The aspiring writer's glossary

Earlier this week I put the following on my Facebook status update: "Diane got a champagne rejection today, so she's feeling pretty good." I got quite a few questions as a result (I guess that was my intention, to get attention), mainly, "what's a champagne rejection"? When you've been pursuing publication as long as I have (at least 5.5 years), you forget that not everyone is privy to all the fun code words and acronyms that you know.* So I thought I'd create a short glossary for those of my friends who may wonder what the heck I'm doing. And rather than be boring and alphabetical, I'm going to list my definitions in a kind of chronological order, following the path of a manuscript.

query/query letter: in which you have a couple of paragraphs to describe your work and pique an editor/agent's interest.

SASE: self-addressed stamped envelope; what you usually send with your snail mail query, except now some publishers don't even bother to reply if they're not interested. And what makes your heart sink when you find it in your mailbox, because it means "rejected" (and it looks like you sent a letter to yourself, which is even more pathetic).

unsolicited manuscript: a piece which the editor/house has not requested. Many publishing houses no longer accept unsolicited/unagented manuscripts, which means you must either have an agent, or meet the editor at a conference somewhere.

slush/slush pile: the stack (and I do mean stack, read the link) of unsolicited manuscripts that editors have to wade through before finding/overlooking your gem. Oh, and agents, too. You can avoid the slush by getting an agent to send out your work, but you have to make it through their slush pile first....

form rejection: an impersonal form letter. Particularly soul-crushing.

champagne rejection: a personal rejection with kind words; ie, the editor/agent rejects your material, usually because "it's not quite right for us," but says something nice about your writing or invites you to submit something else.

partial/full request: the editor/agent was intrigued by your query and wants to see sample chapters (partial) or the whole thing. I've had full requests on one novel by one editor (who eventually rejected it, "not enthusiastic enough") and one agent (still waiting to hear the outcome).

acceptance/offer: I'm still waiting to find out what this one means.

That's all I can think of right now. If any of my writer friends think of one I've missed, please put it in the comments section.

*I lie. You don't forget, especially when you see novice writers making silly mistakes. Then you laugh at them and try not to remember you were that clueless once. It may be mean, but when you've been suffering rejections for 5.5 years, you need something to make you feel you're not the worst of the worst.

Janespotting: Presumption, by Julia Barrett

This 1993 novel, written by a journalist and a novelist under the pseudonym of Julia Barrett, was my first foray in the world of Austen sequels. It is a sequel to Pride and Prejudice, and revisits most of the characters from Austen's classic. It takes place not long (maybe 18 months) after Darcy and Elizabeth's marriage, and focuses mainly on the character of Darcy's younger sister, Georgiana. Although as a rich heiress she has no need to marry, she encounters two potential suitors in the book. One, the attentive Captain Heywood, is related to the family through the de Bourgh side and has honorably served in the Royal Navy. The other, the architect James Leigh-Cooper, is brilliant and intriguing, but socially little better than a tradesman. I leave it to you to guess which one ends up capturing Georgiana's heart in the end; as you read, it doesn't take more than a chapter or two to figure it out.

Overall, I enjoyed this more than I thought I might. Part of it was the attitude of the authors: they announce in their title that they know they are undertaking an impossible task in writing a sequel to a classic, thus earning my sympathy from the onset. The writing strives to be like Austen, and achieves real wit in a couple places; it wasn't particularly memorable, but it doesn't get in the way of the story, which is the least good writing should do. As far as the characters, they stick closely to Austen's originals—perhaps excepting Georgiana, now less shy and even somewhat determined, but whose improvements are ascribed to growing maturity and the influence of Elizabeth. This makes sense for the story; someone has to grow and change, or there's no impetus to the plot.

Although the story itself was predictable, that's not necessarily a bad thing; you read a book like this for the sheer entertainment of it, not for any deep contemplation of the human condition. And as a light romance, it was perfectly accessible. It didn't besmirch Austen's characters, just posed an enjoyable answer to the question, "What might have happened next?" So if you're inclined to try other author's explorations of Austen's world, this isn't a bad place to start.

Photo of the Week--2/23/09

Whoops. I forgot to post a new picture last week. So this is your first clue: the sky doesn't have to be pure clear blue for me to get a great shot of a church. This one is the Church Heiliger Franz von Assisi (aka Francis of Assisi) in Vienna, also known as the Jubilee Church, since it was built in 1898 to commemorate the golden jubilee (50 years on the throne) of Kaiser Franz Joseph I. It was lit so well, I loved the contrast of white against the dark sky, along with the accents made by the red roofs.

A puzzle

What do the following things have in common:

the influential architect who virtually defined the modernist and postmodernist movements of the 20th century
the screenwriters who wrote Aladdin, Shrek, and all three Pirates of the Caribbean movies
the artist who became famous for nailing shoes and old tires and all sorts of junk to houses
the writer who created Conan the Barbarian (who will be bahk, but not with Ah-nold)
the Music Boosters' Craft Fair
the SCBWI-MI website

Give up? Because of them, I have no time to write anything of substance on the blog for the rest of the week. See you on Monday with a new photo.

Janespotting: Oh, Mr. Darcy! (P&P 1995 miniseries)

That's right, ladies, it's time to fetch your fainting couches: I'm writing about the 1995 BBC/A&E miniseries of Pride and Prejudice, starring Jennifer Ehle and (sigh!) Colin Firth. This is the version that is almost universally beloved, and for good reason. At five hours, it has the time to be completely faithful to the novel. All the characters we love are there, fully developed, and in some cases we see a little more that is in the novel.* Luckily, the writing is faithful to Austen's wit, too, and the pacing is so good that it is really difficult to stop watching once you start. Looking at where they placed the breaks for the miniseries, originally broadcast in six parts, provides a great lesson on pacing and cliffhangers:

1: Lizzy and Jane leave Netherfield; Mr. Bingley could be in love with Jane
2: Lizzy refuses the proposal of Mr. Collins, upsetting her mother
3: Lizzy refuses Mr. Darcy—she didn't even know he was in love with her!
4: Lizzy leaves Pemberley after seeing Darcy again—could he still love her?
5: Lydia's scandal is resolved, but Lizzy worries that Mr. Darcy might still think ill of her
6: Happily married, Lizzy and Mr. Darcy kiss (swoon!)

Of course, we wouldn't be sucked into the story so completely if we didn't fall in love with the characters. Brilliant perfomances abound; even the minor characters have been cast with care. Jennifer Ehle is a charming, witty Lizzy; even when she isn't speaking, her eyes sparkle. (Since Darcy's first admission to finding her interesting is in contemplating her "fine eyes," this is more important than it sounds.)

The performance that makes this the definitive Pride and Prejudice, however, is that of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. It is Darcy's character, after all, who makes the greatest journey: from arrogant indifference to thwarted lover to earnest friend. Firth makes this change evident; what is more remarkable is that he does it without very much dialogue. He doesn't say much, instead managing show Darcy's subtle changes through a pointed look, a slight smile, a raised eyebrow. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Colin Firth is totally dreamy, tall, dark, and handsome.** For many people, Firth is irrevocably connected with the character—just ask Helen Fielding, whose Bridget Jones's Diary, loosely based on Pride and Prejudice, made him the focus of Bridget's obsession. (This connection hasn't hurt his career, as he's gone on to appear and star in many big films, including The English Patient, Shakespeare in Love, Mamma Mia, and, most ironically, as Mark Darcy in the aforementioned Bridget Jones's Diary.)

For anyone who loves Austen, period drama, romance, or just plain good storytelling, you could do worse than sit down with a bottle of wine, a box of chocolates, and the DVD of this miniseries of Pride and Prejudice.

*You'll notice that while purists complain about other versions that leave out characters or subplots or change the details of the setting a little bit, you never hear someone say, "Mr. Darcy never would have dived into a lake and appeared in a wet shirt—they should have left that bit out."
**See above regarding the bathing and fencing scenes.

Photo of the Week--2/16/09

You can tell I'm starved for color in the landscape, because I couldn't resist posting this photo. I took it outside the Bishop's Castle in Wells, England, one November. A little bit of old building, some moving water, a little bit of fall color, lots of trees ... I wish I were there now (the time as well as the place), sitting on the grass doing not much of nothing.

The Word Nerd Sez: J is for ...

juxtapose

Who couldn't love a word with so many funky letters in it? Look at the potential Scrabble score:

*

(And don't tell me it's too long for Scrabble; if you leave "POSE" open and I have letters and room, I can totally score 25 points on it, plus bonuses.) Plus, it's a word someone crabbed together from two languages: "juxta," from the Latin for "near," and "pose" (or "position") from the English. It means to place two or more things side by side, most often for purposes of comparing and contrasting. It's an essential tool to the nonfiction writer, I believe. When I'm surveying critical reaction to someone's work, I often find it useful to juxtapose positive and negative reviews. I think it gives a broad idea of what critics think, but it also gives a subtle message: take what critics think with a grain of salt; read/look/listen and judge for yourself.

One last cool thing about juxtapose/juxtaposition, I discovered this morning: it's the last word in the J section of my old Webster's Dictionary. That really makes me want to look up the last word in every section, but I have work to get back to. Darn!

*Thanks to Pholph's Scrabble Generator: What is your score? Get it here.