Molly O'Keefe's Blog, page 63
March 11, 2011
They're just words on a page
There is a point while I'm editing where I lose track of the story, the scene, and I'm staring at words on a page.
I'm there now. I can evaluate sentences, but the effectiveness of scenes are beyond me, and I cannot sort it out in context with the book. So when someone asks, how is the book coming, I truly have no idea. I'm so caught up in the trees, I barely know the forest exists.
I know there was a point where I could read scenes and chapters and point to what was wrong. But that point is not where I'm changing words, and I'm really concerned I can't get back there. Because when you've read a scene four, or five times, it stops making sense within story context.
I always feel like my threshold for this is lower than other writers. That I get to this point faster and get immersed in it easier. I know writers that can edit and edit and love to do this and truly have an amazing impact on the book, while I know after a while, I'm changing words and nothing else.
Other than time away from the book, does anyone have any good tips for editing without losing focus on the story?
I'm there now. I can evaluate sentences, but the effectiveness of scenes are beyond me, and I cannot sort it out in context with the book. So when someone asks, how is the book coming, I truly have no idea. I'm so caught up in the trees, I barely know the forest exists.
I know there was a point where I could read scenes and chapters and point to what was wrong. But that point is not where I'm changing words, and I'm really concerned I can't get back there. Because when you've read a scene four, or five times, it stops making sense within story context.
I always feel like my threshold for this is lower than other writers. That I get to this point faster and get immersed in it easier. I know writers that can edit and edit and love to do this and truly have an amazing impact on the book, while I know after a while, I'm changing words and nothing else.
Other than time away from the book, does anyone have any good tips for editing without losing focus on the story?
March 10, 2011
Eat the Hard...
I know… it sounds totally pornographic… but it's all I've been thinking about lately. For those of you who having been following us for a while you'll remember Nora Roberts coined this phrase at last year's National Conference in her keynote address. For those of you new to DWT – then yes… she did say "Eat the Hard" to a group of 2000 plus women.
Her point is that publishing ain't easy. She can't be bothered with excuses like the market is shrinking, there is no room for new authors, getting sold is MUCH harder today than it was 20 years ago and there is too much pressure to be a bestseller right out of the gate.
Instead embrace it. Eat it. Own it. Be better than everyone else. Be different. Make your book so good that no one can stand not to publish it. Because that's what publishing is about and it doesn't matter when you started. Forget what was the market, focus on what is the market and do your job better than everyone else.If you're feeling sorry for yourself… stop it and go back to work.
Nora Roberts is the Jillian Michaels of writing. All genres too – not just romance. Because I can't imagine it's any easier to break through as a "Thriller" writer or a "Mystery" writer. Name your genre. I'm sure there are lots of mystery writers who believe they are the next James Patterson and don't understand why they just can't get their chance.
Nora got to the top by working hard. She expects that anyone wanting to reach that top needs to work just as hard if not harder. And there is no room for cry babies that's for sure.
I respond to this type of kick-your-ass motivation and I need it because right now I'm feeling sorry for myself. My writing isn't going well with the new book. I can't seem to get a foothold in the story. I'm stressing about my current release, my book out on submission and the next proposal for my current publisher.
I feel like I need some validation from "the publishing world" that I can do this. Sure we take in the feedback from friends and critique partners. And we definitely need that. But in the end it's so easy to dismiss it when you get a rejection. The only thing that matters is if NY likes it. Sort of like asking your friend how you look in the dress vs. asking your mother.
So here I am hanging over the pit of despair wondering again if I have a smidgen of the talent needed to write the books I have in my head… and the words come back to me… Eat the Hard.
Work harder. More often. Give your next idea everything. Stop whining and worrying and just sit your butt in the chair and figure out how to tell the story in your head. It's good. It's deep and intense and layered. Just get it out….
Yep - Nora's husky voice is in my head and she's really trying to drown out the sulky depressed whinny voice that's saying… "You're just not that good a writer." I'm hoping she wins.
What about you? Who is in your head when you need someone to kick your butt?
Her point is that publishing ain't easy. She can't be bothered with excuses like the market is shrinking, there is no room for new authors, getting sold is MUCH harder today than it was 20 years ago and there is too much pressure to be a bestseller right out of the gate.
Instead embrace it. Eat it. Own it. Be better than everyone else. Be different. Make your book so good that no one can stand not to publish it. Because that's what publishing is about and it doesn't matter when you started. Forget what was the market, focus on what is the market and do your job better than everyone else.If you're feeling sorry for yourself… stop it and go back to work.
Nora Roberts is the Jillian Michaels of writing. All genres too – not just romance. Because I can't imagine it's any easier to break through as a "Thriller" writer or a "Mystery" writer. Name your genre. I'm sure there are lots of mystery writers who believe they are the next James Patterson and don't understand why they just can't get their chance.
Nora got to the top by working hard. She expects that anyone wanting to reach that top needs to work just as hard if not harder. And there is no room for cry babies that's for sure.
I respond to this type of kick-your-ass motivation and I need it because right now I'm feeling sorry for myself. My writing isn't going well with the new book. I can't seem to get a foothold in the story. I'm stressing about my current release, my book out on submission and the next proposal for my current publisher.
I feel like I need some validation from "the publishing world" that I can do this. Sure we take in the feedback from friends and critique partners. And we definitely need that. But in the end it's so easy to dismiss it when you get a rejection. The only thing that matters is if NY likes it. Sort of like asking your friend how you look in the dress vs. asking your mother.
So here I am hanging over the pit of despair wondering again if I have a smidgen of the talent needed to write the books I have in my head… and the words come back to me… Eat the Hard.
Work harder. More often. Give your next idea everything. Stop whining and worrying and just sit your butt in the chair and figure out how to tell the story in your head. It's good. It's deep and intense and layered. Just get it out….
Yep - Nora's husky voice is in my head and she's really trying to drown out the sulky depressed whinny voice that's saying… "You're just not that good a writer." I'm hoping she wins.
What about you? Who is in your head when you need someone to kick your butt?
March 9, 2011
Embrace Your Inner Villain
Most of us who've been at this storytelling thing for a while know that it's important to understand and show the motivation of not only your protagonist, but also the bad guys.
And while I already understood that, this is an area where I sometimes cop out... "Because he's evil!" LOL And one other tidbit I remember from that Paul Haggis talk was about understanding villains. He made me see that it shouldn't be a surface level thing.
He said that for every character he's written, who does something most of us would consider "bad", he works hard to put himself in that character's shoes and write the scenes with the understanding of why the villain truly believes he/she is doing good. That is, it's not enough for a villain's motivation to be the hero deserves this for I am evil, or for I want revenge, or whatever... Better if the villain truly believes he/she is doing the right thing and for the writer to explore and understand that.
This discussion came up after we watched a clip from Crash. It was the scene early in the movie, where Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton are pulled over by the Matt Dillon cop character (when she was giving her husband a BJ while he was driving) and the Dillon character basically uses his power of authority to sexually molest Thandie Newton.
Stepping back for a second, the amazing thing about Crash, for me, is how Haggis forces us to see two sides to every character in that movie. The people who initially seem bad, we see good things and vice versa. But listening to him talk about how he developed all that, I realized it was more than just showing the sympathetic side of the "villains". It was his understanding why each character thinks his actions are not villainous.
For example, he reasoned that in that scene Matt Dillon truly believed he was doing Thandie Newton and Terrence Howard a favor. He wasn't just wielding his power to get off on it. He believed he was teaching them an important lesson to keep them safe. He thinks something like: Fool around while you're behind the wheel of the car and there could be dangerous consequences. This, what I'm doing now? Is nothing compared to what could have actually happened if you'd crashed the car or hit a pedestrian. Me doing this to you now, humiliating you both, will help you remember those consequences and think twice before you act recklessly again.
Sure the audience doesn't get all that. We see a cop we assume is a racist arrogant asshole using his power and position to put his hand on Thandie Newton's private parts in front of her husband who's too afraid to do a thing about it... But listening to how Haggis thought about it and talked to Dillon about it on set, and then thinking through the other things that happen with his character (until he ultimately saves the Thandie Newton character from a car crash...) it all resonated deeply for me. And I think I understood a bit more why I love that movie.
And from now on, I'm going to work harder on thinking about my villains' motivations and why they truly believe they are doing the right thing.
BTW When asked about the coincidences in Crash, which didn't bother me at all when I first saw that movie -- to me, that movie was like a miracle, but Haggis's response (and I'm sure he's been asked that questions a million times) was that Crash was meant as a parable. But that modern audiences can't recognize a parable in a modern day setting. Some people might not buy that and might think he's making up an excuse after the fact, but I buy it. The story was about connections, lives colliding into each other, so the conicidences of their meeting was part of that overall story. (Crash is one of my top 10 movies...)
One final thing on Haggis. He also talked about how furious fellow Canadian director David Cronenberg was with him for using that title. (Cronenberg has a 1996 film also called Crash.) Haggis said Crash was actually just a working title he didn't plan to use, but the distributor liked it. And Cronenberg... Really mad. I was lucky enough to be at the world premiere screening of Crash about 15 months before it hit theatres and when Haggis introduced the film he didn't say much, if memory serves, except that we were the very first people to see it (not even any industry screenings before) and then he apologized to David Cronenberg for using that title.
How much do you think about your villain's motivations? Do yours think they are doing the right thing?
And while I already understood that, this is an area where I sometimes cop out... "Because he's evil!" LOL And one other tidbit I remember from that Paul Haggis talk was about understanding villains. He made me see that it shouldn't be a surface level thing.
He said that for every character he's written, who does something most of us would consider "bad", he works hard to put himself in that character's shoes and write the scenes with the understanding of why the villain truly believes he/she is doing good. That is, it's not enough for a villain's motivation to be the hero deserves this for I am evil, or for I want revenge, or whatever... Better if the villain truly believes he/she is doing the right thing and for the writer to explore and understand that.
This discussion came up after we watched a clip from Crash. It was the scene early in the movie, where Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton are pulled over by the Matt Dillon cop character (when she was giving her husband a BJ while he was driving) and the Dillon character basically uses his power of authority to sexually molest Thandie Newton.
Stepping back for a second, the amazing thing about Crash, for me, is how Haggis forces us to see two sides to every character in that movie. The people who initially seem bad, we see good things and vice versa. But listening to him talk about how he developed all that, I realized it was more than just showing the sympathetic side of the "villains". It was his understanding why each character thinks his actions are not villainous.
For example, he reasoned that in that scene Matt Dillon truly believed he was doing Thandie Newton and Terrence Howard a favor. He wasn't just wielding his power to get off on it. He believed he was teaching them an important lesson to keep them safe. He thinks something like: Fool around while you're behind the wheel of the car and there could be dangerous consequences. This, what I'm doing now? Is nothing compared to what could have actually happened if you'd crashed the car or hit a pedestrian. Me doing this to you now, humiliating you both, will help you remember those consequences and think twice before you act recklessly again.
Sure the audience doesn't get all that. We see a cop we assume is a racist arrogant asshole using his power and position to put his hand on Thandie Newton's private parts in front of her husband who's too afraid to do a thing about it... But listening to how Haggis thought about it and talked to Dillon about it on set, and then thinking through the other things that happen with his character (until he ultimately saves the Thandie Newton character from a car crash...) it all resonated deeply for me. And I think I understood a bit more why I love that movie.
And from now on, I'm going to work harder on thinking about my villains' motivations and why they truly believe they are doing the right thing.
BTW When asked about the coincidences in Crash, which didn't bother me at all when I first saw that movie -- to me, that movie was like a miracle, but Haggis's response (and I'm sure he's been asked that questions a million times) was that Crash was meant as a parable. But that modern audiences can't recognize a parable in a modern day setting. Some people might not buy that and might think he's making up an excuse after the fact, but I buy it. The story was about connections, lives colliding into each other, so the conicidences of their meeting was part of that overall story. (Crash is one of my top 10 movies...)
One final thing on Haggis. He also talked about how furious fellow Canadian director David Cronenberg was with him for using that title. (Cronenberg has a 1996 film also called Crash.) Haggis said Crash was actually just a working title he didn't plan to use, but the distributor liked it. And Cronenberg... Really mad. I was lucky enough to be at the world premiere screening of Crash about 15 months before it hit theatres and when Haggis introduced the film he didn't say much, if memory serves, except that we were the very first people to see it (not even any industry screenings before) and then he apologized to David Cronenberg for using that title.
How much do you think about your villain's motivations? Do yours think they are doing the right thing?
March 7, 2011
Prejudice and Reading
I generally consider myself a pretty open-minded person. I like to think of myself as tolerant and accepting. I hate it when I realize that I'm not as tolerant or as accepting as I wish I was.
I recently downloaded an audio book from the library (I totally love doing this, by the way, it so so cool that I can hit a couple of buttons and have an entire book loaded onto my iPod without ever leaving my house although I really worry about copyright infringement and pirating, but that's a blog of a whole 'nother color). I hadn't heard of the author, but the premise of the book sounded interesting and since it was from the library, it was pretty much a no risk proposition.
I started listening to the book and it was terrific. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's darn good. I started wondering if this was the author's first book since she was so terrific and I hadn't heard of her. I went online. Nope. She had dozens of books. I did a little more investigating. She's published by Zondervan, an Evangelical publisher of Christian books.
This kind of froze me in my tracks. I realized that if I'd known that this was an Inspirational novel (I believe that's the classification that RWA would use), I wouldn't have picked it up. I'm not Christian. I assumed that the issues being dealt with in an Inspirational novel, or at least the ways in which those issues would be dealt, wouldn't speak to me.
Boy, was I wrong and, boy, do I feel like a great big bigot. But can I just say, "Yay, reading!" Because as embarrassed as I am about being a bigot, I'm super excited about the idea that reading can break down those kinds of prejudices just by telling a great story that opens someone's eyes.
What about you? Have you stumbled across any prejudices that you didn't know you had? Has reading opened your eyes to someone else's world?
I recently downloaded an audio book from the library (I totally love doing this, by the way, it so so cool that I can hit a couple of buttons and have an entire book loaded onto my iPod without ever leaving my house although I really worry about copyright infringement and pirating, but that's a blog of a whole 'nother color). I hadn't heard of the author, but the premise of the book sounded interesting and since it was from the library, it was pretty much a no risk proposition.
I started listening to the book and it was terrific. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's darn good. I started wondering if this was the author's first book since she was so terrific and I hadn't heard of her. I went online. Nope. She had dozens of books. I did a little more investigating. She's published by Zondervan, an Evangelical publisher of Christian books.
This kind of froze me in my tracks. I realized that if I'd known that this was an Inspirational novel (I believe that's the classification that RWA would use), I wouldn't have picked it up. I'm not Christian. I assumed that the issues being dealt with in an Inspirational novel, or at least the ways in which those issues would be dealt, wouldn't speak to me.
Boy, was I wrong and, boy, do I feel like a great big bigot. But can I just say, "Yay, reading!" Because as embarrassed as I am about being a bigot, I'm super excited about the idea that reading can break down those kinds of prejudices just by telling a great story that opens someone's eyes.
What about you? Have you stumbled across any prejudices that you didn't know you had? Has reading opened your eyes to someone else's world?
Cop outs: I'm Not Writing That Kind Of Book
Maureen and I were at the office the other day and I realized I had written fifty pages (not in one day, because that would be nuts!) without any chapter breaks. And for awhile it was fun to go through and stick in those page breaks, but then I realized with a sort of sick sinking in my stomach, that there were no chapters, because I wasn't writing to that chapter end - that little cliffhanger that I know from experience, keep readers up way past thier bedtime.
So, I mentioned this to Maureen, saying that I had gone into this book, with all of it's betrayals and secrets and damaged people with the idea that I was going to take a page from Hunger Games and write to a cliffhanger, and try to put in at least one reversal of expectation in each chapter - small ones, little bits of dialogue, something.
I laughed and said "oops."
Maureen nodded and said in this last book of hers, that she wrote every scene to a cliffhanger. Now, I love Maureen. I really do. She's totally swell. But I wanted to throw hot coffee at her. I did.
But then I thought - she's writing action/adventure YA. She's got monsters and danger and threats from all sides. I'm writing a romance. It's just not that kind of book. And I let myself think that for the rest of the day. But that night I laid in bed and knew it to be a cop out.
I might not have danger, but I have drama. I have hurt feelings and broken hearts and when paced right - that emotional plot is as gripping as an external plot. I know, because I've been kept up late by those books. So, I can't let myself off the hook with this. I have to hold myself to the bar I set.
So? What are your cop outs? What are the little lies you tell yourself in order to get through that first draft?
So, I mentioned this to Maureen, saying that I had gone into this book, with all of it's betrayals and secrets and damaged people with the idea that I was going to take a page from Hunger Games and write to a cliffhanger, and try to put in at least one reversal of expectation in each chapter - small ones, little bits of dialogue, something.
I laughed and said "oops."
Maureen nodded and said in this last book of hers, that she wrote every scene to a cliffhanger. Now, I love Maureen. I really do. She's totally swell. But I wanted to throw hot coffee at her. I did.
But then I thought - she's writing action/adventure YA. She's got monsters and danger and threats from all sides. I'm writing a romance. It's just not that kind of book. And I let myself think that for the rest of the day. But that night I laid in bed and knew it to be a cop out.
I might not have danger, but I have drama. I have hurt feelings and broken hearts and when paced right - that emotional plot is as gripping as an external plot. I know, because I've been kept up late by those books. So, I can't let myself off the hook with this. I have to hold myself to the bar I set.
So? What are your cop outs? What are the little lies you tell yourself in order to get through that first draft?
March 4, 2011
Do I need my opinion confirmed?
Still obsessed with this season's American Idol, and it has very little to do with the contestants. I realyl don't care to hear another version of a Mariah Carey song and while there are a couple of guys that seem as if they could be interesting, all the fun for me is in watching the judges.
I love Steven Tyler, he seems so loopy and sincere, and genuinely thrilled to be there. And now J Lo - seriously, cannot stop watching her. I spend a lot of time trying to sort out her makeup techniques and just how gorgeous she is, and how genuine she also seems to be and how invested in this contestants she is. Both she and Tyler seem to really care about how they do.
Which is great, but it has left the heavy lifting of the critiquing to Randy, and well, he's never been very good at that.
What I'm saying is that I miss Simon. I miss his very direct comments about the performances, not his cruel statements, but how he'd get to the point, without any real concern for the contestant's feelings. But he was mostly right, when the rest of the panel got it wrong, which they frequently did.
And sadly, when Simon loved a performance I loved, it made me love it more. As if I needed my opinion justified.
Because right now the judging panel cares too much. And in certain instances they are overpraising some performances.
In previous seasons I used to fast forward through all the critiques except Simon's and now I find I'm fastforwarding through them all. But I'm still watching, as long as J Lo continues to fascinate me.
I love Steven Tyler, he seems so loopy and sincere, and genuinely thrilled to be there. And now J Lo - seriously, cannot stop watching her. I spend a lot of time trying to sort out her makeup techniques and just how gorgeous she is, and how genuine she also seems to be and how invested in this contestants she is. Both she and Tyler seem to really care about how they do.
Which is great, but it has left the heavy lifting of the critiquing to Randy, and well, he's never been very good at that.
What I'm saying is that I miss Simon. I miss his very direct comments about the performances, not his cruel statements, but how he'd get to the point, without any real concern for the contestant's feelings. But he was mostly right, when the rest of the panel got it wrong, which they frequently did.
And sadly, when Simon loved a performance I loved, it made me love it more. As if I needed my opinion justified.
Because right now the judging panel cares too much. And in certain instances they are overpraising some performances.
In previous seasons I used to fast forward through all the critiques except Simon's and now I find I'm fastforwarding through them all. But I'm still watching, as long as J Lo continues to fascinate me.
March 3, 2011
Where Are We Going?
So I read in Publisher's Marketplace an article about the jump in ebook sales for January… again. The numbers were staggering. Makes sense – people got their Kindles and Nooks for Christmas so January definitely might show a spike that ultimately levels out. But the reality is bookstores are closing. I know I'm responsible because I haven't stepped inside one since I got my Kindle. And while ebooks are on a meteoric rise (which many say is because they have nowhere to go but up) it still seems the market is shrinking.
It's crazy to say, because in so many ways I feel like a novice having only written for one publisher for all these years, but I've been in the publishing business now going on 15 + years. For the first time I really feel on edge.
Not that the whole thing is going to come tumbling down. I'm not a doom and gloomer. I mean when the music industry changed and all the record stores closed there were still artists coming out and making music and selling records and making money.
I kind of look at the two industries the same in that regard. Record labels are still signing artists and radio stations are still only playing selected songs they choose to promote. They are doing a filtering process for us so that not everyone who thinks they can sing (ala American Idol) can start screeching at us through the car radio. Thank goodness.
Then there is YouTube. And here anyone can put their song video up and maybe somehow it/they will catch fire. Greyson Chance comes to mind. He's a 13 year old kid who did a cool version of Lady Gaga's Paparazzi for a middle school talent show. The next thing he's on Ellen, signing what I'm sure is a major deal, now touring the country and performing.
People are going to succeed through traditional channels. And now, because of ebooks, people might be able to succeed through self-publishing avenues. Who knows maybe I can put a book on Amazon. If the stars align maybe someone will find it and read it and maybe some crazy fire will catch too and I'll actually profit from my sales. I've never viewed this type of process as a real road to publishing success. My attitude has always been if my book is good enough – a publisher will see it and pay me money for it. If it's not – they won't.
But with stores closing, self-publishing growing and the market shrinking… I don't know anymore.
I really do believe we need agents, editors and publishers. I believe in the filtering system despite how harsh it can be. Because there is a difference between a person who wants to write and a person who can write. As a reader I don't want to have to wade through the masses to find the quality.
However, I will say that where the path seemed very clear to me before… write a book, get an agent, sell it to a publisher, get an advance, earn out royalties… now I don't know.
I read on Dear Author – I think it was - about the concept of identifying with editors. Maybe you love every author editor Jane Doe signed. Maybe Jane Doe now contracts directly with authors and together you both sell your books. The author generates the product, the editor lends creditability to the quality of it. Everything is done electronically.
A whole new world maybe. I've been reading for so long that the publishing world needs to change its outdated method of returns and storage and distribution… but now it really feels like it's finally happening and I'm not sure what it's all going to mean.
What will be the publishing future for writers?
It's crazy to say, because in so many ways I feel like a novice having only written for one publisher for all these years, but I've been in the publishing business now going on 15 + years. For the first time I really feel on edge.
Not that the whole thing is going to come tumbling down. I'm not a doom and gloomer. I mean when the music industry changed and all the record stores closed there were still artists coming out and making music and selling records and making money.
I kind of look at the two industries the same in that regard. Record labels are still signing artists and radio stations are still only playing selected songs they choose to promote. They are doing a filtering process for us so that not everyone who thinks they can sing (ala American Idol) can start screeching at us through the car radio. Thank goodness.
Then there is YouTube. And here anyone can put their song video up and maybe somehow it/they will catch fire. Greyson Chance comes to mind. He's a 13 year old kid who did a cool version of Lady Gaga's Paparazzi for a middle school talent show. The next thing he's on Ellen, signing what I'm sure is a major deal, now touring the country and performing.
People are going to succeed through traditional channels. And now, because of ebooks, people might be able to succeed through self-publishing avenues. Who knows maybe I can put a book on Amazon. If the stars align maybe someone will find it and read it and maybe some crazy fire will catch too and I'll actually profit from my sales. I've never viewed this type of process as a real road to publishing success. My attitude has always been if my book is good enough – a publisher will see it and pay me money for it. If it's not – they won't.
But with stores closing, self-publishing growing and the market shrinking… I don't know anymore.
I really do believe we need agents, editors and publishers. I believe in the filtering system despite how harsh it can be. Because there is a difference between a person who wants to write and a person who can write. As a reader I don't want to have to wade through the masses to find the quality.
However, I will say that where the path seemed very clear to me before… write a book, get an agent, sell it to a publisher, get an advance, earn out royalties… now I don't know.
I read on Dear Author – I think it was - about the concept of identifying with editors. Maybe you love every author editor Jane Doe signed. Maybe Jane Doe now contracts directly with authors and together you both sell your books. The author generates the product, the editor lends creditability to the quality of it. Everything is done electronically.
A whole new world maybe. I've been reading for so long that the publishing world needs to change its outdated method of returns and storage and distribution… but now it really feels like it's finally happening and I'm not sure what it's all going to mean.
What will be the publishing future for writers?
March 2, 2011
Faking Human Interactions
I promised to blog more about the Paul Haggis talk and while this post isn't about a light bulb storytelling secret, it was one of the things I liked about his talk.
Turns out Mr. Haggis likes to work in public--just like me. (Oh, I have something in common with a really successful writer!) Sounds like he has several coffee shop haunts and hotel lobbies he uses as his "offices", setting up for the day with a laptop and madly writing. (Aside: Hotel lobbies! What a great idea. I'll bet I could find some great ones to work at in downtown Toronto...)
Anyway, he said that he likes to work in public so he can pretend he's part of humanity, fake that he actually interacts with other people while he's writing, feel as if he's part of the real world. And that actually did set off a little moment of self-realization for me. I think that's exactly why I like it, too.
Writing is such an isolating profession and when I'm in full-on writing-cave mode, even if I'm out in public during the day, I start to forget how to talk to other people--that is, how to use my mouth instead of my keyboard to communicate. I forget how to form sentences without editing them.
That's one of many reasons I'm really starting to love the little routine Molly and I have started of meeting once a week for a few hours and sitting across from each other in a coffee shop. Sometimes we talk. Sometimes we don't. But I feel like I've actually interacted with another human being on those days.
Maybe this isolation thing is a bigger problem for someone like me who lives alone, but I think I'd feel this way even if I didn't. I find it hard to write around people I know who don't "get" what I'm doing. For me, anyway, I get self conscious or annoyed if they want to know how it's going, or even if they're trying too hard to be quiet (clearly I'm easily annoyed)... But writing in the midst of strangers? Or with a trusted writer-friend? Magic.
And even if I spend six hours in a Starbucks (like I did today) without saying a word to another living soul (which I also did)... I can still pretend I'm a member of society. And really, as fiction writers, isn't what we do largely about faking it?
Turns out Mr. Haggis likes to work in public--just like me. (Oh, I have something in common with a really successful writer!) Sounds like he has several coffee shop haunts and hotel lobbies he uses as his "offices", setting up for the day with a laptop and madly writing. (Aside: Hotel lobbies! What a great idea. I'll bet I could find some great ones to work at in downtown Toronto...)
Anyway, he said that he likes to work in public so he can pretend he's part of humanity, fake that he actually interacts with other people while he's writing, feel as if he's part of the real world. And that actually did set off a little moment of self-realization for me. I think that's exactly why I like it, too.
Writing is such an isolating profession and when I'm in full-on writing-cave mode, even if I'm out in public during the day, I start to forget how to talk to other people--that is, how to use my mouth instead of my keyboard to communicate. I forget how to form sentences without editing them.
That's one of many reasons I'm really starting to love the little routine Molly and I have started of meeting once a week for a few hours and sitting across from each other in a coffee shop. Sometimes we talk. Sometimes we don't. But I feel like I've actually interacted with another human being on those days.
Maybe this isolation thing is a bigger problem for someone like me who lives alone, but I think I'd feel this way even if I didn't. I find it hard to write around people I know who don't "get" what I'm doing. For me, anyway, I get self conscious or annoyed if they want to know how it's going, or even if they're trying too hard to be quiet (clearly I'm easily annoyed)... But writing in the midst of strangers? Or with a trusted writer-friend? Magic.
And even if I spend six hours in a Starbucks (like I did today) without saying a word to another living soul (which I also did)... I can still pretend I'm a member of society. And really, as fiction writers, isn't what we do largely about faking it?
February 28, 2011
Happy Release Day to Me!
Ta da!!! Today is the official day that Dead on Delivery, my follow up to last year's Don't Kill the Messenger, hits the shelves, babies!!
I'm super excited because this book is my first ever Top Pick from Romantic Times. I actually cried a tiny bit when I found out. Of course, I also cried watching Despicable Me on Friday night, but that's another story (Sinead, I don't think we should watch movies together or maybe we should because I wouldn't have to share the tissue box).
Fresh Fiction liked it, too, and said my "distinctive voice rings gleefully throughout . . ."
So if anyone has been hankering for another installment of Melina's adventures, hanker no longer. It's here!
James Franco: I still love him
That was a bad choice. I can fully admit it. Hathaway tried, she really did. But when part of hosting the Oscars involves cross dressing, you know they're reaching. They're really reaching. And despite being young and cool and at some point wearing a cordorouy tux, Franco was a flop. I thought most of the night was a flop. The opening bit was great, though it just reminded me of how good Alec Baldwin is.
Melissa Leo, (someone please fill me on on these ads she put out, because I'm clueless) even though she dropped the f-bomb, which frankly, I liked. So genuine. So totally real. But, the hamming it up, the shock and awe just didn't ring true - and it set the tone for the night for me.
Sorkin, amazing speech. Tell me why are we cutting him off with the music and letting Christian Bale give out website addresses? Really? Even Colin Firth came off as too practiced. The only moments that seemed genuine were Spartacus, Billy Crystal and Sandra Bullock.
There were some beautiful dresses - I loved Scarlet Johanson. And Michelle Williams' dress was strange, but her look is freaking awesome.
Frankly, I don't know if pandering to a younger demographic looks good on the Oscars. For me part of the Oscars is it's class and glamour. If they're going for the same kids that watch Jersey Shore - they're going to lose me. Though, I did love the f-bomb. What did you guys thing?
Melissa Leo, (someone please fill me on on these ads she put out, because I'm clueless) even though she dropped the f-bomb, which frankly, I liked. So genuine. So totally real. But, the hamming it up, the shock and awe just didn't ring true - and it set the tone for the night for me.
Sorkin, amazing speech. Tell me why are we cutting him off with the music and letting Christian Bale give out website addresses? Really? Even Colin Firth came off as too practiced. The only moments that seemed genuine were Spartacus, Billy Crystal and Sandra Bullock.
There were some beautiful dresses - I loved Scarlet Johanson. And Michelle Williams' dress was strange, but her look is freaking awesome.
Frankly, I don't know if pandering to a younger demographic looks good on the Oscars. For me part of the Oscars is it's class and glamour. If they're going for the same kids that watch Jersey Shore - they're going to lose me. Though, I did love the f-bomb. What did you guys thing?
