'm a good, active Mormon girl who grew up in Provo and went to BYU. I also have a thing for grunge rock, skulls and guys with long hair. I like puppies and pirates, David Archuletta and Nikki Sixx, Jane Austen and Steven King.

We all have weird, quirky combos like that. There's no reason they have to be mutually exclusive. I think its healthy and exciting to embrace all sides of our personality. It's what makes us us.

What are your interesting dichotomies?

Sarah Allen

What does your muse look like?

I'm giggling just thinking about this question. Not quite sure why.

On good days, my muse looks like this:


On bad days, my muse looks like this:

I have no explanations. That's just how it is, I guess.

Now I'm curious...what does your muse look like?

Sarah Allen

Whats age got to do with it?

I'm kind of obsessed with writers' age. Like, how old they were when they got published, and when they wrote their big masterpiece. That's why I get really into stuff like the New Yorker's '20 under 40' thing. I want to know if I'm making okay time, or if I'm really behind in relation to other writers out there.

Some examples:

Jane Austen: Sense and Sensibility at 36, Pride and Prejudice at 38, though I think she'd had them written for a decade or so before that.
Charlotte Bronte: 31 at publishing of Jane Eyre
George Eliot: Published at 40, Middlemarch at 52
J.K. Rowling: Published the first Harry Potter around 31.
Maureen Johnson: First published at 31.
Cormac McCarthy: 32
Amy Tan: 37
John Grisham: 34
Stephen King: 27
Stephanie Meyer: 32
Charles Dickens: 24
John Green: 28
Lois Lowry: 40 (The Giver, 56)
Judy Blume: 31
Nicholas Sparks: 31
Danielle Steel: 26
Amanda Hocking: 26
Louis Sachar: 24
Christopher Paolini: 19
Agatha Christie: 30
Nora Roberts: 31
Roald Dahl: 27
Mary Higgins Clark: 41

Ok, ok, I'll stop. I told you I'm obsessed. Its also fascinating to look at this list of the top fiction sellers of all time. It includes books in every language, which makes me want to see if I can get my hands on an English translation of the top Chinese, Japanese and French sellers. It would be interesting, I think.

Anyway. What's the point of all this? I'm not really sure. It seems like the magic age is early-thirties, which means I've got another decade or so. But I don't know. I'm so neurotic and I suppose freakishly competitive that people like that stupid Christopher Paolini make me feel a little behind. And I've only got a couple years if I'm gonna match pace with Dickens and Louis Sachar.

To be honest though, I don't think age really matters at all. Some of the best writers in the world didn't start till their fifties or sixties. And some people come out with something brilliant in their twenties or thirties and then never write again. Writing is so personal, and I think the timing of a writing career is too. I think what matters is where we go from here, wherever "here" is.

Thoughts?

Sarah Allen