Today, I am delighted to bring you the winning entry in the recent Author! Author! Rings True literary competition, Bruce Alford of Mobile, Alabama. In addition to carrying off top honors in Category I: literary fiction, Bruce’s breathtakingly delicate first page and well-constructed 1-page synopsis for ROOSTER also garnered the coveted Author! Author! Award for Expressive Excellence. Well done, Bruce!
As has been the case for all of the winners in this contest, I sat down to discuss this exciting opening and premise with the ever-fabulous Heidi Durrow, author of the intriguing recent literary fiction debut, The Girl Who Fell from the Sky. (The contest was timed to celebrate the paperback release of her novel.) She writes literary fiction, and I edit it, so our appetites were very much whetted.
Especially for this entry. When the judges first clapped eyes upon it, the opening seemed almost eerily apt for this contest: the primary protagonist of Heidi’s marvelous literary fiction debut, The Girl Who Fell from the Sky, is half Danish, half African-American. It just goes to show you, campers — no matter how carefully a writer prepares a submission or contest entry, there’s no way that he can control what happens to be on Millicent the agency screener or Mehitabel the contest judge’s mind at the moment she happens to start reading it.
What’s that I hear you muttering, campers? You feel that’s a trifle unjust, that the imperatives of literature require that all manuscript assessments be made from a completely clear mind, as if Millicent and Mehitabel had not read 27 first pages earlier in that sitting? Or perhaps as if they had not previously screened any literary fiction at all, and had not become jaded toward common mistakes?
Fine — you try it. Here are Bruce’s materials as they might appear in a submission packet: page 1, synopsis, author bio. (As always, if you are having trouble seeing the details, try holding down the COMMAND key and hitting + to enlarge the image.) To make this an even fairer test, I shall not comment on the technical aspects at all until after Heidi and I discuss the content.
I’m going to stop you right here: quick, what’s your assessment of this book?
Approaching a new writer’s work with completely fresh eyes is more difficult than it might seem at first blush, isn’t it? Everything you have ever read, from your all-time favorite novel to your high school English literature textbook, contributes to your sense of what is and is not good writing.
So let me simplify the central issue for you: based on that first page alone, would you turn to page 2?
I would certainly read further. On the strength of that, let’s take a peek at the other materials in this packet.
Bruce Alford, a personal trainer, aerobics instructor and a former journalist, has published creative nonfiction and poetry in various literary journals. Alford’s “How to Write a Real Poem” was selected for Special Merit in the 2010 Muriel Craft Bailey Poetry Competition. His book of poems, Terminal Switching (Elk River Review Press), was published in 2007.
For a decade, he worked on drafts of Rooster. The book draws on tragedy in his family. His wife’s brother was missing for a week. Then migrant workers stumbled on his brother-in-law’s body near a tomato field in Louisiana. Over the years, as Alford wrote and re-wrote, he noticed that his relative’s short life and death said much about what being an American meant.
As an assistant professor of creative writing at the University of South Alabama, he teaches a full schedule of classes, including British and American Literature, Poetry Writing and Creative Non-Fiction. He is a reviewer for First Draft, a publication of the Alabama Writers’ Forum.
Does ROOSTER’s plot sound vaguely familiar? It should: it’s Hamlet, cleverly updated and set in an unexpected setting. Many highly successful novels have taken time-honored stories we all know and transformed them. Alice Walker’s THE COLOR PURPLE, for instance, is a retelling of the Ugly Duckling; there have been so many versions of Cinderella that I cannot even begin to enumerate them.
While some writers might have chosen to conceal the eternal nature of the tale, Bruce has done something very interesting here: from the first line of the book, he evokes a fairy tale resonance. There was a girl in Denmark might be the opening of half of the stories in a Hans Christian Andersen storybook. That’s a definite marketing risk — chant it with me now, campers: most professional readers have been trained to regard the passive voice as stylistically weak writing, regardless of how and why it is used — but here, it may well pay off.
Did it? Heidi and I discussed that very question.
Why? Well, as the pros like to say, it all depends on the writing — but what gets read is also a function of time management. With both manuscript pages and a synopsis in hand, it just doesn’t make sense to read the latter first. No matter how much Millicent is taken by the story set out in the synopsis, if the writing on page 1 doesn’t grab her or strike her as book category-appropriate, she’s not going to keep reading, right? If she decides to reject the text, then, any time she has already invested in perusing the synopsis or any other marketing materials is lost.
If she concentrates on the manuscript itself first, however, she can always turn to the synopsis for a sneak peek at the rest of the story. Or to know what comes after the first 50 pages that the agency has not yet requested. (Quick history lesson: requesting the first 50 or 100 pages used to be the norm for agencies. In the age of electronic media, however, when less paper is involved, requesting full manuscripts is far more common.)
Those of you who have partials out with agents have had your hands in the air for several paragraphs now, haven’t you? “But Anne,” you point out, and with good reason, “you don’t seriously mean that an agency or publishing house would request a synopsis and not read it, do you?”
That’s precisely what I mean, unfortunately. Just because an agent asks to see certain materials doesn’t imply a commitment to read every requested syllable. Agency guidelines, small publishers’ submission guidelines, and contest rules habitually ask for more than their screeners actually read.
Why? Time, my friends, time. Think about it: since most manuscripts are rejected on page 1 (I’m just full of good news today, amn’t I?), why would Millicent invest another couple of minutes in perusing a synopsis for a book she has already decided to reject? And if the text of a contest entry does not adhere to the rules (as most don’t; contest entrants tend not to read guidelines very carefully), why would Mehitabel continue to read an entry that she already knows does not stand a chance of making the finalist round?
See why I’m always harping on the importance of polishing your first page? If a professional isn’t impressed with it, chances are that s/he won’t see any other part of your submission packet.
Still, some of you are not convinced. “But Anne, isn’t it safe to assume that Millicent will have read my query letter, at least, before screening my manuscript? You can’t possibly be telling me that I should polish my page 1 as if it is the first — or perhaps only — piece of my writing she will ever see.”
It’s more than possible, campers — unless an agency is very small indeed, it’s unlikely that it will employ only one Millicent. It is therefore very probable that the person who read and approved your query (or query packet with pages) will not be the same human being who ends up screening subsequently requested materials. Even if your work does end up with the same screener twice, she will not necessarily have your query at her elbow when she turns her attention to your manuscript.
And please, whatever you do, don’t fall into the exceedingly pervasive trap of assuming that your premise was so inherently memorable that any Millicent would be a fool not to remember it in detail 6 weeks after she read it, when the pages she requested from you finally land on her desk. Given the thousands of queries she reads in any given month, the best you can hope for is a, “Oh, this sounds familiar.”
Really, though, should it matter? In a well-written manuscript, shouldn’t its appeal be obvious from page 1? Or should a reader have to read the back jacket — or, sacre bleu! a book review — to know why it’s worth reading past page 1?
Those question were not rhetorical, by the way: every Millicent and Mehitabel has to confront these issues in every single submission or contest entry. If the answer is not apparent on your page 1, you might want to think about engaging in a spot of revision.
Are you firmly in the page-1-or-bust mindset now? Excellent: you’re tapping into part of Millicent’s habitual mindset. To help you gain access to the other, more technical side, let’s take another gander at Bruce’s first page. Do you notice any formatting or punctuation problems that might distract her from his good writing?
Did you spot many, or were you concentrating too hard on the story? That’s what 99% of submitters assume will happen: professional readers will become so swept up in the beauty of their sentences and the lure of their stories that little matters like presentation just won’t matter. Besides, isn’t it going to be the future editor’s job to correct any punctuation gaffes?
They believe, in short, that talent is the universal solvent of submission standards. Despite the wealth of tangible evidence to the contrary.
This is, I’m afraid, a fantasy unique to aspiring writers. Not even professional writers share it: we all know from hard experience that appearances count. At the submission stage, there’s even more at stake. As we have been discussing throughout this prize series, to Millicent, an incorrectly-formatted page 1 just looks unprofessional, no matter how well-written it may be.
Not sure how much of a difference it would make? Here’s that same page with the technical problems corrected, so you may see what Millicent was expecting.
None of them particularly earth-shattering changes, you see, yet enough to prompt most Millicents and Mehitabels to take this page a shade less seriously as literature. Why worry about that, since as the more eagle-eyed among you have no doubt already observed, none of the top three entries in this category were correctly formatted? Because it’s just a fact that literary fiction is judged by a higher standard than other categories of fiction.
Why? Well, the writing is supposed to be its primary selling point, isn’t it? So why wouldn’t Millicent and Mehitabel concentrate more on its details?
All of the minor gaffes here are quite common in submissions and contest entries. Let’s start at the top and work our way down.
First, the slug line was in a different typeface than the rest of the page — Calibri, instead of Times New Roman. There is literally no benefit to doing it this way, and it’s distracting to the eye. Yet within the last couple of years, I see this particular mistake in roughly a third of the manuscripts I see written by previously unpublished writers, so there must be some reason for it.
Editors all over the world scratch their heads over this one. Is there some online writing guru who abruptly began insisting a couple of years back that the typeface should never match? Is there a macro lurking in the shadows that prompts writers to format their headers incorrectly? Or — and this strikes me as the most likely culprit — do people just start writing their books in a font other than Times New Roman or Courier, hear that these are the standards of the industry, and forget to alter the header when they change their texts?
Just in case it’s the latter: in Word, a universal style change to a manuscript will not necessarily affect the header. Double-check, and if necessary, alter it separately.
Moving down the page, the chapter heading was left-justified, with dashes at either end. The second set of dashes actually touched the word before them, always improper in standard format. While an editor might well elect to set the time and place designation at the left margin, that kind of decision about what the book will look like in its published form is the publisher’s, not the author’s. Since the time and place are evidently acting as the chapter title here, I placed them where a chapter title should be: centered on the first line of the page, with no dashes.
That’s not the only way this could be formatted, though. If Bruce felt strongly about emphasizing the time and place, he could set up the page like so:
But do you see the visual problem that might cause Millicent’s eye to twitch? I’ll highlight it, to render it easier to catch.
Denmark, Mississippi, 1976
There was a girl in Denmark — so like the red witch in the old tales his people told that Victor Hugo’s father and the other adults from Guatemala called her Ajitz Co’xol, the Red Witch of the Hill. They said that deep in the past, when people could turn themselves into animals, they had tried to kill her with teeth and claws, but could not.
That’s a lot of word and phrase repetition for just a few lines of text, is it not? Focusing Millicent’s eye like a laser on the repetition of Denmark not only makes the redundant use of red witch jump off the page, but it also would underscore some of the territorial questions this opening paragraph leaves unanswered. If the girl is in Mississippi commenting upon her, why are people from Guatemala commenting upon her at all? Are they, too, in Denmark? Is she one of them? Is the Victor Hugo mentioned here the same one who wrote Les Misèrables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and if so, what is the father of a Frenchman who died in 1885 doing in either Guatemala or Mississippi in 1976? Does the they who spoke about the deep past refer to Victor Hugo’s geographically misplaced father et alia, or people in general? Lastly, does the second they refer to these folks, to the separate set of shape-shifters, or to a third set of people?
Intriguing questions, admittedly. But since neither the rest of the page nor the synopsis address them, perhaps a few too many render drawing Millicent’s eye to that opening paragraph so directly with word and phrase repetition.
So Bruce made a good call in using the time and place as a chapter heading. The mid-sentence capitalization of So, however, was probably not a deliberate authorial choice; it looks like the remnant of an incomplete revision. And what do we call that kind of archeological evidence of multiple revisions here at Author! Author!, campers?
That’s right: a Frankenstein manuscript. While slips like this are perfectly understandable when writers edit on a computer screen — it’s so easy to cut and move text — to a professional reader, they signal that the revision process is not yet complete. While that conclusion might not equal instant rejection, it will generally cause Millicent to keep an even sharper eye out for subsequent Frankenstein symptoms.
Any suggestions for the best way to avoid her drawing this conclusion in the first place? Feel free to pull out your hymnals and sing along: by reading every syllable of every page of a submission or contest entry IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN HARD COPY, and preferably OUT LOUD. It’s simply too easy to overlook this type of gaffe on a computer screen.
Because this is literary fiction, and thus may reasonably be expected to face more stringent scrutiny than other types of fiction, I also consolidated the last two paragraphs into a single one. Care to hazard a guess why?
If your hand instantly shot into the air and you shouted, “Because in narrative prose, it takes at least two sentences to form a paragraph,” I hereby call upon Victor Hugo père et fils to kiss you on both cheeks. Technically, only dialogue paragraphs may be a single sentence long; all others require two sentences, at minimum. While journalistic trends have led most readers to be accepting of the occasional use of a single-sentence paragraph when the subject matter contained within it is genuinely startling, utilizing this device in two back-to-back paragraphs is likely to raise Millicent’s eyebrows, if not her ire.
“But Anne,” those of you whose cheeks are still glowing from the Hugos’ salutes point out, “you left the first single-sentence paragraph. May I inquire why?”
Of course you may, rosy cheeks: that sentence was surprising enough to justify being set apart as its own line. The very fact that it breaks the narrative rules calls attention to something the reader should find shocking. Take a gander at how much less jarring this information is if it is tucked within a longer paragraph.
Victor shrunk from the girl but was also drawn to her, as a magnet sometimes fascinates another, pulling and repelling. He feared being so close but was eager to see her face because, as young as he was, he had known tragedy, and the whole story of this girl was a tragedy. They said she’d murdered her brother.
He looked into her eyes, staring from shadows cast from the shed, and sensed {that} some giant, slow-footed god sat behind them, a thing that had passed through many calendars. He believed in evil spirits, and here was one, the shadow of a person. He could tell from her eyes. The circles inside the whites were pure black.
Compare that to Bruce’s more daring structural choice:
Victor shrunk from the girl but was also drawn to her, as a magnet sometimes fascinates another, pulling and repelling. He feared being so close but was eager to see her face because, as young as he was, he had known tragedy, and the whole story of this girl was a tragedy.
They said she’d murdered her brother.
He looked into her eyes, staring from shadows cast from the shed, and sensed {that} some giant, slow-footed god sat behind them, a thing that had passed through many calendars. He believed in evil spirits, and here was one, the shadow of a person. He could tell from her eyes. The circles inside the whites were pure black.
Hard for even the most swiftly-skimming eye to miss the most important piece of information here, isn’t it? In essence, a single-line paragraph is the stylistic equivalent of a shout: it works beautifully for emphasis, but if it’s used too much, it simply becomes annoying for bystanders.
It also, like any other overused writing device, becomes less and less effective the more it is used. Especially, as in this case, if it’s used in two consecutive sentences.
Victor shrunk from the girl but was also drawn to her, as a magnet sometimes fascinates another, pulling and repelling. He feared being so close but was eager to see her face because, as young as he was, he had known tragedy, and the whole story of this girl was a tragedy.
They said she’d murdered her brother.
He looked into her eyes, staring from shadows cast from the shed, and sensed {that} some giant, slow-footed god sat behind them, a thing that had passed through many calendars.
Notice anything else about all of these changes? How about the fact that all of them are so minor that the text itself reads more or less identically before and after they are implemented?
That’s a pretty good test of whether there is sufficient narrative reason to bend, or even break, a rule, be it of standard formatting or of style. Writers often become defensive about requested revisions, as though any change whatsoever would compromise their artistic visions. As we may see here, however, sometimes polishing the presentation doesn’t alter the intended meaning at all.
Let’s apply that same level of scrutiny and open-minded attitude to Bruce’s synopsis. I love it as an example: there’s absolutely no doubt about the story’s being compelling; all of the issues here are matters of presentation and clarity.
How did you do? This is a classic minimal 1-page synopsis: it starts out leaning heavily upon interesting details, but by the end, it’s a just-the-facts-ma’am account told in simple declarative sentences. Even in a story as inherently exciting as this one, that’s a problem, because — out come those hymnals again — every word in a submission packet or contest entry is a writing sample.
There’s also a very basic omission here, one that is exceedingly common in submission packets. Did you catch it?
If you are jumping up and down right now, screaming, “This synopsis doesn’t include a slug line — in fact, it does not identify the author at all,” run right back to those smooch-happy Hugos for a few more salutes. Aspiring writers are notorious for overestimating the probability of their entire query or submission packets remaining together once those pages land inside an agency or publishing house. Unless that packet was submitted via e-mail (rendering accidental deletion possible), it’s quite possible that one or more pages might go wandering.
Why might that present a problem to a Millicent juggling 15 packets on her desk? Picture this if you will: Millicent’s coworker, Margie, is happily traipsing down the hallway, returning from a Starbucks run. She bends to pick up the lone piece of paper decorating the carpet.
She pokes her head into Millicent’s cubicle, enticing her with the warm, comforting aroma of coffee. “Did you lose this, Mil?”
“I have no idea.” Millicent examines it. “It doesn’t have a slug line, so it could be from any of these submissions. It would take me fifteen minutes to figure out which.”
“Oh, well.” Margie makes a paper airplane out of the paper and aims it toward the recycling bin. “Have a nice afternoon.”
The moral: label your pages. All of them.
There are other formatting and clarity issues in this synopsis — the title does not appear on the first line of the page, for instance, and all of those commas occasionally render some sentences confusing. Rather than go through them one by one, however, I’m going to correct all but the gaffe most likely to make our Millie choke on her latte. (Oh, hadn’t I mentioned that Marge was nice enough to pick one up for her?) See if you can spot the remaining — and rather puzzling — formatting choice.
Did it jump out at you that time? No? Okay, try comparing this page to the formatting Millicent and Mehitabel would be expecting to see.
See it now? The character names are apparently in a different typeface than the rest of the synopsis, in a form that Word calls small caps. You can see why they might appeal to some writers, can’t you? They make those names pop right off the page at the reader.
The only problem: to a professional reader, this format will simply look wrong. So after having gone to all of that trouble to make the names look cool, all this presentation choice really achieves is to irritate the very people it was supposed to impress.
That’s true of almost all of the bells and whistles aspiring writers work into their submissions, by the way: they not only represent wasted effort — a very real concern for a writer trying to wedge time-consuming querying and submission into an already packed schedule — but they also tend to make a manuscript look less professional to people who read them for a living.
That’s never in an aspiring writer’s interest, because (do I hear those hymnals flying open again?) a writer unfamiliar with the rules of standard format is going to require more effort to represent. At minimum, her future agent is going to need to invest time in explaining those rules to her.
So how can an aspiring writer avoid being labeled as a potential time-drainer? Simple: learn the rules of standard format, apply them consistently, and resist the temptation to gussy up your pages with unnecessary and distracting extra flourishes.
Remember, the little things do count. You don’t want anything to distract Millicent or Mehitabel from your good writing, do you?
Still not convinced that presentation counts? All right, I ask you: the writing on Bruce’s page 1 is very evocative, right? Despite that fact, what percentage of this post has been devoted to the excellence of his prose?
That, my friends, is how closely professional readers scan pages — and, incidentally, why the pros very seldom waste much time on praising manuscripts they like. This often comes as a gigantic surprise to writers new to the industry, but if an agent or editor decides to take on a project, it’s simply assumed that it is well-written. Why harp on it? Instead, the pros tend to do precisely what Heidi and I have done here: express their respect for a talented new writer by advising him, often quite directly and minutely, how his manuscript could be improved.
After all, Bruce’s first page of writing speaks for itself, does it not?
So while I could go on and on about what’s pleasing, intriguing, and thought-provoking in this first page and synopsis, I’m going to pay Bruce the professional compliment of assuming that we all know that he can write. And pay all of you the compliment of treating you as if you know good writing when you see it.
Well-deserved kudos to our winner, and once again, deep gratitude to Heidi Durrow for taking the time to share her powerful insights. Remember to keep polishing those details, everybody, and keep up the good work!