Bias and the fictional character

My book House Divided has been out since November. A romantic comedy about a Democrat married to a Republican, it’s garnered 25 reviews, most of them good. Naturally, though, I tend to concentrate on the bad ones. Two of them said the same thing: This would have been a good book if the author hadn’t been so biased.

“Bias” is a word that’s being thrown around a lot these days, along with “fake news,” “deep state,” “propaganda,” and a bunch of other terms that imply that folks who should be non-partial are letting their own personal views of the world color their reporting. And when you’re looking to understand what really happened in Trumpland today, you don’t want those events filtered by someone who thinks Trump is the second coming, or that Trump is the devil incarnate. While it’s absolutely true that reporters all have their own personal biases, viewpoints, and moral values, the best reporters are aware of these biases and actively try to keep them out of their reporting.

Fiction writers are not reporters, and we have no such requirements. Our job is to create worlds and characters that draw in readers and spark emotion. And characters—especially characters written in first-person point-of-view—have biases. They believe the moon landing was faked, or that children should only be born in marriage, or that pets are an important member of the family. Characters who don’t have views of the world come across as one-dimensional and flat; people who only react to events, never acting.

Characters need bias. They need to have a point of view—not the point of view of first, second, or third, but the point of view of, “The world is a good place.” “Other women want my boyfriend.” “If I don’t have children, I will die alone with thirty cats and no one will find my body for six months.”

In House Divided, my protagonist, Erin, is a Democrat. She believes in taking care of the planet, that a woman’s career means just as much to her as a man’s does to him, and that institutions such as her children’s school should do more to recognize that. While she is not me (in some cases, she is the me I wanted to be), we share many of the same beliefs. She is a first-person protagonist.

My book is filled with Democrats and Republicans; it is a real “Inside the Beltway” novel. But I took care—I tried, anyway—to have some Democrat characters be assholes and some Republicans be really great people. Having everyone be good or bad because of their political beliefs would have been biased on my part. (Although, let’s face it, we all know that…. Oh, never mind…)

Your characters might not live in D.C. They might have nothing to do with politics. But they have opinions about things that have nothing to do with the plot in which they currently find themselves enmeshed. Make sure you know what those views are.

Make sure your characters are biased.

Me Write Pretty Someday?

My latest novel has been on submission for about a month; ten editors have requested it and one (as far as I know) has already passed. I know that publishing is an industry in which things happen at a glacial pace, but I have no idea how other writers concentrate on their next project while waiting to hear back. I’m about forty pages into a first draft of a new thriller, and people are making coffee and making jokes like they don’t have a care in the world. Please be creeped out, characters!

The editor who passed said she was intrigued by the premise, but the writing didn’t make her want to keep turning pages. I don’t know if this is every writer’s worst nightmare, but it’s definitely mine. “Your idea is great, but you can’t write for shit!” Please let me crawl into a hole and die.

I’m aware of the phenomenon called “imposter syndrome.” I’m also aware that nothing I write could ever be described as lyrical, literary, or any of those adjectives used to describe writers who come up with phrases such as “Her eyelashes curled onto her lids like upside-down question marks in a six-point serif font.” I wasn’t poetic even when I wrote poetry.

I like thrillers and comedy; I write thrillers and sometimes people are funny in them. I think in terms of plot and twists and character motivation. My people don’t live under big starry skies; their victims bleed until the carpet squeaks red. My protagonists tell their tales in first person and they don’t get distracted by pelicans diving kamikaze-style into the water. (I sometimes do, though.) When I read thrillers, sometimes I notice fancy turns-of-phrase, but more often I’m trying to figure out fancy turns of plot.

Does this mean I’m doomed? When editors read my thriller, will they roll their eyes when my characters roll theirs?

I don’t have an MFA. I’ve heard mixed things about the programs. On the pro side, there’s nothing like spending a year or two fully immersed in your project, with other writers and faculty members figuratively by your side. By focusing on small, specific chunks of pages, scrutinizing every word, the words get better. They have to. On the con side, though, that laser-like focus on pages sometimes means the forest gets lost for the trees. And I’ve heard that MFA programs sometimes produce novels that are more literary than commercial, with writers who focus on description over character feelings. An agent I used to edit for complained to me, “How can I sell something that leaves readers cold?”

But I’d like to write pretty someday. Perhaps, if this round of editors all agree that my writing is lacking, I’ll start looking into MFA programs. I can’t ever see myself writing a literary novel about love and grief and pain. But it would be nice to think up a few more ways to describe how blood saturates a carpet.

Love from the Other Side of the Aisle

For Valentine's Day, the New York Times ran an article about couples who were on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. I'd heard they were looking for folks to interview, but their application asked for a video, so I decided not to participate.

After reading the article, though, I wish I had! It would have been great publicity if they'd let me mention House Divided. If you haven't bought your copy yet, click on the link above!

Different but Good Blog Hop Post

Thanks again to Deb Nam-Krane for suggesting this blog hop topic! I’m excited to be kicking it off today!

I was generally one of those folks who looked forward to remakes. If it was good in its first incarnation, the second should be even better, right? The remake of Dirty Dancing killed that naiveté once and for all. Even with this belief, however, when Disney remade the Parent Trap in 1998, I had no desire to see it at all. My memories of the original were too precious to be trifled with. (We won’t mention the sequels.)

The Hayley Mills comedy came out in 1961; I saw it for the first time in the early 1970s on TV when it ran as part of the Wonderful World of Disney, which aired on Sunday

nights. I loved the movie so much that I spent years looking for its novelization, and it’s the only book I saved from my childhood. I’m not sure I can pinpoint what was so great about that movie, but I think it has to do with discovering that there’s a whole other you out there, and then switching places with her. It’s a plot that worked well in soap operas, too.

When the Lindsay Lohan version came out, I ignored it. I had a four-year-old myself by then, and instead of taking him to see it, we watched the original. It wasn’t until years later, when a friend whose pop culture judgment I respect enormously said she thought the Lohan version was actually better than the original, that I finally broke down and rented the movie.

She was wrong. It wasn’t better. It was different but good. Parts of the original movie were better. And so were parts of the remake. Of course, neither movie satisfactorily answers the question: What kind of monster takes one of their children, leaves the other, and never mentions neither sibling nor other parent ever again?

Where the original is better:

 Hysterical food fight during the dance after Sharon and her friends cut off a part of Susan’s skirt. The remake subtracts two years from the twins’ ages, making dances and boys a little out of reach, so this scene is cut completely.

 Hayley Mills. She’s a better actress than Lohan (older and more experienced), and her Sharon and Susan characters are more distinct than Lohan’s Hallie and Annie.

 Brian Keith. His California ranch owner was hunkier than Dennis Quaid’s vineyard owner.

 Mitch’s ranch house. This personal setting – the house Maggie actually walked out of – was a more emotional setting for a reunion than a hotel.

 Mitch and Maggie’s back story. Not sure what it was, but I bet they were together longer than Nick and Elizabeth’s meeting and marriage on a cruise ship. Also I’m sure Maggie’s tiresome mother had something to do with that break-up.

 No annoying “downstairs” romance. Really, did anyone care about Chessie and Martin, who came across as closeted? (especially in leather…. And that Speedo… UGH.)

Where the remake is better:

 Lohan’s hair. Hayley Mills was adorable and what they did to that poor girl’s hair is a crime.

 Elizabeth’s character. Granted, the original Parent Trap came out in 1961, when it was unusual for women to have careers, but Maggie and Sharon lived with her parents; she dressed up like June Cleaver to attend Red Cross meetings and let her mother boss her around. Elizabeth was a famous wedding-dress designer and an inspiring figure to both daughters.

 The chemistry between Nick and Elizabeth. Sure they got married too quickly and divorced even faster, but there was obviously a lot of love and hurt between these two characters. Mitch and Maggie screamed at each other constantly; she even gave him a black eye. It was hard to imagine them calming down and having a respectful relationship.

 Meredith James. A much more attractive, formidable rival than Vicky Robinson, who was neither as young nor as charming as the character was supposed to be.

 The ending. Nick and Hallie beat Elizabeth and Annie back to England… following her back because he didn’t do it the first time she left. Much more romantic and satisfying than Mitch telling Maggie he missed her hair pins in his fishing tackle box.

Where Both Movies Got It Wrong:

 No explanation of how the twins ended up at the same camp. One giant coincidence is allowed per book/movie, but this one is too big for me.

 No good explanation of the premise of the movie… but would any explanation be good enough? The original ignores it completely (although interestingly enough, there is dialogue in the novelization that never made it into the movie where Susan makes a pretty good guess), while the remake implies that Elizabeth took Annie back to England on an impulse. Still, keeping a parent and twin from a child is monstrous. Perhaps that aspect is ignored because addressing it reveals the parents to be narcissists.

 Mitch and Nick being so old and boring that a young woman could only be interested in them for their money. Sorry, no. Brian Keith was a hunk and Dennis Quaid was nothing to sneeze at either.

 Both Sharon and Annie are as equally at ease on that camping trip as Susan and Hallie are. Maybe life in a Maine camp loosened them up a bit, but honestly they should be almost as squeamish as Vicky and Meredith were.

But the lists above are merely quibbles. Whether you prefer the Parent Trap original flavor or Parent Trap extra spicy (ie Lohan and her red hair), you’ve picked a great movie. The remake is different, but still good. Who wouldn’t want to discover a secret twin… especially one you could switch lives with?

I’m anxious to see what Morgan writes about tomorrow! Check him out here!

Writing to a Prompt: Ten Meaningful Minutes

For the past several years, I’ve run a writers support group that ends (almost) every meeting with a “write to the prompt” exercise. Some days we take too much time with the discussion, some days everyone has to leave early, but usually we try to get in it. There are those who refuse to participate, claiming they get nothing out of the exercise or that they’ve already done enough writing this week, thank you very much. That’s not the point, of course. Writing to a prompt forces you to write about a subject that you did not choose. Many writing instructors use prompt writing as a regular feature of their instruction, and there are dozens if not hundreds of books containing prompts if thinking one up is too taxing.

In last week’s meeting, my friend Diane came up with this prompt: super blue blood moon

I haven’t written poetry regularly since high school, but the phrase scratched something inside me, and this is what came out.

Writing to prompts is definitely worth it.

A shadow long across the lake
A heart that’s broken by its fate
A tidal pull of savage songs
A nightly whisper in the fog
Of all that’s known to mice and men
Is taught and learned and known again
As we reach into the past
To see what’s in the shadow cast
A moon so full, so blue, so much
The universe’s secrets clutch
Within her hand and to her mouth
To stop the truth from pouring out.

How to Be the Perfect Workshop Participant

Many writers, at some point in their careers, get their writing “workshopped” – either in classes they take as part of a formal MFA program, or in writers’ conferences lasting a week or two. It’s a valuable step in learning how readers approach your work cold, and in finding out how it could be improved. Generally with about 10-15 participants, the session is led by an instructor, usually a published author, who keeps the discussion flowing and offers insights of her own.

And it can be tough. Other than a few episodes of Lena Dunham’s Girls, in which Hannah was (briefly) enrolled in the famous Iowa Writers Workshop, there’s no known model of behavior. It’s not a classroom, which is led by a teacher who asks students to demonstrate mastery of knowledge. Sometimes participants just don’t know how to act.

The best workshop sessions concentrate on the material at hand and the writer’s goals for it. It’s not a place to discuss personal life experiences or preferences. Yet oftentimes discussions get derailed by folks who don’t know any better.

Here are some do’s and don’ts to keep the conversation flowing in a productive way:

If you’re a participant:

 Do be widely read. The subtext of the workshop is comparing and contrasting the work-in-progress to traditionally published, known works. If you’re not up to speed with classics as well as the latest best-sellers, you won’t be able to cite specific books to back up your observations.

 Don’t use real-life examples to complain about fictional character’s behavior. Having a friend who had cancer or being a parent does not mean your background is a more valid experience than the character’s. If a character acts in a certain way or has a specific incident that does not seem believable, the issue is in the set-up. Concentrate on what is or isn’t in the text, not what happened to you in your life. (Note: This does not necessary apply if the writer is writing about gender or racial issues that do not personally impact him.)

 Do be considerate of other participants. If someone is having a tough time getting a word in, say their name and invite them to speak. If someone makes a worthwhile comment, agree with them and repeat it. If you disagree with them, acknowledge their point and be respectful while you articulate your point of view. Sometimes a few loud voices can dominate a discussion… don’t let that happen.

 Don’t raise your hand. No one’s waiting to be called on. Don’t talk over the instructor or have side conversations while someone’s trying to make a point. The room is smaller than you think, and you’re louder.

 Do be aware of gender and racial dynamics. It’s not appropriate to refer to a female character as mentally ill or promiscuous because she has lovers. Trust the experiences of minority writers. Judging characters is not helpful.

If you’re the writer:

 Do keep “the gag” on. Most instructors ask that the writer being discussed not speak until called on. Listen actively as participants debate details in your work. If they have questions, it’s not up to you to answer them. It’s up to you to realize that your writing wasn’t clear.

 Don’t defend your writing. After the gag is lifted, it’s tempting to explain exactly what the participants missed or how great your characters really are. Don’t do it.

 Don’t be petty and vow to “get” participants who were particularly hard on your work. It’s not a zero-sum game, and their work isn’t bad because they didn’t like yours.

 Do take some time before going over the other participants’ comments. If there’s time for you to take a few days, then read their written suggestions, it will help you create the necessary distance to evaluate your work.

 Do take note of which observations are made by more than one participant. If there’s agreement on a point, pay careful attention to it.


And don’t forget to thank and be grateful to everyone involved. Reading the work of 10-15 other writers, taking notes, taking the time to participate in workshop… this is a huge undertaking. Most of the workshop will consist of talking about other people’s writing, not their own. It’s a lot of work!

But it’s well worth it. The most committed writers participate in workshops, and many times the practice of evaluating others’ work leads to breakthroughs in one’s own. If you haven’t done one yet, find a conference and make workshopping a goal for 2018.

Self-Publishing the Second Time Around

While I self-published my first book, KEEPING SCORE, in 2013, I chose a small indie publisher for my second book, THE TIES THAT BLEED. Although the publisher has a good reputation, I felt hamstrung by the inability to set my own price or even put the book on sale, making newsletters such as BookBub that drive sales out of reach. The quality of the paperback left much to be desired as well.

When my agent was unable to sell my third book, HOUSE DIVIDED (originally called THE SEESAW EFFECT), to traditional publishers, I decided to self-publish again because of my dissatisfaction with having publisher control over my second book. I thought I knew what I was doing based on lessons learned with KEEPING SCORE. I was wrong.

In the past four years, the market for self-published books has changed exponentially. In 2013, Publishers Weekly estimated that about 450,000 books were self-published. Although data is not in for 2016 yet, the number of ISBN registrations increased by 21% between 2014-2015. That’s a lot more competition. While readers are growing along with books, a saturated market means it’s that much harder for a single self-published book to stand out.

Here’s what I wish I would have done before self-publishing HOUSE DIVIDED:

 Rewritten the book to take advantage of self-publishing trends. Authors who write series have better sales than authors who write stand-alone. With a few minor changes, adding a character or two from KEEPING SCORE, I could have made HOUSE DIVIDED the second in a series about work and parenting in suburban Maryland. This would have allowed me to call it a series on Amazon, make KEEPING SCORE perma-free to drive sales, and take advantage of other opportunities for series.

 Taken more time. Once I made the decision to self-publish, I thought the one-year anniversary date of Trump’s election would be a great date to publish. I made this decision in July, thinking I had plenty of time before November. I didn’t. Finding a launch company and overseeing the cover design and layout took more time than I thought. Because of this, I was only able to set up the pre-order barely a month before my November 8th publication date. As many reviewers want to receive the book three months or even more before the publication date, I was unable to utilize those reviewers to get coverage for my book.

 Joined more Facebook groups. There are many groups on Facebook dedicated to marketing and reviewing members’ self-published books. Because it takes a while to get established, becoming active on these groups before the book is published is recommended. I didn’t, and as a result only have 8 reviews for HOUSE DIVIDED. KEEPING SCORE has 58.

 Researched more blogs, and earlier. I waited until my book was in MOBI form to research blogs and send out the emails, doing the research and emailing together. Had I done the research earlier—much earlier—I would have been ready to drop those emails as soon as I had a MOBI file to transmit, and would also have had a better idea of what was out there and who might be willing to review my book. As writers, this is something we should be doing anyway—stay up-to-date about who’s writing about your genre and what other, similar, books are out there.

 Published the paperback through CreateSpace. Amazon makes it very easy to publish your paperback after you’ve uploaded your file to Kindle. What they do not make it easy to do is buy author copies at a reduced rate. While CreateSpace, which oddly enough is owned by Amazon, allows authors to buy their own books at cost at any time, Amazon does not have this option. I found a way around this by setting the paperback price as low as possible, buying my books, and then raising the price back up to a regular paperback option, but it was still twice as expensive as it would have been on CreateSpace.

 Considered keeping the book in a drawer and moving onto the next one. My agent did an excellent job getting me read at imprints at all five big publishing firms. Every editor who rejected it said the same thing: Great book; no one will want to read it. And they were right. Trying to sell HOUSE DIVIDED has been an expensive, heartbreaking endeavor. No one wants to read about politics in the middle of the country’s worst political nightmare since the Civil War… even a humorous book about politics. Having to beg my friends on Facebook for reads and reviews has been humiliating and fruitless. Maybe in a few years, when Trump and his friends are in prison and the country has gone back to normal, the book will be an easier sell, but right now, no one seems to want to read it, and I’m frustrated beyond belief.

Yesterday I turned my latest novel into my agent. It’s a psychological thriller, and I hope more palatable to the Big Five than humorous political women’s fiction. If not, I doubt I’ll be self-publishing again, at least not a stand-alone book. Self-publishing seems to be a wonderful option for writers who can churn out series books, but for those of us who prefer not to, the marketing hurdles are just too high.