Shanna Swendson's Blog, page 252
May 17, 2011
Writing Under Chemical Influence
The allergies seem to be less fog-inducing today, and I'm avoiding medication because I have to drive later today, so we'll see if I have more brainpower. One down side of creative writing as a profession is that your brain has to actually work for you to do it. When you find yourself staring into space, zoning out and trying to remember what to call those things you make when you put letters together, you won't accomplish much. I'm astounded by the output of all those writers in the past who supposedly lived in a drug or alcohol-fueled haze and who still produced great works, considering I can barely spell my own name when I take an infant dose of Benadryl. My great works tend to be produced under the influence of either tea or Dr Pepper.
I ended up lying on the sofa and watching OnDemand episodes of Parks and Recreation and Doctor Who, which is a really weird mix. I did a little freeform brainstorming, but in the state I was in, I couldn't even really read because I'd catch myself staring at the same paragraph for half an hour without comprehending it. I did some revision on one scene during a brief moment of clarity when the drowsiness from the Benadryl had worn off but the anti-allergy effects were still lingering. I also managed a little research. I'm at a frustrating point in revisions because I'm at a scene I really liked, where I'd done a lot of research to create the setting for the scene -- and then I realized the scene was taking place in the wrong setting entirely. There's all this lovely description that's utterly wasted. I had to do more research to figure out the setting where the scene should happen, and, unfortunately, changing the setting changes some of the character interaction. I know the new version will be better for the book, but the original scene was really good. If the book gets published, this may be one that goes up as a "deleted scene" just to show off that writing.
Tomorrow I'm up for another post on the Enchanted, Inc. series and its world, and I don't have a topic. Please, someone ask a question because I don't think I'll be coming up with anything independently this week. Is there anything you're dying to know about the series, that universe, the characters or the process of creating it, aside from what will happen in the future and when/if more books will be published?
And now I have to go sneeze, then make lunch.
I ended up lying on the sofa and watching OnDemand episodes of Parks and Recreation and Doctor Who, which is a really weird mix. I did a little freeform brainstorming, but in the state I was in, I couldn't even really read because I'd catch myself staring at the same paragraph for half an hour without comprehending it. I did some revision on one scene during a brief moment of clarity when the drowsiness from the Benadryl had worn off but the anti-allergy effects were still lingering. I also managed a little research. I'm at a frustrating point in revisions because I'm at a scene I really liked, where I'd done a lot of research to create the setting for the scene -- and then I realized the scene was taking place in the wrong setting entirely. There's all this lovely description that's utterly wasted. I had to do more research to figure out the setting where the scene should happen, and, unfortunately, changing the setting changes some of the character interaction. I know the new version will be better for the book, but the original scene was really good. If the book gets published, this may be one that goes up as a "deleted scene" just to show off that writing.
Tomorrow I'm up for another post on the Enchanted, Inc. series and its world, and I don't have a topic. Please, someone ask a question because I don't think I'll be coming up with anything independently this week. Is there anything you're dying to know about the series, that universe, the characters or the process of creating it, aside from what will happen in the future and when/if more books will be published?
And now I have to go sneeze, then make lunch.
May 16, 2011
The Monday Allergy Hangover
I should have had a much wilder weekend to feel the way I did this morning. Alas, it is allergies and sinuses, not the consequences from too much fun. I did have fun over the weekend, but not that kind of fun. I was already rather sneezy on Saturday, but it probably didn't help that I spent part of Saturday afternoon outside in the country, pushing my Mini-Me on the swingset (I was visiting friends whose daughter looks freakishly like me. It's rather disconcerting).
After this week's Doctor Who, I may have my Halloween costume for the year. I just need to re-create that dress. I've already got the hair (especially first thing in the morning) and even look rather similar in the face. I love it when shows "Mary Sue" me into them, with either a character very similar to me or with casting that looks close to me. I just never imagined that my Doctor Who Mary Sue would end up being that particular character, though I have always had a bit of an affinity for her and have been known to give her lines while watching. Yes, I'm being vague so as not to spoil.
I now have to make the decision about whether allergy medicine would make me much groggier than I already am. Even the supposed non-drowsy stuff knocks me out (sometimes worse than Benadryl), but it's not as though I'm very functional at the moment. I hate how my favorite times of the year, weather-wise, are also the times when allergies hit me the worst. It's so beautiful outside and nice and cool -- good frolicking weather -- but I mostly just want to curl up in bed with the covers over my head and sleep off the allergy drugs. And wouldn't you know it, but I've reached a part of my revisions where actual rewriting is necessary.
Now I feel a sneezing fit coming on.
After this week's Doctor Who, I may have my Halloween costume for the year. I just need to re-create that dress. I've already got the hair (especially first thing in the morning) and even look rather similar in the face. I love it when shows "Mary Sue" me into them, with either a character very similar to me or with casting that looks close to me. I just never imagined that my Doctor Who Mary Sue would end up being that particular character, though I have always had a bit of an affinity for her and have been known to give her lines while watching. Yes, I'm being vague so as not to spoil.
I now have to make the decision about whether allergy medicine would make me much groggier than I already am. Even the supposed non-drowsy stuff knocks me out (sometimes worse than Benadryl), but it's not as though I'm very functional at the moment. I hate how my favorite times of the year, weather-wise, are also the times when allergies hit me the worst. It's so beautiful outside and nice and cool -- good frolicking weather -- but I mostly just want to curl up in bed with the covers over my head and sleep off the allergy drugs. And wouldn't you know it, but I've reached a part of my revisions where actual rewriting is necessary.
Now I feel a sneezing fit coming on.
May 13, 2011
TV and Relationships
I had a rather productive shopping excursion this morning. Places like Ross are hit-and-miss, but they had a pizza peel for getting a pizza onto a baking stone, and for much less than any other place I'd looked online (with the benefit that the store was in my area and didn't require a long drive), plus I found a pair of comfortable casual black shoes. And I should have scored a few line karma points, as when the woman behind me and I were talking about how they needed to open a second register and she mentioned that she was on her lunch hour and needed to get back to work, I let her go ahead of me because I wasn't on a schedule.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid I've finally become a 'shipper for a TV series. Normally, I'm pretty violently opposed to most television romantic pairings. It's not that I'm opposed to romance. I just don't like it that much on TV, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it's so ubiquitous and inevitable. If a man and woman on a TV show are friends and work together, it's a safe bet that by the end of the series, they'll be developing a romance. Even if they don't actually get together, the show will start to focus on the sexual tension parts of the story. I find this irritating because it tends to devalue friendship, as though friendship is somehow less than romance instead of an entirely different kind of relationship. A romance can have a foundation of friendship, but that doesn't mean the friendship without the romance part is less valuable. I've worked with a lot of men without becoming romantically involved with them, and I've got a lot of platonic male friendships that are incredibly valuable to me. And yet it seems that whenever a relationship like that is shown on TV, it's forced to turn romantic eventually. I'm still seething over what happened on The X-Files. During the first couple of seasons, Chris Carter was constantly saying in interviews that Mulder and Scully would never be romantically involved, that they were co-workers and that they might be friends, but they would never kiss. He was always talking about how some fan had said that if they ever kissed, he'd throw his TV out the window, and Carter considered it his job to save that man's TV. Ha! One of the things I really hate about the changes they made to NCIS: Los Angeles this season (and a big reason why I quit watching) was that they had to insert the obligatory "ship." One of the things I liked about the first season was that there were no obvious romantic pairings. The characters seemed to have relationships outside the office that they mentioned but that weren't part of the plot. None of them seemed to be hot for each other. But then they had to add a romantic interest and create a will they/won't they pairing. There's so much talk about diversity and which groups are represented fairly on television. I feel like my group of people who are capable of being friends without ending up in bed isn't represented well at all.
Then there's the fact that TV does a lousy job of portraying relationships. It is difficult in an ongoing series to deal with romantic developments. You don't want to string it out too long, but you don't want to jump prematurely and take all the zing out of the characters or the story. The problem is that they handle it badly to start with. They seem to think that "chemistry" or attraction involves total opposites who have nothing in common and who hate each other and don't get along at all but who are hot for each other. So there's lots and lots of bickering, sniping and even backstabbing, with the occasional moment when their eyes meet or when they touch and things sizzle. But then if they do ever actually get together, either it looks like a dysfunctional to the point of abusive relationship or the characters and their relationship change to the point that they lose whatever spark was there. Or else the writers rely on the will they/won't they trope, where the characters will almost get together, but then there's a misunderstanding or a fight, or just when one is ready to take the leap, the other will get involved with someone else. You know that other relationship is doomed, so it's hard to care all that much. After seeing this kind of thing play out too many times, I've started to think it would be a good idea if TV avoided all romance entirely.
But Parks and Recreation got me, and I'm not even talking about what happened last night (no spoilers). They sucked me into not only caring about whether Leslie and Ben got together, but actively wanting to see something happen. I think it's because they avoided the usual traps. Really, when you think about it, their relationship is like something in a 1980s Silhouette Romance, only funny and with characters far dorkier than in any romance novel. We've got the small-town girl who's an ambitious idealist. She works in the parks department of her hometown because she truly, deeply believes that it's important for the community and a stepping stone for achieving her goal of being president of the United States. But then the city has budget problems, and in comes a state auditor, who wants to cut her programming as non-essential. He seems like a humorless bean counter, but then we learn his history. He was elected mayor of his hometown when he was eighteen, and then he bankrupted the town building an elaborate winter recreation center and was impeached. He became a state auditor to atone for his past and to help other cities avoid the mistakes he made. They clash at first, with her idealism at odds with his ruthless practicality, but then he starts to see things through her eyes. He sees how passionate she is about her job and how good she is at getting things done, and he then becomes her biggest cheerleader and even falls in love and decides to take a job to stay in town. So we have enough difference to have some conflict, but that conflict comes more from having different perceptions than from being opposites or disliking each other. He's thawed a bit, and we've seen behind his facade, as we see he's as big a dork as she is, but them getting together doesn't require them to change drastically. We can see that they really do belong together, and I guess that's why I find myself cheering them on and eagerly looking for the next development.
All those cops on TV can stay out of each other's beds, though.
Meanwhile, I'm afraid I've finally become a 'shipper for a TV series. Normally, I'm pretty violently opposed to most television romantic pairings. It's not that I'm opposed to romance. I just don't like it that much on TV, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it's so ubiquitous and inevitable. If a man and woman on a TV show are friends and work together, it's a safe bet that by the end of the series, they'll be developing a romance. Even if they don't actually get together, the show will start to focus on the sexual tension parts of the story. I find this irritating because it tends to devalue friendship, as though friendship is somehow less than romance instead of an entirely different kind of relationship. A romance can have a foundation of friendship, but that doesn't mean the friendship without the romance part is less valuable. I've worked with a lot of men without becoming romantically involved with them, and I've got a lot of platonic male friendships that are incredibly valuable to me. And yet it seems that whenever a relationship like that is shown on TV, it's forced to turn romantic eventually. I'm still seething over what happened on The X-Files. During the first couple of seasons, Chris Carter was constantly saying in interviews that Mulder and Scully would never be romantically involved, that they were co-workers and that they might be friends, but they would never kiss. He was always talking about how some fan had said that if they ever kissed, he'd throw his TV out the window, and Carter considered it his job to save that man's TV. Ha! One of the things I really hate about the changes they made to NCIS: Los Angeles this season (and a big reason why I quit watching) was that they had to insert the obligatory "ship." One of the things I liked about the first season was that there were no obvious romantic pairings. The characters seemed to have relationships outside the office that they mentioned but that weren't part of the plot. None of them seemed to be hot for each other. But then they had to add a romantic interest and create a will they/won't they pairing. There's so much talk about diversity and which groups are represented fairly on television. I feel like my group of people who are capable of being friends without ending up in bed isn't represented well at all.
Then there's the fact that TV does a lousy job of portraying relationships. It is difficult in an ongoing series to deal with romantic developments. You don't want to string it out too long, but you don't want to jump prematurely and take all the zing out of the characters or the story. The problem is that they handle it badly to start with. They seem to think that "chemistry" or attraction involves total opposites who have nothing in common and who hate each other and don't get along at all but who are hot for each other. So there's lots and lots of bickering, sniping and even backstabbing, with the occasional moment when their eyes meet or when they touch and things sizzle. But then if they do ever actually get together, either it looks like a dysfunctional to the point of abusive relationship or the characters and their relationship change to the point that they lose whatever spark was there. Or else the writers rely on the will they/won't they trope, where the characters will almost get together, but then there's a misunderstanding or a fight, or just when one is ready to take the leap, the other will get involved with someone else. You know that other relationship is doomed, so it's hard to care all that much. After seeing this kind of thing play out too many times, I've started to think it would be a good idea if TV avoided all romance entirely.
But Parks and Recreation got me, and I'm not even talking about what happened last night (no spoilers). They sucked me into not only caring about whether Leslie and Ben got together, but actively wanting to see something happen. I think it's because they avoided the usual traps. Really, when you think about it, their relationship is like something in a 1980s Silhouette Romance, only funny and with characters far dorkier than in any romance novel. We've got the small-town girl who's an ambitious idealist. She works in the parks department of her hometown because she truly, deeply believes that it's important for the community and a stepping stone for achieving her goal of being president of the United States. But then the city has budget problems, and in comes a state auditor, who wants to cut her programming as non-essential. He seems like a humorless bean counter, but then we learn his history. He was elected mayor of his hometown when he was eighteen, and then he bankrupted the town building an elaborate winter recreation center and was impeached. He became a state auditor to atone for his past and to help other cities avoid the mistakes he made. They clash at first, with her idealism at odds with his ruthless practicality, but then he starts to see things through her eyes. He sees how passionate she is about her job and how good she is at getting things done, and he then becomes her biggest cheerleader and even falls in love and decides to take a job to stay in town. So we have enough difference to have some conflict, but that conflict comes more from having different perceptions than from being opposites or disliking each other. He's thawed a bit, and we've seen behind his facade, as we see he's as big a dork as she is, but them getting together doesn't require them to change drastically. We can see that they really do belong together, and I guess that's why I find myself cheering them on and eagerly looking for the next development.
All those cops on TV can stay out of each other's beds, though.
May 12, 2011
Dabbling vs. Focusing
Last night was the end of the year for children's choir. We had our "sharing program" where each choir performed for parents and the other choirs. I'll enjoy having the extra free time, but I think I'll miss my kids a bit. One of them made a really sweet thank-you card for me, which is now on my refrigerator. If I do this again next year, I think I'll stay with this age group. I seem to be on the same wavelength with kindergarteners and preschoolers. I seem to "get" them and understand how they think better than I do with older kids. I don't know what that says about me that four and five-year-olds are my kindred spirits.
But I don't have anywhere to go or anything else pressing to do today, so I can really focus on the book revisions today. I'm about a quarter of the way through the book -- sort of. I keep thinking of things that send me back to fix things earlier. Today I've got the whole afternoon and then the evening, aside from a TV break for The Office and two episodes of Parks and Recreation.
That need for days when I can really focus reminds me of a conversation I had on Sunday with one of the guys from the choir (the adult one, not the little kids). We were talking about specializing versus dabbling, how to really be good at something, you have to focus on it instead of spreading yourself too thin. One of my problems has always been that I've been a dabbler. I'm too interested in too many things to focus on any one thing well enough to become truly outstanding at it. And I've been more or less equally talented at those things, so there was no one clear-cut thing that I should focus on. When I was a kid, I was always flitting from one activity to another, and I'd feel trapped if I had to spend too much time on any one thing. There was dance and gymnastics and scouts and then later band and choir and then some more gymnastics and a little dance and then in high school there was band, speech, drama, newspaper and yearbook. I did fairly well in all those things but wasn't truly outstanding. I was first-chair oboe in band (well, there were only two of us), but didn't make all-region band. I had roles in school plays but wasn't a star. I got a fair amount of speech and drama ribbons at competitions, but didn't make it to regionals and didn't win a major competition. I did go to regionals a couple of times in journalism competitions and was a newspaper assistant editor and yearbook section editor, so I guess I came closer to excelling there, and that had a lot to do with my choice of major in college.
I was just as bad in college. I did fencing, dance (ballet and ballroom), made an attempt to get back into gymnastics, took voice lessons, worked on the university newspaper, was involved in a number of campus committees, was in a service organization that required volunteer work, and then there were the things required for my degree, like working at the TV station.
When I look at the kids here who are really excelling at stuff, I kind of freak out on their behalf. The girls dancing at a high level are taking four to five classes a week. I felt oppressed when I was taking two classes a week. The ones going places in gymnastics are doing it every day, for hours. I'd have felt suffocated. I might have been able to devote that kind of time to music if I'd had the opportunities. I practiced a lot when I was first learning to play an instrument and didn't mind doing so. I even dropped most of my other activities during that time. But I was mostly self-taught. The way they taught you to play an instrument was mostly to give you a fingering chart. I don't know what I could have done with real instruction. I seem to have a lot of natural talent for singing, but didn't have a chance to even start exploring that until I was in college, when it was probably too late already, since you have to audition to get into music programs, and it would have required a lot of training to even get in.
But then I realized that all this dabbling was actually focusing for a writer. You need all that kind of input from trying new things and exploring in order to have something to write about. Even if I don't use the actual activities in a book, the activities bring me in contact with a variety of people, which is important for helping create characters. I probably should focus a bit more time on writing, but that time needs to come from my "wasting" time instead of from my extracurricular activities. The dance is my form of exercise, what I do instead of going to the gym. I'm trying to do it well enough to make it fun and to make sure I don't hurt myself, but I have no illusions of ever doing anything with it. Singing is my form of worship. I would kind of like to see what I could really do with it if I worked at it and got some kind of training, and I enjoy it enough that I might not even feel oppressed from having to devote time to it, but at the same time, I'm not sure what the payoff could be from devoting that time, especially at my age. I could still pass for a lot younger on stage, but I'm still beyond the age for most musical theater roles -- and look way too young for the older roles. I guess I haven't yet aged out of opera, since they have women older than I am (and who look it) playing teenagers, but I don't see myself having any kind of grand opera career. I know of too many people with the training and the voices who haven't been able to break in.
There's something kind of liberating about this realization. I've reached an age where I'm free to dabble in whatever interests me since I'm beyond being able to really do anything with it. And all of it feeds into my writing, which is the one thing that I don't think has yet bored me and that I'm willing to spend hours every day working on. So I can work on learning to play the piano a little without worrying about ever making it to Carnegie hall. I can take ballet classes because they're fun. I can sing in the choir and maybe look for other opportunities there. I can learn to cook new things. I can try knitting and sewing or maybe photography and art. And as long as I'm still putting in serious writing time, all that stuff will help me be a better writer.
But I don't have anywhere to go or anything else pressing to do today, so I can really focus on the book revisions today. I'm about a quarter of the way through the book -- sort of. I keep thinking of things that send me back to fix things earlier. Today I've got the whole afternoon and then the evening, aside from a TV break for The Office and two episodes of Parks and Recreation.
That need for days when I can really focus reminds me of a conversation I had on Sunday with one of the guys from the choir (the adult one, not the little kids). We were talking about specializing versus dabbling, how to really be good at something, you have to focus on it instead of spreading yourself too thin. One of my problems has always been that I've been a dabbler. I'm too interested in too many things to focus on any one thing well enough to become truly outstanding at it. And I've been more or less equally talented at those things, so there was no one clear-cut thing that I should focus on. When I was a kid, I was always flitting from one activity to another, and I'd feel trapped if I had to spend too much time on any one thing. There was dance and gymnastics and scouts and then later band and choir and then some more gymnastics and a little dance and then in high school there was band, speech, drama, newspaper and yearbook. I did fairly well in all those things but wasn't truly outstanding. I was first-chair oboe in band (well, there were only two of us), but didn't make all-region band. I had roles in school plays but wasn't a star. I got a fair amount of speech and drama ribbons at competitions, but didn't make it to regionals and didn't win a major competition. I did go to regionals a couple of times in journalism competitions and was a newspaper assistant editor and yearbook section editor, so I guess I came closer to excelling there, and that had a lot to do with my choice of major in college.
I was just as bad in college. I did fencing, dance (ballet and ballroom), made an attempt to get back into gymnastics, took voice lessons, worked on the university newspaper, was involved in a number of campus committees, was in a service organization that required volunteer work, and then there were the things required for my degree, like working at the TV station.
When I look at the kids here who are really excelling at stuff, I kind of freak out on their behalf. The girls dancing at a high level are taking four to five classes a week. I felt oppressed when I was taking two classes a week. The ones going places in gymnastics are doing it every day, for hours. I'd have felt suffocated. I might have been able to devote that kind of time to music if I'd had the opportunities. I practiced a lot when I was first learning to play an instrument and didn't mind doing so. I even dropped most of my other activities during that time. But I was mostly self-taught. The way they taught you to play an instrument was mostly to give you a fingering chart. I don't know what I could have done with real instruction. I seem to have a lot of natural talent for singing, but didn't have a chance to even start exploring that until I was in college, when it was probably too late already, since you have to audition to get into music programs, and it would have required a lot of training to even get in.
But then I realized that all this dabbling was actually focusing for a writer. You need all that kind of input from trying new things and exploring in order to have something to write about. Even if I don't use the actual activities in a book, the activities bring me in contact with a variety of people, which is important for helping create characters. I probably should focus a bit more time on writing, but that time needs to come from my "wasting" time instead of from my extracurricular activities. The dance is my form of exercise, what I do instead of going to the gym. I'm trying to do it well enough to make it fun and to make sure I don't hurt myself, but I have no illusions of ever doing anything with it. Singing is my form of worship. I would kind of like to see what I could really do with it if I worked at it and got some kind of training, and I enjoy it enough that I might not even feel oppressed from having to devote time to it, but at the same time, I'm not sure what the payoff could be from devoting that time, especially at my age. I could still pass for a lot younger on stage, but I'm still beyond the age for most musical theater roles -- and look way too young for the older roles. I guess I haven't yet aged out of opera, since they have women older than I am (and who look it) playing teenagers, but I don't see myself having any kind of grand opera career. I know of too many people with the training and the voices who haven't been able to break in.
There's something kind of liberating about this realization. I've reached an age where I'm free to dabble in whatever interests me since I'm beyond being able to really do anything with it. And all of it feeds into my writing, which is the one thing that I don't think has yet bored me and that I'm willing to spend hours every day working on. So I can work on learning to play the piano a little without worrying about ever making it to Carnegie hall. I can take ballet classes because they're fun. I can sing in the choir and maybe look for other opportunities there. I can learn to cook new things. I can try knitting and sewing or maybe photography and art. And as long as I'm still putting in serious writing time, all that stuff will help me be a better writer.
May 11, 2011
Copyright Issues
An update from yesterday: The story about the knight marrying the hag has been identified. It was from The Wife of Bath's Tale in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. But it was also a popular story of Chaucer's time, with Sir Gawain from Arthurian legend usually being the knight. I seem to have merged the two in my recollection. The bit about it being a story within a story to illustrate what women really want comes from Chaucer, but the part where the knight marries the hag to save someone else is Gawain, as the Wife of Bath's knight wasn't nearly that noble. Meanwhile, I've thought of one more thing that kind of irks me about the traditional Beauty and the Beast story. The "beauty" is chosen as the best candidate for breaking the curse because she's a really good person, someone who can see past appearances and isn't greedy or selfish -- and so she's rewarded by being forced to leave her home and live in an isolated castle with a beast. It reminds me of all those times people have tried to set me up with men because they needed a confidence boost and I'm so nice. Granted, the girl in the story did eventually get rewarded with a rich, handsome husband, but doesn't a really great girl deserve a great guy without first being kept prisoner by a beast? It might be fun to have a beauty and the beast story where both of them have some lessons to learn, where she may be beautiful, but she's a total bitch. I have tried to write it, but I didn't do it right. Someday, though ...
For this week's writing post, I'm going to tackle a topic from the business side, the issue of copyright. First, a disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not meant to be legal advice. I'm just doing a very general overview based on my knowledge of the industry and the media law course I took in journalism school. If you want to know more, you can find books on the topic in a library, and if you need advice on a specific issue, you should consult an attorney specializing in literary or intellectual property law.
Copyright is established from the point of creation, and you own the copyright on anything you write (with some exceptions, which I'll get to later). You don't have to put the copyright symbol on it or register it with the Library of Congress, though there are additional legal protections if it is registered. Because you own the copyright on your work, that means it can't be copied or published without your permission. If you write a letter to someone, you still own the copyright and it would be a copyright violation for the recipient to publish or copy it without your permission. When you "sell" a book, what you're actually doing is licensing the work to a publisher, giving that publisher permission to duplicate and distribute your work in exchange for payment. That agreement lasts for a certain period of time, depending on the contract, usually as long as the publisher continues to publish and sell the book in certain quantities. The agreement is usually exclusive for a particular geographical area or form of publication, so the author can't license the same book to multiple publishers in the same country, unless it's something like audio or graphic novel rights to the book. When rights revert to the author, the author can sell the book again. Articles and short stories are usually first serial publication rights, so after it's been published (the contract may specify a time period) the author can sell reprint rights. A short story published in a magazine can later be sold to an anthology, for instance.
"Out of print" is not the same thing as "out of copyright." Even if a book is out of print, not available for sale anywhere other than a used bookstore, the book may still be under copyright and may not be republished without the author's permission (likewise, there are many books that are out of copyright but still in print). The length of the copyright period depends on when the work was produced because the laws keep changing, but it's generally a safe assumption that if the author is alive, the book is still under copyright. However, the author being dead does not mean the book is in public domain. The books available for free at archives like Project Gutenberg are in public domain and not protected by copyright. If the author is living, you should probably be paying to download it, and if you aren't, you and the person who put it online are violating copyright because the act of uploading it is an unauthorized publication and the act of downloading it is making an unauthorized copy.
It's often said that you can't copyright an idea, only the execution of the idea. The line between idea and execution can be a little hazy. The actual words are definitely included, but elements of execution that go beyond the specific words are also considered under copyright, like the characters and the situation. So, I could write a book about a boy who learns he's a wizard and goes off to school to learn wizardry, as long as I use my own characters and my own "universe." But I can't retype or scan the Harry Potter books and post them to the Internet. Unauthorized publication of something that the author and authorized publisher should be receiving money for is piracy. And I can't write my own stories about Harry Potter's further adventures or about his kids attending Hogwarts. Fan fiction is technically a copyright violation because it uses characters and situations created by the author of the original work, but most authors and publishers turn a blind eye as long as it's not done for profit. You could possibly get away with writing Harry's further adventures and posting it to an archive, but you'll be in big trouble if you try to sell the e-book of your story about Harry on Amazon.
The exception to copyright ownership falls into the category of "work for hire." In this case, someone other than the author owns the copyright, and this is part of the agreement between the author, publisher and copyright holder. You see this in "shared world" projects, where multiple authors write in the same world about the same characters and situations. Then the publisher usually owns the copyright. You also see this with media tie-in books, where authors are writing stories about characters from TV shows. Then the corporate entity that owns the series owns the copyright. "Work for hire" also usually covers work done as an employee. Unless you have a specific agreement with your employer stating otherwise, it's generally assumed that work you produce for your employer is owned by the employer, not by you. You can't sell it to someone else, and your boss or co-workers can forward or duplicate your memos, e-mails, etc., for business purposes without violating copyright.
The other exception to copyright is called the "fair use" doctrine. You can quote small amounts of a work under copyright without permission if it's for purposes of education, scholarship, criticism or review. It can't be a substantial amount, which is why things get tricky when authors want to use lines from song lyrics or poems in a novel. A song is short enough that one line might be considered too much of the total work, and a novel doesn't really fall into the criticism, education or scholarship category. Even lawyers don't have a clear view of that situation, and that's why authors generally either avoid the issue entirely by mentioning the song without quoting the lyrics or by seeking (and often paying for) permission to use lyrics. "Fair use" comes into play when a critic quotes short passages from a novel in a review or when information from a book or article is cited in an article or another book.
However, a key to "fair use" is that use of other people's work must be attributed -- and that's required whether or not the work being quoted is under copyright. When you're quoting someone else, you have to give the author credit. This is like in research papers where you have to cite your sources for the information you're using. Copying something someone else has written without giving credit is considered plagiarism. I've recently become painfully aware of this as I've discovered that someone has been taking some of my writing posts and putting them on his blog as though they're his own work. That is plagiarism. When I'm basing a post on something from a book, I'm careful to cite my source, and then I don't use that author's exact words, I try to come up with my own examples, and I'm presenting my own take on those concepts. I'm happy for people to share my posts, but I expect to get credit for them, since I do them to help promote my books. Since this person steals from me so regularly, I'm assuming he either reads my blog or subscribes to the writing posts, so this is public notice that I know what you're doing, I'm watching you, and if I don't see a public apology and an attribution of your source for those posts, I will be taking action.
For a hypothetical of how some of this might work, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is under public domain. That means if I wanted to publish it myself, maybe with a forward based on my essay about it that I wrote for a book, I could do so as long as I put Jane Austen's name on the cover as the author. It would be plagiarism if I tried to publish it as though I wrote it, even if it's not under copyright. Because this work is in the public domain, I can use the characters and situations to create my own books, but I'd need to credit that Jane Austen created the characters. Notice that one of the authors listed for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was Jane Austen. There are also mysteries where the P&P characters are the amateur sleuths and sequels about the other Bennet sisters. My essay on the book quoted passages, but citing where they came from. If I wrote a book with a character who was a Jane Austen fan, I might have her quoting lines from the novels, but in the context of the book I would need to show that she was quoting Austen and not try to pass that off as my original dialogue. It would be plagiarism to use descriptive passages from Austen in my narrative without acknowledging that those passages came from Austen.
For this week's writing post, I'm going to tackle a topic from the business side, the issue of copyright. First, a disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not meant to be legal advice. I'm just doing a very general overview based on my knowledge of the industry and the media law course I took in journalism school. If you want to know more, you can find books on the topic in a library, and if you need advice on a specific issue, you should consult an attorney specializing in literary or intellectual property law.
Copyright is established from the point of creation, and you own the copyright on anything you write (with some exceptions, which I'll get to later). You don't have to put the copyright symbol on it or register it with the Library of Congress, though there are additional legal protections if it is registered. Because you own the copyright on your work, that means it can't be copied or published without your permission. If you write a letter to someone, you still own the copyright and it would be a copyright violation for the recipient to publish or copy it without your permission. When you "sell" a book, what you're actually doing is licensing the work to a publisher, giving that publisher permission to duplicate and distribute your work in exchange for payment. That agreement lasts for a certain period of time, depending on the contract, usually as long as the publisher continues to publish and sell the book in certain quantities. The agreement is usually exclusive for a particular geographical area or form of publication, so the author can't license the same book to multiple publishers in the same country, unless it's something like audio or graphic novel rights to the book. When rights revert to the author, the author can sell the book again. Articles and short stories are usually first serial publication rights, so after it's been published (the contract may specify a time period) the author can sell reprint rights. A short story published in a magazine can later be sold to an anthology, for instance.
"Out of print" is not the same thing as "out of copyright." Even if a book is out of print, not available for sale anywhere other than a used bookstore, the book may still be under copyright and may not be republished without the author's permission (likewise, there are many books that are out of copyright but still in print). The length of the copyright period depends on when the work was produced because the laws keep changing, but it's generally a safe assumption that if the author is alive, the book is still under copyright. However, the author being dead does not mean the book is in public domain. The books available for free at archives like Project Gutenberg are in public domain and not protected by copyright. If the author is living, you should probably be paying to download it, and if you aren't, you and the person who put it online are violating copyright because the act of uploading it is an unauthorized publication and the act of downloading it is making an unauthorized copy.
It's often said that you can't copyright an idea, only the execution of the idea. The line between idea and execution can be a little hazy. The actual words are definitely included, but elements of execution that go beyond the specific words are also considered under copyright, like the characters and the situation. So, I could write a book about a boy who learns he's a wizard and goes off to school to learn wizardry, as long as I use my own characters and my own "universe." But I can't retype or scan the Harry Potter books and post them to the Internet. Unauthorized publication of something that the author and authorized publisher should be receiving money for is piracy. And I can't write my own stories about Harry Potter's further adventures or about his kids attending Hogwarts. Fan fiction is technically a copyright violation because it uses characters and situations created by the author of the original work, but most authors and publishers turn a blind eye as long as it's not done for profit. You could possibly get away with writing Harry's further adventures and posting it to an archive, but you'll be in big trouble if you try to sell the e-book of your story about Harry on Amazon.
The exception to copyright ownership falls into the category of "work for hire." In this case, someone other than the author owns the copyright, and this is part of the agreement between the author, publisher and copyright holder. You see this in "shared world" projects, where multiple authors write in the same world about the same characters and situations. Then the publisher usually owns the copyright. You also see this with media tie-in books, where authors are writing stories about characters from TV shows. Then the corporate entity that owns the series owns the copyright. "Work for hire" also usually covers work done as an employee. Unless you have a specific agreement with your employer stating otherwise, it's generally assumed that work you produce for your employer is owned by the employer, not by you. You can't sell it to someone else, and your boss or co-workers can forward or duplicate your memos, e-mails, etc., for business purposes without violating copyright.
The other exception to copyright is called the "fair use" doctrine. You can quote small amounts of a work under copyright without permission if it's for purposes of education, scholarship, criticism or review. It can't be a substantial amount, which is why things get tricky when authors want to use lines from song lyrics or poems in a novel. A song is short enough that one line might be considered too much of the total work, and a novel doesn't really fall into the criticism, education or scholarship category. Even lawyers don't have a clear view of that situation, and that's why authors generally either avoid the issue entirely by mentioning the song without quoting the lyrics or by seeking (and often paying for) permission to use lyrics. "Fair use" comes into play when a critic quotes short passages from a novel in a review or when information from a book or article is cited in an article or another book.
However, a key to "fair use" is that use of other people's work must be attributed -- and that's required whether or not the work being quoted is under copyright. When you're quoting someone else, you have to give the author credit. This is like in research papers where you have to cite your sources for the information you're using. Copying something someone else has written without giving credit is considered plagiarism. I've recently become painfully aware of this as I've discovered that someone has been taking some of my writing posts and putting them on his blog as though they're his own work. That is plagiarism. When I'm basing a post on something from a book, I'm careful to cite my source, and then I don't use that author's exact words, I try to come up with my own examples, and I'm presenting my own take on those concepts. I'm happy for people to share my posts, but I expect to get credit for them, since I do them to help promote my books. Since this person steals from me so regularly, I'm assuming he either reads my blog or subscribes to the writing posts, so this is public notice that I know what you're doing, I'm watching you, and if I don't see a public apology and an attribution of your source for those posts, I will be taking action.
For a hypothetical of how some of this might work, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is under public domain. That means if I wanted to publish it myself, maybe with a forward based on my essay about it that I wrote for a book, I could do so as long as I put Jane Austen's name on the cover as the author. It would be plagiarism if I tried to publish it as though I wrote it, even if it's not under copyright. Because this work is in the public domain, I can use the characters and situations to create my own books, but I'd need to credit that Jane Austen created the characters. Notice that one of the authors listed for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was Jane Austen. There are also mysteries where the P&P characters are the amateur sleuths and sequels about the other Bennet sisters. My essay on the book quoted passages, but citing where they came from. If I wrote a book with a character who was a Jane Austen fan, I might have her quoting lines from the novels, but in the context of the book I would need to show that she was quoting Austen and not try to pass that off as my original dialogue. It would be plagiarism to use descriptive passages from Austen in my narrative without acknowledging that those passages came from Austen.
May 10, 2011
Beauties and Beasts
The pizza turned out to be pretty good as leftovers, too. It just took a few minutes in the toaster oven to reheat it, and then it was almost as good as when it was right out of the oven.
Meanwhile, I've rewritten the first chapter on the latest endeavor, and although that was the part of the book that I thought was just fine as it was, I think I managed to improve it. There were nuances I found in the characters that I think came from having reached the end of the book, and that added an extra touch.
Today's topic is something that popped into my head when I was walking home from the library the other day, and I have no idea what triggered it. I was thinking about the Beauty and the Beast story and how it's always irked me that it always seems to be the woman who is expected to be able to fall in love with a man regardless of appearance, while even a hideous man gets a beautiful woman. It's like those Internet dating ads where it always seems like there's a guy who looks like the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons who's seeking a woman who's tall, blonde and beautiful with a great body and who is willing to look past appearances. There's the Beauty and the Beast story and the Bearskin story, where the man has to go a certain amount of time without bathing, shaving or cutting his hair, and the woman has to fall in love with him anyway.
The Beauty and the Beast tale also has a creepy twist, if you think about it. He has to get a woman to fall in love with him, so he resorts to forcing one to live with him, with the idea that if she spent enough time with him, then she'd eventually come to see his true qualities. That's the kind of logic that stalkers use on their prey, that if they're persistent enough and keep calling, e-mailing and showing up, then the woman will change her mind about him.
The modern Disney take on the story (that showed up again in Beastly, both book and movie) irks me even more if I think too much about it. In the original versions of the tale, there isn't much reason given for the spell. It doesn't seem to imply that the prince was being punished, and he demanded that the daughter be sent to him because he thought that the girl whose only request from her father was a rose might be the kind of person who'd be open to seeing beyond appearances. But the Disney take has him being punished for being shallow and judging on appearances. So he atones for this by falling for the most beautiful girl around? Granted, the other part of the deal was that he had to get her to fall for him, and presumably that's more difficult with a beautiful girl, as a homely girl might have lower standards and be more willing to look past appearances. But what would be wrong with him learning to fall in love with someone he might have rejected previously?
There is a story I can think of that puts a twist on it, and now I can't recall where I read it, if it's a real fairy tale, if it's from a legend, or even if it's a story within a story. I have this sense that it was told as a parable within another story to illustrate what women really want. In the story, a man (maybe a knight, prince, king, or someone like that) is forced somehow to marry a wizened old hag -- I think for some reason that involves saving or helping someone else. But on their wedding night, the woman who comes to him is a beautiful young woman. She tells him that she can only be that way part of the time, and he has to choose whether he wants a beautiful young wife during the day in public and a crone in his bed at night, or a crone that everyone will see as his wife, but a beautiful young woman in his bed. He tells her she can choose how she wants it to go, and that breaks the spell so that she can always be a beautiful woman. Though that still doesn't say anything about him being able to fall in love with a woman who looks like a wizened old crone because he's able to see her inner good qualities. He marries her purely out of duty and is willing to take his medicine, so to speak. I don't recall the story saying anything about him really coming to care for her, except for maybe that he fell instantly in love when he saw the young, pretty version.
People cite Shrek as an example of the reversal of the Beauty and the Beast story, but it isn't really. Yes, Princess Fiona becomes an ogre permanently when the spell is broken, but the hero is an ogre, so to him, the spell being broken turns her beautiful, especially because it makes her someone who is a better match to him. That seems to be an important element -- no one seems to be stuck with the ugly person, no matter how much they come to love the beautiful interior. At the end, the pair is evenly matched.
It might be interesting to have a "Plain Jane and the Beast" story if you're going with the Disney addition to the story, in which he's being taught a lesson about judging on appearances. What if the spell also turns him blind, where the only thing he's capable of seeing is his own reflection in the mirror, so that he knows how awful he is, and then he has to find a girl, fall in love with her, and get her to love him, without having any idea what she looks like. He can break the spell to see one time, but if he then rejects the woman because of her appearance, the spell becomes permanent. It's broken if he really does love her. She doesn't have to be a monster. She can even be "Hollywood ugly" (where a new hairstyle, contact lenses and lipstick make her go from drab to stunning). Or maybe she just sounds like someone he otherwise would have assumed would be unattractive. I went through a phase where I was frequently being set up on blind dates, and it seemed like the guys were always shocked to meet me in person after talking to me on the phone because they assumed based on the way I was on the phone that I would be really unattractive. It seemed I gave off "fat chick" vibes, since one guy did blurt out something about being surprised that I was so small. He tried to correct it to say he meant short, but since we were being set up to go ballroom dancing together, we'd already talked on the phone about our respective heights. I got the feeling that he'd just assumed I would be short and fat. I'm not sure what it is about me that projects that, unless men automatically assume that a woman who is intelligent and into science fiction and fantasy will be physically unattractive (I wasn't dealing with geek guys).
Oh great, just what I needed, something else for the idea file.
Meanwhile, I've rewritten the first chapter on the latest endeavor, and although that was the part of the book that I thought was just fine as it was, I think I managed to improve it. There were nuances I found in the characters that I think came from having reached the end of the book, and that added an extra touch.
Today's topic is something that popped into my head when I was walking home from the library the other day, and I have no idea what triggered it. I was thinking about the Beauty and the Beast story and how it's always irked me that it always seems to be the woman who is expected to be able to fall in love with a man regardless of appearance, while even a hideous man gets a beautiful woman. It's like those Internet dating ads where it always seems like there's a guy who looks like the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons who's seeking a woman who's tall, blonde and beautiful with a great body and who is willing to look past appearances. There's the Beauty and the Beast story and the Bearskin story, where the man has to go a certain amount of time without bathing, shaving or cutting his hair, and the woman has to fall in love with him anyway.
The Beauty and the Beast tale also has a creepy twist, if you think about it. He has to get a woman to fall in love with him, so he resorts to forcing one to live with him, with the idea that if she spent enough time with him, then she'd eventually come to see his true qualities. That's the kind of logic that stalkers use on their prey, that if they're persistent enough and keep calling, e-mailing and showing up, then the woman will change her mind about him.
The modern Disney take on the story (that showed up again in Beastly, both book and movie) irks me even more if I think too much about it. In the original versions of the tale, there isn't much reason given for the spell. It doesn't seem to imply that the prince was being punished, and he demanded that the daughter be sent to him because he thought that the girl whose only request from her father was a rose might be the kind of person who'd be open to seeing beyond appearances. But the Disney take has him being punished for being shallow and judging on appearances. So he atones for this by falling for the most beautiful girl around? Granted, the other part of the deal was that he had to get her to fall for him, and presumably that's more difficult with a beautiful girl, as a homely girl might have lower standards and be more willing to look past appearances. But what would be wrong with him learning to fall in love with someone he might have rejected previously?
There is a story I can think of that puts a twist on it, and now I can't recall where I read it, if it's a real fairy tale, if it's from a legend, or even if it's a story within a story. I have this sense that it was told as a parable within another story to illustrate what women really want. In the story, a man (maybe a knight, prince, king, or someone like that) is forced somehow to marry a wizened old hag -- I think for some reason that involves saving or helping someone else. But on their wedding night, the woman who comes to him is a beautiful young woman. She tells him that she can only be that way part of the time, and he has to choose whether he wants a beautiful young wife during the day in public and a crone in his bed at night, or a crone that everyone will see as his wife, but a beautiful young woman in his bed. He tells her she can choose how she wants it to go, and that breaks the spell so that she can always be a beautiful woman. Though that still doesn't say anything about him being able to fall in love with a woman who looks like a wizened old crone because he's able to see her inner good qualities. He marries her purely out of duty and is willing to take his medicine, so to speak. I don't recall the story saying anything about him really coming to care for her, except for maybe that he fell instantly in love when he saw the young, pretty version.
People cite Shrek as an example of the reversal of the Beauty and the Beast story, but it isn't really. Yes, Princess Fiona becomes an ogre permanently when the spell is broken, but the hero is an ogre, so to him, the spell being broken turns her beautiful, especially because it makes her someone who is a better match to him. That seems to be an important element -- no one seems to be stuck with the ugly person, no matter how much they come to love the beautiful interior. At the end, the pair is evenly matched.
It might be interesting to have a "Plain Jane and the Beast" story if you're going with the Disney addition to the story, in which he's being taught a lesson about judging on appearances. What if the spell also turns him blind, where the only thing he's capable of seeing is his own reflection in the mirror, so that he knows how awful he is, and then he has to find a girl, fall in love with her, and get her to love him, without having any idea what she looks like. He can break the spell to see one time, but if he then rejects the woman because of her appearance, the spell becomes permanent. It's broken if he really does love her. She doesn't have to be a monster. She can even be "Hollywood ugly" (where a new hairstyle, contact lenses and lipstick make her go from drab to stunning). Or maybe she just sounds like someone he otherwise would have assumed would be unattractive. I went through a phase where I was frequently being set up on blind dates, and it seemed like the guys were always shocked to meet me in person after talking to me on the phone because they assumed based on the way I was on the phone that I would be really unattractive. It seemed I gave off "fat chick" vibes, since one guy did blurt out something about being surprised that I was so small. He tried to correct it to say he meant short, but since we were being set up to go ballroom dancing together, we'd already talked on the phone about our respective heights. I got the feeling that he'd just assumed I would be short and fat. I'm not sure what it is about me that projects that, unless men automatically assume that a woman who is intelligent and into science fiction and fantasy will be physically unattractive (I wasn't dealing with geek guys).
Oh great, just what I needed, something else for the idea file.
May 9, 2011
Achieving Pizza Greatness
My big accomplishment for the weekend was nearly perfecting thin-crust pizza. Pizza has kind of been my cooking "thing" since I was a kid and my mom got one of those Chef Boy-ar-dee pizza kits with the crust mix (just add water), can of sauce and packet of parmesan cheese. I made it, but it wasn't anything like pizza, so I started tinkering. Next time, I added seasonings to the sauce, added toppings and added some mozzarella cheese. Soon, I moved beyond the kit, getting a crust mix and making my own sauce. By high school, I was making my own crust, using a variety of recipes (I ended up liking the dough from the bread sticks recipe better than the actual pizza dough recipe).
I got the recipe I now mostly use for the crust from a book on pizza a co-worker gave me in a secret Santa gift exchange years ago. It makes a good deep-dish pizza and what some places call "New York style" pizza (though it's nothing like any pizza I've ever had in New York), but the thin-crust pizza was never quite right. It was pretty good, but it didn't compare to restaurant pizza.
Then I found a recipe in a cookbook my parents gave me for Christmas and decided to give it a try. It was pretty similar to the one I've been using, just with less olive oil, and the recipe is used to make two pizzas, so you have to stretch it really thin. I made it using bread flour, which I had read somewhere else can lead to a "crustier" crust. The real secret seems to be cooking the pizza in a really hot oven, as hot as you can get it, on a baking stone. Then the first slice is still pretty chewy, but as the pizza continues to sit on that still-hot stone, the rest of it gets really crisp. The result was extremely close to restaurant pizza -- and I mean the pizza you get in a good Italian restaurant with a brick oven, not Pizza Hut or Domino's.
Since the recipe makes two pizzas and the dough keeps in the refrigerator for a couple of days, I made pizza both weekend nights. Saturday was a less conventional pizza, with pesto as the sauce and chicken breast and roasted red peppers for toppings. Sunday night I did a more traditional tomato sauce topping.
Unfortunately, this will probably be my last time to make this until it gets cool again in the fall since it requires the oven to be so hot. You only bake the pizza for about six minutes at that temperature, but it takes about half an hour for the oven to heat and then it takes hours for the oven to cool down. That's not something you want to do on a hot day.
But when it gets cool again, then there will be pizza, oh yes.
In other news, I spent much of Saturday revising my soundtrack for the book I'm about to revise and brainstorming things I want to develop. Now I'm going to get into some serious work on this book. Plus, I can eat leftover pizza for both lunch and dinner without duplicating, since I have two kinds.
I got the recipe I now mostly use for the crust from a book on pizza a co-worker gave me in a secret Santa gift exchange years ago. It makes a good deep-dish pizza and what some places call "New York style" pizza (though it's nothing like any pizza I've ever had in New York), but the thin-crust pizza was never quite right. It was pretty good, but it didn't compare to restaurant pizza.
Then I found a recipe in a cookbook my parents gave me for Christmas and decided to give it a try. It was pretty similar to the one I've been using, just with less olive oil, and the recipe is used to make two pizzas, so you have to stretch it really thin. I made it using bread flour, which I had read somewhere else can lead to a "crustier" crust. The real secret seems to be cooking the pizza in a really hot oven, as hot as you can get it, on a baking stone. Then the first slice is still pretty chewy, but as the pizza continues to sit on that still-hot stone, the rest of it gets really crisp. The result was extremely close to restaurant pizza -- and I mean the pizza you get in a good Italian restaurant with a brick oven, not Pizza Hut or Domino's.
Since the recipe makes two pizzas and the dough keeps in the refrigerator for a couple of days, I made pizza both weekend nights. Saturday was a less conventional pizza, with pesto as the sauce and chicken breast and roasted red peppers for toppings. Sunday night I did a more traditional tomato sauce topping.
Unfortunately, this will probably be my last time to make this until it gets cool again in the fall since it requires the oven to be so hot. You only bake the pizza for about six minutes at that temperature, but it takes about half an hour for the oven to heat and then it takes hours for the oven to cool down. That's not something you want to do on a hot day.
But when it gets cool again, then there will be pizza, oh yes.
In other news, I spent much of Saturday revising my soundtrack for the book I'm about to revise and brainstorming things I want to develop. Now I'm going to get into some serious work on this book. Plus, I can eat leftover pizza for both lunch and dinner without duplicating, since I have two kinds.
May 6, 2011
Near Misses
Every so often, there are those moments when you get a glimpse into that alternate universe that would form if you made a different decision, when you realize that you had a near miss. I had one of those yesterday. I've been wanting to see the new version of Jane Eyre, but it's only playing at theaters that fall into the "you can't get there from here" category for me, with a long, indirect and unpleasant drive. But one of those theaters is at a train station, so I had planned yesterday to try the new rail line that runs not too far from my neighborhood and make a day in the city out of it. Then when I got up that morning I really wasn't in the mood for that sort of thing and stayed home.
On the evening news last night, there was a story about the escalator at that station malfunctioning, speeding up dramatically and seeming to come disconnected, with a number of injuries. It happened at about the time I'd have been arriving at that station for the movie. If I'd gone, that could have been me.
I had something similar happen a few years ago during one of those day in the city trips. I was on the train and noticed an ad saying you could get a discount on your zoo admission on that day of the week if you showed your train ticket (and there's a train station at the zoo). I thought that might be something fun to do, since it's been ages since I've been to the zoo. I believe I was on my way to a movie then, too, and I thought I'd pop by the zoo after the movie. But then after the movie, I decided I wasn't in the mood for the zoo, and it was spring break, so the zoo would likely be crowded. I could take advantage of the deal some other week, and I went home.
Then I got home and saw on the news that at around the time I'd have been there, a gorilla had escaped from its enclosure and attacked several zoo patrons.
I guess sometimes that "I don't really feel like it now" feeling may actually be a warning message.
I'm looking forward to my first Friday night at home in ages. I'm going to make fajitas (I'd planned that for dinner last night, but the avocado I bought Tuesday stubbornly refused to ripen enough for making guacamole), watch some TV, and then I may do some writing or watch a movie.
On the evening news last night, there was a story about the escalator at that station malfunctioning, speeding up dramatically and seeming to come disconnected, with a number of injuries. It happened at about the time I'd have been arriving at that station for the movie. If I'd gone, that could have been me.
I had something similar happen a few years ago during one of those day in the city trips. I was on the train and noticed an ad saying you could get a discount on your zoo admission on that day of the week if you showed your train ticket (and there's a train station at the zoo). I thought that might be something fun to do, since it's been ages since I've been to the zoo. I believe I was on my way to a movie then, too, and I thought I'd pop by the zoo after the movie. But then after the movie, I decided I wasn't in the mood for the zoo, and it was spring break, so the zoo would likely be crowded. I could take advantage of the deal some other week, and I went home.
Then I got home and saw on the news that at around the time I'd have been there, a gorilla had escaped from its enclosure and attacked several zoo patrons.
I guess sometimes that "I don't really feel like it now" feeling may actually be a warning message.
I'm looking forward to my first Friday night at home in ages. I'm going to make fajitas (I'd planned that for dinner last night, but the avocado I bought Tuesday stubbornly refused to ripen enough for making guacamole), watch some TV, and then I may do some writing or watch a movie.
May 5, 2011
Free Time, and My Mind Goes Blank
I just realized that I'm facing my first weekend in a while with nothing planned, and it's kind of nice. I do have to sing in two church services Sunday since the chorale is also singing, but I don't have any scheduled events or obligations other than that from Friday through Sunday. My house is already pretty clean, so if I do laundry today, I won't even have to do that over the weekend. I'm thinking I'll do an at-home spa day, or something like that, to relax me before I dive into another book.
Or maybe I could finally finish setting up the new computer, transferring the files and loading the software so it will be functional for more than Internet access. I'll probably keep writing on the old one for a while. I like having separate machines so one is at my desk and one can migrate around the house.
I'm already getting excited about the potential changes to the book I'm working on. Now that I've re-read it, some of this seems so obvious, and I think the book will be even better. It was a beautiful day yesterday, so I took a notebook and a thermos of iced tea to the park across the street, sat by the fountain and brainstormed a little. Today may be a little windy for that, but my patio may be sheltered enough to be able to scribble in a notebook without the pages flapping madly in the wind.
I should probably have something more meaty or entertaining to say, but my mind is a complete blank. I think all available brain cells have been dedicated to the book. I'm also having a bit of a "squirrel!" day.
Or maybe I could finally finish setting up the new computer, transferring the files and loading the software so it will be functional for more than Internet access. I'll probably keep writing on the old one for a while. I like having separate machines so one is at my desk and one can migrate around the house.
I'm already getting excited about the potential changes to the book I'm working on. Now that I've re-read it, some of this seems so obvious, and I think the book will be even better. It was a beautiful day yesterday, so I took a notebook and a thermos of iced tea to the park across the street, sat by the fountain and brainstormed a little. Today may be a little windy for that, but my patio may be sheltered enough to be able to scribble in a notebook without the pages flapping madly in the wind.
I should probably have something more meaty or entertaining to say, but my mind is a complete blank. I think all available brain cells have been dedicated to the book. I'm also having a bit of a "squirrel!" day.
May 4, 2011
Soundtracks and Background Music
We had a substitute ballet teacher who was like an old-school strict ballet mistress last night, and I'm already sore. That's mostly because of my ingrained teacher's pet impulses that led me to work way too hard to keep from being corrected by the teacher, as she was the type to walk over and physically move the arm, leg or hand that she thought was doing something wrong and then lecture the class with you as an example. Doing ballet while being really tense from trying to be perfect will definitely leave you sore.
I moved from the bad kind of "who wrote this?" to the good kind yesterday, as I really liked the parts of the book that were essentially a first draft. They were undeveloped, but I was turning pages quickly. Now I'm wondering if the first part really is a problem or if it's just that this part was too familiar because it's the part I polished extensively. Anything you've read about a dozen times is going to be a little less interesting than something you're reading for the first time.
Now, for an Enchanted, Inc. question, since someone did ask one (yay!). The question was whether I have any particular soundtracks that I write to. There are two facets to my answer.
First, there's music to write to -- what I play in the background while writing. For the most part, I work best in complete silence. I'm not really a background noise kind of person, unless it's background noise for an unpleasant task. I may play music while doing housework, and I do some of my more boring freelance writing tasks while watching TV. Most of the time, though, I don't have anything that makes noise on in my house, especially when I'm writing. I am a musician, so music is a distraction. I can't just tune it out.
There are some exceptions, though. I may sometimes use music to create a particular mood -- like an intense action-movie soundtrack when I'm writing an action scene or romantic music for a more romantic scene. If there's some external noise that's more distracting to me than music would be -- like my neighbor's dog barking -- I may play music to distract myself. And sometimes I may use certain kinds of music to focus myself on the task at hand.
But it all depends on the book. Some books seem to need music, some need silence. I've even had a rare book that worked best when I set iTunes on shuffle and just let it run. The Enchanted, Inc. series has mostly been "silence" books. I just sat down and wrote them without any particular background music. The exception is Damsel Under Stress. That was a very difficult book for me, due to external factors. A close friend who'd been serving as my beta reader was diagnosed with cancer right around the time I started writing that book, and then she died when I was about five chapters into it. That made it really hard to dig in and focus on writing it. I think part of me thought that writing a book she wouldn't get to read would be disloyal, even though I suspect she'd have haunted me if I hadn't written it. Since I didn't yet have a signed contract, I even briefly considered backing out of the deal and ending the series because I just couldn't make myself focus on the book. What finally worked was taking the computer to another room, and I played the soundtrack from the first season of Battlestar Galactica as background noise. It's kind of ambient music designed to go in the background, and it worked to block out everything else. The down side was that that music they played during the opening to each episode (the stuff about the Cylons being created by man, evolving and having a plan) became my trigger to "work" time, so it became difficult to focus on watching episodes after hearing that music. I eventually added the Firefly series soundtrack when I got bored of listening to the same thing over and over, since it's also very ambient. That was a book that worked best writing late at night, so at about 9, I'd turn off every light in my house other than the one where I was working, put on that music, and I could shut out the rest of the world for a few hours.
There's another side of a book "soundtrack" for me, though. I do sometimes create a mix of songs that work like a musical collage for a book. There may be theme songs for the book itself or for individual characters, as well as songs that fit certain scenes, themes or moods. I'll try to create the emotional arc of the book through a series of songs. I'll listen to that during the time I'm working on a book, but not when I'm actually writing. I'll have the soundtrack in my car for when I'm driving around or I'll play it when I'm doing other things at home before I start writing. I may listen to the songs that go with certain scenes before writing those scenes.
I did soundtracks like this for the second and fourth books. Unfortunately, that was before I had a car with a CD player, so I did those as mix tapes and don't have a handy playlist to refer to, so I'm not sure I remember which songs were on those soundtracks. It's been a long time since I worked on those books. I'm not sure that knowing the songs would mean anything to anyone but me because it's about associations they trigger for me rather than anything actually in the song.
Lately, I've gotten in the habit of putting iTunes on shuffle in the background while I brainstorm a book. Sometimes a song that pops up will give me an idea for a plot development or emotional element. However, I don't think I've done that for any book in this series.
Any other questions about the series or the process of writing it?
I moved from the bad kind of "who wrote this?" to the good kind yesterday, as I really liked the parts of the book that were essentially a first draft. They were undeveloped, but I was turning pages quickly. Now I'm wondering if the first part really is a problem or if it's just that this part was too familiar because it's the part I polished extensively. Anything you've read about a dozen times is going to be a little less interesting than something you're reading for the first time.
Now, for an Enchanted, Inc. question, since someone did ask one (yay!). The question was whether I have any particular soundtracks that I write to. There are two facets to my answer.
First, there's music to write to -- what I play in the background while writing. For the most part, I work best in complete silence. I'm not really a background noise kind of person, unless it's background noise for an unpleasant task. I may play music while doing housework, and I do some of my more boring freelance writing tasks while watching TV. Most of the time, though, I don't have anything that makes noise on in my house, especially when I'm writing. I am a musician, so music is a distraction. I can't just tune it out.
There are some exceptions, though. I may sometimes use music to create a particular mood -- like an intense action-movie soundtrack when I'm writing an action scene or romantic music for a more romantic scene. If there's some external noise that's more distracting to me than music would be -- like my neighbor's dog barking -- I may play music to distract myself. And sometimes I may use certain kinds of music to focus myself on the task at hand.
But it all depends on the book. Some books seem to need music, some need silence. I've even had a rare book that worked best when I set iTunes on shuffle and just let it run. The Enchanted, Inc. series has mostly been "silence" books. I just sat down and wrote them without any particular background music. The exception is Damsel Under Stress. That was a very difficult book for me, due to external factors. A close friend who'd been serving as my beta reader was diagnosed with cancer right around the time I started writing that book, and then she died when I was about five chapters into it. That made it really hard to dig in and focus on writing it. I think part of me thought that writing a book she wouldn't get to read would be disloyal, even though I suspect she'd have haunted me if I hadn't written it. Since I didn't yet have a signed contract, I even briefly considered backing out of the deal and ending the series because I just couldn't make myself focus on the book. What finally worked was taking the computer to another room, and I played the soundtrack from the first season of Battlestar Galactica as background noise. It's kind of ambient music designed to go in the background, and it worked to block out everything else. The down side was that that music they played during the opening to each episode (the stuff about the Cylons being created by man, evolving and having a plan) became my trigger to "work" time, so it became difficult to focus on watching episodes after hearing that music. I eventually added the Firefly series soundtrack when I got bored of listening to the same thing over and over, since it's also very ambient. That was a book that worked best writing late at night, so at about 9, I'd turn off every light in my house other than the one where I was working, put on that music, and I could shut out the rest of the world for a few hours.
There's another side of a book "soundtrack" for me, though. I do sometimes create a mix of songs that work like a musical collage for a book. There may be theme songs for the book itself or for individual characters, as well as songs that fit certain scenes, themes or moods. I'll try to create the emotional arc of the book through a series of songs. I'll listen to that during the time I'm working on a book, but not when I'm actually writing. I'll have the soundtrack in my car for when I'm driving around or I'll play it when I'm doing other things at home before I start writing. I may listen to the songs that go with certain scenes before writing those scenes.
I did soundtracks like this for the second and fourth books. Unfortunately, that was before I had a car with a CD player, so I did those as mix tapes and don't have a handy playlist to refer to, so I'm not sure I remember which songs were on those soundtracks. It's been a long time since I worked on those books. I'm not sure that knowing the songs would mean anything to anyone but me because it's about associations they trigger for me rather than anything actually in the song.
Lately, I've gotten in the habit of putting iTunes on shuffle in the background while I brainstorm a book. Sometimes a song that pops up will give me an idea for a plot development or emotional element. However, I don't think I've done that for any book in this series.
Any other questions about the series or the process of writing it?
