Shanna Swendson's Blog, page 250
June 16, 2011
Too Stupid to Live
I finished a round of revisions yesterday, hampered somewhat by the fact that I came up with an idea for a sequel and started mentally writing it while I was still trying to edit/proofread this book, which was rather distracting. I think today will be housework/errand/catch-up day. Tomorrow I may do some reading for the project I want to get back to next month, along with working on some music. I'm singing a duet in church on Sunday, so I need to keep the voice in shape and run through the music a few more times. Then next week I'll do another pass on the previous project, after which I'll do the final read on the one I just finished. When both of these are done and off to my agent, I can get back to the book I backburnered last summer.
As I've mentioned, I seem to be having the Summer of Extreme Immaturity, as I find myself mostly reading children's and young adult books. One hazard of being an adult reading books about teens is that I have a tendency to judge the actions of the characters by the standard of what I would do, and there's a big difference between what a (supposedly) mature adult would do and what a teenager would do, so what would be perfectly in character for a teen may sometimes strike me as a bad case of Too Stupid to Live. It's very frustrating to read about a character making what seems to me to be a big mistake because what's happening is very obvious to me. With teen characters, especially, there's the issue of peer pressure, where on one level I can totally understand the characters making the choices they do because they want to fit in or keep their friends, but as an adult I can see what a bad idea that is.
Of course, Too Stupid to Live behavior isn't limited to young adult. It may just be more obvious there because in those cases, the Too Stupid to Live is in character and reasonable for people that age, while adults who did the same things would be incredibly dumb. And yet, if you eliminate all bad decisions, the story isn't very interesting. Perfect people who never make mistakes are boring. Meanwhile, dropping hints that readers pick up on that the characters don't is a good way to build suspense because we know the trouble the characters are getting into. I think the trick is to go with that "reasonable person" standard they talk about on jury duty, where if the author can convince the reader that a reasonable person would make that choice in that situation, given the knowledge available to that person. To some extent, it may work if you can convince readers that the character would make that decision, but truly stupid characters are difficult to care about, so even if doing something phenomenally dumb is in character, readers may not accept it.
This is all coming to mind because it relates to something I've been wrestling with in the backburnered book I'm about to get back to. I'm using a lot of fairy tale and folklore elements in it. One very common trope in fairy tales and folklore is the prohibition -- the hero is told that there's one thing he absolutely must not do. And almost invariably, either the hero disregards the warning or something comes up that forces him to do the one thing he's been told not to do -- like the "you have to leave by midnight" in Cinderella or the "you can't look at me" in the Psyche and Eros myth. I had one of these in my story, and I thought I was being really clever in having the character not go against the warning -- it avoids Too Stupid to Live syndrome, it breaks the pattern and it may be unexpected. But after a presentation on this fairy tale/folklore trope at Mythcon last year, I found myself rethinking that. The story isn't that interesting if a character is told not to do something and then never does it. I think what needs to happen is for there to be some reason the character is forced to do the thing she's been told not to do. It's not so much that she disregards warnings or does something stupid, but she faces a choice where she has to go against the prohibition in order to accomplish something greater. Breaking the ban may doom her, but it could save the day for others. Or something like that.
I guess there's no easy answer for finding that fine line between Too Stupid to Live and Boring Perfect People who never make mistakes.
As I've mentioned, I seem to be having the Summer of Extreme Immaturity, as I find myself mostly reading children's and young adult books. One hazard of being an adult reading books about teens is that I have a tendency to judge the actions of the characters by the standard of what I would do, and there's a big difference between what a (supposedly) mature adult would do and what a teenager would do, so what would be perfectly in character for a teen may sometimes strike me as a bad case of Too Stupid to Live. It's very frustrating to read about a character making what seems to me to be a big mistake because what's happening is very obvious to me. With teen characters, especially, there's the issue of peer pressure, where on one level I can totally understand the characters making the choices they do because they want to fit in or keep their friends, but as an adult I can see what a bad idea that is.
Of course, Too Stupid to Live behavior isn't limited to young adult. It may just be more obvious there because in those cases, the Too Stupid to Live is in character and reasonable for people that age, while adults who did the same things would be incredibly dumb. And yet, if you eliminate all bad decisions, the story isn't very interesting. Perfect people who never make mistakes are boring. Meanwhile, dropping hints that readers pick up on that the characters don't is a good way to build suspense because we know the trouble the characters are getting into. I think the trick is to go with that "reasonable person" standard they talk about on jury duty, where if the author can convince the reader that a reasonable person would make that choice in that situation, given the knowledge available to that person. To some extent, it may work if you can convince readers that the character would make that decision, but truly stupid characters are difficult to care about, so even if doing something phenomenally dumb is in character, readers may not accept it.
This is all coming to mind because it relates to something I've been wrestling with in the backburnered book I'm about to get back to. I'm using a lot of fairy tale and folklore elements in it. One very common trope in fairy tales and folklore is the prohibition -- the hero is told that there's one thing he absolutely must not do. And almost invariably, either the hero disregards the warning or something comes up that forces him to do the one thing he's been told not to do -- like the "you have to leave by midnight" in Cinderella or the "you can't look at me" in the Psyche and Eros myth. I had one of these in my story, and I thought I was being really clever in having the character not go against the warning -- it avoids Too Stupid to Live syndrome, it breaks the pattern and it may be unexpected. But after a presentation on this fairy tale/folklore trope at Mythcon last year, I found myself rethinking that. The story isn't that interesting if a character is told not to do something and then never does it. I think what needs to happen is for there to be some reason the character is forced to do the thing she's been told not to do. It's not so much that she disregards warnings or does something stupid, but she faces a choice where she has to go against the prohibition in order to accomplish something greater. Breaking the ban may doom her, but it could save the day for others. Or something like that.
I guess there's no easy answer for finding that fine line between Too Stupid to Live and Boring Perfect People who never make mistakes.
June 15, 2011
Conflict: Man vs. Society
The new shoes made a huge difference in dance class. It was amazing. Not that I'm on the way to the Met, but I felt a lot more in control.
After my last writing post on conflict, an Alert Reader reminded me that I'd left out one of the categories of conflict, Man vs. Society. I'd included that one in my mental composition of the post, but somehow forgot it when it came time to write it, even though that's the major kind of conflict in the book I was working on.
Man vs. Society conflict involves the hero facing off against the institutions and organizations of society, rather than against individuals. These are often stories about revolutions or resistance movements. Or it could be crime spree/criminal on the run stories. You also see this in outcast stories, where it could be seen as Society vs. Man -- the hero isn't trying to fight society, but society is opposed to him.
There is some blurring and overlap with the Man vs. Man conflict, since society is made up of people, but in a Man vs. Society story, the conflict is more about the structure than about the people in the structure. It's not personal, though as the story progresses it may become personal as one of the members of the society structure develops a personal animosity for the hero, or vice versa.
So, going back to my usual Star Wars example, I think the conflict in the first movie is mostly Man vs. Society. The enemy is the Empire. Luke barely knows the name of Darth Vader, doesn't know his role within the Empire, and I'm not even sure he connects the dude in the black armor with the name. Luke is opposed to the Empire but doesn't have any personal animosity toward the Third Stormtrooper on the Left, other than the fact that the Stormtrooper works for the Empire and is shooting at him. Meanwhile, the Stormtroopers and Darth Vader are opposed to the rebels, in general, and in the first film, they don't know or care who that kid is, other than that he's working with the rebels. It's only in the later films where Luke and Darth Vader become directly opposed and it becomes more of a Man vs. Man conflict.
You may see Man vs. Society conflict in crime spree stories like Thelma and Louise or Bonnie and Clyde, where the main characters are fighting against and running from the law and society in general, though toward the end in some of those stories the animosity between the criminals and the lawmen may become more personal as the lawmen are focused on bringing in those specific criminals and the criminals are playing cat-and-mouse games targeting those specific lawmen.
On a lighter note, something like Office Space could also be considered Man vs. Society. Society is personified by the creepy boss, but the real "enemy" is the corporate world, in general. A different boss might change the nature of the torture inflicted by the corporate world, but the corporate world would still be stifling the hero.
War stories might be considered Society vs. Society, but since you've got to have a protagonist somewhere, there may be a character or group of characters who represent their society, and they're fighting against an enemy Society. So we get Easy Company in Band of Brothers or the squad in Saving Private Ryan as our "Men" and then they're up against the German military in general, with no direct personal conflict between any particular individuals.
I think next time I may tackle Man vs. the Supernatural/god in more detail, since that's one where I think my English teachers missed the boat.
After my last writing post on conflict, an Alert Reader reminded me that I'd left out one of the categories of conflict, Man vs. Society. I'd included that one in my mental composition of the post, but somehow forgot it when it came time to write it, even though that's the major kind of conflict in the book I was working on.
Man vs. Society conflict involves the hero facing off against the institutions and organizations of society, rather than against individuals. These are often stories about revolutions or resistance movements. Or it could be crime spree/criminal on the run stories. You also see this in outcast stories, where it could be seen as Society vs. Man -- the hero isn't trying to fight society, but society is opposed to him.
There is some blurring and overlap with the Man vs. Man conflict, since society is made up of people, but in a Man vs. Society story, the conflict is more about the structure than about the people in the structure. It's not personal, though as the story progresses it may become personal as one of the members of the society structure develops a personal animosity for the hero, or vice versa.
So, going back to my usual Star Wars example, I think the conflict in the first movie is mostly Man vs. Society. The enemy is the Empire. Luke barely knows the name of Darth Vader, doesn't know his role within the Empire, and I'm not even sure he connects the dude in the black armor with the name. Luke is opposed to the Empire but doesn't have any personal animosity toward the Third Stormtrooper on the Left, other than the fact that the Stormtrooper works for the Empire and is shooting at him. Meanwhile, the Stormtroopers and Darth Vader are opposed to the rebels, in general, and in the first film, they don't know or care who that kid is, other than that he's working with the rebels. It's only in the later films where Luke and Darth Vader become directly opposed and it becomes more of a Man vs. Man conflict.
You may see Man vs. Society conflict in crime spree stories like Thelma and Louise or Bonnie and Clyde, where the main characters are fighting against and running from the law and society in general, though toward the end in some of those stories the animosity between the criminals and the lawmen may become more personal as the lawmen are focused on bringing in those specific criminals and the criminals are playing cat-and-mouse games targeting those specific lawmen.
On a lighter note, something like Office Space could also be considered Man vs. Society. Society is personified by the creepy boss, but the real "enemy" is the corporate world, in general. A different boss might change the nature of the torture inflicted by the corporate world, but the corporate world would still be stifling the hero.
War stories might be considered Society vs. Society, but since you've got to have a protagonist somewhere, there may be a character or group of characters who represent their society, and they're fighting against an enemy Society. So we get Easy Company in Band of Brothers or the squad in Saving Private Ryan as our "Men" and then they're up against the German military in general, with no direct personal conflict between any particular individuals.
I think next time I may tackle Man vs. the Supernatural/god in more detail, since that's one where I think my English teachers missed the boat.
June 14, 2011
Book Report: The Summer of Extreme Immaturity
I totally forgot yesterday to congratulate the Dallas Mavericks for winning the NBA championship. I'm not a huge sports fan, and basketball isn't my favorite sport, but I have fond memories of going to Mavericks games with the church youth group when I was in high school and going to a few games with friends during the 90s. Plus, it's nice to see the local team do well, especially in a case where teamwork wins out over a few superstars. So, yay! Now we'll see if the Rangers can get back to the World Series this year. I'm not holding my breath about the Cowboys this year, even though I do love the new coach almost enough to make up for my hatred of the owner and many of the players.
My Summer of Extreme Immaturity continues with my choice of reading materials. I've been on a young adult/children's book kick lately. The line between the different age groups gets blurry. There are a number of young adult books that could easily be adult books, there are YA books that are more like middle-grade books and there are middle-grade books that could be either adult or YA. The shelving decision often comes down to market considerations, like how the author is best known.
Here's a quick rundown of what I've been reading lately:
A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray -- this is one I finally cleared from the To Be Read pile. A bookseller gave it to me as a gift after I did a reading/signing/book club meeting at his store, and it really was my kind of thing, so I'm not sure why I waited so long to read it. I think I was waiting for the right atmosphere to read it, but I finally hit a point where I'd run out of library books and was in the mood for that sort of thing, even if the weather was all wrong. This book is the first in a YA fantasy series set in the Victorian era. On her sixteenth birthday, Gemma begins having strange and horrible visions that then come true. After a family tragedy, she gets sent from India back to England to attend finishing school, and there she starts to learn about a mysterious organization called The Order and finds that she has the ability to open a doorway to another world, a kind of fairy realm where she can access great power. Unfortunately, she doesn't know enough about what she's playing with to realize the danger that comes with it. In spite of the Victorian setting, this book has a lot of the hallmarks of paranormal YA, such as the rich, beautiful mean girls, the nerdy social outcast who becomes a friend and the potentially dangerous bad boy love interest (the romantic triangle doesn't start until the second book). And yet there are twists on these elements, as they don't quite go in the direction that you expect from the usual YA tropes. Meanwhile, the Victorian setting adds a layer to the story, since these girls live such constricted lives and have such limited futures, which makes the magical realm where they have power and freedom even more alluring. I'm currently reading the second book.
Then I read a couple of books in Diana Wynne Jones's Crestomancer series, The Lives of Christopher Chance and A Charmed Life. These were middle-grade books. I read them in chronological order rather than in series order, so I already knew the history of the mysterious adult in what was supposed to be the first book (the second book is his backstory when he was a kid). That may have altered my perception of things as an adult reader because that made me far more interested in the adult secondary character than in the child main characters. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The series involves a world where there are multiple versions of each world in a continuum of worlds that can be accessed through a kind of magical spiritual portal. The different worlds come from various turning points in history where things could have gone either way and the future branches from that point (we later see that the main setting is actually one of these alternate earths). If a particular person isn't born or dies in these other versions, then that person has an extra allotment of lives. Those with the most lives have strong magical abilities. Our main character in each book has nine lives, and that means they have the potential for great power. The first book in the series was around when I was the right age to be reading it, so I don't know how I missed it because this is totally my kind of thing and I think I'd have enjoyed them more when I was the right age to identify with the child characters instead of wanting to spend more time with the adult. Still, I want to find more in the series, but they weren't at the library when I looked. I may have to request them from the central library.
I found the kind of steampunk book I'd been looking for in Starcross by Philip Reeve, the author of the Hungry Cities books. I'd say this one is more middle-grade than YA, aimed at younger readers than the other series. This is the second in the series, but I didn't find the first one until later because this one was shelved in YA with the other series, while the first book was shelved in children's books. It's a science fiction adventure type story, set in an alternate Victorian era in which there is space and time travel -- but written using some of the scientific ideas of that era, such as the belief that there are civilizations on Mars and that the Martian canals are full of water. They have train travel through space, and there are spaceships that look and kind of work like old sailing ships. In this book, our intrepid young hero manages to fight off an attack by evil top hats (I am not making that up), with the aid of his prissy sister and a dashing young pirate/spy and his alien crew. The book is loads of fun, with illustrations that enhance it and that are part of the narrative -- the narrators refer to the drawings or suggest things that the illustrator could draw or shouldn't draw (like the sister, during one of her narrative bits, says that the illustrator had better not draw her in a scene where she's in her nightgown, and then you turn the page and there's a full-page drawing of her in her nightgown). The first book in the series is next on my reading list. Now I want something like this, but with adult characters or older teen characters.
And since this is getting epic, maybe I'll save a few books for next week. To be continued ...
My Summer of Extreme Immaturity continues with my choice of reading materials. I've been on a young adult/children's book kick lately. The line between the different age groups gets blurry. There are a number of young adult books that could easily be adult books, there are YA books that are more like middle-grade books and there are middle-grade books that could be either adult or YA. The shelving decision often comes down to market considerations, like how the author is best known.
Here's a quick rundown of what I've been reading lately:
A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray -- this is one I finally cleared from the To Be Read pile. A bookseller gave it to me as a gift after I did a reading/signing/book club meeting at his store, and it really was my kind of thing, so I'm not sure why I waited so long to read it. I think I was waiting for the right atmosphere to read it, but I finally hit a point where I'd run out of library books and was in the mood for that sort of thing, even if the weather was all wrong. This book is the first in a YA fantasy series set in the Victorian era. On her sixteenth birthday, Gemma begins having strange and horrible visions that then come true. After a family tragedy, she gets sent from India back to England to attend finishing school, and there she starts to learn about a mysterious organization called The Order and finds that she has the ability to open a doorway to another world, a kind of fairy realm where she can access great power. Unfortunately, she doesn't know enough about what she's playing with to realize the danger that comes with it. In spite of the Victorian setting, this book has a lot of the hallmarks of paranormal YA, such as the rich, beautiful mean girls, the nerdy social outcast who becomes a friend and the potentially dangerous bad boy love interest (the romantic triangle doesn't start until the second book). And yet there are twists on these elements, as they don't quite go in the direction that you expect from the usual YA tropes. Meanwhile, the Victorian setting adds a layer to the story, since these girls live such constricted lives and have such limited futures, which makes the magical realm where they have power and freedom even more alluring. I'm currently reading the second book.
Then I read a couple of books in Diana Wynne Jones's Crestomancer series, The Lives of Christopher Chance and A Charmed Life. These were middle-grade books. I read them in chronological order rather than in series order, so I already knew the history of the mysterious adult in what was supposed to be the first book (the second book is his backstory when he was a kid). That may have altered my perception of things as an adult reader because that made me far more interested in the adult secondary character than in the child main characters. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The series involves a world where there are multiple versions of each world in a continuum of worlds that can be accessed through a kind of magical spiritual portal. The different worlds come from various turning points in history where things could have gone either way and the future branches from that point (we later see that the main setting is actually one of these alternate earths). If a particular person isn't born or dies in these other versions, then that person has an extra allotment of lives. Those with the most lives have strong magical abilities. Our main character in each book has nine lives, and that means they have the potential for great power. The first book in the series was around when I was the right age to be reading it, so I don't know how I missed it because this is totally my kind of thing and I think I'd have enjoyed them more when I was the right age to identify with the child characters instead of wanting to spend more time with the adult. Still, I want to find more in the series, but they weren't at the library when I looked. I may have to request them from the central library.
I found the kind of steampunk book I'd been looking for in Starcross by Philip Reeve, the author of the Hungry Cities books. I'd say this one is more middle-grade than YA, aimed at younger readers than the other series. This is the second in the series, but I didn't find the first one until later because this one was shelved in YA with the other series, while the first book was shelved in children's books. It's a science fiction adventure type story, set in an alternate Victorian era in which there is space and time travel -- but written using some of the scientific ideas of that era, such as the belief that there are civilizations on Mars and that the Martian canals are full of water. They have train travel through space, and there are spaceships that look and kind of work like old sailing ships. In this book, our intrepid young hero manages to fight off an attack by evil top hats (I am not making that up), with the aid of his prissy sister and a dashing young pirate/spy and his alien crew. The book is loads of fun, with illustrations that enhance it and that are part of the narrative -- the narrators refer to the drawings or suggest things that the illustrator could draw or shouldn't draw (like the sister, during one of her narrative bits, says that the illustrator had better not draw her in a scene where she's in her nightgown, and then you turn the page and there's a full-page drawing of her in her nightgown). The first book in the series is next on my reading list. Now I want something like this, but with adult characters or older teen characters.
And since this is getting epic, maybe I'll save a few books for next week. To be continued ...
June 13, 2011
My Immature Movie Phase
I'm starting to worry about my closet. It may not get me to Narnia, but it seems to have a portal to somewhere. I reached in this morning and grabbed the first t-shirt handy -- and it was one I don't remember owning. It's a promotional shirt for the launch of the original iBook, back when they were candy-colored. I never owned one of those, so I didn't get the shirt with a computer. I probably got it at work when I was doing high-tech PR, and a couple of my co-workers at one job used to work for Apple, but I still don't remember getting it, and if I haven't worn it in so long I forgot that I had it, why is it in the front of the closet with all the things I tend to wear more often? I need to get back on my decluttering project because who knows what I might find?
I must be in a rather immature or childish phase right now because in addition to mostly reading young adult or middle grade books lately, I seem to be watching kids' movies. There was nothing on TV over the weekend, so I thought I'd do a movie night and catch up on HBO OnDemand, but the only movies I found interesting were the ones for kids.
First, there was Nanny McPhee Returns. I loved the first one in a big way and was excited about the sequel, but then the reviews were so awful and made it sound like something I wouldn't like, so I didn't get around to seeing it in the theater. Well, now I wonder if the reviewers saw a special edition because I didn't recognize the movie from the reviews. The reviews went on about how the movie was mostly "poo jokes." Well, I have a very low tolerance for that kind of humor, and I thought the one scene that involved barnyard gross-out was hilarious. In this one, Nanny McPhee comes to the aid of a mother trying to run a farm, raise her three children and keep a job that helps pay for the farm while her husband is away at war. Her crazy life gets even crazier when her spoiled niece and nephew are sent from the city to the safety of the country and clash with her kids. To make matters worse, her boss (Maggie Smith) seems to have some kind of dementia and requires constant supervision and her brother-in-law is trying to get his hands on the farm. I still don't know which of the movies I like best. The first one was more of a romance and it had lots of Colin Firth as opposed to a cameo of Ewan McGregor. But there was Maggie Smith being absolutely adorable and a WWII setting, and then the revelation that linked the sequel to the first movie actually made me weepy. And I still want to be Emma Thompson when I grow up, or maybe get to be her best friend. She's definitely on my fantasy dinner party list.
Then there was How to Train Your Dragon. I'd seen this one before at a friend's house, but it's hard to hear the finer points of dialogue when watching with a room full of people. A nerdy young Viking in a village beset by dragon attacks can't seem to please his warrior father -- until he has an unexpected encounter with a dragon, realizes that they've got the wrong ideas about dragons, and uses that information to shine in his training to be a dragon fighter -- until the time comes when he has to convince his father and the village of the truth about dragons. This is probably the closest Dreamworks has come to doing a Pixar because there was far more heart and far less cynicism and attempting to be cool and edgy than you usually get from a Dreamworks animated film. There is the weird thing of a Viking village in which all the adults have heavy Scottish accents and all the kids sound like they're from southern California, but otherwise it's a sweet, funny, exciting movie, and as someone of Nordic and Scottish descent, I found a lot of the Viking and Scottish/Viking jokes to be hilarious.
On the other end of the Dreamworks spectrum was the latest Shrek movie, Shrek Ever After. I've enjoyed the previous Shrek movies, even the much maligned third one, but this one was borderline awful. There were some fun touches, but the overall tone was awfully bitter. On his children's first birthday, Shrek is discontented with his life and missing the old days when he was a fearsome ogre instead of a husband, dad and local celebrity whose once frightening roar is now considered entertainment for children's parties. He makes a deal with Rumplestiltskin, trading one day of his life as a baby that he'll hardly miss for one day as an ogre the way things used to be. But the day Rumplestiltskin chooses is the day Shrek was born, which undoes everything that happened because of him, including rescuing Fiona and breaking her curse. The only way out of the contract is true love's kiss, but the Fiona in this world has never met him, and he has to woo his wife all over again by the end of the day or he'll disappear from existence. I like the idea of winning the wife over again. That's an interesting way to have some romantic tension even after a happily ever after, and I think I'll have to add it to my literary bucket list. But I had a hard time getting past Shrek's monumental level of whining and selfishness. These movies have always been a bit warped and twisted, but in a fun way. Having a husband tell his wife that his life was better before he met her, when she was locked in a tower and under a curse, is just mean and ugly. The writing was also pretty lazy, relying on the soundtrack to tell a story. Why write a scene when you can do a montage to a pop song? I started to snicker every time I recognized the strains of a familiar song because I knew we'd be skipping over the next plot or character development, with the song filling in the gap. I'm glad I didn't waste money on this one at the theater. It actually left me pretty depressed because I've been feeling a sense of loss from not having had a family, and so seeing a movie about someone not appreciating what he had in such a huge way was a real downer. I know parenting can be a challenge and there probably are days when you wouldn't mind having a little time the way your life used to be, but I wouldn't think your children's first birthday would be one of those days.
There's something wrong about a supposedly funny children's animated movie that requires a phone call with Mom and a marathon of The Office to purge it from your brain so you don't sink into a deep depression.
I must be in a rather immature or childish phase right now because in addition to mostly reading young adult or middle grade books lately, I seem to be watching kids' movies. There was nothing on TV over the weekend, so I thought I'd do a movie night and catch up on HBO OnDemand, but the only movies I found interesting were the ones for kids.
First, there was Nanny McPhee Returns. I loved the first one in a big way and was excited about the sequel, but then the reviews were so awful and made it sound like something I wouldn't like, so I didn't get around to seeing it in the theater. Well, now I wonder if the reviewers saw a special edition because I didn't recognize the movie from the reviews. The reviews went on about how the movie was mostly "poo jokes." Well, I have a very low tolerance for that kind of humor, and I thought the one scene that involved barnyard gross-out was hilarious. In this one, Nanny McPhee comes to the aid of a mother trying to run a farm, raise her three children and keep a job that helps pay for the farm while her husband is away at war. Her crazy life gets even crazier when her spoiled niece and nephew are sent from the city to the safety of the country and clash with her kids. To make matters worse, her boss (Maggie Smith) seems to have some kind of dementia and requires constant supervision and her brother-in-law is trying to get his hands on the farm. I still don't know which of the movies I like best. The first one was more of a romance and it had lots of Colin Firth as opposed to a cameo of Ewan McGregor. But there was Maggie Smith being absolutely adorable and a WWII setting, and then the revelation that linked the sequel to the first movie actually made me weepy. And I still want to be Emma Thompson when I grow up, or maybe get to be her best friend. She's definitely on my fantasy dinner party list.
Then there was How to Train Your Dragon. I'd seen this one before at a friend's house, but it's hard to hear the finer points of dialogue when watching with a room full of people. A nerdy young Viking in a village beset by dragon attacks can't seem to please his warrior father -- until he has an unexpected encounter with a dragon, realizes that they've got the wrong ideas about dragons, and uses that information to shine in his training to be a dragon fighter -- until the time comes when he has to convince his father and the village of the truth about dragons. This is probably the closest Dreamworks has come to doing a Pixar because there was far more heart and far less cynicism and attempting to be cool and edgy than you usually get from a Dreamworks animated film. There is the weird thing of a Viking village in which all the adults have heavy Scottish accents and all the kids sound like they're from southern California, but otherwise it's a sweet, funny, exciting movie, and as someone of Nordic and Scottish descent, I found a lot of the Viking and Scottish/Viking jokes to be hilarious.
On the other end of the Dreamworks spectrum was the latest Shrek movie, Shrek Ever After. I've enjoyed the previous Shrek movies, even the much maligned third one, but this one was borderline awful. There were some fun touches, but the overall tone was awfully bitter. On his children's first birthday, Shrek is discontented with his life and missing the old days when he was a fearsome ogre instead of a husband, dad and local celebrity whose once frightening roar is now considered entertainment for children's parties. He makes a deal with Rumplestiltskin, trading one day of his life as a baby that he'll hardly miss for one day as an ogre the way things used to be. But the day Rumplestiltskin chooses is the day Shrek was born, which undoes everything that happened because of him, including rescuing Fiona and breaking her curse. The only way out of the contract is true love's kiss, but the Fiona in this world has never met him, and he has to woo his wife all over again by the end of the day or he'll disappear from existence. I like the idea of winning the wife over again. That's an interesting way to have some romantic tension even after a happily ever after, and I think I'll have to add it to my literary bucket list. But I had a hard time getting past Shrek's monumental level of whining and selfishness. These movies have always been a bit warped and twisted, but in a fun way. Having a husband tell his wife that his life was better before he met her, when she was locked in a tower and under a curse, is just mean and ugly. The writing was also pretty lazy, relying on the soundtrack to tell a story. Why write a scene when you can do a montage to a pop song? I started to snicker every time I recognized the strains of a familiar song because I knew we'd be skipping over the next plot or character development, with the song filling in the gap. I'm glad I didn't waste money on this one at the theater. It actually left me pretty depressed because I've been feeling a sense of loss from not having had a family, and so seeing a movie about someone not appreciating what he had in such a huge way was a real downer. I know parenting can be a challenge and there probably are days when you wouldn't mind having a little time the way your life used to be, but I wouldn't think your children's first birthday would be one of those days.
There's something wrong about a supposedly funny children's animated movie that requires a phone call with Mom and a marathon of The Office to purge it from your brain so you don't sink into a deep depression.
June 10, 2011
Plot Twists
I have new ballet slippers, and I'm very excited. In the past couple of months, I've been having trouble balancing, and the trouble seemed to be in my feet. I felt like I was falling off my shoes, which sounds weird, considering how flat ballet slippers are. My slippers had holes in them, so my teacher suggested I get new ones. When I went to the dance store and told them my problem and showed them the old shoes, the shoe expert there figured out that the problem wasn't the age of the shoes but rather the design and how it worked with my feet. There's a way the material of the toe is pleated onto the sole that varies by manufacturer, and in my old shoes, that pleating hit right at the spot on my feet where I balance on my toes. Some companies use lots of little pleats, which makes that area thicker and harder for me to balance on. I guess I only just started noticing it because before, my balance problems weren't just my feet. I finally got to where the rest of my body had it figured out, so the remaining problem was in my shoes. The new shoes feel so different. I was doing all kinds of stuff in the store, balancing on my toes on one foot without the barre. Now the old shoes will become house slippers. They're fine as long as I'm not trying to balance on my toes on one foot in them.
This weekend, BBC America will finally show the Doctor Who mid-season finale, and you don't want to miss this one. If you have the capability to record it, I would recommend doing so because it has the kind of plot twist that makes you want to go back and re-watch with the plot twist in mind. In fact, the twist will make you want to rewatch a couple of seasons worth of episodes.
That kind of thing is like storytelling candy to me, and something I need to add to my literary bucket list. I've had a few plot twists and surprise revelations, but nothing of the sort that makes you want to immediately re-read the entire book now that you know what you know.
There are a couple of ways that can work. There's the hidden twin plot thing, like in The Shawshank Redemption (the movie, I haven't read the story but probably ought to). That's where there's one plot on the surface that makes total sense in that context and that even makes a good story on its own, and then the twist reveals that all along, there's been a second, hidden plot existing simultaneously with the surface plot, so that everything that happens in the surface plot has a new meaning. Spoilers for the movie (though it's old enough that I'm not sure spoiler protection applies): I think the surface plot about a wrongfully convicted man learning to cope with his imprisonment and trying to enrich the lives of his fellow inmates while still trying to clear his name would have made a really good movie on its own. But then there's the twist with the reveal that all this time, he's also been patiently carrying out an intricate escape plan, and many of the actions we saw him take to improve his life and the lives of his fellow inmates were also part of his escape plan, so that upon rewatching, you're seeing an entirely different story.
Or it can be the kind of thing where the reveal or twist adds a new layer of emotional resonance and subtext to previous scenes. Keeping this vague because I figure that since the second book isn't out yet in paperback, so it still falls under spoiler protection, but Connie Willis's Blackout/All Clear worked this way for me. There are multiple stories going on at varying points in time, and once you learn how those stories connect, it changes the way you see the whole book and makes some of the parts from the beginning take on a lot more meaning and emotion, so that it's a richer read the second time through.
Then there's the question of where to throw in that kind of twist. If it's something that changes a lot of things for the characters and the way they see themselves and each other, so the twist isn't just for the audience, then you want enough remaining story to see some of the fallout and how it affects things going forward. But in a book you don't want readers to stop at that point and go back and re-read the rest. I think the way they're doing it in Doctor Who is a good idea, putting it at a mid-season break so we have time to go back and review everything, but then they'll have time in the rest of the season to deal with the aftermath. The equivalent for a book would be at the end of a book in a series, with the next book picking up with the aftermath (and you'd have to hope the next book would get published). Then readers have time to re-read the book before getting the new one.
The trick in a book is how to hold back information without cheating. In a movie or TV show, we're not inside the characters' heads. We have to guess what they're thinking based on the acting -- the facial expressions and body language. That means someone can act one way and think another way without the audience knowing it, or they can be really subtle so that there are multiple possible explanations for the way someone is acting. In a book, it's harder to do that because you go inside people's heads. To keep readers in the dark, you either have to go first-person with an unreliable narrator who lies or keeps secrets while telling the story (like Megan Whalen Turner's The Thief) or you have to stay out of the twist character's point of view, telling the story from inside someone else's head, and that viewpoint character only has external clues about the character with a secret. I personally think that it's hard to pull off third-person POV with an unreliable narrator because a third-person character doesn't know he's telling a story and readers expect more uncensored thoughts. A first-person narrator is conscious of telling a story and may edit that, including which of his own thoughts he cares to share.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any current idea I have in the works that would lend itself to this sort of thing, where a big twist or revelation at the end makes you go "Oooohhhhhh!" and then makes you flip back to the beginning and re-read the entire book because it becomes an entirely new story once you have that bit of information.
This weekend, BBC America will finally show the Doctor Who mid-season finale, and you don't want to miss this one. If you have the capability to record it, I would recommend doing so because it has the kind of plot twist that makes you want to go back and re-watch with the plot twist in mind. In fact, the twist will make you want to rewatch a couple of seasons worth of episodes.
That kind of thing is like storytelling candy to me, and something I need to add to my literary bucket list. I've had a few plot twists and surprise revelations, but nothing of the sort that makes you want to immediately re-read the entire book now that you know what you know.
There are a couple of ways that can work. There's the hidden twin plot thing, like in The Shawshank Redemption (the movie, I haven't read the story but probably ought to). That's where there's one plot on the surface that makes total sense in that context and that even makes a good story on its own, and then the twist reveals that all along, there's been a second, hidden plot existing simultaneously with the surface plot, so that everything that happens in the surface plot has a new meaning. Spoilers for the movie (though it's old enough that I'm not sure spoiler protection applies): I think the surface plot about a wrongfully convicted man learning to cope with his imprisonment and trying to enrich the lives of his fellow inmates while still trying to clear his name would have made a really good movie on its own. But then there's the twist with the reveal that all this time, he's also been patiently carrying out an intricate escape plan, and many of the actions we saw him take to improve his life and the lives of his fellow inmates were also part of his escape plan, so that upon rewatching, you're seeing an entirely different story.
Or it can be the kind of thing where the reveal or twist adds a new layer of emotional resonance and subtext to previous scenes. Keeping this vague because I figure that since the second book isn't out yet in paperback, so it still falls under spoiler protection, but Connie Willis's Blackout/All Clear worked this way for me. There are multiple stories going on at varying points in time, and once you learn how those stories connect, it changes the way you see the whole book and makes some of the parts from the beginning take on a lot more meaning and emotion, so that it's a richer read the second time through.
Then there's the question of where to throw in that kind of twist. If it's something that changes a lot of things for the characters and the way they see themselves and each other, so the twist isn't just for the audience, then you want enough remaining story to see some of the fallout and how it affects things going forward. But in a book you don't want readers to stop at that point and go back and re-read the rest. I think the way they're doing it in Doctor Who is a good idea, putting it at a mid-season break so we have time to go back and review everything, but then they'll have time in the rest of the season to deal with the aftermath. The equivalent for a book would be at the end of a book in a series, with the next book picking up with the aftermath (and you'd have to hope the next book would get published). Then readers have time to re-read the book before getting the new one.
The trick in a book is how to hold back information without cheating. In a movie or TV show, we're not inside the characters' heads. We have to guess what they're thinking based on the acting -- the facial expressions and body language. That means someone can act one way and think another way without the audience knowing it, or they can be really subtle so that there are multiple possible explanations for the way someone is acting. In a book, it's harder to do that because you go inside people's heads. To keep readers in the dark, you either have to go first-person with an unreliable narrator who lies or keeps secrets while telling the story (like Megan Whalen Turner's The Thief) or you have to stay out of the twist character's point of view, telling the story from inside someone else's head, and that viewpoint character only has external clues about the character with a secret. I personally think that it's hard to pull off third-person POV with an unreliable narrator because a third-person character doesn't know he's telling a story and readers expect more uncensored thoughts. A first-person narrator is conscious of telling a story and may edit that, including which of his own thoughts he cares to share.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any current idea I have in the works that would lend itself to this sort of thing, where a big twist or revelation at the end makes you go "Oooohhhhhh!" and then makes you flip back to the beginning and re-read the entire book because it becomes an entirely new story once you have that bit of information.
June 9, 2011
My Danciversary
I'm feeling very righteous today, as I have already done a rather thorough workout. I guess going back to ballet class for the summer got me motivated. It is possible that I'm competing with some teenagers in the class. Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that I'm motivated by seeing the teenagers in my class. I'm not trying to be more fit than they are or to be able to make my body do everything they can do, but I do think I can be in better shape than I am now, and if aiming for the physical condition of girls young enough to be my daughters gets me part of the way, then I'll be ahead of where I am now. I'm also doing more cardio -- at least half an hour on the jogging trampoline (since I don't have a treadmill) a day -- so I'll have more lung power for singing. We'll see how long the enthusiasm lasts, but so far I feel enough better that I actually want to do this instead of whimpering about not wanting to do it and then finding excuses not to.
I started taking ballet three years ago this summer. Starting it was kind of scary because I wasn't sure what I could do and I thought I'd look silly. Now I can't imagine not doing it and I embrace the silly. That's what I usually tell new people in the class, that we're doing it for fun, and looking silly is part of the fun. I am a bit of a perfectionist and I really try to do things right, but if it doesn't look right, I just laugh about it and go on.
I hadn't really thought about this until the other night when I was driving to class, but I haven't had nearly as many bad knee days since I started dancing. I do wear an elastic brace on the really bad knee during class because it doesn't like to bend and have weight on it and has been known to do scary things during class, but in non-ballet circumstances, it works a lot better than it used to. I can sometimes even make it down a flight of stairs without hanging onto the rail. I have really bad knees, for no real reason (basically, a design flaw, I think). I had knee surgery when I was in my mid-20s, and the surgeon told me that, in technical terms, I had a bad knee. He said my knees were "old," like what he saw in more elderly people, and the problem was in the joints themselves. The surgery put a knee that had pretty much dislocated itself back into place, and then it was up to physical therapy to strengthen the muscles around the knees to keep the joints in place.
It turns out that ballet seems to work better than the physical therapy exercises did. I still had a lot of pain, I still couldn't go down stairs without holding onto a rail, and I still had days when I just had to stay off my feet and keep a heating pad wrapped around whichever knee was hurting. But I don't think I've had one of those days since about three months after I started dancing. I haven't had to take any painkillers because of sore knees since then, and I realized the other day that I was going down the stairs in my house without putting a lot of my weight on the rail with each step on the really bad knee.
So, I guess I'll keep up with the dancing. It also helps keep my weight in check, which is something I'm under doctor's orders to do, as these knees can't handle any extra weight. The less weight they have to support, the longer I can go without knee replacement. When I put on a few pounds, I can feel it in the knees, and that's a wonderful incentive to maintain my weight. I've been wearing one of my leotards from seventh grade to class (my mom found it in a drawer), so I guess I'm doing okay if I can still wear clothes I wore when I was twelve. Yes, I'm the same height I was then. I hit my full growth early.
The other benefit of this class is the fun. I've made friends there, and it's like a little support group. I like the multigenerational aspect of it. One of the teenagers is taking the class with her mother, and the other is taking the class with her grandmother. I'd love to be in the kind of shape to still be dancing when I'm old enough to be a grandmother (okay, so I have high school classmates who are grandparents, so I suppose I am old enough to be a grandmother, but I don't consider myself old enough to be a parent yet). Then there's the stress relief -- it's a great way to work out frustrations -- and the creative expression (where a lot of the silliness comes in).
Tomorrow morning I'll be making an excursion because I need to buy new ballet slippers. I've actually worn out a pair.
I started taking ballet three years ago this summer. Starting it was kind of scary because I wasn't sure what I could do and I thought I'd look silly. Now I can't imagine not doing it and I embrace the silly. That's what I usually tell new people in the class, that we're doing it for fun, and looking silly is part of the fun. I am a bit of a perfectionist and I really try to do things right, but if it doesn't look right, I just laugh about it and go on.
I hadn't really thought about this until the other night when I was driving to class, but I haven't had nearly as many bad knee days since I started dancing. I do wear an elastic brace on the really bad knee during class because it doesn't like to bend and have weight on it and has been known to do scary things during class, but in non-ballet circumstances, it works a lot better than it used to. I can sometimes even make it down a flight of stairs without hanging onto the rail. I have really bad knees, for no real reason (basically, a design flaw, I think). I had knee surgery when I was in my mid-20s, and the surgeon told me that, in technical terms, I had a bad knee. He said my knees were "old," like what he saw in more elderly people, and the problem was in the joints themselves. The surgery put a knee that had pretty much dislocated itself back into place, and then it was up to physical therapy to strengthen the muscles around the knees to keep the joints in place.
It turns out that ballet seems to work better than the physical therapy exercises did. I still had a lot of pain, I still couldn't go down stairs without holding onto a rail, and I still had days when I just had to stay off my feet and keep a heating pad wrapped around whichever knee was hurting. But I don't think I've had one of those days since about three months after I started dancing. I haven't had to take any painkillers because of sore knees since then, and I realized the other day that I was going down the stairs in my house without putting a lot of my weight on the rail with each step on the really bad knee.
So, I guess I'll keep up with the dancing. It also helps keep my weight in check, which is something I'm under doctor's orders to do, as these knees can't handle any extra weight. The less weight they have to support, the longer I can go without knee replacement. When I put on a few pounds, I can feel it in the knees, and that's a wonderful incentive to maintain my weight. I've been wearing one of my leotards from seventh grade to class (my mom found it in a drawer), so I guess I'm doing okay if I can still wear clothes I wore when I was twelve. Yes, I'm the same height I was then. I hit my full growth early.
The other benefit of this class is the fun. I've made friends there, and it's like a little support group. I like the multigenerational aspect of it. One of the teenagers is taking the class with her mother, and the other is taking the class with her grandmother. I'd love to be in the kind of shape to still be dancing when I'm old enough to be a grandmother (okay, so I have high school classmates who are grandparents, so I suppose I am old enough to be a grandmother, but I don't consider myself old enough to be a parent yet). Then there's the stress relief -- it's a great way to work out frustrations -- and the creative expression (where a lot of the silliness comes in).
Tomorrow morning I'll be making an excursion because I need to buy new ballet slippers. I've actually worn out a pair.
June 8, 2011
Travel Aversion
Well, in the absence of any Enchanted, Inc. questions that weren't asking for spoilers, I guess I have to come up with something else to talk about. Yesterday was my usual book report day, which didn't happen because of jury duty. I also have the problem of having three books in progress at the moment. I guess I'm being moody, and I have to be in the right mood to read particular things, so I pick up a different book depending on what mood I'm in (and sometimes what room I'm in). That means it's taking me longer to read the books, but when I'm done reading, I'll have a lot of books on the list.
Strangely, I don't seem to have hit my usual summer reading mood. I was trying out some reading options to make sure I could deal with whatever I brought to jury duty (because it would be awful to get there and realize I didn't like the book I brought), and at first I thought my usual light summer reading would be the way to go, but I couldn't get into those books. I'm still reading my more usual fall/winter stuff. That could have something to do with what I've been writing, so it could change as I've shifted gears. I'm still looking for light and fun, but instead of going down the chick-lit/romantic comedy path, I seem to have a craving for light adventure -- spies and schemes and bopping around the world (or the universe).
Even more strangely, although in my reading I seem to be looking for globe-trotting adventure, I've found myself rather travel averse. I'm not going to any of the regional conventions that require travel this year. I have a membership and hotel reservation for WorldCon this summer, but I'm wavering on really committing by buying the airfare (I could always sell the membership and cancel the hotel) mostly because I just don't really want to travel right now. I don't have anything new to promote and I'm not sure what business I would get to do. It would mostly be a chance to network with other writers and catch up with people I only see at big conventions while staying at a nice hotel/resort. I know I'll have fun if I go. I just don't really want to do the "going" part. I need a TARDIS. I'd travel a lot more if I could materialize there without having to pack, go through the usual transit hassles, or leave my house behind.
Strangely, I don't seem to have hit my usual summer reading mood. I was trying out some reading options to make sure I could deal with whatever I brought to jury duty (because it would be awful to get there and realize I didn't like the book I brought), and at first I thought my usual light summer reading would be the way to go, but I couldn't get into those books. I'm still reading my more usual fall/winter stuff. That could have something to do with what I've been writing, so it could change as I've shifted gears. I'm still looking for light and fun, but instead of going down the chick-lit/romantic comedy path, I seem to have a craving for light adventure -- spies and schemes and bopping around the world (or the universe).
Even more strangely, although in my reading I seem to be looking for globe-trotting adventure, I've found myself rather travel averse. I'm not going to any of the regional conventions that require travel this year. I have a membership and hotel reservation for WorldCon this summer, but I'm wavering on really committing by buying the airfare (I could always sell the membership and cancel the hotel) mostly because I just don't really want to travel right now. I don't have anything new to promote and I'm not sure what business I would get to do. It would mostly be a chance to network with other writers and catch up with people I only see at big conventions while staying at a nice hotel/resort. I know I'll have fun if I go. I just don't really want to do the "going" part. I need a TARDIS. I'd travel a lot more if I could materialize there without having to pack, go through the usual transit hassles, or leave my house behind.
June 7, 2011
Good Jury Duty Mojo
I had the best jury duty day ever. For one thing, I could take the train from a station very close to my neighborhood to within a few blocks of the courthouse, which is so much less hassle than driving and trying to park. Then I got to the courthouse, sat through the "here's why you should enjoy jury duty because it's so important" video starring two local news anchors (one of whom has since been fired by that station), sat through the judge's pep talk, briefing and Dallas Mavericks pep rally, then spent a couple of hours reading before they made the announcement that those of us who hadn't yet been sent to a courtroom could go. I would probably have been in the next group called, so it was a narrow escape. This meant that I served my day of jury duty without having to deal with a lawyer, aside from the divorce attorney sitting next to me who lamented that they keep calling him for jury duty, but he's always eliminated from consideration when they see what he does (lawyers hate having lawyers on juries), so it's always just a huge waste of his time.
I hadn't taken the new rail line before, and I like it. The station's much closer than the commuter line station I used to have to use, and the light rail runs more frequently than the commuter line. It took me less than fifteen minutes to get to the station, and I overestimated the amount of time I'd need because I'd forgotten that I didn't need to buy a ticket. That eliminated the time I needed to allot for my regular argument with the ticket machine: "That's a perfectly good dollar bill. It isn't even torn or crumpled. What's the problem, does it taste bad? Why won't you take my money?"
One thing that's very cool about the transit system is that they try to make each station a reflection of its surroundings. The station near me is by the very Victorian old downtown of what used to be a small town. The station artwork involves Victorian portraits embedded in the pillars. There's a station near a rose garden with carved roses on the pillars and one in a heavily Asian part of town where the pillars look kind of like something on a pagoda. The station by a lake has these really cool mural-type things that are done so they look different as you pass them. As you approach on the train, they look like old photos of Victorian-type people in rowboats, and then as you pass they become color photos of sculling on the lake.
One bad thing is that the system seems designed for maximum inconvenience. For instance, it's closer from my neighborhood to this train station than to the nearest transit center, but the bus from my neighborhood only goes to the transit center. I'd have to catch yet another bus to get to the train station. If I wanted to avoid using my car entirely, it would take me an hour to get to the train station that's a ten-minute drive from my house. Then the trains arrive at inconvenient times. The standard workday starts at 8 or 8:30, and the train arrives downtown at 8:09 or 8:35. I figured that if I got desperate enough to go back to work at the medical center, taking the train (that stops at the medical center) would mean leaving the house about an hour earlier than I would if I were driving because even though the trip itself is faster than driving in rush hour, the times work out to where I'd have to take an earlier train to get there on time (and then arrive really early).
When I was released so early, I thought about making a day out in the city of it, but after walking around downtown a little while waiting for the next train, I changed my mind because it was so hot and muggy. That's something to be done in cooler weather. I also discovered a lovely park and botanical garden not far from my neighborhood. One day this fall I'll have to get a day pass and see just where I can go on the train.
Since I cleared the deck in anticipation of being tied up all week, I don't have anything pressing to do today. There may be a nap, since I had to get up really early and didn't sleep well after doing my usual thing of waking up and checking the clock every hour or so to make sure I wasn't oversleeping.
Oh, and since I won't have to go back downtown tomorrow, I need Enchanted, Inc. questions to answer. Send them my way!
I hadn't taken the new rail line before, and I like it. The station's much closer than the commuter line station I used to have to use, and the light rail runs more frequently than the commuter line. It took me less than fifteen minutes to get to the station, and I overestimated the amount of time I'd need because I'd forgotten that I didn't need to buy a ticket. That eliminated the time I needed to allot for my regular argument with the ticket machine: "That's a perfectly good dollar bill. It isn't even torn or crumpled. What's the problem, does it taste bad? Why won't you take my money?"
One thing that's very cool about the transit system is that they try to make each station a reflection of its surroundings. The station near me is by the very Victorian old downtown of what used to be a small town. The station artwork involves Victorian portraits embedded in the pillars. There's a station near a rose garden with carved roses on the pillars and one in a heavily Asian part of town where the pillars look kind of like something on a pagoda. The station by a lake has these really cool mural-type things that are done so they look different as you pass them. As you approach on the train, they look like old photos of Victorian-type people in rowboats, and then as you pass they become color photos of sculling on the lake.
One bad thing is that the system seems designed for maximum inconvenience. For instance, it's closer from my neighborhood to this train station than to the nearest transit center, but the bus from my neighborhood only goes to the transit center. I'd have to catch yet another bus to get to the train station. If I wanted to avoid using my car entirely, it would take me an hour to get to the train station that's a ten-minute drive from my house. Then the trains arrive at inconvenient times. The standard workday starts at 8 or 8:30, and the train arrives downtown at 8:09 or 8:35. I figured that if I got desperate enough to go back to work at the medical center, taking the train (that stops at the medical center) would mean leaving the house about an hour earlier than I would if I were driving because even though the trip itself is faster than driving in rush hour, the times work out to where I'd have to take an earlier train to get there on time (and then arrive really early).
When I was released so early, I thought about making a day out in the city of it, but after walking around downtown a little while waiting for the next train, I changed my mind because it was so hot and muggy. That's something to be done in cooler weather. I also discovered a lovely park and botanical garden not far from my neighborhood. One day this fall I'll have to get a day pass and see just where I can go on the train.
Since I cleared the deck in anticipation of being tied up all week, I don't have anything pressing to do today. There may be a nap, since I had to get up really early and didn't sleep well after doing my usual thing of waking up and checking the clock every hour or so to make sure I wasn't oversleeping.
Oh, and since I won't have to go back downtown tomorrow, I need Enchanted, Inc. questions to answer. Send them my way!
June 6, 2011
Analyzing the Book Pile
Today is going to be fairly busy, as I have jury duty tomorrow, and that means that all things that must be taken care of this week have to be dealt with today. I figure that will mean that I won't get stuck on a trial that will require me going back the next day. If I've taken care of business for the week and have nothing pressing or urgent that a trial would interfere with, then Murphy's Law and associated corollaries would make my chances of actually ending up on a jury lower. If I've just received copy edits that must be returned that week, then I'm guaranteed to end up on a trial (that did actually happen). I suppose that now that they've raised juror pay for any days after the first show up and wait day, getting on a trial would significantly increase my income for the month, but I find the whole experience so incredibly painful that I'm really hoping to spend most of the day sitting in the central jury room and reading, with maybe one trip to a courtroom to be eliminated from consideration before being sent home early in the afternoon. At least this is civil court, so it's in proper downtown instead of on the scary fringes of downtown, which means I can take the train instead of driving and parking during rush hour, and there are far more lunch options than the courthouse cafeteria. Now I have to decide the best persona to project (what to wear) and what reading material to bring. I've been on a kick of reading children's books, but I don't exactly want to sit in the jury room reading kids' books (plus, I want something nice and long that will last me a while but that isn't hardcover, which eliminates everything from my latest library trip). Looks like it's time to shop the To-Be-Read pile.
After Friday's post about book greed, I did a quick inventory of the To-Be-Read pile, and it was rather revealing. I found three books purchased new at more or less full price (store discounts or coupons may have been involved) that are not autographed or written by a friend (which is a totally separate category) that I haven't yet read. In one case, it was a Target "Bookmarked" book where they're only there for a month, and it sounded interesting and was in a subgenre I was looking into (that has subsequently dried up). I got it home to discover that it was a second book in a linked series (secondary characters from the first book became main characters in the second book), so I ordered the first book online and then HATED it. This book truly made me angry, which diminished my interest in the second book that I'd purchased first. I should probably just get rid of it, but I hate to just get rid of a book I purchased new. Another book is also one I bought for market research purposes because it has an unusual structure similar to something I've been thinking about doing, but then that project got seriously backburnered, so I haven't gotten around to reading that book. Then there was one I bought on the Friday of a holiday weekend with the intent of reading it that weekend. And then things came up so that the weekend was busier than I anticipated and I didn't get around to reading it. A few weeks later, someone gave me the same book as a gift, and it was a rather awkward and uncomfortable situation that I think spilled over to my feelings about the book. I probably could have taken the copy I bought back to the store, but I never got around to it, and now I have two copies I haven't read. I think I'll donate one to the library, and the book is actually on my reading list for the summer. In fact, it might make a good jury duty book.
I have a fair number of autographed books and books by people I know that are unread. I try to support my writer friends by going to their booksignings or buying their books when they first come out (when the publishers are most interested in the sales numbers). That means I'm buying the books on someone else's schedule and not at a time when I really want to read them, and that, strangely enough, tends to shove them into an "out of sight, out of mind" status, where I'm not thinking about how I need to get this book, since I already have it, but that means I forget about the book. A few of these books may never be read because I bought them to be a supportive friend and not so much because they were something I was interested in. I used to try to buy at least the first book by anyone I knew or to go to my friends' booksignings, even if the books weren't something I'd buy otherwise. That policy went by the wayside when I had just too many writer friends to keep up with and when so few of the people I'd supported over the years returned the favor. There are at least three of these books that I have mentally slotted into reading slots for sometime this year.
I don't have too many unread books that I bought at full used price. Even half price these days is something of an investment, and I try to support authors by buying books new. I have one that I'd heard good things about, but I was iffy on the plot, to the point that I hesitated to pay full price for it. I think I bought it during an extra 20 percent off sale at the used bookstore with the idea of giving it a shot without making a major investment. Then I have a few British chick lit books that weren't published in the US. When I find those, I buy them, even if I don't have immediate reading plans for them. I have to be in the right mood to read that sort of thing, but when I am in that mood, nothing else will do, and it's getting harder to find anything I haven't already read in that genre.
Most of my library book sale purchases seem to be classics or "keeper" copies of things I've read from the library. Last year, I bought up a bunch of Dick Francis books to add to my collection. I'd guess I've read about half of my library sale purchases, either before I bought them or since then. I also have a few used bookstore "clearance" shelf books that were the kind of thing where I was willing to give them a shot for a dollar but probably wouldn't have paid full price, but then there are also a few Georgette Heyer reissues in that bunch. That's another thing where when I'm in the mood for it, nothing else will do, so it's good to have them handy for when the mood strikes.
The vast majority of the unread pile is from publisher giveaways and conference goody bags. Most of them are romances, but there are still some SF/fantasy from the Nebula Awards weekend a few years ago. Much of the sf/fantasy wasn't quite to my taste, so I haven't had a burning desire to read those books. I've reached a point where I can only bear a real romance novel when I'm in a particular mood, and those moods are rare. Thus, the hundreds of unread books. Maybe I should start a program of trying to read at least one of these a week, and then if I can't get into it, I'm allowed to throw it either into a donation box for next year's library sale or into the box to take to the used bookstore.
Now off to go do my work for the week. I don't know what my posting schedule for the week will be, depending on what happens with jury duty.
After Friday's post about book greed, I did a quick inventory of the To-Be-Read pile, and it was rather revealing. I found three books purchased new at more or less full price (store discounts or coupons may have been involved) that are not autographed or written by a friend (which is a totally separate category) that I haven't yet read. In one case, it was a Target "Bookmarked" book where they're only there for a month, and it sounded interesting and was in a subgenre I was looking into (that has subsequently dried up). I got it home to discover that it was a second book in a linked series (secondary characters from the first book became main characters in the second book), so I ordered the first book online and then HATED it. This book truly made me angry, which diminished my interest in the second book that I'd purchased first. I should probably just get rid of it, but I hate to just get rid of a book I purchased new. Another book is also one I bought for market research purposes because it has an unusual structure similar to something I've been thinking about doing, but then that project got seriously backburnered, so I haven't gotten around to reading that book. Then there was one I bought on the Friday of a holiday weekend with the intent of reading it that weekend. And then things came up so that the weekend was busier than I anticipated and I didn't get around to reading it. A few weeks later, someone gave me the same book as a gift, and it was a rather awkward and uncomfortable situation that I think spilled over to my feelings about the book. I probably could have taken the copy I bought back to the store, but I never got around to it, and now I have two copies I haven't read. I think I'll donate one to the library, and the book is actually on my reading list for the summer. In fact, it might make a good jury duty book.
I have a fair number of autographed books and books by people I know that are unread. I try to support my writer friends by going to their booksignings or buying their books when they first come out (when the publishers are most interested in the sales numbers). That means I'm buying the books on someone else's schedule and not at a time when I really want to read them, and that, strangely enough, tends to shove them into an "out of sight, out of mind" status, where I'm not thinking about how I need to get this book, since I already have it, but that means I forget about the book. A few of these books may never be read because I bought them to be a supportive friend and not so much because they were something I was interested in. I used to try to buy at least the first book by anyone I knew or to go to my friends' booksignings, even if the books weren't something I'd buy otherwise. That policy went by the wayside when I had just too many writer friends to keep up with and when so few of the people I'd supported over the years returned the favor. There are at least three of these books that I have mentally slotted into reading slots for sometime this year.
I don't have too many unread books that I bought at full used price. Even half price these days is something of an investment, and I try to support authors by buying books new. I have one that I'd heard good things about, but I was iffy on the plot, to the point that I hesitated to pay full price for it. I think I bought it during an extra 20 percent off sale at the used bookstore with the idea of giving it a shot without making a major investment. Then I have a few British chick lit books that weren't published in the US. When I find those, I buy them, even if I don't have immediate reading plans for them. I have to be in the right mood to read that sort of thing, but when I am in that mood, nothing else will do, and it's getting harder to find anything I haven't already read in that genre.
Most of my library book sale purchases seem to be classics or "keeper" copies of things I've read from the library. Last year, I bought up a bunch of Dick Francis books to add to my collection. I'd guess I've read about half of my library sale purchases, either before I bought them or since then. I also have a few used bookstore "clearance" shelf books that were the kind of thing where I was willing to give them a shot for a dollar but probably wouldn't have paid full price, but then there are also a few Georgette Heyer reissues in that bunch. That's another thing where when I'm in the mood for it, nothing else will do, so it's good to have them handy for when the mood strikes.
The vast majority of the unread pile is from publisher giveaways and conference goody bags. Most of them are romances, but there are still some SF/fantasy from the Nebula Awards weekend a few years ago. Much of the sf/fantasy wasn't quite to my taste, so I haven't had a burning desire to read those books. I've reached a point where I can only bear a real romance novel when I'm in a particular mood, and those moods are rare. Thus, the hundreds of unread books. Maybe I should start a program of trying to read at least one of these a week, and then if I can't get into it, I'm allowed to throw it either into a donation box for next year's library sale or into the box to take to the used bookstore.
Now off to go do my work for the week. I don't know what my posting schedule for the week will be, depending on what happens with jury duty.
June 3, 2011
Book Greed
I am currently NOT at my local library's annual Friends of the Library used book sale. I kind of had to hide my car keys from myself, and I took a walk to the neighborhood library to check out books as a diversion. This is because I realized that I currently own so many books that I don't have room to shelve any new purchases, and I don't have anywhere to put additional bookcases (my next house will have actual walls instead of such an open floorplan and so many windows). I hit last year's book sale almost as soon as it opened, since I'd just started physical therapy on my bad shoulder and had an early morning appointment, so I was out anyway. And I realized that most of the books I bought at last year's sale are still in the bag I brought them home in. At my average yearly reading rate, I could go two or more years just reading books I already own but haven't read, without bringing any additional books into the house.
I seem to have a condition I've dubbed "book greed." I suppose it's akin to hoarding and could easily be a part of an overall hoarding condition. When books are readily available and not very expensive, I have a tendency to go nuts. This happens at the library, where I want to check out every book I see that appeals to me, even though I know I can't possibly read them all before the due date. I have to restrain myself and remind myself that the books will still be there later, and I can get them on the next trip (though at my library, you kind of do have to grab them when you find them because the next person may keep them half a year or never return them at all, and the book you want won't be available the next time). It's also bad at the library book sale, where I'm willing to spend 75 cents on a random paperback just because it looks interesting and, hey, it's making a donation to the library, so it's a good cause. I've learned to tone down the book greed at writing conferences, but at my first RWA conference, the idea that they were passing out FREE BOOKS went to my head, and I waited in all the publisher giveaway booksigning lines.
Mind you, I STILL haven't read some of those books from that first conference I went to in 1993. And that brings me to another, related point -- how we value books. On the rare occasions when I buy new books, I tend to read them fairly quickly, except in a few cases where I bought the book because I went to a booksigning and wanted the book autographed but wasn't really amped up to read that particular book right away. That's because new books are pretty expensive, so I don't buy a book unless I want to read that book so badly that I must buy it NOW. I don't buy a lot of books at used bookstores, especially after I sold some books and saw what a huge profit margin they have on each book, and yet nobody who participated in the creation of the book gets anything. But when something's out of print, I'll turn there, and I'm pretty good about reading those books, since even at half price, a book is still pretty expensive these days and a purchase is a conscious decision. I almost always read the books I get from the library, unless I start reading and decide I don't want to waste time on that book, because I know there's a time limit.
It's the books that I get for free or for next to nothing that seldom get read. I think that part of it is that for free or very cheap I'm willing to pick up things I'd never pay full price for, and so they fall to the bottom of the priority list, under the things I choose more consciously. I also don't feel like there's any great loss or waste if I never get around to reading something I didn't pay for or only paid a few cents for. The e-book revolution is bringing up the issue of pricing, and while a lot of people moved to the top of the e-book bestseller lists and built a following by selling their books for 99 cents, some authors are starting to see more sales from pricing their books slightly higher, but still below the cost of a paper book. You may make a lot of sales at 99 cents, but those books are likely to languish unread if people just get a case of book greed and grab them because they're cheap, so you're not really gaining new readers. If people aren't getting around to reading the book they got for next to nothing, then they're not buying your next book and they're not spreading word of mouth. If the book is expensive enough that it's a conscious, deliberate purchase and not a whim, but still cheap enough to not be a barrier to purchase, then readers may be more likely to value the book enough to read it and then talk about it and then be set to buy the next book. The 99 cent price point may be suitable for novellas or short stories, but for a novel it may be the equivalent of the paperback you buy on a whim at the library book sale and never get around to reading.
On the other hand, I have found some new authors to follow from books I got at conferences or that I picked up on the cheap. These are generally books I might have eventually tried at full price, but getting them free or cheap made me more willing to take a chance and try them or brought them to my attention. However, I still seem to only get around to them years later. I picked up my first Connie Willis book at a "half of a half" sale when I got a case of book greed and was just grabbing anything that remotely appealed to me, and I think it languished for a couple of years before I got around to reading it and then subsequently have bought her books new.
I seem to have a condition I've dubbed "book greed." I suppose it's akin to hoarding and could easily be a part of an overall hoarding condition. When books are readily available and not very expensive, I have a tendency to go nuts. This happens at the library, where I want to check out every book I see that appeals to me, even though I know I can't possibly read them all before the due date. I have to restrain myself and remind myself that the books will still be there later, and I can get them on the next trip (though at my library, you kind of do have to grab them when you find them because the next person may keep them half a year or never return them at all, and the book you want won't be available the next time). It's also bad at the library book sale, where I'm willing to spend 75 cents on a random paperback just because it looks interesting and, hey, it's making a donation to the library, so it's a good cause. I've learned to tone down the book greed at writing conferences, but at my first RWA conference, the idea that they were passing out FREE BOOKS went to my head, and I waited in all the publisher giveaway booksigning lines.
Mind you, I STILL haven't read some of those books from that first conference I went to in 1993. And that brings me to another, related point -- how we value books. On the rare occasions when I buy new books, I tend to read them fairly quickly, except in a few cases where I bought the book because I went to a booksigning and wanted the book autographed but wasn't really amped up to read that particular book right away. That's because new books are pretty expensive, so I don't buy a book unless I want to read that book so badly that I must buy it NOW. I don't buy a lot of books at used bookstores, especially after I sold some books and saw what a huge profit margin they have on each book, and yet nobody who participated in the creation of the book gets anything. But when something's out of print, I'll turn there, and I'm pretty good about reading those books, since even at half price, a book is still pretty expensive these days and a purchase is a conscious decision. I almost always read the books I get from the library, unless I start reading and decide I don't want to waste time on that book, because I know there's a time limit.
It's the books that I get for free or for next to nothing that seldom get read. I think that part of it is that for free or very cheap I'm willing to pick up things I'd never pay full price for, and so they fall to the bottom of the priority list, under the things I choose more consciously. I also don't feel like there's any great loss or waste if I never get around to reading something I didn't pay for or only paid a few cents for. The e-book revolution is bringing up the issue of pricing, and while a lot of people moved to the top of the e-book bestseller lists and built a following by selling their books for 99 cents, some authors are starting to see more sales from pricing their books slightly higher, but still below the cost of a paper book. You may make a lot of sales at 99 cents, but those books are likely to languish unread if people just get a case of book greed and grab them because they're cheap, so you're not really gaining new readers. If people aren't getting around to reading the book they got for next to nothing, then they're not buying your next book and they're not spreading word of mouth. If the book is expensive enough that it's a conscious, deliberate purchase and not a whim, but still cheap enough to not be a barrier to purchase, then readers may be more likely to value the book enough to read it and then talk about it and then be set to buy the next book. The 99 cent price point may be suitable for novellas or short stories, but for a novel it may be the equivalent of the paperback you buy on a whim at the library book sale and never get around to reading.
On the other hand, I have found some new authors to follow from books I got at conferences or that I picked up on the cheap. These are generally books I might have eventually tried at full price, but getting them free or cheap made me more willing to take a chance and try them or brought them to my attention. However, I still seem to only get around to them years later. I picked up my first Connie Willis book at a "half of a half" sale when I got a case of book greed and was just grabbing anything that remotely appealed to me, and I think it languished for a couple of years before I got around to reading it and then subsequently have bought her books new.
