Kate McKean: Keep that book inside you!

[Brian G Turner]

It's a common joke I've heard from those involved in publishing: "Most people have a book inside of them, and for most people that's where it should stay!"

Literary agent, Kate McKean takes it up an in article about how stories are more than just ideas: No, you probably don’t have a book in you

Whether you agree with her or not, she does underline a point I've repeatedly raised here about the need to understand the technicalities of writing, because - as she puts it:

A book [is] a story told artfully ... Writing is an art form.

In other words, it's not simply words strung together.

 

[Cathbad]

I never string my words together.

I just let them run about willy-nilly.

 

[Toby Frost]

It’s wonderful and horrible and fulfilling and soul-crushing all at the same time

I don't find writing to be the kind of painful soul-searching that it's often made out to be in these sorts of articles. Sometimes I read these kinds of articles, realise that I'm not cheering at the ceiling whilst drenched in sweat and tears at the end of an important scene, and wonder what I'm doing wrong. Or right.

In fact, quite the opposite. It's a difficult technical skill, and the assembling of a good story and the understanding of what will work for readers requires something more than emotion and gut instinct. As the article suggests, that in itself is a good reason why a lot of real-life stories don't make good books.

My own view on this is that stories and ideas are cheap, and what matters is the execution. Even the most bizarre (or cliched) concept can become really strong if it is written with skill and conviction. It always strikes me as odd (and a bit novice) when someone says that they won't reveal their plot in case somebody steals it.

I do think that a very few people are the writing equivalent of tone-deaf, just as a small percent are the equivalent of born musicians. However, both of these groups are very small. Most people, I reckon, could write a decent book after a certain amount of training - but that might take a long time, and the book that succeeded might not be the one they'd wanted to write.

 

[-K2-]

I don't find writing to be the kind of painful soul-searching that it's often made out to be in these sorts of articles. Sometimes I read these kinds of articles, realise that I'm not cheering at the ceiling whilst drenched in sweat and tears at the end of an important scene, and wonder what I'm doing wrong. Or right.

Those sentiments I would more than agree with... In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the average reader does NOT want to discover God, nor have the secrets of the universe revealed to them, or even stumble upon that magic phrase which corrects all things in their life and makes everything alright.

The average reader simply wants to be entertained. Sadly, typically in-brief (contrary to what the article suggests). That last is really the kicker, one that I point-blank disregard to my own detriment. More so in this age of instant answers.

Literally, I have received feedback wherein every scene of a piece gave the reader exactly what they wanted. It was then added that every bit of it was critical (more so entertaining and constantly fresh) to get to the end. Etc., etc., all positive, then comes the "but." But, they don't want to spend the time to immerse themselves in a 40k-word novella, let alone a 90k-200k word novel. Heck, most even whine if it is 20k or even 10k-words worth.

With all of the feedback positive, raving on this or that which could not have been presented without all that came before it and the reader even acknowledging that, still comes the 'but' wanting more, yet your next work to be 1/10th the size... Some of those responses so frustrating that I developed a pat answer.

'...and she lived happily ever after. The end'

Hope you enjoyed it!

K2

 

[Foxbat]

Sometimes I read these kinds of articles, realise that I'm not cheering at the ceiling whilst drenched in sweat and tears at the end of an important scene

You are not alone.

I strongly believe in being realistic and learning where your faults and limitations lie because that's the only way you can improve. That's why I decided a long time ago that writing a novel was not for me (I don't have the mental stamina for it) and decided to concentrate on short stories instead.

Maybe that makes me a sprinter rather than a marathon runner

 

[sknox]

"Every story is not a book" says Kate McKean. Not true. What is true is
"Not every story is a book."

Sheesh.

Write a book, she says, "... because you want to, not because someone suggested it one time." Surely no one has done this. Someone suggested they write a book, they thought about it, and decided to do it. They did not decide because they didn't want to write it. They wanted to write a book. She's inventing straw men.

Then she says "Be mindful of what it fully entails before you start ...."
Oh good grief. How many people know what any complex enterprise "fully entails" before they start? In fact, they often attribute their success to not knowing fully, saying they'd never have attempted it had they possessed full and complete knowledge. It's so common, it's trope.

I would never, ever tell anyone they ought not to undertake any form of artistic expression. Sing, play music, paint, dance. Do it, even if you do it badly, because the only thing sadder than the poor singer is the person afraid to sing.

If Kate McKean is tired of being inundated by lousy stories, I suggest a different line of work.

Maybe sculpture.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The physical aspect of writing a novel is something you rarely see remarked on.
I was saying only yesterday to a friend that writing a novel is physically exhausting, as well as mentally exhausting. It's not just sitting in from of your computer and writing.

 

[tinkerdan]

Seems more a diatribe against people who tell other people they should write a book.

Even so the conclusions at the end give all sorts of avenues to go to write and publish that book for yourself; so I'm confused.

This is not to mention the already mentioned odd turn of phrase--or is it miss-phrase. Were those deliberate?

However the author does reaffirm some of my old beliefs about some of the gatekeepers.

I can't help imagine that she could easily be one to dismiss the Harry Potters in the mix.

As to the exhaustion; I'm not so much seeing that; however it is a process that requires a lot of work and rework and close examination and time spent away, stopping, and coming back with fresh eyes and re-examining the work once more--and doing that until you have it right. It's not easy.

I did find it a bit strange that the author calls it art and then spends the rest of the paragraph describing the economics behind it all. I'd never placed those two together art equals economics.

Writing is the art of economics.

 

[sknox]

Economics, as any economist will tell you, is not art, it's voodoo.

 

[Plucky Novice]

It seemed to me that McKean was trying to better inform the general populous about what's involved in writing a good book and about publishing in general. Perhaps she feels it's misunderstood and she's probably right. Equally, she came across to me as being fed up of wading through dross and would rather you didn't send it to her, thank you very much.

I can't help but feel I'm in her crosshairs though. For years I've fancied the idea of writing a novel and about 10 months ago I decided to do it. I am now 70k words into what McKean would imagine to be her worst nightmare (maybe it is for all I know ). What she doesn't seem to appreciate is the dozens of hours spent trying to learn the craft on the way through books, podcasts, YouTube lectures, seminars and keeping a close eye on what good folks like yourselves have to say.

Well I am not put off. I will finish my novel and may just make a note to send Ms McKean a copy of it.