Chip MacGregor .com

Ten Questions From Beginning Novelists

1. Lori wrote to ask, "What do you look for when you are considering representing a new novelist?"

I suppose every agent is looking for the same basic components in reviewing a proposal: a great idea, expressed through great writing, supported by an author with a great platform. Those are the general issues an agent considers when reviewing any proposal, in my view.

But more specifically, I'm always looking for a strong voice in the writing. Is it fresh? Does it stand out? Is it something that makes we want to continue reading? Is there personality that shines through? If I can find a manuscript with a strong voice, I'm always much more apt to continue reading. And I guess I'd also have to admit I'm looking at the writer, not just the writing. I don't represent any high-maintenance people, so I usually insist on meeting an author before I agree to represent him or her. I want to make sure we're comfortable with each other (I'm not a fit for everyone). Occasionally I'll have an email exchange with an author and we'll seem to be a match, but then we meet and the vibe isn't right. So I value being eye-to-eye with an author, and having a chance to visit if at all possible.

2. Nancy said, "I've been told by a well-known author that publishers look more for a novelist's ability to sell books (i.e., the author is an established speaker, or someone in the media) than they do for the ability to write books. True?"

I would say that's an overstatement. Certainly publishers are looking at writers more and more with an eye toward "platform," and there are some qualities the publisher will appreciate. (Is the author an expert? Can she get major media attention? Does he have connections with a source for selling large quantities of books?) But with fiction, I find that less true. While I think it's fair to say publishers are now at least asking the "platform" question of novelists, they still weigh their publishing decisions more upon the bigness of the story and the quality of the craft.

3. Joanna asked, "With all the talk about high concept novels and the importance of platform, where is the best place for emerging writers to focus their time? Should we develop an audience, or learn to excel at the craft?"

That's an easy one: Become a great writer first. I don't meet that many great writers (I meet a lot of "pretty good" writers). Whenever I meet a great one, I try to sign them up. It doesn't even matter if they're unpublished -- if they're great, they soon WILL be published. Because greatness gets discovered. In simpler terms, if you really want to get published, focus on creating great characters in a compelling story. (That may not be the most profound thing you'll read today, but it's the truth. Acquisitions people at every house are on the prowl for great characters in big, marketable, compelling stories.)

4. Marvin asked this: "When does a writer's strong voice have an advantage, and when does it become a detriment or a distraction from the story? Does it matter more in certain genres than others?"

I'd be hard pressed to tell you when a writer's voice becomes a detriment. As I said earlier, I'm a huge fan of voice in fiction. I believer our educational system for teaching writing (college classrooms, conferences, even many mentoring workshops) have a tendency to flatten voice in writing by making it appear as though there is one way to write a novel. Sure, I suppose one could argue there are some genres where the house doesn't care about the author's unique voice and merely wants a romantic story told... but I'm not sure I believe that. Not every voice fits every genre, but every editor I know falls in love with a great writing voice.

5. Sandy wrote with this question: "What would you say are the common areas of neglect you see in most second novels? Weak plot? Poor characterization? Underdeveloped themes?"

Love this question, since I tell the authors I represent that your SECOND novel will be your most important. You've doubtless spent years getting the first one completed, then worked to edit it, got all sorts of advice, and went through the process of shopping it with an agent. It's polished and ready to go after three or five years of working on it. Then you get a deal, and suddenly the publisher asks you to write another one in five months. Ack! You race through it, and it comes out disappointing. That can be a career killer, since you want your second novel to build off the sales of your first.

The biggest pitfalls in a second novel? A small idea (your first book was big; your second was hurried and not thought through as well.) Small characters (your first book contained characters you knew intimately; your second people you don't know as well). Less sense of place (your first novel is in a place you've spent considerable time exploring; your second is just a place). Less passion (your first novel grew out of a story you felt compelled to tell; your second is simply another book).

6. Lorraine asks, "Should a novelist be thinking 'sequel' when she writes her first book? Has that become the industry norm? Should I have a story I can continue?"

Whether it's the norm depends on the house -- some publishers love sequels, others prefer not to sequence their books. But I would say the possibility for a sequel rests in your characters, not your story. Every novel needs a complete story (and aren't we all sick to death of reading a novel that seems like nothing more than a long advertisement for the next book?). But if you have interesting characters than can continue, you've got the possibility of crafting a good sequel. So...no, I don't believe the message that "you must always have a sequel." The fact is, most second books in a series sell fewer copies than the first book in the series. So the idea that a sequel will automatically help you get established is a myth.

7. Tom also asked about sequels: "If your second novel is about the same characters as your first, how much description of them needs to occur for new readers (without frustrating repeat readers)?"

Excellent question. My answer is probably, "Enough so that a reader will appreciate the characters in the current book." Take a look at some great detective fiction for examples... You can pick up any Philip St Ives novel and feel you get to know the character, even though the author includes little description. Pull any Travis McGee novel off the shelf and you'll see the character described in brief, then you're into the story. The same with Adam Dalgliesh or Sherlock Holmes or Poirot. Too much description makes for a dull, wordy novel anyway. Get us introduced to the character, help us see what we need to see, then move us into the story.

8. Benjamin had this follow-up question: "How far can you stray from expectations set by the first novel, before the reader feels betrayed?"

Not very far. It's why many serial writers eventually feel trapped by their characters. You can't have your God-fearing Priest Who Is A Weekend Sleuth With A Good Sense Of Humor suddenly transform into a Cross-Dressing Evil Genius. Readers won't stand for it. If you create a character, you have to live with that character.

9. Sara asked, "Is it acceptable to have a sequel that is written in the same style fall into another category or genre?"

I don't see how this would work in the marketplace. Retailers would hate it, since they couldn't shelve the books beside each other. And readers are generally loyal to their genres. Doing a great chick-lit novel, then suddenly moving your characters into thriller, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

10. And Marvin asks a question I've heard frequently: "If I'm writing a series, is it unwise to venture into a different genre? For example, if my first book is a fantasy, should the second book also be a fantasy, or is it acceptable to write a chick-lit? Will it be like starting from scratch, since I'd have no sales figures in the new genre?"

This is a question every novelist must think through. Here's the way I view it: An author must consider what he or she wants to do with a writing career. If you intend to make a living writing novels, you'll find it best to figure out your voice, then write to the particular genre that fits it. In other words, as far as the marketplace is concerned, you'll do best if you pick one category and stick with it. However, you should be aware that some very talented writers have chosen not to take that approach.

All the talk about "branding" lately can be tedious. A publisher telling a new author to "decide on an audience and write your books to them" seems like good career advice... but what if the novelist is multi-talented and feels she has stories to tell in various genres? I represent Lisa Samson, who many people believe is one of the best Christian novelists in publishing these days. Lisa publishes her books with Thomas Nelson, and she doesn't really have a clear genre. She writes great stories that I suppose could all be termed "literary fiction," but that's more a convenience tohelp with the marketing and sales of her books. The fact is, Lisa crosses genres. A fine writer can make that happen -- sometimes an author will not want the strictures inherent with naming a clear brand. So while focusing on one genre can assist you as you're starting your career, it's not absolutely imperative.

Having said that, Marvin, I'll admit that if an author tells me he is writing a "series," but that the first book is a fantasy and the second a chick-lit, I'd tell him to start taking his meds again. That is NOT a series. And yes, every time you jump genres, you're starting over with your career.

Got a question about publishing or writing? Let me hear it.

Writing, Websites, and Craft

Here's some cool news: This blog was just given the "Writers' Inclusion Award" from Stepping Stone Magazine...so we're now officially an award-winning blog.  :o)

Pierce had a question related to my last post: "Do you have specific recommendations for companies that can help beginning writers with creating the necessary tools for a business -- letterhead, business cards, website, etc?"

There are countless companies that can print you nice business cards, and it seems like you can't swing a stick these days without hitting a web designer. So instead of naming a bunch of companies, let me simply tell you who I work with, and you can use that as a starting point, Pierce.

My logo, letterhead, envelopes, and business cards were designed by Kevin Burr at Ocular Ink in Nashville (www.ocularink.com). Kevin does great graphic design work. My website (www.MacGregorLiterary.com), which routinely garners great comments from people in the industry, was created by Nick Francis at Project 83 in Nashville (www.project83.com). Nick is simply the best in the business. You can find people who will do this stuff cheaper, but you won't find anyone who does it any better.

Tiffany wrote and said, "When I go 'live' with my author site, I want to have a different feel for my nonfiction, my suspense fiction, and my speaking pages. Do you suggest different marketing tools for each facet of a writer's business, or do you suggest we have something that represents us in all capacities?"

That probably depends on the writer, Tiffany. I think you can have projects that share an audience on one site, but they need to be somehow related. If there are widely divergent aspects of your business, you may want to have different websites. For example, if the speaking you're doing is on time management, but the writing is on dog grooming, you'll be hard pressed to make those work effectively on the same site. If your nonfiction is on weight loss, it's tough to expect readers to also wade through information on your World War II spy novel.

In a similar vein, Sina'i noted, "I'm a fantasy writer and artist. Most of my art relates to my writing. If I'm not trying to sell my art at the moment, would it be a bad idea to include some of my art on my web site?"

If your art relates to your writing, and you're basically using your site to promote your books, then I see nothing wrong with using some of your art to dress up your site. I'm not saying a writer should refrain from also being a fine artist -- I'm just saying that a writer's site needs to focus on his or her words.

And Haydon wrote to ask, "Would you suggest authors put their agent's contact information on their websites?"

Yes, I would. By including your agent's information, you make it easy for editors who visit your site to know how to contact you. (And, let's face it...this will also keep away the agent wannabes who are trolling for clients.) You can do this subtly, by simply referencing them in your bio, or perhaps by including a link to their site on your index page.

Ed sent in this: "Over and over I hear you talk about the need for great writing and big ideas. Can you give the name of two or three debut books that you feel had strong writing and a big idea?"

Happy to to give you several recent examples. Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife is a wonderfully complex novel with excellent, thoughtful writing. Yann Martel's The Life of Pi has a good story and very strong writing. Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner was a debut novel that had a big idea and great writing. Haven Kimmel's A Girl Named Zippy is quirky and inventive, with writing that shines. Shane Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution is a well-concepted and well-written book of Christian nonfiction, and Ginger Garrett's In the Shadow of Lions is a wonderful first novel.

Ben wrote and said, "You talk quite a bit about the Christian book industry. The Christian market obviously has different moral and content standards than the rest of the industry. Do you find this restrictive? Does it hurt the quality of the submissions you get?"

No, I don't find the Christian market to be restrictive; I find it to be focused. Christian publishers are creating books for Christian readers, so OF COURSE there are some moral and content standards. Publishers creating books for educators also have moral and content standards, as do those creating books for children, the cooking market, and business professionals. Publishers of software books have specific content standards. The fact is publishers create books for specific readerships. CBA is no different.

But your second question is one I dislike -- it suggests that having moral restrictions on a book somehow limits its potential quality. What utter tripe. Most fantasy writers would argue that C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest craftsmen of the last century, and his Christian worldview didn't limit his writing ability. Any American short story writer will point to Flannery O'Connor as one of our best writers, and her religious faith didn't diminish the quality of her craft. Mystery writers point to Dorothy Sayers as a wonderful storyteller, and her faith never got in the way of a good book.
The notion that "Christianity" is somehow incompatible with "Craftsmanship" is silly.

If you need examples of great contemporary writers who happen to be Christians, pick up a copy of Lisa Samson's Tiger Lillie or Charles Martin's Chasing Fireflies. If you're a nonfiction writer looking for great craft, try reading Anne Lamott's Traveling Mercies or Brennan Manning's Ragamuffin Gospel or Lauren Winner's Girl Meets God -- fine writers all.

Got a question? Send it in and we'll try to answer it.

Writers and Websites

I've received a number of questions about websites and e-books recently...

Ellen has a very thoughtful question: "I've become a smarter book-buyer because of the economy. I'm more likely to read three chapters in the cafe at Borders before letting go of my money. If the writing isn't good, I don't buy the book. If the writing is great, I'll buy it no matter what it costs. But that raises a question -- could Kindle increase sales by eliminating our ability to loan out our precious books? And won't Kindles and Sony e-readers affect the used book market?"

For those unfamiliar, the Kindle is Amazon's latest attempt to control the world. It's a small electronic book that uses cell-phone technology to download book texts, and it's great (except it doesn't do graphics). The Sony e-reader is a bit less expensive and bit sturdier, though I'll admit I like using the Kindle more. Ellen's question is one publishers have been rolling around -- there's no forwarding from one e-reader to another, so will these tools keep readers from passing along books to friends? That could cut down on the readership of a book. But at the same time, if an enthusiastic reader tells all her friends to read the latest Paul Coelho novel, could they all purchase and download it, thereby increasing sales? 

Both are good thoughts. And to this point, nobody knows what will happen. However, I used Brazilian author Paulo Coelho as a specific example because of his recent discussion at the Frankfurt Book Fair last week. Mr. Coelho takes the approach that getting his words out there in electronic form will bring him new readers, and that will lead to more people buying books. So he gets his words out there in the ethernet, and gives them away quite a bit, and he believes that is what has led to his worldwide success. "The more you give, the more you gain," he told everyone at the opening event of the Fair. It's an interesting approach -- and it has certainly worked for Coelho, who has now sold over 100 million books.

Jim has a question about author websites: "Because of the e-world in which we live, an author having a website is like having a phone or a television. But how we present ourselves on our sites is the key. I'm an abstract artist as well as a writer, and I'm wondering if it's best to have a different site to promote my art, or to promote both on the same site. Are people put off by sites that are too busy or that offer too much?"

I agree -- an author should have a website, since it offers the opportunity to connect the writer to the world at large. In my view, having a professional website is probably one of the essential ingredients of contemporary marketing. And that means thinking through who you are as a writer, what your voice is, who your audience is, and how you want to communicate with them. Surely a romance writer needs a completely different look and feel to the site of a mystery writer. There is often a "sameness" among writers' sites, and I think that's why so many websites aren't as effective as they could be. Just as your unique writing voice makes you stand out in store shelves, a unique site voice/look/approach can make you stand out on the web. 

For that reason, I would say it's tough to combine a "book" site with an "art" site. Those are two different audiences, looking for two completely different results. (When you're looking for a book, do you stop in an art gallery?) Better to link the two together in some way, so that those readers interested in the author's artwork could also go check the other site. 

Lindy asks, "What are the most important elements a new author should have on a website? What makes an author website successful?"

There are doubtless a hundred answers to that question, Lindy, but I'll take a stab... 

1. It must reflect YOU. Your site must reveal your voice, your strengths, your uniqueness. 

2. It must be attractive -- which doesn't mean "pretty," but that it attracts potential readers.

3. It must be easy to load -- nobody wants to sit and wait while your fancy graphics roll around and try to line up. 

4. It must sell you. A site is a sales tool.

5. It must offer good and complete information, answering the viewer's questions about you and your work. (Not only is it a sales tool, it's an informational tool.)

Pierce wants to know, "What role do business cards, letterhead, and envelopes play in helping brand an author? It seems to me people not only judge a book by its cover, but judge newer authors by their online and printed materials. An attractive, professional, and consistent look can make a lasting, positive impression. Do you agree?"

I do agree. In fact, I'd offer the same advice as that of the web questions. Your stationery and business cards should reflect who you are and what you do. Business people recognize the difference between a professional and an amateur, and that is often reflected in the way we approach them. 

A Human Resource officer once said to me, "People perform at the level at which they are recruited." So if you walk up to someone in the hallway and say, "Hey, help me with something," you can expect them to treat it as a simple request, and they'll offer a few minutes to assist you. But nobody recruits a company president with such an informal request. If there's a big job to do, you do your homework, make your lists, and approach them after much preparation.

It's the same in pitching a book. If you hand an editor a crumpled-up manuscript at a conference, it's going to get treated as though it's a casual request. If you have your agent talk with the editor, then send them something professional, it'll get treated with the respect it deserves. Remember when your grandma told you that "you never get a second chance to make a first impression"? Well, that rule applies to editors and manuscripts. If you're an author, invest in some professional tools like business cards and stationery. Don't jump at the cheapest thing -- get some help and get it done right. I've heard plenty of people in this business complain about the cheap stuff they've seen. I've never heard anyone complain about the well-done, professional stuff. 

Got a question about writing or publishing? Let me hear it. 

Back to Your Questions...

Here on this blog we generally take people's questions about books and writing, then try to say something intelligent about them (or, if I don't have anything intelligent to say, I'll poke fun at someone and rant loudly so it seems like one of those radio talk-show answers). I took a couple days away from questions, so I want to get back to them and catch up...

Carol noted my last blog post about the slumping economy and its effect on books, and asked, "Would you suggest writers with a ready book proposal hold off a bit -- perhaps submit later? Is there anything we should do differently in light of the economy?"

No way. I'm with one of the commenters who noted that publisher and bookseller stocks are down because the overall market is down. There's a mad rush to sell, and that's artificially driving down stock prices. But Amazon is a well-run company that makes good money. Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Books-a-Million may be facing a squeeze, but they're still the three largest bookstore chains in America. And all those publishers are still in the business of creating and selling books. Things may slow down in terms of acquisitions while everyone gets their bearings, but eventually the publishers will still need to be acquiring new titles, since selling books is the way they remain in business. The one thing I'd say is that, in a weak economy, the core truths of book publishing become even more pronounced: have a big idea, express it through great writing, and support it with a strong platform. If an author walks in with a small idea, or a book that's only 80% done, he or she is going to find a very tough time getting a book published.

Ben wrote and asked a question that is obviously related to my earlier criticism of Fireproof -- "You said that good messages and moral content don't trump quality...but does quality trump message and moral content?"

Fascinating question. It's clear that to some (for example, the people who really enjoyed Fireproof) that a good message trumps bad craft. They're welcome to that opinion, which is why it doesn't bother me a bit to have someone join in the discussion and say, "You're wrong -- I loved the movie because it moved me." I just don't agree -- I couldn't get past the junior high acting and the high school script. So to me, the great message didn't overcome the bad art. Looked at another way, I really appreciate the redemptive words to the song "Everything Shines" from Great Big Sea, and I wouldn't enjoy seeing an off-key singer and a bad garage band playing that tune... no matter how sincere they were. I wouldn't want to spend money to see bad paintings, even if the artist was trying to portray something redemptive.

But the reverse can be tricky. The films of Oliver Stone might be nice to look at and well acted, but the messages range from "angry" to "deeply stupid." Who needs another anti-American screed from this over-rated hack? I thought the movie The English Patient was incredibly well done - great acting, great art, incredible script...and a repulsive message. Life is sacred. Morality does exist. Setting up a scene where two people commit adultery while a crowd of Believers sing to God on the other side of the wall was just  a bit too "in-your-face-you-uptight-Christians" for me. Similarly, The Cider House Rules was a fairly well-done film, but it's over-the-top focus on "why we need to be pro-abortion" ruined it for me -- in the end, the film didn't feel like a story, but a piece of pro-choice propaganda. (I know... I shouldn't bring up the abortion issue -- too emotional a topic. Sorry.)

That said, there are plenty of times where art does indeed triumph over the message -- think of all those subtle messages in TV's Law and Order. Or the times you saw political or moral messages presented in a reasonable light through great drama. There's a good side of this -- certainly To Kill a Mockingbird caused us to reflect on racism, and Philadelphia helped Americans see gay people as real people, not as "funny TV gay people." The books we write and the stories we tell can subtly influence others. We all know that. And, frankly, it's why I represent redemptive stories rather than pornography.

The wonderful writer Tim Osner sent me a note that read, in part, "We laud writers like Graham Green and Flannery O'Connor, but who would publish them now? No Whiskey Priest or Hazel Motes. It seems that, in both CBA and ABA, there's no place for these characters; they have no appeal..."

I respectfully disagree. Contemporary publishers would take both authors because they offered great craft, Tim. What would be interesting would be to see how Christian audiences would respond to these clearly Christian stories. But don't misunderstand -- commerciality still trumps craft. Good grief -- nobody thinks of Left Behind as being great art, but the series sold 70 million copies. No critic seriously believes the Harry Potter series is great literature, but it's now the best selling fiction series in history. That's okay. People like commercial stories. And I shamelessly represent commercial stories. I'm happy to work with books that sell -- and I also want to be doing books that make a difference in the lives of others. I don't see life as an either/or decision.

Julie asked, "What can you tell us about the Orphan Works Bill of 2008?"

This is basically a license for lazy people to steal. The US House and Senate debated it last month, and will take it up again for discussion next year. This came out of the many lawsuits being filed against people who took material from the internet and cashed in on it -- the bill was begun by those who felt they needed to make the copyright laws easier when it comes to electronic information. If passed, it will allow someone who takes your content and tweaks it (the bill's language is "recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates") to be harder to sue. A bad idea.

Oh, and the bill asks the government Copyright Office to help you with your searches to find the originator of an idea (I don't know about you, but I LOVE asking the government's help on most things...think of it as standing in line at the DMV and asking them to help you hunt down an out-of-state license plate). It will prevent injunctions against those who steal your material, and limits compensation to what the courts deem "reasonable" -- which they seem to define as "what a buyer and a seller probably would have agreed to, had the bum not stolen the material in the first place." Um...The creators have apparently not been told that America has the best copyright laws on the planet. I don't know why we need to weaken them by making it easy for lazy authors who don't want to do adequate research to be protected by governmental rules.

Amy wrote to say, "I heard the British publisher has decided NOT to publish The Jewell of Medina. True? And will the American publisher also jump out of the deal?"

Three Muslim men were arrested for attempting to firebomb the home of the UK publisher. He is now living under the protection of the police, and has announced they are going to hold off publishing the book in England. A win for nutjob terrorists. But the good news? The brave folks at Beaufort Books are moving forward with publication in the United States.

In case you don't know, the backstory is that Random House had this book (a historical novel about the fact that Muhammed once married an eight-year-old girl by the name of Alisha), then decided not to publish it after University of Texas professor Denise Spellberg wrote that the book was "soft-core porn" that would inflame Muslims. Spellberg, who likes to see her name in the paper, created a conflict where there was none. RH backed out, thereby caving to violent extremists and doing damage to the publisher's role as a protector of free speech. You may not be thrilled with Beaufort (they're the ones who published OJ's If I Did It), but today they have more cajones than the big publishers in New York. Here's a cheer for them.

Oh -- and a cheer for the fact that longtime Jossey-Bass publisher Sheryl Fullerton has self-published You Can Write: An Insider's Guide to Publishing Your Non-Fiction Book. Sheryl is one of the best people in the industry, really knows her stuff, and I'm looking forward to recommending this real-world book to writers at conferences and colleges. Do yourself a favor and order a copy.

If you order on Amazon, I should probably tell you that I heard the "Kindle Two" is coming next year. It's not a full-blown re-design of the world's most popular e-book reader -- just a little tweaking. But the Kindle continues to outsell Sony's e-reader. Not sure how long that will continue, what with Best Buy offering the re-designed Sony product, and with publishers going with the Sony. Still, if you like the Kindle (and I do), word is it's going to be improved next year.

The Last Word:  Donna tells me she was reading a bottle of juice recently and found this: This ambrosial smoothie begs thoughts of faraway beaches and lush tropical islands... Just think palm trees and scantily-clad natives. When it comes to juice, we understand your need to get naked..."  Uh, when it comes to JUICE? Good grief. And here I've been drinking grape juice while clothed all these years. Who knew?

Got a question? Let me hear from you.

Ouch.

How bad are things on the financial side of publishing? Publisher's Lunch today offered some startling facts:

-Barnes & Noble stock is down 19% from their high last month.

-JohnWiley is off 25% during that same span.

-Scholastic is down 26% since September 19th.

-Amazon has lost 31% over that same time.

-Hachette's parent company Lagardere is down 31.5%.

-News Corp, which owns HarperCollins, is down 36%.

-CBS, which owns Simon & Schuster, is down 40%.

-Borders is down 44% in the past 30 days.

-Books-a-Million is down 49% over that same time.

-And PW Daily reported that Atlas & Co. has been forced to delay its Spring 2008 list due to economic issues.

Ouch.

Want some happier news? J.K. Rowling earned $300,000,000 in this past fiscal year, according to Forbes magazine.

The Art of Fireproofing

On this blog, I have regularly commented about art and faith -- more specificially, calling for people of faith to do a great job when creating art, since I think it's too easy for believers to be lazy about their craft. Think about it -- if you can claim "I'm doing this for the glory of God," then maybe that trumps any discussion of the value of your work. If your art is "God's work," who has the right to question your ability?

I mention this because I've been hearing from Christians that I need to go see the movie "Fireproof" -- a Christian film that has received fairly wide play in theaters. Several Christian writers encouraged me to go, since the film has a strong message and is directed at a good cause. I'll admit I didn't do any preparation for the movie, but instead just showed up so I could take it in and see what the fuss is all about. It turns out it's another one of those films that was written and produced by Christians who have convinced themselves that they're at the top of their game because they have a strong "message." We used to refer to these as "church basement films," since the Billy Graham Association would produce them, then they'd be shown in church basements everywhere, giving believers a chance to nod in agreement with the message and thereby making us feel like we've accomplished something great.

Since there is a big "faith and film" conference going on right now, I'd like to offer some thoughts on "Fireproof" from an artistic viewpoint...

1. Kirk Cameron can't act. Come on...they cast Kirk as the tough captain of a Firehouse? He's a soft metrosexual type. What next -- he's going to cast himself as an NBA center? The guy is completely unbelievable in the shout/be-angry/get-in-the-men's-faces portions of the film. In addition, he always LOOKS like he's acting. The fight scenes with his wife seem fake.  The "place your hands over your face so it will look like you're emotionally struggling" business simply looks like he couldn't figure out what to do in the deeper portions of the movie. Good grief -- why don't we admit the guy wasn't that good 20 years ago on TV's "Growing Pains," so we don't need to fool ourselves into thinking he's suddenly a talent because he's a good guy who loves his wife and is open about his faith? Kirk Cameron IS a good guy, but his acting in this film isn't good enough to star in a movie. And the fact that Christians like him shouldn't blind them to that. (And, let's face it, his acting in the "Left Behind" movies was downright horrible. Egad.)

2. The rest of the cast is awful. The firemen working under Captain Kirk's command are right out of high school acting class. The mom has all the emotional range of a piece of wood. The dad is the guy who used to pastor your church. The doctor has a nice smile, but only two looks -- coy and furtive. Kirk's wife, played by Erin Bethea, is sweet but flat and simply looks like she's in over her head. The one group of people in this film who can actually act are the nurses, who seem to be just extras filling roles.

3. The script is amateurish. Okay, I realize the goal of this movie is commendable, and that commitment to marriage is a good thing, but reflect on the script for minute... The firemen provide comic relief that has nothing to do with the story. The scenes with the next-door neighbor are cute, but get predictable. In fact, the entire film is predictable, since any of us could have foretold what was going to unfold with the story ("he'll become a Christian and win her back"). The film hints at issues in the relationship (finances? internet porn?) without ever exploring them. The religion is so heavy-handed it's like watching a tract. There's no subtlety to the story -- it's a couple fights, she flirts with an affair, then he finds religion and all is well. Name one other bit of conflict in the movie. The whole thing comes across as a 70's TV show, with simple sets and a straightforward story that gets resolved in 90 minutes. From a story perspective, it has all the texture of a genre romance novel, only without the strong sense of place. At no point did I ever get lost in the story, and forget I was sitting in a movie theater. (In fact, I was 15 minutes into this when I turned to my wife and said, "I can't believe we spent $13 for a film that we'll be able to rent for 99 cents in a couple weeks.")

4. There were some good parts. The music and cinematography were very professional. The car caught on the railroad tracks and the child inside the burning house actually created some tension -- but let's face it, neither of those stories had anything to do with the major plotline of the film, nor did either help move the film along. The ending of the movie was touching. While Kirk can't act, he cries well, and that was affecting. The last 30 minutes were much better than the first 45.

5. The message overcomes the art. Here's something True Believers sometimes miss: When you've got a good message ("marriage is good"), the goodness of that message doesn't validate the art. The fact that a couple are fighting and make decisions to turn around their relationship is a fine basis for a movie, but this one doesn't explore that in any deeper way. And the fact that Christians made it, and didn't stumble over themselves while doing so, does not automatically redeem the movie. (I point that out because the "Left Behind" movies were awful -- the last one was such a dog it shed hair on my DVD player.) I think "a lack of badness" doesn't translate into "genuine goodness." The fact is, I found the spiritual message to be heavy-handed and dull, relying on Christianese so that this really becomes a film Christians can go to and feel good about themselves, rather than a film that might actually persuade someone outside the faith.  

Now let me tell you what's going to happen: I'm about to be swamped with messages from True Believers, exclaiming how the film moved them, and saved their marriage, and their best friends went and it saved their marriage as well. Maybe. But anecdotal stories don't create truth. (I can introduce you to people who said their lives changed when they joined a cult, or danced with the Hare Krishna, or when they became atheists, so one person's testimony doesn't necessarily validate a principle.) As I said, there's some actual emotion generated at the end of the film. But this movie lacks substance and subtlety. It lacks texture and finesse. It lacks decent acting and writing. It doesn't suck you in or transport you to another place. And while it offers a fine overall message, that doesn't make up for the fact that the film is not that great. So please don't write to tell me how Billy-Bob's life was spared when he entered the theater, and that he gave up drinking and got baptized and re-committed his life to Christ before entering the priesthood. If you must respond, just tell me what worked or didn't work about the film.

All In Print Is News That Fits

I am suddenly awash in questions, so let me jump in with a couple of recent requests...

1. Tina wants to know, "What steps would you say are important for an author to try and study the market? (I'm trying to match a project to a particular publisher, and I'm not sure how to go about doing that.)"

If you want to get to know the market, read frequently, and read outside your genre. If you're trying to target a particular publisher, by all means get their catalog or study their website, figure out which books they do well with, and read several of those titles. Study the bestseller lists (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, your local paper, etc) and take a close look at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. com to see what's working in the market. Make sure to pay close attention to who publishes the type of books you like to read, and who does a good job getting books onto the bestseller lists, since all publishers are not created equal. Stay on top of Publishers Weekly and the online Publishers Lunch (and, if you're interested in CBA, take a look at Christian Retailing Magazine) to find out the most recent news in the industry. Keep tabs on the economic climate in publishing and bookselling (right now it can be summed up: "stinko"). Many pubishers produce a style guide -- ask for one and follow it carefully before submitting. And by all means talk to some people who know what they're doing, so that you don't get steered in the wrong direction.

You raise a good point: It's important to study a publisher before sending them a proposal. HarperOne may be a great place for your memoir, but it's a probably all wrong for your YA novel. Harvest House may love your gift book about dogs, but they're all wrong for that commentary on Habakkuk. So go to web sites, check the catalogues, and talk it over with some professionals before you send out that next great novel.

I state very clearly on my business site that I don't represent certain genres (children's books, gift books, porn), but I routinely get wannabes who have done no research sending me projects with a note that says, "I think you'll love my new children's book about Fluffy the Bunny and his adventures in the World of Wookies." Um...no, I wouldn't. I could care less about Fluffy. I'm a MacGregor -- it was my grandpa who stuffed Peter Rabbit's father into a stew. In today's email I have one person telling me that her "full-color art book about the history of cupcakes will be a huge bestseller," and another who is peddling a book entitled "Trixie and Bubbles and Me" -- and you'll have to trust me with the fact that I'm barely old enough to read the first chapter. So do your homework before approaching someone with your brilliant idea.

2. Debbie wrote to say, "I've been asked to consider a work-for-hire book project with a reputable group. Most of my writing has been for shorter works: articles, curriculum, etc. What is fair payment for a book project?"

Every year Writer's Digest produces the Writer's Market compendium, which includes up-to-date information on payment for book writing, script writing, business reports, editing work, and the like. Last year the average fee to create an "as told to" book was about $23,000. The average fee for ghosting the same was a bit more than $36,000. The range of fees paid is huge -- from as little as $5000 to as high as $100,000, depending on the project. The average collaborative writer got $25,000 for completing a book; the average re-writer was paid just under $15,000. Three factors that weigh into your fee will be (a) how much do they have done already, (b) how fast do they want it, and (c) where do you live (I hate to say it, but the Far West and the Deep South just don't seem to pay as well as the rest of the country).

Let me offer you a method for coming up with fair payment. First, figure out what you feel you should be making per year from your writing -- $25,000? $50,000? $75,000? If you divide the first two digits in half, that will tell you the hourly rate you're expecting -- so a writer trying to earn $50,000 per year will basically charge $25 per hour. Another way to view it is to determine how much you need to make per month -- so if your goal is $50,000 per year, you'll want to earn a little more than $4000 per month, or $1000 per week. Next, talk to the people about the project, and see if you can gauge how many weeks or months it will take you to write. (Experienced collaborative writers will be able to do this quickly, since they know how many words per day they can expect to create. Generally speaking, most collaborators are aiming for somewhere in the 2000-to-3000 words per day, plus they've got to add in editing and revision time.) Once you have those two numbers, you can quickly figure out what to charge. If you need to make $4000 per month, and it looks like a book is going to take you  three months, that's $12,000. You probably add in a little bit to cover potential problems, and you ask for $15,000. Or maybe you ask for $20,000 and negotiate downward. But being able to tie your time to a number is important to make this work.

3. Speaking of bestseller lists, I've got a book on the New York Times bestseller list! I represented Lynne Spears (mother of Britney and Jamie-Lyn), and her book Through the Storm is #5 on the NYT, as well as being #5 on the Wall Street Journal bestseller list Woo-hoo!

4. My good friend Steve Laube sent me a note today -- apparently Academy Chicago Publishers revealed that a bookkeeper, sick of looking at all those bad proposals people were sending in, took it upon herself to reject a bunch of manuscripts. Poets and Writers revealed that she admitted to sending out the rejections on her own, without the approval of the publisher. Good girl!