Molly O'Keefe's Blog, page 58
May 30, 2011
Dead On Delivery and Rocky Moments
Steph was explaining Rocky moments as pertains to romance novels - that moment at the end of the book when - perhaps slightly over the top - love trumps every obstacle. The hero or heroine stands up to fight for thier mate. I'd forgotten this moment - in the romances I loved years ago - the Rocky moment was standard and I think in recent years, because it is so over the top the Rocky moment has fallen by the wayside. Which is too bad, because I love that Rocky moment. And I was reminded of how much I love it when I finished Eileen's Dead On Delivery.
It's not a total romance Rocky moment, she's not standing up for her guy, but she is standing up for herself in a way that was (I'm going to be a little vague in an effort not to spoil anything, because you should totally read this book)
1. Totally believable and yet absolutely subtle. I saw all the negative things she felt about herself, but I just ran with it as part of her snarky sarcastic tone.
2. High stakes - it was absolutely life or death and that's not an easy plot point to get into a book. Though if the book is about things that go bump in the night, it's a little more plausible.
3. Highly effective...I heard the upswell in music, I saw her coming to the center of the ring, broken and battered but with the Eye of The Tiger. I cheered.
So, how about you? Do you miss the Rocky moments? What was your favorite and can you think of one in recent memory?
It's not a total romance Rocky moment, she's not standing up for her guy, but she is standing up for herself in a way that was (I'm going to be a little vague in an effort not to spoil anything, because you should totally read this book)
1. Totally believable and yet absolutely subtle. I saw all the negative things she felt about herself, but I just ran with it as part of her snarky sarcastic tone.
2. High stakes - it was absolutely life or death and that's not an easy plot point to get into a book. Though if the book is about things that go bump in the night, it's a little more plausible.
3. Highly effective...I heard the upswell in music, I saw her coming to the center of the ring, broken and battered but with the Eye of The Tiger. I cheered.
So, how about you? Do you miss the Rocky moments? What was your favorite and can you think of one in recent memory?
May 27, 2011
Game of Thrones, Divergent and Friday Night Lights
I'm writing this post as my first burst of caffeine for the day trickles through my system, so excuse the typos and shaky hands.
I am loving Game of Thrones right now and for so many reasons, but right at the top of the list is my favourite character in the show, the one they first introduced as the imp, Tyrion Lancaster. He is the most fully rounded, interesting character on the show, and played by a remarkable actor. He was first introduced as a whore loving, one note, character, and since then has been revealed as the most intelligent, self-aware character on the show. He's not noble, but he keeps his word. He is not brave, but he can fight if he has to, but usually he chooses not to. He is not usually kind, but when he is, it is towards the disabled, or people on the fringe. He doesn't seem to have friends, but he has struck up a sort of friendship with Stark's bastard son, that is fascinating and has been far more helpful to the son than to Tyrion.
As a character he constantly surprises me, but not in a way that seems out of character.
And I just finished an amazing YA, Divergent. I loved this book, it's fast paced with an engaging heroine and a really interesting world. The heroine isn't prettier, or stronger than anyone else, but she is intelligent and perserveres and the author did an amazing job of showing us why this character really is the heroine of the book. I loved the dystopic world, and even how she resolved the story, while still leaving the story open for the sequel.
And finally, I'm fully caught up on Friday Night Lights. I hate sports, but the football games in this show make my heart stop. And I'm deeply afraid the show is going to break my heart through eighter Luke or Vince. Has anyone seen the entire season? Is it all going to end ok? Are both Vince and Luke going to college?
I am loving Game of Thrones right now and for so many reasons, but right at the top of the list is my favourite character in the show, the one they first introduced as the imp, Tyrion Lancaster. He is the most fully rounded, interesting character on the show, and played by a remarkable actor. He was first introduced as a whore loving, one note, character, and since then has been revealed as the most intelligent, self-aware character on the show. He's not noble, but he keeps his word. He is not brave, but he can fight if he has to, but usually he chooses not to. He is not usually kind, but when he is, it is towards the disabled, or people on the fringe. He doesn't seem to have friends, but he has struck up a sort of friendship with Stark's bastard son, that is fascinating and has been far more helpful to the son than to Tyrion.
As a character he constantly surprises me, but not in a way that seems out of character.
And I just finished an amazing YA, Divergent. I loved this book, it's fast paced with an engaging heroine and a really interesting world. The heroine isn't prettier, or stronger than anyone else, but she is intelligent and perserveres and the author did an amazing job of showing us why this character really is the heroine of the book. I loved the dystopic world, and even how she resolved the story, while still leaving the story open for the sequel.
And finally, I'm fully caught up on Friday Night Lights. I hate sports, but the football games in this show make my heart stop. And I'm deeply afraid the show is going to break my heart through eighter Luke or Vince. Has anyone seen the entire season? Is it all going to end ok? Are both Vince and Luke going to college?
May 26, 2011
"I can fix bad writing... I can't fix a blank page."
This is a famous Nora Roberts quote. I've heard her say it countless of times in her "Chat With" at Nationals. It is usually in response to the questions she's asked about how she is able to write so much and so fast. Doesn't she need to get inspired? No. Doesn't she need her muse? No. Doesn't she ever get writer's block? No.
Nora Roberts goes to work every day and writes. Period. It's her job to produce pages and she does it. What has me thinking about this line lately is the fact that while she does make it happen every day, it's not always good. Especially not the first time around and that's okay.
I'm recently back on a deadline and trying to get myself back into writing shape. For me writing is a muscle. And just like a body can go to crap if you don't exercise it, my ability to produce pages after going months without doing any serious writing has also gone to crap.
But I'm okay with the effort of rebuilding that writing muscle. It feels good. Like starting a new exercise routine before it gets boring. I feel energized and ready to WRITE! And after getting in a few hours during the week and a lot of hours on the weekend slowly my page count is growing.
The problem was when I was working yesterday I was boring myself with what I was writing. I can't even imagine how awful it would be for someone to read it. In that moment I panicked.
What's the point of doing this work if it's no good? Am I just wasting my time?
Then I remembered that all too famous quote. I can fix what I've done. But having nothing, no pages, no boring scenes, no awful stilted dialogue… well that's just a book not written.
So I continue to plug away and take comfort in the fact that when I'm done I might have four hundred pages of crap – but hopefully it will be fixable crap. I believe I read where Nora wasn't attending this year's Nationals and I'll miss her. I'll miss that Chat With where she gives the same answers year in and year out to all the newbies who come to find out what her "magic" is. It never hurts to have a refresher course.
Nora Roberts goes to work every day and writes. Period. It's her job to produce pages and she does it. What has me thinking about this line lately is the fact that while she does make it happen every day, it's not always good. Especially not the first time around and that's okay.
I'm recently back on a deadline and trying to get myself back into writing shape. For me writing is a muscle. And just like a body can go to crap if you don't exercise it, my ability to produce pages after going months without doing any serious writing has also gone to crap.
But I'm okay with the effort of rebuilding that writing muscle. It feels good. Like starting a new exercise routine before it gets boring. I feel energized and ready to WRITE! And after getting in a few hours during the week and a lot of hours on the weekend slowly my page count is growing.
The problem was when I was working yesterday I was boring myself with what I was writing. I can't even imagine how awful it would be for someone to read it. In that moment I panicked.
What's the point of doing this work if it's no good? Am I just wasting my time?
Then I remembered that all too famous quote. I can fix what I've done. But having nothing, no pages, no boring scenes, no awful stilted dialogue… well that's just a book not written.
So I continue to plug away and take comfort in the fact that when I'm done I might have four hundred pages of crap – but hopefully it will be fixable crap. I believe I read where Nora wasn't attending this year's Nationals and I'll miss her. I'll miss that Chat With where she gives the same answers year in and year out to all the newbies who come to find out what her "magic" is. It never hurts to have a refresher course.
May 25, 2011
About Chick Flicks
So, I've been thinking about writing a blog on this topic for a while now. At least since I saw that horrible movie with Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson where they go to war over wanting the same venue on the same day for their weddings. I can't remember the movie's name and don't want to dignify it by looking it up.
In that film, two women, who've been best friends all their lives, suddenly act like total animals over something completely trivial. I don't know which is more appalling to me:
- that the writer/producer of the movies believes women behave this way
- that the writer/producer of the movies knows women who behave this way
- than ANYONE above the age of two would behave that way
- that anyone found this mildly funny -- or
- that I actually went to see this movie.
Yes, women get jealous of each other. PEOPLE get jealous of each other. But I've never understood where this stereotype of women attacking other women comes from. As if it's the default behavior of our gender to claw each others eyes out at the slightest provocation. As if we all secretly want each other to fail.
That has not been my experience with any women I have known.
And that brings me to the two movies I saw last night. Yes two. :) It was a good night. (I wrote a short story yesterday, so was rewarding myself.)
What did I see? Bridesmaids, then Something Borrowed.
I glanced at a review for one of these movies that made me think the reviewer believed these movies fit into this women-attacking-women category, but I beg to differ. Yes, both movies are about women at odds with each other. Long time friends fighting. But the difference is the friendships in both of these movies seem real -- you could tell these women love each other -- and the things they're fighting about aren't as shallow or stupid as who gets to hold their wedding where, and they don't play horrible tricks on each other like dying her best friend's skin orange or her hair blue the day before her wedding. Who does that sort of thing??? Not to mention literally rolling down the aisle in wedding dresses trying to pull each others hair out.
In contrast, I completely bought Kristen Wiig's character's emotions in Bridesmaids. And Maya Rudolph's. Sure, the protagonist (Wiig) had a character arc and wasn't that in touch with her emotions at the beginning of the movie, but I think any woman who's had a best friend or even sister get married, or a friend develop a new friendship that excludes her, or otherwise move into a different phase of her life, can identify with the mixed emotions that Kristen Wiig experiences with her friend. Trying to be happy for her while feeling sad that nothing's going to ever be the same again. Sure, some of the things she does to act out were a tad over the top (it is a comedy) but I totally believed the motivation behind all the actions and it wasn't over something trivial. It was over their friendship. Even Bridesmaid's "mean girl" has a heart in the end and her misdeeds throughout the film are also well motivated.
Same can be said for Something Borrowed. Now the movie's not as great as the book--I don't think the flashback format worked as well on screen as it did in the novel--but the one thing the movie did do well was make me believe the friendship between Rachel and Darcy. Yes, they are very different people. Yes, Darcy is self-centered and Rachel's a push over, but you get that they love each other and the "thing" they are fighting over is happiness.. and that's not trivial. And really they aren't fighting over it... Rachel is fighting with herself over it, battling with the fact that her happiness and her friend's might be at odds.
I wish more movies portrayed female relationships in such a real way.
In that film, two women, who've been best friends all their lives, suddenly act like total animals over something completely trivial. I don't know which is more appalling to me:
- that the writer/producer of the movies believes women behave this way
- that the writer/producer of the movies knows women who behave this way
- than ANYONE above the age of two would behave that way
- that anyone found this mildly funny -- or
- that I actually went to see this movie.
Yes, women get jealous of each other. PEOPLE get jealous of each other. But I've never understood where this stereotype of women attacking other women comes from. As if it's the default behavior of our gender to claw each others eyes out at the slightest provocation. As if we all secretly want each other to fail.
That has not been my experience with any women I have known.
And that brings me to the two movies I saw last night. Yes two. :) It was a good night. (I wrote a short story yesterday, so was rewarding myself.)
What did I see? Bridesmaids, then Something Borrowed.
I glanced at a review for one of these movies that made me think the reviewer believed these movies fit into this women-attacking-women category, but I beg to differ. Yes, both movies are about women at odds with each other. Long time friends fighting. But the difference is the friendships in both of these movies seem real -- you could tell these women love each other -- and the things they're fighting about aren't as shallow or stupid as who gets to hold their wedding where, and they don't play horrible tricks on each other like dying her best friend's skin orange or her hair blue the day before her wedding. Who does that sort of thing??? Not to mention literally rolling down the aisle in wedding dresses trying to pull each others hair out.
In contrast, I completely bought Kristen Wiig's character's emotions in Bridesmaids. And Maya Rudolph's. Sure, the protagonist (Wiig) had a character arc and wasn't that in touch with her emotions at the beginning of the movie, but I think any woman who's had a best friend or even sister get married, or a friend develop a new friendship that excludes her, or otherwise move into a different phase of her life, can identify with the mixed emotions that Kristen Wiig experiences with her friend. Trying to be happy for her while feeling sad that nothing's going to ever be the same again. Sure, some of the things she does to act out were a tad over the top (it is a comedy) but I totally believed the motivation behind all the actions and it wasn't over something trivial. It was over their friendship. Even Bridesmaid's "mean girl" has a heart in the end and her misdeeds throughout the film are also well motivated.
Same can be said for Something Borrowed. Now the movie's not as great as the book--I don't think the flashback format worked as well on screen as it did in the novel--but the one thing the movie did do well was make me believe the friendship between Rachel and Darcy. Yes, they are very different people. Yes, Darcy is self-centered and Rachel's a push over, but you get that they love each other and the "thing" they are fighting over is happiness.. and that's not trivial. And really they aren't fighting over it... Rachel is fighting with herself over it, battling with the fact that her happiness and her friend's might be at odds.
I wish more movies portrayed female relationships in such a real way.
May 24, 2011
It's my birthday!
And I'll apparently forget to post a blog the night before whether I want to or not. Oops!
So I'll just do a quick news update . . . Don't Kill the Messenger is now a finalist for three awards: Bookseller's Best, National Readers Choice and the Prism! I'm completely thrilled. I also got the way good news that Don't Kill the Messenger and Dead on Delivery are going to be re-released next year in mass market paperback. In an interesting twist, they're going to be published by Ace (the science fiction arm of Penguin) rather than Berkley. I'm excited to see what that might mean.
I'v been asked to join a panel on writing paranormal romance at Nationals.
I found two great dresses, one for the Pocket party and one for the Ritas and only need to buy shoes and a purse for one of them.
Oh, and seriously, it's my birthday. I was feeling a little down about it and then my niece pointed out that it's my Gold Rush year. I'm a 49-er, baby!
So I'll just do a quick news update . . . Don't Kill the Messenger is now a finalist for three awards: Bookseller's Best, National Readers Choice and the Prism! I'm completely thrilled. I also got the way good news that Don't Kill the Messenger and Dead on Delivery are going to be re-released next year in mass market paperback. In an interesting twist, they're going to be published by Ace (the science fiction arm of Penguin) rather than Berkley. I'm excited to see what that might mean.
I'v been asked to join a panel on writing paranormal romance at Nationals.
I found two great dresses, one for the Pocket party and one for the Ritas and only need to buy shoes and a purse for one of them.
Oh, and seriously, it's my birthday. I was feeling a little down about it and then my niece pointed out that it's my Gold Rush year. I'm a 49-er, baby!
May 19, 2011
The fine line between a nice heroine and a martyr
I'm reading a book right now, the title of which will not be mentioned in this blog, where the heroine is a martyr, and such a bore. Seriously, in the book, different characters make mention of her being so brave, and capable, and she is both of those things, sort of.
The sort of being, she operates as any one would under the same circumstances, but in this novel, it's boring, a little too much telling and not enough character tics to make her interesting.
I like a heroine who while she's doing brave, selfless acts gets a little annoyed that her manicure just got ruined, or her favourite dress has dirt on it. Better still if she notices a friend has nicer hair and slightly hates that friend for it. Romance heroines are often too nice. I know romance readers want likeability in their heroines, but while she's saving the puppy from the raging fire that she got a little annoyed that because of the stupid puppy, her new louboutins got a scratch on them.
OK, so I've veered off into chick lit territory. I want to relate to a heroine, not feel shamed by her goodness and never ending good will towards others.
The sort of being, she operates as any one would under the same circumstances, but in this novel, it's boring, a little too much telling and not enough character tics to make her interesting.
I like a heroine who while she's doing brave, selfless acts gets a little annoyed that her manicure just got ruined, or her favourite dress has dirt on it. Better still if she notices a friend has nicer hair and slightly hates that friend for it. Romance heroines are often too nice. I know romance readers want likeability in their heroines, but while she's saving the puppy from the raging fire that she got a little annoyed that because of the stupid puppy, her new louboutins got a scratch on them.
OK, so I've veered off into chick lit territory. I want to relate to a heroine, not feel shamed by her goodness and never ending good will towards others.
Basic stuff on Agents...
So last week I hope I explained some basics. You must have a finished book to sell fiction. You may or may not need an agent depending upon which market you chose to sell your book. So if you read last week's blog and have decided you need an agent because you believe you've written the next Harry Potter… all new writers think they've written the next HP or DaVinci Code or whatever the equivalent genre is... then this is what you need to know.
You can use the internet to extrapolate a lot of information. You can Google, you can see articles written about that agent, you can read articles written by the agent herself. They might have a website, a blog. They might tweet. The point is there is NO excuse for a new writer to submit something stupid to an agent. Something they don't represent, something not in the format they requested it, something not exactly to the agents liking. None. Not if you are a professional. The information is all there. And it's free.
I recommend joining Publishers Marketplace. Especially for writers searching for agents. There is a "free" newsletter you can sign up for which will give you a weekly smattering of some of the deals made to NY publishers. But for the low low price of $20 per month you can see deals agents are making for their clients in all genres. This information is invaluable. You can see what type of work agents are representing. You can see what authors agents are representing. And you can see what's selling to NY. This is BIG. This gives you an insight into what's coming because the deals that are being made today might not hit the shelves for another year or two. (You knew that didn't you?)
So after all the research… what comes next?
You need to meet them. My fellow bloggers might disagree – but this is just my humble opinion. MEET them. Now this meet and greet doesn't have to happen until you decide to be represented by them. But I can tell you that meeting them first will help you in choosing who to send your work to.
In today's world everything is done through email. You submit a query, you get a response (maybe). If the agent likes your idea – you send a manuscript. You get a response. If the agent thinks he can sell it – you get an offer. This really should be done by phone call.
And that's when you stop. That's when you must talk to this person. You must meet this person - if not physically then certainly for a long conversation over the phone. I can't tell you how many times I've been burned by this. Because while you are in the high of being offered representation by an agent – you're not thinking clearly. You will say YES to anything. They ask if you want to sign with them, you say yes, the next thing the paperwork is in the mail…. And then what? What do you know about this person.
On the web somewhere is a list of questions you should ask an agent before signing. And that's a good start, but most of all I think you need to get a feel for the person. Can you work with them? Do you two jive? Are you comfortable with this person? So much of that will come into play – especially when the going gets tough. And remember for most the going is going to be tough.
Now for me that's what conferences are for. Go to them. Even if you don't have anything to pitch or sell. Meet the players. Go to their talks and workshops. See who these people are. Even that person to person connection can make all the difference.
I once submitted a query to an agent who at the time requested a full manuscript. I then went to a conference and got to see her talk and I was like… no way. I disagreed with just about everything she said and I knew that together as partners it simply wasn't going to work. She didn't make an offer – if she had I would have squeeweed and told myself it didn't matter that I didn't think we would work well together – but I'm weak. Don't be me. Be strong.
I have an agent now. An agent I'm comfortable with for the first time in fifteen years. It's huge. And it's not something a lot of new writers realize because they are so eager just to have an agent. Trust me. The old adage is true. It's better to have no agent, than an agent who is not right for you.
You can use the internet to extrapolate a lot of information. You can Google, you can see articles written about that agent, you can read articles written by the agent herself. They might have a website, a blog. They might tweet. The point is there is NO excuse for a new writer to submit something stupid to an agent. Something they don't represent, something not in the format they requested it, something not exactly to the agents liking. None. Not if you are a professional. The information is all there. And it's free.
I recommend joining Publishers Marketplace. Especially for writers searching for agents. There is a "free" newsletter you can sign up for which will give you a weekly smattering of some of the deals made to NY publishers. But for the low low price of $20 per month you can see deals agents are making for their clients in all genres. This information is invaluable. You can see what type of work agents are representing. You can see what authors agents are representing. And you can see what's selling to NY. This is BIG. This gives you an insight into what's coming because the deals that are being made today might not hit the shelves for another year or two. (You knew that didn't you?)
So after all the research… what comes next?
You need to meet them. My fellow bloggers might disagree – but this is just my humble opinion. MEET them. Now this meet and greet doesn't have to happen until you decide to be represented by them. But I can tell you that meeting them first will help you in choosing who to send your work to.
In today's world everything is done through email. You submit a query, you get a response (maybe). If the agent likes your idea – you send a manuscript. You get a response. If the agent thinks he can sell it – you get an offer. This really should be done by phone call.
And that's when you stop. That's when you must talk to this person. You must meet this person - if not physically then certainly for a long conversation over the phone. I can't tell you how many times I've been burned by this. Because while you are in the high of being offered representation by an agent – you're not thinking clearly. You will say YES to anything. They ask if you want to sign with them, you say yes, the next thing the paperwork is in the mail…. And then what? What do you know about this person.
On the web somewhere is a list of questions you should ask an agent before signing. And that's a good start, but most of all I think you need to get a feel for the person. Can you work with them? Do you two jive? Are you comfortable with this person? So much of that will come into play – especially when the going gets tough. And remember for most the going is going to be tough.
Now for me that's what conferences are for. Go to them. Even if you don't have anything to pitch or sell. Meet the players. Go to their talks and workshops. See who these people are. Even that person to person connection can make all the difference.
I once submitted a query to an agent who at the time requested a full manuscript. I then went to a conference and got to see her talk and I was like… no way. I disagreed with just about everything she said and I knew that together as partners it simply wasn't going to work. She didn't make an offer – if she had I would have squeeweed and told myself it didn't matter that I didn't think we would work well together – but I'm weak. Don't be me. Be strong.
I have an agent now. An agent I'm comfortable with for the first time in fifteen years. It's huge. And it's not something a lot of new writers realize because they are so eager just to have an agent. Trust me. The old adage is true. It's better to have no agent, than an agent who is not right for you.
May 18, 2011
Personal Stakes
I just finished a really great book. I almost want to mention the title, because it really was a very, very good book that I read quickly, and actually missed a few subway and streetcar stops over.
But I know the author and what I mostly want to talk about isn't how great it was (and it was great) but why I don't think it was supercalafragalisticexpialadocious. (How the heck do you spell that? I'm sure I could google, but think I'll stick with my spelling. ;)
It's a YA fantasy, but the genre I think the book is closest to is an amateur detective story. (And in fact, it's been nominated for an Edgar.) It's set in this marvelous fantasy world that's beyond clever and the writing is very strong. But, and maybe this is why I don't read a lot of detective stories, what was missing for me was personal stakes. The hero of the story didn't have enough personally invested. I didn't believe the crime he was trying to uncover mattered enough to him, or maybe it simply didn't matter enough to me.
In the end I think it is a genre preference and explains why I don't tend to watch the crime/detective shows on TV, unless the shows are highly filled with the drama (love lives) of the recurring characters', or the show really delves into why the crimes are being committed (like Flashpoint).
But it also reminds me of something I think I heard Donald Maass say (might have been someone else...) and that was to create a bestselling blockbuster, not only do you need personal stakes, the hero needs to be threatened from two sides -- both the good guys and the bad guys. With dire consequences for him/her should either side catch up with him/her before the crime is solved. Think The Firm.
In this book, the hero was threatened from two sides, but, well, did it matter enough if either side caught him? Especially the good guys side? Although the detective after him was the a terrifying re-imagining of Snow White--no, not the evil queen--Snow White!! Maybe I'm talking myself out of my criticism for this particular book. I need to talk to Sinead (who's not around this week) because she and her husband are the only other people I know who've read it...
What about everyone else? Is an amateur detective solving a crime enough for you? Or do you prefer the hero/heroine to have something personally invested in the outcome.
For this book, it was enough for me. Totally. Because the world was so cool and the writing so awesome. But put it in another world and I don't think the stakes were high enough.
Okay, I think I've talked myself out of my criticism, I think the hero did have personal stakes, but they were internal, rather than external. He needed to believe he wasn't going to turn out like his father... But many people in the story tell him he's not like his father... So, I'm not sure I believed he was truly scared that he was...
Regardless, even if I've mostly talked myself out of my criticism while writing this post, this book did make me think about personal stakes. And everyone should read the book, so I'm going to mention the title after all. :)
The totally awesome book I've been talking about is Dust City by Robert Paul Weston. The hero is the son of the wolf who killed Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother. How cool is that???
But I know the author and what I mostly want to talk about isn't how great it was (and it was great) but why I don't think it was supercalafragalisticexpialadocious. (How the heck do you spell that? I'm sure I could google, but think I'll stick with my spelling. ;)
It's a YA fantasy, but the genre I think the book is closest to is an amateur detective story. (And in fact, it's been nominated for an Edgar.) It's set in this marvelous fantasy world that's beyond clever and the writing is very strong. But, and maybe this is why I don't read a lot of detective stories, what was missing for me was personal stakes. The hero of the story didn't have enough personally invested. I didn't believe the crime he was trying to uncover mattered enough to him, or maybe it simply didn't matter enough to me.
In the end I think it is a genre preference and explains why I don't tend to watch the crime/detective shows on TV, unless the shows are highly filled with the drama (love lives) of the recurring characters', or the show really delves into why the crimes are being committed (like Flashpoint).
But it also reminds me of something I think I heard Donald Maass say (might have been someone else...) and that was to create a bestselling blockbuster, not only do you need personal stakes, the hero needs to be threatened from two sides -- both the good guys and the bad guys. With dire consequences for him/her should either side catch up with him/her before the crime is solved. Think The Firm.
In this book, the hero was threatened from two sides, but, well, did it matter enough if either side caught him? Especially the good guys side? Although the detective after him was the a terrifying re-imagining of Snow White--no, not the evil queen--Snow White!! Maybe I'm talking myself out of my criticism for this particular book. I need to talk to Sinead (who's not around this week) because she and her husband are the only other people I know who've read it...
What about everyone else? Is an amateur detective solving a crime enough for you? Or do you prefer the hero/heroine to have something personally invested in the outcome.
For this book, it was enough for me. Totally. Because the world was so cool and the writing so awesome. But put it in another world and I don't think the stakes were high enough.
Okay, I think I've talked myself out of my criticism, I think the hero did have personal stakes, but they were internal, rather than external. He needed to believe he wasn't going to turn out like his father... But many people in the story tell him he's not like his father... So, I'm not sure I believed he was truly scared that he was...
Regardless, even if I've mostly talked myself out of my criticism while writing this post, this book did make me think about personal stakes. And everyone should read the book, so I'm going to mention the title after all. :)
The totally awesome book I've been talking about is Dust City by Robert Paul Weston. The hero is the son of the wolf who killed Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother. How cool is that???
May 16, 2011
All Dressed Up
I'm sick of it. I'm sick of all the women on TV being dressed inappropriately. I'm tired of the lawyers and CIA Directors going to work dressed like they were going to a cocktail party. I loved Covert Affairs and Fairly Legal, but the bosses on those shows were always dressed in ways that would make HR call them in for a chat.
And Bones? Seriously? Brennan is supposed to be all unaware of social conventions, but she shows up every day in stylish, perfectly accessorized outfits with her hair falling in effortless waves? I know a few Aspergerish scientist chicks and trust me when I tell you, they don't know how to dress like that.
Even on Grey's Anatomy! Nobody looks like that in scrubs. Nobody. Those have to be special cocktail scrubs.
I know I'm exaggerating. I'm pretty sure all those Law and Order assistant DAs dressed reasonably. There are probably more. Maybe I'm just feeling old and dowdy. My birthday is rolling around soon and I'm feeling my age these days.
So what do you think are the most egregious examples of characters being inappropriately dressed on TV or in the movies?
And Bones? Seriously? Brennan is supposed to be all unaware of social conventions, but she shows up every day in stylish, perfectly accessorized outfits with her hair falling in effortless waves? I know a few Aspergerish scientist chicks and trust me when I tell you, they don't know how to dress like that.
Even on Grey's Anatomy! Nobody looks like that in scrubs. Nobody. Those have to be special cocktail scrubs.
I know I'm exaggerating. I'm pretty sure all those Law and Order assistant DAs dressed reasonably. There are probably more. Maybe I'm just feeling old and dowdy. My birthday is rolling around soon and I'm feeling my age these days.
So what do you think are the most egregious examples of characters being inappropriately dressed on TV or in the movies?
ROOM, point of view and emotional intensity
I read the book ROOM this weekend. For those that aren't familiar it's the story of Jack, a five year old boy who has spent his entire life with his Ma, in a 12 by 12 foot garden shed, kept prisoner by his mother's kidnapper and rapist.
Everyone who'd read this book says it's uplifting and as I typed that sentence above I'm amazed yet again by how uplifting it truly was. And at the same time what was terrifying and sad about the book - which for the most part is inferred, or revealed sideways or happens to some extent off page - has taken over my life for the last twenty-four hours. And the tool the incredible author uses to create the uplifting and the terrifying is the same damn tool - POV.
Jack loves his mom. This is the only world he's ever known, she has chosen not to tell him that there is an outside. He is content. Happy. We get page long descriptions of how and why he loves Dora The Explorer. (Something Ma uses when it's time to make their escape - effing brilliant.)
So, the world is dramatic but the emotion and drama are dialed down because our POV character is really so happy, but that made the moments that were dramatic - the escape and a few others I don't want to spoil - so terrifying I had to skim them. But because there's this whole other story - Ma's - hinted at, and revealed in parts by Jack, my imagination has been going crazy putting together those pieces, imagining her story.
I remember something Laura Kinsale said about taking the emotions out of the big emotional scenes - and I so agree with this (but can never seem to do it, because I'm a more is more kind of writer) if you've done your job those big scenes, the big heartbreaks - they're there without any words and a lot of times that's more effective than bashing a reader over the head.
Head on emotional writing feels old to me right now, I'm a little tired of finding other words for 'pain.' But showing the big emotional scenes through the corner of a character's eyes, on the fringes, there but secondary and sometimes so totally opposite to the day to day reality of that character - also an amazing way to play it.
Everyone who'd read this book says it's uplifting and as I typed that sentence above I'm amazed yet again by how uplifting it truly was. And at the same time what was terrifying and sad about the book - which for the most part is inferred, or revealed sideways or happens to some extent off page - has taken over my life for the last twenty-four hours. And the tool the incredible author uses to create the uplifting and the terrifying is the same damn tool - POV.
Jack loves his mom. This is the only world he's ever known, she has chosen not to tell him that there is an outside. He is content. Happy. We get page long descriptions of how and why he loves Dora The Explorer. (Something Ma uses when it's time to make their escape - effing brilliant.)
So, the world is dramatic but the emotion and drama are dialed down because our POV character is really so happy, but that made the moments that were dramatic - the escape and a few others I don't want to spoil - so terrifying I had to skim them. But because there's this whole other story - Ma's - hinted at, and revealed in parts by Jack, my imagination has been going crazy putting together those pieces, imagining her story.
I remember something Laura Kinsale said about taking the emotions out of the big emotional scenes - and I so agree with this (but can never seem to do it, because I'm a more is more kind of writer) if you've done your job those big scenes, the big heartbreaks - they're there without any words and a lot of times that's more effective than bashing a reader over the head.
Head on emotional writing feels old to me right now, I'm a little tired of finding other words for 'pain.' But showing the big emotional scenes through the corner of a character's eyes, on the fringes, there but secondary and sometimes so totally opposite to the day to day reality of that character - also an amazing way to play it.
