II. SUBMISSIONS, continued

b) Craft and Critiques

Our workshop enrollees critique peers’ full novels. However, many writers are experienced only in critiquing partials. What helps you keep track of everything in a novel; what practical tips can you offer for whole-novel critiques?

AH: When I critique, I usually include notes to myself that I sometimes take out of a manuscript (like—momentum is slow here, noting that I’m not sure about a character, or does this time period make sense?) and then I can go back to it later on if my questions have been satisfied/answered. I also start to write notes on a separate page when I see certain themes appearing, whether it’s dialogue that needs help or atmosphere that is lacking, etc. These then become the bones of an editorial letter.

SS: My methods depend on the book, the author, the kind of storytelling, etc, but I usually create a book map as I’m reading—a chapter-by-chapter grid with quick bulleted list of scenes/pivotal moments/character development notes to keep track of the pacing and shape of the story. And I also keep a sheet where I write down overarching thoughts (problems, strengths, threads to pay attention to, themes to develop, moments I adore, what I want more of) as I go, and this is generally the start of my editorial letter—deciding what I think the major goals of a revision will be.

What tip or exercise do you suggest for making scenes emotionally satisfying? Conversely, what makes a scene fall flat?

AH: Overall, and very generally, writers should try to balance a healthy amount of description and dialogue, and keep any unnecessary details out so that a reader feels that every line is purposeful. Too much dialogue or too much telling rather than showing really makes a scene fall flat for me, personally. I like a lot of emotional content and/or humor to hold my attention as a reader.

SS: (Opted out.)

Please define “own voices,” explaining why these stories are important and why the focus is shifting in this direction. Which factors do editors and agents generally consider when deciding whether a work is authentic and representative?

AH: “Own voices” points to when a manuscript written by someone who has a similar experience as a character or characters in the book. The factors can vary, and I suspect are different for everyone, so this is a very personal and individual question that highly varies. For me, there is no formula or set of rules, but I am generally attracted to stories from diverse writers of all kinds.

SS: I hope we’re moving away from talking about books as “own voices” for reasons that can be found here.

As I discussed a bit above, however, I do care about who an author is and how they came to the story they are telling, how it resonates for them, where the truth lies in it, because I believe that will impact the quality and the resonance for the audience. I want to help publish books that reflect the diversity of our world, young people, contemporary and timely issues and questions. And I want authors to have asked themselves “is this a story I should be telling?” I want to amplify voices that need to be heard.

Do you read the synopsis before or after reading a manuscript—or do you bypass the synopsis? (Why?) How and when might a synopsis prove useful to you?

AH: I tend to read a synopsis if I’m on a reading deadline (such as an offer from another agent) to see if I like where the story is going and if I should continue. Otherwise, I try to only use them after I read to confirm that I didn’t miss any big plot points, and to see what the author wanted the reader to really get out of the manuscript.

SS: A synopsis is useful to know where a story aims to go if I’m only reading a partial. I might turn to one in the middle of something if I’m unsure about a writer’s direction.

What kinds of craft flaws do you commonly see in otherwise well-written manuscripts? In general, what self-editing tips do you suggest?

AH: Sometimes I notice shift in narrator tone or the need to fill in and over-explain plot points. I would suggest reading aloud as a way to edit and fine-tune.

SS: (Opted out.)

How would you describe your working relationship with your authors? How often are you in touch; how ”hands-on” are you?

AH: I like to be very hands-on with authors, working on edits and brainstorming, as well as sharing my submission strategy with them and being transparent about the whole process. Once a book is sold, I let the author and editor form a bond and work together, but I like to be copied in on correspondence to make sure the author is being taken care of properly. If an author needs my assistance or wants my input on anything, I’m happy to help and will continue to advocate for all my clients and help build their careers.

SS: I like to have personal relationships with my authors, so I can be a close partner with them in their work. But our relationship is also professional—it’s a tricky balance sometimes! I am happy for authors to come to me with questions and concerns, with ideas, to talk through thinking, to collaborate with ideas. I hope we always listen to each other, and that my authors feel they can trust me to be working in their and their books’ best interest. I’m working in my employer, the publisher’s, interest, too, and I work very hard to balance that and be an advocate for the author, the audience, and the success of the book.

« Interview Directory     Next page »