Annette Lyon's Blog, page 13
May 7, 2012
Why I DO Read Mormon Fiction
I had a fantastic weekend at the 9th annual LDStorymakers Writers Conference, which was followed by the Whitney Awards gala. The weekend those two events happen is something I look forward to all year.
I've been part of the LDStorymakers guild almost since its inception. I was something like #18 to join, and there are now somewhere around 200 members. I taught at the first conference, which was about 1/10 the size of the one we just held.
I signed my contract with Covenant just over 10 years ago, and in that time have become familiar with the LDS publishing industry, market, and authors in a way I couldn't have otherwise. Thanks to the Whitney Awards program, and the desire to cast a vote as part of the hundreds-strong voting academy, I read more LDS fiction every year than most people, and I'm quite sure I read far more LDS fiction than the author of THIS POST.
It really got under my skin. I tried to set it aside, but after a weekend of seeing and hearing serious writers learning and bettering their craft, after months of reading books and voting for the best of the best, and after an inspiring Whitney Awards gala this past weekend, I just can't keep my mouth shut.
The post pretty much lambasted LDS fiction as anything but worthy of reading. So here I'll address some of the arguments made in that post and then explain why I do read Mormon fiction.
The post contends that:
I contend that there's a far broader spectrum than those two extremes, and that further, neither the LDS market nor the national market deserve such condemnation.
Has "cringe worthy fluff" been published in the LDS market? Absolutely, especially in its infancy. I'll go so far as to say it is still being published at times.
But the entire market isn't like that.
For that matter, the national market also has plenty of cringe-worthy fluff. I imagine that any market has mediocrity. It's the nature of the arts. But the amount of fluff and the proportion of it are changing. In the ten years I've been publishing here, I've seen a huge increase in the quality of work.
The post also claims that Mormon fiction has no real problems or decent stories or characters. I have to wonder if the author has read more than a handful of books. And if they read even that much, I'm quite sure that handful happened to be the fluff still on shelves.
He claims to not read Mormon fiction and then describes Mormon fiction, as if he's read it, yet his description shows his initial claim: he hasn't read it, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If he tested the waters, he certainly didn't go to someone knowledgeable to ask for an accurate sampling of the range of fiction out there, or he wouldn't be making these claims. (Bookstore employees don't count; they're paid to promote the latest release, whether they've read it or not.)
Are there no decent stories, characters, or problem? Hardly.
Here's one element of the current market that a lot of people don't know yet: Lots of LDS readers aren't looking for blatantly LDS stories; they simply want to be able to pick up a book in their favorite genre (mystery, romance, etc) and not have to worry about compromising their values (or flipping pages). And no, that doesn't mean the entire national market is "salacious," either. But it is harder to pick up a book, knowing beforehand whether it has content you'd rather not stumble upon. In other words, a lot of "Mormon fiction" (as defined by the author of the post, as books published by LDS presses) isn't really about Mormons at all.
I've read my share of awful LDS fiction, complete with trite characters and shallow problems.
I've also read deep, meaningful LDS fiction. A lot of it.
As with the national market, the books with the most depth in some ways will be the literary titles. And, just as with the national market, literary fiction always sells fewer copies.
It's no shock that the big publishers stick primarily with genre fiction. So do the Big 6 in New York. Publishing is a business, and the bottom line matters. It matters even more with small presses, where the profit margin is smaller. They have to sell a certain amount of books to stay in business.
The result is fewer literary books, but, increasingly, higher-quality genre novels.
While the LDS presses do cater to a conservative audience, I don't believe it's the pathetic audience he describes:
Okay, yes, shallow, uber conservative, readers exist. But that's an awfully broad brush to paint the "average" LDS reader with. The longer I'm in this market, the more I'm convinced there is no "average" LDS reader. I've come across readers like the ones he describes, but they aren't in the majority. The readers I come in contact with and hear about are far more discerning and demanding of their reading material than he gives them credit for.
More to the point, I take issue with his sweeping description of the entire market:
I consider myself a serious reader. I wasn't an English major for nothing.
Off the top of my head, I can think of many examples that contradict his claim, lots of books from a variety of writers. And yes, I include myself in that number of novelists who write books that aren't boring, that do have "real conflict" and "real struggle."
To me, one of the biggest red flags of the post is that it pretty much wrote off every writer except, it seems, for himself, as he has aspirations of his own to write and publish, and perhaps some obvious fringe LDS writers.
Why include only the LDS writers who have largely left the faith? I don't see why someone has to pretty much abandon their faith to write good fiction.
I also don't see how criticizing and writing off an entire market is either useful or honest.
Or remotely valid.
Personally, I'm honored to be part of the LDS writing community. I've made some of the best friends a woman could ask for. I've had some of the greatest experiences of my life here. I've read a lot of fantastic work.
Have we achieved Orson F. Whitney's prophecy of having "Miltons and Shakespeares of our own"?
No, of course not. But we're raising the foundations, moving upward all the time, so that some day, someone else down the road will be there when it happens.
I love the fact that Milton and Shakespeare were popular writers, the equivalent of genre writers in today's world. "Hacks," as some people call genre writers today. I don't think we'll reach the heights Whitney spoke of with only fringe and literary works, although they, too, will surely be part of the cannon.
I believe that LDS literature will grow and improve at the rate we support and encourage one another and at the rate we recognize the best, constantly raising the bar. That's why the Whitney Awards were first started. And in the five years the awards program has been underway, I have watched that bar continually go up.
Kudos to those writers working hard in spite of outdated stereotypes and prejudices about what they do and the market they do it in.
Yes, I read Mormon fiction. More people should.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
I've been part of the LDStorymakers guild almost since its inception. I was something like #18 to join, and there are now somewhere around 200 members. I taught at the first conference, which was about 1/10 the size of the one we just held.
I signed my contract with Covenant just over 10 years ago, and in that time have become familiar with the LDS publishing industry, market, and authors in a way I couldn't have otherwise. Thanks to the Whitney Awards program, and the desire to cast a vote as part of the hundreds-strong voting academy, I read more LDS fiction every year than most people, and I'm quite sure I read far more LDS fiction than the author of THIS POST.
It really got under my skin. I tried to set it aside, but after a weekend of seeing and hearing serious writers learning and bettering their craft, after months of reading books and voting for the best of the best, and after an inspiring Whitney Awards gala this past weekend, I just can't keep my mouth shut.
The post pretty much lambasted LDS fiction as anything but worthy of reading. So here I'll address some of the arguments made in that post and then explain why I do read Mormon fiction.
The post contends that:
The Mormon author that wants to get published is either faced with the cringe worthy fluff of Mormon publishers or the appetite for the salacious in national publishing.
I contend that there's a far broader spectrum than those two extremes, and that further, neither the LDS market nor the national market deserve such condemnation.
Has "cringe worthy fluff" been published in the LDS market? Absolutely, especially in its infancy. I'll go so far as to say it is still being published at times.
But the entire market isn't like that.
For that matter, the national market also has plenty of cringe-worthy fluff. I imagine that any market has mediocrity. It's the nature of the arts. But the amount of fluff and the proportion of it are changing. In the ten years I've been publishing here, I've seen a huge increase in the quality of work.
The post also claims that Mormon fiction has no real problems or decent stories or characters. I have to wonder if the author has read more than a handful of books. And if they read even that much, I'm quite sure that handful happened to be the fluff still on shelves.
He claims to not read Mormon fiction and then describes Mormon fiction, as if he's read it, yet his description shows his initial claim: he hasn't read it, so he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If he tested the waters, he certainly didn't go to someone knowledgeable to ask for an accurate sampling of the range of fiction out there, or he wouldn't be making these claims. (Bookstore employees don't count; they're paid to promote the latest release, whether they've read it or not.)
Are there no decent stories, characters, or problem? Hardly.
Here's one element of the current market that a lot of people don't know yet: Lots of LDS readers aren't looking for blatantly LDS stories; they simply want to be able to pick up a book in their favorite genre (mystery, romance, etc) and not have to worry about compromising their values (or flipping pages). And no, that doesn't mean the entire national market is "salacious," either. But it is harder to pick up a book, knowing beforehand whether it has content you'd rather not stumble upon. In other words, a lot of "Mormon fiction" (as defined by the author of the post, as books published by LDS presses) isn't really about Mormons at all.
I've read my share of awful LDS fiction, complete with trite characters and shallow problems.
I've also read deep, meaningful LDS fiction. A lot of it.
As with the national market, the books with the most depth in some ways will be the literary titles. And, just as with the national market, literary fiction always sells fewer copies.
It's no shock that the big publishers stick primarily with genre fiction. So do the Big 6 in New York. Publishing is a business, and the bottom line matters. It matters even more with small presses, where the profit margin is smaller. They have to sell a certain amount of books to stay in business.
The result is fewer literary books, but, increasingly, higher-quality genre novels.
While the LDS presses do cater to a conservative audience, I don't believe it's the pathetic audience he describes:
the average politically conservative Mormon reader who, by the way, is shallow.
Okay, yes, shallow, uber conservative, readers exist. But that's an awfully broad brush to paint the "average" LDS reader with. The longer I'm in this market, the more I'm convinced there is no "average" LDS reader. I've come across readers like the ones he describes, but they aren't in the majority. The readers I come in contact with and hear about are far more discerning and demanding of their reading material than he gives them credit for.
More to the point, I take issue with his sweeping description of the entire market:
Any serous reader automatically finds it stifling and boring. The protagonist doesn’t have any real conflict to overcome. Sure there is conflict that exists, but the choices made aren’t very hard and therefore no real struggle to overcome.
I consider myself a serious reader. I wasn't an English major for nothing.
Off the top of my head, I can think of many examples that contradict his claim, lots of books from a variety of writers. And yes, I include myself in that number of novelists who write books that aren't boring, that do have "real conflict" and "real struggle."
To me, one of the biggest red flags of the post is that it pretty much wrote off every writer except, it seems, for himself, as he has aspirations of his own to write and publish, and perhaps some obvious fringe LDS writers.
Why include only the LDS writers who have largely left the faith? I don't see why someone has to pretty much abandon their faith to write good fiction.
I also don't see how criticizing and writing off an entire market is either useful or honest.
Or remotely valid.
Personally, I'm honored to be part of the LDS writing community. I've made some of the best friends a woman could ask for. I've had some of the greatest experiences of my life here. I've read a lot of fantastic work.
Have we achieved Orson F. Whitney's prophecy of having "Miltons and Shakespeares of our own"?
No, of course not. But we're raising the foundations, moving upward all the time, so that some day, someone else down the road will be there when it happens.
I love the fact that Milton and Shakespeare were popular writers, the equivalent of genre writers in today's world. "Hacks," as some people call genre writers today. I don't think we'll reach the heights Whitney spoke of with only fringe and literary works, although they, too, will surely be part of the cannon.
I believe that LDS literature will grow and improve at the rate we support and encourage one another and at the rate we recognize the best, constantly raising the bar. That's why the Whitney Awards were first started. And in the five years the awards program has been underway, I have watched that bar continually go up.
Kudos to those writers working hard in spite of outdated stereotypes and prejudices about what they do and the market they do it in.
Yes, I read Mormon fiction. More people should.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
April 18, 2012
WNW: Celebration
Before today's Word Nerd Wednesday, a couple of housekeeping items:
1) I haven't posted as much as usual lately, because I'm under the gun on several deadlines. (Among them: the edits for Paige, my book in the Newport Ladies Book Club! Yeehaw!) (Oh, and be sure to LIKE the Book Club Facebook page!)
2) When those deadlines are over, I'll have a busy week with the conference I attend and typically speak at every year. I'm teaching a table at the Publishing Primer workshop plus two classes. Which means busy, busy, busy.
These two items mean that I'll return to my regular posting schedule after that.
TODAY we look at words for happiness and celebration, because I got some great news this afternoon. (See below.)
GalaAs in, the awesome place where I totally celebrated last May when I received a certain award.
FeteA lavish, often outdoor party. Sign me up!
CarnivalThis one's more for the kids. As long as there aren't huge crowds, I'm happy to show up.
FestOne of my favorite words. I use it when describing all kinds of fun activities. Writing fest. Chocolate fest. Reading fest. You get the idea.
JubileeThis sounds awfully fancy, like I need an evening gown.
FiestaPinata, anyone?
Two fun related words that apply:
MerrymakingHere's one that totally fits today's situation. I'm excited and will celebrate through merrymaking, which may or may not include a goofy dance. I hope it doesn't look as goofy as Elaine.
and (not kidding):
JollificationThis goes back to the early 1800s, and it's an Old West, mountain man term. I love it! I think I'll incorporate it into my vocabulary.
So WHY am I'm excited today? What's with the merrymaking and jollification?
The sequel to Band of Sisters has been accepted for publication!!!
It'll be called Band of Sisters: Coming Home, and it's slated for release pretty soon: in January!
This means I'll have two books out soon: Paige and then Band of Sisters: Coming Home.
(Can I hear a booyah?)
The writer's journey is fraught with bumps and bruises and well as the awesome vistas. To reach a summit (or increasingly more difficult-to-reach summits, as the case is), you have to climb long mountain paths.
The last couple of years have been tough; it's felt like I've been climbing and falling down cliffs, making little progress.
And now this. I'm feeling great about what's lined up and the projects I'm currently working on.
Serendipitously (I'm claiming that's a word), we're going out for Thai food with my parents tonight. Sounds like the perfect way to celebrate to me.
Oh, and a final celebration-related word:
Hooray!
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
1) I haven't posted as much as usual lately, because I'm under the gun on several deadlines. (Among them: the edits for Paige, my book in the Newport Ladies Book Club! Yeehaw!) (Oh, and be sure to LIKE the Book Club Facebook page!)
2) When those deadlines are over, I'll have a busy week with the conference I attend and typically speak at every year. I'm teaching a table at the Publishing Primer workshop plus two classes. Which means busy, busy, busy.
These two items mean that I'll return to my regular posting schedule after that.
TODAY we look at words for happiness and celebration, because I got some great news this afternoon. (See below.)
GalaAs in, the awesome place where I totally celebrated last May when I received a certain award.
FeteA lavish, often outdoor party. Sign me up!
CarnivalThis one's more for the kids. As long as there aren't huge crowds, I'm happy to show up.
FestOne of my favorite words. I use it when describing all kinds of fun activities. Writing fest. Chocolate fest. Reading fest. You get the idea.
JubileeThis sounds awfully fancy, like I need an evening gown.
FiestaPinata, anyone?
Two fun related words that apply:
MerrymakingHere's one that totally fits today's situation. I'm excited and will celebrate through merrymaking, which may or may not include a goofy dance. I hope it doesn't look as goofy as Elaine.
and (not kidding):
JollificationThis goes back to the early 1800s, and it's an Old West, mountain man term. I love it! I think I'll incorporate it into my vocabulary.
So WHY am I'm excited today? What's with the merrymaking and jollification?
The sequel to Band of Sisters has been accepted for publication!!!
It'll be called Band of Sisters: Coming Home, and it's slated for release pretty soon: in January!
This means I'll have two books out soon: Paige and then Band of Sisters: Coming Home.
(Can I hear a booyah?)
The writer's journey is fraught with bumps and bruises and well as the awesome vistas. To reach a summit (or increasingly more difficult-to-reach summits, as the case is), you have to climb long mountain paths.
The last couple of years have been tough; it's felt like I've been climbing and falling down cliffs, making little progress.
And now this. I'm feeling great about what's lined up and the projects I'm currently working on.
Serendipitously (I'm claiming that's a word), we're going out for Thai food with my parents tonight. Sounds like the perfect way to celebrate to me.
Oh, and a final celebration-related word:
Hooray!
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
March 28, 2012
WNW: Why Punctuation Matters
People joke that I'm the Grammar Nazi.
My critique group says that I know exactly how to use commas (and then they go comatose, and tweet about it, if I try to explain why a semicolon is correct on page 5).
For that matter, rumor has it that when they speak about our group and mention members' strengths, they bring up punctuation as my strength.
While I do know my fair share of punctuation rules, I do like to hope that in the 12 years I've been there I've been worth more than fixing comma splices. :)
But yes, I do care about punctuation more than the average reader or writer. Why? Because it adds nuance and meaning that nothing else can. The same words can have a totally different meaning with a few different punctuation marks.
This is true with big issues like pacing, tone, and mood.
But to make my point, I'll go a bit over the top for today's Word Nerd Wednesday.
First off, read Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots, and Leaves (the title of which is a punctuation joke). If you think punctuation is stale and boring, read that book. I read it on the treadmill and nearly fell off, I was laughing so hard.
Truss has several other titles, including picture books. I own one of them, and my kids love it. My third grader took it to school for show-and-tell. (And probably had to explain it to the class . . .)
To make my point about how punctuation can change meaning, here are three fun examples:
1) I've seen this one go around Facebook under the guise of, "Punctuation saves lives!"
Let's eat Grandpa.
(I doubt he's very tasty)
versus:
Let's eat, Grandpa.
(Yo, Grandpa, dinner's ready! I'll race ya to the table!)
2) I saw this one in college during my nerd training (read: English major studies). The professor, a woman, wrote the following sentence on the board:
Woman, without her man, is nothing.
I was rather incensed. Until she changed the punctuation.
Woman: without her, man is nothing.
And then I laughed.
3) One of Lynne Truss's books, Twenty-odd Ducks, includes a punctuation joke right on the cover with the title. With the hyphen, the title means, "roughly twenty ducks." If you take the hyphen out, it means, "twenty weird ducks." So the cover has twenty funky ducks: some that are striped, one ready to go snorkeling, and so on.
Even the subtitle has a play on punctuation: Why, Punctuation Matters
On each page spread, the book has the same sentence but with different punctuation (and therefore different meanings), plus illustrations to match.
You need to get your hands on a copy. Really. As proof, I present my kids' favorite 2-page spread from the book. It's gruesome, which may be why they love it.
The first page shows a king strolling near a group of girls bowing and throwing flowers at him as he says, "Ah, life is grand." The caption reads as follows:
The king walked and talked. Half an hour later, his head was cut off.
The second page makes the whole thing read as one sentence, which changes the meaning drastically:
The king walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off.
Above the caption: three illustrations showing the king decapitated and his head talking ("Why can't I feel my lips?") as his body walks around.
Hysterical, if you ask me. At the end of the book, Truss manages (quite brilliantly) to write an entire letter to a school teacher on one page and then changes the meaning entirely using nothing but punctuation on the other.
Convinced that punctuation matters? I hope so. At the very least, remember point number one: punctuation saves lives.
March 26, 2012
A Rant Against "I Expect Nothing of My Children that I Don't of Myself"
Soap box for the day:
In many circles and blogs, I hear the idea that we shouldn't give our children standards and expectations that we don't follow ourselves.
One blogger (who got lots of support in the comments) went so far as to say they didn't feel comfortable doing anything that they wouldn't approve their children of doing.
Oh, boy.
Okay, I get the concept, and in theory, if you stand at a great distance, squinting your eyes, it's a very nice-looking idea.
Yet I can't take people who say these things seriously, because the premise is so completely flawed.
On a very basic level, consider these examples: I will not let my nine-year-old wear make-up or get her ears pierced. Does that mean that as an adult woman, I should take out my earrings and remove all make-up?No way would I allow my twelve-year-old to get behind the wheel of a car. I expect her not to drive. Yet I drive. Every day. Dang. I'd better stop that.When my son was six, I expected him to stay away from the hot stove. Yet that's where I made him dinner. I also used sharp knives, but no way would I let him use them. I'm such a hypocrite.I also had to keep dangerous chemicals out of my children's reach, things that are perfectly acceptable (and sometimes necessary) for adults to use. Except that's a double standard. I guess I'll have to figure out another way to clear the drain.Some medications that are good and useful for adults (even something as simple as aspirin) can be harmful for a child. Yet, by the "same standard" argument, I shouldn't take aspirin if I refuse to let my children take it.And here's the one I really giggle at:
Virtually all of the people I hear insisting that they maintain the same standards as their children are married and have children.
I'm betting they live a very different standard for physical contact in their bedrooms than they expect of their children! (Or else, how else would those children be here?!)
Obviously, I have issues with the "same standard" idea. In general, I agree with it, sure. But in big, sweeping generalities. As in the sense of, "Be honest," and "Obey the law," and, "Choose media that uplifts."
It's that last one (media) I want to mention in particular. I think that various types of media can be appropriate for one person at one age and totally inappropriate at another age.
For example, I would have traumatized my children if, at the age of four, they'd heard me read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning to them. At that age, they were still dealing with scary things like monsters under the bed; they didn't yet have the emotional and mental maturity to face real-life monsters like Hitler and the Holocaust.
But is that a book we should all avoid, just because it's not appropriate for a small child? No way. I have teenagers now, and I'd love them to read it. They're at a place where we can sit down as parent and child and discuss issues and ideas, and they are mature enough to grasp it.
I can think of dozens of similar examples of books, movies, and more, things I want to share with my children when the time is right.
And yes, I do partake of media (and other things!) that they aren't yet allowed to.
Sure, some books and movies no one should be seeing.
But some are of great worth . . . even if they aren't for small children.
Is that a double standard? Maybe by some definitions. Not by mine.
Every time I hear people go off about how they ask nothing of their child that they don't ask of themselves, I can't help but laugh. They can't possibly mean that, not if they looked at the idea in bright light.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
In many circles and blogs, I hear the idea that we shouldn't give our children standards and expectations that we don't follow ourselves.
One blogger (who got lots of support in the comments) went so far as to say they didn't feel comfortable doing anything that they wouldn't approve their children of doing.
Oh, boy.
Okay, I get the concept, and in theory, if you stand at a great distance, squinting your eyes, it's a very nice-looking idea.
Yet I can't take people who say these things seriously, because the premise is so completely flawed.
On a very basic level, consider these examples: I will not let my nine-year-old wear make-up or get her ears pierced. Does that mean that as an adult woman, I should take out my earrings and remove all make-up?No way would I allow my twelve-year-old to get behind the wheel of a car. I expect her not to drive. Yet I drive. Every day. Dang. I'd better stop that.When my son was six, I expected him to stay away from the hot stove. Yet that's where I made him dinner. I also used sharp knives, but no way would I let him use them. I'm such a hypocrite.I also had to keep dangerous chemicals out of my children's reach, things that are perfectly acceptable (and sometimes necessary) for adults to use. Except that's a double standard. I guess I'll have to figure out another way to clear the drain.Some medications that are good and useful for adults (even something as simple as aspirin) can be harmful for a child. Yet, by the "same standard" argument, I shouldn't take aspirin if I refuse to let my children take it.And here's the one I really giggle at:
Virtually all of the people I hear insisting that they maintain the same standards as their children are married and have children.
I'm betting they live a very different standard for physical contact in their bedrooms than they expect of their children! (Or else, how else would those children be here?!)
Obviously, I have issues with the "same standard" idea. In general, I agree with it, sure. But in big, sweeping generalities. As in the sense of, "Be honest," and "Obey the law," and, "Choose media that uplifts."
It's that last one (media) I want to mention in particular. I think that various types of media can be appropriate for one person at one age and totally inappropriate at another age.
For example, I would have traumatized my children if, at the age of four, they'd heard me read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning to them. At that age, they were still dealing with scary things like monsters under the bed; they didn't yet have the emotional and mental maturity to face real-life monsters like Hitler and the Holocaust.
But is that a book we should all avoid, just because it's not appropriate for a small child? No way. I have teenagers now, and I'd love them to read it. They're at a place where we can sit down as parent and child and discuss issues and ideas, and they are mature enough to grasp it.
I can think of dozens of similar examples of books, movies, and more, things I want to share with my children when the time is right.
And yes, I do partake of media (and other things!) that they aren't yet allowed to.
Sure, some books and movies no one should be seeing.
But some are of great worth . . . even if they aren't for small children.
Is that a double standard? Maybe by some definitions. Not by mine.
Every time I hear people go off about how they ask nothing of their child that they don't ask of themselves, I can't help but laugh. They can't possibly mean that, not if they looked at the idea in bright light.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
March 19, 2012
Author Interview: Susan Corpany
Today I get to interview Susan Corpany, a writer I've gotten to know a bit better over the last couple of years. Most of that has been electronically, as Susan lives in Hawaii, but she's made it out to a few conferences and the like, and it's been a lot of fun to rub shoulders and get to know her better.
About Susan:Susan Law Corpany is the author of five novels. Her latest novel, Lucky Change, was a finalist for a Whitney Award. She writes a column for Meridian online magazine called "A Beacon Light." Susan grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, and currently lives on the Big Island of Hawaii with her husband, Thom. In her spare time, she manages the family vacation rental home on historic Kealakekua Bay. Between them, they are the parents of six children and add new grandchildren on a regular basis. She loves to travel and see the world and loves to stay home and enjoy the paradise in which she lives.
AL: How long have you been writing and how did you get started? (When did the bug bite you?)
SC: I have been writing for about twenty-odd years now, if you don't count the "kid stuff." I don't think I caught "the bug" when my Primary teacher showed the poem I wrote to the Primary president and she read it to everybody. I was mortified, actually, to have attention called to me. Much has changed since then.
In the early 90s, on Prodigy, I connected with Orson Scott Card, because a friend of mine told me that his publishing company had produced a humorous book that reminded her of my writing. I traded a few humorous anecdotes with him online and sent him a short story called "A Month in the Life of a Relief Society President." After he read my short story, he told me I should try and write a novel. It was his kind and encouraging words that made me believe I might be able to write a novel, even though I had no idea how to go about that. My son says my early novels are a series of short stories about the same characters, and he is pretty much on the money.
After losing my husband when I was 26, I had often said, "someone should write a book" about some of the experiences that resulted, and I didn't know what else to write about, so I created the character of Beverly and wrote my first four novels from my life experience, about her courtship and marriage, young widowhood and remarriage to a widower, although I wrote about that last part first and then lived it. After I wrote the last two books, I married a widower with five kids, aged 15 to 23. Several chapters eerily came to life, including the one where my character Bob didn't tell Beverly that he had been the bishop until well into their courtship because he wanted to see how she would relate to him without knowing that.
AL: Where did the idea for Lucky Change come from?
SC: I actually got the idea for Lucky Change from a frugal boss in Florida who used to give the members of his sales team a lotto ticket from the gas station for a month well done. I used to stick them in the bottom of my purse and never even checked to see if I had won anything. Then one day I saw them there and thought about how embarrassing it would be to be a Mormon and win the lottery. The wheels started turning. I had already created the character of Karen in one of my novels, and she seemed like the perfect person to pull it off.
There have been a lot of books written about the poor person with a heart of gold who wins it big, but I thought the added twist would make this book unique. And I loved the juxtaposition of Karen in a wealthy ward where people unused to struggling would have to swallow their pride to accept help from her. I have been on both ends of that, and it is way more fun to be the source of charity rather than the recipient of it.
AL: What research did you have to do for the book? What was the most interesting thing you learned?
SC: I had to do some research into how the lottery works and how a winner would be paid off and notified, what the options would be for payment, as in a lump sum vs. annuitized payments, tax issues, etc.
I had to find out how the Church handles such windfalls and what the policy was regarding payment of tithing on "ill gotten gains."
I worked at a law firm for seven years, so I used that life experience as research into how a law firm operates. I am still rather embarrassed by one major mistake I made, pointed out to me by a friend. Isn't there always that one type or mistake that gets through somehow? I call it the "humility typo."
I always tap into my husband's brain for help with the motivations of my characters, since he is a family therapist as well as a Sociology professor. For example, I had written a scene where Ted was admiring the corner office and Thom told me that a guy with an ego like Ted's would not aspire to the corner office. He would assume it would someday be his.
Thom also suggested I do a scene where the balance of power shifts from Ted to Camillle, in an interesting subplot where a secretary was being sexually harrassed by one of the attorneys in the office. I enjoyed writing the scene in the elevator where Camille stands up to Ted, because I took her out of "doormat mode" for a few minutes. Research for these characters was also provided by real life experiences along the way.
I think the most interesting thing I found out is that if you embezzle money, you are not allowed to pay tithing on it. There goes that plan!
AL: What is your writing style? Are you an outliner or a by-the-seat-of-your-pantser? Somewhere in between?
SC: On the Myers-Briggs personality test, I am halfway in between being a planner and a winger, and that pretty much sums it up for my writing, too. I plan enough to give me clearance for when I fly by the seat of my pants. My experience with books is that if you overplan, you don't allow for those happy adventures when the characters do what they want and you just follow them around and write about what they're doing. Likewise with presentatoins and talks, you may miss those whisperings of what needs to be said rather than what you planned to say
AL: What is your typical writing schedule like?
SC: There is nothing typical. I don't have a job outside the home, but I do manage our vacation rental on the other side of the island, so every week my schedule is different depending on who is coming and going. The drives across the island are an important part of my writing process, because I hammer out lots of ideas in my trusty Jeep Grand Cherokee.
I think the only pattern I have set is not having a pattern. I admire those disciplined writers who write every day for so many hours. I find writing enjoyable and fulfilling and fun and something in me resists thinking of it as work that should be done on a schedule. For me part of the beauty of being a writer is the freedom over my schedule and my life. I build momentum once I get rolling on a project and then I can be like the little kid on the playground who doesn't want to stop playing, even to heed the call of nature. Okay, maybe not that bad, but I have been known to forget to eat. So I have periods of obsessiveness interspersed with periods of laziness and neglect. It all balances out on paper, eventually.
AL: What is one big thing you've learned through the process of publishing?
SC: Ooooh, there are so many things to choose from. I think the overarching thing I have learned is that like everything else that looks wonderful from the outside, like marriage, it is harder and more challenging than I had imagined. If you are self-published, there is the challenge of acceptance as a serious writer. If someone else publishes you, you lose creative control. I've discovered that every writer I know has had challenges, frustrations and disappointments that most people know nothing about.
I have also learned that you can find yourself in a constant state of discontent if you fail to enjoy the good that is happening in the present. There is always something greater to strive for. First all you want to do is hold that book in your hands and glory that your name is on it. Then you want the book to be in everyone else's hands. And some money would be good. Then you want the awards. Next, where is my movie deal? The bestseller list.
I have my "Glass Half Empty" mug on my desk, along with some of my other writing props, to help me keep perspective. I have little pieces of paper I have to pull out and read every once in a while to remind myself what I have accomplished and reframe things to the positive.
My first novel, Unfinished Business, was quite successful. It brought me a husband and a life in Hawaii, not to mention the big Mormon family I always thought I'd have, inlcuding my beautiful grandchildren. During the lean times, I have to remind myself of what I call "non-financial royalties." One of my nephews served a mission because of something in one of my novels. For the greater number of LDS writers, our success has to be measured in other than worldly terms.
AL: What's been the biggest surprise about the publishing process?
SC: That as an author you really are responsible for much of the publicity and promotion your book receives. I expected this when I was self-published, but it is also true when someone else publishes your work.
AL: Which authors are your biggest literary influences in the national market?
SC: I think I have always been influenced and inspired by humourous writings—Erma Bombeck. Bruce J. Cameron, Gordon Kirkland, my funny Canadian writer friend. In the LDS market, I have been collectively influenced by my fellow LDStorymakers. There is no one writer I emulate, because everyone's style is different, but I have learned so much from their classes at the conferences and have enjoyed the friendships that have developed and benefited from the encourage I have received.
AL: In the LDS market?
SC: Of course, I already mentioned Orson Scott Card and his initial encouragement and what that meant to me. I finally got to meet him and thank him in person a few years ago. It also helped elevate me in the eyes of my son and stepsons who are big fans of his.
AL: Any advice for aspiring writers?
SC: Find your own strengths and play to them and ferret out your weaknesses and work on them. Don't compare yourself to others. Be resilient and understand that rejection is part of the process. Most of us get that we aren't going to marry the first person we date. Have dreams and aspirations tempered by reasonable expectations. You have to develop a thick skin and understand that there are lots of reasons for rejection. On the other hand, a wise writer always learns from his critics. But don't allow someone else's lone opinion to discourage you from pursuing something you believe in. Obey most of the rules, break a few of them now and then. As Randy Pausch said in The Last Lecture, "the walls are there to keep the other guys out, the ones you don't want it as much."
Purchase Lucky Change at the publisher's website.
Visit Susan's blog.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
About Susan:Susan Law Corpany is the author of five novels. Her latest novel, Lucky Change, was a finalist for a Whitney Award. She writes a column for Meridian online magazine called "A Beacon Light." Susan grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, and currently lives on the Big Island of Hawaii with her husband, Thom. In her spare time, she manages the family vacation rental home on historic Kealakekua Bay. Between them, they are the parents of six children and add new grandchildren on a regular basis. She loves to travel and see the world and loves to stay home and enjoy the paradise in which she lives.
AL: How long have you been writing and how did you get started? (When did the bug bite you?)
SC: I have been writing for about twenty-odd years now, if you don't count the "kid stuff." I don't think I caught "the bug" when my Primary teacher showed the poem I wrote to the Primary president and she read it to everybody. I was mortified, actually, to have attention called to me. Much has changed since then.
In the early 90s, on Prodigy, I connected with Orson Scott Card, because a friend of mine told me that his publishing company had produced a humorous book that reminded her of my writing. I traded a few humorous anecdotes with him online and sent him a short story called "A Month in the Life of a Relief Society President." After he read my short story, he told me I should try and write a novel. It was his kind and encouraging words that made me believe I might be able to write a novel, even though I had no idea how to go about that. My son says my early novels are a series of short stories about the same characters, and he is pretty much on the money.
After losing my husband when I was 26, I had often said, "someone should write a book" about some of the experiences that resulted, and I didn't know what else to write about, so I created the character of Beverly and wrote my first four novels from my life experience, about her courtship and marriage, young widowhood and remarriage to a widower, although I wrote about that last part first and then lived it. After I wrote the last two books, I married a widower with five kids, aged 15 to 23. Several chapters eerily came to life, including the one where my character Bob didn't tell Beverly that he had been the bishop until well into their courtship because he wanted to see how she would relate to him without knowing that.
AL: Where did the idea for Lucky Change come from?
SC: I actually got the idea for Lucky Change from a frugal boss in Florida who used to give the members of his sales team a lotto ticket from the gas station for a month well done. I used to stick them in the bottom of my purse and never even checked to see if I had won anything. Then one day I saw them there and thought about how embarrassing it would be to be a Mormon and win the lottery. The wheels started turning. I had already created the character of Karen in one of my novels, and she seemed like the perfect person to pull it off.
There have been a lot of books written about the poor person with a heart of gold who wins it big, but I thought the added twist would make this book unique. And I loved the juxtaposition of Karen in a wealthy ward where people unused to struggling would have to swallow their pride to accept help from her. I have been on both ends of that, and it is way more fun to be the source of charity rather than the recipient of it.
AL: What research did you have to do for the book? What was the most interesting thing you learned?
SC: I had to do some research into how the lottery works and how a winner would be paid off and notified, what the options would be for payment, as in a lump sum vs. annuitized payments, tax issues, etc.
I had to find out how the Church handles such windfalls and what the policy was regarding payment of tithing on "ill gotten gains."
I worked at a law firm for seven years, so I used that life experience as research into how a law firm operates. I am still rather embarrassed by one major mistake I made, pointed out to me by a friend. Isn't there always that one type or mistake that gets through somehow? I call it the "humility typo."
I always tap into my husband's brain for help with the motivations of my characters, since he is a family therapist as well as a Sociology professor. For example, I had written a scene where Ted was admiring the corner office and Thom told me that a guy with an ego like Ted's would not aspire to the corner office. He would assume it would someday be his.
Thom also suggested I do a scene where the balance of power shifts from Ted to Camillle, in an interesting subplot where a secretary was being sexually harrassed by one of the attorneys in the office. I enjoyed writing the scene in the elevator where Camille stands up to Ted, because I took her out of "doormat mode" for a few minutes. Research for these characters was also provided by real life experiences along the way.
I think the most interesting thing I found out is that if you embezzle money, you are not allowed to pay tithing on it. There goes that plan!
AL: What is your writing style? Are you an outliner or a by-the-seat-of-your-pantser? Somewhere in between?
SC: On the Myers-Briggs personality test, I am halfway in between being a planner and a winger, and that pretty much sums it up for my writing, too. I plan enough to give me clearance for when I fly by the seat of my pants. My experience with books is that if you overplan, you don't allow for those happy adventures when the characters do what they want and you just follow them around and write about what they're doing. Likewise with presentatoins and talks, you may miss those whisperings of what needs to be said rather than what you planned to say
AL: What is your typical writing schedule like?
SC: There is nothing typical. I don't have a job outside the home, but I do manage our vacation rental on the other side of the island, so every week my schedule is different depending on who is coming and going. The drives across the island are an important part of my writing process, because I hammer out lots of ideas in my trusty Jeep Grand Cherokee.
I think the only pattern I have set is not having a pattern. I admire those disciplined writers who write every day for so many hours. I find writing enjoyable and fulfilling and fun and something in me resists thinking of it as work that should be done on a schedule. For me part of the beauty of being a writer is the freedom over my schedule and my life. I build momentum once I get rolling on a project and then I can be like the little kid on the playground who doesn't want to stop playing, even to heed the call of nature. Okay, maybe not that bad, but I have been known to forget to eat. So I have periods of obsessiveness interspersed with periods of laziness and neglect. It all balances out on paper, eventually.
AL: What is one big thing you've learned through the process of publishing?
SC: Ooooh, there are so many things to choose from. I think the overarching thing I have learned is that like everything else that looks wonderful from the outside, like marriage, it is harder and more challenging than I had imagined. If you are self-published, there is the challenge of acceptance as a serious writer. If someone else publishes you, you lose creative control. I've discovered that every writer I know has had challenges, frustrations and disappointments that most people know nothing about.
I have also learned that you can find yourself in a constant state of discontent if you fail to enjoy the good that is happening in the present. There is always something greater to strive for. First all you want to do is hold that book in your hands and glory that your name is on it. Then you want the book to be in everyone else's hands. And some money would be good. Then you want the awards. Next, where is my movie deal? The bestseller list.
I have my "Glass Half Empty" mug on my desk, along with some of my other writing props, to help me keep perspective. I have little pieces of paper I have to pull out and read every once in a while to remind myself what I have accomplished and reframe things to the positive.
My first novel, Unfinished Business, was quite successful. It brought me a husband and a life in Hawaii, not to mention the big Mormon family I always thought I'd have, inlcuding my beautiful grandchildren. During the lean times, I have to remind myself of what I call "non-financial royalties." One of my nephews served a mission because of something in one of my novels. For the greater number of LDS writers, our success has to be measured in other than worldly terms.
AL: What's been the biggest surprise about the publishing process?
SC: That as an author you really are responsible for much of the publicity and promotion your book receives. I expected this when I was self-published, but it is also true when someone else publishes your work.
AL: Which authors are your biggest literary influences in the national market?
SC: I think I have always been influenced and inspired by humourous writings—Erma Bombeck. Bruce J. Cameron, Gordon Kirkland, my funny Canadian writer friend. In the LDS market, I have been collectively influenced by my fellow LDStorymakers. There is no one writer I emulate, because everyone's style is different, but I have learned so much from their classes at the conferences and have enjoyed the friendships that have developed and benefited from the encourage I have received.
AL: In the LDS market?
SC: Of course, I already mentioned Orson Scott Card and his initial encouragement and what that meant to me. I finally got to meet him and thank him in person a few years ago. It also helped elevate me in the eyes of my son and stepsons who are big fans of his.
AL: Any advice for aspiring writers?
SC: Find your own strengths and play to them and ferret out your weaknesses and work on them. Don't compare yourself to others. Be resilient and understand that rejection is part of the process. Most of us get that we aren't going to marry the first person we date. Have dreams and aspirations tempered by reasonable expectations. You have to develop a thick skin and understand that there are lots of reasons for rejection. On the other hand, a wise writer always learns from his critics. But don't allow someone else's lone opinion to discourage you from pursuing something you believe in. Obey most of the rules, break a few of them now and then. As Randy Pausch said in The Last Lecture, "the walls are there to keep the other guys out, the ones you don't want it as much."
Purchase Lucky Change at the publisher's website.
Visit Susan's blog.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
March 14, 2012
WNW: St. Patrick's Edition, Take 3
This one's as fun for geeks as it is for word nerds.
"A Biologist's St. Patrick's Day Song" explains the science behind alcohol, from how it's made to what it does in the body.
I may be Mormon (and thus don't drink), but I think the song is great fun (and educational!) nonetheless.
Give this guy a beer. Me? This Saturday, I'll be celebrating the holiday with some Irish soda bread, which I first tasted last St. Patrick's Day thanks to Sarah, who brought it to critique group.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
"A Biologist's St. Patrick's Day Song" explains the science behind alcohol, from how it's made to what it does in the body.
I may be Mormon (and thus don't drink), but I think the song is great fun (and educational!) nonetheless.
Give this guy a beer. Me? This Saturday, I'll be celebrating the holiday with some Irish soda bread, which I first tasted last St. Patrick's Day thanks to Sarah, who brought it to critique group.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
February 29, 2012
WNW: Leap Day Edition
For today's Word Nerd Wednesday, I'm taking advantage of an event that happens only once every four years. We won't be talking about what a leap year or leap day is, but in honor of leap day, here are some old, obscure definitions of leap, for the pleasure of true word nerds, from the OED:
1796: The sudden fall of a river to a lower level.
1486: Supposedly a name for a group of leopards, spelled as lepe.
1747: In mining, a fault or dislocation of the strata
1620: Parched peas, as in leap pease.
1607: The action of a female animal. (Why a male animal doesn't leap in the seventeenth century, I have no idea.)
And my favorite, because it sounds so cool, like you could build a story around it:
1698: A leap in the dark, "a hazardous action taken with uncertain consequences"
And that's just a few of the definitions for the noun (another is a basket for fish; I had no idea). The verb form has even more definitions.
Happy leap day!© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
1796: The sudden fall of a river to a lower level.
1486: Supposedly a name for a group of leopards, spelled as lepe.
1747: In mining, a fault or dislocation of the strata
1620: Parched peas, as in leap pease.
1607: The action of a female animal. (Why a male animal doesn't leap in the seventeenth century, I have no idea.)
And my favorite, because it sounds so cool, like you could build a story around it:
1698: A leap in the dark, "a hazardous action taken with uncertain consequences"
And that's just a few of the definitions for the noun (another is a basket for fish; I had no idea). The verb form has even more definitions.
Happy leap day!© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
February 22, 2012
WNW: One or Two Spaces?
Several weeks ago, while waiting to meet with the family after church, Erin and I started talking about our daughters, who are now great friends. Then she mentioned Word Nerd Wednesday and a possible topic.
I wondered why I hadn't addressed it before:
What's the rule for spaces after a period: one or two?
First the short answer, and then the explanation for the longer answer:
With very few exceptions, use ONE space.
I know that saying so will make a lot of people annoyed with me. Sorry! I know how hard it is to retrain your thumb to not hit the space bar twice.
I learned this the hard way with my first freelance article job. The editor (kindly) asked me to submit my future work with one space so she didn't have to remove the extra spaces for me. I got motivated (hey, money and bylines were on the line!) and quickly trained myself to do one space.
To understand today's rule, we need to understand the old one.
Why we needed two spaces in the past:
If you're 35 or older (raising my hand here), you were likely taught to type on an actual typewriter. That typewriter probably used Courier font.
Courier is one of the rare fonts in which each character takes up exactly the same amount of space, whether it's a lowercase l, an upper case M, or a period. It didn't matter what you typed; the carriage advance the same amount. In all, we got 10 (or maybe 12) characters in every inch. No matter what. That made calculations easy for figuring out how to center titles or tables. (Remember that math? Ugh.)
Back in the Dark Ages of Courier during typewriter-dom, had we typed with one space after a period, sentences would have run together, making text hard to read. We needed a visual cue for sentence breaks.
The solution: Two spaces after a period. Tada! A visual gap between spaces, making the flow of text easy to follow.
Why it changed:
Enter the computer era, with lots and lots of fonts, almost none of which have equal character sizes. Characters take up all kinds of spaces proportional to the letter or punctuation mark. An M is far wider than an I, for example.
With proportional fonts, we no longer needed two spaces; the end of one sentence no longer ran into the beginning of the next, because a space was naturally bigger than a period but smaller than wide letters like W and M.
We got the built-in gap we needed for clarity with one space instead of two.
It goes further than that.
If you stick with two spaces with the modern proportional fonts, the space ends up looking like a massive gap, far bigger than two Courier spaces. Worse, if your writing goes for several lines or paragraphs, you may end up with ugly "rivers" of white space going down the page.
Instead of clarifying your words, two spaces makes the whole look amateurish and unprofessional.
This is especially true if the document is fully justified, which spreads the text out evenly over the line to create an even look on both margins. With that formatting, if you type two spaces after a period, the justification will spread everything out far, including your double space. You'll end up with giant gaps. I've seen some gaps that look like 4 or 5 spaces.
Why you should train your thumb to tap the bar once:
The new rule may not matter so much if you're typing stuff only for yourself. If you prefer two spaces, and no one else will see or care, more power to you. (For my sake, don't fully justify the margins, though.)
But you should work on doing it right if other eyeballs will be looking at your writing. That includes not just professional or aspiring writers, but anyone applying for college or a job or writing a letter to a business or anything where another person's opinion will matter.
It's just like making sure you have no spelling errors. Two spaces doesn't look clean or polished in the 21st century. Most modern fonts simply look better with one space, and two tends to look like a mistake.
What if your thumb won't cooperate?Thanks to word processing programs, searching for something specific and replacing it with what you really want is a snap. If you cannot get yourself to type one space, or you find yourself slipping from one space to two spaces and back again, don't stress it.
When you're done writing, do a search for two spaces and replace each instance with one space.
You'll look professional and save your sanity!© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
I wondered why I hadn't addressed it before:
What's the rule for spaces after a period: one or two?
First the short answer, and then the explanation for the longer answer:
With very few exceptions, use ONE space.
I know that saying so will make a lot of people annoyed with me. Sorry! I know how hard it is to retrain your thumb to not hit the space bar twice.
I learned this the hard way with my first freelance article job. The editor (kindly) asked me to submit my future work with one space so she didn't have to remove the extra spaces for me. I got motivated (hey, money and bylines were on the line!) and quickly trained myself to do one space.
To understand today's rule, we need to understand the old one.
Why we needed two spaces in the past:
If you're 35 or older (raising my hand here), you were likely taught to type on an actual typewriter. That typewriter probably used Courier font.
Courier is one of the rare fonts in which each character takes up exactly the same amount of space, whether it's a lowercase l, an upper case M, or a period. It didn't matter what you typed; the carriage advance the same amount. In all, we got 10 (or maybe 12) characters in every inch. No matter what. That made calculations easy for figuring out how to center titles or tables. (Remember that math? Ugh.)
Back in the Dark Ages of Courier during typewriter-dom, had we typed with one space after a period, sentences would have run together, making text hard to read. We needed a visual cue for sentence breaks.
The solution: Two spaces after a period. Tada! A visual gap between spaces, making the flow of text easy to follow.
Why it changed:
Enter the computer era, with lots and lots of fonts, almost none of which have equal character sizes. Characters take up all kinds of spaces proportional to the letter or punctuation mark. An M is far wider than an I, for example.
With proportional fonts, we no longer needed two spaces; the end of one sentence no longer ran into the beginning of the next, because a space was naturally bigger than a period but smaller than wide letters like W and M.
We got the built-in gap we needed for clarity with one space instead of two.
It goes further than that.
If you stick with two spaces with the modern proportional fonts, the space ends up looking like a massive gap, far bigger than two Courier spaces. Worse, if your writing goes for several lines or paragraphs, you may end up with ugly "rivers" of white space going down the page.
Instead of clarifying your words, two spaces makes the whole look amateurish and unprofessional.
This is especially true if the document is fully justified, which spreads the text out evenly over the line to create an even look on both margins. With that formatting, if you type two spaces after a period, the justification will spread everything out far, including your double space. You'll end up with giant gaps. I've seen some gaps that look like 4 or 5 spaces.
Why you should train your thumb to tap the bar once:
The new rule may not matter so much if you're typing stuff only for yourself. If you prefer two spaces, and no one else will see or care, more power to you. (For my sake, don't fully justify the margins, though.)
But you should work on doing it right if other eyeballs will be looking at your writing. That includes not just professional or aspiring writers, but anyone applying for college or a job or writing a letter to a business or anything where another person's opinion will matter.
It's just like making sure you have no spelling errors. Two spaces doesn't look clean or polished in the 21st century. Most modern fonts simply look better with one space, and two tends to look like a mistake.
What if your thumb won't cooperate?Thanks to word processing programs, searching for something specific and replacing it with what you really want is a snap. If you cannot get yourself to type one space, or you find yourself slipping from one space to two spaces and back again, don't stress it.
When you're done writing, do a search for two spaces and replace each instance with one space.
You'll look professional and save your sanity!© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
February 20, 2012
Super Cool Essay Book
I don't remember how I first came across DeNae Handy and her blog, My Read Life Was Backordered. I do remember laughing myself silly reading several posts, coming close to wetting my pants more than once.
The first time I met her in real life was about a year and a half ago at the Casual Bloggers Conference, where we were both speaking. She was as fun, funny, and awesome in person as she was on her blog. Turns out, DeNae is a great writer as well as a great person and friend.
Several months ago, DeNae asked me if I'd like to be part of an essay collection with a bunch of really cool people. The book would be about our lives—our real, normal, Mormon lives, complete with the chaos of motherhood (or fatherhood), the highs and the lows of faith and family. Nothing saccharine or preachy, just great essays about what it's like being who we are.
I immediately said yes, and the final book will be available really soon, to premiere at the Story @ Home conference (where DeNae and I are both teaching again . . . how 'bout that).
The collection is titled Tell Me Who I Am, and the cover is a gorgeous watercolor by contributor Jana Parkin.
Other contributors besides Jana and yours truly include a lot of names (and blogs) you may recognize: Luisa Perkins, Melanie Jacobson, Becca Wilhite, Ken Craig, Debbie Frampton, Karen Burton, Patrick Livingston, Stephanie Sorensen, Cari Banning, Christopher Clark, Josh Bingham, Michelle Budge, Gideon Burton, and, of course, DeNae herself.
I read it. I laughed. I shed a few tears. It's a great collection with a ton of variety.
Here's the awesome news: It's available for pre-order now, at a significant discount, and bulk orders (20 or more) get even more off. Individual orders get 30% off, which, with shipping, is still less than the book all by itself. (Quite the steal.)
Just click on the PayPal order button thingy in the sidebar. For more information about ordering, check out DeNae's post about the book HERE. And to read more about what inspired to book, read THIS POST.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
February 8, 2012
WNW: Valentine's Day Edition
For today's Word Nerd Wednesday, I'm chiming in a day late with relationship words in other languages.
This one's inspired by an article in Big Think by Pamela Haag. I stumbled upon it some time ago that listed top 10 foreign words about relationships that have no English equivalent.
Of course, the word nerd in me was all over that.
I love how languages have nuance and meaning, and how even a pretty simple translation from one language to another often lacks some of the feel and flavor of the original.
For example (taking a brief departure from Valentine's Day):
Two of my favorite words of all time are Finnish and have no English equivalent: sisu [SEE-soo] and jaksa [YAHK-saw].
Sisu is sometimes translated as "guts," but that's an incredibly lame word for it. Sisu is more of the drive, the fire, the power in someone who endures and comes out the other end. Sort of. You have to know the Finnish to really get it. If you can endure a really hot Finnish sauna then jump in a hole cut into the frozen ice of a lake, you probably have sisu.
Jaksa refers to the capability or strength (physical, emotional, whatever) to do something. If someone asks you to go do the laundry, and you say you don't jaksa, they can't argue with you. If you don't jaksa, you just . . . don't.
But back to the article, which you can read HERE from Big Think:
I'll touch on my three favorite words in it, and then you can read the full piece yourself. It's worth it.
The first one I'll mention is Cafuné (Brazilian Portuguese). As a writer who has written lots of romantic-ish scenes, this one really come in handy if we had something like it in English: "The act of tenderly running your fingers through someone's hair."
I'm totally with the author of the piece on the next one: Why on earth doesn't English have a word to describe "the happiness of meeting again after a long time"? (The words is Retrouvailles (French).
And finally, an Arabic word: Ya'aburnee: "You bury me." In other words, "a declaration of one's hope that they'll die before another person, because of how difficult it would be to live without them."
As the Haag points out, it's a similar sentiment to "I can't live without you," but far more mature and poetic. I can see an elderly couple saying the Arabic word to one another.
The English version, on the other hand, is something a love-struck sixteen year-old would say.
Again, here's the link to the original piece. If you know other interesting words without good English equivalents, pass them on!
This one's inspired by an article in Big Think by Pamela Haag. I stumbled upon it some time ago that listed top 10 foreign words about relationships that have no English equivalent.
Of course, the word nerd in me was all over that.
I love how languages have nuance and meaning, and how even a pretty simple translation from one language to another often lacks some of the feel and flavor of the original.
For example (taking a brief departure from Valentine's Day):
Two of my favorite words of all time are Finnish and have no English equivalent: sisu [SEE-soo] and jaksa [YAHK-saw].
Sisu is sometimes translated as "guts," but that's an incredibly lame word for it. Sisu is more of the drive, the fire, the power in someone who endures and comes out the other end. Sort of. You have to know the Finnish to really get it. If you can endure a really hot Finnish sauna then jump in a hole cut into the frozen ice of a lake, you probably have sisu.
Jaksa refers to the capability or strength (physical, emotional, whatever) to do something. If someone asks you to go do the laundry, and you say you don't jaksa, they can't argue with you. If you don't jaksa, you just . . . don't.
But back to the article, which you can read HERE from Big Think:
I'll touch on my three favorite words in it, and then you can read the full piece yourself. It's worth it.
The first one I'll mention is Cafuné (Brazilian Portuguese). As a writer who has written lots of romantic-ish scenes, this one really come in handy if we had something like it in English: "The act of tenderly running your fingers through someone's hair."
I'm totally with the author of the piece on the next one: Why on earth doesn't English have a word to describe "the happiness of meeting again after a long time"? (The words is Retrouvailles (French).
And finally, an Arabic word: Ya'aburnee: "You bury me." In other words, "a declaration of one's hope that they'll die before another person, because of how difficult it would be to live without them."
As the Haag points out, it's a similar sentiment to "I can't live without you," but far more mature and poetic. I can see an elderly couple saying the Arabic word to one another.
The English version, on the other hand, is something a love-struck sixteen year-old would say.
Again, here's the link to the original piece. If you know other interesting words without good English equivalents, pass them on!
NOTE: THE 2ND PRECISION EDITING GROUP LIVE CRITIQUE WORKSHOP IS 2 WEEKS FROM THIS SATURDAY (ON MARCH 3). YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS OUT. TO REGISTER AND FIND FULL DETAILS, VISIT THE PEG WORKSHOPS BLOG.© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
