I used to think of myself as a dream-maker, someone who would champion unknown Canadian authors and give them voice. In some ways I still hold that belief, live by it. But I’ve also come to understand an inherent laziness in so many fellow writers, indeed creators. “Laziness?” you cry. Yes. Laziness.
It is always a matter of some surprise when I learn of an author, particularly one who writes SF, who refuses to embrace modern tools and technology. There are many of my colleagues who will disagree with my following assertions. That’s fine.
One of the most effective tools a writer has at her disposal is sharp, natural dialogue, conversation which flows as freely as the spoken word.
It happens all too often when manuscripts come across my desk, the author operates in a safe and sterile zone, moving characters across a stage with a green screen backdrop. Put another way, there is a palpable lack of environmental detail. Are there curtains on that window by which the character is standing? Is the window open?
It has been said all the stories were written millennia ago, that no new stories exist. There is some truth to that assertion, in that the stories we tell always illuminate human ability, or lack thereof, to deal with situations, whether those situations are technological, environmental or societal in nature.
What is it about a story of fiction that sweeps you away? Aside from other key elements, I’m pretty sure it’s a fully developed character who speaks to you from the page or screen.
It is too often the case in many of the manuscripts I see, the author is in such a rush to tell his story the entire narrative devolves to exposition. In other words, the author is telling rather than showing.
My colleague, Robert Runté, and I read and edit a lot of manuscripts in the course of a year. We often see the same mistakes cropping up.
For as long as I can remember I’ve been reading articles, and listening to discussions, about creating the perfect pitch to a publisher. I used to spend hours refining cover letters, CVs, synopses, and then refining again when the manuscript would be rejected, again, by my prospective publisher.
I’m going to delve into purely Five Rivers house style. We have an aversion here to the overuse of quotation marks and italics to create emphasis on a word. If you’ve written your sentence or scene well, emphasis will be implied without any additional gimmick by way of quotation marks or italics. Again the rule, less is more, should apply.
While we’re dealing with speculative and science fiction, I’m going to deal with overdone dystopia in SF literature. Just as the evening news focuses on catastrophe, so does SF literature focus on a future that’s gone to fiery regions in a wicker contraption. In fact dystopia has become so common in SF that it’s simply an accepted scenario.
We either see sex scenes that belong in an issue of Hustler, explicit in detail and street language, or love scenes reminiscent of saccharine romances. It’s rare to find a debut manuscript that handles erotica of any kind with a deft hand and subtle impact.
I’m afraid I’m a tyrant about good research.
