How About a Magic Trick?

Is every masterpiece a deliberate result of its creator's intent? A discussion resulting from Friday's post grappled with this question. I think it presents what catechists call a "teachable moment".

Where do groundbreaking works get their emotional power? Opinions on this subject fall into two broad categories. Fans of auteur theory credit all of a story's emotive resonance to the storyteller. In this view crafting a compelling game, novel, or film is a matter of talent and skill.

The concept of developer/author/director as a work's primary interpretive key was challenged by Roland Barthes' essay "Death of the Author". Barthes argued that an author's intent and background are totally insignificant to a work's meaning and emotional impact. According to this theory one could say that no creative expression is ever singular. Instead, each work exists simultaneously in three forms: the story in the author's mind, the story as it exists in writing (or as data or on film), and the story as it takes form in the audience's mind.

In effect, there are far more than three versions of every story because a new one springs into being with each new audience member. How often have you seen the film version of a favorite book and said, "That's not how I pictured that character/setting/prop"? Everyone who saw the movie after reading the book probably felt the same way because each reader invests the story with his own experience and preconceptions.

Personally I don't fully buy into either auteur theory or post-structuralism. The fatal flaw of each is a tendency to be too reductive. John C. Wright charts a sensible middle course between both extremes, likening a story to a magic trick. An author is like a magician who fools the reader into accepting a fiction that would prove absurd under the least bit of scrutiny. Like prestidigitation, lulling someone into full suspension of disbelief takes skill honed by practice.

But all the sleight of hand in the world is wasted if the story behind the smoke and mirrors doesn't emotionally resonate with the audience. Striking an emotional chord is the quality most associated with breakthrough fiction. Yet it is the audience who supplies the required sensibilities and life experience.

There are ways to maximize a story's chance of resonating with its audience, such as constantly escalating conflict built around widely-shared themes. However, aligning a story so as to evoke that dizzying "car with no brakes" feeling often happens through blind luck.

I'm sure you have a favorite game, book, or movie that no one else likes. On the other hand, I bet there's a universally lauded work that you can't stand. In either case, please share.

Patience Obtains All Things

Since I started taking my professional novelist ambitions seriously many well-meaning folks have asked when my books will be out. I'm grateful that people have shown interest in my work. I also advise those people to stoke their enthusiasm for the next several years.

Taking an idea from draft to finished manuscript to publication usually takes a long time. Published author's I've consulted say that the average is about five years. This means that some authors get published in a year. For every first year prodigy, someone else waits ten years.

It takes me about six months to write a novel draft. I go through a minimum of three drafts before I start to think that my work might be fit for public consumption. Each draft goes out to beta readers from whom I get as much feedback as possible before re-drafting.

When editing devolves into aimlessly pushing words around the page, I've done all that my petty skills allow. It's then time for agent queries and possibly a few direct publisher submissions. I don't approach many publishers directly because:

1. Few publishers even accept unagented submissions these days.

2. Those few publishers who do allow open submissions still give top priority to projects from agents they've done business with before.

3. The stigma that writers making unagented submissions weren't good enough to land agents.

4. Publishers are far less likely to buy a manuscript rejected from their slush pile (which it almost certainly will be) even if an agent represents it later.

5. It is extremely poor form to submit the same MS to multiple publishers at once. It can be career-ending to get caught.

I'm focusing most of my efforts on querying agents. It's generally okay to query more than one at a time if you promptly inform the others when one accepts you. Agents who say they're taking on new clients will only add one or two at most, but those odds are still better than in the slush pile.

The good news is that I've been hard at work querying agents. Most have replied via form letter, which is neutral. The few personalized rejections have only been encouraging. To my surprise, no one in the industry has yet labeled me an illiterate hack.

Once again I ask your kind patience. Delayed gratification is the best gratification.