Patti O'Shea's Blog, page 159
November 6, 2012
Sparks
I have a board on Pinterest that I titled Sparks. I pin here sporadically, but this board is for those pictures that make my imagination stir.
There doesn't have to be a story spark there or even a character spark. I just wanted somewhere to save pictures that made me go, hmmm. This board has no rhyme or reason to it. There are pictures of people, there is art, and concept technology. Fairies, dragons, the grim reaper, steampunk, and well, you get the idea.
As I looked at some of the pictures today, I couldn't remember why I pinned them. This time around they didn't make my brain start humming. But this only happened with a few pictures.
I'm thinking this could be a really cool method of writing prompts. Instead of a sentence, use a picture.
And maybe that's what all the pictures I save for each story I write is all about...stirring the imagination.
There doesn't have to be a story spark there or even a character spark. I just wanted somewhere to save pictures that made me go, hmmm. This board has no rhyme or reason to it. There are pictures of people, there is art, and concept technology. Fairies, dragons, the grim reaper, steampunk, and well, you get the idea.
As I looked at some of the pictures today, I couldn't remember why I pinned them. This time around they didn't make my brain start humming. But this only happened with a few pictures.
I'm thinking this could be a really cool method of writing prompts. Instead of a sentence, use a picture.
And maybe that's what all the pictures I save for each story I write is all about...stirring the imagination.
November 4, 2012
Coffee Culture
It's no secret how much I love coffee and I'm not alone. This video examines the coffee culture in America.
November 1, 2012
Surf Or Die
A while back I mentioned that I had suddenly and inexplicably become fascinated by surfing. I wrote it off, thinking it came from the father of one of my heroines. Odd, but hey, is it any weirder than my characters influencing me?
It turns out I was wrong. Lurking in the recesses of my brain was a hero who surfs.
He sort of made an appearance when I was in Minnesota in August. I say sort of because I was thinking of another hero of mine, one I'd worked on a while back. I always thought he had two brothers, but I only had information on one of them. Finally, though, the youngest brother gave me his name. He did exist!
The surfing fascination got stronger and then I finally had him show up. His heroine took a bit longer. There were a string of epiphanies on this character and his attitude, his conflict, what the emotional story arc is. And of course this is a story that would be out in the future a long, long way.
For a while, it looked as if these characters weren't going to leave me alone and they were beginning to interfere with the story I am working on. It culminated with some time spent looking for pictures of this new h/h. It actually didn't take too long this time--a miracle.
And as soon as I found their pictures, they vanished. I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved. Probably it should be relieved because now I can focus on the h/h I am writing.
BTW, blog title is a reference to a song I heard Doctor Demento play once. You can find the very cheesy video for Surf or Die on YouTube.
It turns out I was wrong. Lurking in the recesses of my brain was a hero who surfs.
He sort of made an appearance when I was in Minnesota in August. I say sort of because I was thinking of another hero of mine, one I'd worked on a while back. I always thought he had two brothers, but I only had information on one of them. Finally, though, the youngest brother gave me his name. He did exist!
The surfing fascination got stronger and then I finally had him show up. His heroine took a bit longer. There were a string of epiphanies on this character and his attitude, his conflict, what the emotional story arc is. And of course this is a story that would be out in the future a long, long way.
For a while, it looked as if these characters weren't going to leave me alone and they were beginning to interfere with the story I am working on. It culminated with some time spent looking for pictures of this new h/h. It actually didn't take too long this time--a miracle.
And as soon as I found their pictures, they vanished. I'm not sure whether to be disappointed or relieved. Probably it should be relieved because now I can focus on the h/h I am writing.
BTW, blog title is a reference to a song I heard Doctor Demento play once. You can find the very cheesy video for Surf or Die on YouTube.
October 30, 2012
The One Where I Rant About the World Series
If I'm remembering right, I haven't talked here about baseball all season--an epic feat because I love the sport. Since I've been good this year, I hope you'll indulge me with a bit of a rant now that it's World Series (WS) time.
I'm writing this on Sunday afternoon and am posting this for Tuesday, so by the time you're reading this, the fall classic might be finished. I hope it is and I hope the Giants are having a parade in San Francisco. At the moment, they are up 3 games to 0 in a best of 7 series.
But on to my peeve with coverage of the WS.
It's been annoying listening to the analysts all through the playoffs. I know, they're paid to give their opinions and just because I think they're wrong doesn't negate what their job is, but MLB Network did five hours of pre-game coverage before Saturday's game that just flat-out left me irritated.
Let me start by saying that I am not a Giants fan. I root for the Dodgers and San Fransisco is their arch rival. I am a fan of good baseball and I'd like to see only good teams in the World Series. Last year the very mediocre St. Louis Cardinals eked into the playoffs on the Braves collapse, got hot at the right time, and won it all.
This aggravates me greatly because I believe the 162-game regular season should mean something. That if a team has a mediocre regular season, they shouldn't be in the playoffs at all. Unfortunately, Major League Baseball disagrees with me.
So with that as background, maybe you can understand why I got peeved when every analyst I've heard has gushed about how awesome the Tigers are. It started before game one of the WS. Their pitching ace, Justin Verlander was going to dominate. The Giants might as well just concede the game because there's no way they can win it. But oh, look-ee, the Giants did win it.
Even when the Giants won the second game, all I heard was how everything would be different now that the awesome, tremendous, unstoppable Tigers were back in Detroit.
Not one analyst has mentioned that the Tigers were LUCKY to be in the playoffs. Sorry, Tigers fans, but it's true. If Detroit wasn't playing in the worst division in baseball, they'd be home, watching the WS on television. And even playing in the American League Central, they still wouldn't have made the playoffs if the Chicago White Sox didn't have a complete collapse the last few weeks of the season.
If you check out the 2012 standings on MLB's website, you'll see that the Tigers would have finished fourth in the NL East and been seven games behind the division-winning Yankees. If the Tigers were in the AL West, they would have finished fourth and been six games behind the division-winning As. Just because they got hot at the right time, doesn't mean they're a good team and it doesn't mean they belong in the World Series.
If you were to eliminate all the divisions and just take the top five teams to go to the playoffs, Detroit wouldn't be there. Their record put them at seventh in the league. Six other teams in the American League had better records. Six!
But to listen to the analysts, you'd think the Tigers had won 140 games and had been lights out all season. Poor San Francisco, so outclassed.
Just in case the analysts haven't checked the standings for the National League West division, the one the Giants play in, let me fill you in. The Giants were six games better than Detroit. SF won 92 games, the Tigers only won 88.
Why won't even one announcer/analyst mention the mediocrity of the Tigers' Season? Just one and you wouldn't have had to read my rant.
Quite frankly, I don't care that Detroit has Verlander, Prince Fielder, and Miguel Cabrera. This is a mediocre team that didn't manage 90 wins during the season, even playing most of their games against weaker AL Central opponents. They are lucky to be in the World Series and someone needs to say it, even if it's just me on my blog.
I'm writing this on Sunday afternoon and am posting this for Tuesday, so by the time you're reading this, the fall classic might be finished. I hope it is and I hope the Giants are having a parade in San Francisco. At the moment, they are up 3 games to 0 in a best of 7 series.
But on to my peeve with coverage of the WS.
It's been annoying listening to the analysts all through the playoffs. I know, they're paid to give their opinions and just because I think they're wrong doesn't negate what their job is, but MLB Network did five hours of pre-game coverage before Saturday's game that just flat-out left me irritated.
Let me start by saying that I am not a Giants fan. I root for the Dodgers and San Fransisco is their arch rival. I am a fan of good baseball and I'd like to see only good teams in the World Series. Last year the very mediocre St. Louis Cardinals eked into the playoffs on the Braves collapse, got hot at the right time, and won it all.
This aggravates me greatly because I believe the 162-game regular season should mean something. That if a team has a mediocre regular season, they shouldn't be in the playoffs at all. Unfortunately, Major League Baseball disagrees with me.
So with that as background, maybe you can understand why I got peeved when every analyst I've heard has gushed about how awesome the Tigers are. It started before game one of the WS. Their pitching ace, Justin Verlander was going to dominate. The Giants might as well just concede the game because there's no way they can win it. But oh, look-ee, the Giants did win it.
Even when the Giants won the second game, all I heard was how everything would be different now that the awesome, tremendous, unstoppable Tigers were back in Detroit.
Not one analyst has mentioned that the Tigers were LUCKY to be in the playoffs. Sorry, Tigers fans, but it's true. If Detroit wasn't playing in the worst division in baseball, they'd be home, watching the WS on television. And even playing in the American League Central, they still wouldn't have made the playoffs if the Chicago White Sox didn't have a complete collapse the last few weeks of the season.
If you check out the 2012 standings on MLB's website, you'll see that the Tigers would have finished fourth in the NL East and been seven games behind the division-winning Yankees. If the Tigers were in the AL West, they would have finished fourth and been six games behind the division-winning As. Just because they got hot at the right time, doesn't mean they're a good team and it doesn't mean they belong in the World Series.
If you were to eliminate all the divisions and just take the top five teams to go to the playoffs, Detroit wouldn't be there. Their record put them at seventh in the league. Six other teams in the American League had better records. Six!
But to listen to the analysts, you'd think the Tigers had won 140 games and had been lights out all season. Poor San Francisco, so outclassed.
Just in case the analysts haven't checked the standings for the National League West division, the one the Giants play in, let me fill you in. The Giants were six games better than Detroit. SF won 92 games, the Tigers only won 88.
Why won't even one announcer/analyst mention the mediocrity of the Tigers' Season? Just one and you wouldn't have had to read my rant.
Quite frankly, I don't care that Detroit has Verlander, Prince Fielder, and Miguel Cabrera. This is a mediocre team that didn't manage 90 wins during the season, even playing most of their games against weaker AL Central opponents. They are lucky to be in the World Series and someone needs to say it, even if it's just me on my blog.
October 28, 2012
Rethink Breast Cancer
Here's a great video as we near the end of breast cancer month.
October 25, 2012
Writing Tools: Write Or Die
I've seen a number of other writers tweet about Write Or Die on Twitter, but I pretty much ignored them. You see I'd used the online version of Write Or Die and I hadn't found it all that helpful. It was long enough ago that I can't remember the whys--and maybe it's been updated since then--but I disliked it enough that I never used it again.
Last weekend, though, things kind of came to a head. I was having so much trouble writing because of how much time I spent over thinking every word. It was to the point of being ridiculous.
I'd heard Write Or Die had a version you downloaded to your desktop, so I decided to check that out. The desktop version allowed me to adjust things like the font and set goals like time or words or both. This looked more promising to me than my previous online experience. The software was only $10, so I decided to give it a try.
It worked.
I managed to fast draft the entire opening chapter to the Proposal I'm working on, around 2100 words and I did it in less than an hour. O_o
Yep, in one hour I managed more production than I had in the previous two weeks. What this program did is force me to disengage my internal critic and just write. I felt better on Sunday afternoon than I have in a long while.
The desktop version runs on Adobe Air so it's compatible with any computer system. In addition to letting me customize the font, I could also pick my own color scheme--I stayed with black text on a white background--and pick my level of prodding. I went with gentle.
In gentle mode, the screen gradually turns red the longer you go without writing. It also turned red when I did too much deleting. I'll admit that frustrated me a bit because I wanted to delete the stuff I didn't like, darn it! Which is, of course, what the program is supposed to stop me from doing. It was largely successful at this goal.
Occasionally, it would also pop up a window in the middle of the screen prodding me to get writing. I think I preferred the red screen prod to this because all I needed to do to get rid of the red was start writing again. The window required closing, which actually was a bit distracting. Fortunately, this didn't happen often.
I'm not a writer that normally fast drafts, especially at the beginning of a story, so the amount of revision work I need to do is daunting. It's worth it, though, because this program did what I needed it to do--it kept my internal critic quiet so I could just write.
I'm giving Write Or Die Desktop version a big thumbs up.
Just in case you're wondering, I bought the software myself.
Last weekend, though, things kind of came to a head. I was having so much trouble writing because of how much time I spent over thinking every word. It was to the point of being ridiculous.
I'd heard Write Or Die had a version you downloaded to your desktop, so I decided to check that out. The desktop version allowed me to adjust things like the font and set goals like time or words or both. This looked more promising to me than my previous online experience. The software was only $10, so I decided to give it a try.
It worked.
I managed to fast draft the entire opening chapter to the Proposal I'm working on, around 2100 words and I did it in less than an hour. O_o
Yep, in one hour I managed more production than I had in the previous two weeks. What this program did is force me to disengage my internal critic and just write. I felt better on Sunday afternoon than I have in a long while.
The desktop version runs on Adobe Air so it's compatible with any computer system. In addition to letting me customize the font, I could also pick my own color scheme--I stayed with black text on a white background--and pick my level of prodding. I went with gentle.
In gentle mode, the screen gradually turns red the longer you go without writing. It also turned red when I did too much deleting. I'll admit that frustrated me a bit because I wanted to delete the stuff I didn't like, darn it! Which is, of course, what the program is supposed to stop me from doing. It was largely successful at this goal.
Occasionally, it would also pop up a window in the middle of the screen prodding me to get writing. I think I preferred the red screen prod to this because all I needed to do to get rid of the red was start writing again. The window required closing, which actually was a bit distracting. Fortunately, this didn't happen often.
I'm not a writer that normally fast drafts, especially at the beginning of a story, so the amount of revision work I need to do is daunting. It's worth it, though, because this program did what I needed it to do--it kept my internal critic quiet so I could just write.
I'm giving Write Or Die Desktop version a big thumbs up.
Just in case you're wondering, I bought the software myself.
October 23, 2012
OS Agnostic
I am a hopeless technology geek and I hope you'll indulge me as I vent a little.
The release of Windows 8 is coming Oct 26th and this has led to pitched battles online. Every article I've read about the new Operating System (OS) has been deluged with comments. Yes, I know better than to read them--I fear for humanity every time I slip--but sometimes I can't help myself.
Battle lines are drawn. If you don't like something in Windows 8, you're either a Luddite or an Apple fan boy or To Stupid to Live (TSTL). Apparently, you're not allowed to just not like it or something about it. Allow me to say right now that I haven't used Win 8 and have no opinion one way or the other on its functionality. I do, however, find it aesthetically unappealing from photos and videos that I've seen online.
This is just the latest battleground, BTW. I've also read the same level of ferocity in reviews for the iPhone and other Apple products as well as Android releases.
It's a mindset I don't understand. How do you get to be a fan boy of an OS like Windows or OS X or iOS or even Linux? If you don't work for one of the companies and have a bonus riding on the outcome, what does it matter?
I am an OS and device agnostic. I have Macs, I have PCs, I have an Android device. I don't care who makes it or what OS it's running as long as it does what I want it to do. You see, the bottom line for me is does it fulfill the need for which I bought it? If the answer is yes, that's all that matters.
For me, the device is a tool, nothing more. But these men online (and they are nearly all men from their names/handles that they post under) seem to take the mildest criticism personally. The comments sections are filled with insults.
As an example, I read a review on CNet of Windows 8--that's what prompted this blog post--and the writer of the piece was 99% complimentary about the system with one mild con. Most reviews try to say here's the good, here's the bad, and here's the bottom line. That's pretty standard, so for the con to be as light as it was pretty much made the review glowing.
Comments included accusations that CNet is an Apple stooge and that the reviewer was stupid because he thought the learning curve was high. People who commented that they'd tried the test release versions and didn't like it were hammered pretty unmercifully as being Luddites, people afraid of technological change. These were IT professionals for the most part because few ordinary people are running early versions of Win 8. These people were also accused of being Apple fan boys because they didn't love the Microsoft OS.
I'm sitting there going WTH? If it doesn't work for the way someone uses their computer, how does this make them stupid or a covert agent for a rival like Apple?
It also makes me wonder how anyone gets so rabid about an OS. Chill out, dudes and just use what works for you. If it doesn't work for someone else, it's not an attack on your manhood. Just relax already.
The release of Windows 8 is coming Oct 26th and this has led to pitched battles online. Every article I've read about the new Operating System (OS) has been deluged with comments. Yes, I know better than to read them--I fear for humanity every time I slip--but sometimes I can't help myself.
Battle lines are drawn. If you don't like something in Windows 8, you're either a Luddite or an Apple fan boy or To Stupid to Live (TSTL). Apparently, you're not allowed to just not like it or something about it. Allow me to say right now that I haven't used Win 8 and have no opinion one way or the other on its functionality. I do, however, find it aesthetically unappealing from photos and videos that I've seen online.
This is just the latest battleground, BTW. I've also read the same level of ferocity in reviews for the iPhone and other Apple products as well as Android releases.
It's a mindset I don't understand. How do you get to be a fan boy of an OS like Windows or OS X or iOS or even Linux? If you don't work for one of the companies and have a bonus riding on the outcome, what does it matter?
I am an OS and device agnostic. I have Macs, I have PCs, I have an Android device. I don't care who makes it or what OS it's running as long as it does what I want it to do. You see, the bottom line for me is does it fulfill the need for which I bought it? If the answer is yes, that's all that matters.
For me, the device is a tool, nothing more. But these men online (and they are nearly all men from their names/handles that they post under) seem to take the mildest criticism personally. The comments sections are filled with insults.
As an example, I read a review on CNet of Windows 8--that's what prompted this blog post--and the writer of the piece was 99% complimentary about the system with one mild con. Most reviews try to say here's the good, here's the bad, and here's the bottom line. That's pretty standard, so for the con to be as light as it was pretty much made the review glowing.
Comments included accusations that CNet is an Apple stooge and that the reviewer was stupid because he thought the learning curve was high. People who commented that they'd tried the test release versions and didn't like it were hammered pretty unmercifully as being Luddites, people afraid of technological change. These were IT professionals for the most part because few ordinary people are running early versions of Win 8. These people were also accused of being Apple fan boys because they didn't love the Microsoft OS.
I'm sitting there going WTH? If it doesn't work for the way someone uses their computer, how does this make them stupid or a covert agent for a rival like Apple?
It also makes me wonder how anyone gets so rabid about an OS. Chill out, dudes and just use what works for you. If it doesn't work for someone else, it's not an attack on your manhood. Just relax already.
October 21, 2012
Steve Martin's King Tut
This made me laugh. Steve Martin doing his song King Tut live.
October 18, 2012
Dystopia
I saw a question raised recently that I thought was interesting. It was: Why are there so many dystopian stories about the future?
The easy answer is because fiction requires some kind of conflict to be interesting and utopian worlds tend not to have that. If someone does write about utopia then there'll be some dark part of it that's evil or something. At least generally speaking. Which, I guess, means it's not Utopia.
But maybe there's a deeper question here. Why is dystopian fiction resonating with readers? And it must be selling well to have so many stories set in these types of worlds.
This isn't quite as easy to answer. I think one of the reasons might be because people (in general) feel disconnected and that they lack control. Let's say you have a state senator and you disagree with his stance on an issue. You can send an email, call or write a letter telling him why you feel the way you do and why his position is wrong, but what good does that do? The reply will merely be thank you for contacting me and a reiteration of his position.
Another reason that comes to mind is because I think a lot of people see all the problems in the world and feel powerless to correct them. This echoes back to the previous paragraph, but it a bit different. Problems like the environment. How does one person or even one nation address this? Sure everyone in the US could start walking everywhere they go, but if everyone in China is still driving a car, then what good is this sacrifice?
Once, people could put their faith in technology or science coming up with some kind of answer, but can we do that now? What's the incentive? When the company you work for owns any intellectual property that can be patented, why would a scientist or researcher spend the time and energy to puzzle through the problems and create solutions? It's easier to put the hours in and go home.
Culture seems to reinforce the pessimism people feel. How many times have we heard about the Mayans and their calendar ending in December 2012? The news focuses on the negative stories: The bullies who drive a child to suicide. The hole in the Ozone layer getting larger. Polar ice caps melting at increasing rates. All the media seems to promote is doom and gloom (which I could go into a bit farther, the whys and whatnots, but won't since it's off topic).
Anyway, people are feeling fearful. Negative things are happening all around them and we're so disconnected that we feel one voice can't or won't be heard. That one person can't make a difference. Dystopian fiction lets people play out what they fear the future might be. The protagonist in the story will continue fighting on, maybe simply winning in that character's little corner of the world.
I think readers want to see characters winning despite the worst-case scenario of dystopia. Maybe it inspires hope or helps quell the fear of what might lie in the future for planet Earth.
As a writer, my interest in dystopia, even in post-apocalyptic scenarios, is creating the world. It's seeing potential issues that might come to pass and spinning out the society that's struggling to survive. Most of all, though, it's seeing how these brave new worlds (see Aldous Huxley and his dystopian book) have shaped the hero and heroine. If you're living in a post-apocalyptic world, what kind of person survives? This is actually much more interesting to me than anyone living in some perfect, utopian world who's never faced hardship or struggle.
Although, let's face it, everyone faces some kind of hardship or struggle in their lives. The dystopian worlds just make it more extreme.
I'm sure there are more reasons why dystopia is prevalent right now, but these were the things that occurred to me.
The easy answer is because fiction requires some kind of conflict to be interesting and utopian worlds tend not to have that. If someone does write about utopia then there'll be some dark part of it that's evil or something. At least generally speaking. Which, I guess, means it's not Utopia.
But maybe there's a deeper question here. Why is dystopian fiction resonating with readers? And it must be selling well to have so many stories set in these types of worlds.
This isn't quite as easy to answer. I think one of the reasons might be because people (in general) feel disconnected and that they lack control. Let's say you have a state senator and you disagree with his stance on an issue. You can send an email, call or write a letter telling him why you feel the way you do and why his position is wrong, but what good does that do? The reply will merely be thank you for contacting me and a reiteration of his position.
Another reason that comes to mind is because I think a lot of people see all the problems in the world and feel powerless to correct them. This echoes back to the previous paragraph, but it a bit different. Problems like the environment. How does one person or even one nation address this? Sure everyone in the US could start walking everywhere they go, but if everyone in China is still driving a car, then what good is this sacrifice?
Once, people could put their faith in technology or science coming up with some kind of answer, but can we do that now? What's the incentive? When the company you work for owns any intellectual property that can be patented, why would a scientist or researcher spend the time and energy to puzzle through the problems and create solutions? It's easier to put the hours in and go home.
Culture seems to reinforce the pessimism people feel. How many times have we heard about the Mayans and their calendar ending in December 2012? The news focuses on the negative stories: The bullies who drive a child to suicide. The hole in the Ozone layer getting larger. Polar ice caps melting at increasing rates. All the media seems to promote is doom and gloom (which I could go into a bit farther, the whys and whatnots, but won't since it's off topic).
Anyway, people are feeling fearful. Negative things are happening all around them and we're so disconnected that we feel one voice can't or won't be heard. That one person can't make a difference. Dystopian fiction lets people play out what they fear the future might be. The protagonist in the story will continue fighting on, maybe simply winning in that character's little corner of the world.
I think readers want to see characters winning despite the worst-case scenario of dystopia. Maybe it inspires hope or helps quell the fear of what might lie in the future for planet Earth.
As a writer, my interest in dystopia, even in post-apocalyptic scenarios, is creating the world. It's seeing potential issues that might come to pass and spinning out the society that's struggling to survive. Most of all, though, it's seeing how these brave new worlds (see Aldous Huxley and his dystopian book) have shaped the hero and heroine. If you're living in a post-apocalyptic world, what kind of person survives? This is actually much more interesting to me than anyone living in some perfect, utopian world who's never faced hardship or struggle.
Although, let's face it, everyone faces some kind of hardship or struggle in their lives. The dystopian worlds just make it more extreme.
I'm sure there are more reasons why dystopia is prevalent right now, but these were the things that occurred to me.
October 16, 2012
Random Observations
While I was home in MN in August, I wrote blog posts. A lot of them. I haven't posted most of them. You're welcome.
This is one of the posts I wrote while I was home, random observations that came into my head as I worked on cleaning out my basement.
I couldn't find my autographed copy of Suzanne Brockmann's Ladies' Man—the original Loveswept version—and that just about gave me a stroke. I don't know what the book is worth now since the story was finally released for real, but before that happened, the special edition version I had was worth $1000 when it was autographed. After a frantic ten minutes or so, I finally found it. Whew!
As I'm going through some of my books again, trying to get rid of more of them, I kind of wish ebooks had caught on sooner. It would make my move a whole lot easier, cheaper, and less stressful. On the other hand, it's a huge thrill—even after ten years—to hold books in paper. The day author copies arrive is one of huge excitement and celebration, and seeing your book on the shelf in a store or at the airport? Goes off the awesome scale. My books coming out in electronic versions only hasn't held that level of excitement. But as a reader, I'm only buying fiction as ebooks and have been for a couple of years.
As an addendum to the item above this: I've been trying to replace my reread, keep forever books with electronic copies because I'm much more likely to read them in this format than to go get the paper copy to read. I love how I can have so many books at my fingertips without losing living space.
While I was going through boxes, I found those Colorforms things. You know the ones, where there's a figure or scene and the clothes are some kind of sticky plastic? I had one on the human anatomy. Yes, I had an interest in physiology and anatomy early apparently. One of the career options I'd been exploring was doctor, but my squeamishness killed that idea.
I've had a lot of insomnia while I've been home—stress, most likely—and that's allowed me to get some reading done. One of the books was an old favorite of mine. I used to reread it all the time, but haven't in the last ten years. What surprised me was that while I still enjoyed the book, I didn't love it as much as I had in the past. It was still a keeper and I'd still recommend it, but it wasn't the "OMG, you have to read this right now" book that it used to be. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I've read so many other paranormal books since then or maybe because I've been writing for ten years.
Once upon a time, "playing book" was fun. Playing book is what we called it when we rearranged our bookshelves. As I'm rearranging things for the move, I've decided playing book isn't a good time anymore. I wonder how much it would cost to have a librarian come in for a day and organize my collection?
This is one of the posts I wrote while I was home, random observations that came into my head as I worked on cleaning out my basement.
I couldn't find my autographed copy of Suzanne Brockmann's Ladies' Man—the original Loveswept version—and that just about gave me a stroke. I don't know what the book is worth now since the story was finally released for real, but before that happened, the special edition version I had was worth $1000 when it was autographed. After a frantic ten minutes or so, I finally found it. Whew!
As I'm going through some of my books again, trying to get rid of more of them, I kind of wish ebooks had caught on sooner. It would make my move a whole lot easier, cheaper, and less stressful. On the other hand, it's a huge thrill—even after ten years—to hold books in paper. The day author copies arrive is one of huge excitement and celebration, and seeing your book on the shelf in a store or at the airport? Goes off the awesome scale. My books coming out in electronic versions only hasn't held that level of excitement. But as a reader, I'm only buying fiction as ebooks and have been for a couple of years.
As an addendum to the item above this: I've been trying to replace my reread, keep forever books with electronic copies because I'm much more likely to read them in this format than to go get the paper copy to read. I love how I can have so many books at my fingertips without losing living space.
While I was going through boxes, I found those Colorforms things. You know the ones, where there's a figure or scene and the clothes are some kind of sticky plastic? I had one on the human anatomy. Yes, I had an interest in physiology and anatomy early apparently. One of the career options I'd been exploring was doctor, but my squeamishness killed that idea.
I've had a lot of insomnia while I've been home—stress, most likely—and that's allowed me to get some reading done. One of the books was an old favorite of mine. I used to reread it all the time, but haven't in the last ten years. What surprised me was that while I still enjoyed the book, I didn't love it as much as I had in the past. It was still a keeper and I'd still recommend it, but it wasn't the "OMG, you have to read this right now" book that it used to be. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I've read so many other paranormal books since then or maybe because I've been writing for ten years.
Once upon a time, "playing book" was fun. Playing book is what we called it when we rearranged our bookshelves. As I'm rearranging things for the move, I've decided playing book isn't a good time anymore. I wonder how much it would cost to have a librarian come in for a day and organize my collection?
