How to use this Page

Love this! And best definition of "hook" EVER!!!

As one who was at that hippie-sounding conference, I thought I'd add a little to your post. Yes, Mr. Schmidt does hate the word "hook" in this literary sense, but I think he'd agree with you that there needs to be a reason people will read your book. My suspicion is that "hook" has come to mean more of a high-concept thing from his point of view: can you sum your book up in a sentence for a TV guide blurb/back jacket flap? Instead, he talked about "aboutness" or the book's "guts" as ways to approach the same issue.

As you note, if we all wrote like him it wouldn't matter. He swims in "aboutness" and it shines through. But I think he just wants writers to think more deeply rather than less since that's what worked for him. (I could be wrong, but since he's not a blog kinda fellow, I don't think he'll weigh in to correct me!)

Yeah, he's wrong. You're right. He's forgotten that his "hook" is his name on the cover.

More generally I wonder whether established writers are really helping newbies with advice.

Join a writing group? I never did, and I never would. The very idea makes my flesh creep.

Read, read, read? The only time I read YA or MG is when I have to do blurb. I read history.

Ignore the market? What? In what universe? If you want to remain unpublished, by all means ignore the market.

It's not about money. Yes it is. It's about money. If there's a contract then guess what: it's about money.

It's about connections. We'd already published more than 100 books before we ever met an agent or editor face-to-face.

I'm more and more uneasy with handing pabulum to aspiring writers. My advice is:

1) Have the good luck to be born with some talent. Sorry, but it's not just hard work and nose to the grindstone. It's DNA and environment and if those two forces didn't conspire to give you some talent go do something else and stop torturing yourself.

2) Have something to say. Have some stories. That's what we're doing: telling stories. If you're having a hard time "coming up with an idea" go do something else.

3) Learn your job. Words, sentences, punctuation. More importantly learn how to use those tools to manipulate other people's emotions and keep their interest.

4) Learn your business. Your business is books, bookstores, publishers, e-books, movie rights, merchandise, marketing, advertising.

5) Stand up for what's right sometimes and roll over other times. Pick your fights and emerge on top.

6) Don't be a dick because people in publishing never go away. That editorial assistant will be an acquiring editor some day.

7) Understand that this is a career not ego validation. You work in isolation. You never know where your next paycheck is coming from. You are your own boss. You have no safety net. There are a million people who want your slot on the shelves at B&N. Just about everyone in the business will lie to you and try to screw you. Not all, but most. You are only as good as your last book and the computers at Bookscan or B&N can open up and swallow you whole one day, you and your entire career. So before you waste a lot of time ask yourself if that's the career you want.

Gary Schmidt is one of my professors and he absolutely thrills and terrifies me in the same breath. I don't think I have ever heard him speak on hooks, but I do know he once informed me that he doesn't believe in writer's block. So when I am stuck I remind myself that it isn't that I am blocked, I am just coming from the story in the wrong way.

Well said. And it's good to have you back, EA.

I agree, EA. And if you don't like the word 'hook', then at least think about what your reader does want at the beginning of a story - engagement? tension? mystery? voice? They are all kinds of hooks, too.

She's back!

(I know you're anonymous, but I get this 'she' vibe.)

At first sight, Mr Schmidt sounds like one of those people who makes a provocative statement to see if anyone dares contradict him. Disputing the need for a 'hook' seems total idiocy - as proved by everyone's spirited and eloquent responses. I have to wonder, have his remarks been reported incompletely and perhaps out of context? But thanks, Ed Anon, for a worthwhile and meaty debate!

Well, here I was all worried I'd miss too many of EA's posts. She was editing. I was writing. I'm so backed up on my Internet reading, but I'm happier that I'm writing.

Always enjoy your posts.

The world of writing is full of contradictions, and that does not exclude the advice we get from successful authors.

One such best-selling, award-winning, critically acclaimed author once told a group of hungry amateur writers that he never wrote more than one draft, otherwise it turned out to be manufactured and dry. Okay, so maybe this guy is just mega-talented and a genius and can write amazing stuff in one draft. But seriously, I really hope 99% of the people in that room worked up a deaf ear, because I still go by Hemingway's advice, you know, about all first drafts being sh*%#.

“Don’t listen to advice. Even mine.” Karen Cushman

This is simply brilliant! Wonders what my hook is...

You now what would be great, EA, if you gave us a post with what you think the hooks of major chilren's novels are.

Having worked with Gary for a very intense MFA semester, I will hazard a guess about his intent...

I think he rejects the gimmick of a hook that draws the reader in, but deceives him/her into thinking that there is depth in the work. A "hook" in the opening pages will keep the reader going for a few chapters, but it isn't enough to carry a book that has no real emotional "meat."

I'm with Michael Grant's idea -- "... He's forgotten that his "hook" is his name on the cover..."

There are certain writers who write anything and can get it published. Even the same plot with practically the same characters. Over and over again. Other writers need a hook.

Perhaps, as Gregory K suggests, Mr. Schmidt was simply using other words to mean hook because he thought "hook" meant something other than it does. In that case, I hope the definition in this post has been helpful.


Or perhaps, as Debra suggests, Mr. Schmidt was exhorting authors to inject more emotional depth and meaning into their work, rather than to rely on superficially enticing premises.

If authors followed this exhortation, I for one would weep tears of personal joy and professional repletion.

But you know who else would weep? The readers who like fluff and will pay for it.

As a reader, you (and I) can cast whatever aspersions we like on such books, but as citizens who think the habit of reading is far more important than only reading Good Literature (because that would mean, for some people, that they read just one book in their whole lives), it's not ok to say that all books must be Deep and Meaningful.

Some of them should simply be Fun, and for those books, a superficial premise can and will get the reader through the whole book. For those books, the cheapest and most obnoxious definition of hook is still not something to look down your nose at, because it is the thing that keeps a segment of our reading public reading.

I sympathize with Mr. Schmidt (who is indeed awesome; my son and I loved "The Wednesday Wars"). Yes, every novel needs a hook, but in the past few months I've read several novels that had great-sounding hooks, but the stories themselves were awful. Flat characters, cliche settings, plots that were serviceable but it didn't matter because I couldn't bring myself to care.

The trend makes me fear that publishers are chasing the ultimate hook to an extent that they don't care about anything else. I wonder how many books with weaker hooks but better storytelling were passed over in order to publish the "gimmick" books I was suckered into buying. I guess the gimmick books can be considered successful. After all, they lured me into buying them. But they left a bad taste in my mouth and not much enthusiasm for going back for more.

Thanks for stream lining the definition of the 'hook' for me. You wouldn't believe how muddled it got over the past couple of years!

I love Skippyjon Jones. Not only is the writing and humor great, but it has the most fantastic, organic plot and bittersweetnessivity.

I keep a copy by my drawing table for reference and inspiration.

This text is LONG. Yet I look at my "short and acceptable, advisable" word counts for today's standards, and I want to go further like she...but I guess I will leave that up to the powers that be.

Nice classic structure, with all the story elements.

Is it a hole or does a great book fit a new need then others follow suit? After taking a great novel writing class the writing exercises proved any theme can be adopted, but the one most interesting is the one that comes from the creative hole in me and my need to fill it. Specifying needs is like trying to pin down why a piece of art is lovely, the beauty is perceived by the viewer. Can’t change anyone else’s perception. CAN keep working on the art.

I've always assumed that this hole isn't so much something that agents and editors are looking for, specifically...but rather something that is written really well AND somehow stands apart from 99.9% of what's in the slush piles.

Agents and editors can't say exactly what that special something is...if they could, they'd want to be an author and write it.

But they DO know what that 99.9% consists of...so when they see something that's different, they know it. That's the 'hole.' In essence...it's not what agents are looking for, but rather the alternative to what they're NOT looking for. (I know, a double negative.)

The whole reason the hole changes shape is because that 99.9% changes. A book that's a perfect fit for a market that craves something different (but not too different) one year most definitely isn't going to be the same, the next year. Of course! The market changes and what the reading public wants to buy changes.

Anyway...that's my take on it, in case that helps anyone...if I'm right.

How long do these holes exist for? It seems to me that by the time you do your research, generate a plot idea, write, and revise a book, things may have changed in the market.

Nicely said, "Just write your book, submit, and, trust me, you’ll find your time."

That's all I can do...write what I write, then, we'll see what happens. I keep my eye on what's going on the best I can, but no one has a crystal ball....

Great post.

Sure, we could "find our time" if only agents would find the time to read requested mss.! Sadly, agents offer all sorts of excuses why they don't have time to respond to queries or mss.

By the time they finally do, the author's window of opportunity may have already passed...
Can't agents find a more efficient way to read and respond to submissions so writers don't waste MONTHS and YEARS of their time?

Anon-

I feel your pain, but I don't think you can blame agents for this.

I should be reading smart, non-fiction books about solving world hunger. Instead, important books wither on the shelf while I devour YA fiction daily.

Is that my fault? Maybe. But I give credit to the YA authors who write stories I CAN'T PUT DOWN.

Get it?

It's up to us writers to create work agents can't put down. They have no responsibility to read boring stuff just because it's what they should be reading.

Thanks for the clarification. This is what I already assumed. And I don't write fast enough to find out what's hot at the moment and then write something on that, so I'll take your advice and just write what I'm writing!

I'm not sure why anyone would want to write something that's not in their hearts to convey. Writing is an art form. An artist doesn't create their art because it's "what's popular" at the time. She creates her art because it's what's in her soul to be spoken. Write what is in your soul to be spoken and trust that your words will fall upon the right ears (or eyes!).

I don't know about other novelists, but I don't approach a novel by studying what's currently hot or not in fiction. I write whatever particular story is tumbling out of my mind. What's important is the story I want to tell and the way I want to tell it.

Where these stories originate in the deepest recesses of my brain, I have no idea. The muse beckons and I have to write.

I think it's problematic to write to fill a hole anyway. In trying so hard to include this element or that in an attempt to perfectly tailor a book to an agent's/editor's taste, it's easy to lose sight of the story you want to tell. To a large extent, you have to write for yourself, or else it becomes a chore and it's clear when the book suffers for it. You can't force a compelling voice or that spark that will make a book stand out from the rest. (I could add more, but Kathleen MacIver already said it very well.)

Now I'm not saying it's a bad idea to try to write something you think will work well for the market, based on what you think will be trendy. If you know that zombie pirates are going to be hot, and you have a zombie pirate book inside you, write it! But often I think it might be better to just write the story you want, then worry about tailoring it if you can. If it's good enough, it will eventually get published. And if it just doesn't work... well, hopefully the next book will.

"How long do these holes exist for? It seems to me that by the time you do your research, generate a plot idea, write, and revise a book, things may have changed in the market."

9:02 AM, March 31, 2009

Livia, this is the crux of the matter. Really, stuff that's hot now, flooding the market now, are books that were bought a year, to two years ago. You can research what's being bought now, but can you have a book, done, polished and subbed to an editor, by tomorrow? If so, that editor might not get to it for months...by that time, your story might not be so "hot" anymore...I think in the end, you need to be aware of what's out there...that's just being smart, but ulitmately you need to write "your" story and do a damn fine job of it...let your voice be heard, and hopefully it will resonate with an agent, editor and if the timing is right, you'll get your, sale!

I think trying to follow a writing trend is like trying to fall in love. It can work, and has worked, but not as smooth and easy as writing something or loving someone who naturally moves you.




Confucius says; he who will not economize will have to agonize.

Here's the tricky thing: everything's been done before, so you need to try something fresh. Or at least it should feel fresh. So if you're writing about a PI, well, it's going to be tough. Or a cop. Or a spy.

Sometimes you can make it "fresh" simply by writing about women in the more male-oriented genres. Sometimes not. Child wizards? Tough one right now, but it's not like JK Rowling invented the concept.

Read a lot and try to write about some angle you've never read about before... but not too fresh or publishers won't know what to do with it.

Marie, you missed the point--agetns are supposed to read their queries and REQUESTED mss. as part of their job. They wouldn't request mss. if they were boring. If they find their clients' work boring, then maybe they can help with the feedback and revision. It's hard to be timely when agents sit on mss. and queries for MONTHS and waste our time as we wait for their responses.

Anonymous 12:24:

First off, I'll be upfront and say that I'm most likely the worst offender at BookEnds when it comes to timeliness of response. I hate that and feel guilty about it, but I try my best with the time that I have.

That said, I have to disagree that it's something I'm "supposed" to do as "part of the job." I'm not paid by the hour. And every minute that I spend reading submissions is a minute I'm not working on my clients' projects -- the stuff I actually get paid for. Obviously if I have the time and the desire to build my client list, then yes I need to scout my submissions. But my existing clients are my top priority. If that weren't the case, my title would be "query reader" not "agent."

I never understand it when people get mad at agents and editors and want to know "What is it do you want?" As if they could magically write a werewolf mystery if that's needed.
Write what you write! Geesh!!! And query many many times until you hit the one that works, but don't assume you're such a great writer that an agent will walk you through exactly what they want. Drives me nuts.

It seems like it would be impossible (especially as a debut author) to try to plan a novel based on a hole in the market. There's so much work and time that goes into a novel, it seems to me that you'd spend more time reworking your WIP to fit the newest hole that you'd never get it published.

There never, however, seems to be a slowdown in the publishing world for requesting really great stories... Maybe that's a hole that never gets completely filled.

No problem, Kim--you're not the only agent who is too busy!

I just wonder why agents continue to solicit submissions, attend conferences and request mss., then don't bother to reply to queries or REQUESTED material? Maybe overworked agents need to take a break and quit accepting and soliciting queries and mss. if they're too busy to read them. After all, writers don't get paid by the hour either and our time is just as valuable. Just a thought!

I think that every now and then frivolity can be its own kind of morality--like Seuss or Amelia Bedelia. (Maybe the problem with a lot of frivolity is that it isn't done well?)

I heart this post.I was just talking with a writer friend on the phone about this very topic. I don't want to write issue books. I want to make kids laugh and be grossed out (a bit, not too much), and on a deeper level..problem solve. I'll find out soon if this can sell or not. But it's what I love to write.

Regardless of deep moral theme or frivolous silliness or any combo of the two, i think the #1 priority is to entertain children (and hopefully make it salable along the way?)I like your reiteration of LAYERS

Yes, thank you for reminding us of layers! It's a great way to think about just how much goes into "simple" books such as Mo Willems'.And know that I am very grateful for you this Thanksgiving, EA! I raise a spoonful of squash to you! (Just in case you're vegetarian ...)

Children love to dream and pretend. A book for children should provide the forum to do just that, freely and imaginatively.

I love reading to my son and doing all the voices.Here's another reason why a book needs layers - parents will be reading them again, and again, and again... oh god make it stop.But seriously, Thank you writers and illustrators for giving parents a bit of a giggle too.Wombat stew, wombat stew,hot and spiceyoh so niceywombat stew....

As a fine artist starting out creating - gasp - whimsical work, I added a tag-line to my business cards:"Art doesn't have to be serious not to be trivial". Not being self important takes a lot of work....

Some people might say that this gives a book weight.

So children's books are like ogres, huh? Or is it parfaits? :)

Love the ogres thing and the layers. And it's very true. An adult doesnt typically want to buy a book just because their kid likes it. As the oldest in a family with six "yung'ns" I can attest to that. If there isn't something of a point to it, it's prettymuch worthless. even candy.lol