Michael Offutt's Blog, page 130

How talk of Godzilla 2014 produced the nerdiest conversation this side of the internet

I don't know if I should even admit to this, but yes, I comment on io9 on some of the silliest topics and sometimes the conversations I get into with fellow nerds are nothing short of epic.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you see above is the tail of Godzilla as it will appear in the 2014 Hollywood reboot of the "king of all monsters." It debuted at this year's San Diego Comic Con: a celebration of nerds so huge that it holds entire industries hostage each time it starts. And of course, anything worth a nerdgasm or two is going to be hosted by this guy: Chris Hardwick.
You may recognize him from the television show, The Talking Dead, or another television show, The Nerdist. Yes, it's not just you. Both of those shows have nerd/geek written all over them. Well he was at the epicenter of the Godzilla panel as well. For the record I like Chris Hardwick.
So here's what io9 has to say. Pay attention, by the way, because it relates to my oh so intelligent comment that produced the nerdiest conversation this side of the internet:

There was tons of shots of disasters and people running and human characters, and more of that in a second. But the centerpiece of the footage was a sequence where a big monster is attacking an airport, shredding airplanes and trashing buildings. It looks sort of like the Cloverfield monster with a more of a beetle-like carapace and spindly insect legs. It looks massive and powerful.

Yesterday, director Gareth Edwards told us there would be other creatures in the film — and here's our first sight of one. It looks scary and huge.

And then Godzilla's foot comes down next to the creature. Godzilla's FOOT. Which is dwarfing this poor spindly little creature.

And then there's a massive hero shot of this previously big-looking creature looming over the airport, and then Godzilla rises up behind it, and it's like a skyscraper next to a hut. Godzilla is this ginormous dark scaly beast with a gaping maw and a mighty screaming roar, and the crowd basically lost its shit. Host Chris Hardwick made a joke about people having to change their pants, and this seemed totally accurate.

Those of you that know me probably realize I'm good for a comment or two. Here's what I wrote:
And lo and behold, here are the responses:
Click to EMBIGGEN in order to read.OMG...I love nerds. My favorite answer from this batch is from Tim Smith. He took my question seriously (as should all people because anything I say is worth paying attention to), and I love how he broke down the issue of the kaiju scientifically. Not to be outdone, other nerds chimed in:
Click to EMBIGGEN in order to read.My favorite response in this batch comes from "kewlball" although I do like the "throwdown" potential initiated by commenter igndk11r when he said, "Category 7. He'd atomize a Jaeger in a single atomic breath." I should reply, "Says you! But 'Gypsy Danger' has got some serious kung fu cred with Mako at the helm, and she'd sidestep your atomic breath to give your big Godzuki a shot of liquid nitro TO THE FACE! BAM! The 'King of all Monsters' just got his ass kicked by a leftover prop from Evangelion. How do you like them apples? Boo Yah!"
I dare you to point out which one of these is the female. THAT is the fun
of all Japanese anime, inventor of the original "twink badass."As entertaining as that is, I do feel obligated to point out that I may have failed all of you by NOT asking a more important question: But...but...will Godzilla be able to fly in this new movie? Because this footage from a TOHO film (considered canon by kaiju lovers) clearly shows that Godzilla has jet powers:I would have loved to have heard Chris Hardwick trying to answer my question. I'm sure he'd have all kinds of fun with it. But alas...there is so much to discuss about Godzilla that the questions are probably endless.

*DISCLAIMER: I am in fact jealous that I did not come up with the handle "Octopussoup." Names like that are the only way to get respect in the prestigious kaiju community forums. Sigh and *hangs head in shame.

If a perceived threat is big enough do you think we'd ever be okay with surveillance from a giant robot with glowing orange eyes?

The NSA site right here in Utah where I live.X-Men: Days of Future Past is tapping into the same viral marketing that propelled other successful movies into the black with a commercial for Trask Industries. If you don't have time to watch the commercial, it's done in the same tone as some of the Apple commercials that you see on t.v., you know...the ones with nice music playing in the background and video of people going about having fun and just loving life. The giant robot with glowing orange eyes at the end of the video is part of the Sentinel program which is the plot for the next X-Men movie. You kind of see a "hint" of this if you stay through the credits on "Wolverine," which came out this last weekend. Charles Xavier (yes he's somehow alive) and Magneto find Wolverine in the airport and tell him he needs to join them because the humans are doing something horrible to persecute their kind.
The "horrible" in this situation comes from the Sentinels. So instead of giant robots fighting kaiju, we get giant robots fighting humans with superpowers. I did love this summer's giant robots fighting kaiju story put out by del Toro and wish it had done better at the box office. I have no doubt that the latest Marvel offering will avoid a similar fate mostly because it's part of an existing franchise with a huge fan base.
This is one of the Sentinels protecting New York.After I watched the video I did have one question that popped into my mind: if a perceived threat is big enough, do you think we'd ever be okay with surveillance from a giant robot with glowing orange eyes? The whole NSA thing has really blown up this year. I'm not sure why 2013 was the year of outrage, since Michael Moore has been blowing his horn on the NSA for years now. In Utah there's been a few protests staged outside the NSA's super facility that's located in the side of a mountain. An environmental impact statement indicated it would require 1.7 million gallons of water each day to keep the computers cool that will store all of "your" information. That statistic by itself is impressive.

And keep in mind that all of this is to "protect you" from terrorism.

So maybe this new X-Men offering is allegorically about our own decision to forego certain freedoms in order to feel safe. Maybe mutants have gotten so out of hand and destructive in this alternate reality, that the only way to live a normal life is under the perceived protection of a giant robot with glowing orange eyes.

What do you think? Would you ever be okay with something like this? How severe would the threats have to be before you thought, "Hey this is a great idea!" Oh dystopia...will your plots ever run out so we can have happy fun movies again? I'm kind of missing the days when we had offerings like Mary Poppins. However, this new X-Men plot does have me intrigued. 

I'm totally not reviewing the Conjuring but I am interested in your phobias

This is Annabelle in the movie, "The Conjuring." It's a doll possessed by
a demon in the story. A guy keeps it in his house along with a hundred
other artifacts also containing demons. Why not? Right? There's no bad
that can come of doing that. It's just storage.When I lived in Idaho Falls, Idaho some five or so years ago, my friend Melissa dragged me to every single scary movie that came out. She loves them (to date Melissa is the only person I've ever met that kept a copy of the Exorcist in her trunk, you know, for those occasions when the Exorcist is the perfect movie for any given social occasion). Melissa also LOVED black. Like, it's the only color she wore for years. And with regard to movies that she picked, it got so bad that I had to make deals with her. Deals like "Okay, Melissa, I've seen all these scary movies so now you have to see 'Dreamgirls,' because I want to see it." And she'd begrudgingly say, "Okay."
My friend Melissa thinks this movie is the most
appropriate selection for family "social gatherings."
I've seen this movie so many times, I really have
no interest in EVER seeing it again. Seriously.
Truthfully, I've never cared much for scary movies. I'm one of those people that screams and jumps in the movie theater, I cover my eyes with my shirt, and Melissa tells me that this is one of the reason she likes going to scary movies with me. I don't understand the attraction honestly.

So every time I go home to visit my parents, I always get together with Melissa. This happened last week, and as I looked at the movie listings I thought "Oh the Conjuring has been out for a little while so I bet Melissa has seen it, and I won't have to sit through it and we can go to Wolverine." Well it turns out that she hadn't seen it so yeah...I ended up at The Conjuring, and it scared me so bad that I had nightmares afterward. It's filled with creepy dolls, loud noises, and skillful editing that just draw you in. For the record, my mom collected dolls and she has hundreds of them around the house. She has some in fish tanks (that she converted to display cases) and in cupboards, and under the stairs. You can't go anywhere in my parent's house without seeing some emotionless and oddly disturbing doll staring you down.

I half expected some of their heads to start to turn in the middle of the night and say, "COME PLAY WITH ME." Umm yeah. No thanks. I'll pass.

Anyway, as I lay there thinking about The Conjuring I can't help but ask, what exactly is the allure in being afraid? If it were entirely up to me, the business would go bankrupt. I don't like being afraid nor do I condone paying good money to get someone or something to scare you. But fear is BIG business. So as a kind of social experiment, I'd like to ask you a few questions:

1) Do you pay for fear?
2) Do you like watching scary movies and if so, why?
3) What kinds of phobias do you have? Do you find dolls creepy? Are you afraid of the dark? And if you can answer this question, please tell me what happened that made you fear this very thing.
4) What are your favorite scary movies of all time?
5) Does the one minute short at the end of this post scare you?That's all. Have a great Tuesday.

I'm kind of excited about Star Wars Rebels. Okay I'm REALLY excited mostly because this new concept art totally channels Ralph McQuarrie

So I saw on io9 last night that Star Wars Celebration Europe had a big reveal: concept art for the follow-up series to the Clone Wars. If you weren't reading my blog in the spring, I did my whole A to Z challenge on the Clone Wars despite the fact that Cartoon Network had canceled it. I (like many Star Wars fans) have been in the dark up until now.

So here's some fantastic concept art that was shown and if you're a fan of Ralph McQuarrie, you should be able to see the artistic nod. In short: it looks awesome!
Cool logo This picture looks like it could have been a module written by West End Games. I wonder what planet this is. The action in just these stills looks promising though.Scheduled to appear in fall of 2014, it is supposed to take place between episodes III and IV. Basically, it is after the Emperor has taken over and Yoda has fled Coruscant. So if this series features any Jedi at all, my guess is it will be Obi Wan or Yoda. Maybe they'll have the ghost of Qui-gon teaching Obi-Wan the ability to live beyond death. That would be really cool.

So are you excited for Star Wars Rebels?

Michael di Gesu and Siv Ottem have some big news

Drum roll begins today and the Big Cover Reveal (or BCR for short) happens on Monday!

I'm still technically on blogger break, so I've disabled comments on this post. However, I was asked by Michael di Gesu if I could give a shout out for his blog post this Monday. And of course I'm incredibly honored to do so! In fact, seeing as Monday is a whole three days away...I'm kind of feeling like this (especially given the nature of this spectacular news)...
But the best things come to those who wait. Le sigh.

Michael, as it turns out, has many talents and one of them is art. So, it should be no surprise that he has done a fabulous job illustrating Siv Ottem's new book. If you want to see the artwork, it will be shown at the beginning of next week. I can hardly wait!

So, on Monday please go and visit In Time...located HERE
And stop by Siv Ottem's blog, Been There Done That, located HERE.

Have fun this weekend. As for me, I'm visiting mom and dad before the big move that takes place in August, so I've little time to do anything other than post this news. But I shall be visiting and reading your blogs soon. 

Monarchy haters may want to imprison the royal family but that's because they don't do the math

I guess most of the world now knows that there's a new prince in Britain. For what it's worth, I don't understand the obsession most people have for this ancient organization that operates not as a meritocracy, but through strict nepotism and strategic alliances. That just seems like a relic of a bygone age, but hey, it's not my country.
Britain's royal family is literally the goose that laid the golden egg. Haters
of this institution are simply that and haven't bothered to do any of the math.However, before I just blatantly condemn this millennia old institution, I decided to do some research and see what good the royal family does for Britain (you know...aside from existing as a family of "British Kardashians" that lives on luxurious estates making their number one responsibility to "look good" and sucking down a lavish lifestyle on the back of the taxpayer). The above video does a great job of explaining it. Hint: you should watch it.

In short (TL;DR):
Americans could compare the royal family to the Kardashians. But that
would be seriously insulting. The royal family makes the Brits a TON of
cash. The Kardashians make the U.S. a ton of embarrassment.The Brits spend $40 million pounds a year maintaining them. However they make $160 million pounds off of their lands. This is enough to reduce the average taxpayer's burden by $2 pounds and 60 pence than it would otherwise be. I wish the president's family (Republican or Democrat) could say this about the impact of their family on the economy.

The golden goose tourists from America dump buckets of money on the UK every year to see the royals and everything they touch with magical "royal pixie" dust. It's a better attraction than Disneyland. Twelve million tourists spending $7000 million pounds is a good thing, right? Hell yes it is. In Chris Rocks words, that's a lotta money!
Cheap Pete from the 90's show, "In Living Color." He's best known for
saying "Good Lord that's a LOTTA MONEY!"So how about you? Are you a hater of all things royal? Do you think this fabulously wealthy family sponges off the back of the people? If so, has the video changed your tune?

I (like the rest of the world) am curious as to the name of the new baby. I also kind of think it'd be cool if the prince was born gay. Wouldn't that be interesting? I wonder how the royals would react if their son said, "Um...I've been dating a guy that I met while playing polo..." William would probably look at Kate and say, "Why did you insist on wearing all that pink while you were pregnant? Sigh."

Oh my. The world would never be the same.

***** 
I'll be taking the rest of the week off. I'll see you guys next Monday.

Falling Skies tried to pull off Inception and didn't quite succeed

Tom Mason just prior to jumping off a balcony and miraculously escaping
the alien overlords who tried to extract information from his subconscious mind.
The escape seemed daring at first, but far too easy. Why in the hell didn't they
chase after him? Maybe he's still dreaming. It seems possible.So Sunday's episode of Falling Skies really had me thinking "you writers at TNT watched Inception, didn't you?" Only in the case of Falling Skies, it was not as well done as Christopher Nolan's brilliant film simply because they didn't employ the use of the totems (totems are a good thing for the audience because it keeps us from getting frustrated).

For those of you who haven't seen Christopher Nolan's Inception, a totem is a thing that you construct. You don't let anyone touch it because only you should know the balance and the weight. Ariadne's was a chess piece, Cobb's was a spinning top, and Arthur's was a weighted dice. The purpose of the totem was to implant this idea (when you saw it in action): your world is not real.

In the Falling Skies episode entitled "Strange Brew", Tom Mason is once again the guest of the alien overlords (having been caught in last week's episode during the last five seconds). Now to be fair, Tom has been a house guest of the alien overlords before. Last time they talked with him and ended up planting a bug or something inside him. So this time around, it had to be different, right? Plus the stakes are much higher due to interference from another alien race called the Volm.
Karen is like the Darth Vader of this show.We have Karen (she's the main bad guy that replaced the alien overlord from last season) and she wants to find out which of four cities is going to be struck by the resistance. Is it going to be Jacksonville, Boston, New York, or Chicago? Rather than resort to torture which Karen says she knows Tom can resist (he is a college professor after all), they decide to try and extract it from his subconscious. Think dream within a dream within a dream only unlike Inception, I kind of got lost.

Part of the fun of an Inception-style plot is figuring out if the reality you are being shown is real or not. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious. For example, Tom Mason shot Karen in the head. This led me to say "There's no way they'd off Karen that easily. She's like the Darth Vader of this show and for them to just shoot her and be done...not buying it." And sure enough, it turned out to be a dream.

I'm really not sure if the whole "Inception" thing really worked out well for Falling Skies. It made for some awesome flashbacks and for us as an audience to become emotionally connected to Tom's first wife, but it also distanced us from Tom's second wife and his baby daughter in a weird way. We also saw Anne Glass and his daughter Alexi murdered off camera by the alien overlords. In fact, we didn't even get a good look at them at all. This makes me think that Tom is just in another dream. But is he? Because it sure as heck seems that (at the end of the episode) he's not really dreaming. I mean he got away from the alien overlords by simply jumping off a balcony. They didn't even chase him down. Who does that?

If this is really how they are going to play things, i.e. off Anne and Alexi like they were nothing and then just let Tom get away by jumping off a balcony, I'm very disappointed. There are only two episodes left in Falling Skies this season, and I'm hoping to get some clarity on the things we saw in "Strange Brew" that left me full of questions. That's the danger, I think, whenever someone wants to channel Christopher Nolan and the Inception plot. To clarify further, the idea of layering dreams on top of each other can be aggravating to the audience if not anchored and explained well. Hence, Falling Skies should have used totems.

Either that, or they should never have tried to duplicate Inception in a forty minute episode. It just doesn't work.

How will you be affected if Barnes & Noble closes its doors?

Barnes & Noble at one time was huge. In April of 2006 its stock traded for $46.25 a share on the New York Stock exchange. Its stock price today is $17.97. For those of you who don't know, stock is how a company raises the money it needs to expand. When it falls like this, it means that investors are fleeing in droves, and that's bad.

As a writer who once fancied that it would be nice to see my books on a Barnes & Noble bookshelf, I think that fantasy will always remain a "fiction." I say that not because I don't feel I have the talent to get into one of those stores as a published author. I say that because their company is in SERIOUS trouble. As an amateur investor in stock, I'd have to say I wouldn't give them a penny. It's the "should I catch a falling knife?" syndrome. For those of you who don't invest, the analogy is pretty obvious. If someone throws a knife from a two story window, do you want to be the one that tries to catch it? Not me. I'm gonna let it hit the pavement and get destroyed. That's just the way things are sometimes; that's capitalism.

There are many problems that have plagued Barnes & Noble. For one, they decided to try and get into the ebook game to repeat Amazon's success. The only problem is that this particular strategy runs against their business model. They own brick and mortar stores that feature books, calendars, magazines, a cafe, some wi-fi for a person to use their laptop on, a dvd section, etc. But by selling the Nook, they were telling their customers: stay home and download books. And that's what they did (I live across the street from a Barnes & Noble and in five years, I've probably been inside maybe ten times). That's kind of sad. Without people like me going in, they lost the chance to pitch books from tables, to collect side sales like cookies and lattes from their cafe, and countless other things that I might have bought because the packaging caught my eye.

However, I suppose that the biggest problem is that not enough people want to buy books in retail outlets anymore. That's just a fact. Now, just to be clear, the brick and mortar portion of Barnes & Noble is still profitable by a tiny margin. Analysts on Wall Street believe that it should remain so for the next few years. But it's questionable if the company can survive the absolute hemorrhaging of money that's occurred thus far in 2013. Here's a rundown of the B&N holocaust.

On June 25th of this year, B&N (with regard to its brick and mortar stores) reported a 7.4% drop in revenues and a $122 million dollar loss for the fourth quarter of its fiscal year. For the full year, B&N earned a mere $10 million, compared to $177 million just one year prior.

It gets worse. The Nook division is an unmitigated disaster. It saw a stunning 17% drop in Nook revenues and a staggering $475 million loss thus far this year. Can you imagine losing almost $500 million?

Wow. Just...wow.

So yeah, I think if you're a writer who wanted their books in a Barnes & Noble, or if you are one of those people that thought, "Man...those naysayers will be eating crow when my book is on the shelf at the local B&N, and I'm signing books to adoring fans" you should probably go and take a picture of your B&N because that business is in its death throes.

I wish it weren't true. But it's possible that the only place you will see paper books anymore is through independents or on that aisle in the grocery store. It makes me wonder how the Big Five publishers will deal with the mom & pop stores. So if B&N is tanking, what company is raking it in? The answer is obvious: Amazon.

Here's food for thought: In just ten years, Amazon's stock has surged 2000%. If you had invested a thousand dollars in them in Y2K you'd have 2 million dollars in the bank. Interesting, eh? Amazon will probably get so big within ten more years that it will just buy out Random House, Penguin, Knopf, and all the others with pocket change.

So what do you think? Will Barnes & Noble survive for another ten years? Do you think they can salvage their operation? Can big-style agented New York publishing survive without Barnes & Noble? And finally, how will you be affected if Barnes & Noble closes its doors? I think it would suck to go through all the trouble to get an agent, get your book sold to a publisher, then see B&N implode and shutter all its stores, resulting in you being told that your book is now slated for digital only and then thrown on kindle with all the millions of self-pubs because they have no way to market the paperback version of your book. I wonder how some egotistical writers will react when the "glitz" of a Barnes & Noble is gone, leaving behind a slew of used bookstores filled with cobwebs, yellowing pages, and hippies smokin' weed behind a stack of books propped up on end tables surrounding a flea ridden couch.

I can hear the conversation in my head. "Sue Grafton...over here. What's up my woman? You write some serious mystery." Puts cigarette out in ashtray. "We had five customers yesterday, but with you in da house we prolly get seven or eight. Saweeet!"

It may be a tad bit early but I'm gonna say it anyway. R.I.P. B&N. May the future prove me wrong.

Hemlock Grove's atmosphere is great and its writing interesting but it needs more nudity.

So I started watching Hemlock Grove (the quintessential werewolf series) on Netflix (I'm presently three episodes in) and am enjoying it. The eye-candy is great, however, there are a few things that are bugging me about it (just to be clear, these nitpicks are NOT enough to make me stop watching by any means):
This is your werewolf ladies! Landon Liboiron plays Peter in "Hemlock Grove"
only he has more facial hair. He's a wolf after all. You previously saw him in
the failed science fiction show "Terra Nova." I'm glad he's made a comeback.1) Not enough nudity. Come on. This cast is gorgeous with exception of the "freaks" like Roman's sister. All the guys have 6% body fat and the girls are all thin with perky smiles and firm everything (it's like they all have their own anti-gravity machines levitating their boobs). They've had plenty of opportunities for some serious nudity (trust me on this if you haven't seen it), but the only naked parts I've seen by the third episode is Landon's butt  (I'm not complaining just we coulda seen more) and a dead chick's torso.

2) It channels LOST way too much. Remember sitting down and watching Lost and then seeing a mystery and then another mystery and then another question? You hoped that in the end, everything would be explained but the mysteries kept compounding until all you had was a show full of questions. Well...that's a little of how Hemlock Grove seems to be going. I hope they explain some of the things I'm seeing, like 1) why is Roman Godfrey's sister so big? Why is one of her eyes all strange? How can Roman hypnotize people and make them do what he wants them to do? How did everyone know Peter was a werewolf as soon as he rolled into town? What's with the glowing trail of fire that lit up Roman's sister's face when he touched her? And on and on and on.

3) Blatant iPhone marketing is obvious to the point of it being annoying. Everyone has one. It's almost like Apple paid for this entire series.

Now there are also things I LOVE about this series (aside from the eye-candy):

1) The production values are great. The sets look awesome, and the dialogue is interesting. The atmosphere and feel of the Netflix series pulls me right in. I realize it takes place in modern times, but I'm constantly reminded of the gothic through visceral details that splash in full color on my high definition screen.

2) The special effects blow me away. Take a look at this video of the werewolf transformation that Landon has to go through (character name is Peter, and for the record, he's a nice werewolf and not a mean one). It's frickin' incredible. THIS is none other than the creative genius of Eli Roth (the man behind Goretorium in Las Vegas). I especially love how the wolf walks up and eats the discarded human skin. It's horrific, yet I can't pull my eyes away.
3) They have Famke Janssen (from X-Men) and Kandyse McClure (from Jeremiah and Battlestar Galactica). These two ladies can pack in some powerful performances.

I'd say more, but I have another episode of Hemlock Grove I need to watch. Have a great Thursday. :)

Talking Murder, Madness, and Love with author Yolanda Renee

Yolanda Renee is stopping by my blog today to answer a few questions. I hope you find her answers as interesting as I do. Oh and she answered the questions in "bloody" ink. Isn't that awesome?

1) Murder, Madness, and Love was previously self-published. Why did you change your mind and go with a publisher?
In the beginning I wanted to go the traditional route, and after numerous (over 100) rejections, I decided to self-publish because I wanted to give books to the family as Christmas presents. However, once I started the process, my husband convinced me I should go the full route. But self-publishing never gave me the exposure I needed for success. The books were not available in bookstores, except locally, Kindle did not support self-publishing in 2008, and I wanted national attention.
I set a goal, and I have this bad habit of needing to achieve goals. I'm very competitive. I hate being told I can't, or I'm not good enough—challenge me, I dare you.
2) You have previously spoken of three locations in the two books you have coming out. Which locations are used in Murder, Madness, and Love? Which are used in the sequel Memories of Murder? Had you been to any of these places, and why did you choose them?
Murder, Madness & Love is set in Anchorage, Alaska, Seattle, and the coast of Washington State. Memories of Murder takes place in Alaska, Washington, and a few scenes in Paris, France. The third book in the trilogy, From Obsession to Murder, is almost exclusively set in Alaska, this time I use the entire state, from Deadhorse to the Aleutian Islands.
I chose Alaska because I found it awe inspiring. I lived there 4 years and then Washington State for 17. I've never been to France, but I hope that changes soon! Research and loads of wonderful pictures took me to Dijon and Paris. I chose Alaska because my main character Detective Steven Quaid is Tlingit Indian / Irish, he's lead detective in Anchorage, and this is his story.
3) Tell us about the first sentence of Murder, Madness, and Love. How long did it take you to come up with it?
"Debra pulled up the collar of her jacket and stared out at the arctic gale battering the city."
This is the fourth first sentence. I have gone round and round with this first chapter, because it involves the first killing. One of my first critics said there was not enough action. The second said, never use the weather to begin your story, (this is also a pet peeve of agents), and the third thought I spent too many words on a character that died in the first few paragraphs. They were all right – this new sentence, says it all. Of all the chapters the first, is always the hardest to get right.
4) Did you always intend for there to be a sequel? Were there any frustrations you experienced in writing the second book?
I had no plans for a sequel, not when I wrote the first draft. When I first sent out queries to publishers, one called to say she was interested, and asked if I would consider doing a sequel. Of course, I said yes, and immediately started to formulate one. I never heard back from that publisher and was sorely disappointed; I go over and over that conversation in my mind and still don't know where I screwed it up.
That disappointment was a few years before I decided to self-publish. Once I knew where I wanted to take the story, I wrote books 2 and 3 in a matter of months, four to be exact (the first draft). And there were frustrations a plenty, especially trying to make book two as good as if not better than the first book. From the early reviews, I've done it, and now it’s a challenge to make book three even better. To have the entire trilogy published, will be a dream come true!
Thank you, Mike, for this wonderful opportunity to share my work.
Murder, Madness & Love by Yolanda RenéeTo be Re-released August 5, 2013
Tagline:
After a gritty detective becomes involved with a beautiful widow suspected of murder, slander and obsession obstruct his quest for justice.
Synopsis:
A killer plays cat and mouse with a young widow against the snowy backdrop of an Alaskan winter. Branded a black widow after the suspicious death of her millionaire husband, Sarah Palmer flees Seattle for Anchorage. But the peace and quiet she hoped to enjoy in her hometown is soon shattered. The killer is murdering Sarah look-alikes on the 14th of each month, taunting Sarah with a valentine of evidence.

After her experiences in Seattle, Sarah is slow to go to the police. When she finally does, she finds Detective Steven Quaid. Called on to protect the beautiful widow from a stalker intent on her destruction, Steven is convinced he can solve Michael Palmer's murder and arrest the stalker. However, crime is never simple, and before long Sarah has Steven wound up tighter than barbed wire. Is Sarah a victim or a very skilled manipulator? With a killer on the loose and a climbing body count, Steven cannot afford to hedge his bets-or his life.