I was summoned for jury duty recently, but it conflicted with travel plans. I just got the following letter from the Sheriff's office:
Dear [you],
Re: Jury Duty
You have requested to be excused from jury duty.
You are excused.
Therefore you do not have to appear on [redacted date] for jury selection.
Yours truly,
[et cetera]
I am kinda in love with this letter. Talk about ascribing to the principle of "omit needless words"! This is clear and complete, and a third grader could understand it.
It reminds me of something an American friend, who immigrated to Canada, but who had also worked with new immigrants in the States, once noted: You can tell a lot about the mindset you're up against by the language that gets used on you.
If you want to immigrate to Canada, the forms you need to fill out are written in fifth-grade comprehension level English (or French.)
If you want to immigrate to the United States, the forms you need to fill out are written in legalese.
Guess which country is more open to the idea of you moving in.
I read Tara Road by Maeve Binchy recently, and I was struck by how effectively the author communicated her protagonist's turmoil after that character's husband admits he has made a younger woman pregnant and is leaving his wife. Ms. Binchy did it solely by changing the protagonist's voice; a previously bubbly and bumbling personality was abruptly delivering lean, razor-edged dialogue. She didn't sound anything like how she had in the rest of the book, and it worked beautifully. You knew this woman was both shattered by and hostile to the future her husband was forcing upon her.
In your writing, do you ever alter the way a character speaks to betray their mindset? Even beyond changing the rhythm of how they speak in order to show emotion, do you change their voice?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Congratulations! | Dude, you okay? | Twilight of the Fans' Expectations
I haven't been blogging much lately, so cheers to anyone who's still around. Happily, Stuart Neville, a.k.a. Conduit, has given me an excellent reason to break radio silence--he just got a publishing contract! Congratulations, Stuart! I'm so happy for you and I can't wait to read The Ghosts of Belfast.
~~~
Dwight, you gave me awesome advice once and I'd like to repeat it back to you, in hope it will help: Get those keys a-bobblin', soldier.
Don't stop doing what you love. Just stop needing what you can't get (yet.) You're talented, and you're definitely missed, buddy.
~~~
I'm fascinated by the craze over the final book in the Twilight teen vampire series. Breaking Dawn is suffering some backlash from fans of the series, just as the final book in the Harry Potter series did.
The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows backlash was due to very invested fans who were disappointed the author didn't end the series the way they envisioned. Perhaps a favourite character was killed, or a much wished-for romantic pairing never happened. Whatever the case, these fans were irate. Many started writing fanfiction to "fix" the author's mistakes.
"Positioning" is a marketing term. It means giving your potential audience an idea of what to expect before they put their money down. If you title a book Desert Passions and show a scantily-clad couple groping each other atop a camel on its cover, then your potential customers will expect a steamy romance set in the desert.
If that story turns out to be a murder mystery instead, then even if it's a really great book, the reader will be angry. They didn't get what they thought they were paying for.
I think the backlash for both Breaking Dawn and Deathly Hallows is due to the fans having positioned themselves. The marketing departments were no match for fandom. In the space between publication dates, the fans thought so much about the series' storylines and characters, and formed such detailed expectations of what was coming in the next book, that the author's vision proved a disappointment. The fans didn't get what they thought they were paying for, and they frothed and raved mightily; woe and alack.
This is an amazing phenomenon. On one fang, it's a massive compliment to the author so many people loved her series that they created an autonomous and complex community for themselves. On the other, it's absurd the community would be so self-contained they reject the author's next work because she didn't cater to their whims (using her psychic ability, presumably.)
I haven't read the Twilight books, and while I think there are elements in them that would make me angry for political reasons, they strike me as simply being really enjoyable trash--cheesy, addictive and insane in the best possible way. (Sparkly vampires. Need I say more?)
I could be depressed that people get so excited over fluff, rather than things that matter, but at the same time fandoms really endear me to humanity. We can't agree on the important stuff, but we can unite in our love (or hatred) of sparkly vampires. It's kinda sweet.
~~~
Dwight, you gave me awesome advice once and I'd like to repeat it back to you, in hope it will help: Get those keys a-bobblin', soldier.
Don't stop doing what you love. Just stop needing what you can't get (yet.) You're talented, and you're definitely missed, buddy.
~~~
I'm fascinated by the craze over the final book in the Twilight teen vampire series. Breaking Dawn is suffering some backlash from fans of the series, just as the final book in the Harry Potter series did.
The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows backlash was due to very invested fans who were disappointed the author didn't end the series the way they envisioned. Perhaps a favourite character was killed, or a much wished-for romantic pairing never happened. Whatever the case, these fans were irate. Many started writing fanfiction to "fix" the author's mistakes.
"Positioning" is a marketing term. It means giving your potential audience an idea of what to expect before they put their money down. If you title a book Desert Passions and show a scantily-clad couple groping each other atop a camel on its cover, then your potential customers will expect a steamy romance set in the desert.
If that story turns out to be a murder mystery instead, then even if it's a really great book, the reader will be angry. They didn't get what they thought they were paying for.
I think the backlash for both Breaking Dawn and Deathly Hallows is due to the fans having positioned themselves. The marketing departments were no match for fandom. In the space between publication dates, the fans thought so much about the series' storylines and characters, and formed such detailed expectations of what was coming in the next book, that the author's vision proved a disappointment. The fans didn't get what they thought they were paying for, and they frothed and raved mightily; woe and alack.
This is an amazing phenomenon. On one fang, it's a massive compliment to the author so many people loved her series that they created an autonomous and complex community for themselves. On the other, it's absurd the community would be so self-contained they reject the author's next work because she didn't cater to their whims (using her psychic ability, presumably.)
I haven't read the Twilight books, and while I think there are elements in them that would make me angry for political reasons, they strike me as simply being really enjoyable trash--cheesy, addictive and insane in the best possible way. (Sparkly vampires. Need I say more?)
I could be depressed that people get so excited over fluff, rather than things that matter, but at the same time fandoms really endear me to humanity. We can't agree on the important stuff, but we can unite in our love (or hatred) of sparkly vampires. It's kinda sweet.
Monday, July 14, 2008
From Aboard a Barge Floating Down a Minor Tributary of the River Styx
I am still not dead.
Not that you would know, because I've been a bad blogger again. This has been a busy day following a busy weekend following a busy last week. And now, I'll whine some more. *whimper, snivel*
Okay, I'm done. It's safe to keep reading. In fact, it should be fun because my brain is currently doing the cha-cha in Flakeyville. Did you know the Sleep Deprivation Creek runs through Flakeyville? It's a tributary of the River Styx; you're only half-dead when you cross it.
I had a minor fear realized yesterday (nothing to do with being half-dead, or virtually-dead, a.k.a. dead on the internet, however.) My mom mentioned she'd read my blog.
Eek. Okay, now I feel bad about all the swearing in that one post.
However, as a writer seeking publication, you have to be willing to spatter yourself all over the page and make it public. That's the point; you're dragging things out of your brain and showing everybody. They might not like it, but the onus is on them to walk away if that's the case. I do find it hard to put certain things on paper if I'm intending to try to publish it. I've always been bashful, so I find myself sweating and blushing over writing any sort of erotic scene, because...
Well, because my mom might read it. Or my dad, or my grandmother. I'm more complacent with the idea of my siblings reading my work because I think the three of us already know we're pretty darned quirky. I'm not sure the older generations realize that fully.
Incidentally, when my blog's existence got outed to the family, that was also my writing ambitions properly outed. I had told my parents I'd written a book, but I hadn't said more to anyone because what's the point? Until it's published, there's not much to report that's interesting to anybody but me.
As far as I know, my agent doesn't know I blog either. She's welcome to, because this is public space, but I haven't told her I do this. Again, I'm willing to have her see me being freaky--or flakey in the case of today--but I don't necessarily want to point it out.
Is there anything you avoid putting in your writing because you don't like the idea of people seeing that such things came from your brain? Would you use a pseudonym if you ever got the urge to write, for example, porn or something extremely offensive? Or do you fearlessly slap your name on everything that's yours, and damn the embarrassment that may arise at family reunions? And while we're on the subject, is blogging while over-tired as bad as blogging while drunk? I really can't tell at this point.
Not that you would know, because I've been a bad blogger again. This has been a busy day following a busy weekend following a busy last week. And now, I'll whine some more. *whimper, snivel*
Okay, I'm done. It's safe to keep reading. In fact, it should be fun because my brain is currently doing the cha-cha in Flakeyville. Did you know the Sleep Deprivation Creek runs through Flakeyville? It's a tributary of the River Styx; you're only half-dead when you cross it.
I had a minor fear realized yesterday (nothing to do with being half-dead, or virtually-dead, a.k.a. dead on the internet, however.) My mom mentioned she'd read my blog.
Eek. Okay, now I feel bad about all the swearing in that one post.
However, as a writer seeking publication, you have to be willing to spatter yourself all over the page and make it public. That's the point; you're dragging things out of your brain and showing everybody. They might not like it, but the onus is on them to walk away if that's the case. I do find it hard to put certain things on paper if I'm intending to try to publish it. I've always been bashful, so I find myself sweating and blushing over writing any sort of erotic scene, because...
Well, because my mom might read it. Or my dad, or my grandmother. I'm more complacent with the idea of my siblings reading my work because I think the three of us already know we're pretty darned quirky. I'm not sure the older generations realize that fully.
Incidentally, when my blog's existence got outed to the family, that was also my writing ambitions properly outed. I had told my parents I'd written a book, but I hadn't said more to anyone because what's the point? Until it's published, there's not much to report that's interesting to anybody but me.
As far as I know, my agent doesn't know I blog either. She's welcome to, because this is public space, but I haven't told her I do this. Again, I'm willing to have her see me being freaky--or flakey in the case of today--but I don't necessarily want to point it out.
Is there anything you avoid putting in your writing because you don't like the idea of people seeing that such things came from your brain? Would you use a pseudonym if you ever got the urge to write, for example, porn or something extremely offensive? Or do you fearlessly slap your name on everything that's yours, and damn the embarrassment that may arise at family reunions? And while we're on the subject, is blogging while over-tired as bad as blogging while drunk? I really can't tell at this point.
Monday, July 07, 2008
The Blogging Equivalent of "Um... So... Like..."
I've pretty much borked getting a blog entry up this weekend, so to hold you over until Tuesday-ish, when I will try to repair this oversight:
Non-Seasonal-Appropriate Cat Bowling!
The reason the blogging didn't get done is I finished the outline for my sequel last night and sent it off to my agent.
It's awesome how hammering out plot details can ignite your enthusiasm to write. I am simmering a stew of ideas for this book now and keep thinking, "Yeah, I could totally write this."
Non-Seasonal-Appropriate Cat Bowling!
The reason the blogging didn't get done is I finished the outline for my sequel last night and sent it off to my agent.
It's awesome how hammering out plot details can ignite your enthusiasm to write. I am simmering a stew of ideas for this book now and keep thinking, "Yeah, I could totally write this."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sequels and Stand-Alones
I've read on various agent blogs that it's best if your first novel is a stand-alone, even if you intend for it to be first in a series. Agents find it easier to sell a book that is self-contained, because the publisher doesn't have to commit to buying the whole series until after they see how that first book sells.
So I was surprised when my agent, Eleanor Wood, asked for an outline to a sequel for DARK HEIR. It turns out that because most of the hot-selling fantasy books right now are series titles, a book with series potential can be easier to sell than a single title.
I hadn't planned to write a sequel for DARK HEIR, at least not yet. I love these characters, but according to my brain, their story has been told. Now it's pashing on new characters. I'm pretty certain, in terms of my long-term writing career, I would be more comfortable writing unrelated novels set in distinct worlds, but I won't get the opportunity to do so unless I get my first sale. Hence, this weekend, I've been plotting out the surprise sequel.
The most surprising thing about it is how quickly it's coming together. I struggled for several months plotting the book I am (was?) working on, but because I already know the characters in DARK HEIR, I know how their personalities need to change and grow next. I also remembered an antagonist who was only assumed to be killed in the first book. Muahahaha! Insta-villain, back from the dead.
Still, it feels like a gear clash to head back to that world, those characters, and that material. I would enjoy writing a sequel to DARK HEIR, because that book's got such a special place in my heart, but I admit I'm dismayed at the thought of putting what I'm working on now aside. Oh, well; a gal's gotta take the long view.
~~~~~~~
Fantasy has a strong market for big books, big stories, and big series, and yet in general fiction, shorter books seems to be the latest trend. If you're a fantasy reader, do you prefer series novels or single titles? Do you like big reads?
If you're not a fantasy reader, how do you react to the same questions? Do you want a fast read, or a big book? Are you happy to come back to a world you've seen before, or would you rather a good book's premise not be rehashed? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
~~~~~~~
P.S. - Don't forget to congratulate Chumplet, a.k.a. Sandra Cormier on Tuesday for the Canada Day e-release of her novel, BAD ICE!
You can win a free copy by participating in her trivia contest on Tuesday, and you can buy an e-copy (for six bucks!!) here at any time.
So I was surprised when my agent, Eleanor Wood, asked for an outline to a sequel for DARK HEIR. It turns out that because most of the hot-selling fantasy books right now are series titles, a book with series potential can be easier to sell than a single title.
I hadn't planned to write a sequel for DARK HEIR, at least not yet. I love these characters, but according to my brain, their story has been told. Now it's pashing on new characters. I'm pretty certain, in terms of my long-term writing career, I would be more comfortable writing unrelated novels set in distinct worlds, but I won't get the opportunity to do so unless I get my first sale. Hence, this weekend, I've been plotting out the surprise sequel.
The most surprising thing about it is how quickly it's coming together. I struggled for several months plotting the book I am (was?) working on, but because I already know the characters in DARK HEIR, I know how their personalities need to change and grow next. I also remembered an antagonist who was only assumed to be killed in the first book. Muahahaha! Insta-villain, back from the dead.
Still, it feels like a gear clash to head back to that world, those characters, and that material. I would enjoy writing a sequel to DARK HEIR, because that book's got such a special place in my heart, but I admit I'm dismayed at the thought of putting what I'm working on now aside. Oh, well; a gal's gotta take the long view.
~~~~~~~
Fantasy has a strong market for big books, big stories, and big series, and yet in general fiction, shorter books seems to be the latest trend. If you're a fantasy reader, do you prefer series novels or single titles? Do you like big reads?
If you're not a fantasy reader, how do you react to the same questions? Do you want a fast read, or a big book? Are you happy to come back to a world you've seen before, or would you rather a good book's premise not be rehashed? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
~~~~~~~
P.S. - Don't forget to congratulate Chumplet, a.k.a. Sandra Cormier on Tuesday for the Canada Day e-release of her novel, BAD ICE!
You can win a free copy by participating in her trivia contest on Tuesday, and you can buy an e-copy (for six bucks!!) here at any time.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Assholism (The Writer's Second-Favourite Vice)
(This post is overly-personal and features some very offensive language. My apologies to Julie!)
When I think about the personality traits that serve me best as a writer, empathy tops the list--and I have painful quantities of that one. I was the kid who got hysterical watching "Save The Children" fundraising programs. I'm the woman who really, really doesn't like thinking about where meat comes from. I used to live in an apartment that had mice, and I cried every bloody time my plucky mousetrap bagged another victim.
Being overly-sensitive has its downside, but it's extremely valuable to a writer. Empathy for others is the only thing that allows us to create a spectrum of characters. Because I believe there are few truly evil people in the world--that most villains are really misguided, confused, or simply (and sadly) stupid--I try to make my antagonists human and sympathetic. Because I understand that everyone struggles with weaknesses and fears, I always make my heros flawed. It enriches the story.
But there's another facet of my personality that enriches my stories, and I've been noticing this trait's existence with increasing trepidation the past few years.
Grad school was the hardest thing I've ever done, and I got into a bad head-space because of it. I wound up stressed, depressed and at times extremely angry, and that state lasted for four years. I'm mostly over it now, but the anger didn't exactly go away. It changed form.
Meet "Goblin", my inner bitch. She's the part of me that can give blistering critiques without guilt--and usually without forethought. She's the half of me that enjoys grading students' work when they've done poorly. Goblin relishes participating in an online mocking community, because she gets to act like a sarcastic cunt there.
I'm ashamed of this facet of my personality. I'm a life-long pacifist, and I work as a teacher--a profession where I believe patience is the most enabling and helpful tactic we can adopt. I believe in kindness as a way of life. Nothing makes me angrier than seeing people being mean or thoughtless to one another.
And yet, here's Goblin, who is extremely mean. I know the seed of her existed in me long before grad school, but she's well-defined and fully realized now, and she doesn't want to go away.
The question is, does Goblin have a valid place in my existence? Is she a good demon to have lurking in the back of my writer's brain?
One of the mantras of writing is "conflict on every page". I structure a lot of my dialogue as arguments (of varying civility) between characters. There's always tension, and there's usually snark. Goblin does that well. Sensitive character studies have their place in literature, but so does glorious, fangs-out bitchery. See Jane Austen.
I can make the argument that this darker aspect of my personality is harmless if I give it valid outlets, such as my writing or the mocking community (which attempts to ensure those mocked never find out about it). If I let Goblin have her fun, then I can, the rest of the time, be a positive and supportive person in everything that matters.
The problem is, it doesn't work that way. If I let Goblin out regularly, she starts sneaking out when she's not welcome. For example, I said something sharp to a student the other day, and that is not acceptable. I feel badly about it, and I'm annoyed at myself. This student happens to be a dick, but that's beside the point--how you treat people has nothing to do with who they are; it has to do with who you are. And I don't like who I was that day.
I haven't got a tidy conclusion or lesson to pull out of this post; this is something I'm struggling with. How deeply do you explore negativity? Do you have to occasionally kick your darker stories (and impulses) back into their corner to keep them from infecting your whole life? And if you do, does that weaken your writing? Are you strangling your career to protect your mental well-being? (If you are, it's the right choice, but I'm not really persuaded that writing nasty stories is bad for you.)
For now, I'm letting Goblin out on a short leash, and watching her closely, because I'm learning things. They're not fun lessons, however. I had to apologize to someone recently for a thoughtless comment, and I've lost a blogging buddy over something I still feel justified in saying, even if I regret the consequences. On the mocking community, I've found situations where it stops feeling like happy snarking and starts feeling like spite. There's a line between having a strong opinion and being a jerk, and Goblin--disturbing as she is--is teaching me exactly where that is.
~~~~~~~
What's your advice and opinion regarding this issue? Where do you, personally, draw the line between what you're willing to think about, and what you're not, in order to create a strong story? Have you ever abandoned a work because you didn't like what it was doing to your state of mind?
Or do you find getting those disturbing stories on the page actually lightens your mood, purges you of negative emotions? Is it a positive thing, for you, when you explore the darkest corners of your own mind? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
When I think about the personality traits that serve me best as a writer, empathy tops the list--and I have painful quantities of that one. I was the kid who got hysterical watching "Save The Children" fundraising programs. I'm the woman who really, really doesn't like thinking about where meat comes from. I used to live in an apartment that had mice, and I cried every bloody time my plucky mousetrap bagged another victim.
Being overly-sensitive has its downside, but it's extremely valuable to a writer. Empathy for others is the only thing that allows us to create a spectrum of characters. Because I believe there are few truly evil people in the world--that most villains are really misguided, confused, or simply (and sadly) stupid--I try to make my antagonists human and sympathetic. Because I understand that everyone struggles with weaknesses and fears, I always make my heros flawed. It enriches the story.
But there's another facet of my personality that enriches my stories, and I've been noticing this trait's existence with increasing trepidation the past few years.
Grad school was the hardest thing I've ever done, and I got into a bad head-space because of it. I wound up stressed, depressed and at times extremely angry, and that state lasted for four years. I'm mostly over it now, but the anger didn't exactly go away. It changed form.
Meet "Goblin", my inner bitch. She's the part of me that can give blistering critiques without guilt--and usually without forethought. She's the half of me that enjoys grading students' work when they've done poorly. Goblin relishes participating in an online mocking community, because she gets to act like a sarcastic cunt there.
I'm ashamed of this facet of my personality. I'm a life-long pacifist, and I work as a teacher--a profession where I believe patience is the most enabling and helpful tactic we can adopt. I believe in kindness as a way of life. Nothing makes me angrier than seeing people being mean or thoughtless to one another.
And yet, here's Goblin, who is extremely mean. I know the seed of her existed in me long before grad school, but she's well-defined and fully realized now, and she doesn't want to go away.
The question is, does Goblin have a valid place in my existence? Is she a good demon to have lurking in the back of my writer's brain?
One of the mantras of writing is "conflict on every page". I structure a lot of my dialogue as arguments (of varying civility) between characters. There's always tension, and there's usually snark. Goblin does that well. Sensitive character studies have their place in literature, but so does glorious, fangs-out bitchery. See Jane Austen.
I can make the argument that this darker aspect of my personality is harmless if I give it valid outlets, such as my writing or the mocking community (which attempts to ensure those mocked never find out about it). If I let Goblin have her fun, then I can, the rest of the time, be a positive and supportive person in everything that matters.
The problem is, it doesn't work that way. If I let Goblin out regularly, she starts sneaking out when she's not welcome. For example, I said something sharp to a student the other day, and that is not acceptable. I feel badly about it, and I'm annoyed at myself. This student happens to be a dick, but that's beside the point--how you treat people has nothing to do with who they are; it has to do with who you are. And I don't like who I was that day.
I haven't got a tidy conclusion or lesson to pull out of this post; this is something I'm struggling with. How deeply do you explore negativity? Do you have to occasionally kick your darker stories (and impulses) back into their corner to keep them from infecting your whole life? And if you do, does that weaken your writing? Are you strangling your career to protect your mental well-being? (If you are, it's the right choice, but I'm not really persuaded that writing nasty stories is bad for you.)
For now, I'm letting Goblin out on a short leash, and watching her closely, because I'm learning things. They're not fun lessons, however. I had to apologize to someone recently for a thoughtless comment, and I've lost a blogging buddy over something I still feel justified in saying, even if I regret the consequences. On the mocking community, I've found situations where it stops feeling like happy snarking and starts feeling like spite. There's a line between having a strong opinion and being a jerk, and Goblin--disturbing as she is--is teaching me exactly where that is.
~~~~~~~
What's your advice and opinion regarding this issue? Where do you, personally, draw the line between what you're willing to think about, and what you're not, in order to create a strong story? Have you ever abandoned a work because you didn't like what it was doing to your state of mind?
Or do you find getting those disturbing stories on the page actually lightens your mood, purges you of negative emotions? Is it a positive thing, for you, when you explore the darkest corners of your own mind? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Squealing like a squealy thing | Book Roast!
I'm am completely geeking for this beautiful object:
If you've ever played Dungeons & Dragons, you think you know what you're looking at.
But you don't.
This is a 20-sided die from the second century. It's Roman, it's made of glass, and it's about five centimetres (two inches) across.
I'm squealing like a love-struck piglet over this thingbecause wow! Who knew the ancient Romans played D&D? We waaaaaants it, my preciousss, we does...
~~~~~~~
And if you haven't already heard from all and sundry, a new blog has debuted to toast and roast the bravest of writers and their fine, fine books. Please click over to the Book Roast, where theabuse fun starts on Monday, and this week's victims guests of honour include:
Bernita Harris (Weirdly) - June 23
Therese Fowler (Souvenir) - June 24
Dennis Cass (Head Case) - June 25
Erica Orloff (The Roofer) - June 26
Doreen Orion (Queen of the Road) - June 27
If you've ever played Dungeons & Dragons, you think you know what you're looking at.
But you don't.
This is a 20-sided die from the second century. It's Roman, it's made of glass, and it's about five centimetres (two inches) across.
I'm squealing like a love-struck piglet over this thing
~~~~~~~
And if you haven't already heard from all and sundry, a new blog has debuted to toast and roast the bravest of writers and their fine, fine books. Please click over to the Book Roast, where the
Bernita Harris (Weirdly) - June 23
Therese Fowler (Souvenir) - June 24
Dennis Cass (Head Case) - June 25
Erica Orloff (The Roofer) - June 26
Doreen Orion (Queen of the Road) - June 27
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Seeing Opportunities
Warning: I discuss blood and gore here, in a modestly graphic way. Thou hast been warnéd.
I'm televisionally-challenged. El Husbando and I haven't lived in a house with a TV for about a decade. Thus, when we go to a friend's home to watch movies, it's quite a treat.
We saw Cloverfield last night, and I really enjoyed it, but the movie featured one cliché that annoys me in horror/thriller films. Someone gets a deep gash or bite, and then they proceed to run around. Okay, sure, when the ghoulie-monster is after you, you must run or die--but at some point you must also keel over from blood loss.
When I had gum grafts done, I made the mistake of walking down the street afterward. I got two blocks and then had to start spitting out mouthfuls of blood. From walking. The periodontist had stitched me up tight, but a sedate amble down the sidewalk set me leaking again. There is no way Susie Hero who got impaled through the shoulder should be able to run full tilt for three blocks, even on pure adrenaline. At the very least, she should wind up with her sweatshirt soaked red, her face drained grey, and in such deep shock she can't remember her own name. And then she should spend the rest of the movie deflated in her hidey-hole, incapable of even standing up.
And while I'm on the subject, movie injuries never seem to hurt enough. If I whack my finger in the cupboard door, it leaves me cranky and inclined to whine. In House of Wax, the main character has someone sew her mouth shut and snip the end of her finger off with bolt-cutters. Then she escapes, runs around heroically and makes coherent verbal plans with her brother.
Um...shouldn't she be whimpering in pain every time she has to move her lips? Shouldn't she grimace occasionally, or look down at the stump of her finger and burst into horrified tears? The lack of snivelling strikes me as unrealistic.
There are rich opportunities to be had in refusing to use narrative conveniences in your work. I wrote a story once that featured a character fainting from blood loss while he was trying to get himself to safety. It upped the tension of the story beautifully to have him slipping around, thinking flakey thoughts and occasionally waking up on the floor while the emergency gets worse around him. Keeping the situation realistic didn't just increase the stakes, either; it also gave me another level of conflict. People who suffer sudden blood loss become insanely, intolerably thirsty. When my protagonist was almost to safety, I had him spot a water faucet. Oh, the dilemma.
Writer Brenda Carre passed along to me a bit of advice she got from Donald Maass; when you see something that annoys you in the books you read, put it into your own work and make sure you (unlike everyone else) get it right. Every time you see something that makes you go, "Yeah, right...", that's something you can use--it's a cliché or a plot convenience you can overturn in order to slap your reader with the verisimilitude of the worlds you create. It's something you can potentially shock the reader with when you flip their preconceived notions inside-out.
In other words, when you see a cliché in someone else's work, it's really an opportunity for your own. Use it!
~~~~~~~
What bits of illogic annoy you in books (and films)? Have you ever made a point of skewering that logic in your own work, or found a book that does so brilliantly? If you could convince Hollywood to flip one ubiquitous cliché inside-out, which one would it be? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I'm televisionally-challenged. El Husbando and I haven't lived in a house with a TV for about a decade. Thus, when we go to a friend's home to watch movies, it's quite a treat.
We saw Cloverfield last night, and I really enjoyed it, but the movie featured one cliché that annoys me in horror/thriller films. Someone gets a deep gash or bite, and then they proceed to run around. Okay, sure, when the ghoulie-monster is after you, you must run or die--but at some point you must also keel over from blood loss.
When I had gum grafts done, I made the mistake of walking down the street afterward. I got two blocks and then had to start spitting out mouthfuls of blood. From walking. The periodontist had stitched me up tight, but a sedate amble down the sidewalk set me leaking again. There is no way Susie Hero who got impaled through the shoulder should be able to run full tilt for three blocks, even on pure adrenaline. At the very least, she should wind up with her sweatshirt soaked red, her face drained grey, and in such deep shock she can't remember her own name. And then she should spend the rest of the movie deflated in her hidey-hole, incapable of even standing up.
And while I'm on the subject, movie injuries never seem to hurt enough. If I whack my finger in the cupboard door, it leaves me cranky and inclined to whine. In House of Wax, the main character has someone sew her mouth shut and snip the end of her finger off with bolt-cutters. Then she escapes, runs around heroically and makes coherent verbal plans with her brother.
Um...shouldn't she be whimpering in pain every time she has to move her lips? Shouldn't she grimace occasionally, or look down at the stump of her finger and burst into horrified tears? The lack of snivelling strikes me as unrealistic.
There are rich opportunities to be had in refusing to use narrative conveniences in your work. I wrote a story once that featured a character fainting from blood loss while he was trying to get himself to safety. It upped the tension of the story beautifully to have him slipping around, thinking flakey thoughts and occasionally waking up on the floor while the emergency gets worse around him. Keeping the situation realistic didn't just increase the stakes, either; it also gave me another level of conflict. People who suffer sudden blood loss become insanely, intolerably thirsty. When my protagonist was almost to safety, I had him spot a water faucet. Oh, the dilemma.
Writer Brenda Carre passed along to me a bit of advice she got from Donald Maass; when you see something that annoys you in the books you read, put it into your own work and make sure you (unlike everyone else) get it right. Every time you see something that makes you go, "Yeah, right...", that's something you can use--it's a cliché or a plot convenience you can overturn in order to slap your reader with the verisimilitude of the worlds you create. It's something you can potentially shock the reader with when you flip their preconceived notions inside-out.
In other words, when you see a cliché in someone else's work, it's really an opportunity for your own. Use it!
~~~~~~~
What bits of illogic annoy you in books (and films)? Have you ever made a point of skewering that logic in your own work, or found a book that does so brilliantly? If you could convince Hollywood to flip one ubiquitous cliché inside-out, which one would it be? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sneaky Bastards
Who’s a sneaky bastard? Us writers. One of the most satisfying things to do to your readers is surprise them while still giving them the story ending that feels right. And surprises are built of sneakiness, because in order for the surprise to seem believable, it needs to be foreshadowed without the audience figuring out what’s coming.
To build a good surprise--the protagonist wiggles her way out of a seemingly impossible dilemma--I like to try to think up something involving non-linear cleverness, something that works but isn’t an obvious solution.
Example: In Gone With the Wind, Scarlett O’Hara pulls down the curtains and gets herself a new dress to impress/fool Rhett with.
To build a nasty surprise, I try to engage in some paranoid fantasies. What’s the nastiest truth that can underlie what appears to be true?
Example: What if Heidi and Spencer only trash-talk Lauren Conrad to market Lauren’s name? After all, the nastier their comment, the more widely it will be reported, and while the public easily ignores advertising campaigns, everyone pays attention to a good cat-fight.
Building surprises is one of the things I find most fun about constructing a plot--what’s the most diabolical shocker I can create that is completely believable when viewed with hindsight? Terry Pratchett said that writing is the most fun anyone can have alone, and when I find myself chortling over my own (hopefully successful) literary sneakiness, I agree with him.
~~~~~~~~
What’s your favourite bit of writer-perpetrated sneakiness? Please feel free to mention either your own or another writer’s. I'd love to hear about the best jaw-dropper you’ve ever encountered, or created, in a story.
To build a good surprise--the protagonist wiggles her way out of a seemingly impossible dilemma--I like to try to think up something involving non-linear cleverness, something that works but isn’t an obvious solution.
Example: In Gone With the Wind, Scarlett O’Hara pulls down the curtains and gets herself a new dress to impress/fool Rhett with.
To build a nasty surprise, I try to engage in some paranoid fantasies. What’s the nastiest truth that can underlie what appears to be true?
Example: What if Heidi and Spencer only trash-talk Lauren Conrad to market Lauren’s name? After all, the nastier their comment, the more widely it will be reported, and while the public easily ignores advertising campaigns, everyone pays attention to a good cat-fight.
Building surprises is one of the things I find most fun about constructing a plot--what’s the most diabolical shocker I can create that is completely believable when viewed with hindsight? Terry Pratchett said that writing is the most fun anyone can have alone, and when I find myself chortling over my own (hopefully successful) literary sneakiness, I agree with him.
~~~~~~~~
What’s your favourite bit of writer-perpetrated sneakiness? Please feel free to mention either your own or another writer’s. I'd love to hear about the best jaw-dropper you’ve ever encountered, or created, in a story.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Another Reason Why S/He's Just Not That Into You
I'm reading Stephen King's The Stand, and my impressions so far are about what you would expect: it's well-written, the characters are empathetic, and the story pulls you along from page to page.
But it's scary, darn it. The faceless man who stares out of the cornfield in people's dreams? Eep.
I don't think this is even supposed to be one of Mr. King's more terrifying books. I'm just a wimp. But this has got me thinking about why certain people won't read certain genres.
One reason people read is for catharsis. We test-drive emotions we often wouldn't want in real life, like the angst and relief of a good romance, the terror and relief of a good horror, or the tension and relief of a good thriller. However, there are certain emotions some of us don't enjoy, even as a voyeur, even if there is relief waiting at the end of the book.
Here's a non-literary example of this effect: I love rock climbing, but only if I trust my rope setup and belay partner. There's something glorious about being balanced on a wall of warm, silver stone and being able to look back over your shoulder at some incredibly view of mountains, sea and sky. You're all alone up there and that view is all for you.
However, if you pair me with a belay partner whose skills I'm not confident in, my pleasure evaporates. Suddenly I have sweaty fingers and I'm too tense, which makes my muscles tire too quickly. I don't pause to enjoy the view because all I want is to get safely back on the ground. I do not climb for the thrill of it, because I don't enjoy fear.
Hence, I'm not enjoying the scary bits of The Stand. Terror is not an emotion I like to dabble in, even for fun.
It's strange that to enjoy a book, we have to be able to suspend our sense of disbelief and really feel the emotions of the story, yet not feel them so intensely that the story becomes too devastating to tolerate. There's a reason why the publishing industry wouldn't touch terrorism stories for a long time after 9/11; most editors and agents live in New York and work in Manhattan. They were there. The subject wasn't something they could enjoy; they didn't have any emotional distance from it.
I think it's best to aim for emotional truth in your writing, because un-involving stories have no chance on the market, but when your subject matter is both dark and intense, that can limit your audience. It's up to you as an artist to decide where the line is drawn, but there is merit to having the really rough stuff happen off the page. To become a hit, a story must resonate with a large number of people, but at the same time, it cannot stir up feelings that the majority of those people can't handle.
~~~~~~~
What emotional situations do you lap up when you read a book, and does that inform your book choices? Which situations make you hate even a well-written book? I'd love to hear your (darkest, scariest) thoughts!
But it's scary, darn it. The faceless man who stares out of the cornfield in people's dreams? Eep.
I don't think this is even supposed to be one of Mr. King's more terrifying books. I'm just a wimp. But this has got me thinking about why certain people won't read certain genres.
One reason people read is for catharsis. We test-drive emotions we often wouldn't want in real life, like the angst and relief of a good romance, the terror and relief of a good horror, or the tension and relief of a good thriller. However, there are certain emotions some of us don't enjoy, even as a voyeur, even if there is relief waiting at the end of the book.
Here's a non-literary example of this effect: I love rock climbing, but only if I trust my rope setup and belay partner. There's something glorious about being balanced on a wall of warm, silver stone and being able to look back over your shoulder at some incredibly view of mountains, sea and sky. You're all alone up there and that view is all for you.
However, if you pair me with a belay partner whose skills I'm not confident in, my pleasure evaporates. Suddenly I have sweaty fingers and I'm too tense, which makes my muscles tire too quickly. I don't pause to enjoy the view because all I want is to get safely back on the ground. I do not climb for the thrill of it, because I don't enjoy fear.
Hence, I'm not enjoying the scary bits of The Stand. Terror is not an emotion I like to dabble in, even for fun.
It's strange that to enjoy a book, we have to be able to suspend our sense of disbelief and really feel the emotions of the story, yet not feel them so intensely that the story becomes too devastating to tolerate. There's a reason why the publishing industry wouldn't touch terrorism stories for a long time after 9/11; most editors and agents live in New York and work in Manhattan. They were there. The subject wasn't something they could enjoy; they didn't have any emotional distance from it.
I think it's best to aim for emotional truth in your writing, because un-involving stories have no chance on the market, but when your subject matter is both dark and intense, that can limit your audience. It's up to you as an artist to decide where the line is drawn, but there is merit to having the really rough stuff happen off the page. To become a hit, a story must resonate with a large number of people, but at the same time, it cannot stir up feelings that the majority of those people can't handle.
~~~~~~~
What emotional situations do you lap up when you read a book, and does that inform your book choices? Which situations make you hate even a well-written book? I'd love to hear your (darkest, scariest) thoughts!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Dreams and Storytelling
Why do we love stories? I think humanity's passion for storytelling is due to the way the brain learns new things.
Researchers have found the following: If you teach a new task to a group of people, and that night disturb the sleep of half the group in such a way that they aren't able to dream, the non-dreaming group won't remember how to perform the task the next day. The dreaming group will--and will still remember how to perform it years later, too. We need to dream in order to learn.
And what's a dream? It's your brain telling itself a story.
Here's some of the most important things human beings do with their minds (while awake):
1) We figure out the logic that underlies the world we see
2) We find solutions to our problems
3) We witness the struggles of others, and when we see someone else come up with a good idea, we recognize it as such and appropriate it for our own use
If you think about what a story is, it's a narrative which describes a person figuring out a solution to a problem and thereby coming to a greater understanding of their self or their world. In other words, your protagonist is performing activities (1) and (2) above, while your reader is engaged in activity (3).
There's obviously more than that involved in the enjoyment of stories, but I do think the reason we like them in the first place is because we evolved to watch others and try to learn from them. If you think about humanity's most ancient forms of storytelling, they were usually lessons, and they always tried to make sense of both the world and the human condition.
A story is a conscious dream. We love stories because we're all hungry to know how to navigate our lives, and that's what dreams are for--literally. Dreaming is what builds our understanding of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does that theory seem reasonable to you? Does it sound insane? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments! And remember that dissent is always welcome here, so long as it's polite. :-)
Researchers have found the following: If you teach a new task to a group of people, and that night disturb the sleep of half the group in such a way that they aren't able to dream, the non-dreaming group won't remember how to perform the task the next day. The dreaming group will--and will still remember how to perform it years later, too. We need to dream in order to learn.
And what's a dream? It's your brain telling itself a story.
Here's some of the most important things human beings do with their minds (while awake):
1) We figure out the logic that underlies the world we see
2) We find solutions to our problems
3) We witness the struggles of others, and when we see someone else come up with a good idea, we recognize it as such and appropriate it for our own use
If you think about what a story is, it's a narrative which describes a person figuring out a solution to a problem and thereby coming to a greater understanding of their self or their world. In other words, your protagonist is performing activities (1) and (2) above, while your reader is engaged in activity (3).
There's obviously more than that involved in the enjoyment of stories, but I do think the reason we like them in the first place is because we evolved to watch others and try to learn from them. If you think about humanity's most ancient forms of storytelling, they were usually lessons, and they always tried to make sense of both the world and the human condition.
A story is a conscious dream. We love stories because we're all hungry to know how to navigate our lives, and that's what dreams are for--literally. Dreaming is what builds our understanding of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does that theory seem reasonable to you? Does it sound insane? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments! And remember that dissent is always welcome here, so long as it's polite. :-)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Comedy and Karma
Human beings are social creatures, and that means we have in-built mechanisms that protect and nurture society. We have a sense of fairness, and we're usually kind and generous. We also are capable of empathy--we can look at another human being and see ourselves there, or at least see what we might have been had we lived that other person's life.
When a writer creates a story, that writer must establish the reader's empathy with the protagonist. If the audience doesn't connect via their hearts to the hero, they can't sustain the energy required to keep reading the book.
So you always want to go groping after reader empathy, right? That's always a good thing to get? Not always, actually; there's one important exception.
If you're writing comedy, reader empathy can be a bad thing. No one laughs if they believe someone innocent really got hurt.
The film A Fish Called Wanda has a scene where a concrete block falls on and kills a small, yappy dog. The director filmed two versions of that scene, one where you see a lone paw twitching under the massive block, and another where you see the same thing except with blood and guts leaking out. When the movie was shown to test audiences, the “clean” version got laughs. The gory version made the audience go utterly silent. “Poor doggie” was the wrong response, so the tidier death is the one featured in the finished movie.
Humour is very often about rage and pain. Think about Dennis Miller's routines--the guy is furious and he's verbally attacking everything that makes him angry. Now think about John Cleese's skits, many of which investigate all the myriad, humiliating ways in which life hurts. No wonder comedy is tricky; you have to take anger and turn it into someone else's laughter. You have to depict pain and evoke derision, not sympathy. People are basically nice, so this isn't easy.
If you want your readers to laugh, you have to communicate that the comedy didn't really hurt anyone who counts.
“[D]idn't really hurt” means it's fine to drop the loveable protagonist into the piranha tank if she comes out with only a single fish attached to her nose. It's okay for the hero to get frothing mad if he externalizes his anger and goes on an absurd attack; the reader knows he isn't going to have lasting psychological damage from his anger.
“[A]nyone who counts” means if the villain is so nasty we think he deserved his pain, we don't feel bad about giggling at his grisly downfall. If the person who blundered into the wedding cake and came up slathered in icing with a small groom sticking out of her ear is so ridiculous that we have no empathy for her, then we'll happily guffaw at her humiliation.
Which brings me back to humanity's innate sense of fairness. Jim Butcher's excellent articles on writing note that the key to delivering a satisfying conclusion to the reader is to deliver poetic justice to your characters. Those who make selfish or stupid decisions are punished. Those who make wise and selfless decisions are rewarded. Humans really are built to believe in justice, and we love to see stories where our sense of what is right is upheld. We like seeing karma in action.
So when you write comedy, think carefully about how much audience empathy each character has, then deliver no more misery than what the audience believes that character deserves. If you don't provide poetic justice, then no matter how wonderful the rest of your story was, the reader puts your book down with the nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right. It can kill the positive word-of-mouth your writing might have elicited from that reader otherwise.
~~~
How have you handled humour in your writing? In your stories, what got the laughs? Did you show ridiculous behaviour, or did you skewer ridiculous behaviour? Did you let the reader recognize something familiar but funny, or did you show them the familiar and then twist all their perceptions, i.e. deliver the equivalent of a punchline? What humour techniques work for you?
When a writer creates a story, that writer must establish the reader's empathy with the protagonist. If the audience doesn't connect via their hearts to the hero, they can't sustain the energy required to keep reading the book.
So you always want to go groping after reader empathy, right? That's always a good thing to get? Not always, actually; there's one important exception.
If you're writing comedy, reader empathy can be a bad thing. No one laughs if they believe someone innocent really got hurt.
The film A Fish Called Wanda has a scene where a concrete block falls on and kills a small, yappy dog. The director filmed two versions of that scene, one where you see a lone paw twitching under the massive block, and another where you see the same thing except with blood and guts leaking out. When the movie was shown to test audiences, the “clean” version got laughs. The gory version made the audience go utterly silent. “Poor doggie” was the wrong response, so the tidier death is the one featured in the finished movie.
Humour is very often about rage and pain. Think about Dennis Miller's routines--the guy is furious and he's verbally attacking everything that makes him angry. Now think about John Cleese's skits, many of which investigate all the myriad, humiliating ways in which life hurts. No wonder comedy is tricky; you have to take anger and turn it into someone else's laughter. You have to depict pain and evoke derision, not sympathy. People are basically nice, so this isn't easy.
If you want your readers to laugh, you have to communicate that the comedy didn't really hurt anyone who counts.
“[D]idn't really hurt” means it's fine to drop the loveable protagonist into the piranha tank if she comes out with only a single fish attached to her nose. It's okay for the hero to get frothing mad if he externalizes his anger and goes on an absurd attack; the reader knows he isn't going to have lasting psychological damage from his anger.
“[A]nyone who counts” means if the villain is so nasty we think he deserved his pain, we don't feel bad about giggling at his grisly downfall. If the person who blundered into the wedding cake and came up slathered in icing with a small groom sticking out of her ear is so ridiculous that we have no empathy for her, then we'll happily guffaw at her humiliation.
Which brings me back to humanity's innate sense of fairness. Jim Butcher's excellent articles on writing note that the key to delivering a satisfying conclusion to the reader is to deliver poetic justice to your characters. Those who make selfish or stupid decisions are punished. Those who make wise and selfless decisions are rewarded. Humans really are built to believe in justice, and we love to see stories where our sense of what is right is upheld. We like seeing karma in action.
So when you write comedy, think carefully about how much audience empathy each character has, then deliver no more misery than what the audience believes that character deserves. If you don't provide poetic justice, then no matter how wonderful the rest of your story was, the reader puts your book down with the nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right. It can kill the positive word-of-mouth your writing might have elicited from that reader otherwise.
~~~
How have you handled humour in your writing? In your stories, what got the laughs? Did you show ridiculous behaviour, or did you skewer ridiculous behaviour? Did you let the reader recognize something familiar but funny, or did you show them the familiar and then twist all their perceptions, i.e. deliver the equivalent of a punchline? What humour techniques work for you?
MemeMemeMeme...
Curses and alas, I am tagged by the very talented Julie Weathers!
1. The rules of the game get posted at the beginning.
2. Each player answers the questions about themselves.
3. At the end of the post, the player then tags 5-6 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know they’ve been tagged and asking them to read the player’s blog.
4. Let the person who tagged you know when you’ve posted your answer.
A Meme about Various Things
What were you doing ten years ago?
Graduating university wearing strappy, sexy five-inch heels I eventually regretted.
(Recall from the last meme I am six feet tall in my socks. I like dressing up girly once in a while, but high heels are always a mistake. I frighten small children and look like a drag queen.)
What are five things on your to-do list for today (not in any particular order)?
Pee (don't laugh; that's first on my list of things to do in the morning)
Eat
Write
Don't get distracted from writing by the shiny internet (Doh!)
Get dressed at some point
What are some snacks you enjoy?
Most variations on the theme of carbohydrates and fat
What would you do if you were a billionaire?
Set up a charity that provides birth control for free to those who can't afford it--particularly those in poverty-stricken countries where being able to control how many kids you have, and when, might give you a fighting chance of making sure all your children live to adulthood.
Either that or set up my own space program.
What are three of your bad habits?
Most variations on the theme of carbohydrates and fat
Laziness Procrastination
Doing hermit imitations
What are five places where you have lived?
(I shall keep this vague, since I don't believe in giving out too much personal information on the internet.)
The prairies
The arctic
The prairies again
Here where there be mountains and ocean and culture, oh my!
(There isn't a fifth one)
What are five jobs you have had?
Paper carrier
Cleaning lady
The photocopier's sex-slave
Assembly technician for the BaBar drift chamber, now installed at SLAC
Laboratory instructor
What were the last five books you read?
See here.
What are five web sites you visit daily (in no particular order)?
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What, I'm supposed to pick just five? Inconceivable!
What’s playing on your iPod right now?
iPod? Wazzat?
I'm supposed to tag five people. Won't! Shan't! But if you'd like to do this meme, feel free and drop me a comment here; I'll link to your post.
1. The rules of the game get posted at the beginning.
2. Each player answers the questions about themselves.
3. At the end of the post, the player then tags 5-6 people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know they’ve been tagged and asking them to read the player’s blog.
4. Let the person who tagged you know when you’ve posted your answer.
A Meme about Various Things
What were you doing ten years ago?
Graduating university wearing strappy, sexy five-inch heels I eventually regretted.
(Recall from the last meme I am six feet tall in my socks. I like dressing up girly once in a while, but high heels are always a mistake. I frighten small children and look like a drag queen.)
What are five things on your to-do list for today (not in any particular order)?
Pee (don't laugh; that's first on my list of things to do in the morning)
Eat
Write
Don't get distracted from writing by the shiny internet (Doh!)
Get dressed at some point
What are some snacks you enjoy?
Most variations on the theme of carbohydrates and fat
What would you do if you were a billionaire?
Set up a charity that provides birth control for free to those who can't afford it--particularly those in poverty-stricken countries where being able to control how many kids you have, and when, might give you a fighting chance of making sure all your children live to adulthood.
Either that or set up my own space program.
What are three of your bad habits?
Most variations on the theme of carbohydrates and fat
Doing hermit imitations
What are five places where you have lived?
(I shall keep this vague, since I don't believe in giving out too much personal information on the internet.)
The prairies
The arctic
The prairies again
Here where there be mountains and ocean and culture, oh my!
(There isn't a fifth one)
What are five jobs you have had?
Paper carrier
Cleaning lady
The photocopier's sex-slave
Assembly technician for the BaBar drift chamber, now installed at SLAC
Laboratory instructor
What were the last five books you read?
See here.
What are five web sites you visit daily (in no particular order)?
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What, I'm supposed to pick just five? Inconceivable!
What’s playing on your iPod right now?
iPod? Wazzat?
I'm supposed to tag five people. Won't! Shan't! But if you'd like to do this meme, feel free and drop me a comment here; I'll link to your post.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
KNEW YA COULD DOO EET, CON-DU-EET!!
Congratulations with sprinkles on top to Stuart Neville, a.k.a Conduit for not just getting an agent, but getting Nat Sobel as an agent! Squee!
It couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow, but it's also hardly a surprise, because Stuart's writing is just that darned good. I hope to be buying his books soon!
Everyone rattle your pom-poms and give it up for Conduit! YAYSES AND HURRAH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And in other news, real life is kickin' my butt this week. My apologies for not getting a post up this weekend and my deepest genuflects and grovellings for not having replied to anyone's comments in a while.
*GrovelGrovelCurtseyGrovelI'mSoSorryGrovel*
It couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow, but it's also hardly a surprise, because Stuart's writing is just that darned good. I hope to be buying his books soon!
Everyone rattle your pom-poms and give it up for Conduit! YAYSES AND HURRAH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And in other news, real life is kickin' my butt this week. My apologies for not getting a post up this weekend and my deepest genuflects and grovellings for not having replied to anyone's comments in a while.
*GrovelGrovelCurtseyGrovelI'mSoSorryGrovel*
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Evaporating Pigeons
The principle of conservation of matter is being challenged by pigeons.
Allow me to back up.
Last year, a pigeon laid an egg on our deck. Yes, some people hate pigeons, but we thought mommy-pigeon was quite adorable. Unfortunately, one day while we were at work, the egg tipped off its precarious perch and broke. Mommy-pigeon then disappeared.
And so did the egg shells.
We found the yolk and white lying in a puddle on our deck that evening, but no shells. And just how does a pigeon sweep up and dispose of broken egg shells?
Flash forward to this year. Another pigeon (or perhaps the same one?) laid an egg in one of our planters. We were again charmed, and put out birdseed and a water dish for her. Her mate popped by regularly to trade off on the egg-sitting with her, and we became one big happy pigeon-human family (meaning they probably thought of us as the embarrassing in-laws who kept dropping by to visit.)
According to The Great Spider-God of Wisdom (Google), the gestation period of pigeon eggs would put hatching day right...about......now.
Today, I peeped over the shrubbery to check how mommy-pigeon was doing and found--
Nothing.
No Pigeon. No pigeon-baby. No egg. No egg shells.
Solid pigeon (as opposed to liquid pigeon) is apparently capable of de-materializing.
Egads; no wonder they seemed poised to take over the world. Next time you get pooped on by a bird you didn't see? Consider the possibility that you couldn't have seen it. They're breeding stealth-pigeons, I tell you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All silliness aside, I feel a bit down tonight. A childhood friend just called to let me know her dad passed away last night. He had only been ill for about a month and was certainly too young to go. He was also a wonderful fellow--joyful, zany, warm-hearted and ferociously loyal to his family, and he never let adversity even faze him. He had a weak leg due to having polio as a child, but he wore shorts and went hiking regardless. If the leg gave out and sent him tumbling, he'd be back up and laughing about it in a second. I'll really miss him.
Happy journeys, Doug. They've got an awesome walking stick and a brand new leg waiting for you in heaven; you're going to love it there.
Allow me to back up.
Last year, a pigeon laid an egg on our deck. Yes, some people hate pigeons, but we thought mommy-pigeon was quite adorable. Unfortunately, one day while we were at work, the egg tipped off its precarious perch and broke. Mommy-pigeon then disappeared.
And so did the egg shells.
We found the yolk and white lying in a puddle on our deck that evening, but no shells. And just how does a pigeon sweep up and dispose of broken egg shells?
Flash forward to this year. Another pigeon (or perhaps the same one?) laid an egg in one of our planters. We were again charmed, and put out birdseed and a water dish for her. Her mate popped by regularly to trade off on the egg-sitting with her, and we became one big happy pigeon-human family (meaning they probably thought of us as the embarrassing in-laws who kept dropping by to visit.)
According to The Great Spider-God of Wisdom (Google), the gestation period of pigeon eggs would put hatching day right...about......now.
Today, I peeped over the shrubbery to check how mommy-pigeon was doing and found--
Nothing.
No Pigeon. No pigeon-baby. No egg. No egg shells.
Solid pigeon (as opposed to liquid pigeon) is apparently capable of de-materializing.
Egads; no wonder they seemed poised to take over the world. Next time you get pooped on by a bird you didn't see? Consider the possibility that you couldn't have seen it. They're breeding stealth-pigeons, I tell you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All silliness aside, I feel a bit down tonight. A childhood friend just called to let me know her dad passed away last night. He had only been ill for about a month and was certainly too young to go. He was also a wonderful fellow--joyful, zany, warm-hearted and ferociously loyal to his family, and he never let adversity even faze him. He had a weak leg due to having polio as a child, but he wore shorts and went hiking regardless. If the leg gave out and sent him tumbling, he'd be back up and laughing about it in a second. I'll really miss him.
Happy journeys, Doug. They've got an awesome walking stick and a brand new leg waiting for you in heaven; you're going to love it there.
Friday, May 02, 2008
You Are All So Frighteningly Talented!
First of all, thank you to Travis Erwin, who not only entered the Happy 100 contest but also linked to it and thereby brought some very talented writers (including himself) here. I really appreciate it, Travis!
Eight brave souls oiled up their sleekest 100-word flash fiction, dressed it in its finest spandex and spurs, then hurled it into the ring to scrum for thenot completely lame prize of the Happy 100 contest!
And they were all so darned good. If you haven't already, please go read the entries and give the authors some well-deserved adulation. I was truly impressed with the high quality of the submissions and found it hard to choose a winner. I liked each and every story--so well done, competitors!
There's only one winner, but I've picked two runners-up also because I loved their stories so much I'd like the excuse to say so publicly. Unfortunately, the runners-up don't get any prize other than being added to my blog roll. *points to the right*
Drum-roll, please.
In third place, with this wonderfully funny story:
Mom In Scrubs!
In second place, with this also-hysterical story:
Reid Kerr!
And, without any further pregnant pauses to drive you out of your mind with impatience, the winning entry is this atmospheric bit of creepy-beautiful, which is brain-squeezings of:
Josh Vogt!
Congratulations Josh! I agree with Writtenwyrdd's comment: I love that haunting last line. Please email me at:
jen_deben
(at)
yahoo
(dot)
ca
and let me know what email address you'd like me to send your Amazon gift certificate to.
Thank you to everyone who entered; this was great fun and I really was thrilled with the quality of the entries. Come back in another 100 posts to try again! :-D
Eight brave souls oiled up their sleekest 100-word flash fiction, dressed it in its finest spandex and spurs, then hurled it into the ring to scrum for the
And they were all so darned good. If you haven't already, please go read the entries and give the authors some well-deserved adulation. I was truly impressed with the high quality of the submissions and found it hard to choose a winner. I liked each and every story--so well done, competitors!
There's only one winner, but I've picked two runners-up also because I loved their stories so much I'd like the excuse to say so publicly. Unfortunately, the runners-up don't get any prize other than being added to my blog roll. *points to the right*
Drum-roll, please.
In third place, with this wonderfully funny story:
Mom In Scrubs!
In second place, with this also-hysterical story:
Reid Kerr!
And, without any further pregnant pauses to drive you out of your mind with impatience, the winning entry is this atmospheric bit of creepy-beautiful, which is brain-squeezings of:
Josh Vogt!
Congratulations Josh! I agree with Writtenwyrdd's comment: I love that haunting last line. Please email me at:
jen_deben
(at)
yahoo
(dot)
ca
and let me know what email address you'd like me to send your Amazon gift certificate to.
Thank you to everyone who entered; this was great fun and I really was thrilled with the quality of the entries. Come back in another 100 posts to try again! :-D
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Happy 100
This is my 100th blog post. Hurrah!
I missed my 1-year blogiversary by a few weeks, but hey--we're all still hungover from Evil Editor's rawkin' party, so the oversight comes as a massive relief to our virtual livers, I'm sure.
To celebrate my blog's odometer ticking over to zeroes again, I propose a contest! And to make it really interesting, I propose:
PRIZES!
(Picture that in blinky font; I dunno how to do blinky font.)
Aaaaand because I'm po' the prizes are in fact a prize, and a chintzy one at best: a $15CAD gift certificate to Amazon for the winner.
But you're all slavering like crazed beasts, right? You're pulsating in anticipation 'cause it's free, darn it, and free is like candy wrapped in bacon dipped in maple syrup and slathered with cream cheese, right?
Okay, so you're not quite that excited. Regardless! Here's the contest:
Write me a story exactly 100 words long. Being even one word too long or too short disqualifies you, although I will be lenient about sketchy cases like hyphenated composite nouns (e.g. "ten-year-old".)
Post it in the comments; you retain all rights (unless Blogger steals 'em; I haven't checked their fine print.)
The story can be about anything you like, and the winner will be chosen by the thoroughly dodgey criterion of having been the story I liked best (humour is always a safe bet.) Commenters may sway me with their eloquent online votes. There is no limit on the number of times you can enter!
Tell your friends. Tell your neighbours. Tell that hairy guy at the bus stop who wears no pants under his trench coat.
The deadline is Friday, May 2nd, 7 PM Pacific Daylight Time (i.e. expect whiny snivelling and self-pity from me if nobody enters by then.) The winner will need to provide me with an email address to send the gift certificate to.
*Grins wildly and fires the starter's pistol*
Fine Print: Comments on the stories are encouraged, but only if they are complimentary, i.e. this is not a critique session, so all negative comments--even if constructive and polite--will be deleted. Only say nice stuff, okay? Okay. Thanks for your cooperation, guys!
I missed my 1-year blogiversary by a few weeks, but hey--we're all still hungover from Evil Editor's rawkin' party, so the oversight comes as a massive relief to our virtual livers, I'm sure.
To celebrate my blog's odometer ticking over to zeroes again, I propose a contest! And to make it really interesting, I propose:
PRIZES!
(Picture that in blinky font; I dunno how to do blinky font.)
Aaaaand because I'm po' the prizes are in fact a prize, and a chintzy one at best: a $15CAD gift certificate to Amazon for the winner.
But you're all slavering like crazed beasts, right? You're pulsating in anticipation 'cause it's free, darn it, and free is like candy wrapped in bacon dipped in maple syrup and slathered with cream cheese, right?
Okay, so you're not quite that excited. Regardless! Here's the contest:
Write me a story exactly 100 words long. Being even one word too long or too short disqualifies you, although I will be lenient about sketchy cases like hyphenated composite nouns (e.g. "ten-year-old".)
Post it in the comments; you retain all rights (unless Blogger steals 'em; I haven't checked their fine print.)
The story can be about anything you like, and the winner will be chosen by the thoroughly dodgey criterion of having been the story I liked best (humour is always a safe bet.) Commenters may sway me with their eloquent online votes. There is no limit on the number of times you can enter!
Tell your friends. Tell your neighbours. Tell that hairy guy at the bus stop who wears no pants under his trench coat.
The deadline is Friday, May 2nd, 7 PM Pacific Daylight Time (i.e. expect whiny snivelling and self-pity from me if nobody enters by then.) The winner will need to provide me with an email address to send the gift certificate to.
*Grins wildly and fires the starter's pistol*
Fine Print: Comments on the stories are encouraged, but only if they are complimentary, i.e. this is not a critique session, so all negative comments--even if constructive and polite--will be deleted. Only say nice stuff, okay? Okay. Thanks for your cooperation, guys!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Ode to an Evil Editor
Oh, Evil Editor, breaker of hearts, scourge of the querily-challenged, snarky friend to writers--happy two-year anniversary, O Hallowed Bearer of the Sideburns of Sarcasm! Who loves ya, baby? WE DO! WE DO!
Genesis of an Evil Editor
There once was a harried poor editor
Who frothed at the queries coming in his door
He told the authors they stank,
And their writing was rank
But the fools just flocked back for more
"You're so funny!" they squealed,
"And you give us feedback for real!
O Editor, it's you we adore!"
So he rolled bloodshot eyes
And heaved a great sigh
Then gave in and put on some horns
Now Evil rules all it surveys
And in blogland, the writers chant and sway
Adoring their Editor
Whose eyeballs are still sore
But whose blue pen bad queries will slay!
(Speaking of blogversaries, I missed my own by several weeks. My next post will be my 100th, however, so I'll do something special for that one.)
Genesis of an Evil Editor
There once was a harried poor editor
Who frothed at the queries coming in his door
He told the authors they stank,
And their writing was rank
But the fools just flocked back for more
"You're so funny!" they squealed,
"And you give us feedback for real!
O Editor, it's you we adore!"
So he rolled bloodshot eyes
And heaved a great sigh
Then gave in and put on some horns
Now Evil rules all it surveys
And in blogland, the writers chant and sway
Adoring their Editor
Whose eyeballs are still sore
But whose blue pen bad queries will slay!
(Speaking of blogversaries, I missed my own by several weeks. My next post will be my 100th, however, so I'll do something special for that one.)
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
MemeMemeMeme...
I've been tagged, dagnabbit! Please pop by Merry Monteleone's site to read her six interesting facts, but I warn you--her first entry will make you crave sugary badness liek woah. I'm still salivating.
The rules:
a. Link to the person who tagged you.
b. Post the rules on your blog.
c. Write six random things about yourself.
d. Tag six random people at the end of your post by linking to their blogs.
e. Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a comment at their blog.
f. Let your tagger know when your entry is up.
Six Weird Things About Me:
1: I'm allergic to pretty much all food. Really. I would die without medicine.
2: I'm really good at drawing and painting, enough so that everyone assumed (when I was a kid) I would become an artist. Instead, I got a master's degree in Physics.
3: You've heard that most people dream in black and white? It isn't true. We all dream in colour but most of us forget the colours. Me, however? I remember my dreams in vivid, amazing colour--but I forget all the sound. I know people speak and even sing in my dreams, but I always remember the dreams as being silent.
4: Speaking of sound, I have a lot of trouble remembering things someone says to me; if they write it down and show it to me, I can often memorize the information at a glance.
5: I can't whistle. I've been trying to figure it out since childhood; I just can't make that sound.
6: How appropriate is this for the sixth fact? I stand six feet tall in my socks.
Tag six people? Oh...I always hate doing that. I'm the dork who (bravely! It's brave! Bad luck, and all, ya know.) breaks chain letters, too.
Instead, I'll just leave this as an open tag. If Six Weird Things sounds like a fun thing to do on your blog, considered yourself tagged! And if you let me know you've snatched up that gauntlet, I'll link to your blog here.
The rules:
a. Link to the person who tagged you.
b. Post the rules on your blog.
c. Write six random things about yourself.
d. Tag six random people at the end of your post by linking to their blogs.
e. Let each person know they have been tagged by leaving a comment at their blog.
f. Let your tagger know when your entry is up.
Six Weird Things About Me:
1: I'm allergic to pretty much all food. Really. I would die without medicine.
2: I'm really good at drawing and painting, enough so that everyone assumed (when I was a kid) I would become an artist. Instead, I got a master's degree in Physics.
3: You've heard that most people dream in black and white? It isn't true. We all dream in colour but most of us forget the colours. Me, however? I remember my dreams in vivid, amazing colour--but I forget all the sound. I know people speak and even sing in my dreams, but I always remember the dreams as being silent.
4: Speaking of sound, I have a lot of trouble remembering things someone says to me; if they write it down and show it to me, I can often memorize the information at a glance.
5: I can't whistle. I've been trying to figure it out since childhood; I just can't make that sound.
6: How appropriate is this for the sixth fact? I stand six feet tall in my socks.
Tag six people? Oh...I always hate doing that. I'm the dork who (bravely! It's brave! Bad luck, and all, ya know.) breaks chain letters, too.
Instead, I'll just leave this as an open tag. If Six Weird Things sounds like a fun thing to do on your blog, considered yourself tagged! And if you let me know you've snatched up that gauntlet, I'll link to your blog here.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
If You Decided to Do It, Then It's Valid
What makes a book "publishable"?
We're told all that's required to get published is that we write a good book, but what does "good" mean?
I define "good" in this context to mean "enjoyable to others", but that's where the diversity of humanity comes in, because different people enjoy wildly different things. One person will read anything that has a great voice; another insists on an exciting plot; another wants magnificent writing foremost. One person's "good" is another person's "trashy drivel" or "pompous navel-gazing".
So if "good" can mean many things, what does "publishable" mean?
"Publishable" means the publisher can make a profit on that book. You can be a weak writer on a variety of fronts, and if there are enough people out there willing to buy your work, then it's publishable.
Conversely, you can be a spectacular writer and have your work still not be publishable. If there's only twenty-three people in the world brilliant enough to enjoy your writing, then it's not publishable.
But it's still worthy.
Your writing is valid, and valuable, even if it's not publishable. What you are doing has worth, even if it isn't considered to be worth money. By writing, you are sharpening your opinions and purging your emotional poisons. You are exercising your mind and proving your abilities to yourself. You're making worlds out of pure imagination, and that's pretty freakin' awesome, even if it isn't saleable.
By writing, you're engaging in one of only a handful of pursuits that make human beings great. Seriously: what you're doing is part of why you deserve to be called a person. This makes you alive in a way that simply eating and breathing don't. Compared to this, money is beside the point.
So keep writing and keep creating--and good luck in your pursuit of publication, too, because it's not like that isn't a worthy endeavour. Anything that helps you to become your best is; just remember that it's the writing that makes you amazing--not whether or not other people are willing to buy it.
~~~
And in other news, a pigeon laid an egg on our deck. :-)
We're told all that's required to get published is that we write a good book, but what does "good" mean?
I define "good" in this context to mean "enjoyable to others", but that's where the diversity of humanity comes in, because different people enjoy wildly different things. One person will read anything that has a great voice; another insists on an exciting plot; another wants magnificent writing foremost. One person's "good" is another person's "trashy drivel" or "pompous navel-gazing".
So if "good" can mean many things, what does "publishable" mean?
"Publishable" means the publisher can make a profit on that book. You can be a weak writer on a variety of fronts, and if there are enough people out there willing to buy your work, then it's publishable.
Conversely, you can be a spectacular writer and have your work still not be publishable. If there's only twenty-three people in the world brilliant enough to enjoy your writing, then it's not publishable.
But it's still worthy.
Your writing is valid, and valuable, even if it's not publishable. What you are doing has worth, even if it isn't considered to be worth money. By writing, you are sharpening your opinions and purging your emotional poisons. You are exercising your mind and proving your abilities to yourself. You're making worlds out of pure imagination, and that's pretty freakin' awesome, even if it isn't saleable.
By writing, you're engaging in one of only a handful of pursuits that make human beings great. Seriously: what you're doing is part of why you deserve to be called a person. This makes you alive in a way that simply eating and breathing don't. Compared to this, money is beside the point.
So keep writing and keep creating--and good luck in your pursuit of publication, too, because it's not like that isn't a worthy endeavour. Anything that helps you to become your best is; just remember that it's the writing that makes you amazing--not whether or not other people are willing to buy it.
~~~
And in other news, a pigeon laid an egg on our deck. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Pageloads since 01/01/2009:
