How to use this Page

_
Happy Nonfiction Monday!

Interested in online resources about writing nonfiction for kids? Then this post is for you!

When I first started writing with a view to publication, I crawled the internet looking for online resources -- interviews, how-to articles, authors and editors talking about their processes, etc. It was time consuming, but I found some real gems, so it was worth it.

Surprisingly, no one had created a central list o'links for children's nonfiction writers, so once I had amassed a nice little URL collection, I organized it into categories and created one. "On Writing Nonfiction for Kids" was born. Since posting it on my website several years ago, the feedback I've received has been amazing. I continue to add URLs several times a year.

This weekend, I gave the list its annual checkup. As of yesterday, all links are live, dead links have been updated, and I've added ten, count 'em, TEN new links to articles on writing biographies and science, research, breaking in, and how-do-they-do-it peeks into the work of children's nonfiction writers such as Catherine Thimmesh, Tanya Lee Stone, Seymour Simon, Steve Jenkins, Peter Sis, and Gail Gibbons, as well as editors from Scholastic magazines and books. All of the new pieces are dated and marked with a NEW! to make them easy to find.

You can find the links here: On Writing Nonfiction for Kids

And if you know of any online resources you think I should add to the list, please let me know.

Do check out the Nonfiction Monday posts on other blogs. Anastasia Suen has the roundup of links on her blog.
_

_
. . .your editor's email contains the word "Squeeee!", complete with exclamation mark (editors are pretty stingy with those punctuation puppies, dontchaknow). As you can guess, I got a "Squeeee!" email this week. The cause of celebration? The final art for Bubble Homes and Fish Farts has arrived at the publisher! According to my editor, it's "GORGEOUS!" (her upper case and, ahem, notice the *second* exclamation mark? Hers, too.).

[Fiona does a Snoopy dance]

All I can say about it is...

SQUEEEE!

No, really. :^) That *is* all I can say. I haven't seen the art yet, so I really don't know any more. And it'll be a few weeks before it's ready to be sent to me. . . something to do with scanning and layout and other bits of technical need-to-do. My editor's a sweetheart, though. She's promised to tide me over with a preview when one becomes available. That's good. It should prevent chair bouncing injuries, the risk of which is proportional to waiting time.

SQUEEE!
_

_
Word came down from the editorial offices yesterday. With a long title like Bubble Homes and Fish Farts, we need a shorter subtitle. The current one at five words and 32 characters---even more than the title!---is too long. Me? Wordy? Apparently even in my title choices. :^)

Yesterday was a filing and clearing-off-desk day, so while my hands sorted and slotted, my brain was grinding away trying to come up with a succinct, but snappy subtitle, something that would explain the scientific aspect of the funky title.

"Around and around ze little grey cells chased each ozzer," she says in her very best Hercule Poirot Belgian French accent, "until possibilities presented zemselves." Now back to the art folks to see if one will fit.
_

_
New cover art for Bubble Homes and Fish Farts (Charlesbridge 2009) arrived this week. Nice work. Let your eyes linger, and you can practically feel the water moving. Carolyn's goooood.

Pondering this second cover sketch got me thinking about the revision process, something both art and text go through in the making of a book.

As a writer of many articles and books, I'm very familiar with the process of revising text. Art revision, on the other hand, is new territory for me. With my published books so far---all for school and specialty markets---the art process has been somewhat of a mystery. For the most part, I've had next to no input into the art, aside from proofing completed layouts. Oh, yes, once I was asked what I thought should go on the cover. Heh, it was a book about extreme animals, and aimed at 8-year-old boys. No question in my mind: creepy, fanged viperfish, hands down.

As my first trade book, BH&FF is giving me new insight into the illustration process. Like most picture book authors, I don't get a lot of say (and except for points of accuracy, I don't want to say too much when asked because I don't want to hinder the imagination of the illustrator), but my editor has been really thoughtful about asking for my opinions at various stages and incorporating many of them. It's fascinating to watch the art unfold, often in exciting directions I never imagined.

When it comes to revising, the illustration process I've observed so far has mirrored the writing process in many ways. The art has morphed from sketch to subsequent sketch, becoming tighter, more layered, more cohesive and expressive with each iteration, much the same way the text changed from draft to draft.

The major difference I've noticed between the two processes---at least with my small art sample size of one book---is the writing process seems to be much more intimate, perhaps between the author and one editor, whereas the illustration process seems to involve many additional people---art director, book designer, marketing, and author. Hmmm...I wonder if illustrators see it that way, too.
_

_
Last week was somewhat of a "proofs week", what with magazine text galleys to proof on Tuesday, and the new sketches for Bubble Homes and Fish Farts on Thursday (from another crème de la crème editor, in case anyone's keeping a scorecard).

Each sketch was about 5 megs, and I'm on rural dialup, so the process of downloading the sketch pdfs was akin to squeezing a very large octopus through the mail slot, although considerably less gooey, I must say. By lunch time, I was feasting my eyes on the beautiful new spreads.

Bubble Homes and Fish Farts (Charlesbridge, 2009) contains some unusual creatures in unusual situations. This makes it a challenging book to 'get right' visually. As a nonfiction writer, it's a huge relief to me to have a publisher, editor, and illustrator who share my quest for detailed accuracy. I know. I'm lucky.

Illustrators and authors aren't always allowed to communiccate in this crazy picture book biz, but with the blessing of our editor, Carolyn (illustrator) and I have. It makes sense for her to have access to my research information and images, some of which have come directly from the scientists I talked to when writing the book.

The first sketches were right on for most spreads, the only exception being a few bizarre, idiosyncratic animals for which photo reference material is scarce. All but two of Thursday's sketches have nailed the animal idiosyncrasies in question, and even those two just need minor tweaking. Carolyn rocks. On to colour art!
_

_
Most of the editors I've worked with over the years have been good. In fact, I consider myself extra lucky because only one was truly awful (and even she was just very, very green), the rest by-and-large were pretty darn good, and five fall into the crème de la crème category---much more than is statistically called for in such a bell curve tail. I'll happily take that distribution, however. Thankyouverymuch.

I was reminded today of my good fortune with editors when one---in the crème de la crème category---sent an article for me to proof.

For the best magazines, this is a standard procedure that bumps the quality up a notch. It gives the writer one last look at the text after it's been edited and sent for expert review. . . a chance for the writer to voice concerns about any changes that have been made. If everything goes as it should, the editor gets a "Looks great. Thanks!" from the writer, and the article goes off to press.

Sometimes, though, that extra author pass catches things that should be fixed. Even a comma shift or a word replaced by a synonym, or some other small change may inadvertently make a big difference to accuracy or meaning, expecially when cutting edge science is involved (which it frequently is in my magazine writing). In that case, editor and author work things out to restore the accuracy, either going back to the original wording or coming up with a third solution that satisfies them both. These discussions can be colourful, on such riveting topics as whether "shortfin makos" should be abbreviated to "shortfins" or "makos" or not at all (no, yes, and yes. . . even though "longfin makos" is shortened to "longfins", go figure) and whether North American kids would understand the word "squidgy" (no), among other tantalizing intellectual matters.

Today, the article to be proofed was barely changed from the one I turned in. Just a few stylistic word substitutions I couldn't have predicted, none of which altered the accuracy or meaning. Yea! Within an hour of the proofs arriving in my emailbox, the "Looks great. Thanks!" was winging its way back to the editor.

Thanks to her ability to communicate the scope of the assignment effectively, and my familiarity with the style and 'tude of the magazine, this article ended up right the first time out of the box. Actually, I knew the proofs wouldn't contain any major changes because crème de la crème editors don't make major changes to a writer's work. They return it to the writer with revision instructions and let the writer rework it. Oh, yeah, did I mention that editors showing respect for writers is a sure sign of a good editor?

It's such a pleasure working with crème de la crème.
_