Reading the new romance writers report this eve, and there’s this really great interview with Vicki Lewis Thompson. She quotes Barbara Samuel on revisions, basically saying the book is never going to be as good as she initially imagined, so at some point, she stops revising and lets it go.
I feel very much the same. I know the book is never going to live up to my initial concept and expectations, and I usually realize this during the revision process. Not to say I’m not proud of my work, but this is where the real self doubt hits, and I start to sweat the small details, the big details and focus on what’s wrong and not what’s working.
This is the part where I procrastinate, worry, doubt and lose some of the love of the process.
I’ve written enough to know it’s coming, to muscle through it, and finish the book, but in the past this certainly has derailed me for a couple of books.
But I know other writers that love this process, that fall in love with their books during this part of the writing. I’ve always wondered, is this because they know they can match their work to their initial expectations?
I would love some insight into this. Most writers I know are a wonderful mass of self-doubt and worry, and most second guess their books long after they’ve started submitting them.
Someday I would love to send a book into the world confident it was as good as I could possibly make it.
I’m a ways away.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Revisiting Revisions (and cooking pasta)
I know I've blogged about revisions before, and so have Molly and Sinead, but for some reason I keep going back to this topic.
Okay, it's no big mystery. I know the reason. It's because I'm not only revising right now--like Molly, I'm revising something I've already revised at least once before. But unlike Molly, I'm not feeling so confident about how it's going right now.
I think the last time I blogged about revising I claimed it was my favorite part of the writing process. (Well, maybe second to those days where my fingers just fly and things happen on the page I didn't see coming, but those days are few and far between and hard to predict.) I think I've always liked revising because I felt like it was easier to control.
But I want to take back my "I love revising" claim. It seems, like so many other things about writing, that whether or not revising goes well, depends on the book.
The manuscript I'm revising right now, on the surface, would seem to be a much simpler story than my previous work which had multiple timelines and lots to things to juggle. But I'm actually finding this one harder. It's a story where it's all about the subtle changes in the character's attitude. Little by little they have to change and I'm only in one character's POV, but what's going on with the other characters is very important and has to show through, and I keep moving things around and then realizing the move's messed up what a character was thinking or doing somewhere else. (And to complicate matters, the two main characters' minds are in each other's bodies for 99% of the book... Yes. That's right. I'm insane.)
Right now, I can't even seem to keep order of the book's events straight, and having problems like that isn't like me. Before these past few weeks, I'd have said that sort of thing was my strength, not my weakness...
Of course, I know there are lots of tools I could be using (outlining, storyboarding, index cards, etc.) to help with this process, but I feel like I'm in a rush so I've been reluctant to step back to do the work I know I should be doing...
And that's actually what I had been planning to blog about before the huge preceding digression.
Why are we in such a freakin' hurry all the time?
I've spent so much time beating myself up about the fact I haven't had anything new out on submission with editors for a year, and I obviously I can't sell if I'm not getting new work to my agent, and obviously if I want a career in popular fiction I need to be able to produce at least a book a year, but sometimes I feel like, especially at this hunting-your-first-contract stage, that it pays to take your time, to make sure you're doing your best work, to make sure you're telling stories that will stand out with high quality writing that stands out, too...
I've heard several people give the "spaghetti" advice line to unpublished writers. That is, to write as much as you can in as many genres as you can, get lots out there and see what sticks. And I certainly know people who've done very well with that strategy, but for me, I think my work, like pasta, needs to be fully cooked before it'll have a chance of sticking to the wall.
All that said, I'm still determined to get this manuscript completely revised before I go to RWA Nationals in two weeks. Previously, I'd been hoping for much sooner, so that my agent could read it before I see here there... but I gave up on that pipe dream a few weeks ago...
Do you feel pressure to write quickly? Do you think it affects the quality of what you do?
Gotta go. I'm in a hurry. Back to work...
Okay, it's no big mystery. I know the reason. It's because I'm not only revising right now--like Molly, I'm revising something I've already revised at least once before. But unlike Molly, I'm not feeling so confident about how it's going right now.
I think the last time I blogged about revising I claimed it was my favorite part of the writing process. (Well, maybe second to those days where my fingers just fly and things happen on the page I didn't see coming, but those days are few and far between and hard to predict.) I think I've always liked revising because I felt like it was easier to control.
But I want to take back my "I love revising" claim. It seems, like so many other things about writing, that whether or not revising goes well, depends on the book.
The manuscript I'm revising right now, on the surface, would seem to be a much simpler story than my previous work which had multiple timelines and lots to things to juggle. But I'm actually finding this one harder. It's a story where it's all about the subtle changes in the character's attitude. Little by little they have to change and I'm only in one character's POV, but what's going on with the other characters is very important and has to show through, and I keep moving things around and then realizing the move's messed up what a character was thinking or doing somewhere else. (And to complicate matters, the two main characters' minds are in each other's bodies for 99% of the book... Yes. That's right. I'm insane.)
Right now, I can't even seem to keep order of the book's events straight, and having problems like that isn't like me. Before these past few weeks, I'd have said that sort of thing was my strength, not my weakness...
Of course, I know there are lots of tools I could be using (outlining, storyboarding, index cards, etc.) to help with this process, but I feel like I'm in a rush so I've been reluctant to step back to do the work I know I should be doing...
And that's actually what I had been planning to blog about before the huge preceding digression.
Why are we in such a freakin' hurry all the time?
I've spent so much time beating myself up about the fact I haven't had anything new out on submission with editors for a year, and I obviously I can't sell if I'm not getting new work to my agent, and obviously if I want a career in popular fiction I need to be able to produce at least a book a year, but sometimes I feel like, especially at this hunting-your-first-contract stage, that it pays to take your time, to make sure you're doing your best work, to make sure you're telling stories that will stand out with high quality writing that stands out, too...
I've heard several people give the "spaghetti" advice line to unpublished writers. That is, to write as much as you can in as many genres as you can, get lots out there and see what sticks. And I certainly know people who've done very well with that strategy, but for me, I think my work, like pasta, needs to be fully cooked before it'll have a chance of sticking to the wall.
All that said, I'm still determined to get this manuscript completely revised before I go to RWA Nationals in two weeks. Previously, I'd been hoping for much sooner, so that my agent could read it before I see here there... but I gave up on that pipe dream a few weeks ago...
Do you feel pressure to write quickly? Do you think it affects the quality of what you do?
Gotta go. I'm in a hurry. Back to work...
Monday, June 25, 2007
Hey, you know what really works...?
Beer. Works wonders. But so does the Sangria at Sarah's on the Danforth -- holy smokes - that's good sangria. That Tide To Go pen. A cool shower before going to bed on a hot night -- my mom was right. Macaroni and Cheese - my kid's not eating anything these days and last night he was shoveling that stuff in by the fist ful.
Oh, and that advice we always hear about putting your finished work aside before going back and editing. This is advice I always hear and never take to heart and always think it's simply a luxury. But, I've been working on a project for over two years now - and I work on it and send it to my agent who sends to publishing houses and most of the publishing houses reject it but someone likes it - not enough to buy it - but enough to say "What's the deal with the mother?" So, then my agent says - why don't you do something with the mother. And since it's been 2 years and any burning passion I had for this book is so gone I say -- why not? I can give it a go. Lo and Behold - I open up the file and I can see it all so clearly. Yes, of course. The mother. And here's where she will go. And this is what she means. And by God the book is better - why didn't I think of that?
Now, two years is a bit much, but being able to go back to something long after your all tied up in it -- it is a luxury but it's something I think we should try to make a reality. The book just gets better.
Oh, and that advice we always hear about putting your finished work aside before going back and editing. This is advice I always hear and never take to heart and always think it's simply a luxury. But, I've been working on a project for over two years now - and I work on it and send it to my agent who sends to publishing houses and most of the publishing houses reject it but someone likes it - not enough to buy it - but enough to say "What's the deal with the mother?" So, then my agent says - why don't you do something with the mother. And since it's been 2 years and any burning passion I had for this book is so gone I say -- why not? I can give it a go. Lo and Behold - I open up the file and I can see it all so clearly. Yes, of course. The mother. And here's where she will go. And this is what she means. And by God the book is better - why didn't I think of that?
Now, two years is a bit much, but being able to go back to something long after your all tied up in it -- it is a luxury but it's something I think we should try to make a reality. The book just gets better.
Friday, June 22, 2007
What are bigger books?
Stupid title for this blog, but my sleep deprived brain can’t think of a better one. I’m reading a book Molly loaned me, (ages ago, and I should have read it long before now), by Elizabeth Lowell. Tell me no lies, it’s a contemp, and I’m only 100 pages in.
And really, at 100 pages in, we’re not really into the action yet. It seems as if most of the major characters have been introduced, but you can tell this is build up for the story to come.
Popular, current wisdom would say the book should move faster, but this is a big book, close to 500 pages, and smaller print, and it was written about 20 years ago. Lowell has taken her time setting up the characters, you can tell she’s done a lot of research into ancient Chinese artifacts, and Washington, which is where the book is currently set, certainly it feels like she knows these two areas really, really well.
While the book is a romance, there’s a plot and storyline that seems equally as important as the romance, and the combination of both has really drawn me in.
(thanks for the loan, Molly)
It’s a bigger book in tone and depth than a lot of the romances I’ve read lately, and you can tell this book took her a while to both research and write.
I’m wondering if anyone knows of other more recent romances that read like this? Either historical or contemp.
I also believe in today’s market it would be really tough to write this book, given published authors need to be more prolific and don’t usually have a year or more to spend on one book. But if there are more out there like this, I would love to hear recommendations.
On another, unrelated note. Friday Night Lights. I’m three episodes from the end of the season.
Amazing show. I’ve been trying to figure out what they do best, but I think it’s to portray the small, perfect moments. The brilliant character reveals in small details that show us everything and tell us nothing.
Anyone else watching this? It does live up the hype.
And really, at 100 pages in, we’re not really into the action yet. It seems as if most of the major characters have been introduced, but you can tell this is build up for the story to come.
Popular, current wisdom would say the book should move faster, but this is a big book, close to 500 pages, and smaller print, and it was written about 20 years ago. Lowell has taken her time setting up the characters, you can tell she’s done a lot of research into ancient Chinese artifacts, and Washington, which is where the book is currently set, certainly it feels like she knows these two areas really, really well.
While the book is a romance, there’s a plot and storyline that seems equally as important as the romance, and the combination of both has really drawn me in.
(thanks for the loan, Molly)
It’s a bigger book in tone and depth than a lot of the romances I’ve read lately, and you can tell this book took her a while to both research and write.
I’m wondering if anyone knows of other more recent romances that read like this? Either historical or contemp.
I also believe in today’s market it would be really tough to write this book, given published authors need to be more prolific and don’t usually have a year or more to spend on one book. But if there are more out there like this, I would love to hear recommendations.
On another, unrelated note. Friday Night Lights. I’m three episodes from the end of the season.
Amazing show. I’ve been trying to figure out what they do best, but I think it’s to portray the small, perfect moments. The brilliant character reveals in small details that show us everything and tell us nothing.
Anyone else watching this? It does live up the hype.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Grammar in popular fiction
Okay, so this is a post that's been percolating in my mind for a while and probably isn't fully perked yet, but something I read this morning in a national newspaper made me consider it again.
First the disclaimers. I'm not a grammar guru. I don't pretend to have perfect grammar and know I make mistakes all the time. But I did have a few pretty good English teachers in school, and both of my parents were English speakers from birth, as were their parents and their parents, and one of my grandmothers was a teacher. (An aside... one of the aforementioned English teachers was Chinese-Canadian. So I don't mean to imply one needs to have been a native English speaker to have a good grasp of grammar. I just think it gives you a leg up if your parents used good grammar at home.) All that said, I suppose I have a better grasp of grammar than many, but by no means am I an expert. I look stuff up all the time, and even then, I'm often not sure... I mean, does anyone understand the rules for using which vs. that? (Okay, maybe it's just me with that one.)
But one thing I discovered when I started to write popular fiction, is that the rules seem to be looser in that piece of the publishing world. Either that or no one cares, because I've read a lot of published fiction with pretty loosely applied rules of grammar in my book.
One thing I think my very first manuscript had going for it was pretty good grammar. That manuscript boasted commas around every phrase, had zero sentences ending with prepositions, used the past perfect tense where appropriate--and was, well, stilted and dry.
So I loosened things up in my own writing. I probably went too far at first, shunning commas to the point my writing became hard to read, and overusing sentence fragments etc. (Still love sentence fragments.) But I started purposefully ending sentences with prepositions. (And starting them with conjunctions. LOL.) I started using "like" in places I felt sure "as if" was technically correct. I stopped being so hung up on grammar in my own work, and even cut back on marking up my critique partners' stuff.
So why am I blogging about this? The thing that set me off this morning, (or should "that" have been "which"?), was this sentence found in an in depth, hard news story I was reading on the subway:
"Nicole Richie's lawyer announced yesterday that her client will try and beat the driving under the influence rap...."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but shouldn't it be "try to beat" not "try and beat"? Don't know why that one sticks in my craw. I mean... wouldn't "and" only be correct if it were joining two separate actions the lawyer was taking? For example if he were both trying and beating? Doesn't the verb "to try" always need an infinitive after it? Something the subject of the sentence is trying TO do?
Grammar gurus out there. Am I right or wrong about this one?
Everyone else... Whether I'm right or wrong, does it matter? Does anyone care? How do you feel about grammar in popular fiction? Is it better to write the way the majority of people speak, or by doing that, are we adding to the problem by making readers assume it's correct? Am I the only one who thinks about this?
(Before someone says this in a comment... I think dialog should be written the way people speak, using the grammar the character would use, correct or not. But what about the other stuff???)
First the disclaimers. I'm not a grammar guru. I don't pretend to have perfect grammar and know I make mistakes all the time. But I did have a few pretty good English teachers in school, and both of my parents were English speakers from birth, as were their parents and their parents, and one of my grandmothers was a teacher. (An aside... one of the aforementioned English teachers was Chinese-Canadian. So I don't mean to imply one needs to have been a native English speaker to have a good grasp of grammar. I just think it gives you a leg up if your parents used good grammar at home.) All that said, I suppose I have a better grasp of grammar than many, but by no means am I an expert. I look stuff up all the time, and even then, I'm often not sure... I mean, does anyone understand the rules for using which vs. that? (Okay, maybe it's just me with that one.)
But one thing I discovered when I started to write popular fiction, is that the rules seem to be looser in that piece of the publishing world. Either that or no one cares, because I've read a lot of published fiction with pretty loosely applied rules of grammar in my book.
One thing I think my very first manuscript had going for it was pretty good grammar. That manuscript boasted commas around every phrase, had zero sentences ending with prepositions, used the past perfect tense where appropriate--and was, well, stilted and dry.
So I loosened things up in my own writing. I probably went too far at first, shunning commas to the point my writing became hard to read, and overusing sentence fragments etc. (Still love sentence fragments.) But I started purposefully ending sentences with prepositions. (And starting them with conjunctions. LOL.) I started using "like" in places I felt sure "as if" was technically correct. I stopped being so hung up on grammar in my own work, and even cut back on marking up my critique partners' stuff.
So why am I blogging about this? The thing that set me off this morning, (or should "that" have been "which"?), was this sentence found in an in depth, hard news story I was reading on the subway:
"Nicole Richie's lawyer announced yesterday that her client will try and beat the driving under the influence rap...."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but shouldn't it be "try to beat" not "try and beat"? Don't know why that one sticks in my craw. I mean... wouldn't "and" only be correct if it were joining two separate actions the lawyer was taking? For example if he were both trying and beating? Doesn't the verb "to try" always need an infinitive after it? Something the subject of the sentence is trying TO do?
Grammar gurus out there. Am I right or wrong about this one?
Everyone else... Whether I'm right or wrong, does it matter? Does anyone care? How do you feel about grammar in popular fiction? Is it better to write the way the majority of people speak, or by doing that, are we adding to the problem by making readers assume it's correct? Am I the only one who thinks about this?
(Before someone says this in a comment... I think dialog should be written the way people speak, using the grammar the character would use, correct or not. But what about the other stuff???)
Monday, June 18, 2007
Am I the last person to discover Suzanne Brockman?
I read my first Suzanne Brockman book this weekend. Read it in two big gulps. A friend loaned me Brockman's first of the Navy SEAL series because I wanted to see what authors did to really stand out in catagory romance. Now, of course I know who Suzanne is. I've seen the droves of people lining up to get thier books signed. I even know someone (Maureen) who won a ticket to go to a special dinner with Suzanne Brockman where there was a spoof of her books performed by other list-making authors. I totally got that she was a big deal.
Now I get why.
Was Prince Joe the best catagory book I ever read? Nope. But it was really really good. Sexual tension. Attention to detail. Interesting external plot - some sort of old school internal plot stuff that wouldn't fly today - But man, those male character leapt off the page. And catagory romance has been and will probably always be about the hero. And she writes a hell of a hero. She also writes a bunch of them -- all connected so people can't wait to go get that next book.
Anyone know which book comes after Prince Joe? Because I am addicted.
Now I get why.
Was Prince Joe the best catagory book I ever read? Nope. But it was really really good. Sexual tension. Attention to detail. Interesting external plot - some sort of old school internal plot stuff that wouldn't fly today - But man, those male character leapt off the page. And catagory romance has been and will probably always be about the hero. And she writes a hell of a hero. She also writes a bunch of them -- all connected so people can't wait to go get that next book.
Anyone know which book comes after Prince Joe? Because I am addicted.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Books books books books books
Okay, I should be sleeping right now, so if this post is completely incoherent (or more incoherent than normal) please forgive me.
I spent most of Monday wandering around BookExpo Canada. What fun. My friend Danielle Younge-Ullman, whose debut novel FALLING UNDER, will be published next year by Plume, got some free exhibitor passes for us from some dude she met on Craig's List. Go, Danielle!
Anyway, I had to pretend I was a published author, because that was the closest I came to any of the boxes I had to check to actually redeem my pass for an entry badge, but luckily no one questioned it.
What is BookExpo you may ask? Well, the Canadian one is a small version of the US one, and it's basically a marketing venue/trade show for the publishers (and people in related industries targeting bookstores) to show off the best of their wares for the upcoming season. In addition to the publishers' booths, I was interested to see a very large booth sponsored by a book distributor I'd never heard of before. They had a huge list of the houses they represent in Canada, and basically it seemed to be all the US publishers who don't have Canadian offices/counterparts and some smaller presses, too. So, from what I could gather, instead of those houses having a sales force in Canada, this company basically acts as an agent for them. (I really should have found out more... Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to y'all. Sorry about the y'all. Warming up for Dallas, already.)
The most popular feature of the show seemed to universally be the author appearances. Basically authors show up for about an hour each and give away signed copies of their new or upcoming releases. Free books!
Fellow Toronto Romance Writer, Kelley Armstrong, had one of the longest lines for signings on Sunday, from what I heard, but sadly, I could only go on Monday. (Jean Chretien was there on Sunday, too... Not to mention Clive Barker and a few stars like that.)
The attendees of BookExpo are mostly booksellers and librarians. I'd say at least 2/3 of the name badges I spotted were people who worked at a Chapters or Indigo.
But some other business seems to get done, too. Danielle managed to meet the woman at Penguin Canada who'll be handling her Canadian publicity when her book comes out which was pretty exciting. And I pumped a few people I met to try to improve my understanding of the biz.
I got a HUGE bag-o-books I can't wait to read, including Tom Harpur's new one WATER INTO WINE which looks fascinating, and Jan Wong's RED CHINA BLUES. (Although, true confessions, with great non-fiction like that, I always love the idea of reading the books and buy quite a few that interest me... and then I never seem to get around to actually reading most of them. Most of the non-fiction reading I do these days is writing related and I admit I'm still in the second chapter of Harpur's book THE PAGAN CHRIST.)
The funniest thing I picked up? A little teaser booklet thingy (I'm sure that's the proper marketing term) for a new one of those Chicken Soup books. What's this one called? Chicken Soup for the American Idol Soul. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They are little stories written by past contestents on the show. And some bonus words of encouragement from Paula Abdul. Gah! What is the world coming to?
Another highlight for me was getting a signed copy of NYT Bestseller John Connolly's THE UNQUIET. I admit I'm not a big thriller reader, and have never read Mr. Connolly before, but I'll read this one. What a charmer. He was too good looking for it to be legal, and when he noticed my name he asked if I was Irish, and I started babbling like an idiot and basically told him my entire family tree. I think what came out was:
MM: "Actually, I'm only 5/8 Irish."
JC: "Well, that's pretty good."
MM: "I've got some Scots blood, too."
JC: "We can forgive that."
MM: "And some Welsh."
JC: "Oh, can't forgive that."
MM: "And some Flemish."
JC: "Now the Flemish is interesting."
Witty banter. We're opening in Vegas in 2 weeks. LOL. Anyway, while I was embarassing myself, he was busily signing my free book with what I assumed was his stock book signing "happy reading" or whatever. What I actually got was: "To Maureen, my fellow Irishman (5/8)
Peace and Happiness, John." and a big smiley face.
So sweet.
Also got to say a quick hello to Tish Cohen again, author of TOWN HOUSE, and got a copy of her upcoming middle-grade release THE INVISIBLE RULES OF THE ZOE LAMA which looks like a very fun read.
So, all in all, in terms of days I should have been writing but wasn't, I don't feel too guilty about this one. A day well spent.
I spent most of Monday wandering around BookExpo Canada. What fun. My friend Danielle Younge-Ullman, whose debut novel FALLING UNDER, will be published next year by Plume, got some free exhibitor passes for us from some dude she met on Craig's List. Go, Danielle!
Anyway, I had to pretend I was a published author, because that was the closest I came to any of the boxes I had to check to actually redeem my pass for an entry badge, but luckily no one questioned it.
What is BookExpo you may ask? Well, the Canadian one is a small version of the US one, and it's basically a marketing venue/trade show for the publishers (and people in related industries targeting bookstores) to show off the best of their wares for the upcoming season. In addition to the publishers' booths, I was interested to see a very large booth sponsored by a book distributor I'd never heard of before. They had a huge list of the houses they represent in Canada, and basically it seemed to be all the US publishers who don't have Canadian offices/counterparts and some smaller presses, too. So, from what I could gather, instead of those houses having a sales force in Canada, this company basically acts as an agent for them. (I really should have found out more... Maybe I'll do a little research and get back to y'all. Sorry about the y'all. Warming up for Dallas, already.)
The most popular feature of the show seemed to universally be the author appearances. Basically authors show up for about an hour each and give away signed copies of their new or upcoming releases. Free books!
Fellow Toronto Romance Writer, Kelley Armstrong, had one of the longest lines for signings on Sunday, from what I heard, but sadly, I could only go on Monday. (Jean Chretien was there on Sunday, too... Not to mention Clive Barker and a few stars like that.)
The attendees of BookExpo are mostly booksellers and librarians. I'd say at least 2/3 of the name badges I spotted were people who worked at a Chapters or Indigo.
But some other business seems to get done, too. Danielle managed to meet the woman at Penguin Canada who'll be handling her Canadian publicity when her book comes out which was pretty exciting. And I pumped a few people I met to try to improve my understanding of the biz.
I got a HUGE bag-o-books I can't wait to read, including Tom Harpur's new one WATER INTO WINE which looks fascinating, and Jan Wong's RED CHINA BLUES. (Although, true confessions, with great non-fiction like that, I always love the idea of reading the books and buy quite a few that interest me... and then I never seem to get around to actually reading most of them. Most of the non-fiction reading I do these days is writing related and I admit I'm still in the second chapter of Harpur's book THE PAGAN CHRIST.)
The funniest thing I picked up? A little teaser booklet thingy (I'm sure that's the proper marketing term) for a new one of those Chicken Soup books. What's this one called? Chicken Soup for the American Idol Soul. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They are little stories written by past contestents on the show. And some bonus words of encouragement from Paula Abdul. Gah! What is the world coming to?
Another highlight for me was getting a signed copy of NYT Bestseller John Connolly's THE UNQUIET. I admit I'm not a big thriller reader, and have never read Mr. Connolly before, but I'll read this one. What a charmer. He was too good looking for it to be legal, and when he noticed my name he asked if I was Irish, and I started babbling like an idiot and basically told him my entire family tree. I think what came out was:
MM: "Actually, I'm only 5/8 Irish."
JC: "Well, that's pretty good."
MM: "I've got some Scots blood, too."
JC: "We can forgive that."
MM: "And some Welsh."
JC: "Oh, can't forgive that."
MM: "And some Flemish."
JC: "Now the Flemish is interesting."
Witty banter. We're opening in Vegas in 2 weeks. LOL. Anyway, while I was embarassing myself, he was busily signing my free book with what I assumed was his stock book signing "happy reading" or whatever. What I actually got was: "To Maureen, my fellow Irishman (5/8)
Peace and Happiness, John." and a big smiley face.
So sweet.
Also got to say a quick hello to Tish Cohen again, author of TOWN HOUSE, and got a copy of her upcoming middle-grade release THE INVISIBLE RULES OF THE ZOE LAMA which looks like a very fun read.
So, all in all, in terms of days I should have been writing but wasn't, I don't feel too guilty about this one. A day well spent.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Late to the party…. Heroes
Hey, Speaking of bad bloggers.. I’m way overdue for a new post. Been catching up on the series I should have already been watching, rather than American Idol, and possibly Prison Break. Still torn on that show, but now that Kellerman’s dead, my interest is gone.
Still love that magnificent bastard!
But I did watch the entire first season of Heroes, and loved it. It’s not my fave, that honour still belongs to BSG, but it is fast paced, wonderfully plotted, has offered some great surprises, twisted my expectations and kept me thoroughly entertained.
Why does it work?
It’s got a great cast of characters and they do a nice job of raising two questions, everytime they answer one. They layered in backstory beautifully, while keeping the plot moving forward.
Not all of the story lines are equally successful, the Nikki storyline seemed extraneous to me.
But every character, no matter how minor, has a purpose, one which often doesn’t come out until several episodes later.
And funny enough, my favourite character isn’t one of the heroes. Jack Coleman, the man we are supposed to hate in the first few episodes, became the most fascinating character on the entire show.
His backstory was the highlight of the entire first season for me and his scenes with Claire(the cheerleader) were really affecting.
I’m really trying not to give away spoilers here, because as writers, this show is great to watch, if just to pick up pacing and plotting points and how to integrate a large cast seamlessly.
So weeks after the season ended, I’m finally caught up, and really glad I did. Next on the list, Friday Night Lights. I’m a few episodes in and totally gripped..
Still love that magnificent bastard!
But I did watch the entire first season of Heroes, and loved it. It’s not my fave, that honour still belongs to BSG, but it is fast paced, wonderfully plotted, has offered some great surprises, twisted my expectations and kept me thoroughly entertained.
Why does it work?
It’s got a great cast of characters and they do a nice job of raising two questions, everytime they answer one. They layered in backstory beautifully, while keeping the plot moving forward.
Not all of the story lines are equally successful, the Nikki storyline seemed extraneous to me.
But every character, no matter how minor, has a purpose, one which often doesn’t come out until several episodes later.
And funny enough, my favourite character isn’t one of the heroes. Jack Coleman, the man we are supposed to hate in the first few episodes, became the most fascinating character on the entire show.
His backstory was the highlight of the entire first season for me and his scenes with Claire(the cheerleader) were really affecting.
I’m really trying not to give away spoilers here, because as writers, this show is great to watch, if just to pick up pacing and plotting points and how to integrate a large cast seamlessly.
So weeks after the season ended, I’m finally caught up, and really glad I did. Next on the list, Friday Night Lights. I’m a few episodes in and totally gripped..
Monday, June 11, 2007
Richard Price and the Season Finale of the Sopranos
Hey so sorry I've been blogless lately. I've been finishing up a contracted book and trying to get proposals together all for a deadline at the end of the week. This is always the most stressful time finishing and starting and keeping three things in mind at once...yikes. My brain - it hurts.
Went to a family wedding in Pennsylvania this weekend and got to listen to a lot of NPR. Richard Price the novelist (The Wanderers) and screenwriter (Clockers, some episodes of The Wire among many others) was being interviewed and oh! the fun.
He said the difference between writing novels and writing screenplays is the difference between chess and speed chess. You're getting from A to B you're just doing it differently. I thought that was very interesting. He also said that novel writing is more art and screenwriting is more craft and while writing a scene in a screenplay he writes it like he's on a hot burner and can't get off until the scene is done. Because it's about immediacy.
Now, I don't write the novels he writes but the way he looks at screenwriting is the way I look at writing the books I'm writing. It's about the immediacy of the scene. How cool is that?
Sopranos? Hated it last night -- love it this morning. I felt manipulated last night but today I realize that all that stress I felt, all the angst and gut wrenching nervousness -- that's how Tony lives and it's perfect that instead of being relieved of his life he's going to have to just keep living it.
Brilliant.
Went to a family wedding in Pennsylvania this weekend and got to listen to a lot of NPR. Richard Price the novelist (The Wanderers) and screenwriter (Clockers, some episodes of The Wire among many others) was being interviewed and oh! the fun.
He said the difference between writing novels and writing screenplays is the difference between chess and speed chess. You're getting from A to B you're just doing it differently. I thought that was very interesting. He also said that novel writing is more art and screenwriting is more craft and while writing a scene in a screenplay he writes it like he's on a hot burner and can't get off until the scene is done. Because it's about immediacy.
Now, I don't write the novels he writes but the way he looks at screenwriting is the way I look at writing the books I'm writing. It's about the immediacy of the scene. How cool is that?
Sopranos? Hated it last night -- love it this morning. I felt manipulated last night but today I realize that all that stress I felt, all the angst and gut wrenching nervousness -- that's how Tony lives and it's perfect that instead of being relieved of his life he's going to have to just keep living it.
Brilliant.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
More random backstory thoughts...
Okay, so I'm reading Kristy Kiernan's impressive debut novel Catching Genius right now. It's really gripping. Definitely the sort of book I enjoy reading.
And it may be ill advised for me to make a comment/observation while I'm still 3/4 of my way through a book, but I'm making this observation not only on her book but based on other "women's fiction" novels I've read, too. (And an aside... anyone who reads this blog and my own with any regularity probably knows how I feel about the term "women's fiction".)
My observation is about back story. In many types of stories, it's considered bad form to include too much of this stuff. The wisdom goes that you slow down your story by telling us what happened in the past versus "the real story". Donald Maass goes so far as to suggest you should have zero back story in your novel. I've taken his class.
But what if "the real story" is what happened in the past?
My "big revelation" this week is that having the "real story" be the back story is super common theme (okay, not a theme... a device? a structure?) in commercial women's fiction. That is, there are many commerical women's fiction stories published about characters coming to grips with something in their past. The craft, the skill, comes by way of the writer carefully controlling how and when that information is dolled out -- not necessarily chronologically, but in such a way as to maximize impact.
When I think of it that way, I guess the back story principles in that type of past-heavy book aren't that different from those for books that are more "in the present". It's all about controlling what you let the reader know and when... It's just in some stories there's more of it to control.
I think Kristy did an amazing job of this with Catching Genius. There are "present time" stories/character arcs for both the main characters, but (at this point in the book, anyway) I feel like the present day stories are subplots and the "real story", the part the reader (me) is dying to learn more about, the part that's pulling me through the book, is wanting to know more about what happened to these sisters in the past.
Thus, the main story is, well, back story. (Is it still back story when it's the main story???)
Don't know why recognizing this past-heavy story telling structure was such a revelation to me. I mean, one of my ms's (the one in this year's GH) actually has two timelines, and what happens in "the past'" is pretty key to the resolution of the overall story... but I guess what I simply realized is that back story isn't necessarily an evil word -- especially in some types of books.
Back story. Wisely used, it can be your best friend. I think this revelation will really help me with my current WIP.
(Now, all you romance writers who read this blog. Don't take his as permission to include more of your hero's and heroine's backstories in your romance novel. (Not that, "one of the drunk writers said I could," would get you very far, anyway.) Romances are about a couple falling in love. Sure, both main characters probably have to get over stuff from their past to get there, but since the main action is, and must be, in the present for them to fall in love... back story should be used quite sparingly in romance in my humble opinion and mostly show up in the subtext and the characterizations... But I digress.)
And it may be ill advised for me to make a comment/observation while I'm still 3/4 of my way through a book, but I'm making this observation not only on her book but based on other "women's fiction" novels I've read, too. (And an aside... anyone who reads this blog and my own with any regularity probably knows how I feel about the term "women's fiction".)
My observation is about back story. In many types of stories, it's considered bad form to include too much of this stuff. The wisdom goes that you slow down your story by telling us what happened in the past versus "the real story". Donald Maass goes so far as to suggest you should have zero back story in your novel. I've taken his class.
But what if "the real story" is what happened in the past?
My "big revelation" this week is that having the "real story" be the back story is super common theme (okay, not a theme... a device? a structure?) in commercial women's fiction. That is, there are many commerical women's fiction stories published about characters coming to grips with something in their past. The craft, the skill, comes by way of the writer carefully controlling how and when that information is dolled out -- not necessarily chronologically, but in such a way as to maximize impact.
When I think of it that way, I guess the back story principles in that type of past-heavy book aren't that different from those for books that are more "in the present". It's all about controlling what you let the reader know and when... It's just in some stories there's more of it to control.
I think Kristy did an amazing job of this with Catching Genius. There are "present time" stories/character arcs for both the main characters, but (at this point in the book, anyway) I feel like the present day stories are subplots and the "real story", the part the reader (me) is dying to learn more about, the part that's pulling me through the book, is wanting to know more about what happened to these sisters in the past.
Thus, the main story is, well, back story. (Is it still back story when it's the main story???)
Don't know why recognizing this past-heavy story telling structure was such a revelation to me. I mean, one of my ms's (the one in this year's GH) actually has two timelines, and what happens in "the past'" is pretty key to the resolution of the overall story... but I guess what I simply realized is that back story isn't necessarily an evil word -- especially in some types of books.
Back story. Wisely used, it can be your best friend. I think this revelation will really help me with my current WIP.
(Now, all you romance writers who read this blog. Don't take his as permission to include more of your hero's and heroine's backstories in your romance novel. (Not that, "one of the drunk writers said I could," would get you very far, anyway.) Romances are about a couple falling in love. Sure, both main characters probably have to get over stuff from their past to get there, but since the main action is, and must be, in the present for them to fall in love... back story should be used quite sparingly in romance in my humble opinion and mostly show up in the subtext and the characterizations... But I digress.)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Reversing Expectations
Is anyone else watching The Sopranos? Big warning. Huge spoiler alert if you're not caught up on this season. STOP READING NOW.
The first few episodes this season, I was enjoying the show, but thought they were setting up/foreshadowing a certain development to help tie up the show. What was I expecting? It seemed like they were making us think that Christopher was going to turn states evidence on Tony.
They showed Christopher falling apart. Showed the growing rift between him and Tony. Showed him murder the Tim Daly character in cold blood and totally out of control. Not cleaning up his mess etc. Clearly, I thought, setting things up for Christopher to be arrested for a serious crime. One serious enough that he'd turn on Tony to get off more easily.
At the end of the episode where Christopher killed Tim Daly, I was starting to get so upset. I was so sure I was right about where that storyline was leading and thought it was a little boring, a little predictable, a little too heavily foreshadowed.
And then the writers totally reversed my expectations.
Okay, I've decided not to post the spoiler. If you've seen that episode, the one that "finishes" Christopher's story, you know what I mean. If you haven't seen it, then you should. Now.
I think reversing expectations is a very powerful tool in the writers kit. But one to be used wisely and sparingly. If all you do is reverse expectations, then that can get predictable, too... Or people can have their reversal expectations so high you can't meet them. M. Night Shyamalan anyone?
How about you? Do you purposefully try to reverse readers' expectations? Do you like books that do, or do you like to know where a story is heading?
The first few episodes this season, I was enjoying the show, but thought they were setting up/foreshadowing a certain development to help tie up the show. What was I expecting? It seemed like they were making us think that Christopher was going to turn states evidence on Tony.
They showed Christopher falling apart. Showed the growing rift between him and Tony. Showed him murder the Tim Daly character in cold blood and totally out of control. Not cleaning up his mess etc. Clearly, I thought, setting things up for Christopher to be arrested for a serious crime. One serious enough that he'd turn on Tony to get off more easily.
At the end of the episode where Christopher killed Tim Daly, I was starting to get so upset. I was so sure I was right about where that storyline was leading and thought it was a little boring, a little predictable, a little too heavily foreshadowed.
And then the writers totally reversed my expectations.
Okay, I've decided not to post the spoiler. If you've seen that episode, the one that "finishes" Christopher's story, you know what I mean. If you haven't seen it, then you should. Now.
I think reversing expectations is a very powerful tool in the writers kit. But one to be used wisely and sparingly. If all you do is reverse expectations, then that can get predictable, too... Or people can have their reversal expectations so high you can't meet them. M. Night Shyamalan anyone?
How about you? Do you purposefully try to reverse readers' expectations? Do you like books that do, or do you like to know where a story is heading?
Monday, May 28, 2007
How to Write Faster
Harlequin is making no bones these days about wanting their writers to write two or three books a year. And frankly, if you want to make a living as a Harlequin writer and you're just starting out - this is pretty much what you need to do if you dream of quitting that day job. So - you have to write fast.
I just finished another book. Trust me - I'm not writing this to brag. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! There are plenty of problems (thank God for critique groups) but 85% of the work on this book is done. And I started it three months ago. So -- we all need to write fast - I am writing fast - this is what I am doing - I hope it helps.
1. Outline. 5- 10 pages. It will change. But it gets you thinking about where you need all your characters to go -- it gives you guideposts of big scenes that you know you're going to have to write. Most of all - it helps you in Chapter 5 when everything has ground down to a halt. It's a reference point and when you're trying to write fast reference points are very nice to have. I actually take WAY more time at this stage than I do with writing. Makes sense when you think about it.
2. Subplots -- you're going to need them. When things slow down in the main plot and you want to walk away from the computer you throw in your subplot and it not only picks up the slack in your slacking book - it keeps you writing.
3. Get off the FREAKING INTERNET -- never has there been a bigger time suck. Never.
4. Never sit down without knowing what you need to do for that day. You don't want to spend your computer time thinking -- you need to be writing.
5. Only write for an hour - two hours at a time MAX. This is really the longest you can stay on task -- and by you I mean me. But I find after about an hour and a half no matter where I am in the book - how good things are going - I start to drift towards the fridge. Shut down the computer - do something else for at least and hour and then come back to it. It seems counterproductive - but it keeps me fresh, on point, diligent and hungry to write.
6. Forgive yourself the crappy first draft you are going to write. Fixing is for later. Now is for writing. Just get down the bones.
7. Get a critique group because when writing fast you have no real perspective and speaking for myself no idea if what I vomiting on to the screen is working.
There you go. Gotta run.
I just finished another book. Trust me - I'm not writing this to brag. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! There are plenty of problems (thank God for critique groups) but 85% of the work on this book is done. And I started it three months ago. So -- we all need to write fast - I am writing fast - this is what I am doing - I hope it helps.
1. Outline. 5- 10 pages. It will change. But it gets you thinking about where you need all your characters to go -- it gives you guideposts of big scenes that you know you're going to have to write. Most of all - it helps you in Chapter 5 when everything has ground down to a halt. It's a reference point and when you're trying to write fast reference points are very nice to have. I actually take WAY more time at this stage than I do with writing. Makes sense when you think about it.
2. Subplots -- you're going to need them. When things slow down in the main plot and you want to walk away from the computer you throw in your subplot and it not only picks up the slack in your slacking book - it keeps you writing.
3. Get off the FREAKING INTERNET -- never has there been a bigger time suck. Never.
4. Never sit down without knowing what you need to do for that day. You don't want to spend your computer time thinking -- you need to be writing.
5. Only write for an hour - two hours at a time MAX. This is really the longest you can stay on task -- and by you I mean me. But I find after about an hour and a half no matter where I am in the book - how good things are going - I start to drift towards the fridge. Shut down the computer - do something else for at least and hour and then come back to it. It seems counterproductive - but it keeps me fresh, on point, diligent and hungry to write.
6. Forgive yourself the crappy first draft you are going to write. Fixing is for later. Now is for writing. Just get down the bones.
7. Get a critique group because when writing fast you have no real perspective and speaking for myself no idea if what I vomiting on to the screen is working.
There you go. Gotta run.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The death of the historical romance
It’s been a topic discussed in various forms on several blogs I’ve read lately, and I’ve seen quite a few historical romance authors leave the genre, or leave writing altogether.
And considering this is what I write, I’ve given it some thought lately. I’ve been telling my critique group (wrongly) for ages now that the historical is making a comeback. Waiting, hearing on agent blogs that editors are asking for historical submissions.
And then the caveat - if they’re hot, steamy, erotic. Does that put them in the erotic category, or historical category, or is this just more blending of genres, which we’ve seen a lot of lately.
I’ve waited for a new historical author to really make a splash, the way Allison Brennan has in romantic suspense, or Gena Showalter has in paranormals and nothing’s hit my radar, not that it means there hasn’t been that author, I may have missed them.
So what’s happened to the historical?
Some of my favourites, Iris Johansen, Julie Garwood switched to suspense and have done really well. A couple of others either retired, Maggie Osborne, or really slowed down, Laura Kinsale, we miss you.
Some authors that did well five years ago continue to do well, Julia Quinn and Stephanie Laurens come to mind, but I think right now, they are in the minority.
Now we all know, publishing is cyclical. Five years ago, people tell me, you couldn’t give away a dark romantic suspense, or a paranormal. And now, well… we all know how well those genres are doing.
So what did happen? There are a lot of theories out there. My own is that a lot of similar books were released and the consumer got bored. How many variations on the lite regency can someone read before they get sick of them. Not enough variety in the market, and too many of the same plot devices.
I even got bored and turned to other genres. Which is a sad state.
And the future?
No clue, but I’d love to hear other’s opinions. I know how much I love a really good historical. The first two books in the Dark Queen series by Susan Carroll were amazing.
They were different, occasionally dark and really well written.
I’d like more of those books. Books that don’t read cookie cutter, where actual stuff happens that challenges the protagonists, and they have to overcome obstacles. You know, books that have conflict, drama, be it lite, heavy, dark, I don’t care.
I think there are others out there like me. Just waiting for a really good historical romance to re-ignite their love in the genre.
And considering this is what I write, I’ve given it some thought lately. I’ve been telling my critique group (wrongly) for ages now that the historical is making a comeback. Waiting, hearing on agent blogs that editors are asking for historical submissions.
And then the caveat - if they’re hot, steamy, erotic. Does that put them in the erotic category, or historical category, or is this just more blending of genres, which we’ve seen a lot of lately.
I’ve waited for a new historical author to really make a splash, the way Allison Brennan has in romantic suspense, or Gena Showalter has in paranormals and nothing’s hit my radar, not that it means there hasn’t been that author, I may have missed them.
So what’s happened to the historical?
Some of my favourites, Iris Johansen, Julie Garwood switched to suspense and have done really well. A couple of others either retired, Maggie Osborne, or really slowed down, Laura Kinsale, we miss you.
Some authors that did well five years ago continue to do well, Julia Quinn and Stephanie Laurens come to mind, but I think right now, they are in the minority.
Now we all know, publishing is cyclical. Five years ago, people tell me, you couldn’t give away a dark romantic suspense, or a paranormal. And now, well… we all know how well those genres are doing.
So what did happen? There are a lot of theories out there. My own is that a lot of similar books were released and the consumer got bored. How many variations on the lite regency can someone read before they get sick of them. Not enough variety in the market, and too many of the same plot devices.
I even got bored and turned to other genres. Which is a sad state.
And the future?
No clue, but I’d love to hear other’s opinions. I know how much I love a really good historical. The first two books in the Dark Queen series by Susan Carroll were amazing.
They were different, occasionally dark and really well written.
I’d like more of those books. Books that don’t read cookie cutter, where actual stuff happens that challenges the protagonists, and they have to overcome obstacles. You know, books that have conflict, drama, be it lite, heavy, dark, I don’t care.
I think there are others out there like me. Just waiting for a really good historical romance to re-ignite their love in the genre.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Guest blogging at eHarlequin...
Please come join me over at the eHarlequin blogs today -- we are talking about editing!
http://community.eharlequin.com/webx?14@454.9i2EaL8k7HU.0@.4a8464e6
http://community.eharlequin.com/webx?14@454.9i2EaL8k7HU.0@.4a8464e6
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Best Writing Advice...I Never Took.
There is so much good information out there. Listening to other writers talk about how they pry story out of their heads is nothing but entertaining...most of the time. I have a list of authors I would go a long way to hear talk - because they are not only funny and self-deprecating and interesting - but every time I go -- it's a gold mine of craft info. Eloisa James, Lisa Gardiner, Robert McKee, Virginia Kantra - the list goes on and on.
I wish Maureen and Sinead took better notes or I had a better brain but I feel like I've heard so much good information and it's all just slipped away from me - unused. The key to writing faster, smarter, more emotionally satisfying books is probably something I've heard and forgotten a million times.
But I realized something this weekend - what's even more shameful than that is the fact that I've heard some AMAZING advice, remembered it, think about it often and NEVER DO IT! What's wrong with me?
So - here it is the best advice I ever heard and never took (besides the only eat half your meal and salt the rest so you don't eat it) is from the incredible Lisa Gardiner. Write each of your scenes on a different notecard. Use different colors for the different, plotlines and characters in your book so you can visually keep track of your scenes, your subplots, your red herrings and character reveals. Genius! Brilliant! Wish I did it.
So -- let me have it -- best writing advice you've never used
I wish Maureen and Sinead took better notes or I had a better brain but I feel like I've heard so much good information and it's all just slipped away from me - unused. The key to writing faster, smarter, more emotionally satisfying books is probably something I've heard and forgotten a million times.
But I realized something this weekend - what's even more shameful than that is the fact that I've heard some AMAZING advice, remembered it, think about it often and NEVER DO IT! What's wrong with me?
So - here it is the best advice I ever heard and never took (besides the only eat half your meal and salt the rest so you don't eat it) is from the incredible Lisa Gardiner. Write each of your scenes on a different notecard. Use different colors for the different, plotlines and characters in your book so you can visually keep track of your scenes, your subplots, your red herrings and character reveals. Genius! Brilliant! Wish I did it.
So -- let me have it -- best writing advice you've never used
Friday, May 18, 2007
the bad news and the good news...
If you read Molly’s blog this week, you’ll know in the majority of cases, most writers starting out don’t make a ton of money.
And please don’t think this situation exists just in category. I’ve heard of single title advances being lower than category advances for romance and other genres.
And if you read Maureen’s blog, you’ll know publishing is one large guessing game. No one really knows, we’re all throwing out darts, hoping one will stick, and that includes editors and agents.
So where does that leave us aspiring writers. Chances are, even if I do sell my next book, my advance broken down on the work I did on an hourly basis for just that book would be pitiful. And thats if it sells, which in this market can be a long shot.
So why do we keep going?
Had a drunk writer conversation with Molly and Maureen on just this topic. Maureen’s theory, we’re too stubborn to give up. I completely agree with this. I’m really stubborn and once started, I hate to give up on anything.
But there is more to it. In the hard work, and the revisions and constant edits, is this entity, my book - people, conversations, events, and I created it from nothing.
400 pages of actual stuff that wouldn’t have existed had I not sat in front of the computer. A concept I love, an idea that makes me genuinely excited and in all of this, a serious love of storytelling that’s really only come to light in the last two years.
Any storytelling and a deep down appreciation of great storytelling.
And in that, an ambition to create a great story. I’m far from there, but with every book, I get closer. And I find that really exciting.
Basically I’m a story geek and proud of it.
So amidst all of the uncertainty and difficulty, this keeps me going more than anything. That and my great writer friends and my critique group.
What keeps you going?
And please don’t think this situation exists just in category. I’ve heard of single title advances being lower than category advances for romance and other genres.
And if you read Maureen’s blog, you’ll know publishing is one large guessing game. No one really knows, we’re all throwing out darts, hoping one will stick, and that includes editors and agents.
So where does that leave us aspiring writers. Chances are, even if I do sell my next book, my advance broken down on the work I did on an hourly basis for just that book would be pitiful. And thats if it sells, which in this market can be a long shot.
So why do we keep going?
Had a drunk writer conversation with Molly and Maureen on just this topic. Maureen’s theory, we’re too stubborn to give up. I completely agree with this. I’m really stubborn and once started, I hate to give up on anything.
But there is more to it. In the hard work, and the revisions and constant edits, is this entity, my book - people, conversations, events, and I created it from nothing.
400 pages of actual stuff that wouldn’t have existed had I not sat in front of the computer. A concept I love, an idea that makes me genuinely excited and in all of this, a serious love of storytelling that’s really only come to light in the last two years.
Any storytelling and a deep down appreciation of great storytelling.
And in that, an ambition to create a great story. I’m far from there, but with every book, I get closer. And I find that really exciting.
Basically I’m a story geek and proud of it.
So amidst all of the uncertainty and difficulty, this keeps me going more than anything. That and my great writer friends and my critique group.
What keeps you going?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Life in the Casino
The world of publishing is a confusing one. On the one hand, it's a business. Obviously it's a business. Publishers aren't there to lose money. Writers expect to get paid for their work and all the many other people involved (agents, editors, book designers, sales and marketing people) expect to get paid, too.
On the other hand, publishing falls clearly in the arts with one big foot in the entertainment industry. Many other discliplines in the arts require fundraising or grants (public or private) to exist (ballets, theatres, art galleries) but publishing does not.
Because of this one foot in the arts and one foot in business dichotomy, publishing, in many ways, doesn't (thank God, in my opinion) follow many of what would be called "best business practices" in other industries. If it did, then only the sure things would ever get published. And only the lowest common denominator of reader (in terms of taste, education, etc.) would be catered to.
Now, some may argue that's already true. But I think that's too cynical. (And this from a known cynic.) Lots of really different and exciting and challenging books get published. Books I'm sure are considered a HUGE gamble by everyone involved and that are published not because anyone can produce a spreadsheet or report predicting with any accuracy how well it will sell, but simply because those involved in the process LOVE the book and believe in it. Often it's those books that break through and sell well. Often it's not. Often it's the ones with more obvious mass appeal that do well... And nothing wrong with that either. Point is, there's still room for lots of different books to get published. (Just not room for as many as those of us hoping to join the ranks of published authors would like.)
I found the recent article in the New York Times very fun and interesting to read. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/business/yourmoney/13book.html?_r=2&h&oref=slogin
I'd read a similar (but much less accessible) essay on this topic written by a British statistician, a few years ago, but can't remember the man's name. One of the arguments I do remember him making in his essay stood out for me, though. He argued that if Yann Martel hadn't received so many rejections from all the big publishers for Life of Pi, it never would have become a bestseller. Why? Because a bigger house wouldn't have put him forward for the Booker prize (they would have nominated one of their bestsellers) and it was only after winning that prize that the book got so huge. So, if he'd sold sooner and to a bigger house, (even the publisher of his first two books which passed on Pi, it probably would have languished on the shelves and sold a few hundred copies. (Most people don't realize that of Life of Pi was first published by a small press and only picked up by the big boys after it won the prize.)
Moral is, Many different random stars need to align for even the best books to get noticed.
My favorite line of the whole NYT article comes at the end, where Sittenfeld states that an editor once told her, “People think publishing is a business, but it’s a casino.”
Yes, it's all a big gamble.
Every time a writer sits down at her computer, she's taking a huge risk. Spending hours, weeks, months, years working on something that may never earn a penny and that others may not like. Every time an agent takes on a book or a client he/she's taking a risk that he/she'll spend a lot of time/effort trying to sell a book to no end. Every time an editor decides he/she loves a book she's taking a risk on her credibility and her job by telling her bosses at the publisher she thinks they should spend money on acquiring the rights to publish it. The publisher is taking a risk that the editor is right. The publisher also takes a risk when they decide how much of an advance on royalties to pay an author, how much publicity to do, how much co-op advertising (usually zero) to engage in, etc. etc. etc.
And it's all a big crap shoot.
Just a few days before I saw that NYT article, I found these statistics in a Harpers magazine. (On the always fun and interesting Harpers List page.)
On the other hand, publishing falls clearly in the arts with one big foot in the entertainment industry. Many other discliplines in the arts require fundraising or grants (public or private) to exist (ballets, theatres, art galleries) but publishing does not.
Because of this one foot in the arts and one foot in business dichotomy, publishing, in many ways, doesn't (thank God, in my opinion) follow many of what would be called "best business practices" in other industries. If it did, then only the sure things would ever get published. And only the lowest common denominator of reader (in terms of taste, education, etc.) would be catered to.
Now, some may argue that's already true. But I think that's too cynical. (And this from a known cynic.) Lots of really different and exciting and challenging books get published. Books I'm sure are considered a HUGE gamble by everyone involved and that are published not because anyone can produce a spreadsheet or report predicting with any accuracy how well it will sell, but simply because those involved in the process LOVE the book and believe in it. Often it's those books that break through and sell well. Often it's not. Often it's the ones with more obvious mass appeal that do well... And nothing wrong with that either. Point is, there's still room for lots of different books to get published. (Just not room for as many as those of us hoping to join the ranks of published authors would like.)
I found the recent article in the New York Times very fun and interesting to read. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/business/yourmoney/13book.html?_r=2&h&oref=slogin
I'd read a similar (but much less accessible) essay on this topic written by a British statistician, a few years ago, but can't remember the man's name. One of the arguments I do remember him making in his essay stood out for me, though. He argued that if Yann Martel hadn't received so many rejections from all the big publishers for Life of Pi, it never would have become a bestseller. Why? Because a bigger house wouldn't have put him forward for the Booker prize (they would have nominated one of their bestsellers) and it was only after winning that prize that the book got so huge. So, if he'd sold sooner and to a bigger house, (even the publisher of his first two books which passed on Pi, it probably would have languished on the shelves and sold a few hundred copies. (Most people don't realize that of Life of Pi was first published by a small press and only picked up by the big boys after it won the prize.)
Moral is, Many different random stars need to align for even the best books to get noticed.
My favorite line of the whole NYT article comes at the end, where Sittenfeld states that an editor once told her, “People think publishing is a business, but it’s a casino.”
Yes, it's all a big gamble.
Every time a writer sits down at her computer, she's taking a huge risk. Spending hours, weeks, months, years working on something that may never earn a penny and that others may not like. Every time an agent takes on a book or a client he/she's taking a risk that he/she'll spend a lot of time/effort trying to sell a book to no end. Every time an editor decides he/she loves a book she's taking a risk on her credibility and her job by telling her bosses at the publisher she thinks they should spend money on acquiring the rights to publish it. The publisher is taking a risk that the editor is right. The publisher also takes a risk when they decide how much of an advance on royalties to pay an author, how much publicity to do, how much co-op advertising (usually zero) to engage in, etc. etc. etc.
And it's all a big crap shoot.
Just a few days before I saw that NYT article, I found these statistics in a Harpers magazine. (On the always fun and interesting Harpers List page.)
- Minimum number of different books sold in the US last year based on Nielson Bookscan: 1,446,000
- Number of these that sold fewer than 99 copies: 1,123,000
- Number that sold more than 100,000 copies: 483
A bit depressing? Sure. But it's just reality and further proof of the whole casino theory.
Better get back to rolling the dice.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A totally blunt conversation about a category romance writers royalities
Happy Mother's Day to me -- I got my royalty statement last week. And I really want to talk about these - because I would have died to get some real information when I was starting out. But in this industry like most industries it feels really strange to talk about money. But I can't think of what the negative of it would be - so - here's a really blunt conversation about money and writing category romance.
I sold my first Harlequin Duets (Too Many Cooks) and my advance was 3,500 dollars. It came out in 2001 and it has to date sold 46,623 copies in the US, Canada, France, Italy, Latin America, Argentina and some other odds and ends. That translates into around 5,000 dollars that I got in bits and pieces over the years. My other duets have done about the same give or take a few thousand copies.
Flipside - that fantastic line that never really got a shot - yikes. My advances for my two Flipsides - Pencil Him In and the award winning Dishing It Out. Was 4,000. I didn't have an agent and from what I can gather at that point in my career it really wouldn't have made a difference. Your agent, should you have one, will not change your advance for a category line - they come in real handy later - but up front (from what I can gather) new authors get what they get. Pencil Him In came out in 2004 and to date has sold around 35,000 copies in various markets. That translates to just over 4,000 dollars. Dishing It Out, which came out as the line was being pulled has not made any money over my advance and probably never will. Which is pretty sad.
Superromance - my advances for Family At Stake, His Best Friend's Baby and my part of the Valentine Anthology were each 5,000 dollars. And, again, from what I can gather that's the standard first time out author advance - I would LOVE to hear if there's something different. Now His Best Friend's Baby which didn't get great reviews and didn't win the awards that Family At Stake won - sold DOUBLE what FAS sold. HBFB sold around 16,000 copies retail - this does not include the subscription services. Now, both books have huge reserves and the reserve is what Harlequin thinks will be sent back to the publisher. For example Family At Stake has a reserve of over 20,000 books. My next royalty statement this might translate into books sold or books returned and that book may actually prove to be my best seller. Who knows? That's what I learn with every royalty statement - who knows?
I think the retail sales really come down to covers. HBFB has a nice picture of a kid - FAS has the creepy older guy, younger girl cover.
So, there you go. Some numbers from a fairly new writer starting out in the line. Is it a lot of money? Not yet -- but someday. Maybe. Who knows?
I sold my first Harlequin Duets (Too Many Cooks) and my advance was 3,500 dollars. It came out in 2001 and it has to date sold 46,623 copies in the US, Canada, France, Italy, Latin America, Argentina and some other odds and ends. That translates into around 5,000 dollars that I got in bits and pieces over the years. My other duets have done about the same give or take a few thousand copies.
Flipside - that fantastic line that never really got a shot - yikes. My advances for my two Flipsides - Pencil Him In and the award winning Dishing It Out. Was 4,000. I didn't have an agent and from what I can gather at that point in my career it really wouldn't have made a difference. Your agent, should you have one, will not change your advance for a category line - they come in real handy later - but up front (from what I can gather) new authors get what they get. Pencil Him In came out in 2004 and to date has sold around 35,000 copies in various markets. That translates to just over 4,000 dollars. Dishing It Out, which came out as the line was being pulled has not made any money over my advance and probably never will. Which is pretty sad.
Superromance - my advances for Family At Stake, His Best Friend's Baby and my part of the Valentine Anthology were each 5,000 dollars. And, again, from what I can gather that's the standard first time out author advance - I would LOVE to hear if there's something different. Now His Best Friend's Baby which didn't get great reviews and didn't win the awards that Family At Stake won - sold DOUBLE what FAS sold. HBFB sold around 16,000 copies retail - this does not include the subscription services. Now, both books have huge reserves and the reserve is what Harlequin thinks will be sent back to the publisher. For example Family At Stake has a reserve of over 20,000 books. My next royalty statement this might translate into books sold or books returned and that book may actually prove to be my best seller. Who knows? That's what I learn with every royalty statement - who knows?
I think the retail sales really come down to covers. HBFB has a nice picture of a kid - FAS has the creepy older guy, younger girl cover.
So, there you go. Some numbers from a fairly new writer starting out in the line. Is it a lot of money? Not yet -- but someday. Maybe. Who knows?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
TV and mediocre genre books
Here at Drunk Writers there’s been some lamentation this week over the death, not just of Friday Night Lights, but other amazing series. Arrested Development, Homicide, Firefly, and others I’ve missed. Shows that weren’t given their chance to really play out.
I’ve been trying to figure out what the appeal of shows like Deal or No Deal, or Everyone Loves Ray and other such shows.
Part of it I believe is accessibility. You can turn them on at any point during the season and know exactly what is going on. They are mindless, and you know, after a long day of work, rushing to get dinner ready, kids to bed, when you finally get to collapse on the couch for the whole hour you have before you go to bed, mindless works well.
I’ve been there. It sort of explains why I still watch American Idol, and the occasional America’s next top model. I can miss several episodes and still be clear on what’s happening.
The same cannot be said for the serialized dramas that we now mourn. I put off watching Friday Night Lights to wait until the DVD release to catch it on DVD. Anyone who turned on Firefly on a whim would have wondered why the people on the spaceship talked like characters out of a 1940’s Western and would have switched the channel and missed an amazing show.
There’s comfort in predictability. And the best shows, the ones I love and adore gave us unpredictability. Or in the case of Arrested Development, the funniest, harshest, most unlikeable people on TV. Nothing warm and cuddly about that family, but some of the funniest moments I’ve ever seen on TV.
I’ve noticed the same with some of the genre books lately. Why are so many romances predictable? And no, it has nothing to do with the happily ever after pre-requisite. There are many different ways to get there.
There’s a comfort in picking up a book and knowing what to expect. The hero/heroine will face challenges, bicker, have sex by page 200 and by page 250 have a serious drawback in their relationship, which they will rise above and overcome, all by page 350.
The best books, like the best TV shows rise above this and surprise us, provoke thought and in the case of the best books, thrill us.
But they’re not necessarily bestsellers, cause not everyone wants to be surprised.
I guess that’s why I still watch re-runs of Friends, and read the same Maggie Osborne book once a year.
Sometimes it’s easiest for my tired brain to process.
I’ve been trying to figure out what the appeal of shows like Deal or No Deal, or Everyone Loves Ray and other such shows.
Part of it I believe is accessibility. You can turn them on at any point during the season and know exactly what is going on. They are mindless, and you know, after a long day of work, rushing to get dinner ready, kids to bed, when you finally get to collapse on the couch for the whole hour you have before you go to bed, mindless works well.
I’ve been there. It sort of explains why I still watch American Idol, and the occasional America’s next top model. I can miss several episodes and still be clear on what’s happening.
The same cannot be said for the serialized dramas that we now mourn. I put off watching Friday Night Lights to wait until the DVD release to catch it on DVD. Anyone who turned on Firefly on a whim would have wondered why the people on the spaceship talked like characters out of a 1940’s Western and would have switched the channel and missed an amazing show.
There’s comfort in predictability. And the best shows, the ones I love and adore gave us unpredictability. Or in the case of Arrested Development, the funniest, harshest, most unlikeable people on TV. Nothing warm and cuddly about that family, but some of the funniest moments I’ve ever seen on TV.
I’ve noticed the same with some of the genre books lately. Why are so many romances predictable? And no, it has nothing to do with the happily ever after pre-requisite. There are many different ways to get there.
There’s a comfort in picking up a book and knowing what to expect. The hero/heroine will face challenges, bicker, have sex by page 200 and by page 250 have a serious drawback in their relationship, which they will rise above and overcome, all by page 350.
The best books, like the best TV shows rise above this and surprise us, provoke thought and in the case of the best books, thrill us.
But they’re not necessarily bestsellers, cause not everyone wants to be surprised.
I guess that’s why I still watch re-runs of Friends, and read the same Maggie Osborne book once a year.
Sometimes it’s easiest for my tired brain to process.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
While we're on the topic of TV
First, a huge thanks to Deb Kristy -- aka Kristy Kiernan of The Debutante Ball whose amazing debut novel Catching Genius is on shelves now -- for tagging Drunk Writer Talk with the Thinking Bloggers Award! 
Who'da thunk it?
Thanks, Kristy! It's nice to know a few of our drunken ramblings came out half-way coherent.
That said, I'm so not up to thinking tonight, and since Molly brought up the topic of good TV getting cancelled on Monday, I thought I'd blog about a possible new series based on the wonderful Gemma Halliday's "High Heels" series of novels.
News Flash!
Gemma's debut novel SPYING IN HIGH HEELS is in development for a television series on the USA Network!!!!! It's currently one of five new shows being developed for their fall 2007/2008 season.
Pretty exciting, huh!
Here's a blurb on the show:
A new cast of characters are being welcomed to USA Network's
ambitious development slate for the 2007/2008 season. Bolstering
the "Characters Welcome" brand, a slate of five new pilot scripts was
announced by Jeff Wachtel, USA's executive vice president, original
programming.
One of the projects includes a show entitled Spying in High Heels,
based on the characters from Gemma Halliday's 2006 release of the
same name.
The show concept follows shoe designer Maddie Springer, who in an
effort to track down her missing boyfriend, realizes that her knack
for fashion also serves another purpose: It makes her a great
detective. Maddie's uniquely female perspective helps her pick up
clues, using her designer's eye to discern tell tale shapes, colors
and patterns, among other things. Along with her best friend Dana, an
out-of-work actress, Maddie decides to open a detective agency
operating out of her stepfather's hair salon. Producer is Larry
Shuman and Executive Producer/Writer is Sara Endsley.
I've read Gemma's book and it will make a really fun and exciting TV show. Sadly, not ALL shows that go into development will make it on the air so I'm trying to create some BUZZ. If only our blog got enough traffic to create crazy buzz so that USA networks couldn't ignore it. (Maybe Sinead should blog about Dexter again.)
One thing Gemma tells me we can all do to support the cause, is to send an e-mail to feedback@usanetwork .com
If you've read the book, tell them you loved it. If you haven't read it yet, well, tell them you're excited about seeing the series (and then go buy Gemma's book. LOL.)
Help spread the word! It would be so amazing to see Gemma's fun and smart book transformed into a series.
Congratulations Gemma! I really hope we can all help make this happen for you!
P.S. I'm going to be posting an interview with Gemma on my blog on Friday or Saturday.
Who'da thunk it?Thanks, Kristy! It's nice to know a few of our drunken ramblings came out half-way coherent.
That said, I'm so not up to thinking tonight, and since Molly brought up the topic of good TV getting cancelled on Monday, I thought I'd blog about a possible new series based on the wonderful Gemma Halliday's "High Heels" series of novels.
News Flash!
Gemma's debut novel SPYING IN HIGH HEELS is in development for a television series on the USA Network!!!!! It's currently one of five new shows being developed for their fall 2007/2008 season.
Pretty exciting, huh!
Here's a blurb on the show:
A new cast of characters are being welcomed to USA Network's
ambitious development slate for the 2007/2008 season. Bolstering
the "Characters Welcome" brand, a slate of five new pilot scripts was
announced by Jeff Wachtel, USA's executive vice president, original
programming.
One of the projects includes a show entitled Spying in High Heels,
based on the characters from Gemma Halliday's 2006 release of the
same name.
The show concept follows shoe designer Maddie Springer, who in an
effort to track down her missing boyfriend, realizes that her knack
for fashion also serves another purpose: It makes her a great
detective. Maddie's uniquely female perspective helps her pick up
clues, using her designer's eye to discern tell tale shapes, colors
and patterns, among other things. Along with her best friend Dana, an
out-of-work actress, Maddie decides to open a detective agency
operating out of her stepfather's hair salon. Producer is Larry
Shuman and Executive Producer/Writer is Sara Endsley.
I've read Gemma's book and it will make a really fun and exciting TV show. Sadly, not ALL shows that go into development will make it on the air so I'm trying to create some BUZZ. If only our blog got enough traffic to create crazy buzz so that USA networks couldn't ignore it. (Maybe Sinead should blog about Dexter again.)
One thing Gemma tells me we can all do to support the cause, is to send an e-mail to feedback@usanetwork
If you've read the book, tell them you loved it. If you haven't read it yet, well, tell them you're excited about seeing the series (and then go buy Gemma's book. LOL.)
Help spread the word! It would be so amazing to see Gemma's fun and smart book transformed into a series.
Congratulations Gemma! I really hope we can all help make this happen for you!
P.S. I'm going to be posting an interview with Gemma on my blog on Friday or Saturday.
Monday, May 07, 2007
They killed Homicide: Life on The Street, Arrested Development and NOW! Friday Night Lights OR What is wrong with TV today?
The wailing you heard coming from the East end of Toronto last Thursday night was my husband and I learning that Friday Night Lights is being cancelled. Sort of. They are commissioning 6 more episodes and after that "we'll see." But we all know what that means - it means the best show no one watched is going to be off the air.
That same night we saw a preview for a reality tv show with a bunch of people stuck together on a "pirate ship"!!! What is wrong with TV today? Are we so brain dead at the end of the day - so longing for easily digested mush that we actually want to see Deal or No Deal several nights a week? Do we need two different nanny shows to show us over and over again that kids want to be talked to and disciplined and played with and fed good food - at the cost of such seriously quality television as Arrested Development? Does everyone in the world need to be likable (which is my theory why they cut Arrested Development because the Bluth family was simply too unlikeable - which doesn't explain why every other comedy out there makes marriage seem like misery for the sake of tired laughs) and if that's the case explain to me the total unleashing of asshole qualities from the judges and host of American Idol this year? Thank God HOUSE is saving lives or we'd lose that fantastic character from the Tuesday night line up and we'd all be watching - Are You As Smart As A 5th Grader?
Why do we need seven thousand CSI's when they took the only good Crime Drama off the air - Homicide: Life on the Streets. The only crime drama that didn't somehow make everything over the top sexy. Or ridiculously formulaic as in Law and Order. And actually touched on why crime happens. Not to mention the fact Bayliss was just getting in touch with his homosexuality!!!
And this is what kills me -- Friday Night Lights was Americana Soap Opera -- how does that not work? Sopranos is ending - but GOOD GOD was last night a good one. Rumors of Dexter's demise are circulating. Rome is gone. I am going to have to actually get some work done in the evenings now -- that's how sad things are.
What shows do you miss? Bonus points to anyone who says they watched Friday Night Lights.
That same night we saw a preview for a reality tv show with a bunch of people stuck together on a "pirate ship"!!! What is wrong with TV today? Are we so brain dead at the end of the day - so longing for easily digested mush that we actually want to see Deal or No Deal several nights a week? Do we need two different nanny shows to show us over and over again that kids want to be talked to and disciplined and played with and fed good food - at the cost of such seriously quality television as Arrested Development? Does everyone in the world need to be likable (which is my theory why they cut Arrested Development because the Bluth family was simply too unlikeable - which doesn't explain why every other comedy out there makes marriage seem like misery for the sake of tired laughs) and if that's the case explain to me the total unleashing of asshole qualities from the judges and host of American Idol this year? Thank God HOUSE is saving lives or we'd lose that fantastic character from the Tuesday night line up and we'd all be watching - Are You As Smart As A 5th Grader?
Why do we need seven thousand CSI's when they took the only good Crime Drama off the air - Homicide: Life on the Streets. The only crime drama that didn't somehow make everything over the top sexy. Or ridiculously formulaic as in Law and Order. And actually touched on why crime happens. Not to mention the fact Bayliss was just getting in touch with his homosexuality!!!
And this is what kills me -- Friday Night Lights was Americana Soap Opera -- how does that not work? Sopranos is ending - but GOOD GOD was last night a good one. Rumors of Dexter's demise are circulating. Rome is gone. I am going to have to actually get some work done in the evenings now -- that's how sad things are.
What shows do you miss? Bonus points to anyone who says they watched Friday Night Lights.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I should have been working...
After Maureen’s post, I’ve been thinking a lot about what to write. And couldn’t come up with anything nearly as thought provoking.
My mind has been scattered the past few days, all over the place, personal, writing wise, I’ve got a to do list a mile long, which is so daunting it’s making me procrastinate.
And to procrastinate I usually surf the net, read blogs, and writing industry web sites.
What I’ve learned is that the market is still very much in a bit of a flux right now. Especially the romance market.
So here is the result of three days of way too much internet surfing.
What’s seems to be selling right now.
1) Erotic, is still doing well, but seems to be reaching a maturation stage. It’s also doing well in combination with other genre’s. So the hot paranormal, or hot historical is doing well.
2) Paranormal – Anything but werewolfs and vampires. Apparently editors are all stocked up on those two. They’re looking for different ideas for paranormals.
3) Straight romance, or romantic comedy. A really tough sell these days.
4) Romantic suspense – this is one place where editors do seem to be looking to acquire. There have been a couple of breakout authors in this area which I think seem to be fueling demand. Allison Brennan comes to mind.
5) Historical – still very slow, even though a lot of people, myself included have predicted a comeback for months now. I think editors are waiting for a big, breakout historical novel to start things moving again.
Outside of romance, Chicklit, this market got seriously inundated a couple of years ago and it’s still having an impact on how editors are buying. I think YA is heading there, but I know really little about this, so I could be seriously wrong.
Apparently straight historicals are still going strong.
Where does that leave us? With a tough market looking for new voices and fresh ideas. I know this sounds discouraging, but perhaps it’s the best possible thing. Perhaps editors are open to anything really interesting, written really well.
Now might be the time to really open up the wells of our imagination, come up with concepts and ideas that five years ago would have been too risky.
Or maybe I’m just having a glass half full kind of day, but I like the idea of stretching the boundaries of romance, or any genre.
My mind has been scattered the past few days, all over the place, personal, writing wise, I’ve got a to do list a mile long, which is so daunting it’s making me procrastinate.
And to procrastinate I usually surf the net, read blogs, and writing industry web sites.
What I’ve learned is that the market is still very much in a bit of a flux right now. Especially the romance market.
So here is the result of three days of way too much internet surfing.
What’s seems to be selling right now.
1) Erotic, is still doing well, but seems to be reaching a maturation stage. It’s also doing well in combination with other genre’s. So the hot paranormal, or hot historical is doing well.
2) Paranormal – Anything but werewolfs and vampires. Apparently editors are all stocked up on those two. They’re looking for different ideas for paranormals.
3) Straight romance, or romantic comedy. A really tough sell these days.
4) Romantic suspense – this is one place where editors do seem to be looking to acquire. There have been a couple of breakout authors in this area which I think seem to be fueling demand. Allison Brennan comes to mind.
5) Historical – still very slow, even though a lot of people, myself included have predicted a comeback for months now. I think editors are waiting for a big, breakout historical novel to start things moving again.
Outside of romance, Chicklit, this market got seriously inundated a couple of years ago and it’s still having an impact on how editors are buying. I think YA is heading there, but I know really little about this, so I could be seriously wrong.
Apparently straight historicals are still going strong.
Where does that leave us? With a tough market looking for new voices and fresh ideas. I know this sounds discouraging, but perhaps it’s the best possible thing. Perhaps editors are open to anything really interesting, written really well.
Now might be the time to really open up the wells of our imagination, come up with concepts and ideas that five years ago would have been too risky.
Or maybe I’m just having a glass half full kind of day, but I like the idea of stretching the boundaries of romance, or any genre.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Does reading fiction make you a better person?
According to an article in Psychology Today, "frequent readers of narrative fiction scored higher on tests of empathy and social acumen than did readers of expository nonfiction."
The article goes on to say that a follow up study showed that starting to read fiction could actually hone those skills... answering the chicken and egg question. (That is, do empathetic people read more fiction or does reading fiction help make you empathetic.)
This seemed pretty obvious to me -- at least after I'd read it. I know one of the main reasons I love reading fiction is to understand better how other people think, to walk in someone else's shoes for a while, to, through understanding and exploring the emotions and experiences of others -- even fictional others -- understand better how I feel/act/react to the world.
A doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto, Raymond Mar, was the lead researcher on both studies. Yay, Ray. My new hero. He is quoted in the article I read as saying, "Stories often force us to empathize with characters who are quite different from us, and this ability could help us better understand the many kinds of people we come across in the real world."
I think this really sums up what I most enjoy about reading or basically any kind of story. (Frequent readers of this blog and my own, will know I see the occasional movie and watch just a tiny bit of television, in addition to reading. LOL.) I think statement also explains why I enjoy character driven movies and stories the best. I was talking the other week to my fellow drunk writers about how even the most theoretically fast paced film (like 300) can totally bore me, (okay, I wasn't that bored looking at those buff naked men) while theoretically slower paced films like Short Cuts or The Station Agent (just two that came to mind at this instant) can hold my attention, such that the time flies by.
A sidebar article in Psychology Today compares the reading habits of men and women and what kinds of books they list as ones which helped to shape their lives. This was interesting, too...
It got me thinking about what books have helped shape my life. I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with a definitive list, but I know of two for sure.
Okay, slightly more than 2 because one is a trilogy.
First, The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies: Fifth Business, The Manticore and World of Wonders. Reading these 3 books as a young adult (many Canadians read Fifth Business in high school. I didn't) I made some decisions about how I felt about organized religion, about Jungian psychology, and I developed a deeper understanding of how events like the depression and WWII affected the world. I also think I got a stronger appreciation for being a Canadian, a stronger feeling of my identity as a Canadian through Robertson Davies' books.
The other book I instantly thought of was The Cider House Rules by John Irving, who, incidentally, was mentored and greatly influenced by Robertson Davies. This book helped me decide how I feel about many things, abortion in particular, but also about social disobedience and how sometimes it can be better and braver to follow your conscience regardless of "the rules". Or at least to question the rules.
Remembering how the Deptford Trilogy helped me make some conclusions about religion made me think of a movie that was pivotal for me... The Mission. Now Molly and I disagree about this movie. It's one of my absolute favorites and she think's it's flawed. But I was a different person after I saw that movie. It made me see how even with the best intentions, people can do so much harm to each other. (Plus it was the first time I ever set eyes on Liam Neeson and that changed my life, too. LOL)
What books have been pivotal in your life?
The article goes on to say that a follow up study showed that starting to read fiction could actually hone those skills... answering the chicken and egg question. (That is, do empathetic people read more fiction or does reading fiction help make you empathetic.)
This seemed pretty obvious to me -- at least after I'd read it. I know one of the main reasons I love reading fiction is to understand better how other people think, to walk in someone else's shoes for a while, to, through understanding and exploring the emotions and experiences of others -- even fictional others -- understand better how I feel/act/react to the world.
A doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto, Raymond Mar, was the lead researcher on both studies. Yay, Ray. My new hero. He is quoted in the article I read as saying, "Stories often force us to empathize with characters who are quite different from us, and this ability could help us better understand the many kinds of people we come across in the real world."
I think this really sums up what I most enjoy about reading or basically any kind of story. (Frequent readers of this blog and my own, will know I see the occasional movie and watch just a tiny bit of television, in addition to reading. LOL.) I think statement also explains why I enjoy character driven movies and stories the best. I was talking the other week to my fellow drunk writers about how even the most theoretically fast paced film (like 300) can totally bore me, (okay, I wasn't that bored looking at those buff naked men) while theoretically slower paced films like Short Cuts or The Station Agent (just two that came to mind at this instant) can hold my attention, such that the time flies by.
A sidebar article in Psychology Today compares the reading habits of men and women and what kinds of books they list as ones which helped to shape their lives. This was interesting, too...
It got me thinking about what books have helped shape my life. I haven't thought about it long enough to come up with a definitive list, but I know of two for sure.
Okay, slightly more than 2 because one is a trilogy.
First, The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies: Fifth Business, The Manticore and World of Wonders. Reading these 3 books as a young adult (many Canadians read Fifth Business in high school. I didn't) I made some decisions about how I felt about organized religion, about Jungian psychology, and I developed a deeper understanding of how events like the depression and WWII affected the world. I also think I got a stronger appreciation for being a Canadian, a stronger feeling of my identity as a Canadian through Robertson Davies' books.
The other book I instantly thought of was The Cider House Rules by John Irving, who, incidentally, was mentored and greatly influenced by Robertson Davies. This book helped me decide how I feel about many things, abortion in particular, but also about social disobedience and how sometimes it can be better and braver to follow your conscience regardless of "the rules". Or at least to question the rules.
Remembering how the Deptford Trilogy helped me make some conclusions about religion made me think of a movie that was pivotal for me... The Mission. Now Molly and I disagree about this movie. It's one of my absolute favorites and she think's it's flawed. But I was a different person after I saw that movie. It made me see how even with the best intentions, people can do so much harm to each other. (Plus it was the first time I ever set eyes on Liam Neeson and that changed my life, too. LOL)
What books have been pivotal in your life?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Five Things That Make My Life Doable
When I am asked how I manage to have a toddler and write I always say my life is about compromise and discipline. I have to write - so I do. And because I write - LOTS of other things don't get done. In fact, as I sit in my office, my laundry is towering over my shoulder and the smell of dirty diapers from the full diaper pail wafting through my dirty house. But I have all the ingredients for dinner tonight and I've written five pages. That's my compromise.
TOP FIVE THINGS THAT MAKE MY LIFE DOABLE
1. Salad in a bag - particularly Asian Crunch. This is dinner most nights a week. You'd think I'd be skinnier.
2. Rachel Ray -- hate her talk show LOVE her cookbooks. I'm not kidding. It takes 30 minutes and it's good. She's not lying. She's annoying as all get out but she's not lying.
3. Lap top computer not hooked up to the Internet. For those of you who don't have this and lament about not getting any writing done - this is the key. This is actually number one on my list - I'd rearrange things but I'm running out of blogging time.
4. Coffee in massive amounts. I am not a coffee enthusiast. A recreational coffee drinker - nope. When my son was first born my husband asked if I thought maybe, just maybe I was drinking too much coffee and I told him (getting his drift and not taking kindly to it) - with sincere and utter heartfelt rage - that coffee was the only recognizable thing I had left from my old life. The coffee stays in the picture.
5. Deadlines. I'm not talking about editorial deadlines - though they are good but they are so far away. I could procrastinate forever. Nope. I have deadlines from my critique group. It's supposed to be at least a scene or a chapter every week but we've strayed from that - but if I go longer than two weeks without handing in a chunk of writing for them to critique I know I am falling behind. This is so invaluable because I know if I had a deadline just for myself I'd blow it every week. Like I do with dieting and working out.
So that's it - much like writing it's not glamorous. It's a little sad actually - but it's what I do in order to make this little dream of mine doable.
So, what are your tricks? How do you keep all your balls in the air?
TOP FIVE THINGS THAT MAKE MY LIFE DOABLE
1. Salad in a bag - particularly Asian Crunch. This is dinner most nights a week. You'd think I'd be skinnier.
2. Rachel Ray -- hate her talk show LOVE her cookbooks. I'm not kidding. It takes 30 minutes and it's good. She's not lying. She's annoying as all get out but she's not lying.
3. Lap top computer not hooked up to the Internet. For those of you who don't have this and lament about not getting any writing done - this is the key. This is actually number one on my list - I'd rearrange things but I'm running out of blogging time.
4. Coffee in massive amounts. I am not a coffee enthusiast. A recreational coffee drinker - nope. When my son was first born my husband asked if I thought maybe, just maybe I was drinking too much coffee and I told him (getting his drift and not taking kindly to it) - with sincere and utter heartfelt rage - that coffee was the only recognizable thing I had left from my old life. The coffee stays in the picture.
5. Deadlines. I'm not talking about editorial deadlines - though they are good but they are so far away. I could procrastinate forever. Nope. I have deadlines from my critique group. It's supposed to be at least a scene or a chapter every week but we've strayed from that - but if I go longer than two weeks without handing in a chunk of writing for them to critique I know I am falling behind. This is so invaluable because I know if I had a deadline just for myself I'd blow it every week. Like I do with dieting and working out.
So that's it - much like writing it's not glamorous. It's a little sad actually - but it's what I do in order to make this little dream of mine doable.
So, what are your tricks? How do you keep all your balls in the air?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Villains
I work with this woman, who is dedicated to her job, thorough, detail oriented and one of the rare people who really cares about what she does.
She’s also antagonistic, rude, aggressive, completely unwilling to see another point of view, or even consider another’s opinion and strongly believes she is the only person in a large organization who has a clue what they’re doing.
There is no question this woman is the villain of my little workgroup.
She is uniformly acknowledged to be extremely difficult to work with, and dealings with her are painful at best.
What she doesn’t know is that she’s become a well of inspiration to my little writer’s mind.
She has these two sides to her personality, one really commendable, and the other incredibly hard to deal with, but side by side they make her a difficult person to evaluate, or dislike outright.
I admire her passion and her attention to detail, but I’d happily never have another dealing with her.
But isn’t that the key to a really compelling villain. The dual nature of their personalities. Let’s face it, villains who are just plain evil are boring. But make a person straddle the line between good and evil, right and wrong, and their path becomes fascinating.
The best villains do this.
One of my favs is Balthar from Battlestar Galactica, who has at times through the show been insane, brilliant, attempted to do the right thing, but is hampered by a fatal weakness and cowardice. But watching him struggle has been incredibly entertaining.
Or take the movie The Departed. There are several villains in this movie, but the key antagonist is the Matt Damon character. A man undone by a loyalty given as a child and a need to be perceived as successful. We watch as his grasp on his situation grows increasingly tenuous every moment of the movie. He’s a character almost as compelling and sympathetic as the hero.
But aren’t the best villains flipsides of the hero. Losing to their fatal flaws instead of overcoming them, like the protagonist does.
A villain has to be a worthy adversary to the hero. But more than that. We give our heroes depths and flaws, and on the flipside we have to do the same thing for our villains, or they’ll fall flat in comparison.
Because the most interesting villains are mirror images of the hero. They reflect the hero’s strengths and weaknesses.
And sometimes they make the book/movie/tv show. Anyone who’s seen Silence of the Lambs would back me on this.
And sometimes the villain becomes the hero.
Take the Soprano’s, a show I need to see. But is Tony Soprano a hero, or villain, or both? Molly, could you chime in here.
Or, in Interview with the Vampire, where the Vampire Lestat became the hero of the second book.
Give me a compelling villain and I'm hooked. Give me a villain who's as complex as the hero and I'll sing the praises of the book/movie/Tv show till I'm hoarse.
She’s also antagonistic, rude, aggressive, completely unwilling to see another point of view, or even consider another’s opinion and strongly believes she is the only person in a large organization who has a clue what they’re doing.
There is no question this woman is the villain of my little workgroup.
She is uniformly acknowledged to be extremely difficult to work with, and dealings with her are painful at best.
What she doesn’t know is that she’s become a well of inspiration to my little writer’s mind.
She has these two sides to her personality, one really commendable, and the other incredibly hard to deal with, but side by side they make her a difficult person to evaluate, or dislike outright.
I admire her passion and her attention to detail, but I’d happily never have another dealing with her.
But isn’t that the key to a really compelling villain. The dual nature of their personalities. Let’s face it, villains who are just plain evil are boring. But make a person straddle the line between good and evil, right and wrong, and their path becomes fascinating.
The best villains do this.
One of my favs is Balthar from Battlestar Galactica, who has at times through the show been insane, brilliant, attempted to do the right thing, but is hampered by a fatal weakness and cowardice. But watching him struggle has been incredibly entertaining.
Or take the movie The Departed. There are several villains in this movie, but the key antagonist is the Matt Damon character. A man undone by a loyalty given as a child and a need to be perceived as successful. We watch as his grasp on his situation grows increasingly tenuous every moment of the movie. He’s a character almost as compelling and sympathetic as the hero.
But aren’t the best villains flipsides of the hero. Losing to their fatal flaws instead of overcoming them, like the protagonist does.
A villain has to be a worthy adversary to the hero. But more than that. We give our heroes depths and flaws, and on the flipside we have to do the same thing for our villains, or they’ll fall flat in comparison.
Because the most interesting villains are mirror images of the hero. They reflect the hero’s strengths and weaknesses.
And sometimes they make the book/movie/tv show. Anyone who’s seen Silence of the Lambs would back me on this.
And sometimes the villain becomes the hero.
Take the Soprano’s, a show I need to see. But is Tony Soprano a hero, or villain, or both? Molly, could you chime in here.
Or, in Interview with the Vampire, where the Vampire Lestat became the hero of the second book.
Give me a compelling villain and I'm hooked. Give me a villain who's as complex as the hero and I'll sing the praises of the book/movie/Tv show till I'm hoarse.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
It's the little things and sex
When I was a little kid I was stuck in advanced beginner swim lessons for EONS because I couldn't keep my knees underwater during elementary backstroke - a stroke I only really appreciated once I was very pregnant. But summer after summer the whole time thinking that this session I would finally nail it - I'd be back with Kelly Soost on the shady side of the pool with the increasingly younger kids.
The same thing is happening in my writing.
I'm out of the baby pool - having figured out the basics of character, POV (not deep POV - just the head hopping) goals and conflict. But book after book I'm still on my back with my knees sticking out of the water on certain craft items. And this was supposed to get EASIER!
Now, that said - we drunkards have talked a lot about the McKee seminars so if you are feeling like you're at a hump you just can't get over I feel like McKee has really opened up the way I write. But I'm still having problems - two of which were hammered home this week.
1. Transition scenes. Ugh. Is there anything harder? You have to get your character from one perspective to another - you have to have them convince themselves of some course of action, you have to have them grieve, mourn, lust, whatever and then dust themselves off and head out to the next plot point. These scenes are so hard. In my current book I have a mother stroking her sleeping daughter's hair and the way I wrote it the first time around (which survived many draft changes and has stayed the same for over two months) she thinks about how tired they are. For like three paragraphs and then she stands up and confronts her ex-husband. It was awful - especially considering the relationship between mother and daughter and the mother and her own mother are a little tragic and sad and disjointed...so, why didn't I show that instead of tell the reader how tired they are. So the lesson I learned this week that I feel like I learned last week and will learn again next week - THERE ARE NO TRANSITION SCENES.
Every scene is a chance to show the reader something - character, conflict, motivation, backstory. Any one of those things that we're always throwing our hands up in the air about and screaming "where do I put this?" You put it in transition scenes.
2. Sex scenes. Finished Ice Blue last week, Anne Stuarts latest and reread it again tonight. Well, not the whole book - because as a whole the book is so disjointed and problematic that there is no point in rereading the whole thing. (scene after scene of the heroine going 'you're going to kill me?" and the hero going "yes." Heroine: "When?" Hero: "When you are no longer necessary to the assignment" and then the heroine falls in love with him - which would be ABSURD! if it weren't for the sex. Sex is not just sex in Anne Stuart novels - it is the best character and conflict reveal she makes. Her sex scenes are hot and moving and scary and romantic and fun. They show all the things she tells us in other parts of the book and they advance the plot. Amazing. Really really something.
My sex scenes - not so much. Gotta do something about that.
So, how about your elementary backstroke craft problems? What's got you stuck on the shady side of the pool?
The same thing is happening in my writing.
I'm out of the baby pool - having figured out the basics of character, POV (not deep POV - just the head hopping) goals and conflict. But book after book I'm still on my back with my knees sticking out of the water on certain craft items. And this was supposed to get EASIER!
Now, that said - we drunkards have talked a lot about the McKee seminars so if you are feeling like you're at a hump you just can't get over I feel like McKee has really opened up the way I write. But I'm still having problems - two of which were hammered home this week.
1. Transition scenes. Ugh. Is there anything harder? You have to get your character from one perspective to another - you have to have them convince themselves of some course of action, you have to have them grieve, mourn, lust, whatever and then dust themselves off and head out to the next plot point. These scenes are so hard. In my current book I have a mother stroking her sleeping daughter's hair and the way I wrote it the first time around (which survived many draft changes and has stayed the same for over two months) she thinks about how tired they are. For like three paragraphs and then she stands up and confronts her ex-husband. It was awful - especially considering the relationship between mother and daughter and the mother and her own mother are a little tragic and sad and disjointed...so, why didn't I show that instead of tell the reader how tired they are. So the lesson I learned this week that I feel like I learned last week and will learn again next week - THERE ARE NO TRANSITION SCENES.
Every scene is a chance to show the reader something - character, conflict, motivation, backstory. Any one of those things that we're always throwing our hands up in the air about and screaming "where do I put this?" You put it in transition scenes.
2. Sex scenes. Finished Ice Blue last week, Anne Stuarts latest and reread it again tonight. Well, not the whole book - because as a whole the book is so disjointed and problematic that there is no point in rereading the whole thing. (scene after scene of the heroine going 'you're going to kill me?" and the hero going "yes." Heroine: "When?" Hero: "When you are no longer necessary to the assignment" and then the heroine falls in love with him - which would be ABSURD! if it weren't for the sex. Sex is not just sex in Anne Stuart novels - it is the best character and conflict reveal she makes. Her sex scenes are hot and moving and scary and romantic and fun. They show all the things she tells us in other parts of the book and they advance the plot. Amazing. Really really something.
My sex scenes - not so much. Gotta do something about that.
So, how about your elementary backstroke craft problems? What's got you stuck on the shady side of the pool?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Subplots and my endless appreciation for them..
I used to read a lot of historical romance. There were a steady stream in the nineties that all went in a similar fashion.
The first two hundred pages were completely focused on the hero and heroine, their first meeting, the back and forth of dialogue, the building of sexual tension, all delicious, culminating in the hero and heroine sleeping together sometime between pages 200 and 250.
Then the author realized, crap! I have another 200 pages to fill. Enter the suspense subplot, which sometimes kept the hero and heroine apart, sometimes just gave them something to do, but added another 100 -200 pages to a book that should have ended at page 200, which is usually the point where I stopped reading.
Because usually the suspense subplot had been tacked on, added nothing to the main plot, (the romance) and the resolution was obvious from the first page.
But when a subplot is weaved into a book properly, chosen so it will enhance the main plot and increase tension, the books moves at a faster pace, and keeps the reader interested.
Some books that are intensely enhanced by their subplots, Silent in the Grave. Really, by the end do you care who killed her husband? But the investigator. The questions surrounding him kept me reading till the end, Poison Study. A study in pacing and the value of subplots in keeping a book really interesting.
One of the things I assumed with romance when I first started writing, was that the romance was the main plot. But I’ve been re-examining some of my favourite romances and discovering that isn’t the case.
The Promise Of Jenny Jones - the romance is definitely a subplot. The main plot is Jenny keeping her promise to ensure the little girl gets home safely. That the romance is weaved in so intricately into all of this makes it a huge subplot, the main plot is right there in the title.
Same with the Prince of Midnight by Laura Kinsale. I love this book, but I’d argue that the main plot of this book is the hero rediscovering his passion for life, his character arc, rather than the romance, which again, is a huge subplot and so intricately weaved in, you almost can’t separate the two plots.
Take a look at most paranormal romances on the shelves, and again, I’d bet in more than half, the romance is a subplot.
Why does this matter? Because subplots when done really well, are woven so intricately into the fabric of the story that they are sometimes hard to distinguish from the main plot, and either add to the character’s growth, or alternatively contrast the main plot.
Being able to distinguish plot from subplot in my admittedly twisted novels, helps me write a pared down synopsis and it has changed the way I approach plotting a book.
And on a completely unrelated topic. Anyone watching Drive, the new Fox show. I’m a fan of Nathan Fillion, from the vastly underappreciated Firefly, and the exec producer of Drive is the same from that show as well.
Was unsure about the show through the 2 hr preview, until the third episode, where some lovely questions are raised about Nathan’s character that completely changed my view of him.
Right now I’m on board, for that reason, and the Father and Daughter team, and, the so far, great dialogue between them.
Anyone else seen it?
The first two hundred pages were completely focused on the hero and heroine, their first meeting, the back and forth of dialogue, the building of sexual tension, all delicious, culminating in the hero and heroine sleeping together sometime between pages 200 and 250.
Then the author realized, crap! I have another 200 pages to fill. Enter the suspense subplot, which sometimes kept the hero and heroine apart, sometimes just gave them something to do, but added another 100 -200 pages to a book that should have ended at page 200, which is usually the point where I stopped reading.
Because usually the suspense subplot had been tacked on, added nothing to the main plot, (the romance) and the resolution was obvious from the first page.
But when a subplot is weaved into a book properly, chosen so it will enhance the main plot and increase tension, the books moves at a faster pace, and keeps the reader interested.
Some books that are intensely enhanced by their subplots, Silent in the Grave. Really, by the end do you care who killed her husband? But the investigator. The questions surrounding him kept me reading till the end, Poison Study. A study in pacing and the value of subplots in keeping a book really interesting.
One of the things I assumed with romance when I first started writing, was that the romance was the main plot. But I’ve been re-examining some of my favourite romances and discovering that isn’t the case.
The Promise Of Jenny Jones - the romance is definitely a subplot. The main plot is Jenny keeping her promise to ensure the little girl gets home safely. That the romance is weaved in so intricately into all of this makes it a huge subplot, the main plot is right there in the title.
Same with the Prince of Midnight by Laura Kinsale. I love this book, but I’d argue that the main plot of this book is the hero rediscovering his passion for life, his character arc, rather than the romance, which again, is a huge subplot and so intricately weaved in, you almost can’t separate the two plots.
Take a look at most paranormal romances on the shelves, and again, I’d bet in more than half, the romance is a subplot.
Why does this matter? Because subplots when done really well, are woven so intricately into the fabric of the story that they are sometimes hard to distinguish from the main plot, and either add to the character’s growth, or alternatively contrast the main plot.
Being able to distinguish plot from subplot in my admittedly twisted novels, helps me write a pared down synopsis and it has changed the way I approach plotting a book.
And on a completely unrelated topic. Anyone watching Drive, the new Fox show. I’m a fan of Nathan Fillion, from the vastly underappreciated Firefly, and the exec producer of Drive is the same from that show as well.
Was unsure about the show through the 2 hr preview, until the third episode, where some lovely questions are raised about Nathan’s character that completely changed my view of him.
Right now I’m on board, for that reason, and the Father and Daughter team, and, the so far, great dialogue between them.
Anyone else seen it?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
High Concept or the lowest of lows?
I've had a lot of trouble this week trying to think of something to blog about. Usually I'm choosing between ideas. Hmmm... Maybe I should start writing those ideas down. LOL. (Actually, I'm just feeling too lazy to think about or research some of those topics.)
So let's talk about Grindhouse.
Has anyone else seen this? It's Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's ode to 1970's movie going experiences.
First, I grew up in the 1970's and I don't remember anything like this. I guess I was going to the wrong movies. But seriously. I don't even remember posters or ads and I certainly don't remember theatres where the film was so scratched and damaged it was distracting or entire reels (containing the sex scenes and lap dances) were missing. But I was laughing along, anyway. I found things like that, in particular, very funny. I mean, lets you create a whole back story around the movie theatre and the projectionist that those reels were missing.
If you've got a strong stomach and have 3 1/2 hours to devote to a silly fun time, I'd recommend seeing Grindhouse and seeing in the theatre. I can't imagine how annoying the digitally "scratched" film stock will look on a smaller screen. The first movie's gore makes zombie movies look like the Teletubbies and the second has some pretty amazing car chases and stunts, not to mention Tarantino's patented great dialogue amongst friends who work together in interesting job we get a peek into. Short aside. Zoe Bell, stunt woman extraordinaire, plays herself in the Tarantino movie. She's great. and the stunts she does in this movie are quite mind blowing. If you get a chance, rent Double Dare, a great documentary I saw at the 2004 film festival which featured an aging stunt woman, Jeannie Epper, who broke ground for women in that industry (and was Wonder Woman's stunt double, actually having to land from high jumps in high heels and slide across pavement in those ridiculously short shorts) and Zoe, who as a gymnast not really trained as a stunt woman, was Xena's stunt double in New Zealand, and then moved to the US after Xena ended, hoping to break into the Hollywood stunt world. She actually gets "the call" during the documentary from Tarantino, offering her the job to be Uma Thurman in the Kill Bill movies and you get to see the day she first meets Tarantino and starts to audition for the role. It really changed how I watched those movies the second time, knowing most of those action scenes were played by Zoe, not Uma.
But all this is not what I was planning to blog about. I was planning to blog about high concept. And I really don't have time (or the inclination) to do the topic justice today... But what got me thinking about it, was these fake movie trailers featured before and during Grindhouse.
Hobo with a Shot Gun (wish I could remember the tagline for this one... but really, the title says it all)
Machete -- If you're going to hire Machete to kill the bad guys, make sure you're not one of them. (Genius)
Werewolf Women of the SS -- (Okay the tagline for this one was funny too... Something about Hitler's diabolical plan to change unsuspecting young women into werewolf fighting machines. But I didn't have any paper and obvioiusly am having short term memory issues.)
Not sure if these are high concept, or about as low as you can get. But you understand exactly what these concepts are (low brow though they may be) in just a few words. To me, that encapsulates the idea of high concept.
So let's talk about Grindhouse.
Has anyone else seen this? It's Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino's ode to 1970's movie going experiences.
First, I grew up in the 1970's and I don't remember anything like this. I guess I was going to the wrong movies. But seriously. I don't even remember posters or ads and I certainly don't remember theatres where the film was so scratched and damaged it was distracting or entire reels (containing the sex scenes and lap dances) were missing. But I was laughing along, anyway. I found things like that, in particular, very funny. I mean, lets you create a whole back story around the movie theatre and the projectionist that those reels were missing.
If you've got a strong stomach and have 3 1/2 hours to devote to a silly fun time, I'd recommend seeing Grindhouse and seeing in the theatre. I can't imagine how annoying the digitally "scratched" film stock will look on a smaller screen. The first movie's gore makes zombie movies look like the Teletubbies and the second has some pretty amazing car chases and stunts, not to mention Tarantino's patented great dialogue amongst friends who work together in interesting job we get a peek into. Short aside. Zoe Bell, stunt woman extraordinaire, plays herself in the Tarantino movie. She's great. and the stunts she does in this movie are quite mind blowing. If you get a chance, rent Double Dare, a great documentary I saw at the 2004 film festival which featured an aging stunt woman, Jeannie Epper, who broke ground for women in that industry (and was Wonder Woman's stunt double, actually having to land from high jumps in high heels and slide across pavement in those ridiculously short shorts) and Zoe, who as a gymnast not really trained as a stunt woman, was Xena's stunt double in New Zealand, and then moved to the US after Xena ended, hoping to break into the Hollywood stunt world. She actually gets "the call" during the documentary from Tarantino, offering her the job to be Uma Thurman in the Kill Bill movies and you get to see the day she first meets Tarantino and starts to audition for the role. It really changed how I watched those movies the second time, knowing most of those action scenes were played by Zoe, not Uma.
But all this is not what I was planning to blog about. I was planning to blog about high concept. And I really don't have time (or the inclination) to do the topic justice today... But what got me thinking about it, was these fake movie trailers featured before and during Grindhouse.
Hobo with a Shot Gun (wish I could remember the tagline for this one... but really, the title says it all)
Machete -- If you're going to hire Machete to kill the bad guys, make sure you're not one of them. (Genius)
Werewolf Women of the SS -- (Okay the tagline for this one was funny too... Something about Hitler's diabolical plan to change unsuspecting young women into werewolf fighting machines. But I didn't have any paper and obvioiusly am having short term memory issues.)
Not sure if these are high concept, or about as low as you can get. But you understand exactly what these concepts are (low brow though they may be) in just a few words. To me, that encapsulates the idea of high concept.
Monday, April 16, 2007
What is in a name? Or a cover? Or a title? Or back cover copy?
I have offered myself up totally to the marketing machine at Harlequin.
My name was constructed by a group of editors at a meeting. Molly is my name, but my last name is Fader and when starting out writing romantic comedy they didn't think "Fader" sounded romantic or funny. The asked me for a list of alternatives, all of which they poo pooed and in the end they came up with O'Keefe. And I agreed - totally fine with that.
Every book I have written I submit with a working title and it gets changed. This happens for just about everyone. But my book out in July which I called Jigsaw Hearts - will be called Undercover Protector. My husband upon hearing this said - "like a jock strap?" My mom said "like a condom?"
Neither connotation is very promising in terms of sales - but again - I've got to think Harlequin knows what it is doing. They've sold trillions of books - They know better than I that a book I called "Always Kiss Me Goodnight," will sell tons more as "His Best Friend's Baby." Or that "Things Best Remembered" will fly off the shelves much faster as "Baby Makes Three."
I hope.
For every book Harlequin asks it's writers to fill out Art Fact Sheets. A very long questionnaire about our characters, their ages, appearance, back ground, thematic qualities and occupations. These questionnaires are all on line and consist of drop down menus that are hilarious. I look forward to maybe writing a book with a character whose occupation is "billionaire" or "Prince".
Another part of these forms requires the author to come up with a bunch of scenes that she thinks would make a great cover. We are supposed to describe the mood, location, time of day and weather. Apparently we can even download pictures to help the artists better create our covers - I've never done this - because, again, I have totally given myself up to the marketing machine. They know, right? Covers with toothy smiley kids sell. Covers with creepy men who don't look old enough to to be the father of the preteen age girl they are standing with - sell.
For whatever reasons - laziness. Stupidity. Not wanting to rock the boat. Being just too damn busy to pester anyone or get involved - I have not protested any titles or covers and I think I've done okay with what I've been given. Though the cover of Family At Stake really does look creepy to me. And I've just gotten the cover for my July book - and it's the best yet. I think they've finally figured out a mix that will work with the new tone of Superromance. The covers are very romantic, less iconic or symbolic (which the authors loved, but readers didn't buy) but they are different, in a good way. BUT - compared with some of the other covers for that month namely Darlene Gardener and Tara Taylor Quinn - I've seriously been hosed. There are covers and there are COVERS.
Now, it's been a long time since I've picked up a book based on anything besides the name of the author or the rave reviews someone gives it. But take a look at some of the covers coming up and let me know which books you'd pick up based on covers alone.
http://www.superauthors.com/books.asp?page=2&gettype=upcoming&orderby
Be honest.
My name was constructed by a group of editors at a meeting. Molly is my name, but my last name is Fader and when starting out writing romantic comedy they didn't think "Fader" sounded romantic or funny. The asked me for a list of alternatives, all of which they poo pooed and in the end they came up with O'Keefe. And I agreed - totally fine with that.
Every book I have written I submit with a working title and it gets changed. This happens for just about everyone. But my book out in July which I called Jigsaw Hearts - will be called Undercover Protector. My husband upon hearing this said - "like a jock strap?" My mom said "like a condom?"
Neither connotation is very promising in terms of sales - but again - I've got to think Harlequin knows what it is doing. They've sold trillions of books - They know better than I that a book I called "Always Kiss Me Goodnight," will sell tons more as "His Best Friend's Baby." Or that "Things Best Remembered" will fly off the shelves much faster as "Baby Makes Three."
I hope.
For every book Harlequin asks it's writers to fill out Art Fact Sheets. A very long questionnaire about our characters, their ages, appearance, back ground, thematic qualities and occupations. These questionnaires are all on line and consist of drop down menus that are hilarious. I look forward to maybe writing a book with a character whose occupation is "billionaire" or "Prince".
Another part of these forms requires the author to come up with a bunch of scenes that she thinks would make a great cover. We are supposed to describe the mood, location, time of day and weather. Apparently we can even download pictures to help the artists better create our covers - I've never done this - because, again, I have totally given myself up to the marketing machine. They know, right? Covers with toothy smiley kids sell. Covers with creepy men who don't look old enough to to be the father of the preteen age girl they are standing with - sell.
For whatever reasons - laziness. Stupidity. Not wanting to rock the boat. Being just too damn busy to pester anyone or get involved - I have not protested any titles or covers and I think I've done okay with what I've been given. Though the cover of Family At Stake really does look creepy to me. And I've just gotten the cover for my July book - and it's the best yet. I think they've finally figured out a mix that will work with the new tone of Superromance. The covers are very romantic, less iconic or symbolic (which the authors loved, but readers didn't buy) but they are different, in a good way. BUT - compared with some of the other covers for that month namely Darlene Gardener and Tara Taylor Quinn - I've seriously been hosed. There are covers and there are COVERS.
Now, it's been a long time since I've picked up a book based on anything besides the name of the author or the rave reviews someone gives it. But take a look at some of the covers coming up and let me know which books you'd pick up based on covers alone.
http://www.superauthors.com/books.asp?page=2&gettype=upcoming&orderby
Be honest.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Let’s talk about sex… or at least sexy men.
Lots of things on my mind these days. Plots, subplots(definitely the topic of an upcoming post) and structure. But as I watch Casino Royale, top most on my mind is how some men come across as innately sexy and others just don’t.
You know I’m talking about Daniel Craig. Who, in my opinion, is incredibly sexy in Casino Royale, in a way no other Bond man has ever been. Part of it is the wonderful interchange between him and Vesper Lynd. Sharp sexy dialogue and a woman who can match him.
But a larger part of it is that he’s a dangerous, dangerous man. Capable of almost anything. He has that buff body, and those incredible blue eyes, and let’s not forget how he looks in a tux, but we’re not talking about a traditionally good looking man here.
Same with many of the characters played by Clive Owen, and Gerard Butler, two more intensely sexy men.
The common denominator is they seem to give the impression of barely restrained control, a sense of wildness just below the surface and a strong confidence.
Would I want to marry a man like this? Hell, no.
But a one night stand. Absolutely.
So how do we take these men and make them romance heroes, but showing their metamorphosis from a dangerous man, to one controlled by the heroine, or his feelings for her.
Maybe it’s that sense of leashing a wild animal that creates the fantasy. I’m not sure, but personally, I like heroes with baggage, darkness and edge.
Nothing is more boring to me than a white bread, straight up hero. Always hated Superman. Found him boring. I like a hero with harsh edges, darkness, Batman, is more my comic book character. It also explains how Tony Soprano became a strange sort of sex symbol.
It’s the fantasy of danger.
Who are the best romance heroes? Laura Kinsale’s heroes come to mind. She creates these damaged, dark, sexy men. Who else?
You know I’m talking about Daniel Craig. Who, in my opinion, is incredibly sexy in Casino Royale, in a way no other Bond man has ever been. Part of it is the wonderful interchange between him and Vesper Lynd. Sharp sexy dialogue and a woman who can match him.
But a larger part of it is that he’s a dangerous, dangerous man. Capable of almost anything. He has that buff body, and those incredible blue eyes, and let’s not forget how he looks in a tux, but we’re not talking about a traditionally good looking man here.
Same with many of the characters played by Clive Owen, and Gerard Butler, two more intensely sexy men.
The common denominator is they seem to give the impression of barely restrained control, a sense of wildness just below the surface and a strong confidence.
Would I want to marry a man like this? Hell, no.
But a one night stand. Absolutely.
So how do we take these men and make them romance heroes, but showing their metamorphosis from a dangerous man, to one controlled by the heroine, or his feelings for her.
Maybe it’s that sense of leashing a wild animal that creates the fantasy. I’m not sure, but personally, I like heroes with baggage, darkness and edge.
Nothing is more boring to me than a white bread, straight up hero. Always hated Superman. Found him boring. I like a hero with harsh edges, darkness, Batman, is more my comic book character. It also explains how Tony Soprano became a strange sort of sex symbol.
It’s the fantasy of danger.
Who are the best romance heroes? Laura Kinsale’s heroes come to mind. She creates these damaged, dark, sexy men. Who else?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Women and Fiction
I've read a couple of interesting articles/essays lately about fiction and the differences between what women like to read and what men like to read. I'm still mulling about one of them, but the other one, well, I just wish I'd written it.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6431248.html
Erica Jong (whose Fear of Flying I read as a pre-teen searching for the "dirty bits" and probably not really understanding what the book was about) wrote a great opinion piece in Publishers Weekly about the ghettoization of fiction written by women.
A couple of things stood out for me. One is the fact (yes a fact, not opinion, (in my opinon LOL)) that if men write about subjects like love or family or interpersonal relationships they are lauded for doing so, but when women do this (all the freakin' time) it's dismissed as slight or simplistic or not deep enough to be taken seriously or considered literature or even worthy of being reviewed.
The other was that Ms. Jong puts responsibility for "fixing" this on the heads of today's female writers. She contends, if I took her point correctly, that unlike her generation, which was politicized with women's liberation and stood up for themselves, today's female writers are simply rolling over and playing dead when their books are trivialized, or when silly pink cartoon covers or pastel beach chairs are slapped onto their work.
I don't think I have enough experience to credibly contest Ms. Jong on this point. But it seems to me like she's blaming the victims just a bit.
Have you read Ms. Jong's article? What do you think? Is fiction written by women ghettoized? Do you think we as writers can do anything to change this?
Addendum.
I guess her thoughts about Canada treating female writers better was also interesting to me. (Since I'm Canadian.) Whenever I try to argue this women's fiction ghetto point with my well-read sister, she says, "What about Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, Carol Shields, Ann-Marie Macdonald, Margaret Laurence, Barbara Gowdy, Jane Urquhart or even Lucy Maude Montgomery". It's hard to argue against that. But I wonder, with the exception of Ms. Atwood, and of course Mrs. Montgomery, how well known any of these women are outside Canada and the Canadian market is so small. And still, even within Canada, the writers who have done well in the more commercial US market, say, Mary Balogh, get no respect within Canadian writers circles.)
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6431248.html
Erica Jong (whose Fear of Flying I read as a pre-teen searching for the "dirty bits" and probably not really understanding what the book was about) wrote a great opinion piece in Publishers Weekly about the ghettoization of fiction written by women.
A couple of things stood out for me. One is the fact (yes a fact, not opinion, (in my opinon LOL)) that if men write about subjects like love or family or interpersonal relationships they are lauded for doing so, but when women do this (all the freakin' time) it's dismissed as slight or simplistic or not deep enough to be taken seriously or considered literature or even worthy of being reviewed.
The other was that Ms. Jong puts responsibility for "fixing" this on the heads of today's female writers. She contends, if I took her point correctly, that unlike her generation, which was politicized with women's liberation and stood up for themselves, today's female writers are simply rolling over and playing dead when their books are trivialized, or when silly pink cartoon covers or pastel beach chairs are slapped onto their work.
I don't think I have enough experience to credibly contest Ms. Jong on this point. But it seems to me like she's blaming the victims just a bit.
Have you read Ms. Jong's article? What do you think? Is fiction written by women ghettoized? Do you think we as writers can do anything to change this?
Addendum.
I guess her thoughts about Canada treating female writers better was also interesting to me. (Since I'm Canadian.) Whenever I try to argue this women's fiction ghetto point with my well-read sister, she says, "What about Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, Carol Shields, Ann-Marie Macdonald, Margaret Laurence, Barbara Gowdy, Jane Urquhart or even Lucy Maude Montgomery". It's hard to argue against that. But I wonder, with the exception of Ms. Atwood, and of course Mrs. Montgomery, how well known any of these women are outside Canada and the Canadian market is so small. And still, even within Canada, the writers who have done well in the more commercial US market, say, Mary Balogh, get no respect within Canadian writers circles.)
Monday, April 09, 2007
All Hail The Sopranos! Or why this week is the best week of television EVER!!!
A few years ago I was living in a vegetarian nudist house in California (oh! I wish I was kidding) and I didn't have a TV. I was a little smug about it too -- so much so that when friends gave my husband and I a very nice TV for our wedding I was sort of a superior pain in the ass about it. I thought we'd never talk. Never drink wine and play big games of Scrabble. And if I could go back in time and tell myself one thing (besides to put all of our money on that Boston Red Sox World Championship a few years ago) it would be to shut up about the TV - because all those games of Scrabble we didn't play are a worthy worthy sacrifice to the TV Gods for this one week of Television.
Last night was the return of the best Sociopath to ever grace the small screen - Tony Soprano and the even more delightful return of the obsessive ecumenical spazz - Ari Gold from Entourage. And if that wasn't enough - and it is frankly - it's enough - this week is the season finale of...Friday Night Lights. Oh! The bliss.
Last nights return of Soprano's was the best reminder of what makes that show great. The violence, the delicious nearly torturous tension, the crazy juxtaposition of what this man is and what he wants and how he lives.
What I love about this show and what is coming to fruition this year is that they take their time. This is a character driven show in which a raised eyebrow and a sideways look at a noisy bird is just as much a plot point as a bullet in that poor ex-husband's brain and the ripped shirt the killer leaves behind!
Long conversations take place - and the dialogue doesn't really matter. I'm talking about that scene between Tony and his brother in law, Bobby in the boat - it doesn't matter what's being said - the pacing of the scene, the so telling non verbals - put it all out there. This is a monster at rest, fishing with a good man who would love to not be in the business. But the writers aren't just showing us a quiet moment in this man's life - it's also ratcheting up the tension because anything can happen in this show. Tony could lose it on his brother in law, another boat could come by and kill them all. Tony could have a heart attack. Anything. And we know because the writers of this show reward it's watchers that no moment of peace for this guy goes unpunished - either by his own hand or someone elses. So - it's this nice scene - two guys fishing and my husband and I were biting our nails from the torment.
So when the next scene of relaxation - Tony, Carmela, Janice (Tony's sister) and Bobby are sitting around drinking playing cards - we know, we just know it's a powder keg. And they lay the foundation for the scene so beautifully. So, tellingly. Bobby gets mad at the Sopranos. Carmela gets mad at Tony. Janice gets mad at her brother. And then...Tony starts getting mad.
Now, I love Friday Night Lights but I realized watching this show why Network Television will NEVER get close to the unbelievable storytelling that cable shows do. The writers (maybe the producers not sure how it works) are scared to trust the viewer to follow a character driven (to this magnitude) show. Sure, House is a character driven show - but good god it's running off the rails. And frankly - what does it compare to Dexter? Lost was totally in that first season a delicious character driven show. But now it's all plot. It's all explosions and secrets and we've stopped caring because we don't care about who is getting hurt. Friday Night Lights is falling into this trap too - turning the story around and around with more and bigger events. But I'm still in.
Thank God we've got a TV.
Last night was the return of the best Sociopath to ever grace the small screen - Tony Soprano and the even more delightful return of the obsessive ecumenical spazz - Ari Gold from Entourage. And if that wasn't enough - and it is frankly - it's enough - this week is the season finale of...Friday Night Lights. Oh! The bliss.
Last nights return of Soprano's was the best reminder of what makes that show great. The violence, the delicious nearly torturous tension, the crazy juxtaposition of what this man is and what he wants and how he lives.
What I love about this show and what is coming to fruition this year is that they take their time. This is a character driven show in which a raised eyebrow and a sideways look at a noisy bird is just as much a plot point as a bullet in that poor ex-husband's brain and the ripped shirt the killer leaves behind!
Long conversations take place - and the dialogue doesn't really matter. I'm talking about that scene between Tony and his brother in law, Bobby in the boat - it doesn't matter what's being said - the pacing of the scene, the so telling non verbals - put it all out there. This is a monster at rest, fishing with a good man who would love to not be in the business. But the writers aren't just showing us a quiet moment in this man's life - it's also ratcheting up the tension because anything can happen in this show. Tony could lose it on his brother in law, another boat could come by and kill them all. Tony could have a heart attack. Anything. And we know because the writers of this show reward it's watchers that no moment of peace for this guy goes unpunished - either by his own hand or someone elses. So - it's this nice scene - two guys fishing and my husband and I were biting our nails from the torment.
So when the next scene of relaxation - Tony, Carmela, Janice (Tony's sister) and Bobby are sitting around drinking playing cards - we know, we just know it's a powder keg. And they lay the foundation for the scene so beautifully. So, tellingly. Bobby gets mad at the Sopranos. Carmela gets mad at Tony. Janice gets mad at her brother. And then...Tony starts getting mad.
Now, I love Friday Night Lights but I realized watching this show why Network Television will NEVER get close to the unbelievable storytelling that cable shows do. The writers (maybe the producers not sure how it works) are scared to trust the viewer to follow a character driven (to this magnitude) show. Sure, House is a character driven show - but good god it's running off the rails. And frankly - what does it compare to Dexter? Lost was totally in that first season a delicious character driven show. But now it's all plot. It's all explosions and secrets and we've stopped caring because we don't care about who is getting hurt. Friday Night Lights is falling into this trap too - turning the story around and around with more and bigger events. But I'm still in.
Thank God we've got a TV.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Control:
If there’s a theme for the week here at Drunk Writers, it has to be there’s little you can control in this business except the writing, your own promotional efforts and your knowledge about the business.
But that’s actually not true. As unpublished authors, we have all the control.
(stop snickering in the wings, it’s true)
Picture this. I finish the best book I’ve ever written. I think it’s fantastic… (this is very hypothetical)
So I draw a short list of agents to send it to. I have the control initially in choosing which agent I would like to represent me and my work and in a wonderful, perfect world, more than one wants to represent the work, then I get to choose which one.
Secondly, the writer does have a significant say over where our agents send the book. Hopefully we have the right person representing us, so we trust their judgment, but again, this is ultimately our choice.
And we can say yes or no to offers.. (again, stop snickering… I know this is stupidly hypothetical), but I have heard of authors having a choice between publishers if the project is really hot.
Once the publisher takes over, we definitely lose control, over covers, back cover blurbs and the promotion the publisher chooses to do, but if we chose well, then there should be trust in our editors.
Now I know what I’ve just described is highly unlikely.. and when the rejections start coming in, hard not to leap at the first offer that comes along. Hell, did it myself, and came to regret it. Leaping at the first agent cost me time, too much time.
But I did learn to take back some control. I don’t have to sell the first book I write, or even the second, or third, but I do want to feel like I have control. I have a short list of agents, it changes, but it’s not huge. They are all well established and well regarded. If I don’t snag one of the short list with my current project, then I’ll try with the next book.
It might sound foolish to some, but I firmly believe no agent is better than a bad agent.
What’s harder for me is keeping confidence when getting rejections. But here what we all need is an unshakeable faith in our writing and what we choose to write. Not to the point where I don’t listen to criticism, but just a belief that my flawed heros and heroines are interesting to more than just me, and my stories are worthy of publication on my terms.
And if I don’t get there with the current book, then I’ll get there with the next one.
Because it starts and ends with the writing.
But that’s actually not true. As unpublished authors, we have all the control.
(stop snickering in the wings, it’s true)
Picture this. I finish the best book I’ve ever written. I think it’s fantastic… (this is very hypothetical)
So I draw a short list of agents to send it to. I have the control initially in choosing which agent I would like to represent me and my work and in a wonderful, perfect world, more than one wants to represent the work, then I get to choose which one.
Secondly, the writer does have a significant say over where our agents send the book. Hopefully we have the right person representing us, so we trust their judgment, but again, this is ultimately our choice.
And we can say yes or no to offers.. (again, stop snickering… I know this is stupidly hypothetical), but I have heard of authors having a choice between publishers if the project is really hot.
Once the publisher takes over, we definitely lose control, over covers, back cover blurbs and the promotion the publisher chooses to do, but if we chose well, then there should be trust in our editors.
Now I know what I’ve just described is highly unlikely.. and when the rejections start coming in, hard not to leap at the first offer that comes along. Hell, did it myself, and came to regret it. Leaping at the first agent cost me time, too much time.
But I did learn to take back some control. I don’t have to sell the first book I write, or even the second, or third, but I do want to feel like I have control. I have a short list of agents, it changes, but it’s not huge. They are all well established and well regarded. If I don’t snag one of the short list with my current project, then I’ll try with the next book.
It might sound foolish to some, but I firmly believe no agent is better than a bad agent.
What’s harder for me is keeping confidence when getting rejections. But here what we all need is an unshakeable faith in our writing and what we choose to write. Not to the point where I don’t listen to criticism, but just a belief that my flawed heros and heroines are interesting to more than just me, and my stories are worthy of publication on my terms.
And if I don’t get there with the current book, then I’ll get there with the next one.
Because it starts and ends with the writing.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Concentrate on What You Can Control
This seems like such an obvious thing, but for me it's one of the hardest things to remember.
I attended the NEC conference last weekend and the breakfast keynote speaker was Lisa Gardner. I've heard Lisa speak a few times before and she's always amazing, but a few things she said this weekend really resonated for me.
The main thing that hit me in the gut was that publishing and writing are two different things, and as writers the only part we can control is the writing. (Okay, I guess if you self-publish you can control the publishing part, too... but you can't control whether or not anyone will buy, enjoy or review your books in that scenario either.)
The tricky part of this for me is that, well, I'm beginning to realize I'm a bit of a control freak. At my age you'd think I'd have discovered this about myself before now, but no -- a recent revelation. And second, while we can't control the publishing part, I do think it behooves us as writers to be knowledgeable about publishing and to be in control of our careers. Sure we entrust agents to sell our work and publicists to make sure readers find out about it. We hire web designers to create a face-to-the-public look. We sell our publishing rights to publishers entrusting editing, book design, cover art and a myriad of other things to them. But as much as we need to be educated about the industry, to know what we want for our careers and to stand up for it to increase the odds that the other players understand and buy into and support our career vision... Ultimately the only thing we can control is the writing. The stories we choose to tell and how we tell them.
We can't control market trends. We can't control exactly which editor(s) our agent chooses to send our projects to. We can't control what those editors saw immediately before our work or what biases they may bring to the table. We can't control if they offer a contract or how big an advance. We can't control the cover art chosen or the print runs or how many copies the booksellers will buy or how well (or even if) we'll be reviewed. We can't make Oprah choose our books for her bookclub.
So. We write.
I attended the NEC conference last weekend and the breakfast keynote speaker was Lisa Gardner. I've heard Lisa speak a few times before and she's always amazing, but a few things she said this weekend really resonated for me.
The main thing that hit me in the gut was that publishing and writing are two different things, and as writers the only part we can control is the writing. (Okay, I guess if you self-publish you can control the publishing part, too... but you can't control whether or not anyone will buy, enjoy or review your books in that scenario either.)
The tricky part of this for me is that, well, I'm beginning to realize I'm a bit of a control freak. At my age you'd think I'd have discovered this about myself before now, but no -- a recent revelation. And second, while we can't control the publishing part, I do think it behooves us as writers to be knowledgeable about publishing and to be in control of our careers. Sure we entrust agents to sell our work and publicists to make sure readers find out about it. We hire web designers to create a face-to-the-public look. We sell our publishing rights to publishers entrusting editing, book design, cover art and a myriad of other things to them. But as much as we need to be educated about the industry, to know what we want for our careers and to stand up for it to increase the odds that the other players understand and buy into and support our career vision... Ultimately the only thing we can control is the writing. The stories we choose to tell and how we tell them.
We can't control market trends. We can't control exactly which editor(s) our agent chooses to send our projects to. We can't control what those editors saw immediately before our work or what biases they may bring to the table. We can't control if they offer a contract or how big an advance. We can't control the cover art chosen or the print runs or how many copies the booksellers will buy or how well (or even if) we'll be reviewed. We can't make Oprah choose our books for her bookclub.
So. We write.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Ten years in and no closer to the key....
I've been in this business for ten years - and by being in the business I mean I've been submitting proposals to editors who know who I am and seem to like me and my writing.
And still, I have amassed far more rejections than I have paychecks. And, worse I still don't know what's going on. I was originally going to write this blog about how, while I don't understand the business any better than I did ten years ago (when I thought that my first book - like all harlequin novels - would earn me a paycheck of $15,000 - HAH!), I do understand writing better than I did. But then I thought about my current WIP and my last book and what I THOUGHT I had figured out and what I'm screwing up right now and - stupid me - I haven't gotten anything figured out. At all.
The business aspect of writing mainstream genre fiction is like one of those puzzles that if you stare at it the right way or for a long period of time you think you might see...yep...there it is...a cat in sunglasses. But then you look away to tell your friends and critique partners what you've seen and when you look back at the puzzle --- it's just a bunch of green and red pixels again. No cat. No sunglasses. No sense.
Maureen's story about getting a rejection from a proposal she sent a year ago to a house that she'd been TALKING to a few months ago about a different version of the same book -- literally boggles my mind. As I wrote that sentence I had to drink vodka right from the bottle - that's how painful that is. The countless good books that don't get bought because they aren't marketable or don't have vampires or werewolves or time travelling elfs doing nasty things to each other on every other page - can really - when thought about - piss me off. Especially when half the time I'm starving for a good book. (not this week though-- dear God the reading pleasures I've had). The strange and mysterious etiquette involved when hiring an agent who - WILL BE WORKING FOR YOU! It just doesn't make sense. Our publishers want to sell loads and loads of our books and then give us terrible covers. People get paid money to create covers - just like they are paid to hit home runs every single time they are at bat - so why do we stand for crappy non-descript covers that look nothing like our characters and take place no where near our setting and involve explosions when we've written a nice little book about knitting! KNITTING BOOKS - good gravy don't get me started....
But - you all know that -- you're swimming upstream in the same raging river I am. The writing thing though - man, just when you think you've figured something out....something else falls apart. What is happening to me right now at page 86 (same page I've been for oh....three weeks) is like I'm a world champion plate spinner on David Letterman (Drew Barrymore couldn't make it so they called me in...) and I've got the plates spinning off the chair I'm balancing on my nose (character, conflict and pacing ) I've got the plates spinning off the candelabras in my hand (pacing, dialogue and POV) but the plates I just had spinning, just figured out on the very last book, the plates I just looked at and spun - reader expectation and reversals - have crashed to the floor.
I understand that every book is different - characters plot blah blah blah - but I am the same. Me. The writer. Why doesn't this stuff stick like it's supposed to - like "30 days has September, April, June and November" or all those Celine Dion songs I - for whatever satanic reason - know by heart.
Maybe the next ten years will bring me the answer and that $15, 000.
And still, I have amassed far more rejections than I have paychecks. And, worse I still don't know what's going on. I was originally going to write this blog about how, while I don't understand the business any better than I did ten years ago (when I thought that my first book - like all harlequin novels - would earn me a paycheck of $15,000 - HAH!), I do understand writing better than I did. But then I thought about my current WIP and my last book and what I THOUGHT I had figured out and what I'm screwing up right now and - stupid me - I haven't gotten anything figured out. At all.
The business aspect of writing mainstream genre fiction is like one of those puzzles that if you stare at it the right way or for a long period of time you think you might see...yep...there it is...a cat in sunglasses. But then you look away to tell your friends and critique partners what you've seen and when you look back at the puzzle --- it's just a bunch of green and red pixels again. No cat. No sunglasses. No sense.
Maureen's story about getting a rejection from a proposal she sent a year ago to a house that she'd been TALKING to a few months ago about a different version of the same book -- literally boggles my mind. As I wrote that sentence I had to drink vodka right from the bottle - that's how painful that is. The countless good books that don't get bought because they aren't marketable or don't have vampires or werewolves or time travelling elfs doing nasty things to each other on every other page - can really - when thought about - piss me off. Especially when half the time I'm starving for a good book. (not this week though-- dear God the reading pleasures I've had). The strange and mysterious etiquette involved when hiring an agent who - WILL BE WORKING FOR YOU! It just doesn't make sense. Our publishers want to sell loads and loads of our books and then give us terrible covers. People get paid money to create covers - just like they are paid to hit home runs every single time they are at bat - so why do we stand for crappy non-descript covers that look nothing like our characters and take place no where near our setting and involve explosions when we've written a nice little book about knitting! KNITTING BOOKS - good gravy don't get me started....
But - you all know that -- you're swimming upstream in the same raging river I am. The writing thing though - man, just when you think you've figured something out....something else falls apart. What is happening to me right now at page 86 (same page I've been for oh....three weeks) is like I'm a world champion plate spinner on David Letterman (Drew Barrymore couldn't make it so they called me in...) and I've got the plates spinning off the chair I'm balancing on my nose (character, conflict and pacing ) I've got the plates spinning off the candelabras in my hand (pacing, dialogue and POV) but the plates I just had spinning, just figured out on the very last book, the plates I just looked at and spun - reader expectation and reversals - have crashed to the floor.
I understand that every book is different - characters plot blah blah blah - but I am the same. Me. The writer. Why doesn't this stuff stick like it's supposed to - like "30 days has September, April, June and November" or all those Celine Dion songs I - for whatever satanic reason - know by heart.
Maybe the next ten years will bring me the answer and that $15, 000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
