 |
Sailor Boy is on Reading Week right now, which means his natural proclivity for night-owlness is given free rein, owing to the fact that he no longer has to be awake for morning classes. As my schedule is, similarly, not subject to the clock, I’ve been adjusting to fit his, staying up all night and sleeping all morning as well.
It hasn’t affected the work; if anything, the change in Circadian rhythm has jump-started my creativity. One thinks different thoughts at three a.m. then one does at 11:30 a.m., and ideas that may seem too outlandish by the light of day seem like something worth trying in the middle of the night. Maybe the next morning it will turn out to be like a home perm, but maybe it be more like the time I put awesome magenta streaks in my hair and loved them like no one’s business.
But the weird thing, is, that’s okay. For instance, I just wrote a five page scene and then I looked at it, decided it wasn’t the best way to tackle that character’s introduction, and threw it out.* Five pages. It’s amazing!
However, it has made for some interesting conversations. Like the one we just had about the difference between a balustrade and a parapet, which was inspired by the fact that I wasn’t sure that the word for a parapet was, indeed, “parapet.” (It is.)
And the conversation we just had about what to eat at 12:50 a.m. We ate dinner at normal dinner hours, which is a bit more like lunch hours for people who sleep in, so now it’s more like dinner hours, and I’m hungry. But it feels weird to cook dinner this late, especially given that clanking around in the kitchen with pots and pans may upset my neighbors, who probably have nine-to-fives and hate us. Nevertheless, I’m hungry, and unlike Gizmo, I’m totally cool to eat after midnight.
Sailor Boy is eating Cool Ranch Doritos. I do not approve of this. I made some perfectly lovely chicken soup, from scratch, this evening, and for my late night snack, I chose Stoneyfield Farm mint double chocolate chip frozen yogurt, which is just about as far as you can get from fro-yo and still use the term.
_________________
* Put it in a cut file. I do not delete. I do not recommend deleting. You never know when you’ll need those pearls.
What the Donald Maass Agency is looking for in Single Title Romance this month. (If this doesn’t convince folks that the idea part is easy, I don’t know what will…)
Full day yesterday. I did a big bunch of Christmas shopping, talked to my editor about copy edits for ROS(B), and then spoke to a writing friend about revisions for Rampant.
Then I blogged about that over at Sven’s site. Check it out.
“I loved dipping into a world of Ivy League life and secret society rituals; this book really made a change from my usual reading. I felt exhilarated by Amy’s schedule of papers, meetings and romantic liaisons with the delicious George ‘Puck’ Harrison. In truth, I was compelled to snatch moments with this book until I had devoured the entire thing.
The third book in the series, The Rites of Spring (Break), is scheduled for next summer and I will definitely reach for another slice of this smart, exciting, and very witty world.”
Full review here.
We’re all talking about our “road to publication” on Fangs, Fur, Fey (and Horn). My post is here.
The final winner of THE REMAINS OF THE DEAD Giveaway is: Celeste!
Sailor Boy and I spent some time yesterday doing life maintenance, which we’d been neglecting a bit since we got married (Hey! Honeymoon!) We spent a lot of time on the phone with various and sundry representatives of businesses. The words “wife” and “husband” were thrown around indiscriminately. We also wrote some thank you notes.
We also saw The Golden Compass. My opinion was a solid B+, though I’m torn. I don’t think that books should be precisely like movies, but I do think that the changes that are made should benefit the movie. I thought all the changes in Lord of the Rings, for example, were a great benefit to the movie — it was awesome in all the places that the books kind of sucked. I’m not sure how I feel about the changes in the film.
Still, I enjoyed it. I thought it was fast-paced, did a very good job of explaining what was an extremely complex set-up, looked perfect, and was acted extraordinarily. The girl playing Lyra did a pretty good job — there were only a few weak scenes, which is great for an actor her age, and Nicole Kidman brought the house down as Mrs. Coulter. The ‘gyptians and Lee Scoresby were great as well!
SPOILERS START HERE: (scroll over to see)
Certainly, the role of Billy Costa changed dramatically, and that one was a good change, I thought, because it added more drama to that whole section. Unfortunately, I think they whitewashed the infamous “Ratter, Ratter” scene, which remains, in my mind, as one of the scariest scenes I’ve ever read in any piece of literature ever ever ever (I can’t even think about it without crying). I understand that they were trying to make a children’s movie, though, and they couldn’t have presented it as they did in the film, or you know, the kids would be screaming in the aisles. But it does detract somewhat from the power of the Bolvanger scenes (especially when Lyra is captured). Also detracting from that plotline is the fact that they cut the scene early on where Pan tries to walk away from Lyra, though I suppose the scene where Mrs. Coulter smacks her daemon makes up for that. Plus, I odn’t htink they made it clear that the Bolvanger residents had been “inoculated” — or, as they call them later, “zombis.” And then — the ending. Wow, what was up with that ending? I suppose again, they couldn’t have ended it as the books did — we must think of the children! — but it made the ending feel very abrupt, and filled with, IMO, false hope. Unless they are going to change everything. Oh, and I was so sad that Hester didn’t have golden eyes.
SPOILERS END HERE
Scott Westerfeld, who edited The World of the Golden Compass Anthology I’m in, went to a panel at the Boston premiere. It was run by the Religious Studies dept. at Boston University, and he blogs about the experience here. Scott’s comments trails always include a bunch of his young readers, and every time I’ve seen him post about our anthology, I’ve been surprised by the number of commenters who have proclaimed that they are not allowed to read the books or watch the movie because their parents “heard” that in the His Dark Materials books, Lyra “kills God.”
In his latest post, Scott actually confronts that rumor directly:
We also discussed the bogus controversy around the series and movie, especially the persistent disinformation campaign that claims the protags of HDM “kill God” in the third book. (As those of you who’ve read it know, the Authority is an impostor posing as god, and Lyra and Will don’t actually kill him. Ah, if only the people who love to ban books would, like, learn to read books. Think of all the effort they’d save.)
I think that’s one interpretation. My interpretation of the character of the Authority is that he was one angel who held a coup of sorts, then styled himself a god when he won. And then there were further coups and blah blah blah and by the time of the book, the Authority is not so much the one in charge anymore anyway. And no, Lyra and Will don’t kill him, nor is that their purpose, ever, in the books. She has one purpose, and that’s to save Roger.
But I don’t see why, even if that were the purpose of the books, that it should be something for religious types to get up in arms about, no more than they should be getting up in arms about the latest edition of Edith Hamilton, which also presents gods who are acting in manners totally unlike those the religious types believe in. It’s fiction, people. And some of the characters in this fiction style themselves as gods. I’m a person of faith, and I wasn’t at all offended by the theology presented in the novel. NOVEL.
What the books are really about (and what I think the movie did a great job of explaining) is the fight for free will, which of course is a huge topic of debate among the various tenets of Christianity (and religion in general), but I think Catholics are on the pro side. Pullman is clearly pro free will as well. (One of my favorite scenes in the series is when the mulefa tells Mary Malone the version of the creation myth that exists in her universe. There, the acquisition of knowledge is not presented as “the fall of man” but rather as a true positive — for more on that, read my essay.)
I wonder if the people interested in banning the movie would have gotten farther by presenting it that way. Probably not. It’s much more sensational to say that the books are about “killing God” — not true — than that they are about the evils of religious totalitarianism and the battle for free will. In this country, people tend to be against religious totalitarianism, so not a lot of fans there. However, there are some sects that have a lot of folowers here that lean more towards the anti-free will side of the equation. Hmmmm….
In this interview on MSNBC, Pullman talks about how the religious aspects of the book are an exploration of the fact that both good and bad things have been done in the name of religion — the Magisterium is an example of religious totalitarianism. Religious totalitarianism = bad. I can’t speak for Pullman’s personal beliefs (and I don’t think they much matter), but I can speak for what is in the books. In fact, I had the books originally recommended to me by a woman who was a devout Christian.
But I think the real problem here is what Scott said — that the people who are joining in on the boycott don’t know anything more about the books or movies than what they’ve “heard” in the disinformation campaign. And they probably aren’t interested in informing themselves. Some of the comments in his post bear this out. It’s a shame that people would rather believe some bit of disinformation they heard from others who haven’t read the books than either listening to an expert (hey, he edited a whole book on the series!) or better yet, to read for themselves and make their own judgment.
The Remains of the Dead winner: Jessica Burkhart. Email me your address for your prize!
One more contest in today’s post. I’ll pick the winner on Saturday.
Yesterday’s comment trail was very interesting, especially in light of a conversation I’ve been having with another writer friend of mine. We were discussing the common writing refrain that goes something like this:
Writing a book only teaches you how to write that book.
I think this is true. I’ve written seven complete books now, and let’s not even start on the number of partials. And some books have been like Christmas morning, while others have been more like cleaning up after your entire family comes over for Christmas dinner. The tricks I’ve used to fix one novel in peril don’t even begin to work on the next one. It’s a new challenge every single time. It’s own animal.
So my friend and I had a nice mutual whinge about that for a bit (Australian terminology, Julie!), then we decided that, whingeing aside, it was important. It was important to keep challenging ourselves. And it was okay if every book didn’t come packed in shiny paper and tied with poufy bows. It didn’t mean we’d “lost it.” It didn’t mean we’d bitten off more than we could chew. It just meant that this puzzle was a little bit different, and we needed to take on a different skill to solve it.
Anyone else feel this way? Who here has been sailing along on their writing and suddenly gone — huh, I’m going to need to try something different with this one?
The winner of yesterday’s The Remains of the Dead giveaway is eatrawfish (Miss B.). You know the drill. Everyone else, leave a comment in this post to be entered into tomorrow’s giveaway!
In the last week, I’ve seen two anonymous comments in industry blogs talking about “how perfect a book needs to be before the editor and agent will even look at it.” See below (bolding mine).
At the Penguin blog, the anonymous commenter asked:
We hear so much about how a book must be perfect, must be a standout in all ways and fashions, before an agent or editor will take it on…but at the same time we know that editing is an absolute necessity, and we see many helpful editors like yourself discussing intensive edits.
How much editing does a book need, then, before you will pass on it? Does voice or concept or a combination of them really carry the day, and plot points can be worked out in edits? What makes the decision for you that you have to have this book, if it isn’t a great story start to finish?
And on the Bookends blog, the commenter despaired:
This statement — “… However very few of them were sold on the first book they sent or the initial project I took them on with…”
I’m sorry, that’s just depressing. True, maybe, but depressing. As perfect as your work has to be to get an agent, and that’s only the starting point? I’m published but am having trouble selling my second book. So maybe I have this in reverse? Either way, yuk…
These two comments seem so similar to me that at first glance, I almost suspected they were made by the same person. I think it was the word “perfect” which sounded alarm bells within me. It sounds almost like a Good Advice Goes Bad post waiting to happen.
Because I’m a writer, and I like to play “what if,” I imagine that this hypothetical single poster has advice-itis. Advice-itis occurs when you spend so much time reading industry blogs and etc., and trying to follow every bit of information you find on each that you become paralyzed. Agent A wants you to start your query letter with a hypothetical question, and Agent B hates it when you thank her for your time, and Agent C says if you don’t compare your work to some other work on the shelves, he’s not even going to look at it. If you try to follow every bit of advice from every single agent, you’re going to wind up with a Frankenstein letter that will please no one. To swipe from Lincoln, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. There is no such thing as a perfect query letter.
I don’t think there’s any such thing as the perfect manuscript, either. If you’ve ever loved a movie that tanks at the box office, then it should be easy to see why a book that some agent though was– not perfect, but something he or she wanted to represent in the marketplace — might not sell. I happened to sell the first book my agent sent out for me. But we’ve also gotten rejections on that book, both from publishers here in the U.S. and abroad. I’ve also found a home for every proposal she’s sent out since, but I bear no illusion that this will always be the case. Rejection is part of the writing life, as is shelving things. Furthermore, as I know I’ve discussed before, I didn’t sign with my agent on the first book I sent her. (It was actually the third.) And yes, those other two are shelved, like all my earlier novels.
The first question seems to ask why, if a book must be so perfect to even get a contract, an editor is even necessary. After all, if a book is perfect, why edit? Penguin editor Jessica Wade responds:
That’s a tough one. I hope not to bore you with platitudes, but I would say that really you ought to make the book the absolute best that you can. Or at least, you should not be rushing happily off to the post office thinking, “I think this is pretty good, but I know the middle is sagging terribly” or “the stepmother’s voice is really not wicked enough and that’s obscuring her motivations…” If you’ve made the voice and plot as strong as you can without outside guidance, the work should speak for itself.
Right on. Also, I think we’re talking about scale. The people the industry folks are preaching too when they talk about only wanting to look at tight, polished, (i.e., “perfect”) work — well, they’re pretty much the choir. The people who pay attention to industry folks talking? They are already the ones who tend to be more serious about editing and polishing and etc. They are the minority.
Slush piles are scary scary places. I’ve spoken to agents before about how they have to wade through so much that it sloppy, terrible, scary, illiterate, haphazard, unprofessional, etc. that by the time they get to something that’s halfway decent, it’s tough to tell sometimes whether they really like the idea, or they are just pleased to come across something that doesn’t hurt their eyes and brains to read. (This is what agents talk about when they say “retuning their ears” or the ever-illuminating Slushkiller essay.)
Damn skippy your books need to be as perfect as you can make them when you send them out. Do you want to give someone an excuse to reject? Of course not. I’ve seen writers send things out too early, rushing projects that needed more time. The result was not pretty. Before I was published, I saw other unpublished writers bragging about the speed at which they could write and despairing that any publisher would be able to schedule them in such a way to keep up with their production rate. Which would have sounded better if the publishers wanted their hastily-scrawled tales to start with.
I had one writer friend, in particular, whose situation broke my heart. She would submit proposal after proposal, or pitch after pitch, and they were all so marvelous and wonderful in concept that she would get all these requests. Then she would rush to complete them, sometimes in a matter of days, and send them off. Most of the time, she’d get a rejection, but sometimes, she’d get a revision request that she’d ignore in favor of rushing off the next project. I lost touch with this writer years ago, but I often wonder what would have happened if she’d followed up on these revisions, or if she’d taken more time with the project at the start. I think this is what editors and agents are warning against when they talk about making your book as perfect as possible before submitting it. Don’t submit first drafts (a lot of people do). Books need polishing and critiquing.
And they also need editing. I said earlier that I didn’t believe there was such a thing as a perfect manuscript. (I’m also one of those who would change my books forever if they didn’t have a due date, so maybe that’s part of it). So editor’s buy manuscripts that are good (great, fabulous, mind-blowing, fantastic, etc. — but rarely, if ever, perfect) and then they edit them to make them better. There is a certain myth among people who aren’t writers that they just slap whatever together, and then hire an editor, who makes it good. But that’s not what editors do. they make good books better, or great books better, or fabulous, mind-blowing, fantastic books better. And that’s why books, even books that stand out enough for an editor to take it on, still need editing. Part of the writing life, again. You get rejections, and you have to do revisions. Those “re” words kill me (also “review”).
So, as you know, I’m writing Rampant right now, though I’ll be taking a short break soon for ROS(B) copyedits. Rampant underwent a lot of rewrites. In fact, as I was going through my files the other day, I saw notes that I had taken on the story from 2004. Three years ago. The first draft of the proposal was written during NaNoWriMo 2005. I played with it for a little while, had it critiqued, edited it hard core, sent it to my agent, took suggestions, then started the book over, from scratch, a year later, in fall of 2006. That version had different POVs, different scenes, and a different feel. I worked on it for another few months (in between work for SSG2,3, and 4) and sold it this last spring. Now I’m working on version 3. Not draft 3. No, it would be closer to draft 23. Version 3 incorporates elements of both 1 and 2, as well as input from my editor. Is it hard to do this? Yep, especially for me. But it’s also necessary. Revision, editing, striving for perfection…
Oops. Did I say the P-word? 
So about a dozen people found their way to my blog yesterday by searching under “Azkadelia.” Is there something I should know?
Yesterday’s Winner of The Remains of the Dead: Christine! Christine, email me your address.
And to the rest of you, there are still more chances to win. Just leave your name in the comments section of this post for tomorrow’s drawing.
Some interesting blogs up elsewhere:
* Donald Maass interviews with Writer Unboxed.
*Associate Editor Jessica Wade of Roc/Ace guests on the Penguin blog.
* Erica Ridley talks about writing funks and escape from same on Manuscript Mavens
* Colleen Gleason has her hot new cover and is running a “Pay it Forward” contest
* The always-enlightening Allison Brennan talks about pacing on Murder She Writes
* Robin Brande reveals a few of her adolescent foibles (you honestly couldn’t pay me enough, though my mom has been holding onto my juvenilia for years for blackmail material)
* Scott’s hoverboard derring-do is fabulous and notable, as per usual.
Also, I watched the end of this “volume” of Heroes. About what I expected, given the disjointedness of the season thus far. Come on, guys, pull it together. Peter’s pissing me off big time, I must say. I also saw the end of Tin Man (I’m seeing more Azkadelia Googling coming on, but for the record, I have no idea what names her tattoos had, except for Zorah the flying monkey.) It felt kind of “unfinished” to me. Where was the epilogue where we either saw her back in Kansas, or on the throne, or whatever it was? Also, I was a bit disappointed that the one time we actually witness Zooey Deschanel emoting, it was in soft-focused buried-alive darkness? I loved loved loved watching her on Weeds. She was, IMO, the only reason to watch the show that season. But I think she’s better as a character actor than as a hero. Playing a crazed sociopath fits her strengths better, because there her blank face made her even creepier.
Finally, in my browsing yesterday (I was reading the reviews of both of the above on EW.com), I came across a list entitled: Keira Knightley: Her Memorable Roles. Which, as far as I could tell, was all of them. Okay, not fair, since according to IMDB, she’s been a part of 19 non-TV/TV movie/video game roles, and there were only 12 films on the list. But when you have to use each of the “Pirate” movies as a separate role and then tack on both Domino, which, as far as I can tell, was seen by approximately five people, and that time she played Natalie Portman’s body double (okay, that was memorable, if only because I didn’t realize it wasn’t also played by Natalie Portman, and then when I saw the first Pirate movie I was like, this chick looks a lot like Natalie Portman!)… I don’t know if the girl’s reached that point in her career. Just sayin’.
It’s supposed to snow today. I must prepare…
 I’m so excited about this one!
Wendy Roberts has a new book out, a fabulous, fast-paced paranormal mystery called THE REMAINS OF THE DEAD (how great is that title, really?) I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek at this book, and you don’t want to miss it. It’s about a professional crime-scene cleaner named Sadie who has the uncanny ability to speak to the dead. Wendy did a lot of research into the fascinating, arcane (and often gross) world of crime scene clean-up when writing the novel, and she clearly knows her stuff!
But don’t just take my word for it. How about Romantic Times, who gave The Remains of the Dead four and a half stars:
“Roberts has a unique gift: She makes talking to the dead as natural as talking to your neighbor over a cup of coffee. Sadie Novak, who cleans up crime scenes for a living, is a charming new heroine with a great deal of heart who helps stranded spirits and solves crimes. Sadie and hunky ex-cop Zack make a delightful odd couple. Here’s hoping she comes back soon.”
And look at the great review she got from New York Times bestselling author, Allison Brennan (full text here):
Wendy Roberts makes us not only care about Sadie and the dead people she helps, but takes what could have been a gruesome story and made it fun and light. The breezy voice and self-deprecating humor keep the story moving, the mystery is compelling, and the ending provides a twist that I didn’t see coming. This is a fast, comfortable, solid read from a gifted storyteller. I can hardly wait for the next installment!
Definitely a read to look forward to. And in honor of Wendy’s release, I’ll be giving away one copy of her book on this blog on each of the next four days. Just leave your comment here to enter into the giveaway.
 Another book out today is the newest installment in Deidre Knight’s Parallel series: PARALLEL DESIRE. This one is the book about Jake. Now, if you loved Jake like I loved Jake in the last book (Parallel Seduction), this is definitely the story you’ve been waiting for. I went to a chat with Deidre on Monday night, and heard her talk about how strongly she felt for Jake all throughout Parallel Seduction, and how she wasn’t necessarily sure whether or not Hope would choose him or Scott when writing it! I can’t wait to see what becomes of him now! (Also, she let on that this is the big moment for Jared and Kelsey!) It’s all been leading up to this, to borrow from television promo spots. I can’t wait to read it!
(Nice cover, huh? Both Deidre and I get covers with rose tattoos on them. I sense a theme…)
|
|
|
|
 |
