Verisimilitude
Recently, I joked with a publisher that I no longer fit the criteria to be publishable, failing in the following areas:
1) I could no longer be marketed as ‘First Book’ by …
2) I could not be marketed as a ‘Teenage Author’
3) I was not an Australian Prime Minister
4) I am not a celebrity
5) I am no longer an ‘Emerging Author’
After this, I encountered another reason – Verisimilitude. This refers to the prevailing attitude that a book based on a true story is inherently preferable to a book based on mere fiction.
Hmmmm …

As a writer whose career path is following a pattern of exponential decay I have decided to apply scientific principles to the process (it hurts less this way) and have come up with Jeni’s Theory of Inverse Proportion. Quite simply, this states that the time taken for a writer to get their work read by a publisher is inversely proportional to the number of editors reading the slush pile. Which begs the question: How many editors does it take to read a slush pile? 

And why the fascination. Because given my experience of exponential decay, this is where I find myself again. To all those authors wallowing in the complacency of success … Beware!

That slush pile is a slippery little sucker.

Since my last blog am still attempting to do a phoenix rising impersonation.  I’ve got the sprawling in the ashes bit down pat, even the wing flap is going nicely, but take-off eludes me. Not that I aspire to immortality. A small miracle will do nicely. Miraculous writing recovery that is. To all those fellow strugglers, take heart. You’re not alone. Maybe we could start a support group: The Code of the Phoenix. Pre-requisite is a tendency towards self-combustion.

Apart from feeling like a pile of carbon, life goes on. Not only survived but thrived at Tull’s 18 th birthday. Jived at Shevaughn’s 21st birthday. And spent K-Rudd’s money on a new pup! A little bundle of joy called Maddie. Part cocker spaniel, part poodle. Pitch black, eyes, nose, body and when lying on her back could easily be mistaken for a monkey. But gorgeous. AND, I’m the only woman swanning around Lane Cove with a black dog! Piles of white/caramel fluff everywhere, but nothing like my dog who looks like she works for a chimney sweep. More ashes … Hmmm. There’s a theme here.

To all those covered in soot, here’s cheers!

To all those who have left comments on this blog and I haven’t replied, am having cookies trouble.Really, really love getting your comments, and really frustrated with my level of technological illiteracy. Please keep commenting and I’ll keep trying to fix the problem.

I’ve always viewed my writing career as shooting arrows into the universe and seeing what I can hit. Early on I shot quiverful after quiverful with no success, then gradually I started hitting some targets. Over the years the targets stopped moving and my aim grew better until one day, every celestial body disappeared. So, it’s back to shooting arrows … For those aspiring to the writing life, here’s what I mean by shooting arrows. These are some of the steps I’ve taken in the past month:

Approached publishers in China and Vietnam to do co-editions of the ‘So’ series and ‘Freewheelers’ series.

Contacted Australian publishers to see what they are are looking for.

Updated web site, blog, wiki, etc etc 

Experimented and wrote a picture book text. 

Applied for several writing and non-writing jobs. 

Submitted  a YA manuscript and the picture book text.

Became a Skype-er.

Attended writer support meetings and offered writing support to others. 

If I keep this up I know that eventually something will happen. In the first phase of my writing career I was shooting arrows for nearly 5 years before I hit something. I have no idea how long it will take this time. I just know I have to keep trying …

There’s a moment between creating a work, months, years after the worrying and working of it through, when you have to put it out there. And you wait. For me it’s a breath-holding time, a waiting for the executioner time, a time when limbo seems kind. At least in limbo you know where you stand, you haven’t quite made it and you haven’t quite not, but being the eternal optimist that you are, the very fact that it’s not a NOT, gives hope. 

And that’s where I stand.

Correction, crouch.

This week I sent a YA manuscript to a publisher.

This week I placed my head on the chopping block.

Now in my heart, deep in my reason, I know it won’t matter either way. Whether well-received or rejected I know I’ve given my all. Seen the illusion and wrestled it onto a page. So deep down inside, if anyone asked, I’d say I was satisfied with my efforts.  Not the greatest of lifetime achievement: Occupation ‘Smoke Wrestler’, but an achievement just the same.

This year the State Library of NSW ran a series of evenings on “Writing for Laughs” which I was fortunate to be involved in. As a children’s author I have written a comedy series for reluctant readers called the ‘So’ series with titles such as So Gross!, So Feral!, So Sick!, So Festy!, So Grotty! and So Stinky! (HarperCollins Publishers).  Writing this genre is unusual for a female author. So unusual , the publisher recommended that I did not put the name ‘Jeni’ on the cover. Thus, J.A. Mawter was born. Unfortunately, I didn’t remain genderless for long and the repercussions of this surprised me. For any female intending to write ‘out of gender’ when writing for laughs I can recommend these two steps. One:  elongate neck. Two: place neck on chopping block.

Faced with buyer and seller censorship, school bans, vitriolic reviews and shunned by the literary fraternity I decided it was time to reply. But not as a woman. As an academic writer, I went on to publish three books on Critical Thinking, Humour and Text for Ages 5 – 8 years; 8 – 10 years; and 10+ years (Macmillan Education). These books were designed to explain the complexities of a humorous text and to pave the way for critical thought. The tragedy is universal, it is often predictable and thus clichéd. Humour is not predictable and herein lays its value. Funny texts require complex thought processes using imagination, creativity, flexibility to deal with paradox, the ability to compare, make inferences, speculate or suspend disbelief. Writing and reading for laughs is not a passive process. Unlike tragedy which is enduring, the comedy relies on surprise. Whilst the tragic crosses cultures, ages, gender or social group, the funny text does not. It is culture specific and social grouping specific.

So how does one write for laughs? If you write for adults the process is straightforward. You are an adult writer, published by an adult, then read by an adult. If you write for children, you are an adult writer, published by an adult, bought by adults, but read by a child. This notion of ‘child’ needs to be broken down further. There are distinctive groupings in children’s writing. What makes a 3 – 5 year old laugh, is different to an 8 year old. A 12 year old differs again to a 16+ year old. It is imperative that the writer has knowledge of these differences and targets their language, situation or character accordingly. Slapstick and scatological humour are appreciated by younger audiences, whilst self-deprecatory humour appeals to teenagers.

It has been said that where we find vulnerability, we find humour. Characters are vulnerable when they have fears or flaws; a policeman scared of loud noises or an absent-minded professor. Characters in conflict are funny, as are those who are unusual or extreme. Often, a character is funny without trying to be funny. A character’s dialogue is an invaluable tool for those who write for laughs. Young readers love puns, taboo language, knock-knock jokes or inversions (naughty daddy). As children get older they appreciate ambiguities, exaggeration and word plays. Older still, and readers will laugh at understatement, sarcasm or plain talk (Mum, I believe you need a divorce). 

Situations can also be funny - when something doesn’t go the way we expect, or there is a twist in the ending. When the impossible becomes possible, when we switch roles, or oppose authority figures we find humour. Topical humour can be funny, as can absurd situations or parodies. Saying and doing the opposite, taboos, and human predicaments are funny - it is always funnier when the other person has the pimple on the end of their nose. Timing is of the essence. Each funny moment requires a set-up.  Which brings us to the ‘rule of three’. It goes something like this: set-up, set-up, punch-line. We see this mainly in joke telling, but we can also see this in the pacing of a funny story: conflict, conflict, resolution.

One final point to consider. For those interested in writing for laughs, the area you gravitate to depends on your need for gratification. Stand-ups need instant gratification. Television writers can cope with a delay. And for writers of books? Gratification can be a long time coming, possibly not experienced in your lifetime.

Hello.  

Anyone out there?

Please say hello if you are.

Welcome to my blog. Writing a blog is something I’ve resisted for quite some time, I mean, who would be interested in what I’ve got to say? But friends and media-savvy author folks assure me it’s a case of ‘Blog or Get Bogged.’ And just to prove that Technophobia is a condition that can be treated, not only do I now blog, I also skype, facebook, wiki, and web site my way through cyberspace.

After checking out numerous blogs I knew I had to give mine a name that was profound. A name that would pique your interest to read more. I decided that much of my writing life could be summarised as such: ‘Think … Create … Duck!’ And yes, duck can be used with every connotation you can think of: a moment of feathered creative genius; to dodge or avoid something to escape a blow (think vitriolic reviewers or literary egotists); a big fat score of nothing; or the most obvious one of all – its rhyming capacity.

In the lifetime of this blog, I hope to explain them all.

Welcome to my world.