Lewis Crow's Blog, page 2

Hello, Old Friend(s)

It is with an eager uneasiness(?) that I recently started writing book 3 in my Nemo trilogy. (Book 2 is in the hands of my presently otherwise-occupied editor.) If you don't count the revisions/rewrites I've done this year on books 1 & 2, that means it's been more than 25 years since I've written anything new involving these characters. Normally, that would be intimidating to the point of inertia, but having spent so much time this year in that world/with those characters, it doesn't seem like we've been apart since the early 90s.

Of course, with so much time passing, I've forgotten what the writing experience was like for me back then, and I have no idea if the struggles and challenges I'm now facing are new & different or the same old same old. Research is far easier today, thanks to the Internet, so that's no small compensation for any difficulties. But I still ask myself, was (such-and-such) so hard a quarter century ago? Self replies, I have no idea--I've slept since then. Go have a snack and Google it.

The main reason I went straight from editing 2 to writing 3 is momentum. I've been immersed in the story all year, so I might as well forge ahead while the creative fires are burning and it's all fresh in my mind. It will be my last go-around with these folks. When I'm finished I will have developed every idea I've had and said all I have to say--probably more. Until then, as Robert Frost wrote, there are "miles to go before I sleep."

Maybe we'll have a cast "wrap" party in my head when it's all finished. If we do, hope someone brings French Onion dip.

Actual(?) Cash Value

I noticed with slight amusement recently that some entrepreneurial soul was selling my novel on eBay for three times the Amazon price. If only that meant I got three times the royalty!

My first reaction was to wonder why anybody would want to price themselves out of the market. My second reaction was to marvel that this seller considered my work to be worth so much. Thirdly, I felt in a funny sort of way that I had "arrived" now, seeing my name on the world's biggest garage sale site.

It all got me thinking about the value of creative works. Paintings by long-dead artists sell for more money than some countries see in five years. The Eagles' Greatest Hits was recently certified for sales of 39 million copies, which means about 1 in every 3 US homes has one. Marvel's superhero movies have earned more than $12 billion in this country.

At the other end, I see authors selling their books for 99 cents, or even giving them away for free to try to build an audience.

How many creative efforts are overrated? Underrated? The only rule of thumb we have is the old saw "a thing is worth what someone is willing to pay for it."

I'd love to have my book in 1/3 of all homes while earning $12 billion in the process. Until that happens, I'll be here in the real world of Half Price Books and used CD stores.

Skip the guy selling books on eBay. If you shop on Amazon, you'll save enough to pick up The Eagles' Greatest Hits, copy 39,000,001. Give or take.

Juggling Chain Saws

Several random thoughts that are all related to the author life:

* Never thought I'd be juggling three books at once-- promoting the first, editing the second, and plotting out the third. Lucky for me this is only a trilogy.

* My editor tells me I shouldn't edit #2 and write #3 at the same time. Frustrating, because as we say down here, I'm chompin' at the bit.

* Speaking of #3, I finally came up with the other major story arc I needed for this volume to be a "go."

* Re my previous blog entry: I've constructed what I believe is quite a strong case for letting "Joey" live. In fact, I've written a full alternate ending to the book incorporating this. So now I just have one little decision--live or die? I think I'll let my editor make the call. Unless I disagree. :)

*I've begun putting together some LEGO minifigures of my characters. This is either a bizarre creative move, or a brilliant way to have my own toy line. Not sure which.

* Naming names: Still haven't decided on a title for #2, but I think I have it down to the final two. I'll let my editor decide after she's read it. My group of discards reads like...a list of overused titles on Amazon.

* Is there a Be Kind to Editors Day? Maybe I should start one, considering what I'm throwing at mine. Watch for falling chain saws.

I Don't Feel Like God But I Am to Them

These days, most of my creative energy is being directed at deciding the fate of a certain character in my sequel to The Nautilus Legacy. Until now, the character dies. But I recently chose to ponder the question, must it be so?

If they live, it opens up new avenues of character development. It can also complicate things that were previously much clearer. The experience truly has been one of opening a creative can of worms.

More abstractly, it's a bit uncomfortable, knowing you have godlike power over these people who populate your stories. You create them, decide their lives, and determine their fates. And sometimes, despite all attempts at objectivity, you develop a true fondness for them, making it hard to say, "sorry, Joey, but in this scene you get killed."

I've grown quite attached to my "Joey," and my heart has let me know in no uncertain terms it doesn't like this death. Of course, at that point I'm supposed to be the adult writer in the room and say we must do what works best in service of the story. My won-loss percentage in heart vs. mind conflicts is about 50-50, by the way.

If I decide to let "Joey" live, I hope all the other deceased characters I've ever created don't unionize and demand their resurrections, too. Otherwise, it's going to get a lot more crowded in here.

Editing is Writing with a Scalpel

A lot of writers, it seems, hate the editing process. They find it tedious and unrewarding. I take the opposite view.

To me, editing/revising is just another stage in the writing process. When I edit, I'm still writing. I'm making the work stronger by rewording sentences, adding sentences, cutting things out, reshaping the text. It gives me additional chances to "get it right," if you will. I have a sharply critical eye, and I'm not afraid to stand up to my own work and do surgery on it, because I know that what emerges will be better than it was.

There's a memorable moment in the film "Amadeus," where Salieri leafs through the working draft of one of Mozart's compositions and finds no corrections or changes. He is astounded that the man's final product came out complete on the first try.

We probably all wish we could be that innately talented, but we know we aren't. So multiple drafts and repeated edits are the norm for our written works. And if that's true, you might as well embrace it and try to enjoy it. Editing is not a chore, it's just writing...with a scalpel.

The Persistence of Works

Earlier today, my son and I were discussing a couple of legendary music artists who are sadly no longer with us. We talked about how they retain their titles/nicknames even in death and how they still "are" (as opposed to "were") the authors of their songs. Each time someone plays one of their recordings, those artists "are" once again.

The same is true for the written words of authors long gone. Whenever their essays, plays, novels, poems, or short stories get read, they live again and speak to us anew. Our daily work departs with us, but our works--our creative endeavors in art, writing, and music--live on for centuries. That's quite remarkable in an age where opinions are thrown about like confetti on talk radio and in social media but are often forgotten within days. The words and ideas we choose to commit to persistent forms of media are the ones that endure to entertain, inform, and influence the minds of generations not yet born.

Be careful what you publish, record, sculpt, or paint. It may end up being your time capsule to the future.

Carving Out a "Legacy"

Captain Nemo has been portrayed a number of times in a variety of media. When I decided to continue the story of the Nautilus and her captain in "The Nautilus Legacy," I wanted to do so within the same universe Jules Verne wrote about. For that to be possible, two elements had to exist:
1) Nemo had to have a son.
2) That son had to be alive.

Condition one was easy to meet, thanks to a vagueness loophole Verne himself left. The most detailed description of Nemo's family in "20,000 Leagues" referred only to two children, genders not specified. The second condition was more challenging, since Nemo explicitly tells Professor Arronax that he saw his family killed.

Without resorting to hokey Hollywood tricks, I needed to construct a scenario in which the son lived but Nemo reasonably *thought* he was dead. After some careful consideration, I created this second loophole, which is depicted in the opening pages of the novel.

Once I had those potential obstacles overcome, the only major hurdle was the fate of the Nautilus itself, enumerated in the climax of "Mysterious Island." To get out of that tight spot, I used a combination of "fuzzy" science, suspension of disbelief, and creative pluck. A writer's got to do what a writer's go to do, right?

Combined, all these elements allowed me to fashion a story that I believe is respectful of what Verne himself wrote while simultaneously opening new creative opportunities for myself. Or maybe I just got really lucky....

Finding Captain Nemo

Yeah, I went there. (If it hadn't been for a certain cartoon movie, that would've made an excellent title for my novel!) Columnist Sydney Harris used to run a feature titled "Things I learned en route to looking up other things." In that spirit, I'd like to share some things I learned while researching and writing "The Nautilus Legacy."

1) Jules Verne was a victim of political correctness. His original intention was to make Nemo Polish and the country he hated Russia. Verne's editor squashed that idea, reasoning it would be bad for book sales in Russia and bad for France's diplomatic relations with the czarist empire. When Verne gave Nemo the identity of an Indian prince in "Mysterious Island" --a move his grandson called "a sop to the readers"--it was considered a more acceptable explanation for the times in which he lived. I felt a very strong duty to restore the author's original intent, which I have done.

2) While Verne is highly regarded in Europe, his best-known work is not well esteemed in English-speaking countries. This is due to the poor quality of the initial English translation of "20,000 Leagues," which has been repeatedly republished in public domain editions of his work. That translation mangled his scientific numbers, left out an entire chapter, and is generally seen as the equivalent of a botched surgery.

3) Verne was also the victim of creative vandalism. The most prominent English version of "Mysterious Island" arbitrarily changed character names. Cyrus Smith became Cyrus Harding; Pencroff became Pencroft; Harbert became Herbert--all because the translator thought Verne's names weren't American enough for the American characters. It, too, has been widely republished and circulated.

It's a grand testament to Verne's talent and vision that his work survived such literary atrocities to be as well-remembered, enjoyed, and influential as it is. Merci, M. Verne! Merci!

Creative Comsumption

Think of your favorite song, painting, or novel. It's pretty self-evident that the painting and the novel took weeks/months/years to complete. And I've heard musicians speak of taking months or years to get a song just right. Lots of effort involved all the way around.

Now think about how much time it takes to appreciate them. Even listening to it more than once, it requires only a few minutes to know if you like a song. For a painting, the reaction can be immediate, or at most a couple of minutes. Either you like it or you don't.

Not so with the book. A written work requires time to read and digest, to absorb the contents--characters, story, description, dialogue. The mechanism of instant reaction to art or music won't work here. You have to invest yourself--time, attention, maybe money--before you can make a fair evaluation, even if you stop reading a couple of chapters in and decide you don't like it.

Thank you, readers, for your willingness to give writers your attention.

Hmm...where did I leave my copy of Picasso's Guide to 'Louie Louie'?

It's Like...a Bad Analogy

We humans are good at using comparisons, but not necessarily at using good comparisons. As I'm shaping and revising book #2 (whatever I end up calling it), I try to give people some idea of its character compared to book #1. So I say "it's the 'Empire Strikes Back' of the trilogy," which, as any Star Wars fan knows, means it's darker and more serious than the other two. It's a handy point of reference--like saying something is such-and-such on steroids--but not really very insightful (or accurate, for that matter.) It works, though, and the conversation moves on.

I suppose it's understandable that we try to define the unknown in terms of the known, but as creative individuals we run the risk of selling our work and ourselves short with such cookie-cutter comparisons. Of all people, we should be the ones who have more original explanations of our projects. If we put that much effort, heart, soul, sweat, etc., into what we're doing, we ought to think of better ways to convey its essence.

Got to go now. I'm watching a good movie. It's like "Citizen Kane" meets "The Godfather"...on steroids.