Marta Zaraska writer's blog

The fear journalism

2009-04-28T00:18:00.000-07:00

The suddenly famous "swine flu" is everywhere. It's so ubiquitous that I'm afraid to open a newspaper not to get infected with some more scary news. The number of probable deaths in Mexico has risen to 152! - screams the media - it's too late to stop the pandemic! Ok - maybe (and it's a very tiny maybe), there will be some kind of an epidemic. But in my opinion spreading panic like that it's just dishonest journalism. How many confirmed deaths were there in Mexico? Ahhh... twenty only? And weren't those people by any chance very old, very young or undergoing chemotherapy and as a result having weak immune systems? Maybe some of them had AIDS? I don't know, but worth checking. And how many people are there again in Mexico? 110 milion? So only one Mexican in 5,500,000 has died of the bloodthirsty flu?

Sometimes it's just the case of the title. The article the journalist has written might be well researched and honest, but the title he chose seemed to "conservative" for the editors. So they changed it for something more blunt, to make the text stand out on the press rack: "World close to a pandemic!", "Killer flue virus strikes!" You've seen those.

Imagine you are a journalist writing an article about said "killer flu virus". You interview an expert and he says it is to early to worry, there were many scares like that before (SARS, bird flu, mad cow disease - remember those?) and somehow we're still alive. So what can you do? You look for some other expert who will be more opinionated, more sure of the pandemic scare. You see a data that doesn't nicely match the title you came up with: "The next pandemic is here"? You close your eyes and pretend not to have seen this "conservative" data. You look for other stats. You don't ask yourself if maybe Mexican health care system is not the best on the planet (Accoring to the WHO 2000 ranking the French system was, and the Mexican ranked 61st) - and thus more people die of the flu there that would die in said France. Sometimes the omissions or changes to the meaning of the article might be tiny - the journalist just chooses to note a more fascinating data that stands next to a more dull but solid one; or a more controversial quote to include in his feature. Journalists are human too, and want their articles to be interesting to read. If you want to sell your work it can't be dull - and it's all about selling. The journalist sells to his editors. The editors sell to the publication's owners. And the newspaper has to sell too - to you, the reader.
Not very professional? Maybe. But that's how it often works.

Freelancing tip

2009-04-27T11:57:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to share with you one innovation that made my life of a freelance journalist easier: the Skype recorder. And yes - the mighty Skype itself. Otherwise I would probably bankrupt myself on all those calls to the spokesman of DR Congo rebels or Sudanese government (especially if they like to talk. A lot). And the recorder - a simple application you download from the net automatically saves all the calls to a folder in a computer - gone are the days of hurried scribbling notes with a pen balancing the handset with your chin :)

"Dear author" or the Dreaded Rejection Letters

2009-04-23T04:46:00.000-07:00

An author without a rejection letter is as hard to find as a book without words (more or less). My guess is that the only writers without rejection letters are those who never show their work to anyone.
I got my first rejection letter when I was ten. I wrote a short story and decided to send it to a publisher for inclusion in an anthology (I know, I know. I was always VERY ambitious:) ). The letter was nice. It said something like: keep writing and please contact us when you grow up. I might have cried, but only a little bit. Not like with those other rejection letters that I got later in my life. I divide the "Dear Author" correspondence into two categories: the ones that make you feel like shit, and those that don't. The worst ones (at least for me) are the ones that include many adjectives and in a very direct tone tell you how bad a writer you are and why you will never, ever succeed. I used to take them very personally. I cried. I swore to change my career. Once I've nearly burnt my manuscript (my husband stopped me). One of my "favorite" rejection letters read: "Thank you for sending us your novel. Unfortunately our reviewer didn't like the manuscript, and I, after reading substantial parts of the book, have to agree with him. Your story is very schematic - and what's worse - written according to an idea that "life equals prose". You lack creativity and deep reflection. Your sincerely...". I got three offers on this novel. It was published and shortlisted for best Polish book prize in 2007. But there was still this grain of insecurity in me - what if the so-and-so Publisher from Hell was right? What if he saw my novel for what it truly was (i.e. total crap)? At the end what helped me deal with my rejection letter anxiety was reading about other writers and their your-writing-sucks letters. I even bought myself a book - "Rotten Rejections. The Letters That Publishers Wish They'd Never Sent". I read it in my moments of need. Here are some quotes:

- John Le Carre - "he hasn't got any future"
- John Irving "The World According to Garp" - "it contributes nothing new to either language or form"
- "The diary of Anne Frank" - "The girl doesn't, it seems to me, have a special perception or feeling which would lift that book above the "curiosity" level"
- Pierre Boulle "The bridge over the river Kwai" - "A very bad book"
- Rudyard Kipling "I'm sorry Mr. Kipling, but you just don't know how to use English language"
- Vladimir Nabokov "Lolita" - "I recommend that it be buried under a stone for a thousand years"

I don't mind receiving form rejection letters. If the publisher/agent has no constructive feedback to give me, no time for an in-depth critique, I prefer the "Dear author" letter to a few rushed adjectives. At least it doesn't hurt as much. And the risk of me shredding/burning/deleting my manuscript on the spour of the moment is substantially lowered.

Kindle 2 ebook reader - a review

2009-04-07T06:11:00.001-07:00

One of my American friends has recently bought herself a Kindle - the so called "electronic paper". I have to say - I wish it was officially available in Europe! If you live in a small German town you don't have much access to English-language literature, unless you buy it online. But if you read as much as I do you end up paying a lot, and owning tens of boxes full of (very) heavy books. Not good for a life on the move. If you download a book via Kindle you don't have to wait days (or more likely - weeks) to get your purchased novels. It takes only few minutes. If you're out of books to read on a rainy Sunday evening you could download it in less than a minute and start reading before your coffee gets cold! The other pro is the trees - I have contributed to cutting out a few forests by now thanks to my love for literature. Out of one tree you can print only 24 books. I have more than 2400 books in my home library - over 100 trees! You can say that electronic paper also uses energy - hence CO2 emissions - but if you have green energy at home it's 100% environmentally friendly.

The read-out-loud feature is surprisingly good, although I wouldn't use it for novels - still too weird. Good enough for reading you the newspaper though. The screen really does feel like paper - I was a bit apprehensive about it as my eyes get really tired when I work on the computer, but with Kindle it was ok. The screen could have been bigger, and I really wish it had a touch-screen. The little "mouse" button is a bit weird, as is the keyboard.

Pros:
1) You have your book in couple of minutes
2) You can have it wherever you are, if you only have access to the net
3) trees saved
4) bookshelf space saved (less dusting too!)
5) cheaper than new books
6) less CO2 emissions due to transport of books
7) you can take books with you while traveling - never run out of things to read!

Cons:
1) not in Europe yet!
2)the choice of books still not big enough (but growing and already pretty impressive with 260,000 books)
2) too expensive - used books are still much cheaper, even if you ship them from abroad
3) can't read in a bath tub
4) the screen could be bigger
5) buttons could be more ergonomic
6) books only available in English
7) the cost of the Kindle2 itself (359 USD, used ones only start to appear) - but it should pay for itself after about 25 books if you live outside US/UK and buy new books online (50 books in US/UK). And if you download one of those thousands of free classic books - even faster.

Overall if you don't have a library (always my favorite!) close to you - Kindle can be a great tool for a writer who has to read a lot, and doesn't want to get buried under tons and tons of books.

The never ending story - when it's time to stop rewriting

2009-04-01T07:24:00.000-07:00

You want the story to be perfect. The words to be just right. So you rewrite, and rewrite and rewrite. Ok - at least I do. I could keep improving my novels for ever. The good thing is that I'm not the only one: Ernest Hemingway has rewritten the final chapter of "A Farewell to Arms" 44 times. Final version of “Brave New World” was totally different from the first one: the plot changed it’s direction. Good guys became bad guys. And so on.

When I fnished the first draft of my first novel I was excited. It was over! Done! Oh I should have known better. Because first drafts are just the beginning. Maybe somewhere out there exist writers who complete their novels in one long stroke, but, unfortunatelly, I’m not one of them. And with every novel I write my editing addiction seems to get worse.

So here I am, 300-or so pages lay printed in my lap (double-sided to save the trees). I start to read. I take a red pen and mark those scenes that I like and those that I hate, I cross out whole chapters and mark ones that should be developed. I show the draft to my most trusted reviewers and ask them to do the same - just read and mark, without thinking to much. You either like something or not, I tell them. And when they finally give me their opinions I struggle not to hate them.

Later I take all the notes and try to make sense out of them. I index my chapters. I draw diagrams and charts (if he does this she should do that and it should lead to that, kind of thing). I scetch an arc of the whole outline on a biggest sheet of paper I can find. I cut and paste. Sometimes you have to be quick. If you get too attached to a character/scene/dialogue you may develop a toxic relationship with it. Than it will be relly, really hard to kill it with cold blood. I mean - delete it, ofcourse. Sometimes I think so much about why-does-she-do-that's and what-made-him-say-so's that my head starts to hurt. I check if the story makes sense. In this phase I get tired easily. I can't work on my novel more than 2-3 hours per day and have to switch to writing articles. But I know I have to be patient.

I get a bit anal too. I use folders with neatly marked chapters where I write my notes about each of the characters and subplots. I make lots of lists: major character’s list; five top plots list; top three conflicts list. You get it.

With every draft I write I feel my book is getting better. And believe me - that feeling can be really addictive. I'm just never ready to let go. I look at previous edits and I'm terrified: how could I have ever thought of sending this thing to my publisher. Seriously!

At this point I know I have to take time out. Go for a vacation. Start working on something else. Start overeating to compensate. Anyway - I just have to get my mind clear. I'm still waiting for the invention of a mind-ereasing pill that would allow me to ctrl+delete my mind clean from all the junk that I carry in it - all the scenes, bad ideas, stupid dialogues and useless characters from all the previous versions of my novel. Unfortunatelly it’s still not here.

I edit one more time. Ok, maybe two more times. And then it's time to let go. I know I have to stop re-writing when I can't look at my story anymore. I get frustrated, even bored. I want to start something new, explore. I just have to accept that my novel won't be perfect. Just like people - they never are.

A masterpiece of unreliable narration

2009-03-31T02:40:00.000-07:00

First time I tried reading Kazuo Ishiguro’s “The Remains of the Day” (winner of '89 Booker prize) I didn’t finish it. Sometimes I can be a really impatient reader, someone whom as a writer I would fear. But I was bored. I couldn’t see any point in the long monologues of the main character on the virtues and hardships of a butler’s life. So after fifty or so pages I put the book back on a shelf. Dust started gathering on its thin spine.

I don’t remember who told me to give the novel another try. Whoever it was - I listened to him - and it was worth it.

“Remains of the day” is an amazing book - a narrative of a person who is emotionally blocked to a degree when he has no idea what motivates him and whom he really is. A masterpiece example of an unreliable narration in fiction (naive world view of Huckleberry Finn in Twain’s novel comes to mind, or the narrator in Agatha Christie’s “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd”). “Remains of the day” is actually two books in one - a story that Stevens (the main character) wants as to hear, and another one, that emerges from between the lines: a sad, touching, powerful story of his deeply hidden emotions. Even in the most dramatic of scenes (his father’s death, to mention one) Stevens remains extremely composed and pragmatic. And only from other people’s reaction the reader can see what he really feels:

“I felt something touch my elbow and turned to find Lord Darlington.

Stevens are you all right?
Yes, sir. Perfectly.
You look as though you are crying.

I laughed and taking out a handkerchief quickly wiped my face. ‘I’m very sorry, sir. The strains of a hard day.’”

It’s a book about things that seemingly simple can become impossible when people cannot communicate with each other. When feelings instead of being shared are deeply hidden, burrowed under layers and layers of “musts”, “shoulds” and “can’ts”. And that sometimes it’s too late for change.

Simple writing

2009-03-30T07:38:00.000-07:00

The best book on writing style I’ve ever read? “Associated Press Guide to News Writing” by AP editor Rene Cappon. In theory it’s a book for journalists - advising them how to write clearly, to the point, avoiding cliches, and without “abusing the language”. But learning the tricks of writing a great news story, that contains maximum information in as few words as possible - is, in my opinion, a great exercise for any writer. Even one only interested in fiction.

On egg timers and creativity

2009-03-28T03:15:00.001-07:00

As one writer once said: writing is an art of putting your ass on a chair close to your desk.

Brutal, but in a great part true. It’s hard to work from home. So many distractions and no one to judge you. No one to fire you for spending hours playing web games.

Because the thing is, I don’t feel like writing every day. Sometimes I get up in the morning and just feel like going back to sleep right away. This way though it would take me ten years to write my next novel (I know, Proust took 13 years to finish “In Search of Lost Time” and look at the results!).

My publisher wouldn’t appreciate such schedule though, I’m afraid.

What I've learned so far is that you should never judge the writing day by it’s first half an hour. Sometimes the worst, lazy mornings turn into the best and most creative afternoons. If I just sweat through those first three, four sentences, the writing starts flowing and I become engaged. By the end of the day I’m so into it I can’t stop writing and only realize how late it is by the gurgling sounds coming from my empty, unhappy stomach. And that’s why I use an egg-timer.

Sounds crazy, I know. I thought there was something really wrong with me - until I read about other writers using egg timers. Or a sand glass, for the romantic ones. Google it if you don’t believe me. Chuck Palahniuk, author of “Fight Club”, does that. Dan Brown does that (whatever you think about his writing, you have to admit - he IS creative). And many others whose names slipped my mind.

The thing is - the timer gives me freedom. As if with setting it on I turn off my other, non-writer selves: the housewife self. The dog owner self. The oh-my-god-have-to-make-an-appointment-with-a-dentist self. I forget about birthdays and tax returns. About weekend plans and empty fridge that needs to be filled. I move to another realm. Otherwise I would find myself wonderig around the house, making myself another tea and starting another load of laundry. Just checking my email. Again and again.

If I feel I might have a particularly tough working day (ie. I just don’t feel like working at all), I start with 15 minutes. Then I get up, make myself coffee. Next time I set the timer for 30 minutes. And the next maybe for an hour, then another. By this time I usually don’t need the timer anymore, as my other non-writing selves have retreated and gave up bugging me. So I keep writing.

Sometimes I use my egg-timer time just to sit there, allowing my thoughts to drift. I look at the pigeons hugged together on the roof of the moss covered church on the other side of the window. I listen to the water gurgling in the radiator beneath my desk. But I know it’s time not wasted. Something will come to me, sooner or later. The words will start flowing again.

Why it's sometimes easier to write novels then blogs

2009-03-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve never thought I will write a blog one day. Blogs scare me. Writing them, that is. Which is kind of funny when you consider that I’m a writer, someone who’s supposed to write. Anything. Anytime. But the problem with blogs is that they demand special intimacy with the reader, opening oneself, sharing private thoughts with the whole www. But that’s what the writers do for living anyway, right? Actually - not really. It so much easier to write books. You can hide behind one of your heroes, or even better - between several of them - giving each one a little piece of yourself. Pretending that the thoughts you write are theirs, not yours. That those not-so-perfect character traits are theirs. And the dreams. And the fears. Through the mouths of your characters you can confess all your darkest secrets, say all the things you would never dare say yourself. Tell stories from your past that you never told anyone before, the embarrassing ones included. It’s so much easier this way. In novel-writing public and private blur. Even if somebody rightly guesses that this part of character XY is actually you, the author, you can always pretend to be insulted and exclaim (throwing your hands in the air at the same time) - “Me? How dare you!”. I’ve been asked several times by my readers if such and such character from my book is myself. “of course not!” - I’ve answered every time, lying on several occasions. Because they are in part all me. But hey, proof me anything ;)

Most writers put themselves into pages of their books. They will rarely admit it though.

Dostoyevsky just like one of his heroes was a compulsive gambler, finding metaphysical pleasure in the addiction. Graham Greene has portrayed his own affair with Lady Catherine Walston in his novel “The End of the Affair”. Ken Kesey was inspired to write “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest” after volunteering as a lab rat in a CIA-financed study measuring the effects of psychoactive drugs, like LSD and cocaine, on people. Sometimes those autobiographical parts are easy to find. The critics call it a “roman a clef”: a novel with a key. Actually the more biographies of writers I read the more I think that there is not that much of fiction in fiction.
ion writer used to hiding safely behind his characters - write a blog?? Where to draw a line that I have never drawn before between the “private” and the “public”? I guess I’ll have to figure it out somehow... (and I would appreciate all the tips:) )