Shanna Swendson's Blog, page 206
March 27, 2013
What's Wrong with Romantic Comedies?
The Day of Getting Stuff Done actually ended up working. I just have one remaining nagging to-do item, and then I'll have a weight off my shoulders. And new to-do items. Ugh. One big accomplishment was that I sorted through most of my spiral notebooks. Spiral notebooks are kind of my Swiss Army Knife business tool. Instead of shelling out a lot of money for fancy planners, I have calendar pages I printed from Outlook stuck in a sheet protector and a spiral notebook for planning and to-do lists. I have books for various topics, like marketing efforts and my convention work. I use these books for taking notes on library books. I also use them for collecting information on each book project -- research notes, plot outlines, character information, and anything else I might want to reference for a book. They're portable and they keep information together. I've started using loose-leaf paper for brainstorming because I generally don't need to reference that stuff again and I was filling up too many notebooks with things I didn't need to keep. I also sometimes use a big binder and loose-leaf paper for really complicated projects, like my steampunk book. The trick is that it's hard to find the right notebook when I need it in a pile of notebooks. So, I went through the stack, tossed (or if there was a lot of paper left, ripped out used pages) the notebooks I wouldn't need again -- old to-do lists, thoroughly dead projects -- stuck labels on the front of books I was keeping and put hang-tag labels on the spirals, and then put them in magazine holders based on category -- general research, old books, future books, and old ideas I may return to. I was surprised by the number of books I had on detailed ideas that I don't even remember having. Most of the "dead" book ideas were for chick lit, so unless something in them really sparked a "there's still something here" reaction, they got tossed.
On an unrelated note (unless you count the mention of chick lit), there was an interesting essay in this Sunday's newspaper about the decline of the romantic comedy film genre. One little hint about Book 7 is that a lot of the book is a spoof of romantic comedy films. You may recall that last summer I was talking a lot about romantic comedies, and this is why. I watched a lot of them, both good and bad, as I was making lists of tropes and cliches to use. So, I figured that in the lead-up to the release of this book, it's a good time to focus on romantic comedies, and I looked for the essay online. I found that there were also two more parts, part two and and part three. And then I followed a link to find that Billy Mernit, who wrote my favorite book about writing romantic comedies, had written his own response to the original essay. As a bonus, that led me to his blog, which I must now follow.
To sum up the general argument from the initial essay, he was pointing out that one problem is that the great stars, the equivalent of people like Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, aren't making romantic comedies these days, but that may be because the scripts are pretty lousy, so high-powered stars don't want to do them. And the scripts may be lousy because there aren't too many "easy" obstacles to love these days -- class differences aren't much of an issue, parental disapproval doesn't matter, race is less of an obstacle, and even marital status doesn't necessarily stop anyone. Sex is something that can happen at the meet-cute, so even if you can't officially formalize your love, there's nothing to stop you from going at it before you work things out. In the follow-up, he points out that this doesn't mean there are no conflicts left, just that they're a lot more difficult and require a lot more nuance in the writing. Another theory he presents fits with what I've been saying for ages, which is that the moviemakers became too cynical about the genre and the audience -- they thought that these were easy money-makers aimed at an audience that would eat up anything thrown at them, so they just slapped together some contrived conflict, stuck in some pop music montages and called it a day, and then when these movies tanked, they threw up their hands and called the genre dead.
The fact that there are still about a zillion romance novels being published every year shows that there's no shortage of romantic conflicts. True, there's probably very, very little that's never been done before, but a good writer can make it work and feel fresh if the characters are interesting and well-drawn. You're not going to get that in a movie if you're banking on the audience liking the actors rather than relating to the characters or if you're letting a pop song tell us about the characters being in love rather than actually developing a relationship.
Over the next month or so, leading up to the Kiss and Spell release, I'll be doing a series of posts (probably the Wednesdays when I'm not doing writing posts) about the romantic comedy genre, with maybe some teasers about the book thrown in. I'll say up front that my use of romantic comedy in this book is meant to be cliched -- that's the point. But I hope it ends up transcending the cliche because you do care about the characters and their situation.
On an unrelated note (unless you count the mention of chick lit), there was an interesting essay in this Sunday's newspaper about the decline of the romantic comedy film genre. One little hint about Book 7 is that a lot of the book is a spoof of romantic comedy films. You may recall that last summer I was talking a lot about romantic comedies, and this is why. I watched a lot of them, both good and bad, as I was making lists of tropes and cliches to use. So, I figured that in the lead-up to the release of this book, it's a good time to focus on romantic comedies, and I looked for the essay online. I found that there were also two more parts, part two and and part three. And then I followed a link to find that Billy Mernit, who wrote my favorite book about writing romantic comedies, had written his own response to the original essay. As a bonus, that led me to his blog, which I must now follow.
To sum up the general argument from the initial essay, he was pointing out that one problem is that the great stars, the equivalent of people like Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant, aren't making romantic comedies these days, but that may be because the scripts are pretty lousy, so high-powered stars don't want to do them. And the scripts may be lousy because there aren't too many "easy" obstacles to love these days -- class differences aren't much of an issue, parental disapproval doesn't matter, race is less of an obstacle, and even marital status doesn't necessarily stop anyone. Sex is something that can happen at the meet-cute, so even if you can't officially formalize your love, there's nothing to stop you from going at it before you work things out. In the follow-up, he points out that this doesn't mean there are no conflicts left, just that they're a lot more difficult and require a lot more nuance in the writing. Another theory he presents fits with what I've been saying for ages, which is that the moviemakers became too cynical about the genre and the audience -- they thought that these were easy money-makers aimed at an audience that would eat up anything thrown at them, so they just slapped together some contrived conflict, stuck in some pop music montages and called it a day, and then when these movies tanked, they threw up their hands and called the genre dead.
The fact that there are still about a zillion romance novels being published every year shows that there's no shortage of romantic conflicts. True, there's probably very, very little that's never been done before, but a good writer can make it work and feel fresh if the characters are interesting and well-drawn. You're not going to get that in a movie if you're banking on the audience liking the actors rather than relating to the characters or if you're letting a pop song tell us about the characters being in love rather than actually developing a relationship.
Over the next month or so, leading up to the Kiss and Spell release, I'll be doing a series of posts (probably the Wednesdays when I'm not doing writing posts) about the romantic comedy genre, with maybe some teasers about the book thrown in. I'll say up front that my use of romantic comedy in this book is meant to be cliched -- that's the point. But I hope it ends up transcending the cliche because you do care about the characters and their situation.
March 26, 2013
Book Report: Nebula Ballot
My attempt to Get Stuff Done ran head-on into Monday. I ended up mostly focusing on reading the Nebula ballot material, which still counts as work. Just not the work I planned to do. I've reached the procrastination point where minor tasks look like mountains. I may have to block off an hour in the day and promise myself a reward and just get them done.
Here's a quick rundown of some of the novels I've read recently for award consideration (though with no indication as to how I might vote):
Adult novels
Glamour in Glass by Mary Robinette Kowal -- I hadn't read the first book in the series (for some bizarre reason, my library system has the second but not the first), so I was a little lost about the world building and characters. I think I picked up the important things, but I suspect I still missed a lot of nuance and resonance. This would be recommended for fans of Sorcery and Cecilia because it's fantasy set during the Regency/Napoleonic Wars. Our hero and heroine, who apparently got together in the first book, are taking advantage of peace to honeymoon in Belgium and visit a fellow glamourist to discuss some new theories. The magic in this world is illusion that seems to mostly be used for decorative purposes, but it also has military applications, which puts them all in danger when Napoleon escapes from exile and is marching his armies toward Belgium. The next book, which comes out next month, is set in the Year Without a Summer (which always sounds lovely in the middle of a Texas summer, though it was actually something of a global crisis). I need to find the previous book because I want to fully appreciate this series.
Ironskin by Tina Connolly -- I've seen this described as a "steampunk Jane Eyre," but while the Jane Eyre comparisons are obvious and deliberate, I don't think there's really any steampunk involved. The most fascinating thing about this book to me was the world building. The fey had been providing mankind with magical power sources for centuries, and the whole world is powered that way -- industry, transportation, utilities, etc. But the fey were playing a long game, and when mankind was utterly dependent on their power, they tightened the noose. A war resulted, fitting approximately in the place of World War I. Mankind won, but at great cost. They're having to rebuild society and find new sources of power. There's also the problem of the war wounded -- the people struck by the "shrapnel" of the fey weapons have fragments of curses stuck in them, and the only way to keep these curses from being active is to cover them with iron. Our Heroine has to wear a kind of iron Phantom of the Opera mask. That makes finding work as a governess fairly challenging, until a mysterious man in a remote estate hires her, and Jane Eyre ensues -- spooky house, shady servants, secrets, etc. I actually thought this book would have been stronger without hitting the Jane Eyre thing so hard -- most of the names and characters map, as do many plot points. I was surprised to see in the author's note at the end that she hadn't even read Jane Eyre until people who'd read an early draft of her book pointed out the similarities, and then apparently she decided to make it more overt. I guess maybe she thought that if people were going to assume it was an homage, she might as well lampshade it. I thought that minus the names and some fairly shoehorned plot points, it wouldn't have been that obvious, while I was distracted by trying to map everything to Jane Eyre. Anyway, read if you're into alternate history or fairy lore or if you're a Jane Eyre junkie, but if you're looking for steampunk, you'll be disappointed (I don't think it's trying to be steampunk, but that seems to be how the book is talked about).
Children's/Young Adult
Iron-Hearted Violet by Kelly Barnhill -- I'd say this is a middle-grade book rather than YA, aimed at pre-teens, but I still thought it worked for adults. Violet isn't at all the kind of princess you hear about in stories -- she's not beautiful, she doesn't have masses of long, glorious hair, and she's not at all delicate. This isn't a problem for her, until something starts whispering to her. There's been a long-forgotten evil god imprisoned, and he's trying to get out by manipulating people and finding ways to make them want to do what he wants them to do, and that requires making them dissatisfied with the way things are. When everything else is going horribly wrong, it may be up to a very imperfect princess to set things straight. This is the kind of book I would have eaten up as a kid, and I enjoyed it even as an adult. It's a fantasy adventure with dragons and war and books and stories.
Black Heart by Holly Black -- I read the first book in this series a couple of years ago when it was on the Nebula ballot, and I apparently missed a volume in between because there were events referenced that I didn't remember. This series is about a teen boy from a criminal family whose magical powers make him valuable and put him at risk. He's trying to do the right thing, but that's hard to figure out when the "good" guys are possibly using him to do wrong and the "bad" guys may actually have the greater good in mind in at least one specific circumstance. This may be one of the few times I've ever found myself liking a "bad boy" type, but probably because he's the kind of guy who only looks bad from the outside but who is wrestling with figuring out how to be truly good when he doesn't have much in the way of guidance or role models.
I still have a few more books to get through this week, and I also want to discuss some of the novellas, novelettes and short stories.
In other news, I did end up posting my rant about the SyFy movie to my Stealth Geek blog. You can find the post here. I may turn that blog into a general TV and other geeky stuff discussion place, so I don't have to worry so much about regional spoilers here.
Here's a quick rundown of some of the novels I've read recently for award consideration (though with no indication as to how I might vote):
Adult novels
Glamour in Glass by Mary Robinette Kowal -- I hadn't read the first book in the series (for some bizarre reason, my library system has the second but not the first), so I was a little lost about the world building and characters. I think I picked up the important things, but I suspect I still missed a lot of nuance and resonance. This would be recommended for fans of Sorcery and Cecilia because it's fantasy set during the Regency/Napoleonic Wars. Our hero and heroine, who apparently got together in the first book, are taking advantage of peace to honeymoon in Belgium and visit a fellow glamourist to discuss some new theories. The magic in this world is illusion that seems to mostly be used for decorative purposes, but it also has military applications, which puts them all in danger when Napoleon escapes from exile and is marching his armies toward Belgium. The next book, which comes out next month, is set in the Year Without a Summer (which always sounds lovely in the middle of a Texas summer, though it was actually something of a global crisis). I need to find the previous book because I want to fully appreciate this series.
Ironskin by Tina Connolly -- I've seen this described as a "steampunk Jane Eyre," but while the Jane Eyre comparisons are obvious and deliberate, I don't think there's really any steampunk involved. The most fascinating thing about this book to me was the world building. The fey had been providing mankind with magical power sources for centuries, and the whole world is powered that way -- industry, transportation, utilities, etc. But the fey were playing a long game, and when mankind was utterly dependent on their power, they tightened the noose. A war resulted, fitting approximately in the place of World War I. Mankind won, but at great cost. They're having to rebuild society and find new sources of power. There's also the problem of the war wounded -- the people struck by the "shrapnel" of the fey weapons have fragments of curses stuck in them, and the only way to keep these curses from being active is to cover them with iron. Our Heroine has to wear a kind of iron Phantom of the Opera mask. That makes finding work as a governess fairly challenging, until a mysterious man in a remote estate hires her, and Jane Eyre ensues -- spooky house, shady servants, secrets, etc. I actually thought this book would have been stronger without hitting the Jane Eyre thing so hard -- most of the names and characters map, as do many plot points. I was surprised to see in the author's note at the end that she hadn't even read Jane Eyre until people who'd read an early draft of her book pointed out the similarities, and then apparently she decided to make it more overt. I guess maybe she thought that if people were going to assume it was an homage, she might as well lampshade it. I thought that minus the names and some fairly shoehorned plot points, it wouldn't have been that obvious, while I was distracted by trying to map everything to Jane Eyre. Anyway, read if you're into alternate history or fairy lore or if you're a Jane Eyre junkie, but if you're looking for steampunk, you'll be disappointed (I don't think it's trying to be steampunk, but that seems to be how the book is talked about).
Children's/Young Adult
Iron-Hearted Violet by Kelly Barnhill -- I'd say this is a middle-grade book rather than YA, aimed at pre-teens, but I still thought it worked for adults. Violet isn't at all the kind of princess you hear about in stories -- she's not beautiful, she doesn't have masses of long, glorious hair, and she's not at all delicate. This isn't a problem for her, until something starts whispering to her. There's been a long-forgotten evil god imprisoned, and he's trying to get out by manipulating people and finding ways to make them want to do what he wants them to do, and that requires making them dissatisfied with the way things are. When everything else is going horribly wrong, it may be up to a very imperfect princess to set things straight. This is the kind of book I would have eaten up as a kid, and I enjoyed it even as an adult. It's a fantasy adventure with dragons and war and books and stories.
Black Heart by Holly Black -- I read the first book in this series a couple of years ago when it was on the Nebula ballot, and I apparently missed a volume in between because there were events referenced that I didn't remember. This series is about a teen boy from a criminal family whose magical powers make him valuable and put him at risk. He's trying to do the right thing, but that's hard to figure out when the "good" guys are possibly using him to do wrong and the "bad" guys may actually have the greater good in mind in at least one specific circumstance. This may be one of the few times I've ever found myself liking a "bad boy" type, but probably because he's the kind of guy who only looks bad from the outside but who is wrestling with figuring out how to be truly good when he doesn't have much in the way of guidance or role models.
I still have a few more books to get through this week, and I also want to discuss some of the novellas, novelettes and short stories.
In other news, I did end up posting my rant about the SyFy movie to my Stealth Geek blog. You can find the post here. I may turn that blog into a general TV and other geeky stuff discussion place, so I don't have to worry so much about regional spoilers here.
March 25, 2013
Recharging
My Very Busy Week started on Sunday -- I had two services (including the children's choir in one of them) and then an afternoon rehearsal to get ready for Easter. Today is my free day. Then I have dance Tuesday night, children's choir and adult choir Wednesday night, probably dance again on Thursday (I have a ton of classes to make up after being sick so much this year), Good Friday service on Friday, a Doctor Who watching party on Saturday, then three services Easter morning, with the choir reporting for duty at 7:20 in the morning. I suspect that after the last service, I'll come home and collapse.
There was a bit of fun with the kids on Sunday, and unfortunately the mom who usually records it wasn't there, so there's no video, but we had the preschool and kindergarten groups combined. The song was one where there's the chorus, then the verse, and then the chorus again, and then the end of the song. One of the preschoolers, who's one of those exuberant kids who's enthusiastic about everything, got so caught up in it all that at the end of the song he kept going to sing the verse again, on his own, with much gusto. It was rather adorable. The congregation was cracking up at the kid and the choir was laughing at my reaction. Then it became a running joke in the choir because we also had a couple of unplanned solos when people sang in what were supposed to be rests, so they just said this kid inspired them.
I let myself take it easy on Friday and Saturday to charge up the batteries. Friday night was the perfect cold, blustery evening for listening to the BBC radio drama of Neverwhere while knitting. Saturday, I alternated among reading, knitting and cooking. I had to bake something for the choir potluck breakfast on Sunday, and I made a batch of chicken and dumplings. I realized I hadn't made any this winter, and it was possibly my last wintery weekend. That's an all-day endeavor, but I think I've perfected the recipe.
I watched some of the special features on the Les Miserables DVD and skipped around in the movie to catch my favorite musical bits. Of course, that turned into just watching the movie, until I remembered that I had to get up early on Sunday. I need to find time to just watch the whole movie. I've also decided that Eddie Redmayne would be good casting for one of the characters in the book I just sold. I'm not sure entirely why because that character is very different from any character I've seen him play, but there were a couple of moments both in the movie and in the interviews in the special features where there was a certain look in his eye, and I thought, "Oh, that's him!"
My other weekend movie watching was finally seeing The Rocketeer on one of the HBO channels. I'm not entirely sure why I didn't see it when it came out, but I vaguely recall being at a party and some guy who really gave me the creeps asked me out to see it, and I responded that I wasn't interested in seeing it, so I guess I was forcing myself to be honest by not seeing it, even without him. At any rate, it was rather disappointing -- beautiful production design, great cast, intriguing concept, godawful script. I get that the hero was supposed to be rather naive and had to look like kind of a rube in contrast to the villain, but they went to the humiliating slapstick well one too many times in ways that didn't pass the "reasonable person" test. Any reasonable person, no matter how unsophisticated they were, would have known that those weren't smart things to do. It was like they were trying to do Raiders of the Lost Ark but ended up with Temple of Doom. I'm kind of glad I didn't see it in the theater because I would have hurt myself from cringing. As it was, I was cooking and knitting while watching it, so I survived. It would be interesting to see if they could take that concept and remake it using current effects technology and a much better script.
I also watched bits and pieces of the SyFy Saturday night movie: Chucacabra vs. the Alamo. As a Texan, how could I not? That may inspire me to revive my Stealth Geek blog to discuss it because, wow, was that bad, and not even really in a fun way.
Now to attempt the Day of Getting Stuff Done before my week goes insane.
There was a bit of fun with the kids on Sunday, and unfortunately the mom who usually records it wasn't there, so there's no video, but we had the preschool and kindergarten groups combined. The song was one where there's the chorus, then the verse, and then the chorus again, and then the end of the song. One of the preschoolers, who's one of those exuberant kids who's enthusiastic about everything, got so caught up in it all that at the end of the song he kept going to sing the verse again, on his own, with much gusto. It was rather adorable. The congregation was cracking up at the kid and the choir was laughing at my reaction. Then it became a running joke in the choir because we also had a couple of unplanned solos when people sang in what were supposed to be rests, so they just said this kid inspired them.
I let myself take it easy on Friday and Saturday to charge up the batteries. Friday night was the perfect cold, blustery evening for listening to the BBC radio drama of Neverwhere while knitting. Saturday, I alternated among reading, knitting and cooking. I had to bake something for the choir potluck breakfast on Sunday, and I made a batch of chicken and dumplings. I realized I hadn't made any this winter, and it was possibly my last wintery weekend. That's an all-day endeavor, but I think I've perfected the recipe.
I watched some of the special features on the Les Miserables DVD and skipped around in the movie to catch my favorite musical bits. Of course, that turned into just watching the movie, until I remembered that I had to get up early on Sunday. I need to find time to just watch the whole movie. I've also decided that Eddie Redmayne would be good casting for one of the characters in the book I just sold. I'm not sure entirely why because that character is very different from any character I've seen him play, but there were a couple of moments both in the movie and in the interviews in the special features where there was a certain look in his eye, and I thought, "Oh, that's him!"
My other weekend movie watching was finally seeing The Rocketeer on one of the HBO channels. I'm not entirely sure why I didn't see it when it came out, but I vaguely recall being at a party and some guy who really gave me the creeps asked me out to see it, and I responded that I wasn't interested in seeing it, so I guess I was forcing myself to be honest by not seeing it, even without him. At any rate, it was rather disappointing -- beautiful production design, great cast, intriguing concept, godawful script. I get that the hero was supposed to be rather naive and had to look like kind of a rube in contrast to the villain, but they went to the humiliating slapstick well one too many times in ways that didn't pass the "reasonable person" test. Any reasonable person, no matter how unsophisticated they were, would have known that those weren't smart things to do. It was like they were trying to do Raiders of the Lost Ark but ended up with Temple of Doom. I'm kind of glad I didn't see it in the theater because I would have hurt myself from cringing. As it was, I was cooking and knitting while watching it, so I survived. It would be interesting to see if they could take that concept and remake it using current effects technology and a much better script.
I also watched bits and pieces of the SyFy Saturday night movie: Chucacabra vs. the Alamo. As a Texan, how could I not? That may inspire me to revive my Stealth Geek blog to discuss it because, wow, was that bad, and not even really in a fun way.
Now to attempt the Day of Getting Stuff Done before my week goes insane.
March 22, 2013
Sympathy for the Devil
The book is done and off to Mom. Now to have the Day of Getting Stuff Done, though I may be tempted to procrastinate that until Monday because this is perfect reading weather. I've obtained the Blu Ray of Les Miserables, so now I can watch the whole show whenever I want, without having to wait for a touring production or a trip to New York, but I don't know if I'll watch it today. Maybe just some bits and pieces. Otherwise, I have Nebula ballot reading to do. This may be our last blast of cold, damp weather until next November, so I need to enjoy it.
I mentioned maybe last week that I had a rant building up, and here it goes: It seems like the good guys just can't win in modern entertainment. Sometimes it's just the fans who gravitate toward the bad guys, but sometimes it's the writers fueling that.
To start with, being good is apparently considered boring. It doesn't help that a lot of writers don't seem to know how to add shading and depth to a good guy without using shades of gray or darkness. If a good guy is considered the least bit proud of being good, actually cares about being good or if he dares to judge the bad guys for being bad and doing stuff like killing, then he's called smug and self-righteous. Meanwhile, the bad guys are allowed to gloat about their success all they want. There's usually some excuse in the bad boy's past for his bad behavior -- he was abused, neglected, a good guy was mean to him or did him wrong. The good guy's past doesn't seem to matter, unless the fact that he had a happy upbringing is used to show that he had advantages the bad guy didn't have, and thus is also used to excuse the evil. A bad guy can be "redeemed" and practically sainted by just one time not doing something evil when he has the opportunity, and the good guys are considered awful if they don't immediately throw a parade for him. But if the good guy sets just one toe over the line, he's forever damned. His "bad" may not be near the level of the ongoing behavior of the bad boy, but it's still unforgivable, while the bad guy's "redemption" act may be nowhere near the level of selflessness usually shown on a regular basis by the good guy. Just about anything the good guy does to defeat the bad guy will somehow besmirch his goodness. Basically, he's having to fight evil with both hands tied behind his back and then he's considered stupid and ineffectual if he loses.
And this doesn't just apply to good vs. evil -- the heroes and the villains. It also applies to anyone with shades of gray, like the anti-hero "bad boy" who's not a villain in the grand good vs. evil fight but who is sometimes an antagonist to the good boy hero. Eventually, the anti-hero will be the real hero and the good guy will be shown as a horrible person (or at least perceived that way by the fans). Of course, the anti-hero gets the girl because the good guy is boring.
I was thinking about this while rewatching A Game of Thrones, where too many of the good guys are too stupid to live (so they don't), but I really don't think that's meant to be the message in the books. The books seem to draw the line between worthwhile honor and stupid honor that's really more personal vanity, wanting to be able to call yourself honorable rather than truly wanting to do what's best for everyone. They also acknowledge the fact that you can't deal honorably with dishonorable people because they won't follow the same rules, and that means you'll lose, sometimes with horrible consequences. Sometimes, you may have to go against rules or vows to serve the greater good, and that's okay. The TV producers may be besotted with the darker characters and manage to make a lot of the good guys even more stupid than they are in the books, but I get a different sense from the books.
Where it's really become egregious is with Once Upon a Time, where the writers seem to want us to feel sorry for the evil queen because she's sad and lonely as a consequence of all her evil actions. Meanwhile, the good guys are considered tainted if they actually do anything to fight back against the evil. Most of the fans at Television Without Pity are seeing it the way I do, where they're getting tired of watching the villain weep because she didn't get her way and can't force people to love her, but apparently the greater Internet is full of outrage that the good guys are being so mean to her -- never mind that she's never so much as apologized for the wrongs she's done to them.
I think this is one reason I loved the Harry Potter series. J.K. Rowling gave Harry and Voldemort very similar backgrounds, then showed that how they responded to those backgrounds and the choices they made along the way was the difference between being good and being evil, and there was nothing wrong with taking action to defeat the evil. Plus, she got outraged when fans tried to get too sympathetic to the bad boy instead of the hero.
A good guy doesn't have to be boring, and there are ways of writing layers that don't require mixing in a little darkness. Even good people can be conflicted or tempted. They can get angry. They can have layers and nuances and pain. If your good guy isn't as interesting as your villain, then you're doing it wrong.
But I'm also a little worried about a culture that's so quick to forgive evil and condemn good, where trying to be good is considered "self-righteous."
Let's hear it for the heroes!
I mentioned maybe last week that I had a rant building up, and here it goes: It seems like the good guys just can't win in modern entertainment. Sometimes it's just the fans who gravitate toward the bad guys, but sometimes it's the writers fueling that.
To start with, being good is apparently considered boring. It doesn't help that a lot of writers don't seem to know how to add shading and depth to a good guy without using shades of gray or darkness. If a good guy is considered the least bit proud of being good, actually cares about being good or if he dares to judge the bad guys for being bad and doing stuff like killing, then he's called smug and self-righteous. Meanwhile, the bad guys are allowed to gloat about their success all they want. There's usually some excuse in the bad boy's past for his bad behavior -- he was abused, neglected, a good guy was mean to him or did him wrong. The good guy's past doesn't seem to matter, unless the fact that he had a happy upbringing is used to show that he had advantages the bad guy didn't have, and thus is also used to excuse the evil. A bad guy can be "redeemed" and practically sainted by just one time not doing something evil when he has the opportunity, and the good guys are considered awful if they don't immediately throw a parade for him. But if the good guy sets just one toe over the line, he's forever damned. His "bad" may not be near the level of the ongoing behavior of the bad boy, but it's still unforgivable, while the bad guy's "redemption" act may be nowhere near the level of selflessness usually shown on a regular basis by the good guy. Just about anything the good guy does to defeat the bad guy will somehow besmirch his goodness. Basically, he's having to fight evil with both hands tied behind his back and then he's considered stupid and ineffectual if he loses.
And this doesn't just apply to good vs. evil -- the heroes and the villains. It also applies to anyone with shades of gray, like the anti-hero "bad boy" who's not a villain in the grand good vs. evil fight but who is sometimes an antagonist to the good boy hero. Eventually, the anti-hero will be the real hero and the good guy will be shown as a horrible person (or at least perceived that way by the fans). Of course, the anti-hero gets the girl because the good guy is boring.
I was thinking about this while rewatching A Game of Thrones, where too many of the good guys are too stupid to live (so they don't), but I really don't think that's meant to be the message in the books. The books seem to draw the line between worthwhile honor and stupid honor that's really more personal vanity, wanting to be able to call yourself honorable rather than truly wanting to do what's best for everyone. They also acknowledge the fact that you can't deal honorably with dishonorable people because they won't follow the same rules, and that means you'll lose, sometimes with horrible consequences. Sometimes, you may have to go against rules or vows to serve the greater good, and that's okay. The TV producers may be besotted with the darker characters and manage to make a lot of the good guys even more stupid than they are in the books, but I get a different sense from the books.
Where it's really become egregious is with Once Upon a Time, where the writers seem to want us to feel sorry for the evil queen because she's sad and lonely as a consequence of all her evil actions. Meanwhile, the good guys are considered tainted if they actually do anything to fight back against the evil. Most of the fans at Television Without Pity are seeing it the way I do, where they're getting tired of watching the villain weep because she didn't get her way and can't force people to love her, but apparently the greater Internet is full of outrage that the good guys are being so mean to her -- never mind that she's never so much as apologized for the wrongs she's done to them.
I think this is one reason I loved the Harry Potter series. J.K. Rowling gave Harry and Voldemort very similar backgrounds, then showed that how they responded to those backgrounds and the choices they made along the way was the difference between being good and being evil, and there was nothing wrong with taking action to defeat the evil. Plus, she got outraged when fans tried to get too sympathetic to the bad boy instead of the hero.
A good guy doesn't have to be boring, and there are ways of writing layers that don't require mixing in a little darkness. Even good people can be conflicted or tempted. They can get angry. They can have layers and nuances and pain. If your good guy isn't as interesting as your villain, then you're doing it wrong.
But I'm also a little worried about a culture that's so quick to forgive evil and condemn good, where trying to be good is considered "self-righteous."
Let's hear it for the heroes!
March 21, 2013
Getting Stuff Done
I'm hoping today to finish the current round of revision/editing on the current project. However, I have a lurking, threatening headache that may hamper that somewhat. The weather is making yet another dramatic shift, and that tends to trigger headaches. The kids didn't help last night. They were screaming and running in circles, for no reason, and after being reprimanded, they'd just start doing it again. I've met most of their parents, so I know these kids aren't being raised in barns, but sometimes you'd think it had never occurred to them that they can't just run around like maniacs wherever they go. It's like there's zero self-restraint. It makes me want to try the dog training technique of making the dog wait until you give the command before it goes for its treat. I'm not sure these kids would be able to hold back. They'd grab the treat instantly, then whine because their treat was gone.
But then the adult choir director made a TARDIS joke during rehearsal, and that improved my mood, mostly because my mind was already there before he said it. He'd been encouraging people to think "open" in their heads to make a round tone, like their mouths are bigger on the inside, and just as I thought "like the TARDIS," he said it. I couldn't help but laugh, and he said, "You were already there, weren't you?" There was a joke referring to Primeval (the series) not too long ago, so I suspect the choir director is a geek. This shouldn't be a huge surprise, I suppose, as he's the one who kept putting Harry Potter movies in the DVD player during the bus trip last summer.
Only seven more weeks of children's choir. I may survive this year. I haven't decided about next year. There are times I love it, but I'm kind of drained right now.
I was going to declare today Get Stuff Done Day and clear all the nagging items from my to-do list. That includes things that shouldn't be a big deal but I've been procrastinating like crazy for no apparent reason, just a raging case of the don't wannas. Maybe once I finish the draft this afternoon, I'll devote tomorrow morning to Getting Stuff Done, and then this weekend may be a combination reading binge and brainstorming "retreat" to start thinking about the sequel. Little bits and pieces have been popping into my head. I'm hoping we'll finally meet a character I put a lot of thought into developing in the first book but who ended up never actually appearing. I know a shocking amount of details about the life of a character who's only mentioned a couple of times, so now I want to write at least one scene for her. She'll never be a major player, but she will probably be the main "real world" person from whom the magical secret must be kept.
But then the adult choir director made a TARDIS joke during rehearsal, and that improved my mood, mostly because my mind was already there before he said it. He'd been encouraging people to think "open" in their heads to make a round tone, like their mouths are bigger on the inside, and just as I thought "like the TARDIS," he said it. I couldn't help but laugh, and he said, "You were already there, weren't you?" There was a joke referring to Primeval (the series) not too long ago, so I suspect the choir director is a geek. This shouldn't be a huge surprise, I suppose, as he's the one who kept putting Harry Potter movies in the DVD player during the bus trip last summer.
Only seven more weeks of children's choir. I may survive this year. I haven't decided about next year. There are times I love it, but I'm kind of drained right now.
I was going to declare today Get Stuff Done Day and clear all the nagging items from my to-do list. That includes things that shouldn't be a big deal but I've been procrastinating like crazy for no apparent reason, just a raging case of the don't wannas. Maybe once I finish the draft this afternoon, I'll devote tomorrow morning to Getting Stuff Done, and then this weekend may be a combination reading binge and brainstorming "retreat" to start thinking about the sequel. Little bits and pieces have been popping into my head. I'm hoping we'll finally meet a character I put a lot of thought into developing in the first book but who ended up never actually appearing. I know a shocking amount of details about the life of a character who's only mentioned a couple of times, so now I want to write at least one scene for her. She'll never be a major player, but she will probably be the main "real world" person from whom the magical secret must be kept.
March 20, 2013
Finding Your Voice
When I was talking about how to use feedback from others, I mentioned that you should consider whether any suggestions would alter your voice. Voice is a pretty tricky topic, so I thought I should address it. There's no real "how to" for dealing with or developing voice, and yet it's probably the most critical factor to an author's success. It's the thing that sets a book or an author apart from the crowd. When you look at what agents and editors say about books, they'll mention that the voice just grabbed them. A powerful voice can overcome all kinds of flaws in a book. And yet it's not something you have a lot of control over.
What is "voice"? I think it boils down to the things you say and how you say them. I've been to writing workshops where the presenter will read excerpts from books and ask the audience to identify them. The idea is that these authors all have such strong voices that you know right away who the author is. That may be true, to some extent. There are little touches that come through, no matter what an author writes, but I think there's a problem if an author has the same voice in every book. I've been writing a contemporary fantasy series in which my first-person narrator is a rather sarcastic young woman from a small town in Texas. I just sold a young adult steampunk fantasy novel in which my narrator is a rather sheltered and naive, but highly educated, teenage girl in a Victorian-like society. These books had better have very different voices because the books and narrators are so different. I find that when I read aloud from these books, it's not just my accent that changes. Even the speaking voice I use is different. But I think both books are still distinctly "me." I'm not sure that they could be used as an example in the kind of workshop I mentioned, where you could read an excerpt and even tell that they're by the same author, but I do think there's something in them that means people who like the one series may like the other.
So, if the voice of each book needs to be appropriate to that book but you still need a distinctive author voice, what does that even mean? I still think it comes back to the things you say and how you say them. Think about the entertainment you enjoy -- books, movies, television. Make a list of your favorite characters and the things you like about them. Do you see any patterns? What about stories or plot lines? Is there any plot element if you see it mentioned in a show or movie description or on a book cover, you're instantly hooked? Those are the things that should make it into your own work. If you write about things that make you excited and passionate, your enthusiasm will come through and create a sense of voice. Writing about things you love means your work will truly come from the core of your being.
When it comes to the way you say things, it may vary by book, but there are still likely some commonalities. I know that my writing style is an odd mix of terse and to the point and almost baroque in sentence complexity. That probably comes from a childhood and youth spent reading Victorian novels and epic fantasy and my training as a broadcast journalist. I love crossword puzzles and finding new words that strike me as vividly descriptive. And yet I'm not big on physical description. I have very clear images in my head, and I can get very clear mental images out of even the tersest writing, so I guess I just assume everyone does that and doesn't need lots of words to tell them what to imagine. Dialogue is where I like to play. Those things are probably common to everything I write.
I had a couple of moments that I think were instrumental to me developing my personal writing voice. One was in college when I had to write a lot of papers for a class. I'd been making reasonable marks on them, but not as good as I hoped, and I was trying perhaps way too hard to write in the way I thought you were supposed to write a paper. Then near the end of the semester, I was getting frustrated with never being quite good enough, I was writing about something I found fascinating, and I had a pretty tight deadline. Instead of slaving over trying to write a "proper" college paper, I just wrote what I wanted to say. That paper came back with the highest grade I'd had in the class so far. It seemed I'd found my voice, and being myself instead of trying to be what I thought they expected paid off.
Though I suppose I still hadn't learned my lesson because a few years later when I was starting my career as a novelist, I was writing category romances. I'd sold a couple to a smaller press, but all that time I'd been very carefully writing what I thought that kind of book should be. On the third book, I guess I was more confident because I just wrote, and that was the book that became my stepping stone to a larger publisher. Something clicked, and I knew that book was more "me." Since then, I've learned that whenever I try to be a certain way or give them a particular thing that requires me to do something that feels unnatural, it's not my voice. Your unique voice should just flow naturally from you.
About the only voice-finding exercise I can think of is to do just that -- forget about rules and guidelines or expectations, the way you "should" be writing, and just write the way that feels right for you. Then take a look at it. It may still need editing and fine-tuning, but the way you write when you think no one else will read it may be the purest form of your voice, and will likely have more life to it than when you're working hard to be what you think is expected of you. It may be more challenging to learn to adapt that to different characters and different kinds of books, but you have to find your personal voice to even start.
What is "voice"? I think it boils down to the things you say and how you say them. I've been to writing workshops where the presenter will read excerpts from books and ask the audience to identify them. The idea is that these authors all have such strong voices that you know right away who the author is. That may be true, to some extent. There are little touches that come through, no matter what an author writes, but I think there's a problem if an author has the same voice in every book. I've been writing a contemporary fantasy series in which my first-person narrator is a rather sarcastic young woman from a small town in Texas. I just sold a young adult steampunk fantasy novel in which my narrator is a rather sheltered and naive, but highly educated, teenage girl in a Victorian-like society. These books had better have very different voices because the books and narrators are so different. I find that when I read aloud from these books, it's not just my accent that changes. Even the speaking voice I use is different. But I think both books are still distinctly "me." I'm not sure that they could be used as an example in the kind of workshop I mentioned, where you could read an excerpt and even tell that they're by the same author, but I do think there's something in them that means people who like the one series may like the other.
So, if the voice of each book needs to be appropriate to that book but you still need a distinctive author voice, what does that even mean? I still think it comes back to the things you say and how you say them. Think about the entertainment you enjoy -- books, movies, television. Make a list of your favorite characters and the things you like about them. Do you see any patterns? What about stories or plot lines? Is there any plot element if you see it mentioned in a show or movie description or on a book cover, you're instantly hooked? Those are the things that should make it into your own work. If you write about things that make you excited and passionate, your enthusiasm will come through and create a sense of voice. Writing about things you love means your work will truly come from the core of your being.
When it comes to the way you say things, it may vary by book, but there are still likely some commonalities. I know that my writing style is an odd mix of terse and to the point and almost baroque in sentence complexity. That probably comes from a childhood and youth spent reading Victorian novels and epic fantasy and my training as a broadcast journalist. I love crossword puzzles and finding new words that strike me as vividly descriptive. And yet I'm not big on physical description. I have very clear images in my head, and I can get very clear mental images out of even the tersest writing, so I guess I just assume everyone does that and doesn't need lots of words to tell them what to imagine. Dialogue is where I like to play. Those things are probably common to everything I write.
I had a couple of moments that I think were instrumental to me developing my personal writing voice. One was in college when I had to write a lot of papers for a class. I'd been making reasonable marks on them, but not as good as I hoped, and I was trying perhaps way too hard to write in the way I thought you were supposed to write a paper. Then near the end of the semester, I was getting frustrated with never being quite good enough, I was writing about something I found fascinating, and I had a pretty tight deadline. Instead of slaving over trying to write a "proper" college paper, I just wrote what I wanted to say. That paper came back with the highest grade I'd had in the class so far. It seemed I'd found my voice, and being myself instead of trying to be what I thought they expected paid off.
Though I suppose I still hadn't learned my lesson because a few years later when I was starting my career as a novelist, I was writing category romances. I'd sold a couple to a smaller press, but all that time I'd been very carefully writing what I thought that kind of book should be. On the third book, I guess I was more confident because I just wrote, and that was the book that became my stepping stone to a larger publisher. Something clicked, and I knew that book was more "me." Since then, I've learned that whenever I try to be a certain way or give them a particular thing that requires me to do something that feels unnatural, it's not my voice. Your unique voice should just flow naturally from you.
About the only voice-finding exercise I can think of is to do just that -- forget about rules and guidelines or expectations, the way you "should" be writing, and just write the way that feels right for you. Then take a look at it. It may still need editing and fine-tuning, but the way you write when you think no one else will read it may be the purest form of your voice, and will likely have more life to it than when you're working hard to be what you think is expected of you. It may be more challenging to learn to adapt that to different characters and different kinds of books, but you have to find your personal voice to even start.
March 19, 2013
Book Deja Vu
I had a weird reading experience this weekend. There's a book that's been frequently recommended to me as a good example of that kind of book, but I haven't read it. I put it on hold at the library, and it finally came in. I started reading it and immediately had a massive case of deja vu. It was all so familiar to me, like I'd read it before. I couldn't really predict what would happen next, but I had a mental image of each scene just before it happened. But I was still pretty sure I hadn't read this book.
There was a chance that it was simply the epitome of a kind of book that has become cliche, so I felt like I'd read it before even though I hadn't. It was one of the earlier and supposedly better examples of this kind of book, but because I came to it very late after reading all the copycats, the original felt overly familiar. It's like a friend I had who thought the movie Casablanca was too cliched for her to enjoy. It didn't matter that all those great lines that have been repeated, quoted or parodied over the years originated in that film. Because she'd seen all those quotes and parodies first, by the time she saw the original, she thought it was just a collection of cliched quotations. And this book did have the kinds of scenes that tend to start that kind of book. Except that there were some pretty unique details that were also oddly familiar.
I skipped ahead into the book, and the familiarity ended. All I can think is that I may have tried to read this book before but didn't get into it, or maybe it was excerpted in the back of another book, or possibly there was an excerpt in one of those promo sampler books they hand out at conventions, so I'd read the first few chapters but not the whole book. I ended up giving up on the book and returning it to the library on the due date because that deja vu was so distracting that I didn't get into the story, and if I'd read that much before without reading the whole book, obviously it didn't resonate with me then, either. I think it's just a kind of book that doesn't work for me, no matter how good an example of that kind of book it is. It's one of those things like beer to me. I say I don't like beer, and people immediately say I have to try whatever kind of beer that isn't like all that other beer. But I've sampled a number of different kinds, and to me it's still beer. With this kind of book, I say I don't really like it, then people keep suggesting books/authors that I will like, and it still comes down to the fact that it's still this kind of book. There are too many books to waste time forcing myself to keep trying something that's not for me.
Now I'm reading my way through the Nebula ballot. I'm finding that the "fantasy" stories/books/novellas tend to be fun even if they're thought -provoking, but the "science fiction" ones are preachy "we're killing the planet" kinds of things. I'm still liking the YA far more than the adult. I do wish I had the talent to write short stories because that's such a lovely art form and I'm in awe of the people who do it well.
There was a chance that it was simply the epitome of a kind of book that has become cliche, so I felt like I'd read it before even though I hadn't. It was one of the earlier and supposedly better examples of this kind of book, but because I came to it very late after reading all the copycats, the original felt overly familiar. It's like a friend I had who thought the movie Casablanca was too cliched for her to enjoy. It didn't matter that all those great lines that have been repeated, quoted or parodied over the years originated in that film. Because she'd seen all those quotes and parodies first, by the time she saw the original, she thought it was just a collection of cliched quotations. And this book did have the kinds of scenes that tend to start that kind of book. Except that there were some pretty unique details that were also oddly familiar.
I skipped ahead into the book, and the familiarity ended. All I can think is that I may have tried to read this book before but didn't get into it, or maybe it was excerpted in the back of another book, or possibly there was an excerpt in one of those promo sampler books they hand out at conventions, so I'd read the first few chapters but not the whole book. I ended up giving up on the book and returning it to the library on the due date because that deja vu was so distracting that I didn't get into the story, and if I'd read that much before without reading the whole book, obviously it didn't resonate with me then, either. I think it's just a kind of book that doesn't work for me, no matter how good an example of that kind of book it is. It's one of those things like beer to me. I say I don't like beer, and people immediately say I have to try whatever kind of beer that isn't like all that other beer. But I've sampled a number of different kinds, and to me it's still beer. With this kind of book, I say I don't really like it, then people keep suggesting books/authors that I will like, and it still comes down to the fact that it's still this kind of book. There are too many books to waste time forcing myself to keep trying something that's not for me.
Now I'm reading my way through the Nebula ballot. I'm finding that the "fantasy" stories/books/novellas tend to be fun even if they're thought -provoking, but the "science fiction" ones are preachy "we're killing the planet" kinds of things. I'm still liking the YA far more than the adult. I do wish I had the talent to write short stories because that's such a lovely art form and I'm in awe of the people who do it well.
March 18, 2013
Unreliable Narrators
Apparently you're getting a live look at my creative process here. Friday, as I wrote my blog post, I got that initial stirring of a "this might be fun to write" idea -- a romantic caper/thriller with fantasy elements, a Charade with magic. That was about the way the initial idea for the Enchanted, Inc. series hit me: "It would be fun to have a fantasy story take place in a chick lit setting." It took me nearly two years to develop and write the book that came from that idea, so don't hold your breath on this one. It's just a lurking "it would be fun to write this kind of book" concept. At the moment, I think it's giving me some framework for the sequel to the book I'm currently finishing, only instead of the exotic locales being places like Paris and London, it's sites within the fairy realm.
One thing that's occurred to me in toying with this idea is that it would be a good place to use an unreliable narrator (something on my literary bucket list). Say, for instance, that Charade was a novel and the Audrey Hepburn character was the first-person narrator -- what if we found late in the book that she wasn't really the wife of the dead man but was some kind of agent or thief and let them assume she was the wife and she'd been playing them all along.
But pulling off an unreliable narrator is tricky. I don't normally feel like there has to be a reason or purpose behind first-person narration -- no need to spell out who the narrator is telling this story to. But when the narrator is lying to the reader, I think that becomes more necessary. There needs to be a reason why the narrator is lying, and that's usually a framing story in which the narrator is telling a particular person or group a story, and that can get clunky.
There's also a fine line to walk between the story of the lie and the story behind the lie, and both have to be equally compelling. There needs to be enough contrast between the truth and the lie for it to matter -- if the narrator has been a kick-ass, super-capable woman all along, it's no big shock to find out she's really a secret agent. But the false front has to be interesting in its own right -- if the narrator is a too-stupid-to-live airhead who keeps bumbling into trouble, readers may throw the book against the wall before they get to the part where they learn that she's doing that on purpose to avoid suspicion. I've seen books like this flip on the good vs. bad axis, but that's also tricky because some readers may not get far enough with a bad narrator to get to the part where they find he's secretly good, while they might feel betrayed to find out that the good person they've been rooting for is actually bad.
And there's the issue of where to put the big reveal. It seems to be most common as the last big turning point before the climax -- they're heading into the final "battle" situation, and then the character does something unexpected and says something to the effect of "Oh, didn't I tell you I was really a spy?" If it's a framing story, then it can reach the point where the character has finished telling the story up to that point, and when they let her go she walks away thinking, "Suckers!" and then the rest of the plot proceeds with the narrator being honest to the reader while still playing a role to the other characters. I've also seen it done as a final twist. Things have more or less ended and you think the narrator has lost, and then at the last moment reveals that this was what he planned all along, and that means he's really won. Then there's the Rashomon approach of having multiple viewpoints that conflict, and the reader discerns the truth by spotting the patterns among them. Or I've seen it with two viewpoints -- first we get the first-person tale within a framing story in which a character tells the story to someone else, and then we get a more objective story told in third-person through the viewpoint of another character who was there for much of the action, and we can see the lies unraveling.
But like I said, it generally takes me at least two years from this point to written book, and this time I already have this year's writing schedule set. I may get it out of my system by using this framework on a planned book. Katie and Owen may suddenly pop up and declare that they want to have globetrotting caper adventures (though I wouldn't be able to use an unreliable narrator there). Or something may come to me and it'll be my Next Big Thing.
In the more immediate future, I really must get back on my office reorganization program. I let things stall for too long and got used to the in-between state. I need to re-claim the floor of my loft. That will mostly require bringing a lot of books to the library to donate to the book sale. I also need to sort through all the stacks of spiral notebooks I use for writing down research, character development, story outlines, etc. I'll have to figure out which books that never went anywhere need to go and which things I need to keep for reference.
One thing that's occurred to me in toying with this idea is that it would be a good place to use an unreliable narrator (something on my literary bucket list). Say, for instance, that Charade was a novel and the Audrey Hepburn character was the first-person narrator -- what if we found late in the book that she wasn't really the wife of the dead man but was some kind of agent or thief and let them assume she was the wife and she'd been playing them all along.
But pulling off an unreliable narrator is tricky. I don't normally feel like there has to be a reason or purpose behind first-person narration -- no need to spell out who the narrator is telling this story to. But when the narrator is lying to the reader, I think that becomes more necessary. There needs to be a reason why the narrator is lying, and that's usually a framing story in which the narrator is telling a particular person or group a story, and that can get clunky.
There's also a fine line to walk between the story of the lie and the story behind the lie, and both have to be equally compelling. There needs to be enough contrast between the truth and the lie for it to matter -- if the narrator has been a kick-ass, super-capable woman all along, it's no big shock to find out she's really a secret agent. But the false front has to be interesting in its own right -- if the narrator is a too-stupid-to-live airhead who keeps bumbling into trouble, readers may throw the book against the wall before they get to the part where they learn that she's doing that on purpose to avoid suspicion. I've seen books like this flip on the good vs. bad axis, but that's also tricky because some readers may not get far enough with a bad narrator to get to the part where they find he's secretly good, while they might feel betrayed to find out that the good person they've been rooting for is actually bad.
And there's the issue of where to put the big reveal. It seems to be most common as the last big turning point before the climax -- they're heading into the final "battle" situation, and then the character does something unexpected and says something to the effect of "Oh, didn't I tell you I was really a spy?" If it's a framing story, then it can reach the point where the character has finished telling the story up to that point, and when they let her go she walks away thinking, "Suckers!" and then the rest of the plot proceeds with the narrator being honest to the reader while still playing a role to the other characters. I've also seen it done as a final twist. Things have more or less ended and you think the narrator has lost, and then at the last moment reveals that this was what he planned all along, and that means he's really won. Then there's the Rashomon approach of having multiple viewpoints that conflict, and the reader discerns the truth by spotting the patterns among them. Or I've seen it with two viewpoints -- first we get the first-person tale within a framing story in which a character tells the story to someone else, and then we get a more objective story told in third-person through the viewpoint of another character who was there for much of the action, and we can see the lies unraveling.
But like I said, it generally takes me at least two years from this point to written book, and this time I already have this year's writing schedule set. I may get it out of my system by using this framework on a planned book. Katie and Owen may suddenly pop up and declare that they want to have globetrotting caper adventures (though I wouldn't be able to use an unreliable narrator there). Or something may come to me and it'll be my Next Big Thing.
In the more immediate future, I really must get back on my office reorganization program. I let things stall for too long and got used to the in-between state. I need to re-claim the floor of my loft. That will mostly require bringing a lot of books to the library to donate to the book sale. I also need to sort through all the stacks of spiral notebooks I use for writing down research, character development, story outlines, etc. I'll have to figure out which books that never went anywhere need to go and which things I need to keep for reference.
March 15, 2013
Book Report: Not as Advertised
I'm about to go on a massive reading binge to try to get through as many of the Nebula nominees as possible so I can vote intelligently. Plus, I think it's good for me as a writer to expose myself to material that my peers think is award-worthy, and it broadens my horizons. None of my novel nominations made it to the final ballot, but all of my YA nominations made it to the Andre Norton Award ballot, which might be a sign that moving into young adult was the right direction for my career. I've read one of the novel nominees, and I have to say that this nomination was likely more due to the author's reputation and status than to the book itself. There are a couple of nominees whose previous books I've read and was so-so about, and there's one I'm intrigued about. The nice thing is that they've made most of the nominees available electronically to members, and the book I most wanted to read was one my library system doesn't have.
There's a book not on the ballot that I want to discuss that I can't really recommend wholeheartedly, which means I have to say some negative things, but it's still interesting enough to discuss. I figure I'm in little danger of ending up in the same social circles as the authors, so I'm going to go for the gusto here and be negative about a specific book while naming names. (I know, shocking, right?)
The book in question is City of Dark Magic, by Magnus Flyte, which is a pseudonym for two authors (apparently the review editions contained some stuff that made it a Lemony Snicket kind of thing, where the manuscript was mysteriously delivered to these authors, but the actual published edition doesn't play such coy games). The title and cover caught my eye because I had high hopes that it would be the kind of "urban fantasy" I wanted to read, something more in the vein of Neverwhere than the half-vampire, half-fae outcast apprentice wizard/freelance demon slayer books that took over the genre. I suppose this book is closer to the former than the latter, but I'm not entirely sure I would classify it as fantasy. There's one (rather out of the blue) fantasy touch late in the book, but the "magic" is alchemy treated as science. It's really more of a chick lit-esque paranormal mystery/thriller. The cover copy and endorsement blurbs also don't do the book any favors. The parts that are accurate are major spoilers -- something that's revealed late in the book in what's supposed to be a shocking moment is flat-out told on the cover. The other parts are rather inaccurate and not at all what's really going on. Then there's the blurb on the front cover by Conan O'Brien (really?) that mentions time travel and tantric sex, and that makes me wonder if he read the book or just the back cover. There isn't any time travel in any literal sense, just the ability to sometimes have visions of other times. And last I heard, a quickie in a bathroom does not fit the definition of "tantric sex."
So, if either the atmosphere evoked by the front cover or the various cover blurbs appeals to you, you'll likely be disappointed unless you manage your expectations. As a chick lit-esque paranormal mystery/thriller, it had a lot of potential. I think I was mostly frustrated by the really amazing book I could kind of see around the edges out of the corner of my eye that wasn't quite what was on the page. The gist of the plot is that Our Heroine is a musicologist specializing in Beethoven who gets hired to spend the summer in Prague helping organize and catalog a collection of scores, letters and other documents involving the friendship/patronship between the local prince at the time and Beethoven. The heir of the former royal family that was ousted by the Communists has had the family holdings returned to him, and he wants to make sure it's all there before creating a museum for them. But there have been mysterious deaths involving people working on the collection, which may be linked to what appeared to be either mass murder or mass suicide at a charity event in Venice. There's a ruthless, powerful person who could be ruined if certain things hidden in the palace are found and a rival possible heir who would like to get her hands on the estate. And there may be something in the collection that solves the "Immortal Beloved" mystery.
I got caught up in the story and turned the pages quickly, so some of the thriller aspect worked (but it would have been improved without the occasional interludes of the villain twirling her metaphorical mustache about her evil schemes, which took away a lot of the suspense when we knew who she was, what she wanted and what she was doing about it). The American slacker/rock band drummer who becomes a prince when his Czech grandfather dies soon after the government reinstates the royal family and who suddenly is stepping up and taking responsibility is an interesting character. Some of the secondary characters are wonderful, like the blind child music prodigy and her dog, who wears a service animal vest not because he's a seeing-eye dog but because he's a retired bomb-sniffing dog, and can she help it if people see a service animal with a blind girl and make assumptions and allow the dog to go everywhere with her? And I like the Texan former beauty queen who's the expert on weapons, an interest begun when her pageant talent was twirling rifles.
But there was just something missing about the whole thing, like it was somehow less than the sum of its parts. I can't quite put my finger on it. The main character was kind of flat, made up of a grab-bag of traits designed to make her both brilliant and edgy, and they seemed to be avoiding doing anything conventionally romantic with the romance, and that may have been part of the problem. I didn't feel a real sense of place or atmosphere, but I can't quite figure out how that could have been conveyed. Generally, if you're interested in a post-Cold War romantic thriller with a few paranormal touches (something I'd bet is pretty rare), this might be something to check out, but it will likely leave you wanting a really, really good paranormal romantic thriller. If you want an atmospheric urban fantasy set in Prague and drawing on the city's rich history, you'd be better off with something like Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor.
And now I kind of want to write a paranormal romantic thriller, maybe something along the lines of Charade but with magic. Witty banter, exotic setting, brewing romance under a cloud of doubt, constant danger. Oh yeah. Good stuff.
There's a book not on the ballot that I want to discuss that I can't really recommend wholeheartedly, which means I have to say some negative things, but it's still interesting enough to discuss. I figure I'm in little danger of ending up in the same social circles as the authors, so I'm going to go for the gusto here and be negative about a specific book while naming names. (I know, shocking, right?)
The book in question is City of Dark Magic, by Magnus Flyte, which is a pseudonym for two authors (apparently the review editions contained some stuff that made it a Lemony Snicket kind of thing, where the manuscript was mysteriously delivered to these authors, but the actual published edition doesn't play such coy games). The title and cover caught my eye because I had high hopes that it would be the kind of "urban fantasy" I wanted to read, something more in the vein of Neverwhere than the half-vampire, half-fae outcast apprentice wizard/freelance demon slayer books that took over the genre. I suppose this book is closer to the former than the latter, but I'm not entirely sure I would classify it as fantasy. There's one (rather out of the blue) fantasy touch late in the book, but the "magic" is alchemy treated as science. It's really more of a chick lit-esque paranormal mystery/thriller. The cover copy and endorsement blurbs also don't do the book any favors. The parts that are accurate are major spoilers -- something that's revealed late in the book in what's supposed to be a shocking moment is flat-out told on the cover. The other parts are rather inaccurate and not at all what's really going on. Then there's the blurb on the front cover by Conan O'Brien (really?) that mentions time travel and tantric sex, and that makes me wonder if he read the book or just the back cover. There isn't any time travel in any literal sense, just the ability to sometimes have visions of other times. And last I heard, a quickie in a bathroom does not fit the definition of "tantric sex."
So, if either the atmosphere evoked by the front cover or the various cover blurbs appeals to you, you'll likely be disappointed unless you manage your expectations. As a chick lit-esque paranormal mystery/thriller, it had a lot of potential. I think I was mostly frustrated by the really amazing book I could kind of see around the edges out of the corner of my eye that wasn't quite what was on the page. The gist of the plot is that Our Heroine is a musicologist specializing in Beethoven who gets hired to spend the summer in Prague helping organize and catalog a collection of scores, letters and other documents involving the friendship/patronship between the local prince at the time and Beethoven. The heir of the former royal family that was ousted by the Communists has had the family holdings returned to him, and he wants to make sure it's all there before creating a museum for them. But there have been mysterious deaths involving people working on the collection, which may be linked to what appeared to be either mass murder or mass suicide at a charity event in Venice. There's a ruthless, powerful person who could be ruined if certain things hidden in the palace are found and a rival possible heir who would like to get her hands on the estate. And there may be something in the collection that solves the "Immortal Beloved" mystery.
I got caught up in the story and turned the pages quickly, so some of the thriller aspect worked (but it would have been improved without the occasional interludes of the villain twirling her metaphorical mustache about her evil schemes, which took away a lot of the suspense when we knew who she was, what she wanted and what she was doing about it). The American slacker/rock band drummer who becomes a prince when his Czech grandfather dies soon after the government reinstates the royal family and who suddenly is stepping up and taking responsibility is an interesting character. Some of the secondary characters are wonderful, like the blind child music prodigy and her dog, who wears a service animal vest not because he's a seeing-eye dog but because he's a retired bomb-sniffing dog, and can she help it if people see a service animal with a blind girl and make assumptions and allow the dog to go everywhere with her? And I like the Texan former beauty queen who's the expert on weapons, an interest begun when her pageant talent was twirling rifles.
But there was just something missing about the whole thing, like it was somehow less than the sum of its parts. I can't quite put my finger on it. The main character was kind of flat, made up of a grab-bag of traits designed to make her both brilliant and edgy, and they seemed to be avoiding doing anything conventionally romantic with the romance, and that may have been part of the problem. I didn't feel a real sense of place or atmosphere, but I can't quite figure out how that could have been conveyed. Generally, if you're interested in a post-Cold War romantic thriller with a few paranormal touches (something I'd bet is pretty rare), this might be something to check out, but it will likely leave you wanting a really, really good paranormal romantic thriller. If you want an atmospheric urban fantasy set in Prague and drawing on the city's rich history, you'd be better off with something like Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor.
And now I kind of want to write a paranormal romantic thriller, maybe something along the lines of Charade but with magic. Witty banter, exotic setting, brewing romance under a cloud of doubt, constant danger. Oh yeah. Good stuff.
March 14, 2013
Stupid Good
I was going to get up and get going early today. I managed the "up" part, but the "going" part, not so much. Ah well, it was only an arbitrary deadline.
I've decided that knitting is actually a good part of my creative process. I spent the afternoon reading/revising on the book, and then when I was knitting at night, I found that the answers to tricky problems or ideas for what to do popped into my head. Generally, any kind of repetitive task is good for that sort of thing. It uses just enough brainpower to keep you alert and distract the conscious brain, and that allows the subconscious to get to work. Doing dishes also works, but knitting is more fun. Though there is the danger that the idea that pops into you head will then require conscious thought, and you then find yourself knitting the wrong row and having to undo it all and start over again. And that's with color-coded stitch markers that should remind me of what row I'm on.
Rewatching the first season of A Game of Thrones reminds me of one of the reasons that series can be frustrating. Namely, the Stupid! It Burns! It's the most literal example of Too Stupid to Live. I get that they're trying to portray nobility and the consequences of it when you're not dealing with people who function by the same moral code, but there are cases here that go far beyond that. I doubt that anyone would blame a cop, for instance, who didn't call the criminal and give him a heads up that he'd discovered what the criminal was up to and wanted to give him the opportunity to confess to the judge before the cop gave the judge the evidence. Most of the early part of that series is the good guys being flat-out stupid and the bad guys not even having to break a sweat to take advantage of it. I think it does get better as the series progresses, especially in the third book, which will be what we see on TV this year. By then, the worst of the idiots have weeded themselves out with their Darwin Award-worthy behavior and the survivors have wised up a bit, so there's no longer such a sharp contrast between stupid good and clever evil.
I actually have a rant brewing about the way good and bad are often treated or perceived in today's entertainment, but I was supposed to have been at my parents' house by now, so I should probably either start packing or make the go/no go decision.
I've decided that knitting is actually a good part of my creative process. I spent the afternoon reading/revising on the book, and then when I was knitting at night, I found that the answers to tricky problems or ideas for what to do popped into my head. Generally, any kind of repetitive task is good for that sort of thing. It uses just enough brainpower to keep you alert and distract the conscious brain, and that allows the subconscious to get to work. Doing dishes also works, but knitting is more fun. Though there is the danger that the idea that pops into you head will then require conscious thought, and you then find yourself knitting the wrong row and having to undo it all and start over again. And that's with color-coded stitch markers that should remind me of what row I'm on.
Rewatching the first season of A Game of Thrones reminds me of one of the reasons that series can be frustrating. Namely, the Stupid! It Burns! It's the most literal example of Too Stupid to Live. I get that they're trying to portray nobility and the consequences of it when you're not dealing with people who function by the same moral code, but there are cases here that go far beyond that. I doubt that anyone would blame a cop, for instance, who didn't call the criminal and give him a heads up that he'd discovered what the criminal was up to and wanted to give him the opportunity to confess to the judge before the cop gave the judge the evidence. Most of the early part of that series is the good guys being flat-out stupid and the bad guys not even having to break a sweat to take advantage of it. I think it does get better as the series progresses, especially in the third book, which will be what we see on TV this year. By then, the worst of the idiots have weeded themselves out with their Darwin Award-worthy behavior and the survivors have wised up a bit, so there's no longer such a sharp contrast between stupid good and clever evil.
I actually have a rant brewing about the way good and bad are often treated or perceived in today's entertainment, but I was supposed to have been at my parents' house by now, so I should probably either start packing or make the go/no go decision.
