Molly O'Keefe's Blog, page 49

Very Drunk Writer

I am in San Francisco with the fabulous and gorgeous Serena Robar. She's in town for a conference and I am hanging out with her, doing some writing, doing some shopping and tossing back some drinks.

I had a lovely hangover run on the Embarcadero (where were you, Molly?) and then had total sticker shock at Bloomingdale's. Thank God for Macy's and the 40% off rack where Serena found me the perfect dress for an upcoming event. Then tonight it was dinner at Zingari's and off for an end of the evening cocktail at the Redwood Room. Where we took this awesome photo in the fabulous giant chair in the lobby:



In case you can't tell, I had a Manhattan which had LOT of bourbon in it. I am not, sadly, feeling brilliant, but am quite content. Wish you all had been there drinking with us!

Effing things up for yourself...

For the last few years I have been a head of my deadlines. And not just a little. But like, months ahead of deadline. I seemed to keep having these events that I wanted to get books completed by - biths of babies, American Thanksgiving, Conference, Drunk Writer Talk. So, I had real deadlines and then I had my own.

And let me tell you, this has been great. I am heroic in my editors eyes. I have so much good will built up in this department that if I could somehow transform good will into shoes I would be Maureen.

And I've liked it too, I feel on top of my game and focused. I was really diligent every day despite being ahead of the deadline.

But OH! Oh the times they have changed - my deadline is November 15 for my Harlequin Superromance (I thought it was Nov. 22, why? No idea). And it's doable if I stick to my word count goal every day and work on the weekends and in the evenings...really, it's not even that hard. But what have I been doing? SLACKING OFF. Watching TV - in the middle of the day. Eating cookies? (That's effing up this no cookie diet I was on for about ten minutes. The second I said "Molly, no more cookies, what did I want? Ten cookies.) Friday Maureen and I had a writing date and what did I convince her to do? HAVE A BEER!

I am so far away from my word count goal that it's actually funny. Like ludicrious. Like a Monty Python sketch. And it's not my children, or my husband, or fate conspiring against me, it's me. 0 me. Though Maureen could have been a bit more firm on that beer thing...

Do you do this? When the pressure is on, do you go to sleep? Because I've been doing that too.

How much attention should you pay to the market before you write?

I've been actively watching the YA market for a while now, but never as much as now. I've always been a firm believer in write the idea that grips you, makes you smile and excited to sit at the computer. And I still believe in that to a degree, but there was a point where I would have done so without being really aware of what else was out there.

Now, as I check author/agent/publisher blogs and learn what people in the industry are saying, I realize what a mistake that can be. In YA right now, according to most agents, trying to sell a vampire/werewolf/angel paranormal would be almost impossible. It would take an incredible book to break into that market. Similar with dystopian YA. Two years ago, a dystopian would have been requested by most agents out there, three years ago, vampires were still something publishers were excited about.

As a writer, locked in my writing cave, would I have known that I most likely couldn't sell a vampire book right now. I'm not sure and it is why most agents/publishers say don't write to trends, but be aware of them. I just don't feel as though I've ever been really good at that. Looking at the market and seeing what I shouldn't write. Because like most people who read the Hunger Games, I saw tremendous appeal and potential in a dystopian world, and the potential to create drama in that kind of setting.

So is the answer to be aware of the market? To be aware of what's selling in your genre and ensure that what you are writing is different, but with the elements that still remain true to the essential nature of the genre?

I go back and forth, especially now that I'm submitting, where if you'd asked me a year ago, I would have emphatically stated that the book is the only thing that's important. Now, I'm not entirely sure.

Revenge

In keeping with the theme of mindless entertainment is anyone watching this show? It was absolutely not something I thought I would be interested in. Soap opera level drama in the Hamptons (been there/done that) But here is the thing. The actress who plays the lead is really good.

She's completely convincing when she's pretending to play the innocent girlfriend. Then completely convincing when the audience sees her plotting her revenge against the people who did her father wrong.

It's got it all. Emotional conflicts, sticky situations… murder. You can't really figure out who likes who but there are all kinds of romantic connections. Each week the heroine (who we are sympathetic towards because of how she lost her father) sets up these elaborate cons to take down the people responsible for setting up her father as a patsy. The cons are sometimes silly. The drama is a bit over played. And I'm not really sure how this can go for more than one season.

If anyone remembers the summer murder mystery series Harper's Island – this feels a lot like that. Over the top – but completely watchable. Kind of like a Sydney Sheldon novel.

It occurred to me how often this can be true in books as well. The plot can be done to death, there can be holes and gaps everywhere, the writing might be flawed but if the voice of the author is good, really good - it can still make the book enjoyable.

I recently read a book by an author and it was just like that. I kept telling myself this… this is bad… this isn't good… this isn't right… I must keep reading. Is there a book two? … I must by that as well.

Ever done that with a TV show or a book?

Pure Entertainment

Eileen's post yesterday about Bridesmaids had me thinking about fun movies.

This fall, after all the dark and difficult movies at TIFF -- and some that weren't dark or difficult but didn't really inspire me all that much -- I went to a few movies just for the pure fun of it.

One was Our Idiot Brother which I found adorable if forgettable... But I've loved Paul Rudd ever since Clueless so I enjoy just about any movie he stars in, even if he's cast as an irresponsible and naive stoner.

But the film that inspired this post is Real Steel. It seems as if they were showing the trailers for this film for close to a year before it came out... Which often is not a good sign... And I have to admit, it did not seem like the kind of movie I'd like. More like one Molly's son would like. But writer-friend and movie-critic for Hard Core Nerdity,  Adrienne Kress saw the film at a press screening a week before it came out and she told me it was worth seeing so I thought I'd give it a shot.

And you know what? I was completely entertained. There are some completely corny cliche lines like, Son to Dad: "You can do this. I believe in you." (or something. I'm paraphrasing.) And while I might have rolled my eyes once or twice I had to do my eye rolling quickly, because mostly I was just too busy being entertained. :)

And if I have to watch boxing... there'd better be either a great story to offset the violence, or the boxers getting beat up had better be machines and not people. This movie delivers on the second for sure ;) and the first mostly. The story is simple, but I admired that simplicity...We know exactly who the protagonist is, how he has to change, what his external goals are... and we see him change and get what he wants and deserves.

I have a bit of a love-to-m'eh sliding continuum thing for Hugh Jackman (as opposed to Sinead who is fully in love). And this was a movie where I swung to the love side of my continuum. (As I did the night Sinead and I went to see him perform live this summer.) It's like Hugh can either be the most masculine and most feminine man on the planet -- and I heart the masculine Hugh. (Without facial hair and with his shirt on, ;) he comes off too pretty for me) But he was definitely masculine Hugh in this movie. Yowza.

The only thing that would have made it perfect for me was a tiny more emphasis on the romance, but then that would have turned off their key demographic -- twelve-year-old boys -- so I had to be satisfied with a few kisses and some clear chemistry. I'll say one thing about Evangeline Lilly -- she can look at a man and convince me she loves him. And she looked at Hugh like she looked at Sawyer.

I've read reviews that criticize Real Steel for morphing together movies from the past like Rocky and The Champ and Transformers... But I think the filmmakers were smart enough to take what worked from each of those movies: underdog triumphing, heart-breaking father-son relationship, big robots -- and combine them into pure entertainment.

I saw the movie in one of those enhanced theatres, with a bigger screen, better sound and comfy seats (with built in speakers...) and I was thoroughly entertained. And really, that's exactly what I wanted.

Bridesmaids

I just watched Bridesmaids with my darling and talented niece. I really really liked it. We laughed really really hard, but I also liked the fact that I felt a little verklempt more than a few times in the movie.

I really related to Annie. I know that awful feeling of not being able to afford to do what everyone else can and feeling like the least successful one in the room. I know the feeling of watching a friend leave me behind for greener pastures. As funny as the scene on the airplane was, I think the real reason people like this movie is that everyone has had that sinking feeling in their chest that those moments create.

Oh, we suck it up. We plaster smiles on our faces, but hasn't their been a moment when you wanted to splash the chocolate out of someone's fountain and wrestle their giant love cookie to the ground?

If the movie had been an endless parade of women having diarrhea in the middle of the street while wearing wedding gowns, I don't think it would have been that big of a hit. It was, as my brilliant niece said, how relatable it was. I know Annie. I've been Annie. I knew the other bridesmaids, too. I may also be a little bit of the blonde bridesmaid raising three boys. I am the same kind of drunk as the sweet newlywed bridesmaid. And I've run for a buffet just like Melissa McCarthy did.

So did you see it? Did you like it? Did you relate to Annie? Or anyone else?

What a Literary Agent Should Do For You

A few weekends ago a NYT bestseller came to speak at our local RWA group and she answered all of our questions with utter honesty. One of the questions was about her relationships with different agents. She's had some good ones and some bad ones but she said with the one she has now it was the first time she actually felt agented.

This got me to thinking...do I feel agented? The answer quickly for me is a resounding yes.
But why do I feel agented? She sells my books - but is that enough? The answer quickly there was no. What are the elements besides selling my books that makes Pam Hopkins such a great agent for me?

1. She's not my friend. We're chatty. Sometimes we gossip, she's VERY friendly and warm and I like her a lot - but everything comes back around to business. I think this is important. Sometimes, after a glass of wine too many - I feel awkward, because I want secretly to be best friends with everyone, but it's business. Good business.

2. She subtly and not so subtly pushes me. I was having babies and writing Superromances and life was pretty good but after every book I turned in she'd send me an email saying - I know you're busy now, but you really need to think about single title. Every time. I never pushed her into thinking about my single title career, she was there all the time with the next steps in mind. An agent should see your worth and hopefully your trajectory. The NYT bestseller at the meeting had a conversation with an agent who had been selling a lot of her books but the writer wanted more and the agent said "not everyone can be a star." Your agent should think you can be a star...

3. She helped my work. Pam is not an editorial person and I didn't want an agent who was going to critique my stuff - I have lots of critique partners - I wanted an agent who would look at my stuff and critique it's salability. Her comments on my proposals were always things like "I don't think this works. This won't sell." She's the one having conversations with editors - she knows what they want and she helped me match my work to that need/want.

4. Respected in the business. Sometimes we don't know how our agent is viewed in the wider world - but considering the respectful and warm business relationship she has with me, I can guess she has the same relationship with editors. If your agent crosses a line in your mind with you or another author - red flags should go up. She hasn't burned any bridges. And as much as writers want to write for editors like Shauna Summers and Jennifer Enderlin, agents want to work with them too and should be building relationships with every editor despite being thorns in thier sides when it comes to contract negotiations.

5. As your career changes so should thier services. This is new to me. Moving into single title I am getting a whole different service from Pam. Wait...maybe that's not true. It's the same service but more of it. She's always been the middle man between me and my editors but now she is more so. In more ways. Tuesday she has a conversation with my editor about what the publisher is doing about promotion...that's never happened before. And I think it should. Promotion is a freaking big deal and a big freaking mystery. And almost no writer I know feels like they've gotten a great answer from thier publisher. Please, tell me if you have...

6. Despite how little money I made or make for Pam, I feel important. Writing catagory I wasn't making Pam much money - like almost none. But I always felt like I could call her. I might be uncomfortable doing it, but that was me, not her. We should feel like our agents - no matter if we're making NO money or ooodles of money - work with us. So many authors I know after a couple of manuscripts don't sell - the agents stop calling. Or returning emails. Wow. Really?

Now, sometimes questions in emails don't get answered. And sometimes it takes a day for an email to get answered. Sometimes I feel all alone in the world - but I'm a writer, I'm bat shit crazy on a good day.

Anyway - those are my thoughts. Do you feel supported by your agent? Why? What do you wish was different?

Fringe - come for the crazy mysteries, stay for the family dramatics

So I tried watching Fringe Season 1 when it played on TV and gave up when it seemed a little repetitive and kind of an X-files rip off. But then we got our hands on Season 2 and Entertainment weekly had been singing the show's praises and so I started at Season 2. (spoiler alert - I'll try not to give anything away, but it's going to be hard, so if you're planning on watching, don't read this)

Which is SO much better. They still have the bizarre monster of the week, and the overarching plotline of what are those things from the other universe, but the dynamics between the players is so much better.

And everything is underplayed. but what I've enjoyed the most is the dynamic between Peter and Walter, son and father. The father is a brilliant scientist, who spent 17 years in a mental institution and is utterly incapable of living independently, and in season 1 the character was nothing but weird and in season 2 he has developed this relationship with his cynical, clever son that humanizes the son and keeps the Dad tethered to reality.

And that relationship, in particular, is underplayed by the actors, a clever choice, considering the drama of the weekly mysteries and the strangeness of the overarching plot.

But then the show introduces us to an alternate Walter, one far closer in personality to his son and we see what Peter could have become had he remained on the path he had been on, and we see what Walter would have been had he not had his mental breakdown and it's brilliant and a great choice by the writers.

It's show I would definitely recommend, because they never forget the characters and the writer's choices are always interesting and usually different from what I'm expecting.

And I just started The Night Circus and so far it's pretty amazing. Has anyone read it? Is it this good all the way to the end?

So I'm doing it...

I'm actually starting to make decisions now about this book I want to self-publish. It really is kind of a crazy thing. Part of me likes it.

Most of me hates it.

I'm a worrier. When I write a book for another publisher all the worries other than - did I do a good job - lands on them. When you're doing it yourself all the worry is with you.

Forget the obvious issues – are there any typos or inconsistencies that are going to make it seem like a "self published" book? Did the copyeditor catch everything? What about copyright infringement issues. What if I used a brand name I wasn't supposed to?

I'm also dealing with cover art and title. I have ideas. I know what "I" like – but I'm no expert in this kind of stuff. What sells? Then of course there is the marketing. How much money should I put toward advertising? How many copies do I need to sell in order to cover the costs of the copy editor and advertising combined in order to make a profit?

Because as Maureen said so eloquently yesterday… it's about the money. I'm not going to get rich – but I need to be compensated for the effort. Yes my love of writing and for whatever reason this story in particular carried me a long way but this a whole lot of work and worry to do this for free.

I'm still a couple of months away – but then I will use this Blog to shamelessly promote it and you can all go and look at the cover and read the title and tell me how you think I did as a publisher.

(And you know… while you're there… maybe you could buy it... if you want to…)

Stating the Obvious

Can we all just stipulate that pretty much everyone in the publishing industry wants to make money? (Stipulate is what the TV lawyers say. ;)

There are some very popular bloggers who've gained disciple-like followings by railing against agents and traditional publishers. Also, some of my writers' loops have been inundated with posts from authors complaining about how publishers or agents or retailers (especially Amazon) are just in it for the money, and how these various entities are behaving in ways that support their own interests.

To which I say, "DUH!"

What I don't get is why some--not all--of these posters seem to think that wanting to make money and caring about books/authors are mutually exclusive.

Sure, not every person in the world loves what they do for a living. Lots of people work in jobs or industries because they landed a job there and need to learn money; and so they plod along, caring little for the products or services their employers provide. I used to be one of those people.

BUT, I would assert that this is less true in the publishing industry than most other industries. Why? Because frankly there just isn't that much money in it. Or at best, the risk/reward balance is skewed such that more people earn a very small living than a great living. You don't go into a business like publishing unless you love books. You don't become an agent unless you love reading and writing and authors and books. I read a discussion recently about how it's almost impossible to become an agent or editor unless you have a trust fund or spouse backing you, because the money's so bad or non-existent for the first many years... (That discussion was about whether this "wealthy white New Yorker" preponderance in the industry biases "taste" and what gets published... but I digress.)

It is also true that the big publishers are now mostly all owned by huge multinationals whose CEOs and shareholders probably don't care about books all that much... but editors and publishers, from everything I've observed, are fighting the good fight for books within these huge corporations.

All that said, I think it's the railing against agents that bothers me the most.

I'm not meaning to suggest, for an instant, that agents' motives are altruistic, but I am sick, sick, sick of hearing authors make anti-agent arguments using, "They just want to earn more money."

Of COURSE they freaking do!!! What kind of fairy tale land are you people living in?

Given all the changes happening in the publishing world right now, I'm very interested in discussions about the pros and cons of some of the recent developments... agents being publishers, retailers being publishers, and everyone trying to figure out what's fair in terms of splitting the proceeds from selling a book in the digital age, and whether agents should earn their normal commission if authors self-publish a book the agent once sold (many years ago) or tried and failed to sell, and whether a publisher can consider a book "in print" paying an author a tiny royalty on a book they aren't promoting, but have up for sale on their website...

All important topics. All interesting. Lots of turmoil and new industry "norms" will undoubtedly be worked out over the next several years, and yes, we authors have to stand up for ourselves and our interests as this all works itself out...

But in these discussions, can't we all just stipulate that everyone involved is out to protect his or her interests and turf? That everyone wants to maximize their potential for earning a living? Including authors? Isn't that obvious?