SHE WROTE: More Bootcamp Answers for 2

1. I would like to know. Did you critique each other's writing in the process of creating your new book?

Jenny: Oh, yes, we critiqued each other. We fought with each other, too. But it's a really good process because you have to explain why you did what the other person objected to, and sometimes you realize that you're pretty much down to "Because I wanted to, that's why," which does not make for a good book. So the collaborative process is really, really good
for a book because you have to know why you do everything and be able to explain it.

Bob: I think that's a strength of the collaboration. Having to explain. So there's no laziness involved. In all my previous books, I can honestly say I never had an agent or editor come back with something I didn't already know was there. I was just too lazy to fix it. You get tired after 100,000 words. Well, in DON'T LOOK DOWN, our Romantic Adventure, on sale 3 April (NEXT WEEK!!!), there was no getting tired, because we were on each other all the time.

2. It looks like you're having some fun together--compatible senses of humor. Since working on a project together takes time, intense time, and spare time, how do you keep your significant others happy whilst you collaborate? Mine can get a little testy when I confer with myself!

Jenny: I don't have a significant other, which is an informed decision. When I found myself telling people I knew and cared about that I couldn't come to their weddings because I need to make a speech or do a signing that day, I knew I was pretty much career-driven, and you can't turn to somebody who's trying to make a life with you and say, "Back at you in a couple of months when the pressure's off." Especially if you want the kind of career I wanted, which would mean the pressure would never be off. At the time I thought it would just be for a couple of years until I got my career launched, but then I realized that I really was going to have to make a choice, career or relationship, and I picked career. Some of that is changing now, but I'm still in a place where the career takes center stage.

Bob: It's very difficult. I have someone who is very willing and patient to allow me to work almost all the time but that's wearing thin. Writer's tend to be obsessive people. I think I'm reaching a point where I'm realizing it's also probably not good for me in terms of mental health either to be that way. Of course I say that less than a week before embarking on a five week book tour.


3. Jenny and Bob, I'm finding your Lesson and answers very entertaining as well as informative. Thanks for taking the time to do this! I've found that brainstorming my own book with a small group of other writers can really spark my creativity and make me want to rush home and write. Do you find your discussions" draining or do they build creative energy?

Jenny: Mostly, they're great. We do a lot in e-mail, and that's really energizing. When we're together, we tend to lose track of the time as we hammer things out, and after an hour or two of really intensive thinking, we look at each other and think, "I have to get away from this person," and run to our separate hotel rooms (we're usually together on the road at a conference). Then we e-mail each other from the hotel rooms.

Bob: I find working with Jenny to be both draining and energizing. It moves the book forward but it is work. However, I am not personally a fan of most writer's groups. Often it is the blind leading the blind. Groups of people tend to drain me. I get energized when I am alone. When Jenny and I are in the same room together working we get a tremendous amount of work done but my brain is usually ready to explode after about an hour because it is so intense.


Also, I know very little about the new book, just what I've read here, so I wondered if you had a publisher in mind when you started? Did you go with one of your current publishers, even though this book was different from previous ones? Has it been easy to decide what to do about marketing, or do you find it difficult to coordinate your schedules?

Jenny: We went with St. Martin's Press because they've treated me like a goddess throughout my career and because they gave us a very good contract. We signed with them again for the second book because they've been so amazing about Don't Look Down, giving it a tremendous push, and because the second contract was even better than the first. Essentially, when you have an excellent publisher, you stick with them. Our schedules are pretty much coordinated because even though we began this as a side project for each of us, we loved the book so much we both moved it to center stage. Next week we start a five week book tour, so our schedules are identical. But we do both have outside projects we're working on, and that gets difficult sometimes because the new collaborative book we're working on tends to draw both of us. It's just more fun collaborating than it is writing alone.

Bob: I've pretty much been through four of the six major publishers in New York. I'm currently published by Tor, Harper-Collins, Dell and St. Martins. We went with St. Martins because they treat Jenny like a Goddess and me like, well, originally they weren't sure, but now they treat me very, very well. Jennifer Enderlin is a great editor. The support has been
amazing. I've worked with, I don't know how many editors and publishers over the years, and this has been an eye-opening experience for me. I actually got my author's copies of DON'T LOOK DOWN yesterday and it's the first time I ever received my author's copies of one of my books before the book came out.


What I can't picture is when the two characters interact in a scene. When the dialogue is batting back and forth, does one of you just write it then the other rewrite his/her character in the way his character would really talk? It seems like you'd almost have to confer on every sentence. Or did you brainstorm it, then one of you write it, then the other get veto power over it.
I'd like to add here that Jennifer was in Omaha doing a book signing on my birthday a while back and my whole dream of a perfect day included going, buying her new book (Bet Me) and getting her to sign all my copies of every book she's ever written, which I own. But, instead my children threw a lovely party for me and frankly, I still resent them for it. But that's
problem for another day and a psychiatrist I'm sure. I've also written book reviews of several of your books for my weekly newspaper column, Jennifer and I KNOW HOW TO SPELL YOUR NAME RIGHT EVERY TIME.

Jenny: Thank you for spelling my name right. So few do (g). We each write our own scenes, but the other person has control over his or her character's dialogue so we'd go in and correct phrasing (I'd have Wilder chatting about the relationship; Bob would change all of his dialogue to "Hmmm" with desperate attempts to get out the door.) But after awhile we just knew each other characters, so it was really more of a polish than a rewrite. I'd girly up Lucy's language but what she'd said would be right for Lucy; Bob would cut some of Wilder's stuff because he'd be talking too much, but what Wilder had said would be good. We're doing better on the new book with the new characters because I think we paid more attention in the beginning, at least I did, to who the other person's people were.

Bob: On dialogue—Nope. We each write the complete dialogue. I've tried that batting back and forth dialogue thing and it doesn't work. We each write our POV scene and then send it to the other person. If there are any violations of how our characters would speak we make corrections. Usually we punch it up. Jenny did a great job in AGNES AND THE HITMAN with my POV character Xavier, the detective, in punching up his dialogue in his first scene after I wrote him initially. He's hilarious. I loved what she did and she really set his tone, so I was really able to get his rhythm for his next POV scene in the diner.


2. Hi J.Bob...Bennifer...um, Jenny and Bob :) I've written 2 mss in 3rd limited and kinda have the hang of showing versus telling. Now, I'm writing my 3rd ms in 1st POV and I find myself doing a lot more telling. Is this natural/advisable/really,really stupid? Do you see a difference in the proportion of "told" to "shown" in a book written in 1st person POV as opposed to 3rd? Thanks for your thoughts!

Jenny: (Shouldn't that be Bobifer?) This is probably a good place to point out that we're answering more that collab questions if you want them. On Friday, it's all questions from the floor, anything you want, but clearly this is good, too.
First person POV is using "I," it's the author blatantly telling the story in the persona of one of the characters. Because it's clearly a person telling a narrative, the way the person tells it is part of the characterization. In other words, if your narrator is a no-nonsense kind of CEO type, he's not going to stop to talk about the scenery but he might stop in the middle of the story to tell you what he thinks about the employee standing in front of him. If she's a selfish, weepy manipulator, she'll
probably stop to tell you how each character has used and abused her while she's done nothing, NOTHING to deserve it. This kind of first person narrator is called an unreliable narrator because the reader has to read between the lines to see what's really going on, but really all first person narrators are unreliable because they're caught up in their own stories and
their own justifications which the reader gets from the inside. That's why you can legitimately do anything you want in first person POV . . . as long as you don't care about pacing. If your narrator stops to describe the scenery, and the description shows character and moves the plot, it's good. If she's just stopping to describe the scenery because the scenery is there,
it's bad because the reader will start skimming to find story and character again. So to get back to your original question: In first person everything is told, so you have to make sure that everything you tell is interesting and shows the reader something important about character and plot.

Bob: The only manuscript I've written that I haven't sold—because I never marketed it—was the one I wrote in first person. I'm going to rewrite it in 3rd limited. I'm just not a fan of first person. That's not saying it's wrong. But you've got a real time sense problem with first that causes problems.
*First person* means you use the word "I" quite a bit. It is giving the camera to one character and letting that character film a documentary while doing a voiceover.
This point of view has its advantage in that the narrator is telling her own story. The major disadvantage is that the reader can only see and know what the narrator knows. The narrator can be a witness or a participant in the story. You, as the author, are absent in this mode, thus you surrender part of your control in writing. Remember, the first person narrator is not you the author, but rather the character in the story.
Note that there are certain types of genre that fit first person very well, most particularly mysteries/detective stories. That's logical if you understand the advantages of first person: By using this mode, the writer can bring the reader along for the ride, disclosing clues as the narrator discovers them.
The major disadvantage of first person is that your narrator has to be present in every scene. Because of this, many writers make their narrator the protagonist. A problem can crop up in that the narrator will then be a critical part of the plot and have many things happen to her and around her. Will the narrator be able to react realistically while still telling the story in a coherent form? Will she be able to continue narrating in the face of an emotionally overwhelming event?
Another problem can be the logistics of getting your narrator to all the key events in order to narrate them. Inexperienced writers can end up with very convoluted, and unrealistic, plots. If the narrator isn't present at these important scenes, then she has to find out about them by other means, which can lessen suspense and definitely lessens the immediacy of the action in the story as you have major action occurring off-stage.
Some authors use a narrator who isn't one of the main characters—what is known as a detached narrator. The narrator is more of an observer. This has some advantages. Think of the Sherlock Holmes stories-- who is narrating? Watson. Why? Because this allows Conan Doyle to withhold what Holmes is thinking from the audience.
Something else to think about-- should the reader believe your narrator? If everything your narrator says is fact, then there might not be much suspense. But think about the movie *The Usual Suspects*. The story is narrated by a character, who it turns out, is the man everyone is searching for, thus he has been lying from the very beginning while narrating his story. In a book, you can raise suspense if your first person narrator is caught in a small lie early on in the story-- the reader will then have to be more judgmental about everything else the narrator says.
Another big issue of first person narration is the issue of tense and time. There are two ways to view time in a first person story:
1. *I remember when*. In this case, the narrator is telling the story in past tense, looking backward. This immediately reduces the suspense of whether the narrator survives the story. There is also the issue that the narrator is thus withholding information from the reader-- the narrator obviously knows the ending, yet chooses not to reveal it to the reader.
2. *In real time*. The narrator is telling the story as it unfolds around him or her. A problem with this is what happens when the narrator is involved in an emotionally overwhelming event? Will he still be able to narrate the story?
The big problem with time sense is that even the best writers tend to mix 1 and 2 above. At times they will be in real time, and then every so often slip into past time.
A further problem with first person is many writers tend to slide from first into second person point of view. Any time you put *you* in your narrative, addressing the reader, you have moved from first to second person. You should avoid doing that.
There are ways to get around the disadvantages of first person. Examine some first person novels and you will discover them. *Interview With A Vampire* by Anne Rice is an interesting and brilliant use of first person and the title tells you why. She has the first person of the reporter start the story but shifts into a first person narrative by the vampire Louis
through the medium of the interview. She can go back in time with Louis and then return to the present with the reporter, both in first person. She has two levels of interest and suspense: the present fate of the narrator, and the fate of the vampire in his own tale.
There are other novelists who have come up with novel ideas (pun intended) to tell first person stories while getting around some of the disadvantages.
I place great emphasis in my own writing career and when teaching upon reading and also upon watching movies/videos, but I watch videos and read books in a different mode as a "writer." I study them for structure. To see what the author/ screenwriter/ director does with the subject matter. How it is presented. When you pick up a novel, the first thing you should note is what person it is written in. Then ask yourself why did the author chooses that point of view? What did the novel gain from that point of view?