Molly Ringle's Blog, page 29
June 1, 2011
A little fantasizing about Scottish castles: meet author Cyndi Tefft
In celebration of the recent release of Cyndi Tefft's novel
Between
, I am interviewing her today. You can read my review of the book here. Its description from the cover blurb:
It just figures that the love of Lindsey Water's life isn't alive at all, but the grim reaper, complete with a dimpled smile and Scottish accent.
After transporting souls to heaven for the last 300 years, Aiden MacRae has all but given up on finding the one whose love will redeem him and allow him entry through the pearly gates.
Torn between her growing attraction to Aiden and heaven's siren song, Lindsey must learn the hard way whether love really can transcend all boundaries...
Welcome, Cyndi!
First question: If money were no object, what kind of property would you buy in Scotland?
Ooh, fabulous question! Okay, let me take it one step farther in my fantasy: money is no object and said property would be for sale... I'd buy the ruins of Urquhart Castle along Loch Ness and restore them to their former glory. Eilean Donan Castle (where Aiden is from in the book) was nothing but ruins from 1719 to the early 1900s, when John MacRae Gilstrap bought and restored it. The castle is now one of the most photographed in all of Scotland. I'd love to do the same to Urquhart Castle, which is nearby.
If you could visit any time and place in history as a guaranteed-safe onlooker (like your characters can do, in a limited fashion), where and when would you choose?
When my husband and I visited France last year, we went on a tour of the Château de Chambord, which was like a fairytale palace out in the country. I could envision what it was like to see serving maids running around, bringing food up the double helix staircase to the royals. There were warming stations outside the king and queen's bedrooms so the food could be heated up before serving (it gets cold on the long trip up from the kitchens!). It's mind-boggling to me to think of how those people lived without the modern conveniences I take for granted. So I'd love to be an onlooker, but I wouldn't want to live that way!
Other than Jamie Fraser of the 'Outlander' series, what hero(es)/heroine(s) are likeliest to inspire a new character for your stories? (Or at least inspire interesting dreams?)
When we went to the Louvre in Paris, we spent most of our time looking at sculptures. One in particular stood out to me above the rest: Marcellus. The artistry was on a different plane than the other pieces in the museum, and the beauty of Marcellus took my breath away. His robe drapes over one arm and serves as support for the structure, but at the edge of the robe, the marble is so thin that you can see light shining through it! Now, I know absolutely nothing about Marcellus (other than he died in 22 BC and has a smokin' hot bod), but he has certainly inspired some enjoyable dreams and I could see myself writing a book about him someday!
How has your outlook on writing changed now that you're published? More anxiety, more optimism, or both?
When I first started writing Between, I never gave a thought to the book being published. I just wrote it to see if I could. I tend to get bored with projects easily, so no one (including me) thought I would be able to write a full-length novel. It wasn't until I got about halfway through the first draft that I began sharing it with friends, and I was very encouraged by their feedback. That gave me the momentum to push through to the end.
Trying to find an agent and get traditionally published was a gut-wrenching exercise that sucked the joy out of writing for me. All of a sudden, writing wasn't fun anymore. It became about fear and rejection, about not being good enough, and I lost interest in writing. The rise of self-publishing tools and resources provided me an avenue to get the book to readers, and breathed new life into my outlook on writing. Now I am excited about sharing Between with readers, and about finishing the next book so they will get to share in the rest of the story. I am anxious about reviews and how the public will respond, but the enthusiasm from bloggers so far has made me cautiously optimistic.
Describe yourself in five adjectives and five nouns (combined or separated as you wish).
I asked my friends on Facebook to help me out with this question. Some of the responses: bubbly, focused, kind and wicked awesome. My kids piped in with goofy!
I wear a variety of hats in my day-to-day life: wife, mom, professional, author, singer. No matter the setting, my character is the same. What you see is indeed what you get.
What are you working on now?
I've been working feverishly on the release of Between, lining up book bloggers and other reviewers. After that, I'll be turning my attention to writing the sequel, Hell Transporter. The first draft is about a third completed, but I haven't looked at it in ages. I'll be taking walks on my lunch break, dreaming up scenes and dialogue for book two!
Thank you, Cyndi!
Connect with Cyndi Tefft:
Homepage/blog
Facebook
Twitter
It just figures that the love of Lindsey Water's life isn't alive at all, but the grim reaper, complete with a dimpled smile and Scottish accent.
After transporting souls to heaven for the last 300 years, Aiden MacRae has all but given up on finding the one whose love will redeem him and allow him entry through the pearly gates.
Torn between her growing attraction to Aiden and heaven's siren song, Lindsey must learn the hard way whether love really can transcend all boundaries...
Welcome, Cyndi!
First question: If money were no object, what kind of property would you buy in Scotland?
Ooh, fabulous question! Okay, let me take it one step farther in my fantasy: money is no object and said property would be for sale... I'd buy the ruins of Urquhart Castle along Loch Ness and restore them to their former glory. Eilean Donan Castle (where Aiden is from in the book) was nothing but ruins from 1719 to the early 1900s, when John MacRae Gilstrap bought and restored it. The castle is now one of the most photographed in all of Scotland. I'd love to do the same to Urquhart Castle, which is nearby.
If you could visit any time and place in history as a guaranteed-safe onlooker (like your characters can do, in a limited fashion), where and when would you choose?
When my husband and I visited France last year, we went on a tour of the Château de Chambord, which was like a fairytale palace out in the country. I could envision what it was like to see serving maids running around, bringing food up the double helix staircase to the royals. There were warming stations outside the king and queen's bedrooms so the food could be heated up before serving (it gets cold on the long trip up from the kitchens!). It's mind-boggling to me to think of how those people lived without the modern conveniences I take for granted. So I'd love to be an onlooker, but I wouldn't want to live that way!
Other than Jamie Fraser of the 'Outlander' series, what hero(es)/heroine(s) are likeliest to inspire a new character for your stories? (Or at least inspire interesting dreams?)
When we went to the Louvre in Paris, we spent most of our time looking at sculptures. One in particular stood out to me above the rest: Marcellus. The artistry was on a different plane than the other pieces in the museum, and the beauty of Marcellus took my breath away. His robe drapes over one arm and serves as support for the structure, but at the edge of the robe, the marble is so thin that you can see light shining through it! Now, I know absolutely nothing about Marcellus (other than he died in 22 BC and has a smokin' hot bod), but he has certainly inspired some enjoyable dreams and I could see myself writing a book about him someday!
How has your outlook on writing changed now that you're published? More anxiety, more optimism, or both?
When I first started writing Between, I never gave a thought to the book being published. I just wrote it to see if I could. I tend to get bored with projects easily, so no one (including me) thought I would be able to write a full-length novel. It wasn't until I got about halfway through the first draft that I began sharing it with friends, and I was very encouraged by their feedback. That gave me the momentum to push through to the end.
Trying to find an agent and get traditionally published was a gut-wrenching exercise that sucked the joy out of writing for me. All of a sudden, writing wasn't fun anymore. It became about fear and rejection, about not being good enough, and I lost interest in writing. The rise of self-publishing tools and resources provided me an avenue to get the book to readers, and breathed new life into my outlook on writing. Now I am excited about sharing Between with readers, and about finishing the next book so they will get to share in the rest of the story. I am anxious about reviews and how the public will respond, but the enthusiasm from bloggers so far has made me cautiously optimistic.
Describe yourself in five adjectives and five nouns (combined or separated as you wish).
I asked my friends on Facebook to help me out with this question. Some of the responses: bubbly, focused, kind and wicked awesome. My kids piped in with goofy!
I wear a variety of hats in my day-to-day life: wife, mom, professional, author, singer. No matter the setting, my character is the same. What you see is indeed what you get.
What are you working on now?
I've been working feverishly on the release of Between, lining up book bloggers and other reviewers. After that, I'll be turning my attention to writing the sequel, Hell Transporter. The first draft is about a third completed, but I haven't looked at it in ages. I'll be taking walks on my lunch break, dreaming up scenes and dialogue for book two!
Thank you, Cyndi!
Connect with Cyndi Tefft:
Homepage/blog
May 13, 2011
Fail to destroy something today
Amusing scene from the other day, as I backed the car out of the driveway with kiddos in back seat:
OLDER SON: Don't run into the garbage can.
ME: I won't. There. Missed it.
OLDER SON: (triumphantly) Mommy fails to destroy the garbage can!
For posterity, he used this sentence structure because my husband and I have taken to retitling Clifford the Big Red Dog books in that fashion. Clifford Fails to Destroy Christmas, Clifford Fails to Destroy a Birthday Party, etc. I remember liking Clifford when I was a little kid, but as an adult all I can do is wince at the damage he keeps doing, albeit inadvertently--to say nothing of the amount of expensive maintenance he must require. That animal belongs in a professional zoological exhibition, or maybe in the military, but not in someone's house as a pet.
OLDER SON: Don't run into the garbage can.
ME: I won't. There. Missed it.
OLDER SON: (triumphantly) Mommy fails to destroy the garbage can!
For posterity, he used this sentence structure because my husband and I have taken to retitling Clifford the Big Red Dog books in that fashion. Clifford Fails to Destroy Christmas, Clifford Fails to Destroy a Birthday Party, etc. I remember liking Clifford when I was a little kid, but as an adult all I can do is wince at the damage he keeps doing, albeit inadvertently--to say nothing of the amount of expensive maintenance he must require. That animal belongs in a professional zoological exhibition, or maybe in the military, but not in someone's house as a pet.
May 3, 2011
The Tenant of Wildfell Hall - review
I recently re-read Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, and hereafter follows my Goodreads review of it, should you be interested.
---
(Rating: 4 stars out of 5)
When I first read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, during my tear through all the Bronte novels in existence, I ultimately deemed it my second-favorite, after Jane Eyre (and just before either Shirley or Wuthering Heights--I need to re-read those to remember and decide anew). But this time through I found myself irked by a couple of things. One was the meandering, hitting-you-over-the-head-with-moral-instruction, heavy-on-the-foreshadowing dialogue. The other, which is interrelated with that complaint, is the oppressive piety. More than once, I found myself thinking incredulously, "You're talking about theology at a time like this??" (Most specifically, when Helen and Gilbert are trying to tear themselves away from each other for what they think will be the remainder of their lives.)
Then again, that was Victorian England for you. And that was the exact reason Helen couldn't easily get rid of her abusive husband, or let herself indulge in a love on the side. So, without the piety, there wouldn't be much plot. Even so, I can't help being annoyed by it, because Anne Bronte seems to be defending the virtues of such a system even while showing what massive problems it holds. I for one would hate living in a society like that. (Except for the pretty dresses. And the servants to help with meals and child-rearing and stuff.)
All that said, I did find myself sucked into the story and wanting to keep reading it, which is my basic and most important test of the quality of a novel. And though some find Gilbert Markham vapid or irrelevant, count me among those who really, really like him. He's a perfect balance between the monstrous hedonism of hubby Arthur and the severe piety of Helen--he's passionate but responsible, with the capacity for fun. I don't think my liking is just because the divine Toby Stephens played him in the miniseries, but you can never be too sure. (Doesn't hurt that the also-divine Rupert Graves played Arthur. I'm willing to overlook a lot of plot changes for the eye candy in that one.)
Anyway. Maybe this book deserves five stars, not four. Hell, we'll compromise. Four and a half. Er, sorry, Miss Bronte; I meant "h---."
---
(Rating: 4 stars out of 5)
When I first read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, during my tear through all the Bronte novels in existence, I ultimately deemed it my second-favorite, after Jane Eyre (and just before either Shirley or Wuthering Heights--I need to re-read those to remember and decide anew). But this time through I found myself irked by a couple of things. One was the meandering, hitting-you-over-the-head-with-moral-instruction, heavy-on-the-foreshadowing dialogue. The other, which is interrelated with that complaint, is the oppressive piety. More than once, I found myself thinking incredulously, "You're talking about theology at a time like this??" (Most specifically, when Helen and Gilbert are trying to tear themselves away from each other for what they think will be the remainder of their lives.)
Then again, that was Victorian England for you. And that was the exact reason Helen couldn't easily get rid of her abusive husband, or let herself indulge in a love on the side. So, without the piety, there wouldn't be much plot. Even so, I can't help being annoyed by it, because Anne Bronte seems to be defending the virtues of such a system even while showing what massive problems it holds. I for one would hate living in a society like that. (Except for the pretty dresses. And the servants to help with meals and child-rearing and stuff.)
All that said, I did find myself sucked into the story and wanting to keep reading it, which is my basic and most important test of the quality of a novel. And though some find Gilbert Markham vapid or irrelevant, count me among those who really, really like him. He's a perfect balance between the monstrous hedonism of hubby Arthur and the severe piety of Helen--he's passionate but responsible, with the capacity for fun. I don't think my liking is just because the divine Toby Stephens played him in the miniseries, but you can never be too sure. (Doesn't hurt that the also-divine Rupert Graves played Arthur. I'm willing to overlook a lot of plot changes for the eye candy in that one.)
Anyway. Maybe this book deserves five stars, not four. Hell, we'll compromise. Four and a half. Er, sorry, Miss Bronte; I meant "h---."
April 30, 2011
Happy Walpurgis Night!
Evidently today, April 30, is Walpurgis Night, and while I can't say I've celebrated it before or have definite plans to do so today, I must say it sounds rather cool. Here's what Encyclopaedia Brittanica says on it (and it must be true since it isn't Wikipedia):
---
Walpurgis Night, a traditional holiday celebrated on April 30 in northern Europe and Scandinavia. In Sweden, typical holiday activities include the singing of traditional spring folk songs and the lighting of bonfires. Celebrations in Finland include a carnival and the drinking of alcoholic beverages, particularly sima, a type of mead. In Germany, the holiday is celebrated by dressing in costumes, playing pranks on people, and creating loud noises meant to keep evil at bay. Many people also hang blessed sprigs of foliage from houses and barns to ward off evil spirits, or they leave pieces of bread spread with butter and honey, called ankenschnitt, as offerings for phantom hounds.
[Molly's interjection: Phantom hounds! How awesome is that? Why don't any of our usual holidays involve phantom hounds?]
The origins of the holiday date back to pagan celebrations of fertility rights [sic - surely "rites"?] and the coming of spring. After the Norse were Christianized, the pagan celebration became combined with the legend of St. Walburga, an English-born nun who lived at Heidenheim monastery in Germany and later became the abbess there. Walburga was believed to have cured the illnesses of many local residents. After her death she was canonized as a saint on May 1. Although it is likely that the date of her canonization is purely coincidental to the date of the pagan celebrations of spring, people were able to celebrate both events under church law without fear of reprisal.
---
Other sites give the same basic information; namely, that it was yet another pagan celebration that got turned into a Christian and sometimes specifically anti-pagan holiday. There are reports that in German folklore, Walpurgis Night was when witches met atop a certain mountain, so in a way it's a celebration for witches; but nowadays it sometimes involves symbolically chasing away the witches till next year. Very similar to some interpretations of Halloween/Samhain, that way.
In any case, it sounds like a fun way to start off Beltane/May Day/Spring Day. May you all be the May Queen or Green Man of your personal household this weekend. I did bring in some fresh sprigs of sweet woodruff and orange-mint, so perhaps I'm celebrating in my small way too!
---
Walpurgis Night, a traditional holiday celebrated on April 30 in northern Europe and Scandinavia. In Sweden, typical holiday activities include the singing of traditional spring folk songs and the lighting of bonfires. Celebrations in Finland include a carnival and the drinking of alcoholic beverages, particularly sima, a type of mead. In Germany, the holiday is celebrated by dressing in costumes, playing pranks on people, and creating loud noises meant to keep evil at bay. Many people also hang blessed sprigs of foliage from houses and barns to ward off evil spirits, or they leave pieces of bread spread with butter and honey, called ankenschnitt, as offerings for phantom hounds.
[Molly's interjection: Phantom hounds! How awesome is that? Why don't any of our usual holidays involve phantom hounds?]
The origins of the holiday date back to pagan celebrations of fertility rights [sic - surely "rites"?] and the coming of spring. After the Norse were Christianized, the pagan celebration became combined with the legend of St. Walburga, an English-born nun who lived at Heidenheim monastery in Germany and later became the abbess there. Walburga was believed to have cured the illnesses of many local residents. After her death she was canonized as a saint on May 1. Although it is likely that the date of her canonization is purely coincidental to the date of the pagan celebrations of spring, people were able to celebrate both events under church law without fear of reprisal.
---
Other sites give the same basic information; namely, that it was yet another pagan celebration that got turned into a Christian and sometimes specifically anti-pagan holiday. There are reports that in German folklore, Walpurgis Night was when witches met atop a certain mountain, so in a way it's a celebration for witches; but nowadays it sometimes involves symbolically chasing away the witches till next year. Very similar to some interpretations of Halloween/Samhain, that way.
In any case, it sounds like a fun way to start off Beltane/May Day/Spring Day. May you all be the May Queen or Green Man of your personal household this weekend. I did bring in some fresh sprigs of sweet woodruff and orange-mint, so perhaps I'm celebrating in my small way too!
April 26, 2011
Maybe I'll call it 'Ostara Boy.'
You guys! I have this awesome idea for a new YA paranormal romance!
Okay, the high school girl is mesmerized by the mysterious new guy with his strangely pale hair and shy ways, right? And he's drawn to her too, and they get closer, but she notices more and more weird stuff about him. Like, he always avoids situations where eggs are present. And then one time when he can't get away in time, the eggs near him turn colors. Magically!
She confronts him in a sun-dappled forest on a spring day. He admits it. He's...The Easter Bunny!
"I think you should see what I really look like," he tells her, his voice tortured. He turns around, pulling down the top of his loose jeans. *Gasp!* He's got a fluffy little cottontail!
Scarier stuff would happen too. Like when she stumbles upon him in a hungry moment, and he's got these long rodent front teeth and is viciously biting the head off a Peeps. But I haven't worked out all the subplots.
Good, right?
Okay, the high school girl is mesmerized by the mysterious new guy with his strangely pale hair and shy ways, right? And he's drawn to her too, and they get closer, but she notices more and more weird stuff about him. Like, he always avoids situations where eggs are present. And then one time when he can't get away in time, the eggs near him turn colors. Magically!
She confronts him in a sun-dappled forest on a spring day. He admits it. He's...The Easter Bunny!
"I think you should see what I really look like," he tells her, his voice tortured. He turns around, pulling down the top of his loose jeans. *Gasp!* He's got a fluffy little cottontail!
Scarier stuff would happen too. Like when she stumbles upon him in a hungry moment, and he's got these long rodent front teeth and is viciously biting the head off a Peeps. But I haven't worked out all the subplots.
Good, right?
April 14, 2011
Why paranormal romance is so sparkly-popular
That's right. I've figured it out. I have the answer to why paranormal romance has become hotter than a Buffyverse vampire in the noonday sun. No, it isn't because secretly women want their men to have sparkly skin, nor because there's a widespread werewolf fetish out there. Actually, there might be, so scratch the werewolf fetish bit. But here's my theory, and I'm sure others have put it forth too; it's just that I'm not reading their blogs or academic journal articles.
Romance requires obstacles. Any good plot does. In romance, you need to have a pair of people who desire to be together, and--more importantly--you need strong reasons why they can't or shouldn't be together. That's your plot, your conflict.
In the old days, this was easy. Obstacles to romance were everywhere. For instance:
Class/race divide: A governess can't marry the master of the house. An heiress can't marry the chauffeur. An Untouchable can't marry a Brahmin. A white woman can't marry a black man. Etc.
Arranged marriage/ No divorce allowed: Turns out you married a jerk? Too bad! You're stuck! (Until you get lucky and he dies, which will happen about 90% of the way into the book, so hang in there.)
Long-standing family feud / Being on opposite sides during a war: ...Self-explanatory.
Technically, any of the above problems could still take place today, given the right culture and situation, but they all feel pretty outdated. This is why, to take a small tangent, historical romance is also hot, and always has been, and always will be. Obstacles to happiness in historicals are easy to find. They're littering the field! Good luck not running into them! Similarly, a dystopian future can have any such obstacles you want to create, and those stories are fairly popular too.
But in contemporary romance--you two want to be together? Go ahead. Couple up. These days, you can divorce a jerk. You can move away from your parents if they're a pain about your choice of mate. You're protected by a lot of shiny new laws ensuring your pursuit of happiness. And that's great! For humankind, I mean. It sucks for romance writers. We can, and do, explore the remaining taboos and tangles that snarl up couples, but those are trickier. Love triangles tend to be messy if realistic, and annoying if unrealistic (why wouldn't the triangle quickly resolve into a couple if that third person isn't likable?). Geographic distance has its possibilities, but again, it's usually not hard to overcome in modern times. Taboos like teacher/student, doctor/patient, and boss/employee can work, but also run the risk of squicking people.
(Yeah, I wrote about teacher/student anyway, and yeah, I think it did squick some people, despite the characters being well over the age of consent. I wouldn't have dared write a story where one was under the age of consent. Nabokov's braver than me there.)
Oh! But! You know what would be a seriously great obstacle? What if one lover was human and the other was a vampire? Or a werewolf? Or a ghost? Or an angel? Or a selkie? Or a faery? Or a--yeah, you get the picture.
And it's true. These are not only interesting, fanciful story ideas, which bring lots of exciting mortal peril (also vital to a romance tale), but they come inherently packed with the crucial obstacle to happily-ever-after. So that, my friends, is my big and surely non-original theory on why the paranormals are selling like shape-shifting hotcakes lately.
That and escapism. Reading is always about escapism, and elements of fantasy increase the escape velocity (so to speak). But you knew that.
Romance requires obstacles. Any good plot does. In romance, you need to have a pair of people who desire to be together, and--more importantly--you need strong reasons why they can't or shouldn't be together. That's your plot, your conflict.
In the old days, this was easy. Obstacles to romance were everywhere. For instance:
Class/race divide: A governess can't marry the master of the house. An heiress can't marry the chauffeur. An Untouchable can't marry a Brahmin. A white woman can't marry a black man. Etc.
Arranged marriage/ No divorce allowed: Turns out you married a jerk? Too bad! You're stuck! (Until you get lucky and he dies, which will happen about 90% of the way into the book, so hang in there.)
Long-standing family feud / Being on opposite sides during a war: ...Self-explanatory.
Technically, any of the above problems could still take place today, given the right culture and situation, but they all feel pretty outdated. This is why, to take a small tangent, historical romance is also hot, and always has been, and always will be. Obstacles to happiness in historicals are easy to find. They're littering the field! Good luck not running into them! Similarly, a dystopian future can have any such obstacles you want to create, and those stories are fairly popular too.
But in contemporary romance--you two want to be together? Go ahead. Couple up. These days, you can divorce a jerk. You can move away from your parents if they're a pain about your choice of mate. You're protected by a lot of shiny new laws ensuring your pursuit of happiness. And that's great! For humankind, I mean. It sucks for romance writers. We can, and do, explore the remaining taboos and tangles that snarl up couples, but those are trickier. Love triangles tend to be messy if realistic, and annoying if unrealistic (why wouldn't the triangle quickly resolve into a couple if that third person isn't likable?). Geographic distance has its possibilities, but again, it's usually not hard to overcome in modern times. Taboos like teacher/student, doctor/patient, and boss/employee can work, but also run the risk of squicking people.
(Yeah, I wrote about teacher/student anyway, and yeah, I think it did squick some people, despite the characters being well over the age of consent. I wouldn't have dared write a story where one was under the age of consent. Nabokov's braver than me there.)
Oh! But! You know what would be a seriously great obstacle? What if one lover was human and the other was a vampire? Or a werewolf? Or a ghost? Or an angel? Or a selkie? Or a faery? Or a--yeah, you get the picture.
And it's true. These are not only interesting, fanciful story ideas, which bring lots of exciting mortal peril (also vital to a romance tale), but they come inherently packed with the crucial obstacle to happily-ever-after. So that, my friends, is my big and surely non-original theory on why the paranormals are selling like shape-shifting hotcakes lately.
That and escapism. Reading is always about escapism, and elements of fantasy increase the escape velocity (so to speak). But you knew that.
April 12, 2011
Book rec: The Hambledown Dream
I recently read The Hambledown Dream by Dean Mayes, and typed up this review for Amazon and Goodreads. Am sharing it here too, in the hopes of making this book find additional happy readers!
* * *
From darkness to light, utter ruin to the highest joy, worthlessness to triumph--Dean Mayes' novel takes us through the biggest transformations a protagonist can undergo, and displays sheer beauty throughout. It's the kind of story that had me almost jumping up and down in excitement by the end, eager to cheer the characters on to their certain reunion.
Plotwise, it's a bit like, say, the film Sleepless in Seattle,* where the main question isn't "Will they get together?" so much as "Will they ever meet?"--or rather, "Surely they'll meet eventually, but when, and how will it go?" For Baltimore and Seattle, however, substitute Chicago and a small, gorgeous seaside town (Hambledown) in Australia. Plus, introduce a paranormal element. Andy, the young drug addict barely scraping by in Chicago, gets a wake-up call in the form of a near-death overdose, from which he wakes up with the distinct feeling that another soul has taken up residence in his mind. Indeed it has, and as the two souls become one, Andy turns his life around 180 degrees, and brings joy back into not only his own family but also to a heartbroken young Australian woman who's mourning her dead lover. Or is he really gone? Guess who that extra soul just might be...
Mayes writes addictive prose, fast-paced and even brutal during the action sequences (Andy knows some rough characters in his drug days), but lyrical and enchanting when the subject turns to love--or music. This is decidedly one of those novels that you long to have a soundtrack for, so you can hear Andy play that guitar with ever-increasing skill and emotion. Luckily Dean has taken care of that on his blog, giving us a playlist and YouTube clips to listen to. :)
Love is stronger than death, as yet another music group once put it, and Dean's novel explores that theme in beautiful ways that brought tears to my eyes more than once, and left me bubbling over with happiness at the end. Looking forward to more from this author, definitely!
* Another film it kind of reminded me of is August Rush. The guitar/music theme as well as the long-lost lovers made me think of it--but, strange as it may sound, Mayes' is less weird and actually makes more sense.
* * *
From darkness to light, utter ruin to the highest joy, worthlessness to triumph--Dean Mayes' novel takes us through the biggest transformations a protagonist can undergo, and displays sheer beauty throughout. It's the kind of story that had me almost jumping up and down in excitement by the end, eager to cheer the characters on to their certain reunion.
Plotwise, it's a bit like, say, the film Sleepless in Seattle,* where the main question isn't "Will they get together?" so much as "Will they ever meet?"--or rather, "Surely they'll meet eventually, but when, and how will it go?" For Baltimore and Seattle, however, substitute Chicago and a small, gorgeous seaside town (Hambledown) in Australia. Plus, introduce a paranormal element. Andy, the young drug addict barely scraping by in Chicago, gets a wake-up call in the form of a near-death overdose, from which he wakes up with the distinct feeling that another soul has taken up residence in his mind. Indeed it has, and as the two souls become one, Andy turns his life around 180 degrees, and brings joy back into not only his own family but also to a heartbroken young Australian woman who's mourning her dead lover. Or is he really gone? Guess who that extra soul just might be...
Mayes writes addictive prose, fast-paced and even brutal during the action sequences (Andy knows some rough characters in his drug days), but lyrical and enchanting when the subject turns to love--or music. This is decidedly one of those novels that you long to have a soundtrack for, so you can hear Andy play that guitar with ever-increasing skill and emotion. Luckily Dean has taken care of that on his blog, giving us a playlist and YouTube clips to listen to. :)
Love is stronger than death, as yet another music group once put it, and Dean's novel explores that theme in beautiful ways that brought tears to my eyes more than once, and left me bubbling over with happiness at the end. Looking forward to more from this author, definitely!
* Another film it kind of reminded me of is August Rush. The guitar/music theme as well as the long-lost lovers made me think of it--but, strange as it may sound, Mayes' is less weird and actually makes more sense.
April 11, 2011
How the Internet messes up my stories
Among the complications of modern life and our zillion ways of keeping up-to-the-minute with our acquaintances' lives is this: we no longer have an excuse for not knowing about big events that befall our friends. I'm not saying I want to be in the dark regarding my actual friends' lives. No, I'm thinking of this mainly in the context of fiction writing.
I'm revising a novel that I originally wrote in the mid-1990s. And rather than update it to modern day, I decided I needed to keep it in 1995-ish, just before the Internet invaded every last person's life, because otherwise there was no good reason for the protagonist to be unaware of a horrible thing that happened to his high school best friend. These days, you know everything that happens to your friends, former and current, because they post it on Facebook, or Tweet about it; or, if they have a modicum of privacy and dignity left, they email you personally. ("FYI, this happened...")
But back in the '90s, though we did have telephones and the post office and even, increasingly, email, we were far more able to lose track of friends--even good friends. I just don't see that happening anymore. Unless someone makes an unusual effort to stay off sites like Facebook, and is one of those people who seldom answers email--or changes their address a lot and neglects to tell their friends (and such people are regarded with large amounts of hostility from their families and acquaintances, as you know)--then you're sure to be in touch with them electronically fairly often. As to phones, nowadays everyone carries a cell, and long-distance is bundled into the monthly plan, so you don't have the excuse of cost when it comes to ringing up a friend in another state.
In short, staying in touch has become much, much easier, to the degree that I have to set stories in the grunge era if I want my characters to have startling, heartbreaking discoveries about each other and feel bad for not knowing about them sooner. Yep. Life is tough on us writers that way.
I'm revising a novel that I originally wrote in the mid-1990s. And rather than update it to modern day, I decided I needed to keep it in 1995-ish, just before the Internet invaded every last person's life, because otherwise there was no good reason for the protagonist to be unaware of a horrible thing that happened to his high school best friend. These days, you know everything that happens to your friends, former and current, because they post it on Facebook, or Tweet about it; or, if they have a modicum of privacy and dignity left, they email you personally. ("FYI, this happened...")
But back in the '90s, though we did have telephones and the post office and even, increasingly, email, we were far more able to lose track of friends--even good friends. I just don't see that happening anymore. Unless someone makes an unusual effort to stay off sites like Facebook, and is one of those people who seldom answers email--or changes their address a lot and neglects to tell their friends (and such people are regarded with large amounts of hostility from their families and acquaintances, as you know)--then you're sure to be in touch with them electronically fairly often. As to phones, nowadays everyone carries a cell, and long-distance is bundled into the monthly plan, so you don't have the excuse of cost when it comes to ringing up a friend in another state.
In short, staying in touch has become much, much easier, to the degree that I have to set stories in the grunge era if I want my characters to have startling, heartbreaking discoveries about each other and feel bad for not knowing about them sooner. Yep. Life is tough on us writers that way.
April 2, 2011
A few thoughts on Doctor Who season 5
On the whole: writing and creativity: full marks! Big hurrah for Steven Moffat being ushered in full-time and Russell T. Davies being somewhere else entirely. Minimal Daleks and Cybermen; that was good too.
Rory! You will not dis Rory in my presence. Sure, the 11/Amy chemistry was tasty and quite amusing, but I didn't get the impression the Doctor honestly wanted her--he treated her like his granddaughter. So I'm ultimately all about the Rory/Amy. And that said, the season finale, well--
So, we're left mostly with the River Song storyline as the big mystery next to be tackled. And as to River...I don't know. Her plotline is certainly intriguing, but I don't exactly feel fond of her. I don't hate her, either. I could just...take or leave her. And it feels like they're writing her with this notion of "OMG, she's so cool, the fans will love her," rather than giving us a reason to love her. Hrm. Oh well. Still looking forward to next season.
Rory! You will not dis Rory in my presence. Sure, the 11/Amy chemistry was tasty and quite amusing, but I didn't get the impression the Doctor honestly wanted her--he treated her like his granddaughter. So I'm ultimately all about the Rory/Amy. And that said, the season finale, well--
So, we're left mostly with the River Song storyline as the big mystery next to be tackled. And as to River...I don't know. Her plotline is certainly intriguing, but I don't exactly feel fond of her. I don't hate her, either. I could just...take or leave her. And it feels like they're writing her with this notion of "OMG, she's so cool, the fans will love her," rather than giving us a reason to love her. Hrm. Oh well. Still looking forward to next season.
March 30, 2011
The Bechdel Test and my books
Novelist
![[info]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380449247i/1833871.gif)
kateelliott
first introduced me to the Bechdel Test in this post about epic fantasy. The Bechdel Test was originally created for movies, but can be applied easily to books too. As its official page states, the test rates a movie (or a book, we could say) on the following three criteria:
1) It has to have at least two women in it,
2) who talk to each other,
3) about something besides a man.
This test has stuck in my mind ever since reading Elliott's post, because, as she says, it's kind of astonishing how many books and movies don't pass all three criteria. I'm no yelling-in-your-face-with-my-burning-bra-scorching-my-hand feminist, but I do believe in basic equality, and those three simple rules seem more than fair.
So naturally it made me look at my own novels. And I'm chagrined to say that some of them barely squeak by, or might even fail. Quick rundown:
The Ghost Downstairs: Passes with full marks. Lots of female characters--in fact, more females than males. They do discuss men (it's a romance, after all), but they also discuss ghosts and jobs and stuff.
Summer Term: Hmm. I do have a number of active female characters, but most of them don't interact with each other, or only meet briefly. The two best friends, Paige and Ky, do chat a lot, but it's almost always about men. Again, in my defense, it's a romance, and of the most frothy sort. Still, they take sidetracks into movies and academics for a line or two here and there, so maybe this book gets a pass.
What Scotland Taught Me: Passes just fine. Of the four main characters, three are young women, who do plenty of interacting. Again, squealing (or squabbling) over boys constitutes a lot of their subject matter, but there are soberer discussions involving family members and career plans and ghost legends.
Of Ghosts and Geeks: (Novella; likely soon to be published--yay!) Highly silly, given that one of the main female characters is an obnoxious ghost, but it does pass. She and the living female protagonist occasionally talk of non-romance issues, but not much, since the whole point is that the ghost is obsessed with romance.
Boy in Eyeliner: (Not yet published. In revision.) Eek. This might fail! But my defense this time is somewhat better. It's from a first-person male point of view, and his main love ends up being with another man. Hopefully that regains some of my gender-equality street cred. Also, I've scattered the characters across the globe--Portland, Seattle, and London--so the three or four important female characters simply aren't in the same location at the same time, on the whole. Still, maybe I should reconsider that.
So. How do your favorites--or your own creations--measure up?
kateelliott
first introduced me to the Bechdel Test in this post about epic fantasy. The Bechdel Test was originally created for movies, but can be applied easily to books too. As its official page states, the test rates a movie (or a book, we could say) on the following three criteria:1) It has to have at least two women in it,
2) who talk to each other,
3) about something besides a man.
This test has stuck in my mind ever since reading Elliott's post, because, as she says, it's kind of astonishing how many books and movies don't pass all three criteria. I'm no yelling-in-your-face-with-my-burning-bra-scorching-my-hand feminist, but I do believe in basic equality, and those three simple rules seem more than fair.
So naturally it made me look at my own novels. And I'm chagrined to say that some of them barely squeak by, or might even fail. Quick rundown:
The Ghost Downstairs: Passes with full marks. Lots of female characters--in fact, more females than males. They do discuss men (it's a romance, after all), but they also discuss ghosts and jobs and stuff.
Summer Term: Hmm. I do have a number of active female characters, but most of them don't interact with each other, or only meet briefly. The two best friends, Paige and Ky, do chat a lot, but it's almost always about men. Again, in my defense, it's a romance, and of the most frothy sort. Still, they take sidetracks into movies and academics for a line or two here and there, so maybe this book gets a pass.
What Scotland Taught Me: Passes just fine. Of the four main characters, three are young women, who do plenty of interacting. Again, squealing (or squabbling) over boys constitutes a lot of their subject matter, but there are soberer discussions involving family members and career plans and ghost legends.
Of Ghosts and Geeks: (Novella; likely soon to be published--yay!) Highly silly, given that one of the main female characters is an obnoxious ghost, but it does pass. She and the living female protagonist occasionally talk of non-romance issues, but not much, since the whole point is that the ghost is obsessed with romance.
Boy in Eyeliner: (Not yet published. In revision.) Eek. This might fail! But my defense this time is somewhat better. It's from a first-person male point of view, and his main love ends up being with another man. Hopefully that regains some of my gender-equality street cred. Also, I've scattered the characters across the globe--Portland, Seattle, and London--so the three or four important female characters simply aren't in the same location at the same time, on the whole. Still, maybe I should reconsider that.
So. How do your favorites--or your own creations--measure up?
