RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
Isn’t it nice to know that Paks never had to face a word like “metric?” But I do, and so today was the day that a) I emailed the maps to Editor and b) put all the loose chunks of Book III into one file, more or less in order (but not eliminating the need to write things in between them.) That meant I could count the total number of pages…and words…and figure out where I was compared to where I wanted to be.
The news is, not where I wanted to be. Not unexpected: the LifeStuff early this year set me back and I never caught up with that, and then the maps–which shouldn’t have taken as long as they did–did take as long as they did. I had been running a sort of internal guesstimate, more pessimistic than the actual result, but now it’s time to place the nose firmly on the grindstone and stick to the daily production requirement. Today I managed half of the basic block, but gave myself credit for getting the maps converted and mailed off and then spending the time hooking together the chapters and chapter fragments into one big file. Which is about to get bigger.
Getting back on schedule is doable, and not the frantic 4000 words/day level I was pushing two years ago…not even close to that…but it will mean a more consistent output than I’ve achieved since before starting full time on the maps. I won’t be disappearing from this blog (too much fun here) or all my other online venues, but the words will have to come first. (And yes, I know I need to go back, find the emails with pictures, and post those, too. I haven’t forgotten them. )
All my characters have daily chores that form the foundation disciplines of their lives. They get up, they go to work, they practice whatever skills they need…and so must their writer.
Comment by Layla — July 12, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
I wish I could be like Paks and not have faced the word ‘metric’. Great job, by the way, with those maps. Judging from previous maps, I would think they are time-eating rascals. Beautiful time eating rascals. We all have jobs to do…you hooking together chapters, me doing what I need to do. I guess in that way we can somewhat relate to Paks and her crew.
Comment by Leo — July 13, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Are you going to be sticking to a trilogy – or do you see this actually spreading out into more books than just these three? (I’m hoping for more – either another trilogy or just a series and keep it going while you can.)
Comment by elizabeth — July 13, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Maps are indeed time-eating rascals. That these ate up so much time is my fault, though…misplacing last year’s maps added a week of searching, then the attempt to rush the process by scanning an early stage and working from the print of that scan (and repeating that later) meant that I was actually drawing some parts multiple times. And then having to clean up the scans in the computer to remove pencil & other marks by hand. The more sensible thing to have done would’ve been to complete the New Original Master Map entirely…but I was worried about accidental damage that could leave me with nothing. However–all’s well that ends well, and I can leave the maps alone for awhile and work on the story.
Comment by elizabeth — July 13, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Looking at where I am in Book III, there’s no way to finish the story arc I had in mind when I started in this book. It’s the story that interests me, more than how many volumes it fits into. To squeeze the rest into this volume, I’d have to insert a huge temporal transition, of the kind that ends a shorter arc on one page and reads “X years later…..” on the next. I’d rather not do that. However, the way the world works, publishers contract for a given number of volumes. If Oath continues to sell, and Kings leaps off the shelf in a hurry, I’m more likely to get a contract for the books beyond. Considering all the work I did to publicize the launch of the new Paks books, it’s been disappointing to find that people are still emailing to ask if I’m ever going to do another Paks-related book or to tell me that they just found it in a bookstore and hadn’t known.
Comment by Genko — July 13, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
I heard someone yesterday refer to a “five-book trilogy,” which I found interesting. It’s true that we have no other words (or at least none that I’m aware of) for a four- or five-book series.
I found out about Oath on this web site, which I went to out of curiosity — I think maybe to find other books by you to get in the library. That was last year some time, and I was absolutely thrilled to find out that you were back working on Paks. I’ve sometimes wanted to ask about Kolobia, clear unfinished business there, and did you have plans for following up on it. But being the patient sort that I am, just figured I was being greedy. Well, maybe I AM being greedy.
I don’t know how to publicize things better. Maybe there’s no real good way to make sure all the people who would be interested in such things find out about them. Given that we’re a strange, maybe introverted lot with all sorts of different circles that we run in (or don’t), maybe such discoveries after the fact are inevitable.
Comment by Roger — July 14, 2010 @ 4:05 am
Hi
Thanks for a wonderful blog. I am a longtime reader, but dont write much 🙂
I wonder if there is any chance of you making it possible to see distances. Ex 1 cm=10 miles.
That would make it easier to (at least try to) guest how long it would take to walk/ride/ride-wagon a certain distance.
Thanks for taking the map seriously, I like checking the maps for references as I read!!
Br//Roger
Comment by elizabeth — July 14, 2010 @ 7:53 am
Roger: so glad you’re enjoying the blog as well as the books. On the matter of scale on maps: I have my (heh-heh-heh) evil author reasons for leaving scale off. First, except for the Romans, even on our world accurate distances were not given on maps in equivalent periods: distance between places was given in travel time under certain conditions. Maps showed what to expect, in the right order, but not the right scale. Second, before the combination of improved roads (including “rail” in that word) and motorized travel, travel times were approximate at best, and depended more on weather, terrain, and accidents than many moderns realize. The longer distances (the only ones that show at the scale of this map) were even more uncertain. Thus “how long it would take to walk/ride/ride-wagon” a certain distance is highly variable, and readers who think they know will be thinking of that, and not be thinking with the characters. Duration of a given trip is in the books when it matters.
If you notice in Oath of Fealty, for instance, it’s taken 7 days to get word of Kieri’s new status from Verella to Arcolin up at the stronghold…but the distance is usually covered in shorter time by mounted couriers. Fog and other bad weather slowed this one down. In Sheepfarmer’s Daughter, mud slows the recruits marching south to Valdaire enough that they can’t make their intended stopping place one day and must sleep out in the woods in the rain. In all the books set in this world, weather and terrain conditions that speed or slow travel are mentioned where appropriate.
Terrain slows or speeds the traveler (more slope = slower travel, crossing running water = slower travel) and combines with surface conditions (turf, sand, gravel, solid level rock, rough broken rock, mud, snow, ice) to make a given map-length “fast” or “slow.” What I’m trying for is the “feel” of living in a world where precisely measured distances and accurately scaled maps are unknown–where people don’t think that’s important–where a journey takes as long as it takes and everyone knows that the next village is one unit of sun-time away on a pleasant day when the trail is dry, but three units of sun-time when it’s muddy…and you can’t get there at all that day if there’s been a downpour because the stream you have to cross will be flooded for a day. Modern humans can’t resist running the figures if figures exist–and then being sure there’s an error when the figures differ from events in the story.
So you might try looking at the maps as a slightly modernized version of the map a contemporary cartographer would make, with the cities and villages in the right order, but the distance on paper not tightly related to what surveyed distance would be if there were surveyors.
Comment by elizabeth — July 14, 2010 @ 8:13 am
Genko: In a discussion with other writers a few years ago, someone noted that the three-volume novel of the Victorian era (not called a trilogy) was also called a “triple decker.” It was distinguished from a three-volume series…the triple decker (or 3 vol. novel) had one story arc; the series had multiple story arcs but was set in the same place or had the same characters. Trollope’s The Eustace Diamonds was a triple decker…but connected loosely to a series of political novels about Palliser. (And re-reading The Eustace Diamonds has relieved me of all guilt for writing long books!)
Anyway, a four or five book story arc could be called a four-decker or five-decker. Vatta’s War has a five-volume story arc…if I write more about those characters, that will be a different story arc. The original Deed was one story arc; the new books are a different story arc. I do think we need a term (and -decker makes sense to me) for multiple volumes in one story arc, separate from multiple volumes about the same characters or place with different story arcs. A group of mysteries featuring one detective has a separate arc (the solving of that mystery) for each volume…so it’s a series.
Comment by Jim DeWitt — July 14, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
One of the most interesting parts of your blog is your candor in describing your writing process. I have the impression you approach parts of writing without a clue what is going to happen next. I’m guessing I can point to a specific part of OoF where that process is on display. Once again, I don’t want to speculate or spoil; if this is out of bounds, feel free to delete this comment.
In OoF, there is a scene where Dorrin, for very good reasons, is at the bottom of a well. She’s very frustrated. Something happens (and it is an absolutely wonderful moment). I’m guessing that the thing that happens is one of those parts that came out of the author without any conscious planning or plotting. That the conscious part of Elizabeth Moon didn’t have a clue that was going to happen.
Am I right? Am I out of bounds to ask?
Comment by elizabeth — July 14, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
I like to think there’s a difference between not having a clue and writing from inside a character as the character faces uncertainty or surprise, but I might be wrong. What it feels like to me: there’s stuff I would know if I went into psychoanalysis about it–it’s deep inside somewhere, and only becomes conscious knowledge as I write, and it comes through the characters. The best stuff–the bits like Dorrin in the well–I don’t consciously know beforehand. Some good stuff, even very good stuff, I can think through and then write…but it’s never the best stuff, the stuff that brings goosepimples or tears or stops the breath. All those, I think, come straight into my fingers from somewhere deep.
That being so, I don’t go poking a stick into the eye of the plot daemon (or down into the depths of the Story kettle.) I trust that Story-stuff will come, and try to get my conscious mind out of its way…so it’s not stream of consciousness (which is boring, if you ask me–at least my consciousness is) but unconscious and imagination flowing together.
I think that’s it. But I might change my mind another week or month.
Comment by elizabeth — July 14, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
And today the story gave me 2285 words of progress. With a goal of 10,000 words/week, the short day Monday and two productive days, I’m now needing 4580 to make the goal this week.
Today’s amount plus 7 (2290 tomorrow and Friday) will get it done. I could also write Saturday after husband’s birthday party. Earlier is better, as long as I don’t rouse the most argumentative of joints.
Comment by Adam Baker — July 14, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Glad to hear that things are settling down and progress is going on along again.
And happy early b-day to your husband.
Comment by Jenn — July 15, 2010 @ 7:49 am
I think in term of publicity that there is very little you can do. SciFi/Fantasy always seems to be a looked down upon genre for reasons unknown. Even Tolkien in many circles.
I found out about you from an elderly gentleman who has bought me several of your books. Otherwise I never would have known your stories existed now I try to pass them on to who ever will listen.
I hope you are able to tell the story with out volume constraints.
I will keep spreading the word.
Comment by Tuppence — July 15, 2010 @ 7:57 am
You have your ‘plot daemon’, Mckinley has her ‘story committee’. I am fascinated by the various metaphors that writers have for the process of catching their story.
When I was writing poetry I felt that I had to listen for it … it seemed a very external process, if I tried to insert some direction the poem promptly died and decomposed (in all meanings of that word).
My day was made yesterday when I called Yard dog Press to order some books, and Selina who answered the phone thought that I was you. Chuffed fan girl squeaks emerged at intervals all afternoon!
Comment by elizabeth — July 15, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Yes–there’s a lot of listening that has to take place. As with your poetry, I find that my worst mistakes come when I try to brute-force the story. I can offer little lures (“How about this? Isn’t it pretty? Or this?”) but if I get heavy-handed with it, it dies. In my case, it will usually produce a half chapter or even chapter of “plastic” that initially looks OK, but turns out to have no life in it.
Comment by Margaret — July 17, 2010 @ 1:11 am
Jim’s earlier comment about the well incident prompts me to comment on it as well…er…also…
At age 61 and as someone who has read widely and avidly since age 6, I don’t know that I have read anything as incredibly beautiful as that passage. It seems to me it contains the essence of the the best possible expression of human potential.
Comment by elizabeth — July 17, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Thanks, Margaret. That passage came as a surprise to me (so did the villager’s surprise, since I–like Dorrin–expected some kind of legal tangle…but the well was more.)
Comment by Gillian — July 17, 2010 @ 11:29 am
I’m incredibly curious about your remarks at Comment 4 above about future books depending on how well Kings sells. It seems to me that by the time Kings is released, you will have to have completed the current book. How do you deal therefore with the uncertainty about how many books you’re going to have to finish the story in? Are you just going to have to work on the assumption that the current book is the last one and come to a suitable climax and stopping point, possibly without following up all of the original story plan? And then tell the rest of the tale as a subsequent trilogy (or whatever)if you get the go ahead? It sounds like an incredibly hard way to work.
I can see that this is a rather inquisitve question and if you don’t feel like answering it because of ongoing contract negotiations or still working it our yourself, then I will totally understand that. But I’d be very interested if it’s something you feel comfortable talking about.
Comment by elizabeth — July 17, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Not really ready to talk about this in any detail…except to say that many writers have faced the same kind of situation, and the responses are various.
I can give some generalities. In general, but not always, contract negotiations begin late in the writing of the last book on the contract or when that book is turned in. Publisher decisions on the next contract are based on the sales of the preceding books in that contract. Let’s say it takes you nine months to write a book, and the publisher nine months to bring it out. You finish book one. If you have only a one book contract, there are zero sales figures on that book at the time you negotiate the next contract. Publisher is likely to be cautious, though aware of early “buzz”, the editor’s perception of the finished work, etc. If you have a two book contract, and you start in right away on book two (which will go a little slower, because of the work you have to do on book one while writing book two), your first book will launch about the time you finish writing book two. What does the publisher have to judge by? Advance reviews, advance orders from the bookstores, and “buzz.” More hard data than the previous case, but not a huge amount. If you have a three book contract, you will be turning in book two about the time book one launches, and by the time you’re mostly finished with book three, the publisher will have hard sales figures on the first months of book one, and some indication of how booksellers are going to treat book two: real data from which to project income. If book one flops badly, a publisher may kill the whole series–cutting off book three entirely, and worst-case stopping production of book two. If book one has mediocre sales, the publisher may hope for a stronger performance by book two, but may not be eager to write a new contract or will cut back the advance. If book one flies off the shelves onto the New York Time bestseller list above #10, the publisher will heave a huge sigh of relief and try to get your new contract written before your agent gets a swelled head on your behalf.
When there are other publishing problems, such as a crash in the economy or the publisher’s own cash-flow problems, it takes much less on the bookstore end to kill a book or series than in good times. Until the advent of e-publishing, writers had essentially no recourse if the publisher dumped them or a specific group of books–they could get the rights back and try to shop the books to another publisher, but this almost never-ever works with a multi-volume story or a series: publishers feel (for good reasons) that if books one and two come out from A1Books, they won’t pick up any dedicated readers of those books when they put out (after the inevitable longer gap in time) books three and onward from B1Books, and they won’t get as many new readers for the series, because they can’t time the launch of the new volumes to re-issues of the old. They can’t even keep book one in print. It belongs to someone else.
I have to mention here the incredible cooperation the two publishers of Paksworld books have shown: Baen Books, which has kept the earlier Paksworld books in print, and Del Rey, which is doing the new ones. First, by keeping the earlier books available, Baen enabled me to start from a base of existing reader support–including newer readers. Then they agreed to reissue the earlier mmpb in new covers to coincide with the advent of the new books. Del Rey has always allowed me to list my Baen books along with the the Del Rey books in the front matter pages, and for the Paksworld books put a button on my part of its site so that readers can click over to Baen. This has obvious benefits for both publishers, but not all see it that way. Bravo to both of them.
Here’s another look at the series situation, from writer Lynn Viehl’s blog Paperback Writer. (She has a lot of good entries in her blog–two up from this is one on writing advice.)
Comment by Gillian — July 18, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Thanks very much for this detailed reply. Good luck with your contract negotiations. I’d like to see a lot more in this series, as much as you feel like writing.
Comment by Matthew Walker — July 21, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Re: Baen Books
I buy every book of theirs that looks remotely interesting, just because I heartily support their attitudes and handling of the SciFi/Fantasy genres. They’ve really impressed me, especially with the ‘give away’ CDs they included with books for a while. Are they still doing that? I haven’t been able to afford a new book for a while.
I hope to someday have a manuscript to submit to them. 🙂 (I have several at ‘draft 0’ stage, but nothing that’s even gone through a complete revision cycle. I need to find more time… anyone have some for sale?)
Comment by elizabeth — July 21, 2010 @ 11:48 am
I don’t know what their current policies are about things like CDs with the hardcovers…that’s a question for them.
As for time…heh. If I had a spare second to sell, that would be a miracle.