I’m two-thirds the way through a book that came highly recommended. Yet another break out historical romance (where can I just say all the buzz seems to be happening lately.) I don’t want to give the name of the book or the author – because my review of the book is not all positive. And I feel really bad about that.
This author took SUCH a risk. It was just a mind blowing, no-way-would-it-work, risk that I have to bow my head to her for even trying it. And as I’m reading the book I think… she almost got it. The hero is almost the most fascinating one I’ve ever read.
Almost a perfect book… but not quite.
Of course this just my opinion. I’m sure others believe she nailed it. But I think my disappointment comes from wanting to read that perfect story, with the perfect hero and the perfect heroine and the perfect story and just not finding it.
As a writer it’s not possible (at least for me) to be completely non judgmental as I read a book. I’m always looking for what works and what doesn’t. Partly as Eileen spoke about on Tuesday because I’m trying to learn what makes it successful – so I can steal that and have my own success.
And then it makes me realize how freakin’ impossible it is to really get to perfection. It’s not just about having an interesting hero and heroine, but also how they work together. It’s not just about having a fast moving plot, but does every element of it make sense. Does their conflict work? Does the resolution work? Was the sex (or lack thereof) pertinent to the story?
On what planet did anyone deciding to be a writer think this could be done!!!! We are all insane!!! I know this is not news. So you all have to tell me… what in your opinion has been the perfect book? Flawless, in all regards from beginning to end. For me most recently it would be… The Raven Prince by Elizabeth Hoyt. Flat out if I had gotten that book to judge for the RITA it would have been a 9. And in terms of a category book I’m going with Worth Fighting For… by Molly. (See fancy widget at the bottom). As the end of a series and all the things that had to be “emotionally” wrapped up that for me that was a perfect book.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Asking the Right Questions
Of course, there are no wrong questions when you're learning, but the more you learn about the publishing business, the more you realize how common it is for beginners to ask the "wrong" questions at the outset. I blame the portrayal of the publishing industry on TV and in movies. Ah, if only publishing worked like it does in the movies we'd all be rich and jet setting on all-expense paid tours to well-attended book signings....
Last week, a newly discovered Drunk Writer Stalker, posed a question in the comments of another post. The commenter is an aspiring writer wondering what line at Harlequin to target. And the way he framed his questions reminded both Molly and I of me -- of my six-years-ago self, anyway, so I thought I'd draw on Molly's advice to him for my blog post this week. Notice how I'm stealing from Molly? Shhh... Don't tell her.
Our new stalker's criteria for weighing the pros and cons of different Harlequin lines had to do with comments he'd read (here and other places) about the extent to which the various editors required revisions before buying, and how many books each editor was likely to ask her authors to write every year.
Molly quite rightly pointed out that all editors at Harlequin require revisions for most new authors, before acquiring...
Molly also pointed out that none of the Harlequin lines want one-hit-wonders, so no matter which line you write for, your editor will hope and/or expect you to produce at least two books a year. (Most hope for 3.) That's just what it takes to be a Harlequin author.
When I started writing, I asked different, but equally "wrong" questions about Harlequin. I was asking things like: which line is shortest? Which line is new and more likely to be picking up new authors? Which line fits this story I already started writing before ever reading any Harlequin novels? (Ultimately I chose the first line I targeted, based on the fact the editor of that line was coming to our chapter meeting and taking pitches. Sure, I can make it fit her line. Yeah, sure I can...)
The second of my "wrong" questions above isn't completely wrong-headed, but as both Molly and Stephanie can attest, there's a huge risk selling into those newer lines at Harlequin, because they don't always last. I never even got a chance to submit the second manuscript I wrote, because I was targeting the very short-lived Flipside line.
All this right question/wrong question stuff reminds me of a great talk I saw at nationals this year, given by agent Kristin Nelson, and her client Ally Carter. The format of their talk was a series of "wrong" questions to ask about writing YA, along with the "right" questions.
For example:
Wrong question: "How can I develop a young adult voice?"
Right question: "Will my voice appeal to teen readers?"
or:
Wrong question: "What's the right word count for Young Adult fiction?"
Right question: "How important is pacing in Young Adult fiction?"
And this got me wondering, could we develop a similar list for people who want to write romance but don't know what kind of romance they want to tackle?
Romance is probably the most diverse genre in publishing with oodles of subgenres (just check out the annual Romantic Times award list). Sure, there's a lot going on in speculative/sci fi/fantasy, too... but I really think (contrary to an article done a few years ago in Writers Digest) that romance is the most diverse. That article on genre fiction showed a gazillion different branches of fantasy and sci-fi, but only five or six sub-genres for romance. I thought this was crazy, especially since I could go along the branches on that fantasy/sci-fi tree and tack the word romance after almost every branch to yield a fully formed sub-genre of romance that probably outsells its fantasy counterpart... But I'm going off on one of my tangents... **Maureen pulls herself back.**
So, let's take romance's diversity as a given. If you're starting out, what kind of romance should you write?
Even if you're not just starting out, this is a hard question. The single hardest lesson, I continue to work on learning, is to stop asking: What's hot right now? What are the editors looking for? AARGH.... Get that question out of my head.
Some of the right questions might be:
What books do I love to read?
Do my strengths as a writer lie in fast-paced plotting or slowly-developing, delicious, emotional moments?
Am I drawn to supernatural or suspense or futuristic elements?
Do I like writing tame or hot?
Do I enjoy doing research about historical periods?
Is my natural writing voice formal or casual?
Can I consistently deliver wit in my writing?
Can I write great action scenes, or scary scenes, or really hot sex scenes?
Are my story ideas big enough to carry a 90K+ book, or are they better suited for shorter novels?
But ultimately it all comes back to: "What books do I love to read?"
Sinead and I were chatting the other night about some changes I'm making to my current WIP. My concern (pre changes) was that given the premise and the conflict, the reader would be able to see the climax of my story coming from about chapter 3, if not sooner. I feared readers would know exactly what was going to come between the couple in the end, would see all the decisions and compromises and sacrifices each would have to make. Sure, they wouldn't know the details, but there was no getting around the core of the conflict between these two characters and it was cliche. And I wondered whether if I were reading this book -- even if it had an interesting premise, even if it was fast paced -- if I was 99% sure I knew where the story was leading me, would I just put the book down. (Sure, all romances end in a HEA, it's the climax or black moment that should sneak up and grab you.)
And Sinead, as usual, said something really smart. She pointed out that for the two of us, right now, because we're still sans publisher, (hey, we're publisher free!), we have no one to please but ourselves. And that's perhaps the one luxury of being unpublished. No one to please but yourself. If we don't write books we, ourselves, would like to read, then what's the point? Why not save the "do I really need to write another book like the last one, just to please my publisher and readers" stage until we run up against it?
Right now, we need to write for ourselves. (With an eye to the market of course. We're not that dumb.)
Can you think of other wrong and right questions to ask about writing romance?
And Milo. Ask more questions. Please. :-) We hereby promise never to say you've asked the wrong questions again.
Oh, and to answer your question about whether being a dude will hold you back? Short answer is no. It might even help you because you'll stand out from the crowd of submissions. You might want to use a female pseudonym, but not necessarily. And that's something you don't have to worry about now. That's something you can discuss with your editor after you sell. But contrary to the movies... you won't be jet-setting around on book tours where you'll be outed as a man. You won't need to hire a woman to pretend to be you like Hugh Jackman did in that silly movie. No worries, mate...
Last week, a newly discovered Drunk Writer Stalker, posed a question in the comments of another post. The commenter is an aspiring writer wondering what line at Harlequin to target. And the way he framed his questions reminded both Molly and I of me -- of my six-years-ago self, anyway, so I thought I'd draw on Molly's advice to him for my blog post this week. Notice how I'm stealing from Molly? Shhh... Don't tell her.
Our new stalker's criteria for weighing the pros and cons of different Harlequin lines had to do with comments he'd read (here and other places) about the extent to which the various editors required revisions before buying, and how many books each editor was likely to ask her authors to write every year.
Molly quite rightly pointed out that all editors at Harlequin require revisions for most new authors, before acquiring...
Molly also pointed out that none of the Harlequin lines want one-hit-wonders, so no matter which line you write for, your editor will hope and/or expect you to produce at least two books a year. (Most hope for 3.) That's just what it takes to be a Harlequin author.
When I started writing, I asked different, but equally "wrong" questions about Harlequin. I was asking things like: which line is shortest? Which line is new and more likely to be picking up new authors? Which line fits this story I already started writing before ever reading any Harlequin novels? (Ultimately I chose the first line I targeted, based on the fact the editor of that line was coming to our chapter meeting and taking pitches. Sure, I can make it fit her line. Yeah, sure I can...)
The second of my "wrong" questions above isn't completely wrong-headed, but as both Molly and Stephanie can attest, there's a huge risk selling into those newer lines at Harlequin, because they don't always last. I never even got a chance to submit the second manuscript I wrote, because I was targeting the very short-lived Flipside line.
All this right question/wrong question stuff reminds me of a great talk I saw at nationals this year, given by agent Kristin Nelson, and her client Ally Carter. The format of their talk was a series of "wrong" questions to ask about writing YA, along with the "right" questions.
For example:
Wrong question: "How can I develop a young adult voice?"
Right question: "Will my voice appeal to teen readers?"
or:
Wrong question: "What's the right word count for Young Adult fiction?"
Right question: "How important is pacing in Young Adult fiction?"
And this got me wondering, could we develop a similar list for people who want to write romance but don't know what kind of romance they want to tackle?
Romance is probably the most diverse genre in publishing with oodles of subgenres (just check out the annual Romantic Times award list). Sure, there's a lot going on in speculative/sci fi/fantasy, too... but I really think (contrary to an article done a few years ago in Writers Digest) that romance is the most diverse. That article on genre fiction showed a gazillion different branches of fantasy and sci-fi, but only five or six sub-genres for romance. I thought this was crazy, especially since I could go along the branches on that fantasy/sci-fi tree and tack the word romance after almost every branch to yield a fully formed sub-genre of romance that probably outsells its fantasy counterpart... But I'm going off on one of my tangents... **Maureen pulls herself back.**
So, let's take romance's diversity as a given. If you're starting out, what kind of romance should you write?
Even if you're not just starting out, this is a hard question. The single hardest lesson, I continue to work on learning, is to stop asking: What's hot right now? What are the editors looking for? AARGH.... Get that question out of my head.
Some of the right questions might be:
What books do I love to read?
Do my strengths as a writer lie in fast-paced plotting or slowly-developing, delicious, emotional moments?
Am I drawn to supernatural or suspense or futuristic elements?
Do I like writing tame or hot?
Do I enjoy doing research about historical periods?
Is my natural writing voice formal or casual?
Can I consistently deliver wit in my writing?
Can I write great action scenes, or scary scenes, or really hot sex scenes?
Are my story ideas big enough to carry a 90K+ book, or are they better suited for shorter novels?
But ultimately it all comes back to: "What books do I love to read?"
Sinead and I were chatting the other night about some changes I'm making to my current WIP. My concern (pre changes) was that given the premise and the conflict, the reader would be able to see the climax of my story coming from about chapter 3, if not sooner. I feared readers would know exactly what was going to come between the couple in the end, would see all the decisions and compromises and sacrifices each would have to make. Sure, they wouldn't know the details, but there was no getting around the core of the conflict between these two characters and it was cliche. And I wondered whether if I were reading this book -- even if it had an interesting premise, even if it was fast paced -- if I was 99% sure I knew where the story was leading me, would I just put the book down. (Sure, all romances end in a HEA, it's the climax or black moment that should sneak up and grab you.)
And Sinead, as usual, said something really smart. She pointed out that for the two of us, right now, because we're still sans publisher, (hey, we're publisher free!), we have no one to please but ourselves. And that's perhaps the one luxury of being unpublished. No one to please but yourself. If we don't write books we, ourselves, would like to read, then what's the point? Why not save the "do I really need to write another book like the last one, just to please my publisher and readers" stage until we run up against it?
Right now, we need to write for ourselves. (With an eye to the market of course. We're not that dumb.)
Can you think of other wrong and right questions to ask about writing romance?
And Milo. Ask more questions. Please. :-) We hereby promise never to say you've asked the wrong questions again.
Oh, and to answer your question about whether being a dude will hold you back? Short answer is no. It might even help you because you'll stand out from the crowd of submissions. You might want to use a female pseudonym, but not necessarily. And that's something you don't have to worry about now. That's something you can discuss with your editor after you sell. But contrary to the movies... you won't be jet-setting around on book tours where you'll be outed as a man. You won't need to hire a woman to pretend to be you like Hugh Jackman did in that silly movie. No worries, mate...
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Killing the Magic . . . Or Finding It?
I had several idea for blog posts for today (Kyra Sedgwick's wardrobe in THE CLOSER, my love of themes, grammar vandals) all of which I threw out the window after reading the following quote from James Cameron, the man behind TITANIC in Entertainment Weekly (because I am that kind of classy intellectual girl):
" I don't feel competitive with TITANIC . . . In all cultures in the world, everyone just happened to like that movie. But I can't run my career as a filmmaker trying to reverse-engineer the combination to that lock."
I sat there (I'm not going to mention where I was sitting) totally stunned at the profundity of that statement. How many times have I seen that happen? An author (or a film maker or a painter or a musician) scores big with something and then keeps trying to reproduce it, but it doesn't always work. The result can be cold and lifeless, because the heart that originally went into the book (movie, painting, song) just isn't there in the pale reverse-engineered duplicates. Or someone else tries to emulate the book and you get the same thing. An imitation of its external factors, but none of the internal guts that really made it work.
I know I'm guilty of it. I can think of several proposals that were shot down for various reasons, but I really think this is the real one. I reverse-engineered the life out of the story. Instead of letting the story grow organically out of my characters, I forced situations on them that I thought would fit a certain mold.
Then (because I am incapable of only seeing one side of an argument which is why even trying to pick what to make for dinner can be excruciating for me), it occurred to me that some times, reverse-engineering is really about learning my craft.
When I started working on my first urban fantasy, DON'T KILL THE MESSENGER, I really didn't know anything about the character. I'd had a snippet of a scene pop into my head and wanted to figure out what to do with it. I started thinking about which books that I'd read recently that I'd loved. Not liked. Not enjoyed. LOVED. Robin Hobb's Assassin series popped into my head.
I loved those books. Couldn't put them down. I adored the main character. I asked myself why? I did some rereading and lot of thinking and came up with the fact that the hero didn't really look like hero material at the beginning. Sure, he had some special skills, but he didn't even know how to use them correctly and some of them had to be kept secret. He was essentially a little cog in a very big machine, but ended up being the crucial piece that allowed the good guys to win. He became hero material. He had to. I wanted to make a character like that and that's where Melina Markowitz, Messenger to the supernatural world in Sacramento was born. Her story grew out of who she was and who she needed to become.
I love writing Melina. I think she's one of the better heroines I've created in a while and I don't think she would have happened without a little bit of reverse-engineering.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The Winner IS.....
We sort of monopolized the conversation but -- JK! You're our winner. Drop me a line with your mailing address and a bunch of free books will roll your way! Thanks for commenting and thanks to Kathleen for stopping by - she can drink with us and our maids anytime!!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Author Kathleen O'Reilly and a bunch of free books
For my money Blaze author Kathleen O'Reilly is about as good as it gets. For those of you who haven't read her series romance - you need to get thee to a bookstore quick, because her latest book HOT UNDER PRESSURE is O'Reilly at her best. For writers out there interested in writing series romance - O'Reilly is a master at shoving a whole bunch of story in a little tiny word count. She's been gracious enough to answer a few questions of mine and for one lucky commentor - you get two of Kathleen's books and then a few more from the Drunk Writers. What a day!!!
Here goes:
We are a drinking bunch – so I have to ask – drink of choice?
A fruity cabernet, not so oaky. My favorite is Liberty School.
I love a drinker who knows what she wants! What are you reading right now? Watching on TV?
I’ve got a bunch of books loaded up for vacation reading. A lot of Sarah Mayberry, Julia London’s Summer of Two Wishes, Leslie Parrish’s Pitch Black, Free by Chris Anderson, and Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a band of US Soldiers who Rode to Victory In Afghanistan by Doug Stanton. I saw the author on the Daily Show, read a sample on my Kindle, and loved the writing. Being a romance reader, we get a lot of romanticized versions of modern-combat, and I wanted to read a non-fiction one.As for TV, I’m not big on the summer shows. I watch American Idol, 24, House, the NBC Nightly News, and Law & Order the original (duh-dum) whenever I can find it. We do a lot of DVD movies at our house. Currently on a Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan glom.
That's funny, I took Sarah Mayberry on my last vacation too! That girl gets around!! What's your favorite book?
AGH!!! I HATE THIS QUESTION because I do not have one. There are books that will always have sentimental attachments to me. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, 101 Dalmatians, and the Flame and the Flower. However, I think my fav book, which I can read over and over is Lonesome Dove. It’s this great relationship between these two men and I love how they change and grow and affect each other. I also love Manhunting by Jenny Crusie (my fav Crusie EVAH!) and To Kill a Mockingbird. I have to be careful with reading a lot of Southern books because then I start writing in these long, languorous sentences about folks sittin around with their mint juleps, fanning in the late afternoon porch breeze, and telling stories on their neighbors. Did I mention Mark Twain? Love Mark Twain. He was the first Jon Stewart.
We're big Jon Stewart fans at my house too! And the Mark Twain comparison is spot on! Who do you want to be when you grow up?
A pampered housewife with a maid. That’s my life-goal. A maid.
I think many of the drunk writers share the same life goal. What do you love about writing series romance? And as a fan of your work who is often amazed by the depth you are able to cram into such short books – what do you love about Blaze books? That’s a weird question, I know, but honestly, your Blazes are unlike any other Blaze.
Oh, flattery will get you everywhere with me. :) There’s a lot to love about writing series. First of all, you get to write THE END on an annual basis about 3 times more often than non-series writers. That’s a big plus. But I think my favorite thing is something that Jessica from Racy Romance Reviews said about series, and I’m shamelessly scarfing her idea. A series romance is just the hero and the heroine. Not much on secondaries, not much on worldbuilding, not big sweeping external plots, just one man, one woman falling in love. Surprisingly enough, this is a scarcity in the romance genre, and I’m hoping that some of the single-title books coming out will swing back this way. As for Blaze, there’s a freedom in Blaze that you don’t find in a lot of other lines. We can have any sort of hero, any sort of heroine, any sort of plot. It’s just got to be a hot plot. :) From a writing standpoint, and speaking as a writer who writes all over the board character-wise, I like that, because I can dream up two people that were completely different from the two people I just wrote about. That’s what I love about writing for Blaze.
I think you've hit the nail on the head - the series romance appeal is that they are so concise - one man, one woman, not much else. Are you plotter? Pantser? Do you write every day?
I try to be a plotter, and at some point in time (usually about the half-way point), I do sit down and organize the story so that I don’t leave things hanging in the end, but I can’t be a plotter at the beginning. I start out with vague ideas on plot, but I always come up with better stuff the more I write of the story. So I start out a pantser, but I evolve in a plotter when the middle comes. Ideally I write Monday through Friday 9-3 when the kids are in school, but when Deadlines loom, all schedules are off. I will write on the weekend, I will check myself into a hotel, whatever works. Sometimes the books come fast and deadlines are not a problem, but if I’m not happy with what I’m writing, I can purge a lot of pages, and that’s when the hotel escapes are necessary.
HOTELS!!! Did you hear that Sinead? She goes to hotels! We have been doing something very very wrong!! How did Hot Under Pressure come about? The idea? Were you wearing bunny slippers?
LOL. That’s easy. I was stuck on the tarmac for about four hours, and we were the last flight out, and weren’t sure if we would make it or not. The plane developed this odd sort of camaraderie, where people would listen to see if they could figure out whether we were going to take off that night, or not. It breaks down a lot of barriers between the passengers. I’m usually very aloof on a plane. I use flying as my reading time, but in this case, I was more interested in knowing whether I was going to Dallas or not. As for the bunny slippers, I have no idea. I liked the idea of someone who flew a lot, but didn’t like to fly, and I thought bunny slippers would be a good flying ritual to have.
What’s next for you? I for one can’t wait!
I have three books out in 2010: January, April, and May. The January book is Midnight Resolutions, also part of the Where You Least Expect It series. It’s a story of a man and a woman who meet as strangers in Times Square and share a kiss, and then how fate seems to keep driving them together. The April Book is written by myself and Julie Kenner, and it’s four short romances about one family who is cursed on April Fool’s Day, and they have to break the curse, or learn to live with it. And the May book is currently untitled, but it’s another Where You Least Expect It, and it’s the story of a reclusive writer who closets himself away in upstate New York, and the journalist who happens across him, not realizing that she’s stumbled on the story of her career. And of course, they fall in love. :)
Here goes:
We are a drinking bunch – so I have to ask – drink of choice?
A fruity cabernet, not so oaky. My favorite is Liberty School.
I love a drinker who knows what she wants! What are you reading right now? Watching on TV?
I’ve got a bunch of books loaded up for vacation reading. A lot of Sarah Mayberry, Julia London’s Summer of Two Wishes, Leslie Parrish’s Pitch Black, Free by Chris Anderson, and Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a band of US Soldiers who Rode to Victory In Afghanistan by Doug Stanton. I saw the author on the Daily Show, read a sample on my Kindle, and loved the writing. Being a romance reader, we get a lot of romanticized versions of modern-combat, and I wanted to read a non-fiction one.As for TV, I’m not big on the summer shows. I watch American Idol, 24, House, the NBC Nightly News, and Law & Order the original (duh-dum) whenever I can find it. We do a lot of DVD movies at our house. Currently on a Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan glom.
That's funny, I took Sarah Mayberry on my last vacation too! That girl gets around!! What's your favorite book?
AGH!!! I HATE THIS QUESTION because I do not have one. There are books that will always have sentimental attachments to me. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, 101 Dalmatians, and the Flame and the Flower. However, I think my fav book, which I can read over and over is Lonesome Dove. It’s this great relationship between these two men and I love how they change and grow and affect each other. I also love Manhunting by Jenny Crusie (my fav Crusie EVAH!) and To Kill a Mockingbird. I have to be careful with reading a lot of Southern books because then I start writing in these long, languorous sentences about folks sittin around with their mint juleps, fanning in the late afternoon porch breeze, and telling stories on their neighbors. Did I mention Mark Twain? Love Mark Twain. He was the first Jon Stewart.
We're big Jon Stewart fans at my house too! And the Mark Twain comparison is spot on! Who do you want to be when you grow up?
A pampered housewife with a maid. That’s my life-goal. A maid.
I think many of the drunk writers share the same life goal. What do you love about writing series romance? And as a fan of your work who is often amazed by the depth you are able to cram into such short books – what do you love about Blaze books? That’s a weird question, I know, but honestly, your Blazes are unlike any other Blaze.
Oh, flattery will get you everywhere with me. :) There’s a lot to love about writing series. First of all, you get to write THE END on an annual basis about 3 times more often than non-series writers. That’s a big plus. But I think my favorite thing is something that Jessica from Racy Romance Reviews said about series, and I’m shamelessly scarfing her idea. A series romance is just the hero and the heroine. Not much on secondaries, not much on worldbuilding, not big sweeping external plots, just one man, one woman falling in love. Surprisingly enough, this is a scarcity in the romance genre, and I’m hoping that some of the single-title books coming out will swing back this way. As for Blaze, there’s a freedom in Blaze that you don’t find in a lot of other lines. We can have any sort of hero, any sort of heroine, any sort of plot. It’s just got to be a hot plot. :) From a writing standpoint, and speaking as a writer who writes all over the board character-wise, I like that, because I can dream up two people that were completely different from the two people I just wrote about. That’s what I love about writing for Blaze.
I think you've hit the nail on the head - the series romance appeal is that they are so concise - one man, one woman, not much else. Are you plotter? Pantser? Do you write every day?
I try to be a plotter, and at some point in time (usually about the half-way point), I do sit down and organize the story so that I don’t leave things hanging in the end, but I can’t be a plotter at the beginning. I start out with vague ideas on plot, but I always come up with better stuff the more I write of the story. So I start out a pantser, but I evolve in a plotter when the middle comes. Ideally I write Monday through Friday 9-3 when the kids are in school, but when Deadlines loom, all schedules are off. I will write on the weekend, I will check myself into a hotel, whatever works. Sometimes the books come fast and deadlines are not a problem, but if I’m not happy with what I’m writing, I can purge a lot of pages, and that’s when the hotel escapes are necessary.
HOTELS!!! Did you hear that Sinead? She goes to hotels! We have been doing something very very wrong!! How did Hot Under Pressure come about? The idea? Were you wearing bunny slippers?
LOL. That’s easy. I was stuck on the tarmac for about four hours, and we were the last flight out, and weren’t sure if we would make it or not. The plane developed this odd sort of camaraderie, where people would listen to see if they could figure out whether we were going to take off that night, or not. It breaks down a lot of barriers between the passengers. I’m usually very aloof on a plane. I use flying as my reading time, but in this case, I was more interested in knowing whether I was going to Dallas or not. As for the bunny slippers, I have no idea. I liked the idea of someone who flew a lot, but didn’t like to fly, and I thought bunny slippers would be a good flying ritual to have.
What’s next for you? I for one can’t wait!
I have three books out in 2010: January, April, and May. The January book is Midnight Resolutions, also part of the Where You Least Expect It series. It’s a story of a man and a woman who meet as strangers in Times Square and share a kiss, and then how fate seems to keep driving them together. The April Book is written by myself and Julie Kenner, and it’s four short romances about one family who is cursed on April Fool’s Day, and they have to break the curse, or learn to live with it. And the May book is currently untitled, but it’s another Where You Least Expect It, and it’s the story of a reclusive writer who closets himself away in upstate New York, and the journalist who happens across him, not realizing that she’s stumbled on the story of her career. And of course, they fall in love. :)
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Ribbonless...
Following Eileen’s lead I figured I had to introduce myself to this blog by telling you how it all began. Sure Molly likes to remember me shaking my tatas in front of Nora Roberts but actually Molly and I met a couple of nights before that.
I sold my first book in 1996. I was twenty-five years old and it was only my third complete manuscript. Sounds lucky right? But what they don’t tell you (or some do but still people don’t want to hear it) is that after you get published there is no guarantee you will ever publish again. Doesn’t that just SUCK!
I wrote maybe four or five proposals, a few more fulls and all of them were rejected. It wasn’t until I switched gears and moved to comedy that I got a break. There was a new comedy line Harlequin was buying for called Duets. Four years after my first sale, I sold book two. I had gone to RWA Nationals once when I published the first book, but not since. I figured I sold another book, I should go again. But I didn’t understand all the ins and outs like so many other writers. I didn’t belong to a local chapter. I didn’t have a critique group. I didn’t have writer friends.
I definitely didn’t get the ribbon thing. Didn’t even know what PAN was. I finally worked up the courage to ask someone what the deal with the rink ribbon was and she explained it was for “Published Authors Only”. In my naiveté I said… I’m published. If I recall the woman rolled her eyes with an “oh sure” type look.
That night I had to go to a Harlequin hosted cocktail party for the new Duets line. This is when I learned the best part of National – drinking for free because Harlequin throws kickass parties. I remember standing in this small hotel meeting room thinking what a fraud I was. I didn’t have a pink ribbon. The pink ribbon committee was probably going to kick me out any second (so I had a quick second glass of pinot grigio) and I wondered if I could remember the ISBN off of my first book to offer as proof. That’s when I met Molly. She didn’t have a ribbon either. She had just sold I think, and there wasn’t time to get PAN membership before the conference. There we were, two published ribbonless authors who liked to drink and talk about books. I remember clinging to her and thinking… well they can’t throw us both out.
And that is how I made my first writer friend.
Almost nine years later, (Yes Molly I did the math - it’s been freaking 9 years!) a few more conferences, a trip to Toronto to meet the rest of the DWT posse and all I can think of is how lucky I was that night to not have a ribbon.
I sold my first book in 1996. I was twenty-five years old and it was only my third complete manuscript. Sounds lucky right? But what they don’t tell you (or some do but still people don’t want to hear it) is that after you get published there is no guarantee you will ever publish again. Doesn’t that just SUCK!
I wrote maybe four or five proposals, a few more fulls and all of them were rejected. It wasn’t until I switched gears and moved to comedy that I got a break. There was a new comedy line Harlequin was buying for called Duets. Four years after my first sale, I sold book two. I had gone to RWA Nationals once when I published the first book, but not since. I figured I sold another book, I should go again. But I didn’t understand all the ins and outs like so many other writers. I didn’t belong to a local chapter. I didn’t have a critique group. I didn’t have writer friends.
I definitely didn’t get the ribbon thing. Didn’t even know what PAN was. I finally worked up the courage to ask someone what the deal with the rink ribbon was and she explained it was for “Published Authors Only”. In my naiveté I said… I’m published. If I recall the woman rolled her eyes with an “oh sure” type look.
That night I had to go to a Harlequin hosted cocktail party for the new Duets line. This is when I learned the best part of National – drinking for free because Harlequin throws kickass parties. I remember standing in this small hotel meeting room thinking what a fraud I was. I didn’t have a pink ribbon. The pink ribbon committee was probably going to kick me out any second (so I had a quick second glass of pinot grigio) and I wondered if I could remember the ISBN off of my first book to offer as proof. That’s when I met Molly. She didn’t have a ribbon either. She had just sold I think, and there wasn’t time to get PAN membership before the conference. There we were, two published ribbonless authors who liked to drink and talk about books. I remember clinging to her and thinking… well they can’t throw us both out.
And that is how I made my first writer friend.
Almost nine years later, (Yes Molly I did the math - it’s been freaking 9 years!) a few more conferences, a trip to Toronto to meet the rest of the DWT posse and all I can think of is how lucky I was that night to not have a ribbon.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ten Laws of Random Observations About Writing Contests
Having just completed coordinating the preliminary round of the Original Golden Opportunity contest, run by my local RWA chapter, I thought I'd try to come up with a list of ten commandments, no, laws no... more like random observations about writing contests.
Ahem....
Generally, skilled writing and storytelling triumphs over the weak, but, just as in "real life", not always. It's all so subjective, and luck is involved. Again, just like subjectivity and luck affect "real life" publishing.
Ultimately, it all comes down to: did the judge (or editor) love what you wrote. And love is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.
** I especially don't mean you, Bitch. Ignore this if you haven't seen 500 Days of Summer. If you have -- wasn't it great???
Ahem....
- The entrants with the most elaborate pseudonyms, or who go to the greatest lengths to use only their pseudonyms, are invariably the least experienced and will not do well in the contest. Clearly there are exceptions to this. And I really don't mean to mock. I think back to how choosing a pseudonym was pretty dang high on my priority list when I started writing, cough, seven years ago. Ah, what a naive fool I was. (Okay, now I am mocking, but I'm mocking myself, too, so that makes it okay. Right?)
- The category that produces the most erratic scores and the most violent reactions from both entrants and judges is paranormal. I think it's partly because some of the premises are "out there" and not to everyone's taste. One person's "cool" or "dark" is another person's "ick" or "gross". But I also think there are a lot of moderately crazy people writing in that genre. (Me included.)
- The judges who were the most keen to judge and were the most insistent that they'd be done on time, when you politely reminded them of the deadline, are the ones who disappear from the face of the planet the second the deadline arrives, never to be heard from again. A curse on you all!!!!
- Some judges will clearly not have read a word of the judges' training. Some will have read it, but clearly not have understood much. (hopefully just a few of each)
- Entrants (or judges) who don't know how to convert a file to .rtf, or put in a header, or save a file under a different filename, or attach a file to an e-mail, or use paypal, etc... Are likely not to be very experienced writers (or judges). Not that being technically adept and writing necessarily go hand in hand... but if you've had any experience as a writer, if you've ever submitted anything, if you've even exchanged pages with another writer for critique, you've already had to figure this shit out.
- The finalists are, by in large, the most experienced, the most polite, the most thoughtful, and the most organized entrants in terms of dealing with the coordinator -- but some finalists turn into Diva Monsters expecting you to be at their beck and call 24/7 once they final, as if you don't have 25 other finalists revising their entries to deal with, too. Not to mention your own life to live. (No Diva Monsters yet this year! Knock on wood. That one was an observation from last year.)
- Some people should think before they press send. Each year, I get a few e-mails from contestants who did not do well, who would've been so much better off if they'd taken a day to cool off before telling me how stupid our judges are...
- Some people cannot follow instructions no matter how you word them. (Entrants and judges.)
- Every year, some great entries fail to final... but, in general, most entries that final are worthy. (But invariably a one or two finalists receive terrible scores from the judge you personally think is the "most competent" of the three judges they were assigned.)
And now for my potentially controversial Observation #10... - Judges closest to publication, either who've just sold or are on the cusp of getting that first contract, tend to be the harshest critics.
I haven't done a scientific analysis of this. But when I started coordinating contests, and therefore reading a lot of score sheets, I started to take a harder look at my own scoring and how tough I was being at times. Here's my rough categorization of judges (totally, TOTALLY generalizing -- and if you judged a contest I coordinated, and think I mean you? I don't. Really.**)- The least experienced writers (on balance) give the highest scores. "Hey, this is as good as my stuff, or better, so it must be great!" Either that, or they mark everyone down for the same things--typically whatever lesson they've just mastered in their own writing--whether it's a problem in the entry or not. Frankly, I prefer these judges to the next type of judge.
- Some writers, possibly new, possibly who've been at it for a while, but who either haven't worked very hard at their craft, or simply just don't get it, but THINK they know a lot... make a total mess of scoring. They call someone out for "telling" when the examples given sound like "showing" to me. They "correct" correct grammar. They mark entrants down for not describing how something smells on every page. They don't recognize when an entry's cool, or different, because it breaks some "rule" they think needs to be followed. They simply, IMHO, frak it all up.
- Seasoned, multi-published authors tend to (usually) be the most fair and realistic. "This is such a cool idea, or such a strong voice, I need to encourage this writer, and give it a really high score," or "This was clean, well-written, and showed skill, but had no spark. I'll give it a good score, but not a top score", or "this poor writer is so clearly a beginner, I cannot crush them. I'll find something nice to say, give it a lowish but not mean score, and move on. Maybe give a few examples of problems and offer a few tips or good craft books, if I have time."
- Then there are the judges right on the cusp of selling, the ones who are talented and skilled themselves and know enough to separate the great from the good from the ugly. But they might be frustrated they haven't sold yet, and/or are still stinging from bad critiques of their own work in contests. These judges, in my experience, can sometimes be kinda cruel.
Observing this in other judges gave me pause. Made me realize I'd been guilty of that in the past. Made me work to be kinder, while still telling the truth, on the really weak entries. Made me decide that giving a score below 50% isn't necessary. Below 90% they aren't going to final in most contests, so why rub their nose in the dirt? (But I admit I still have trouble finding nice things to say about weak entries...)
Generally, skilled writing and storytelling triumphs over the weak, but, just as in "real life", not always. It's all so subjective, and luck is involved. Again, just like subjectivity and luck affect "real life" publishing.
Ultimately, it all comes down to: did the judge (or editor) love what you wrote. And love is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.
** I especially don't mean you, Bitch. Ignore this if you haven't seen 500 Days of Summer. If you have -- wasn't it great???
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Tick Tock
I am on deadline right now.
Everyone at my house knows what that means. Do not expect more than the bare minimum from me. I will make sure there is food in the house and that everyone gets to school/soccer/drum lessons/rockclimbing/band practice, etc., but that's it. Don't expect conversations with me to make any sense. I have severe book brain. All my words are being used on the page. I don't have any superfluous ones to throw about willy-nilly. And if you catch me playing Tetris, it's because I'm THINKING, okay?
There are some good things about deadlines. I know, for instance, that this proposal that WILL go off on Friday probably wouldn't be done for another few weeks if I was left to drift along on my own. It also gave me a wonderful excuse not to participate in the redoing of my mothers' apartment last week which most definitely brought out the absolute worst in my two generally charming and delightful sisters. The deadline makes me focus. It makes me stick my butt in the chair for more solid hours so the work is more consistent and linear.
It also makes me a little crazy.
I don't like rushing. I'm pretty sure there is not a single fast-twitch muscle in my body. I don't run fast and I don't think fast. Some times the choices I make during crunch times are not the best ones for the story. It's harder to come up with that twist we were talking about last week or to dig a little deeper. I'm also not crazy about waking up in the middle of the night chewing my own tongue. Although I suppose it's better than waking up chewing someone ELSE'S tongue. People are so touchy about things like that.
So how do you feel about deadlines? Do they help you focus? Keep your priorities straight? Or do they rush you into making easy choices?
Monday, August 24, 2009
More Fun at DWT
Stephanie Doyle is joining the ranks of drunks here at Drunk Writer Talk!!! Hooray! Stephanie was my original drunk writer friend and I am so so thrilled to have continued our friendship over the years. She has written for Harlequin Duets, Flipside and now Romantic Suspense. I think she has an Intimate Moments kicking around somewhere. AND at a Harlequin party years ago, I watched her shake her boobs in Nora Roberts' face. Honestly. What more could we possibly ask for in a Drunk Writer?
The plan is Stephanie is going to blog on Thursdays and I have already caught up on True Blood in anticipation!!
Welcome, Steph! It's great to have you here!
The plan is Stephanie is going to blog on Thursdays and I have already caught up on True Blood in anticipation!!
Welcome, Steph! It's great to have you here!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Choosing your hero's friends wisely
I am in television heaven right now. I just finished the second season of Mad Men, am still in thrall to True Blood (even though Molly has given up on the show) and have episodes of Generation Kill and Nurse Jackie to look forward to.
Every exceptional TV shows blows my mind in some way. Mad Men is no exception. It's a largely character based show, and the magic to this show is that the interactions between the characters illuminate their personalities. Very little back story, no telling, just these characters showing you themselves piece by piece.
And who these characters choose to tell their deepest, darkest secrets is also fascinating. The choices are always interesting, usually unexpected and always tell you more about both characters in the conversation.
Going back to Maureen's post about plot and expectations and surprising your reader, this is another way to reverse expectations in a really subtle, but unexpected way.
Too often the best friend in romance novels, the one the hero or heroine unburdens themselves to, is a bland, unexceptional character, there simply to encourage narrative through dialogue. Or to start interest in a sequel.
Spoiler Alert: Stop reading if you have not season Season 1 or 2 of Mad Men.
Don, the central character tells no one of his secret identity (and no, this is not a superhero show), except one woman and when he sits down next to her, we physically see him unburdening himself of all his secrets, his face lightens, his shoulders relax and for the first time in two seasons we see him completely relaxed, and possibly happy.
It's an amazing moment.
Or his wife, after she kicks him out for cheating, tells none of her friends and instead tells the divorced woman, she's been at odds with for over a year. Another interesting choice, she's not looking for sympathy, she's looking for understanding.
Every character on the show has secrets, and the people they tell these secrets to are always a fascinating choice.
It's showing me that I can put surprise into my story in ways that aren't huge plot reversals and are more emotional, and character driven.
Love this show.
Every exceptional TV shows blows my mind in some way. Mad Men is no exception. It's a largely character based show, and the magic to this show is that the interactions between the characters illuminate their personalities. Very little back story, no telling, just these characters showing you themselves piece by piece.
And who these characters choose to tell their deepest, darkest secrets is also fascinating. The choices are always interesting, usually unexpected and always tell you more about both characters in the conversation.
Going back to Maureen's post about plot and expectations and surprising your reader, this is another way to reverse expectations in a really subtle, but unexpected way.
Too often the best friend in romance novels, the one the hero or heroine unburdens themselves to, is a bland, unexceptional character, there simply to encourage narrative through dialogue. Or to start interest in a sequel.
Spoiler Alert: Stop reading if you have not season Season 1 or 2 of Mad Men.
Don, the central character tells no one of his secret identity (and no, this is not a superhero show), except one woman and when he sits down next to her, we physically see him unburdening himself of all his secrets, his face lightens, his shoulders relax and for the first time in two seasons we see him completely relaxed, and possibly happy.
It's an amazing moment.
Or his wife, after she kicks him out for cheating, tells none of her friends and instead tells the divorced woman, she's been at odds with for over a year. Another interesting choice, she's not looking for sympathy, she's looking for understanding.
Every character on the show has secrets, and the people they tell these secrets to are always a fascinating choice.
It's showing me that I can put surprise into my story in ways that aren't huge plot reversals and are more emotional, and character driven.
Love this show.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Taking the Easy Way Out
I was going to take the easy way out today, and blog about OUR NEXT NEW DRUNK WRITER JOINING US VERY SOON!!!, but decided that was a huge cop out. Plus, I think Molly would probably like to introduce her, so I'll restrain myself. But stay tuned....
Instead, I'd like to talk about endings and surprise twists and not taking the easy way out.
I'm struggling with the final act of one of the WIPs I'm working on now. Not that, sadly, I'm anywhere near that point in the ms yet, but I have been thinking about it. Trying to set things up properly to lead to the best possible climax and ending. (and no, I'm not talking about sex.)
Also, I eavesdropped on a little twitter discussion, between Louisa Edwards and Dakota Cassidy today, about Julia & Julie (or is it the other way around?) that got me thinking about twists and ending's, even more. And no, I haven't seen that movie yet, nor do I expect it to have much of a twist ending...
The movie I got thinking about was Junebug. A fabulous little independent film from about four or so years ago featuring Amy Adams. I think it might have been the first time I ever saw, or at least noticed, her as an actress, and I do believe she also received an Oscar nomination for supporting actress for her amazing performance. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.
Junebug isn't about her character, though. The film's about a character played by Alessandro Nivola, whom I love, and his character bringing his older and sophisticated girlfriend home to his much-less-sophisticated family in one of the Carolinas, or somewhere like that. The focus of the plot is on him coming home after so long away from his family, on them as a couple, on the folk artist the girlfriend's trying to sign and the ethical questions there...
Amy Adams plays Nivola's very pregnant sister-in-law, who's about the sweetest, most kind-hearted, naive, but curious-about-the-world character you could ever imagine. And whereas she could come off cloying or cliche, Amy Adams makes her completely believable. (Yes, the casting director for Enchanted must've seen her in Junebug. I wouldn't be shocked to learn the screenwriters for Enchanted were inspired by her performance in Junebug.)
But I digress... My point is, Junebug cruises along, pretending to be a character based story about the Nivola character, that's interesting but not really taking us on a storytelling roller-coaster of any kind (more like a merry-go-round or a pleasant ferris wheel ride at best).
The filmmakers distract us with a little business between the girlfriend and the father-to-be brother... and then BAM. A big twist. Something unexpected (I didn't see a hint of foreshadowing) that changes everything and makes you see the movie in an entirely different way. Makes you think about family and what it means in an entirely different way. Sure the whole movie was about family... but the twist pretty much punches you in the gut.
I don't want to say much more, because it would ruin the film if you haven't seen it, but I guess I aspire to walk the line this film, for me, walks so well. The line between surprising the reader, in a good way, and pissing them off, because you've written something so unexpected it doesn't meet reader expectations.
Yes, I aspire to walk that line, whereas, in real life thus far... I fear any reader will see my hand way before I play any of my cards.
You know what? It just occurred to me. Writing is hard.... Big news. LOL
How do you come up with a plot twists? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Instead, I'd like to talk about endings and surprise twists and not taking the easy way out.
I'm struggling with the final act of one of the WIPs I'm working on now. Not that, sadly, I'm anywhere near that point in the ms yet, but I have been thinking about it. Trying to set things up properly to lead to the best possible climax and ending. (and no, I'm not talking about sex.)
Also, I eavesdropped on a little twitter discussion, between Louisa Edwards and Dakota Cassidy today, about Julia & Julie (or is it the other way around?) that got me thinking about twists and ending's, even more. And no, I haven't seen that movie yet, nor do I expect it to have much of a twist ending...
The movie I got thinking about was Junebug. A fabulous little independent film from about four or so years ago featuring Amy Adams. I think it might have been the first time I ever saw, or at least noticed, her as an actress, and I do believe she also received an Oscar nomination for supporting actress for her amazing performance. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.
Junebug isn't about her character, though. The film's about a character played by Alessandro Nivola, whom I love, and his character bringing his older and sophisticated girlfriend home to his much-less-sophisticated family in one of the Carolinas, or somewhere like that. The focus of the plot is on him coming home after so long away from his family, on them as a couple, on the folk artist the girlfriend's trying to sign and the ethical questions there...
Amy Adams plays Nivola's very pregnant sister-in-law, who's about the sweetest, most kind-hearted, naive, but curious-about-the-world character you could ever imagine. And whereas she could come off cloying or cliche, Amy Adams makes her completely believable. (Yes, the casting director for Enchanted must've seen her in Junebug. I wouldn't be shocked to learn the screenwriters for Enchanted were inspired by her performance in Junebug.)
But I digress... My point is, Junebug cruises along, pretending to be a character based story about the Nivola character, that's interesting but not really taking us on a storytelling roller-coaster of any kind (more like a merry-go-round or a pleasant ferris wheel ride at best).
The filmmakers distract us with a little business between the girlfriend and the father-to-be brother... and then BAM. A big twist. Something unexpected (I didn't see a hint of foreshadowing) that changes everything and makes you see the movie in an entirely different way. Makes you think about family and what it means in an entirely different way. Sure the whole movie was about family... but the twist pretty much punches you in the gut.
I don't want to say much more, because it would ruin the film if you haven't seen it, but I guess I aspire to walk the line this film, for me, walks so well. The line between surprising the reader, in a good way, and pissing them off, because you've written something so unexpected it doesn't meet reader expectations.
Yes, I aspire to walk that line, whereas, in real life thus far... I fear any reader will see my hand way before I play any of my cards.
You know what? It just occurred to me. Writing is hard.... Big news. LOL
How do you come up with a plot twists? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
It all started with a potato
I'm so happy to be blogging here at Drunk Writer Talk. I've really enjoyed reading the posts here and commenting on occasion. I think it's going to be great fun. And to think, it all began with a potato . . . (cue dreamy music and soft focus here)
I first met Molly O'Keefe at the Emerald City Writers Conference in Seattle. I can't remember the exact sequence of events. We might have met earlier in the day. Or not. All I know is that at dinner (which was one of those buffet style things), this very charming and pretty and pregnant woman sat down next to me. She had a tiny little plate with maybe a carrot on it. As we sat there, I couldn't help noticing that she was eyeing my potatoes.
By eyeing, I mean she couldn't focus on anything else and could barely speak because of the drool dripping out of the side of her mouth.
I asked if she'd like them. To make a long story short, after demurring quite a bit, she fell on them like a woman possessed. I have seriously never seen a woman attack a potato in quite the same way. As a woman of appetite myself, I could totally appreciate it. I was charmed.
Of such things are friendships born. We kept in touch a little. I read one of her books and loved her humor and handling of emotion and conflict.
Because I knew Molly (and the adorable and talented Eileen Cook), I met clever and charming Maureen McGowan at the NEC RWA Conference a year or two later. It was there that I may have cemented my eventual inclusion in this group by actually falling off my seat in a restaurant after drinking a beer or two. I seriously thought that bench seat went all the way across. It seriously did not, as I found out when I realized I was sitting on the floor with my feet sticking up in the air.
But my point is, and there is a point believe it or not, that it is of the little things that happen that big things begin. I offer some potato to a starving pregnant woman and a few years later, I get to join a cool group blog. I think about those little decisions as my writing, too. It's not just the big decisions, the life and death choices that my heroes and heroines make, that make a book work. It's all those little choices that bring characters to life. The kind of car she drives, what she wears, the relish with which she eats a potato. You know, those telling details that mean so much like when a cook with a drinking problem hands a potato peeler to a troubled teen and ends up saving them both.
So thanks for having me here. I'm thrilled to participate. Let's all take a moment of silence to appreciate that starchy tuber then tell me what one of your favorite telling details in a book has been.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Sweet Spot: literary fiction and back story.
Well, two sweet spots, actually, one for literary fiction and one for backstory, but I suppose the two do collide into one giant sweet spot, but it wasn't really what I was after. I really need to learn some basic punctuation skills.
Anywho. I've done no work for a month. Read some great books and one of them has really been kicking around in my head. The People's Act of Love, by James Meek. (Given to me some time ago by Maureen - what a friend.) It's got it all, cannibalism, castration, Siberia, revolutionary Russia, religious sects. It's awesome. And I mean awesome- go get yourself this book.
But I almost put it down at one point. I know I read literary fiction to learn something, to be challenged, and I don't think I'm alone. I want to feel at times smart and stupid, but there's a point in the smart/stupid continuum that when crossed, makes people hate literary fiction.
In The People's Act of Love, there is so little back story - it's delicious. A man, in the frozen wasteland watches some horses and a man fall from a train. He eats some of the horse, cuts the hand off the dead man and then gets up on the train trellis and starts to follow the tracks. There he finds another man, that man is carrying a bag with a bloody knife, some booze and a picture of a woman.
I mean how freaking AMAZING is this!!?? Every moment is a mystery, a puzzle a delicious tease. Why did he bury that hand? Who is the woman? Why is the equipment bloody? Now, the first man who ate the horse and buried the hand looks at the bloody surgical equipment and doubts the second man's answer about them - which I do to, we're supposed to. But the first man KNOWS what the second man is, but though we're in his POV he doesn't tell us. So, as the reader I'm totally left behind. It seemed, in all of this mystery, like a betrayal and I felt dumber than I wanted to, like if I was smart I could get it.
He edged just past the sweet spot in back story. And I almost put the book down, thank God I didn't, because it only got better. But that one little moment was tough.
You can tell your reader's the bare minimum, but as soon as your POV character understands something that we don't from the information laid out in front of us - oops. Now, further into the book I think you can getaway with a little more slight of hand, but at the beginning when the reader has just turned the light on in the world you've created - help the reader out.
Anywho. I've done no work for a month. Read some great books and one of them has really been kicking around in my head. The People's Act of Love, by James Meek. (Given to me some time ago by Maureen - what a friend.) It's got it all, cannibalism, castration, Siberia, revolutionary Russia, religious sects. It's awesome. And I mean awesome- go get yourself this book.
But I almost put it down at one point. I know I read literary fiction to learn something, to be challenged, and I don't think I'm alone. I want to feel at times smart and stupid, but there's a point in the smart/stupid continuum that when crossed, makes people hate literary fiction.
In The People's Act of Love, there is so little back story - it's delicious. A man, in the frozen wasteland watches some horses and a man fall from a train. He eats some of the horse, cuts the hand off the dead man and then gets up on the train trellis and starts to follow the tracks. There he finds another man, that man is carrying a bag with a bloody knife, some booze and a picture of a woman.
I mean how freaking AMAZING is this!!?? Every moment is a mystery, a puzzle a delicious tease. Why did he bury that hand? Who is the woman? Why is the equipment bloody? Now, the first man who ate the horse and buried the hand looks at the bloody surgical equipment and doubts the second man's answer about them - which I do to, we're supposed to. But the first man KNOWS what the second man is, but though we're in his POV he doesn't tell us. So, as the reader I'm totally left behind. It seemed, in all of this mystery, like a betrayal and I felt dumber than I wanted to, like if I was smart I could get it.
He edged just past the sweet spot in back story. And I almost put the book down, thank God I didn't, because it only got better. But that one little moment was tough.
You can tell your reader's the bare minimum, but as soon as your POV character understands something that we don't from the information laid out in front of us - oops. Now, further into the book I think you can getaway with a little more slight of hand, but at the beginning when the reader has just turned the light on in the world you've created - help the reader out.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Writers are like sharks
There's this old theory about sharks, they stop swimming and they die. Which is true for most sharks, it's how they breathe and stay afloat.
And for writers, the constant need to read, watch movies, examine what we love, talk about writing, edit and critique our own writing, it's how we grow and evolve as writers. It's why I almost never take a complete vacation from writing. Because even when I'm taking a writing vacation, I'm thinking about my next book, the characters, the turning points.
And it's one of the things I love best about writing. The fact that you can never quite leave it behind.
But the growth, the learning is how we keep making our writing fresh. We need to take risks, try new things, just to keep this interesting. And as an unpubb'd writer I have zero expectations, except the ones that I place on myself, so I get to write just for me right now and I'm really relishing it, as much as I can relish in my unpubb'd state.
It might not help my quest towards publication, but I'm loving the concept that no idea is taboo as long as it works within the confines of my story.
And I have season 2 of Mad Men and soon season 3 to provide all the inspiration I could need. That show is a masterclass in showing not telling. It's a masterclass in a lot of things.
And for writers, the constant need to read, watch movies, examine what we love, talk about writing, edit and critique our own writing, it's how we grow and evolve as writers. It's why I almost never take a complete vacation from writing. Because even when I'm taking a writing vacation, I'm thinking about my next book, the characters, the turning points.
And it's one of the things I love best about writing. The fact that you can never quite leave it behind.
But the growth, the learning is how we keep making our writing fresh. We need to take risks, try new things, just to keep this interesting. And as an unpubb'd writer I have zero expectations, except the ones that I place on myself, so I get to write just for me right now and I'm really relishing it, as much as I can relish in my unpubb'd state.
It might not help my quest towards publication, but I'm loving the concept that no idea is taboo as long as it works within the confines of my story.
And I have season 2 of Mad Men and soon season 3 to provide all the inspiration I could need. That show is a masterclass in showing not telling. It's a masterclass in a lot of things.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Big News at Drunk Writer Talk
We've lured another author over to the dark side! Mwha, ha ha!
Actually, our great and wonderful news is that the lovely and talented Eileen Rendahl, aka Eileen Carr is joining Drunk Writer Talk as a weekly correspondent. (Correspondent? Are we all correspondents? Seemed to fit.)
We couldn't be more excited. As a teaser, here's the trailer for Eileen Carr's February 2009 release, HOLD BACK THE DARK! Creeeeepy. Yay!
Eileen is definitely simpatico with us here. She loves to talk about books, movies, TV and storytelling, especially over a glass of red wine. While her commute from Northern California to Toronto for our weekly pub meetings might be tough for her, we won't let her drive home drunk. ;-)
Starting next week, we're hoping to get back to roughly this schedule:
Monday: Molly O'Keefe
Tuesday: Eileen Rendahl or Carr (depending on which of her personalities comes out that day)
Wednesday: Maureen McGowan
Thursday: Stay tuned for another announcement, soon!
Friday: The ever-mysterious Sinead M.
There's a schedule???
Sure, some weeks we're bad bloggers. Especially during the summer when vacations and the sun and kids home from school interfere. But we're hoping the new blood will help inject some new ideas and life into DWT!
Welcome, Eileen!!!
Actually, our great and wonderful news is that the lovely and talented Eileen Rendahl, aka Eileen Carr is joining Drunk Writer Talk as a weekly correspondent. (Correspondent? Are we all correspondents? Seemed to fit.)
We couldn't be more excited. As a teaser, here's the trailer for Eileen Carr's February 2009 release, HOLD BACK THE DARK! Creeeeepy. Yay!
Eileen is definitely simpatico with us here. She loves to talk about books, movies, TV and storytelling, especially over a glass of red wine. While her commute from Northern California to Toronto for our weekly pub meetings might be tough for her, we won't let her drive home drunk. ;-)
Starting next week, we're hoping to get back to roughly this schedule:
Monday: Molly O'Keefe
Tuesday: Eileen Rendahl or Carr (depending on which of her personalities comes out that day)
Wednesday: Maureen McGowan
Thursday: Stay tuned for another announcement, soon!
Friday: The ever-mysterious Sinead M.
There's a schedule???
Sure, some weeks we're bad bloggers. Especially during the summer when vacations and the sun and kids home from school interfere. But we're hoping the new blood will help inject some new ideas and life into DWT!
Welcome, Eileen!!!
Friday, August 07, 2009
Why do people still consider romance the last refuge of the damned?
I had a friend ask me the other day if she should write a harlequin. Strange question, but she wants a way out of her day job, and other than knowing I have some great writer friends, she knows absolutely nothing about the industry.
I've perused her book shelves, and she has a lot of books, but very few romances and absolutely no series romance.
My question to her was, have you read any?
Her answer was no.
Do you know what line you would like to write?
She looked at me perplexed, because she didn't know Harlequin had different lines. Had no clue what they paid, and even less about what it would take to write a book.
I know a lot us start writing because we believe it's easier than it is, but very few people think, I really loved The Lovely Bones, I'm going to write a book even better in my spare time, one draft and I'm on the path to wealth and acclaim.
My friend(who's really quite lovely, if slightly deluded) had the sense that she could write a harlequin in no time at all.
What do we, as an industry, and as romance authors, have to do to convince the public that what we do is both difficult and requires skill and real effort? I know RWA has spent a lot of time and money on this question. And certainly the press recently regarding romance authors who have PHD's and medical degrees has certainly helped, but is there anything more we can do?
Because I do believe we're still battling the perception of the lonely middle aged woman penning her novels in between meals for her children, because she had nothing better to do. When the reality is, writing takes perseverance and a real intelligence and an absolute love of the genre.
How many smart, articulate, polished women have to speak up in defense of the genre before public perception changes?
I've perused her book shelves, and she has a lot of books, but very few romances and absolutely no series romance.
My question to her was, have you read any?
Her answer was no.
Do you know what line you would like to write?
She looked at me perplexed, because she didn't know Harlequin had different lines. Had no clue what they paid, and even less about what it would take to write a book.
I know a lot us start writing because we believe it's easier than it is, but very few people think, I really loved The Lovely Bones, I'm going to write a book even better in my spare time, one draft and I'm on the path to wealth and acclaim.
My friend(who's really quite lovely, if slightly deluded) had the sense that she could write a harlequin in no time at all.
What do we, as an industry, and as romance authors, have to do to convince the public that what we do is both difficult and requires skill and real effort? I know RWA has spent a lot of time and money on this question. And certainly the press recently regarding romance authors who have PHD's and medical degrees has certainly helped, but is there anything more we can do?
Because I do believe we're still battling the perception of the lonely middle aged woman penning her novels in between meals for her children, because she had nothing better to do. When the reality is, writing takes perseverance and a real intelligence and an absolute love of the genre.
How many smart, articulate, polished women have to speak up in defense of the genre before public perception changes?
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
High School Required Reading
My friend, a high school English teacher of much acclaim in Missouri, and I were talking about required High School reading and how in far too many cases "the classics" that kids in high school are forced to read and analyze and discuss are actually killing any love of reading some of these kids have. The Scarlet Letter, anyone? How many of you can name five books you read in high school that you can actually remember (and not because you watched the movie?) To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies...um.... All Quiet on the Western Front. I know we read Gatsby - that's it. That's what I remember from my many many English classes. I had an incredible Mythology class and Theater class and I remember lots of the things we read in those classes - Hamlet, Homer, Candide.
In terms of coming of age - is The Cather in The Rye even relevant anymore? Isn't that book all about context? And in high school, shouldn't the reading be relevant? Isn't part of why we all love to read is because we see ourselves in some of those characters? My friend the acclaimed english teacher, has lots of free reading, but he still has to teach some of the classics - Even Mark Twain, he says, makes most of the kids start to glaze over. Hemingway? Forget it. For Whom The Bell Tolls? Well, needless to say it's not tolling for high school kids, not anymore.
I ran across this list trying to find a list of high school reading - and I thought it was a solid list - though I agree we need more feminine voices.
What do you think? What do you remember reading? Should high school reading be about the classics? Or should it be about getting kids interested in reading? In finding the voices that speak to them?
In terms of coming of age - is The Cather in The Rye even relevant anymore? Isn't that book all about context? And in high school, shouldn't the reading be relevant? Isn't part of why we all love to read is because we see ourselves in some of those characters? My friend the acclaimed english teacher, has lots of free reading, but he still has to teach some of the classics - Even Mark Twain, he says, makes most of the kids start to glaze over. Hemingway? Forget it. For Whom The Bell Tolls? Well, needless to say it's not tolling for high school kids, not anymore.
I ran across this list trying to find a list of high school reading - and I thought it was a solid list - though I agree we need more feminine voices.
What do you think? What do you remember reading? Should high school reading be about the classics? Or should it be about getting kids interested in reading? In finding the voices that speak to them?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Limitations
I have been on a reading binge lately and it has been spectacular. I have finally caught up on the list that’s been sitting by my bed for months.
And in the lot, were some amazing books. Another great YA, Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr, You belong to Me by Maria Santos(seriously, amazing author). Some so so books, but all entertaining and all of which I finished.
Some books I read and I can see how the author wrote it, can figure out the pulsepoints, almost get a sense for what the author was thinking, how they plotted it. A peek behind the door, so to speak, and not one that in any way affects my enjoyment of the book. Other books just read like pure magic, effortless as if they tripped off the keyboard and those books, other than making me envious, completely intimidate me.
They are usually the kind of books I don’t write. Heavily character based, deeply emotional, and I know they are as intricately plotted, if not more so, than my books, and I know sweat, blood and tears went into them, and I believe that not in a million years could I write a book like it.
You Belong to Me is one of those books. I adored reading it. And I’d sit down to write something in a similar vein and be lost by page three.
I don’t even wish I could write it, because I get a thrill from writing a scene where my characters are in danger, and the atmosphere is tense, and I’m working at reversing an expectation and the words flow and I can picture what’s happening in my head.
My strengths and limitations have really honed the books I’ve written and while I’m constantly working on my limitations, I’m always going to focus on my strengths, because those scenes are easier for me to write, certainly more fun and usually require the least editing. (that’s my lazy side talking)
And right now, in my surprisingly zen state of being, I’m really OK with that.
And in the lot, were some amazing books. Another great YA, Wicked Lovely by Melissa Marr, You belong to Me by Maria Santos(seriously, amazing author). Some so so books, but all entertaining and all of which I finished.
Some books I read and I can see how the author wrote it, can figure out the pulsepoints, almost get a sense for what the author was thinking, how they plotted it. A peek behind the door, so to speak, and not one that in any way affects my enjoyment of the book. Other books just read like pure magic, effortless as if they tripped off the keyboard and those books, other than making me envious, completely intimidate me.
They are usually the kind of books I don’t write. Heavily character based, deeply emotional, and I know they are as intricately plotted, if not more so, than my books, and I know sweat, blood and tears went into them, and I believe that not in a million years could I write a book like it.
You Belong to Me is one of those books. I adored reading it. And I’d sit down to write something in a similar vein and be lost by page three.
I don’t even wish I could write it, because I get a thrill from writing a scene where my characters are in danger, and the atmosphere is tense, and I’m working at reversing an expectation and the words flow and I can picture what’s happening in my head.
My strengths and limitations have really honed the books I’ve written and while I’m constantly working on my limitations, I’m always going to focus on my strengths, because those scenes are easier for me to write, certainly more fun and usually require the least editing. (that’s my lazy side talking)
And right now, in my surprisingly zen state of being, I’m really OK with that.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Pitching your novel -- love it or hate it?
Anyone who's been reading this blog over the years knows I'm a big believer in the conference verbal pitch, and went after these opportunities aggressively when I was agent hunting.
So, you might be surprised that my opinion wasn't swayed by St. Martin's editor, Jennifer Enderlin, saying, during the SMP spotlight at RWA Nationals, that she doesn't believe in verbal pitches, and rarely agrees to take them. She doesn't like them because she can't tell whether or not she'll want a book based on a verbal pitch.
Contrary to what you might think, this doesn't go against my reasons for liking pitches, (more later), but first I want to share this exchange from a few moments later in the SMP spotlight:
Audience member: If you can't tell whether or not you'll like a book based on a verbal pitch, what can you tell?
Enderlin: (looking slightly baffled) Whether or not I like your clothes?
LOVED that answer on so many levels. First, it was a humorous, slightly-sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek answer to a question that was moderately silly given Enderlin had already said she didn't believe in pitches. But I ended up loving that questioner, because in addition to making me laugh, Enderlin clarified that what she can gauge in a pitch is your personality.
Ultimately her contract-or-not decision depends on the quality of your book, not your looks or personality or clothes, but meeting an author does give her an idea of whether or not the author's someone she'd like to work with. Or really not want to work with...
But from the other side of the pitch table, I believe the verbal pitch is (almost) like free pass past the query stage. And that's where I believe my love of pitches and Enderlin's dislike of them converge. And it's all in her reasons.
She said she can't tell if she'll like your book until she reads some of it. And that's my point, too. While a query letter does show a bit more than a verbal pitch, in that there's actual writing and less "performance" involved, there's still a chance (often very high chance) the letter reader will never see any of your actual book.
The problem with query letters is the agent/editor doesn't have the opportunity to judge your story by, well, reading your story.
To me, sending a query always feels like playing roulette. Sure, if you've got an amazing premise and can craft a great query, you can increase the odds of your ball landing in the "request" slot, but it's still roulette. Whereas, if you include a sample of your writing along with a query, or can leap past that query stage altogether, at least you're judged on the quality of your writing, not your ability to write a query.
Not to mention that it's so easy, in a query, to hit some pet peeve you couldn't possibly know about ahead of time. (I didn't need to sit through a pre-conference workshop, where a panel of 6 editors and agents went through the query letters of 10 Golden Heart finalists, and ended up making, I think 3 or 4 requests out of a possible 60, to know that agents, are looking for reasons to say no when they read queries, not reasons to say yes. No means clearing something off their to-do list. Yes means adding to their mountainous reading piles.)
But, as hard as it is to deliver a verbal pitch, it's just as hard to say no in person. So, if you do your homework and pitch the right person, you're almost guaranteed to get a yes at a verbal pitch. Ta da. Free pass to request land. I rest my case. ;-)
All that said, queries, (like the dreaded synopsis), are part of the process of publication, and it's important to learn how to write a great one. But when I sent queries, I almost always included at least the first five or so pages of the manuscript. Because ultimately, it's the writing that matters.
So, you might be surprised that my opinion wasn't swayed by St. Martin's editor, Jennifer Enderlin, saying, during the SMP spotlight at RWA Nationals, that she doesn't believe in verbal pitches, and rarely agrees to take them. She doesn't like them because she can't tell whether or not she'll want a book based on a verbal pitch.
Contrary to what you might think, this doesn't go against my reasons for liking pitches, (more later), but first I want to share this exchange from a few moments later in the SMP spotlight:
Audience member: If you can't tell whether or not you'll like a book based on a verbal pitch, what can you tell?
Enderlin: (looking slightly baffled) Whether or not I like your clothes?
LOVED that answer on so many levels. First, it was a humorous, slightly-sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek answer to a question that was moderately silly given Enderlin had already said she didn't believe in pitches. But I ended up loving that questioner, because in addition to making me laugh, Enderlin clarified that what she can gauge in a pitch is your personality.
Ultimately her contract-or-not decision depends on the quality of your book, not your looks or personality or clothes, but meeting an author does give her an idea of whether or not the author's someone she'd like to work with. Or really not want to work with...
But from the other side of the pitch table, I believe the verbal pitch is (almost) like free pass past the query stage. And that's where I believe my love of pitches and Enderlin's dislike of them converge. And it's all in her reasons.
She said she can't tell if she'll like your book until she reads some of it. And that's my point, too. While a query letter does show a bit more than a verbal pitch, in that there's actual writing and less "performance" involved, there's still a chance (often very high chance) the letter reader will never see any of your actual book.
The problem with query letters is the agent/editor doesn't have the opportunity to judge your story by, well, reading your story.
To me, sending a query always feels like playing roulette. Sure, if you've got an amazing premise and can craft a great query, you can increase the odds of your ball landing in the "request" slot, but it's still roulette. Whereas, if you include a sample of your writing along with a query, or can leap past that query stage altogether, at least you're judged on the quality of your writing, not your ability to write a query.
Not to mention that it's so easy, in a query, to hit some pet peeve you couldn't possibly know about ahead of time. (I didn't need to sit through a pre-conference workshop, where a panel of 6 editors and agents went through the query letters of 10 Golden Heart finalists, and ended up making, I think 3 or 4 requests out of a possible 60, to know that agents, are looking for reasons to say no when they read queries, not reasons to say yes. No means clearing something off their to-do list. Yes means adding to their mountainous reading piles.)
But, as hard as it is to deliver a verbal pitch, it's just as hard to say no in person. So, if you do your homework and pitch the right person, you're almost guaranteed to get a yes at a verbal pitch. Ta da. Free pass to request land. I rest my case. ;-)
All that said, queries, (like the dreaded synopsis), are part of the process of publication, and it's important to learn how to write a great one. But when I sent queries, I almost always included at least the first five or so pages of the manuscript. Because ultimately, it's the writing that matters.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Used Bookstores
I love used bookstores. Well-run, well-organized - it's like walking into someone's extended keeper shelf. There's one in the Milwaukee airport (I know brilliant, right? There are small magazine vendors in the gates, but not a bookstore and this one is in the main lobby, so if you're waiting for someone you can find a book. ) And there's one in Florida where I vacation with friends, that literally every year sends me into fits of book love. I've found City of Thieves (AMAZING BOOK)! The Shadow of the Wind (OH!!! The nights I've stayed up too late!) The Birth of Venus (delight, start to finish). All by authors whose next books I will buy - because I am in love with them.
I know a lot of writers think that used bookstores are robbing them of royalties, and in way - they're right. But I've been thinking a lot about Sherry Thomas' comment that what sells books is love. People have to love your book to talk about it to their friends, on-line, in the grocery store, over dinner - everywhere they can. And the only thing that builds love is actually reading the book. And that's where used bookstores come in. People take bigger risks on books and authors they've never heard of, when the price tag is in half.
So, yes, no royalties on that second sale. But if you think of those bookmarks everyone makes, or the postcard mailings to bookstores and booksellers - and the end result isn't known. Do the postcards get tossed in the trash? Do they make it to readers? Do the readers care? That feels to me so often like money tossed away. But getting books into hands of readers - how can that be bad?
That said - Internet piracy sites. The scum of the very earth - all they do is ensure that good books and good authors don't get published. It's stealing and there's no love there.
I know a lot of writers think that used bookstores are robbing them of royalties, and in way - they're right. But I've been thinking a lot about Sherry Thomas' comment that what sells books is love. People have to love your book to talk about it to their friends, on-line, in the grocery store, over dinner - everywhere they can. And the only thing that builds love is actually reading the book. And that's where used bookstores come in. People take bigger risks on books and authors they've never heard of, when the price tag is in half.
So, yes, no royalties on that second sale. But if you think of those bookmarks everyone makes, or the postcard mailings to bookstores and booksellers - and the end result isn't known. Do the postcards get tossed in the trash? Do they make it to readers? Do the readers care? That feels to me so often like money tossed away. But getting books into hands of readers - how can that be bad?
That said - Internet piracy sites. The scum of the very earth - all they do is ensure that good books and good authors don't get published. It's stealing and there's no love there.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Relatability at RWA Nationals
This post isn't going to be what you might think from the title. I'm not going to blog about writing relatable characters... Rather, it's a blog about the things that struck me the most at last week's RWA National conference.
#1. Janet Evanovich
She did the opening session and it was a Q&A. Since there were nearly 2000 of us in the room, the questions were on index cards, but she hadn't seen them ahead of time so it was lovely and spontaneous. And what slayed me was finding a moment when I could totally relate to her. No, it wasn't when she talked about how her make up artist was going to kill her because she blew her nose on stage (although that was funny) and seriously? she travels with her own hair and makeup people? Could not relate to that. ;-)
What I could relate to was the reason she had to blow her nose. One of the questions was: How long did it take you to get published? Her answer, more or less, was: it took 10 years after she seriously started writing and submitting romance novels. Makes me feel better about my current 6-7.
When she described the moment she found out she'd sold her first ms (for $2000) she started to cry on stage. I felt so connected to her at that moment. Here's this huge bestseller. A multimillionaire. And it took her AGES to sell her first book, and she still remembers that moment so well it makes her cry. Wow.
#2. J.R. Ward
Whom I adore. She did a 2 hour talk with her CP Jessica Andersen (whom I also adore) and, as usual, they were funny and informative. Such intelligent women who know who they are and are in such command of what they're doing.
But the moment that slayed me in this talk was when pal and frequent DWT visitor Stephanie Doyle, asked J.R. and Jess to talk about the transition of their careers from midlist and/or category into bestsellerdom. And that's when J.R. cried.
She cried because she says she doesn't yet understand "why her"? (her readers could tell her, but that's another matter) But it was so great to see (and have her show) that she's so humble about it all, and understands how hard it is for all of us in this business, no matter at what stage we're at, and that she realizes how lucky she is. She said that the person who sits down each day, at her desk in boxer shorts to write, is still the same "Jessie" who wrote all her other books, but this new persona has emerged who's J.R., and you could tell that, at times, it's still all a little overwhelming for her. Made me tear up, too.
#3. Eloisa James
The strange thing about this one hitting me, is that I've seen Eloisa give the exact same talk before. Her DC speech might have been a combination of two different talks I've heard, but I'm sure I'd heard nearly every main section of the talk. And it's a great talk. The difference for me this time was how emotional she got telling her story and in particular the part about how her mother never accepted what she chose to do for a living.
Her mother, like Eloisa (in her Mary Bly persona), was a professor of literature. So her mom approved of *that* career choice. The difference is that the fiction writing her mother chose to do, in addition to her teaching, was literary short stories, while Mary/Eloisa chose to write romance novels. And it's clear, hearing her talk, that she chose to write romance because she LOVES romance, in spite of her occasional, "I write for money", claims.
I have a similar disapproval thing going on with someone in my family, right now, and it hurts so, so much to have someone you love disrespect what you've chosen to do with your life, and find all these ridiculous arguments to refute your every attempt to explain why you think what you're doing is valuable and not what she thinks it is. That she refuses to even consider that the literary education she got in the early 1980's was not only biased against the genre, but totally out of date. To have someone tell you that the thing that makes you happy isn't worthy or is trash, is so hard. But enough about me.
Eloisa says for years she hid behind the excuse of "I'm just doing it for money" but now admits, that's (mostly) a lie. She writes romance because she loves it. The money's a bonus and has provided a nice justification against all the disapproval from her family. (And, of course, we all know that even in genre fiction, only a very few writers really make much money.) Eloisa says she's Simon and Garfunkel born into the Bach family. Loved that. (Although... wasn't Bach writing popular music in his time??? Still, I get her point.) While she was telling us how her mother, on her death bed, told her she felt sure Eloisa would write a "real book" some day, it was the closest to tearing up I've ever seen this very strong woman, who I've seen speak to groups about emotional events in her life before. I teared up, too.
All in all. It was amazing to find that I had something in common with, some way to relate to, each of these three NYT Bestselling authors. Awesome.
Worth all the money I spent to go to DC? Well...
I won't talk about another highlight (lowlight?) when a certain Pocket editor said she liked the bra I was inadvertently flashing. And I'm not talking straps. Not as bad as it sounds. I hope. You had to be there. At least it matched my temporarily unwrapped wrap dress.
#1. Janet Evanovich
She did the opening session and it was a Q&A. Since there were nearly 2000 of us in the room, the questions were on index cards, but she hadn't seen them ahead of time so it was lovely and spontaneous. And what slayed me was finding a moment when I could totally relate to her. No, it wasn't when she talked about how her make up artist was going to kill her because she blew her nose on stage (although that was funny) and seriously? she travels with her own hair and makeup people? Could not relate to that. ;-)
What I could relate to was the reason she had to blow her nose. One of the questions was: How long did it take you to get published? Her answer, more or less, was: it took 10 years after she seriously started writing and submitting romance novels. Makes me feel better about my current 6-7.
When she described the moment she found out she'd sold her first ms (for $2000) she started to cry on stage. I felt so connected to her at that moment. Here's this huge bestseller. A multimillionaire. And it took her AGES to sell her first book, and she still remembers that moment so well it makes her cry. Wow.
#2. J.R. Ward
Whom I adore. She did a 2 hour talk with her CP Jessica Andersen (whom I also adore) and, as usual, they were funny and informative. Such intelligent women who know who they are and are in such command of what they're doing.
But the moment that slayed me in this talk was when pal and frequent DWT visitor Stephanie Doyle, asked J.R. and Jess to talk about the transition of their careers from midlist and/or category into bestsellerdom. And that's when J.R. cried.
She cried because she says she doesn't yet understand "why her"? (her readers could tell her, but that's another matter) But it was so great to see (and have her show) that she's so humble about it all, and understands how hard it is for all of us in this business, no matter at what stage we're at, and that she realizes how lucky she is. She said that the person who sits down each day, at her desk in boxer shorts to write, is still the same "Jessie" who wrote all her other books, but this new persona has emerged who's J.R., and you could tell that, at times, it's still all a little overwhelming for her. Made me tear up, too.
#3. Eloisa James
The strange thing about this one hitting me, is that I've seen Eloisa give the exact same talk before. Her DC speech might have been a combination of two different talks I've heard, but I'm sure I'd heard nearly every main section of the talk. And it's a great talk. The difference for me this time was how emotional she got telling her story and in particular the part about how her mother never accepted what she chose to do for a living.
Her mother, like Eloisa (in her Mary Bly persona), was a professor of literature. So her mom approved of *that* career choice. The difference is that the fiction writing her mother chose to do, in addition to her teaching, was literary short stories, while Mary/Eloisa chose to write romance novels. And it's clear, hearing her talk, that she chose to write romance because she LOVES romance, in spite of her occasional, "I write for money", claims.
I have a similar disapproval thing going on with someone in my family, right now, and it hurts so, so much to have someone you love disrespect what you've chosen to do with your life, and find all these ridiculous arguments to refute your every attempt to explain why you think what you're doing is valuable and not what she thinks it is. That she refuses to even consider that the literary education she got in the early 1980's was not only biased against the genre, but totally out of date. To have someone tell you that the thing that makes you happy isn't worthy or is trash, is so hard. But enough about me.
Eloisa says for years she hid behind the excuse of "I'm just doing it for money" but now admits, that's (mostly) a lie. She writes romance because she loves it. The money's a bonus and has provided a nice justification against all the disapproval from her family. (And, of course, we all know that even in genre fiction, only a very few writers really make much money.) Eloisa says she's Simon and Garfunkel born into the Bach family. Loved that. (Although... wasn't Bach writing popular music in his time??? Still, I get her point.) While she was telling us how her mother, on her death bed, told her she felt sure Eloisa would write a "real book" some day, it was the closest to tearing up I've ever seen this very strong woman, who I've seen speak to groups about emotional events in her life before. I teared up, too.
All in all. It was amazing to find that I had something in common with, some way to relate to, each of these three NYT Bestselling authors. Awesome.
Worth all the money I spent to go to DC? Well...
I won't talk about another highlight (lowlight?) when a certain Pocket editor said she liked the bra I was inadvertently flashing. And I'm not talking straps. Not as bad as it sounds. I hope. You had to be there. At least it matched my temporarily unwrapped wrap dress.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Conference Agenda
Well, I'm here in DC. And feeling somewhat relaxed considering the RWA National conference is about to begin.
Last night I had dinner with the lovely and talented Diana Peterfreund and the equally lovely and talented C. L. Wilson and was asked: what's your plan for the week?
I realized I didn't really have one. Yes, I have meetings. Yes, I'm getting together with friends for drinks. Yes, I have a few parties scheduled. But plan? Not so much this year.
Part of me thinks that's crazy. This conference costs a (relative) fortune and to come without clear objectives seems frivolous. On the other hand, in other years I've come with such a clear set agenda in my mind of who I wanted to meet and how I wanted that meeting to pan out... that invariably I came away disappointed. I suppose, back a few years ago when it was all about pitching, I usually came away happy. But since then, my goals have been more nebulous and it's been harder to quantify whether I achieved much.
So, this year? Go with the flow. Try to learn stuff. Try to come out of my borderline introvert shell more often and meet new people. Pass out business cards (with info about the anthology I'm going to be in on the back). What? You didn't know about that? More later. ;-)
Last night I had dinner with the lovely and talented Diana Peterfreund and the equally lovely and talented C. L. Wilson and was asked: what's your plan for the week?
I realized I didn't really have one. Yes, I have meetings. Yes, I'm getting together with friends for drinks. Yes, I have a few parties scheduled. But plan? Not so much this year.
Part of me thinks that's crazy. This conference costs a (relative) fortune and to come without clear objectives seems frivolous. On the other hand, in other years I've come with such a clear set agenda in my mind of who I wanted to meet and how I wanted that meeting to pan out... that invariably I came away disappointed. I suppose, back a few years ago when it was all about pitching, I usually came away happy. But since then, my goals have been more nebulous and it's been harder to quantify whether I achieved much.
So, this year? Go with the flow. Try to learn stuff. Try to come out of my borderline introvert shell more often and meet new people. Pass out business cards (with info about the anthology I'm going to be in on the back). What? You didn't know about that? More later. ;-)
Friday, July 10, 2009
Gamechangers
I check the Rotten Tomatoes website once a week. It lets me know without having to read a single review whether a movie is worth watching and in less than thirty seconds of my time.
And occasionally they will interview a director, or an actor. This week they asked Kathryn Bigelow her top 5 favourite movies.
Kathryn Bigelow directed the Hurt Locker, which right now seems to be one of the best reviewed movies of the summer, second only to UP and one of the movies that created some serious buzz at the Toronto film festival. Plus, she directed Near Dark, a spectacular, vampire flick.
Her list is terrific, but the film that jumped out at me is The Terminator. She calls it a gamechanger.
And for the time it was. Go back to 1984 when the movie was released and for the time, the tension, the special effects, the storytelling, it was a movie that raised the bar for all sci fi and thrillers.
I was thinking about what my gamechangers are in romance. I know for sure, and this is going back a bit, the Anita Blake series was a gamechanger for the paranormal genre. I know they're technically urban fantasy, but they had tense plots and some amazing sexual tension and I do think they started the urban fanstasy craze, and then the series fell off the rails, but before it did, man, those books were great reads.
The JR Ward series felt like a gamechanger, in terms of connected books, secondary plot lines, and some intricate world building. For me, those books have changed the way I approach plotting.
And then in historicals, you had Sherry Thomas and Joanna Bourne writing these incredible historicals with intelligent, non-perfect heroines and scenarios that couldn't be set further from a regency ballroom, making the historical a hot commodity again.
To me a game changer raises the bar, creates new standards of what works, and smart writers pay attention. Not that we'll always agree about which books were gamechangers, but I like being challenged by better books, more imaginative storylines, better characterization. I like to see how far we can push this genre and those books usually spark some serious creative thinking and some great drunk writer discussions.
I know I've left a lot of books out of this discussion, but would love to hear if anyone has any other books that they feel are gamechangers.
And occasionally they will interview a director, or an actor. This week they asked Kathryn Bigelow her top 5 favourite movies.
Kathryn Bigelow directed the Hurt Locker, which right now seems to be one of the best reviewed movies of the summer, second only to UP and one of the movies that created some serious buzz at the Toronto film festival. Plus, she directed Near Dark, a spectacular, vampire flick.
Her list is terrific, but the film that jumped out at me is The Terminator. She calls it a gamechanger.
And for the time it was. Go back to 1984 when the movie was released and for the time, the tension, the special effects, the storytelling, it was a movie that raised the bar for all sci fi and thrillers.
I was thinking about what my gamechangers are in romance. I know for sure, and this is going back a bit, the Anita Blake series was a gamechanger for the paranormal genre. I know they're technically urban fantasy, but they had tense plots and some amazing sexual tension and I do think they started the urban fanstasy craze, and then the series fell off the rails, but before it did, man, those books were great reads.
The JR Ward series felt like a gamechanger, in terms of connected books, secondary plot lines, and some intricate world building. For me, those books have changed the way I approach plotting.
And then in historicals, you had Sherry Thomas and Joanna Bourne writing these incredible historicals with intelligent, non-perfect heroines and scenarios that couldn't be set further from a regency ballroom, making the historical a hot commodity again.
To me a game changer raises the bar, creates new standards of what works, and smart writers pay attention. Not that we'll always agree about which books were gamechangers, but I like being challenged by better books, more imaginative storylines, better characterization. I like to see how far we can push this genre and those books usually spark some serious creative thinking and some great drunk writer discussions.
I know I've left a lot of books out of this discussion, but would love to hear if anyone has any other books that they feel are gamechangers.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Mysterious Premises
I love a good mysterious premise. I love ambiguity. I love not knowing 100% of what's going on at the beginning of a book or movie or TV series. I love wondering (to a point) why a character is behaving a certain way.
But when does a mysterious or ambiguous premise, or not-fully-revealed motivation, become an annoyance?
When it doesn't work, that's when.
And not working is sometimes a hard thing to put one's finger on, so I can only think of examples of "works" and "does not work".
Life on Mars... I didn't watch the British version of this show, and would like to, if for no other reason than to compare it to the US version, which I really enjoyed... But I think this one is a brilliant example of "works". And maybe they handled it so well because it was all contained in one short season. (The British version has a sequel called Ashes to Ashes... don't know that it's about. But assuming the British version of Life on Mars ended the same way as the US one... well, it's hard to imagine a sequel. Now I've made myself curious...)
I've heard people talking about the US version being "canceled"... and I admit I haven't read up on all the dirt, but from watching it, well, they couldn't possibly have had a second season. Or rather, if they had stretched it into a second season, at some point the "big mystery" would've become annoying rather than mysterious. There were only so many possible answers and I was still getting chills almost every episode until we finally got our answer. An answer, which, for me, was none of the possibilities I'd been considering. I think if they'd led me down all those other garden paths for too much longer, I might've been angry when the answer was "none of the above". But over 13 episodes, or whatever it was, it worked for me.
If you didn't see Life on Mars, rent it when it comes out on DVD. The lead actor is hot, hot, hot -- the acting was great (Harvey Keitel, Michael Imperioli) and I, for one, loved the mysterious premise and how it got solved. Plus, there's a nice little romance running through it. (Not to mention a great, early 70's soundtrack.)
Lost... Now there's one of the biggest examples of a fabulous mysterious premise. For five, (six?) seasons we've known they crashed onto an island (or were maybe dead). We've known strange things happen on this island. We know it's hard to find. We know people get healed and come back to life and others get sick and babies can't be born and some people don't age -- etc. etc. etc. And for me, it's always stayed interesting enough to pull me through the confusing bits. I know others (Molly) who think it fell apart in Season 3... and if I agree with that at all, (I actually enjoyed Season 3), it might be because they lost track of the mystery and instead transferred focus onto the love triangle. Or was season 3 the one where they were focussed on the people from the other side of the island?
I admit this show has become incredibly complicated... and I'm not sure the time travel thing is going to wrap everything up satisfactorily... And they've dropped a few threads... Michael? Walt? Walt seemed so important in the first seasons... And reappeared mysteriously a few times after leaving the island... yet now he's gone. But overall, the premise of Lost works for me.
Heroes is another example of one where the mysterious premise was AWESOME in the first season. But then they let themselves get too complicated. Talk about time travel issues. (Which Sylar is he tonight? Which Claire? Which Hiro? Which Peter? Which powers do they have this week?) But still, I think this show is a good example of a mysterious premise which, at least for a while, pulled the audience along by balancing how/when the truth was revealed. (Until it fell off the rails.)
But what really prompted his post was a new TV show called The Listener. And to be fair to the writers/producers, I haven't seen every episode. (And maybe I just want to be fair because the show's Canadian), but the "mysterious premise" is pissing me off. And has pissed me off from episode one. Okay, maybe I don't really care about being fair.
The hero can read minds. Okay. Fine. I can accept that.
He's always been able to read minds, and had to learn as a little boy how to block them out/control it, but in the first episode, "something" suddenly changes (we don't know what) and now he hears people in distress and can't get them out of his head until he solves whatever problem is causing the distress. (Talk about a convenient contrivance for a weekly series...) And we get no explanation for why things suddenly changed. But that's not even what bugs me. What bugs me is he's been told that "he must NEVER tell ANYONE he can read minds". Doing so means danger, bad things, horrible things. And while I love a big mystery, I'm sorry, but "you can never tell" isn't good enough for me. Especially if it means your girlfriend dumps you and worse, you keep getting suspected of crimes.
Why the frak doesn't he tell? Especially when not telling causes problems for him? He's a grown man. Wouldn't he question this professor guy who's been telling him he can't tell anyone, since he was a little boy? (Even if professor guy is played by Colm Feore? Okay, now I need to include a photo of Colm Feore... He's playing Cyranno at Stratford this year. REALLY want to go see it... US folks, you may have seen him as the "first gentleman" on 24 this season.)
But back to my rant... I guess my main issue is that him not telling is clearly causing big-stakes problems for him (suspected of murder, etc.) and yet they haven't convinced me that him telling carries equally dire stakes.
All that would've been annoying enough, but then I caught a bit of an episode last week and suddenly his partner (they're paramedics) knows his secret. And his partner's character hasn't exactly been set up as the kind of guy who can keep a secret... Yet, the hero seems okay with babbling-idiot-partner-guy knowing his BIG DANGEROUS SECRET. And the world hasn't ended. So why not tell the ridiculously-pretty-and-always-inappropriately-dressed-for-her-job cop, who each week is coincidentally (with a big C) involved in solving a crime related to the person who's thoughs the hero can't get out of his mind. Especially since she always suspects him of the crimes because he knows so much? And why not tell his also-ridiculously-pretty-doctor-who-doesn't-act-like-a-doctor ex-girlfriend, who he loves but who dumped him for keeping secrets??? Why doesn't he tell these two female characters? Because then the writers would have no conflict.
And with a conflict that flimsy... Well, I tend to rant.
Is anyone watching this show? Am I wrong? Is there more? Could the lead actors or the premise holes be more annoying?
If there is something else, I'm willing to take this rant back, because after the first 3-4 episodes of Dollhouse I would've said the same thing (although not this bad) and they ended up fixing that problem big time and creating a whole bunch more interesting questions/conflicts to lead us forward and now I'm desperate to see season 2.
My lessons from all this: if your plot hangs together on a secret that no one can know, the writer better give the reader/viewer a fraking good reason to believe that keeping the secret has very high stakes. And if a writer is purposefully holding back a secret about the premise... he/she had better be changing things up, and raising new questions, and upping the stakes, or we'll just get impatient and feel manipulated when we're not given the answer.
Thinking back, both Sinead and I have had premises that relied on the heroes of our stories not being able to reveal a "big secret"... but I think we both handled it better than the writers of The Listener.
Ha! While writing this, and simultaneously half-way watching Canada's Next Top Model, I just saw a teaser for this week's episode of The Listener. The voice-over announcer says: "How long can he keep the secret? Is it time to tell the truth? And then one of the pretty chicks (doctor or cop, can't really tell them apart) looks at the hero and says, "You know what I'm thinking, don't you."
Maybe they've finally realized they can't keep that crap up. Still not watching. My TBR and TBW (watched) piles are too high to waste time on crap TV. Even if it's set in Toronto.
Now. Back to Make Me a Supermodel. ;-) Hey, a gal's allowed to watch some stuff that's just pure fun.
But when does a mysterious or ambiguous premise, or not-fully-revealed motivation, become an annoyance?
When it doesn't work, that's when.
And not working is sometimes a hard thing to put one's finger on, so I can only think of examples of "works" and "does not work".
Life on Mars... I didn't watch the British version of this show, and would like to, if for no other reason than to compare it to the US version, which I really enjoyed... But I think this one is a brilliant example of "works". And maybe they handled it so well because it was all contained in one short season. (The British version has a sequel called Ashes to Ashes... don't know that it's about. But assuming the British version of Life on Mars ended the same way as the US one... well, it's hard to imagine a sequel. Now I've made myself curious...)
I've heard people talking about the US version being "canceled"... and I admit I haven't read up on all the dirt, but from watching it, well, they couldn't possibly have had a second season. Or rather, if they had stretched it into a second season, at some point the "big mystery" would've become annoying rather than mysterious. There were only so many possible answers and I was still getting chills almost every episode until we finally got our answer. An answer, which, for me, was none of the possibilities I'd been considering. I think if they'd led me down all those other garden paths for too much longer, I might've been angry when the answer was "none of the above". But over 13 episodes, or whatever it was, it worked for me.
If you didn't see Life on Mars, rent it when it comes out on DVD. The lead actor is hot, hot, hot -- the acting was great (Harvey Keitel, Michael Imperioli) and I, for one, loved the mysterious premise and how it got solved. Plus, there's a nice little romance running through it. (Not to mention a great, early 70's soundtrack.)
Lost... Now there's one of the biggest examples of a fabulous mysterious premise. For five, (six?) seasons we've known they crashed onto an island (or were maybe dead). We've known strange things happen on this island. We know it's hard to find. We know people get healed and come back to life and others get sick and babies can't be born and some people don't age -- etc. etc. etc. And for me, it's always stayed interesting enough to pull me through the confusing bits. I know others (Molly) who think it fell apart in Season 3... and if I agree with that at all, (I actually enjoyed Season 3), it might be because they lost track of the mystery and instead transferred focus onto the love triangle. Or was season 3 the one where they were focussed on the people from the other side of the island?
I admit this show has become incredibly complicated... and I'm not sure the time travel thing is going to wrap everything up satisfactorily... And they've dropped a few threads... Michael? Walt? Walt seemed so important in the first seasons... And reappeared mysteriously a few times after leaving the island... yet now he's gone. But overall, the premise of Lost works for me.
Heroes is another example of one where the mysterious premise was AWESOME in the first season. But then they let themselves get too complicated. Talk about time travel issues. (Which Sylar is he tonight? Which Claire? Which Hiro? Which Peter? Which powers do they have this week?) But still, I think this show is a good example of a mysterious premise which, at least for a while, pulled the audience along by balancing how/when the truth was revealed. (Until it fell off the rails.)
But what really prompted his post was a new TV show called The Listener. And to be fair to the writers/producers, I haven't seen every episode. (And maybe I just want to be fair because the show's Canadian), but the "mysterious premise" is pissing me off. And has pissed me off from episode one. Okay, maybe I don't really care about being fair.
The hero can read minds. Okay. Fine. I can accept that.
He's always been able to read minds, and had to learn as a little boy how to block them out/control it, but in the first episode, "something" suddenly changes (we don't know what) and now he hears people in distress and can't get them out of his head until he solves whatever problem is causing the distress. (Talk about a convenient contrivance for a weekly series...) And we get no explanation for why things suddenly changed. But that's not even what bugs me. What bugs me is he's been told that "he must NEVER tell ANYONE he can read minds". Doing so means danger, bad things, horrible things. And while I love a big mystery, I'm sorry, but "you can never tell" isn't good enough for me. Especially if it means your girlfriend dumps you and worse, you keep getting suspected of crimes.
Why the frak doesn't he tell? Especially when not telling causes problems for him? He's a grown man. Wouldn't he question this professor guy who's been telling him he can't tell anyone, since he was a little boy? (Even if professor guy is played by Colm Feore? Okay, now I need to include a photo of Colm Feore... He's playing Cyranno at Stratford this year. REALLY want to go see it... US folks, you may have seen him as the "first gentleman" on 24 this season.)
But back to my rant... I guess my main issue is that him not telling is clearly causing big-stakes problems for him (suspected of murder, etc.) and yet they haven't convinced me that him telling carries equally dire stakes.
All that would've been annoying enough, but then I caught a bit of an episode last week and suddenly his partner (they're paramedics) knows his secret. And his partner's character hasn't exactly been set up as the kind of guy who can keep a secret... Yet, the hero seems okay with babbling-idiot-partner-guy knowing his BIG DANGEROUS SECRET. And the world hasn't ended. So why not tell the ridiculously-pretty-and-always-inappropriately-dressed-for-her-job cop, who each week is coincidentally (with a big C) involved in solving a crime related to the person who's thoughs the hero can't get out of his mind. Especially since she always suspects him of the crimes because he knows so much? And why not tell his also-ridiculously-pretty-doctor-who-doesn't-act-like-a-doctor ex-girlfriend, who he loves but who dumped him for keeping secrets??? Why doesn't he tell these two female characters? Because then the writers would have no conflict.
And with a conflict that flimsy... Well, I tend to rant.
Is anyone watching this show? Am I wrong? Is there more? Could the lead actors or the premise holes be more annoying?
If there is something else, I'm willing to take this rant back, because after the first 3-4 episodes of Dollhouse I would've said the same thing (although not this bad) and they ended up fixing that problem big time and creating a whole bunch more interesting questions/conflicts to lead us forward and now I'm desperate to see season 2.
My lessons from all this: if your plot hangs together on a secret that no one can know, the writer better give the reader/viewer a fraking good reason to believe that keeping the secret has very high stakes. And if a writer is purposefully holding back a secret about the premise... he/she had better be changing things up, and raising new questions, and upping the stakes, or we'll just get impatient and feel manipulated when we're not given the answer.
Thinking back, both Sinead and I have had premises that relied on the heroes of our stories not being able to reveal a "big secret"... but I think we both handled it better than the writers of The Listener.
Ha! While writing this, and simultaneously half-way watching Canada's Next Top Model, I just saw a teaser for this week's episode of The Listener. The voice-over announcer says: "How long can he keep the secret? Is it time to tell the truth? And then one of the pretty chicks (doctor or cop, can't really tell them apart) looks at the hero and says, "You know what I'm thinking, don't you."
Maybe they've finally realized they can't keep that crap up. Still not watching. My TBR and TBW (watched) piles are too high to waste time on crap TV. Even if it's set in Toronto.
Now. Back to Make Me a Supermodel. ;-) Hey, a gal's allowed to watch some stuff that's just pure fun.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
bad bloggers pt 2
ugh. proposals, deadlines, The freaking HUNGER GAMES - taking over my life right now. I have so much to say about that book! And I will - later. I only have the brain cells for one blog and I'm over at the superromance blog at eharlequin today. Please stop by
http://community.eharlequin.com/content/harlequin-superromance-group-author-blog
http://community.eharlequin.com/content/harlequin-superromance-group-author-blog
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Crying in the Theatre
Well, we've been very bad bloggers this week... I blame birthdays. Within 4 days at the beginning of July, I have Canada's, my younger sister's, my Dad's and America's.
Not that (being a Canadian) I really celebrate the 4th... Unless I find a good excuse to... Like an American friend... Maybe Molly needs someone to have a drink with on Sat? (Call me.)
Anyway, in the interest of not having the same post up for an entire week, I thought I'd just say how much I enjoyed seeing West Side Story today, onstage at The Stratford Festival. (Yes, they do musicals as well as the Shakespeare, to get more bums into seats.)
Clearly I knew the story going in. And I've seen the movie several times. But boy did I cry. Wow. Really well done.
Went with my sister, two of her friends, and 4 tweenaged girls. The adults were all balling. The kids, not so much. They just thought the actor who played Tony was hot.
Not that (being a Canadian) I really celebrate the 4th... Unless I find a good excuse to... Like an American friend... Maybe Molly needs someone to have a drink with on Sat? (Call me.)
Anyway, in the interest of not having the same post up for an entire week, I thought I'd just say how much I enjoyed seeing West Side Story today, onstage at The Stratford Festival. (Yes, they do musicals as well as the Shakespeare, to get more bums into seats.)
Clearly I knew the story going in. And I've seen the movie several times. But boy did I cry. Wow. Really well done.
Went with my sister, two of her friends, and 4 tweenaged girls. The adults were all balling. The kids, not so much. They just thought the actor who played Tony was hot.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Brilliant isn't always fun
I have a terrible admission. (Molly, prepare yourself) I have had the 4th season of the wire at my house, waiting to be watched, for almost a week and still haven't cracked it open.
And may not tonight.
We drunk writers have not been shy about our admiration for this show, and I certainly have loved it, the dialogue, the way the plot twists, and drama that seems completely true to life and really, characters like Omar and Stringer. There is a reason why this show has been hailed as the best television ever.
And when I'm immersed in a season, I watch it quickly.
But I never tear open the DVD case like a kid with a present on Christmas morning.
I know the season will have it's highs and lows and will tear my heart out while awing me with it's brilliance. I know this, and still the excitement I should have isn't there.
Because what's missing, and what keeps the Wire from being in my top three TV shows, is that sense of fun, and uplifting moments and sheer exhilaration that I got from Battlestar, or Firefly, or even True Blood.
Shows that really, in execution and scripts have more flaws, but I still find more fun to watch.
And I do love the Wire, but will I want to watch it again, just for the sheer pleasure of enjoying great TV, well, I'm not sure.
It reminds me of the movies that I loved passionately while watching, but never really felt the need to re-watch, like The English Patient, or Dogville, or even Saving Private Ryan. While I've watched Star Wars, and 10 Things I hate about you and Terminator over and over.
But in the next three days, I will open that DVD case and start the season and from there, I will once again, be immersed in the great TV that is the Wire.
And may not tonight.
We drunk writers have not been shy about our admiration for this show, and I certainly have loved it, the dialogue, the way the plot twists, and drama that seems completely true to life and really, characters like Omar and Stringer. There is a reason why this show has been hailed as the best television ever.
And when I'm immersed in a season, I watch it quickly.
But I never tear open the DVD case like a kid with a present on Christmas morning.
I know the season will have it's highs and lows and will tear my heart out while awing me with it's brilliance. I know this, and still the excitement I should have isn't there.
Because what's missing, and what keeps the Wire from being in my top three TV shows, is that sense of fun, and uplifting moments and sheer exhilaration that I got from Battlestar, or Firefly, or even True Blood.
Shows that really, in execution and scripts have more flaws, but I still find more fun to watch.
And I do love the Wire, but will I want to watch it again, just for the sheer pleasure of enjoying great TV, well, I'm not sure.
It reminds me of the movies that I loved passionately while watching, but never really felt the need to re-watch, like The English Patient, or Dogville, or even Saving Private Ryan. While I've watched Star Wars, and 10 Things I hate about you and Terminator over and over.
But in the next three days, I will open that DVD case and start the season and from there, I will once again, be immersed in the great TV that is the Wire.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Bleary eyes
Dang. I should have posted before my eye doctor appointment. Pupils are uber dilated, and I just survived (barely) the most horrendous, terrifying, exhausting walk in the heat and sunshine from the hospital where I had the snaps of my retinas taken to the dark corner of a Starbucks where I sit now trying like hell to see what I'm typing.
For the second time in about a month, I am so close to blind it's scary. I can barely see my screen. I don't realize how much of my days I spend either typing or reading until I can't really do either.
I tried to comment on another blog (actually a new groiup blog I'm part of, check it out) and it took me about three minutes of squinting and blinking and staring to figure out the stupid word for the spam check. It was readers. And not even typed in that distorted a font. For most people. Right now, I might as well by typing in wing dings. (Please excuse typos.)
So much for getting any work done today. Crap. Why doesn't this book just write itself? Maybe I should go to the movies. Who cares if Sandra Bullock is fuzzy. Ryan on the other hand...
My head hurts.
Whine.
For the second time in about a month, I am so close to blind it's scary. I can barely see my screen. I don't realize how much of my days I spend either typing or reading until I can't really do either.
I tried to comment on another blog (actually a new groiup blog I'm part of, check it out) and it took me about three minutes of squinting and blinking and staring to figure out the stupid word for the spam check. It was readers. And not even typed in that distorted a font. For most people. Right now, I might as well by typing in wing dings. (Please excuse typos.)
So much for getting any work done today. Crap. Why doesn't this book just write itself? Maybe I should go to the movies. Who cares if Sandra Bullock is fuzzy. Ryan on the other hand...
My head hurts.
Whine.
Monday, June 22, 2009
We don't talk much about our drinking problems....
I have had a drinking Renaissance. I am a born again drinker. And what you may ask has brought me to this new level of imbibing? Martini's. That's right. In particular a cucumber and thyme martini with real bits of lemon and cucumber in it. I'm a beer girl from way back - but those days are over. I want ice cold glasses and garnishes of fresh mint and green grapes (can't even remember what that drink was - I was the drunkest person at a very swanky wedding last weekend. You honestly don't want to know, but I'll tell you anyway - I passed out in my hotel room at 8 pm with a mouth full of chocolate shake. It's a low point. Delicious. But low.)
So outside of drinking, I've done little to no writing. Little to no thinking. But I read some GREAT books - The Kitchen Boy, about the imprisonment and assassination of the Romanov's. Awesome book. And so help me - Belong To Me, the sequel to one of the best freaking books I read last year - Love Walked In. I cried non-stop from LA back to Toronto.
I think it's going to be a good drinking summer - I'm gonna buy a blender.
So outside of drinking, I've done little to no writing. Little to no thinking. But I read some GREAT books - The Kitchen Boy, about the imprisonment and assassination of the Romanov's. Awesome book. And so help me - Belong To Me, the sequel to one of the best freaking books I read last year - Love Walked In. I cried non-stop from LA back to Toronto.
I think it's going to be a good drinking summer - I'm gonna buy a blender.
Friday, June 19, 2009
It's a thin line between character and plot
Have you ever read a book where it seems that the writer loved their character so much that they wrote even the smallest scenes, scenes that did illuminate some other facet of the character, but did little else?
Am reading the third in a trilogy right now, and the same character has been the lead in each book and I'm skimming large chunks of the third. We know this character too well now, that focusing in on her, and her interactions with those around her, just feels repetitious.
It reminds me of a great line from The Truth about Cats and Dogs. Love your character, but don't Love your character. (line bastardized for my purposes)
What was a fascinating mystery and character study in book one has become long and drawn out and really, boring, by book three.
Not everyone would agree with my assessment. I'm certain some readers must have loved this book. It's a fine line, because every reader is different.
Some readers love the intricate details of a character study, others want fast paced but in there somewhere, is a balance. And it's why writing is so freakin' hard, because the balance is different for each author, each book, and there is no equation, or course, or graph. There is just writing the scenes and seeing if they work.
But there are ways to illuminate character in short, but vivid ways. Watched the episode 1 of Tru Blood this week. And the elements that bothered me about the show were still there. I find the dialogue between Sookie and Bill still really stilted, and their relationship is still my least favourite storyline, but the rest is ridiculously great.
Love Tara and the way she is on the edge of peril, in a way we don't understand, but am salivating to discover. Love Jason, even if his stupidity is broadly drawn and the Lafayette in the cellar storyline had to be the highlight of my week.
What topped it all off, was Eric coming down and tearing apart one of the other cellar dwellers, in a vicious, bloodthirsty fashion, all while wearing highlight foils in his hair.
The foils were a brilliant touch. You have a vicious vampire who highlights his hair. Perfect character details in ten seconds.
Could not love this show more right now.
Am reading the third in a trilogy right now, and the same character has been the lead in each book and I'm skimming large chunks of the third. We know this character too well now, that focusing in on her, and her interactions with those around her, just feels repetitious.
It reminds me of a great line from The Truth about Cats and Dogs. Love your character, but don't Love your character. (line bastardized for my purposes)
What was a fascinating mystery and character study in book one has become long and drawn out and really, boring, by book three.
Not everyone would agree with my assessment. I'm certain some readers must have loved this book. It's a fine line, because every reader is different.
Some readers love the intricate details of a character study, others want fast paced but in there somewhere, is a balance. And it's why writing is so freakin' hard, because the balance is different for each author, each book, and there is no equation, or course, or graph. There is just writing the scenes and seeing if they work.
But there are ways to illuminate character in short, but vivid ways. Watched the episode 1 of Tru Blood this week. And the elements that bothered me about the show were still there. I find the dialogue between Sookie and Bill still really stilted, and their relationship is still my least favourite storyline, but the rest is ridiculously great.
Love Tara and the way she is on the edge of peril, in a way we don't understand, but am salivating to discover. Love Jason, even if his stupidity is broadly drawn and the Lafayette in the cellar storyline had to be the highlight of my week.
What topped it all off, was Eric coming down and tearing apart one of the other cellar dwellers, in a vicious, bloodthirsty fashion, all while wearing highlight foils in his hair.
The foils were a brilliant touch. You have a vicious vampire who highlights his hair. Perfect character details in ten seconds.
Could not love this show more right now.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Perfect Little Movie
This has been a depressing six to ten months for movies for me. To understand this fully, you must understand that I saw approximately seventy to eighty films in 2008. At least. In the theatres. (That is not counting DVD's and on TV.) And 2008 wasn't an incredibly unusual year for me.
This year has been more unusual. We are almost half-way through, and I'm barely into the double digits.
Last fall's TIFF was disappointing, and I don't know if it was that, but somehow I lost my typical enthusiasm for going to the movies. Part of this is because I got caught up on some great TV like Battlestar Galactica and Mad Men and The Wire and True Blood and Project Runway. But part of it was I just didn't feel inspired to go out to the movies, and every time I did, I ended up thinking I'd have spent my time better watching high brow TV like Make Me a Supermodel or Paris' BFF.
Other than Star Trek, I hadn't seen a film I enjoyed in a really, really long time.
And while I did enjoy Star Trek, a lot, it's not really my favorite genre of film, and since this was my highlight, it felt like AGES since I'd seen a film I truly loved. A film that made me laugh and cry and feel better (or worse) about the world. Last week I went to see The Taking of Pelham 123 (boring) and My Life in Ruins (inane). Not sure why I went to either of those films except that there was little else playing I wanted to see more.
But I finally saw a great film tonight. Away We Go.
What a lovely, smart, well acted, well written, well directed film. Just about everything worked for me in this movie. Okay, can't think of anything that didn't work for me. Don't know why I hedged that.
And nice to see Sam Mendes doing a movie with a true heart after the great but depressing Revolutionary Road. Away We Go is basically about a couple searching out family and a sense of home when they're six months pregnant. Kind of nesting on a big scale. And it's just so genuinely funny and tender and real. At least I'd like to think people like their characters exist in real life. That relationships like theirs exist in real life.
I went in knowing almost nothing about this movie and I'm glad. In fact, if you can avoid seeing trailers, avoid it. Just go. Not that there are any real spoilers in the trailer (I saw the trailer just an hour after seeing the film, because I also went to see Easy Virtue... not as good).
Instead of talking about the story, (or how great Maggie Gyllenhaal was in her small part) I'd just like to mention why I'd like to buy the DVD when it comes out. I've been taking an online class on body language in an attempt to take my characters beyond smiling and shrugging... And watching the pitch perfect performances of the actors in this film made me want to study bits of it frame by frame and then try to describe the facial reactions. One scene in particular, where Allison Janney is listening to her husband talk, while the two of them are out for dinner with the Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski characters, was priceless. With just her face, we see frustration, embarrassment, anger and then a combination of acceptance, defeat and maybe even a hint of love. Brilliant.
And Jim from the Office can act. Wow. LOVED him in this movie. Seriously loved him. Want to marry him now.
So glad I got my movie mojo back.
This year has been more unusual. We are almost half-way through, and I'm barely into the double digits.
Last fall's TIFF was disappointing, and I don't know if it was that, but somehow I lost my typical enthusiasm for going to the movies. Part of this is because I got caught up on some great TV like Battlestar Galactica and Mad Men and The Wire and True Blood and Project Runway. But part of it was I just didn't feel inspired to go out to the movies, and every time I did, I ended up thinking I'd have spent my time better watching high brow TV like Make Me a Supermodel or Paris' BFF.
Other than Star Trek, I hadn't seen a film I enjoyed in a really, really long time.
And while I did enjoy Star Trek, a lot, it's not really my favorite genre of film, and since this was my highlight, it felt like AGES since I'd seen a film I truly loved. A film that made me laugh and cry and feel better (or worse) about the world. Last week I went to see The Taking of Pelham 123 (boring) and My Life in Ruins (inane). Not sure why I went to either of those films except that there was little else playing I wanted to see more.
But I finally saw a great film tonight. Away We Go.
What a lovely, smart, well acted, well written, well directed film. Just about everything worked for me in this movie. Okay, can't think of anything that didn't work for me. Don't know why I hedged that.
And nice to see Sam Mendes doing a movie with a true heart after the great but depressing Revolutionary Road. Away We Go is basically about a couple searching out family and a sense of home when they're six months pregnant. Kind of nesting on a big scale. And it's just so genuinely funny and tender and real. At least I'd like to think people like their characters exist in real life. That relationships like theirs exist in real life.
I went in knowing almost nothing about this movie and I'm glad. In fact, if you can avoid seeing trailers, avoid it. Just go. Not that there are any real spoilers in the trailer (I saw the trailer just an hour after seeing the film, because I also went to see Easy Virtue... not as good).
Instead of talking about the story, (or how great Maggie Gyllenhaal was in her small part) I'd just like to mention why I'd like to buy the DVD when it comes out. I've been taking an online class on body language in an attempt to take my characters beyond smiling and shrugging... And watching the pitch perfect performances of the actors in this film made me want to study bits of it frame by frame and then try to describe the facial reactions. One scene in particular, where Allison Janney is listening to her husband talk, while the two of them are out for dinner with the Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski characters, was priceless. With just her face, we see frustration, embarrassment, anger and then a combination of acceptance, defeat and maybe even a hint of love. Brilliant.
And Jim from the Office can act. Wow. LOVED him in this movie. Seriously loved him. Want to marry him now.
So glad I got my movie mojo back.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Is YA the most exciting genre happening right now?
Let me start by saying, it is a travesty that I'm writing a blog on YA. I know little about it and up till maybe a few weeks ago, I had the stupid, and uneducated opinion that YA was about orphaned wizards, or vampires who don't have sex.
But I was lucky enough this week to spend twenty minutes at Maureen's house, and peruse her books, and picked up a couple of YA's both of which went on to blow my little mind.
The first was, The Dust of a Hundred Dogs. It's about a pirate, a teenager, who is cursed at her death, to spend her next hundred lifetimes as a dog, until she is finally reincarnated as a human, who remembers her pirate life.
The second was The Hunger Games, which, and I've only read the first chapter, completely enthralled me. I am seriously salivating to get my hands on this book, based only on the first chapter. It's set in an alternate world, features a seventeen year old girl, who has to compete in a fight to the death with twenty-three other teens.
Both books are really dark, and the premise of both is imaginative and well thought out, and like nothing in the romance genre.
As far as I can tell, the only limiting factor in the YA genre is age, your main character can't be fifty, but otherwise, almost anything goes.
The other common factor of those two books, was the voice of the main character was crisp and clear and leaped off the page. So amazing writing is also part of the package.
So I'm going to hunt down more YA books. Or maybe just scour Maureen's house again, and take all the books she's been telling me to read for the past while.
But I was lucky enough this week to spend twenty minutes at Maureen's house, and peruse her books, and picked up a couple of YA's both of which went on to blow my little mind.
The first was, The Dust of a Hundred Dogs. It's about a pirate, a teenager, who is cursed at her death, to spend her next hundred lifetimes as a dog, until she is finally reincarnated as a human, who remembers her pirate life.
The second was The Hunger Games, which, and I've only read the first chapter, completely enthralled me. I am seriously salivating to get my hands on this book, based only on the first chapter. It's set in an alternate world, features a seventeen year old girl, who has to compete in a fight to the death with twenty-three other teens.
Both books are really dark, and the premise of both is imaginative and well thought out, and like nothing in the romance genre.
As far as I can tell, the only limiting factor in the YA genre is age, your main character can't be fifty, but otherwise, almost anything goes.
The other common factor of those two books, was the voice of the main character was crisp and clear and leaped off the page. So amazing writing is also part of the package.
So I'm going to hunt down more YA books. Or maybe just scour Maureen's house again, and take all the books she's been telling me to read for the past while.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Storylines That Arc Over More Than One Book or Does Anyone Really Care About The Spinner Falls' Traitor?
We're bad bloggers - and so I'm jumping in here with something that's top of my mind right now. Over-arcing storylines. Trilogies or more with some sort of mystery that needs to be solved, or plot line that threads through every book.
My question is this - does it really work? Really?
I am reading Elizabeth Hoyt's newest - To Beguile A Beast and she has a very excellent plot line/mystery through all her books -- who is the traitor? As plot lines go it's got it all - intrigue, betrayal, torture and death and let me tell you - I could care less. Don't get me wrong, I'm heavily invested in what the events at Spinner Falls did to the heroes of the books - but as for the traitor...don't care. I skim those parts. It just doesn't seem to have any impact. No forward momentum and not enough emotion tied to it.
Now, if Hoyt can't pull it off, can anyone?
I was thinking of Brockman and her storylines over more than one book and they're usually romantic. One couple's romance gets told over several books and that's some good writing. Some good storytelling. Captivating. Until she blew it and wrote a whole book for that couple where there was no tension because she'd used it all in the previous seven books. But a romantic story arc isn't quite the same thing as that over arcing mystery.
So, then I was thinking of one of my favorite trilogies of all time Nora Roberts' Chesapeake Bay books - if you haven't read these books - do it. Even if you aren't a fan of Nora (which I'm not) these books are absolutely the bee's knees. But the mystery introduced in the first book - who is this kid? Gets resolved in the first book - he's the brother's father's grandkid. (Complicated - there's a lot of adoption in there.And I'm not really ruining anything, if you thought that was a spoiler.) So after that the mystery turns into a problem -- how to deal with this kid. And that gets escalated into --how to deal with the kid's mother. So the mystery isn't really a mystery but an ever-changing subplot. And more importantly, I think, a super super emotional subplot.
So my new feeling is this; if a mystery is raised in the first book, it might be best to solve that mystery in the first book. But it's the fallout that drives the following books, or at least impacts the characters and plots. That way it keeps rolling forward, driving things along and becomes unskimmable.
P.S. Smurphy, Beguile a Beast is great, by the way - but it is no Not Quite A Husband. It's not even close.
My question is this - does it really work? Really?
I am reading Elizabeth Hoyt's newest - To Beguile A Beast and she has a very excellent plot line/mystery through all her books -- who is the traitor? As plot lines go it's got it all - intrigue, betrayal, torture and death and let me tell you - I could care less. Don't get me wrong, I'm heavily invested in what the events at Spinner Falls did to the heroes of the books - but as for the traitor...don't care. I skim those parts. It just doesn't seem to have any impact. No forward momentum and not enough emotion tied to it.
Now, if Hoyt can't pull it off, can anyone?
I was thinking of Brockman and her storylines over more than one book and they're usually romantic. One couple's romance gets told over several books and that's some good writing. Some good storytelling. Captivating. Until she blew it and wrote a whole book for that couple where there was no tension because she'd used it all in the previous seven books. But a romantic story arc isn't quite the same thing as that over arcing mystery.
So, then I was thinking of one of my favorite trilogies of all time Nora Roberts' Chesapeake Bay books - if you haven't read these books - do it. Even if you aren't a fan of Nora (which I'm not) these books are absolutely the bee's knees. But the mystery introduced in the first book - who is this kid? Gets resolved in the first book - he's the brother's father's grandkid. (Complicated - there's a lot of adoption in there.And I'm not really ruining anything, if you thought that was a spoiler.) So after that the mystery turns into a problem -- how to deal with this kid. And that gets escalated into --how to deal with the kid's mother. So the mystery isn't really a mystery but an ever-changing subplot. And more importantly, I think, a super super emotional subplot.
So my new feeling is this; if a mystery is raised in the first book, it might be best to solve that mystery in the first book. But it's the fallout that drives the following books, or at least impacts the characters and plots. That way it keeps rolling forward, driving things along and becomes unskimmable.
P.S. Smurphy, Beguile a Beast is great, by the way - but it is no Not Quite A Husband. It's not even close.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Summer
It's warm and sunny outside, and while I might be working, it's Friday and tomorrow, the weather forecasts tell me, it will be more of the same.
Love the beginning of summer, not just because of the weather, but there always seems to be a sense of anything is possible through May and June. I stay up longer, day dream more and plan out my weekends like each one is precious.
And, perhaps, because there is little on TV, I spend more time reading and writing, and in the movie theater. I love the trailers for summer movies, and the possibility that the movie might live up the promise of the trailer. I love the fantasy of spending a week on a chaise by a pool, reading all my TBR pile, while someone ensures my drink is always full. (Sadly, this will not happen this year, or probably anytime soon).
Maybe it's the extra Vitamin D coursing through my bloodstream, but I get my best ideas during the summer. So right now, while everyone else is figuring out all the outdoor activities they can fit into their schedule, I'm sorting out how many hours of writing I can squeeze into the next two days.
And anxiously awaiting the second season of True Blood. The trailers look amazing.. can't wait.
Love the beginning of summer, not just because of the weather, but there always seems to be a sense of anything is possible through May and June. I stay up longer, day dream more and plan out my weekends like each one is precious.
And, perhaps, because there is little on TV, I spend more time reading and writing, and in the movie theater. I love the trailers for summer movies, and the possibility that the movie might live up the promise of the trailer. I love the fantasy of spending a week on a chaise by a pool, reading all my TBR pile, while someone ensures my drink is always full. (Sadly, this will not happen this year, or probably anytime soon).
Maybe it's the extra Vitamin D coursing through my bloodstream, but I get my best ideas during the summer. So right now, while everyone else is figuring out all the outdoor activities they can fit into their schedule, I'm sorting out how many hours of writing I can squeeze into the next two days.
And anxiously awaiting the second season of True Blood. The trailers look amazing.. can't wait.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Inspiration
Boy, I almost missed another Wednesday. Bad blogger.
I'm currently running my RWA chapter's contest and the entry deadline was Monday night, so swamped doesn't begin to describe it.
And I'm also at the beginning of another project -- one I promised my agent she'd see something on before we meet in DC in just over a month. So, yikes.
The start of new projects are a time that can be both exciting and scary for me. A time I love if the ideas are coming, characters are forming, and the story is falling into place, but a time I hate if I keep going over the same issues in my mind over and over without finding solutions. A time I hate if I keep thinking too much about the market and how my work fits into it. A time when I, personally, need to be thinking about little other than my story.
What a great time to be spending 10-12 hours a day on contest matters and putting out fires, and trying to solve puzzles like how to divide up 100 judges, all with preferences re genre and limits on the number of entries they'll judge, across nearly 500 scoresheets that need to be completed, rather than the puzzle of my plot. Fun. Fun. Fun.
My mind can't handle too many puzzles at once. And based on the 25 pages of crap I've written for my ms this far... I need to stop and puzzle out more of my plot and start again.
Why are some books so hard?
BTW. This is NOT what I was going to post about when I started typing. Go figure. Brain broken.
I'm currently running my RWA chapter's contest and the entry deadline was Monday night, so swamped doesn't begin to describe it.
And I'm also at the beginning of another project -- one I promised my agent she'd see something on before we meet in DC in just over a month. So, yikes.
The start of new projects are a time that can be both exciting and scary for me. A time I love if the ideas are coming, characters are forming, and the story is falling into place, but a time I hate if I keep going over the same issues in my mind over and over without finding solutions. A time I hate if I keep thinking too much about the market and how my work fits into it. A time when I, personally, need to be thinking about little other than my story.
What a great time to be spending 10-12 hours a day on contest matters and putting out fires, and trying to solve puzzles like how to divide up 100 judges, all with preferences re genre and limits on the number of entries they'll judge, across nearly 500 scoresheets that need to be completed, rather than the puzzle of my plot. Fun. Fun. Fun.
My mind can't handle too many puzzles at once. And based on the 25 pages of crap I've written for my ms this far... I need to stop and puzzle out more of my plot and start again.
Why are some books so hard?
BTW. This is NOT what I was going to post about when I started typing. Go figure. Brain broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
