MEGATASK: write a novel

You've read some of these, and you always think to yourself, 'Hey, I could do that!' So what's stopping you? Motivation? Money? Ability? Dammit, we live in the future, and in this future anybody can write a novel. I've got good news for you, too, if you can read this, you basically have all the prerequisites met for undertaking this project. Here's what you've got:

A computer - because you're reading this, I'm about 95 percent sure you've got a computer or access to one (yes, you could be reading this on a cell phone or something else, but you're not.)

Time - clearly nobody is forcing you to kick around on this page, so you've got some time to burn. Doubly so if you're at work.

Motivation - you might think you're lacking in this department, but the fact that you've read this far shows at least some interest in writing a novel. You're doing this instead of looking at pr0nz, which is also a measure of your superior character.

So, with all that out of the way, let's make a plan, let's spell out what it takes to get from here (this novelless nebula of suck) to there (a world where we've written novels). First, you need the big picture. Answer for me these questions three, and we'll be on our way:

What's your novel about?
Who's in it?
Why do we care?

College professors and high school teachers love to lecture students about the 'requirements' for a good story. They'll go on and on about setting and theme, talk about protagonists, conflict resolution, story arcs, and fifteen kinds of bullshit. They're good at saying 'no'. You can't do this, you can't do that, etc.

Why would you listen to someone who's never been published and claims to be an expert?

Me, I'm a published expert. You should listen to me, I will tell you what matters. Here's what matters: spelling, grammar, and style. Don't write like an amateur and you won't be one. The story doesn't matter. Want proof? Look at all the compelling books you'll find out there that aren't novels. They don't have all the arbitrary requirements necessary for fiction novels, and they sell, and people like them. Self-help books, technical texts, etc. You could write a book about sheep-farming in Hokkaido and people would read it, if it's well-written.

I'm done ranting. We're writing a novel. We need a story outline. You could skip this step, but let me tell you why you shouldn't: it will save you time. Rather than writing a book a paragraph at a time with no direction for your characters, you could have a set path for your story, allowing you to fill in blanks instead of constantly trying to think of what to do next. Consider these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Bob, the dashing protagonist, and Ella, his ravishing love interest, are sitting at a bar. What will happen between them? I don't know, but I'll wing it as I go along. They might fall in love, he might be a rabid murderer, at this point I'm not sure, but I'm sure I'll figure it out.

Scenario 2:
Bob and Ella meet at a bar.
They date for a while and get married.
Ella comes down with debilitating foot cancer.
Bob has an affair with Ella's sister.
Ella discovers the affair and murders them both.
Ella must now flee from the law, but is hindered by the wheelchair she must use because her cancerous foot was amputated.

Now, if I had to write a bunch of prose in a short amount of time, I'd be a lot more confident working with the information provided to me in Scenario 2. Either way, you'd be riffing most of it, but with the second scenario you already know the futures of the characters and you can play with foreshadowing. Let's put it this way: playing the stock market is hard, but possible. Playing the stock market with knowledge of what happens in the future will make you a shit-ton of money.

When it comes to writing your story about your characters, you're an insider. Keep that in mind.

So, we have some kind of outline. How can we write without:
-sounding like everybody else?
-sounding like horrible amateurs?
-being boring?

There are a few tricks you can use to greatly improve the way you come across in print. The first is to stop using lots of adjectives to describe things. Your readers are smarter (believe it or not) than you give them credit for. Consider the following two passages:

He was an old man with a devilish glint in his eye, stacking rickety, wooden boxes atop one another. His glasses were scratched, but his white suit was impeccable.

Okay, decent, we know what's going on, but consider:

Professor Sogbottom pointed his cane at a man walking by, and said, "You, sir, you look like a discerning type. Wouldn't you enjoy extended longevity, greater mental elasticity, and all-around good health?"

Which passage was more interesting? I'm hoping you said the second one. If you did, do you know why? Verbs and dialogue.  Not saying don't ever use adjectives, just saying that it's easy to get stuck in the habit of using them almost exclusively.

Now that we've touched on style, how about technical skill?  First off, consider having your MS edited by a professional or at least a self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi.  You can find a Grammar Nazi on almost any internet forum, so click on his handle and send him a message offering him 20 bucks to edit your masterpiece.  If he's spending all day grading other people's grammar for free (because he has no life), he will jump at the chance to make a small profit from it. 

The point?  Make sure your eyes aren't the only ones to see your text before you send it out. 

Also (and I confess, I've been guilty of this as well...) don't use expressions whose etymology you are unsure of, or you might end up with gems like these:

As he stood over her grave, he realized he loved her, but by then it was a mute point. (moot point)
Reporters have been pouring over the documents since their release a week ago. (poring over)
I use to be a football star, back in high school.  (used to)

These mistakes are common, and making them doesn't make you an idiot, but it does send a signal to the discerning reader that you haven't had your stuff edited.  Just something to keep in mind.