feedback at the writing workshop

today was day 2 of a 3-day writing workshop sponsored by my town's community college. the workshop's been around for many years, has developed a huge following, and presenters travel from around the country to pass on sage advice (and if a writer's planned ahead, even to offer feedback on manuscripts.)
this is where i come in. today, i met a writer/editor with an illustrious history. he's a marketing maniac, tireless and steeped in industry knowledge. he's written novels, short stories, books on writing, and edited a well-known anthology blending horror and erotica, the HOT series. he's michael garrett.
(see his web page: http://www.writing2sell.com/)

his approach is decidedly old-school, nuts-&-bolts, pragmatism over artistic freedom. he suggests writing with your audience in mind, answering expectations with a satisfying product. some may say this approach is cynical, selling out. i can agree, but really, it all depends on a writer's ultimate goal. if you're writing for the creative exploration, to attain a higher level of expression, then mike's take isn't your bag. if you're looking to make your living by writing novels, he has some useful advice. he doesn't knock artistic sensibilities by any stretch; he acknowledges that publishing is a business first, and that most publishers won't have the resources to produce and market a literary novel that falls too far outside the mainstream to make back their investment. all right. that's fair.

admittedly, i'm torn over the entire issue. i love literary and genre, both. both are valuable, both serve different gods. both should be able to thrive, if the world was fair. i think we both know about that looming "if" hanging over our heads.

so, what'd i learn from mike today? (i'm calling him mike not because we immediately bonded over chicken salad sandwiches, but because i feel silly typing out "mr. garrett". also, i want to seem cool and with-it. is it working?)

mike gave me the gift of understanding the need for deep character development. i've heard for years about building character sketches, about creating characters so real they follow me around after i've done with them--but it never clicked. i never understood why i'd need more from them than what's shown in any particular story. (and why do those character sketch worksheets always ask what color socks your character wears? really? is this vital background information?) but mike made it real for me today. he played on my background in psychology, my tendency to pick people apart to understand them from the inside out. he made the idea of character an intriguing puzzle of motivations and desires, fears and pathology, and that clicked for me for the first time.

he made characterization real for me in the same way that my writing professor made thematic development real: if you internalize your message, if you follow your subconscious and include everything in your first draft--and by everything, i mean everything that comes to you as you write, almost a
free-association--then when you return to revise later and edit out what's not true to the story, what's not necessary to moving the thing forward, your original, instinctive message will magically remain and without hammering away at the reader like a monkey with a rock. the text will have somehow absorbed your intention. this is sounding a bit mystical, but really it's about allowing yourself the freedom to trust the process. by frontloading the prep work, you later have the luxury of trusting your instincts as you create that first draft. but i digress.

back to what mike said. so, i submitted a couple of short stories for analysis and feedback from a professional, and mike was assigned to my pages. he started out by explaining his approach to critical analysis, that he sees little benefit in pointing out what's working in a story, that his focus is on what needs help so he can help the writer improve. i'm perfectly okay with this, as i know we have precious few minutes together to discuss and i want the time to be packed full of his decades of experience, chock full of exclusive michael garrett wisdom. i think i did manage to keep a straight face at his next words, because honestly, they were a shock to me. but i'm savoring them now, hanging onto them until i someday finish my novel and find an agent and actually sell the thing. and believe me, that's gonna be years from now.

he said this: "having explained my approach, i'll say this: your level of writing is very impressive. you'll have no trouble finding publishers to take on your work."

wow. michael garrett, the guy who edited stephen king's first work, the guy who has edited countless manuscripts for other writers, who has written his own novels and short stories and blah blah blah--he's been around, right? and he said my writing was "very impressive." of course, he then proceeded to tell me where i've strayed from the righteous path elsewhere in my writing, namely story structure and my tendency toward the contemporary "open" ending, which feels weak to him--but still. i'm a little verklempt over the experience, even though i realize he likely planted that comment to encourage me, to soften the criticism over my story endings. but that's quite a brace against any hope of gushing on his part to then spend a second almost, well, gushing. gushing for a texan, i mean. ;) (i can say that--i'm from texas.)

i need a moment, here. okay: voldemort's horcruxes were neither whores nor cruxes. discuss.

now i gotta get my everlovin'-crap together and finish one of these novels. i know i'm my biggest obstacle to getting somewhere with writing--just gotta fricking do it, man. mike had some good advice about getting past that overwhelmed feeling when tackling the first novel, too. tomorrow, it begins. (that's not his advice. that's just me standing on the bluff with my cape flapping in the sea breeze.)