Roondar Nackle

            Meet Roondar Nackle. He is a forest gnome with some magical talent who enjoys nothing more than watching corpses decay. It may seem like an odd hobby, but for someone who may live up to five hundred years, taking a year or so to observe the process of a body turning to dirt seems totally reasonable.

            It’s probably a good thing that he’s more interested in the dead than the living, because the living tend to have no idea how to deal with him. It would be better if he was morbid and morose, because his constant enthusiasm and excitement when talking about corpses is rather unsettling. He tends to get a lot of vacant and confused looks, though those that know him well have discovered that the best way to avoid his decomposition lectures is to point him in the direction of a dead animal they saw recently.

            Roondar is a character I made for playing in a D&D campaign that, sadly, didn’t last that long. However, I’ve recently joined another game that is allowing me to play him again – my hope is that this time, I’ll be able to explore him to his full potential. However, this isn’t really a blog about D&D; this is about that picture up there.

            About a year and a half ago, I decided to start working on several tasks every day to improve skills that I wanted to develop. One of said skills was drawing. I used to thoroughly enjoy drawing as a child, but at some point I felt my skills had reached a plateau and – that plateau not being particularly high, I stopped. However, I never stopped wishing I could draw – so, at last I decided that what I lacked in talent, I would try to make up for with practice and skill.

            I wasn’t certain I would get anywhere with it, but I knew I’d never find out if I didn’t try. So, I started working on drawing exercises. Every single day, I spent some time drawing, constantly moving on to the next task and training my hand to actually draw what I wanted it to. I very rarely attempted anything outside of the various drawing tutorials or exercises I found.

            When I resurrected Roondar for a new D&D campaign, I decided it was time to attempt an original piece – no model, no tutorial, just something straight from my imagination to paper. It took some work, and I still had to reference some of my earlier exercises for proportions and such, but I at last completed something that I was happy enough with that I was willing to share – and I was delighted to see that my efforts had finally paid off.

            Roondar here is the result of a year and a half of drawing daily – only spending between 10 and 45 minutes on each of those days. Looking at how little time that is in the grand scheme of things, I’m quite happy with how far my drawing skills have come. Soon I’ll have to stop claiming that I can’t draw.

Check out my YouTube channel where I tell the stories of my D&D campaigns.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

Also, make sure you check out my wife's blog and her website.


If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

So You Want to be a Writer?

            There are two tips that you will come across repeatedly while doing research on writing, usually in conjunction with each other: read a lot and write a lot. More than anything, these are the two things that will shape all writers.

            The later is self-explanatory. “Write a lot” walks hand in hand with “practice makes perfect”. No one in the world can just sit down and write a perfect book the first time. Like any art, it takes time to learn not only skills, but how to tap into your innate talents and develop your unique voice.

            I, myself, am amazed at the drastic improvement I see in my own writing. Each time I complete a book, I find it hard to believe I wrote the previous one. A more tangible example is the best-selling author Terry Pratchett. All you have to do is read The Colour of Magic and compare it to any of his later titles. It’s hard to believe they were written by the same person.

            As for reading a lot, it seems to be obvious, yet at the same time it can often feel counter-productive. During the creative process, our brains naturally regurgitate what they've absorbed and it sometimes feels like we’re accidentally imitating someone else’s work. It does happen to a certain extent; I remember reading Christopher Paolini’s Eragon for the first time and being able to pick out some of his favourite authors (I looked it up later to be sure I was right). However, imitation is the first step in learning. When learning to speak, we imitate sounds before we understand the meanings of words. When learning to write, we learn the letters prior to understanding how they’re used.

            The benefits of reading when you’re a writer are endless. It’s important to know what else is out there, plus it’s a great source of inspiration. More than that, though, it is how writers learn and improve. As you begin reading books as author, you learn to look at them a new way. You take a step back from simply enjoying yourself and analyse deeper. If you find yourself drawn into a book, you ask yourself, why? What has this author done to affect me so? You look more closely at the characters to see how they’re made to seem realistic, at the plot to see how it progresses and twists, at the words to increase your vocabulary, and at the style to see what you like and dislike.

            Much of the time, the learning is on a subconscious level. Other times, you find yourself searching for the secret that makes a good book so good.

            I've recently started reading Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time series and I came across something I've never seen before (or, at least, never noticed). A lot of authors build tension by keeping secrets from the reader. What’s that lurking in the shadows? Where is the villain? Who is the villain? Jordan did the opposite: he gave, what I felt, was too much information. It wasn't quite enough to tell exactly who the traitorous allies of the protagonists were, but it was enough to make me reasonably certain – while still leaving just enough doubt. It wasn't until characters were trustingly being led into what I was sure was a trap that I realized what he’d done. He’d given me enough information to guess the truth, but held back enough that I had to read on to be certain.

            And so, my repertoire of writing tricks grow, and I become a better author through reading. For those others out there aspiring to be writers, I shall reiterate the advice you will hear over and over again. Read lots. Write lots. You’ll amaze yourself at how much you improve.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

The Query Process

            There are many writers who complain about the query process and, while I don’t join them, I can hardly blame them. It’s a long and arduous process that, in the end, often results in feeling like all that time was wasted. Yet, it is the most important step for someone who wants to get published – even more important than writing a book in the first place.

            It all starts with writing a query letter and, let me tell you, there is very little that is as stressful as that. You have roughly 300 words in which you have to introduce yourself and describe your book while having to make it sound as interesting and unique as you possibly can. Not only that, but you have to do it with the pressure of knowing that the entire fate of your book hangs on this letter.

            Next comes the research. You need to find agents and/or publishers to send your letter to – specifically ones who would be interested in publishing your book. There are various sites to help with this, but I've discovered that there’s no all-inclusive list. You also need to check up on their backgrounds to make sure they’re legitimate – there are many people out there who would love to take advantage of an unsuspecting author and all their hard work.

            Then you need to find out how to submit your work to them. Some of them only accept e-mails, others only snail mail. Some of them want only a query letter, others want samples of your work and a synopsis of the whole book (another nightmare to write) or any combination of the three.

            Finally you get to send the letters out – being sure to personalize them to each agent/publisher you are sending them to. There is some debate on the need to do this; I read one article by an agent that it takes so much time that she doesn't think authors should need to add it to their workload, while I've seen more often that it’s essential because it shows you really want to work with the person.

            Once the letters are sent, you wait.

            Sometimes the replies come quickly, sometimes not. The average response time is four weeks to three months. That is, if they respond at all, which a number specifically say they don’t.

            When the response comes, it is usually a form-rejection letter – pre-typed and sent with a click of a button. After all that work, this is a huge let-down. Not only is it hard on the self-confidence, but it feels cold and impersonal. You just want to ask them, “What did I do wrong? Tell me what to fix and I’ll fix it!” But if you do your research properly, you’ll know you’re not supposed to. So, you’re just left wondering if you’re actually good enough while you wait for the next response to come in.

            Now, while I’d love to hear back personally from every agent I've queried, I fully understand why this is their process. Some agents get as many as 300 books submitted in the span of a week. 300! Per week! Out of that, they end up representing 2-10 new books in a year. It’s little wonder they don’t have time to respond personally to everyone.

            But, once in a while, they do. Their feedback is usually as brief as a form rejection, but you know they’re talking specifically to you. I received one of these this past week and I can honestly say that the only thing that could have made me happier would have been if the agent had wanted to represent my book. She told me that my story was strong and it drew her in from the start. She said I have talent, but she didn't fall in love with the story the way she needs to if she was going to represent it. She also said that she’s certain that it will find a home soon.

            Not only did this wonderful rejection give me a confidence boost, it also shed some more light on the whole query process. The agent took the time to tell me that my book was good enough to publish, but she just wasn't the right one to represent it – and that’s what most writers don’t understand. In order to represent a book, an agent had to fall in love with it. They can’t simply like it.

            So, more often than not, a rejection isn't the “You’re not good enough” that it feels like; it’s more of a “It’s not quite right for me” which, incidentally, is usually the exact wording in those form rejection letters.

            Hopefully that can bring some consolation to other writers, as it did to me. Agents work very hard, so it’s little wonder they can’t often take the time for a personal response – it’s better that they spend their time working with the people they do represent. That makes the times they respond personally mean all that much more.

            The querying process isn't perfect, but it’s the best system we've got right now. Until someone comes up with a better method, all we can do is work with it and hope for the best. Perhaps we should consider renaming rejection letters, though. Rejection feels too harsh for what they actually are. I think Not For Me letters would be a more apt name. Too bad it doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.

Thoughts on Talent

            When I was in higschool, I played the clarinet. I played it rather well, too. By my final year I was considered the second best clarinettist in the school band(s) – the person who was better than me practised very hard to get that way.

            The thing was, I never practised outside of rehearsals. I played using my innate talent and, since I did well enough for my liking (and for my marks in class), I felt practising was a waste of my time.

            However, there was one band rehearsal I’ll never forget. We were getting close to our concert and, as such, we were already quite familiar with the music. As we played through one particular piece, I suddenly stopped and stared at my sheet music as if I’d never seen it before.

            There was a note on the page that I had no idea what the fingering for it was supposed to be. I’d played this piece many times before and, every time, I had played this section flawlessly. Until now.

            I wracked my brain, trying to figure out how to play this note that I’d played so many times before and, at long last, had to look up the proper fingering.

            There’s a big difference between having talent and having skill. Talent is amazing and can get you far, but what happens when you reach the end of that talent? Or on that one occasion that your talent gives out and you realize that you don’t know how to do something you've done dozens of times before?

            That’s where skill comes in. When you have to work at learning something, the abilities you learn stay with you far better than if you pick them up easily with your talent.

            Having talent is great, but it can only take you so far. When it comes down to it, it’s hard work and practice that shapes a talent into a solid skill.

Click here to find the charity anthology containing a couple of my short stories.

If there's any subject you'd like to see me ramble on about, feel free to leave a comment asking me to do so.