Rude Awakening

You know that Twilight-Zoney feeling between awake and asleep? The one where you're not quite sure which one you are? Whether or not you're still dreaming? That one.

One morning last week I was in that spot. It was about 4:30, and I was enjoying that floaty I-bet-I-can-fall-right-back-to-sleep time before the alarm went off and made me start my day. My eyelids were fluttering open and closed. In one of the barely open moments, it looked like there was a black stripe on the ceiling in the living room. But there couldn't be, and I'm probably dreaming so it's okay. Then I hear fluttering, and my eyes are suddenly wide open and I am sitting up.

There was a bird in my living room! How the hell did a bird get in my living room? There's a screen on the living room window that was the only one open. No way for a bird to get in.

I grabbed an afghan to use in urging the bird outside. But before doing that, I went around the house shutting doors to bedrooms and bathrooms, also checking to make sure there really were no other windows open. All closed up tight, as were the doors to outside. The bird had magically appeared in my living room.

Back upstairs, I opened the sliding door out to the deck as a convenient exit. By this time the bird was making elongated loops from the front window toward the back door and back to the front window. But I noticed something really strange about the bird. It wasn't a bird. It was a bat.

Son of a bitch.

I'm not a huge fan of rodents in any format. But put wings on them...no, just no. So I alternated between flapping the afghan in the direction I want the bugger to go and then throwing it over my head and screaming whenever it flew toward me. It would make six or seven passes like this, then go behind the living room curtain to catch it's breath. Then start again. I swear the thing had a two foot wingspan.

Even a small afghan gets really heavy when you're waving it around. I swapped out for a beach towel. We did this little dance. Bat making NASCAR laps a couple inches below the ceiling. Me flapping my towel and squealing. Then rest.

After half an hour of this, the bat disappeared. I kept waiting for him to reappear, but nothing. I checked the floor under the curtains in case he'd knocked himself out. Nothing. Gingerly pulled the sides of the curtains away from the wall and shone a flashlight around. Nothing. He had vanished as mysteriously as he'd appeared.

I went about the rest of my morning as usual, but with one eye on the curtains and the area around them. Still nothing. Baffled doesn't begin to describe it.

About a half hour before I had to leave for work, I opened the curtains. One corner of the screen was just a bit loose, but no where enough to fit a bat as huge as the one that had visited. I looked for another way it could have gotten in, but there was nothing. Nothing except a teeny little no more than two inch long bat all wrapped up and sleeping, hanging upside down from the window tracks.

I pushed the corner of the screen open a bit more and closed the glass that would bar him from getting back into the house. I noticed that there were 1/4 inch gaps between the two end panes and the big center pane of glass so duck-taped those suckers shut.

He was still there when I got home. The sun was still up. I closed the curtains and hoped for the best. I could hear him stir, but I was not going to open the curtain. After an hour of silence from that direction, I got out the flashlight again. He had found his out.

For the foreseeable future all windows in my house will be closed before the sun goes down., I don't care how teeny he turned out to be.

Vertigo

At the end of most books I read, I smile. Sometimes the book stays with me, sometimes not. A few tick me off, others barely register.
Yesterday I finished reading Water for Elephants. As I closed the book and looked around, I felt a sense of vertigo. It was as if I were being pulled from one world into another, duller place. While not a perfect book--what is?--it drew me in to a Depression-era circus and kept me there. That's a very rare thing.

It was a more common experience for me when I was a kid. Each book was a new experience, something I'd never read or thought of before. I was also more willing to let myself be drawn in.

There have been several times in my adult reading that I remember the feeling. Both The World According to Garp by John Irving and The Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy had such strong pulls that I turned around and reread each one immediately after "The End." The Harry Potter books give that sense of vertigo, too.

So what is it about certain books that make the reader feel as if she has been transported somewhere else? I could answer with the usual: three-dimensional characters, great settings, a strong plot, excellent craftsmanship. But there are books with those things that don't have that same effect. I don't think you can quantify it or point to one thing that creates it.

But wouldn't it be nice if we could?

Any books that caused vertigo for you? Can you figure out what it was that affected you?

And Another Thing

I learned about writing from NaNoWriMo is

5) November is a lousy month to tackle this challenge.

The beginning of the holiday season is not a good time to try to produce 50,000 words in 30 days. Families tend to balk at the idea of you taking your turkey dinner into the writing room so you can get 500 more words. When your company has driven across two states in a snowstorm, they kinda want to see your face.

My suggestion is to move it to April, June or September. Whichever works best for you.

A Different Kind of Media Bias?

I am a television junkie. It started at a young age, with my mother fueling my habit. We'd roll the television table around the corner and watch while we ate. When she bought a new set, the old one went in my bedroom. I fell asleep most night with it on.

No surprise that I grew up still loving television. And while I'll watch a not-so-great show if it's fun, my tastes have become a bit more discerning. There is a lot of good storytelling on TV these days. Sometimes what I see on the tube is better than what I see at the movies. There's more originality and risk-taking, especially on networks like BBC, HBO and Showtime. AMC and USA also produce a fair share of good programming.

Which leads me to The Killing on AMC. The review I heard on NPR described it as Twin Peaks meets 24 meets Murder One meets The X-Files. Okay, they had my attention.  Here is the blurb from AMC's website:

The Killing ties together three distinct stories around a single murder including the detectives assigned to the case, the victim's grieving family, and the suspects. Set in Seattle, the story also explores local politics as it follows politicians connected to the case. As the series unfolds, it becomes clear that there are no accidents; everyone has a secret, and while the characters think they've moved on, their past isn't done with them. 

 Cool, right?

Well, no.

I've watched four episodes now, and I don't see where all the love is coming from. Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, NPR, etc. all gave glowing reviews of this show. I will admit that the story line with the victim's grieving family is something I haven't seen handled in depth on television before. It's realistic and well-acted.

However, the rest of the show is one big cliche'. Let me list just a few:

-Cop gets handed a big case on her "last day" at work
-Cop also gets saddled with a new partner
-Said partner has just moved to homicide from vice, with all the twitchy suspect behaviors that an undercover vice cop can be expected to display
-Single mother (Cop) is resisting making commitment to "nice guy" 
-Politician can't trust people in his own camp
-Politician is sleeping with an aide

-It is hinted that politician's dead wife was a victim of violent crime
-Politician's campaign is linked to murder victim
-Victim was a good kid from wrong side of tracks
-Victim's ex-boyfriend is a bad kid with lots of money
-Victim's best friend didn't know what she was up to

And so on.

I've heard the lead, Mireille Enos, praised for her acting. Again, sorry, but all she does is chew gum and stare--at people, at evidence, at walls. It would fine if you could see any kind of emotion or even evidence of thinking going on behind those stares, but there isn't.

Why the big disconnect then between what the critics are all saying and what I think?

I could be totally off base. But there have been enough comments from others that I don't think I'm waaaay out there. I think that critics get in ruts just like the rest of us. They love a book from Author Q or a movie from Director J or Actor V. And maybe they like the next effort. And the next. And soon, anything that Author, Director, Actor or TV Network does is A-Okay by them. 

The opposite happens, too. Author P, Director I and Actor U can do nothing right. Maybe some of their efforts haven't produced the best results. But soon it doesn't matter. The best book ever written or the best movie ever made will be roundly trounced by these critics simply because it comes from these people.

Does this just mean that critics are human? Perhaps. But I find it disappointing when those critiques I've trusted steer me in the wrong direction. Does this mean that now I have to distrust everything they say?

What I Learned About Writing From

National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo)

For those of you who may not have heard of NaNoWriMo, it is a writing event that takes place during the month of November. Participants sign up to write a "novel" in one month. The goal is complete 50,000 words in 30 days. Don't worry about doing the math--it comes out 1,666.6666 words a day. Now 50,000 words isn't quite a novel, but it's a great start.

The writer should be starting a new manuscript. Some preliminary work, such as character sketches and plot outlines are allowed. Then on November 1st, the writing begins.

I've participated three times, and learned some great lessons.

1) If at first you don't succeed . . .

My first time attempting NaNoWriMo, I failed. Epic fail. Life reared its head, and I didn't start until 5 days in. Then I froze. My total word count for the month was about 1,500 words.

The following year, I made it to 25,000 words. Better, but not the goal. Still, it was 25,000 more words than I had at the beginning of the month.

On my third try, I made my 50,000 words and a bit more. So satisfying.

Sticking with it paid off.

2) Writing every day is a great habit to have.

Once I got in the groove and writing every day became the norm, it was much easier to maintain. I got to a point of missing it if I skipped a day.

3) It doesn't have to be great writing.

Putting out a predetermined number of words a day means only that you write that number of words, it doesn't mean that the result is brilliant. And that's okay. Especially in a first draft.

Occasionally, though, there are flashes. Because when you're writing every day, in the groove, your brain works on the story even when you're not writing. So you don't have that boot up time. You sit down and start. And sometimes you surprise yourself.

4) They're more like guidelines really.

The rules say that you will start a brand spanking new project. But what if you have a work in progress? Will the NaNo Police come and wipe out your manuscript?

They didn't take mine away.

See, I had a WIP that was halfway there. I didn't want to abandon it to start the next manuscript. So I finished the WIP during the second week then started the next one. The world didn't end. I finished my first manuscript, and got a great start on the second.

It's your project. Make it work for you.

I highly recommend trying NaNoWriMo. If you've tried before, and didn't make it to 50,000, try again. Maybe make your personal goal to get 1,000 more words than you did the first time. I think you'll be glad you did.

What Are You Building?

Former agent, Nathan Bransford, asked the question on his blog yesterday.

I have to admit to hearing crickets chirp for a while. What am I building? There are the stories and the worlds--real and imagined--that I am building. There are quilts and gloves and afghans. But what is there of any real importance that I am building.

Well, I'm building a life. With friendships, ideas, work and fun. I'm building what everybody builds (or, at least, I hope everyone is building a life). I'm probably not going to change the word in any significant way, but I hope I can make at least one person each day smile.

How about you? What are you building?

And Another Thing

I learned about writing from Top Chef is:

5) Use just the right amount of seasoning.

A lot of times the deciding factor in who has to "pack your knives and go" comes down to seasoning. Too much salt? You're out of there unless someone cooked something that was inedible. Produce a dish that's too bland? Another good way to get yourself a ticket home.

How many times have you read a story that has a good plot but leaves you flat? Chances are that the author under-seasoned. He didn't give enough description. Maybe the word choices could have been better. An adjective or two might have given it just a touch more flavor.

I've heard some authors say they want the reader to be able to supply the details so they are more involved.  Sorry, I think that's lazy. It's our world and our people, we need to make them real for the reader. Not the other way around.

Then there is the opposite extreme. Purple prose. The overly flowery, adjective-laden, adverb choked prose of an author who is just trying too hard.

I have a feeling I like description a bit more than most people do. I want to be able to picture where a story is taking place, what the characters look and act like, feel the sun on my face or the wind in my hair. So I have to make sure some of my first readers are those who like spare prose. I need to see if I've overwhelmed them or if they don't notice what I've done. Then my readers who are more like me have to weigh in on whether they felt the story was too bland.

How do you strike a balance when seasoning your writing? Do you prefer blander stories or ones with a little more flavor?

Maybe Not Just Flaws

Over on her blog, Jenny writes today about how character flaws create complications in P.G. Wodehouse's books. And that made me want to stop work and start in on letting my characters' flaws complicate things.

Since I couldn't really stop working, I let the idea percolate. I tried to think of other stories where character flaws complicated the story. I came up with quite a few. But something else dawned on me. All character traits can create complications, not just the flaws.

Spoiler warning if you watch Being Human and haven't seen Saturday night's episode.  

Sometimes the positive traits cause just as much havoc. Being Human (the BBC version) is gearing up for the season finale. The penultimate episode this season piled one complication on another. A lot of this stems from Annie deciding to help a police woman figure out who massacred a train car full of people. She likes the woman and wants her to succeed. She wants the families to have what little comfort they can get from knowing the murderer is behind bars. She wants to feel useful. The problem is that the murderer is someone close to her. His flaws created the initial problem. But it's Annie's good side that really complicates things for everyone in their group.

End of Spoiler Warning

Either way, it's a wonderful insight into how complications happen. And just another reason why Jenny's blog rocks. And Jenny, for that matter.

**Stay tuned for another thing I learned about writing from Top Chef.

It's The Story

A few weeks ago, I visited Disneyland in California with my nephew, his wife and their six-year-old daughter. Everywhere there are stories. Each ride is a mini-story. The performances are stories. Even the fireworks tell a story.

This is very different from the last time I was at Walt Disney World in Orlando. The fireworks existed as something to distract people standing in line. Now there is music and narration. The theme of the year--another recent addition--is "Let the Memories Begin." The fireworks story is about that theme. About the first time you came to a Disney theme park, the first Disney movie you saw, the first Disney television show you watched.

Okay, you could say it's a fifteen minute advertisement for their movies, etc., but it was so much fun to watch. As was the photo show on the side of "It's A Small World." Still photos and home movies from family visits to the park, interspersed with images from television and movies. We just happened upon it the first night and stood, transfixed as it played out.

In California Adventure they have "The World of Color" show. Dancing waters with images projected on them. Again, very much like the fireworks story and the photo show at "It's A Small World." Just done differently, and with breath-taking results.

Why were they so much fun? The story of Walt Disney and all he created is inspiring--whatever you, personally, think of the result. The story of the families who have made a visit to one of the parks their vacation of a lifetime is moving. The story of the memories we all Disney movies--our first, our favorite, or the one we watched and realized we'd grown up too much to enjoy it (I haven't reached this stage yet, thank goodness) are something we all share.

I think we writers tend to get too caught up in all the rules and advice. We must have a knock-out opening so the agent/editor/reader doesn't put the book down halfway through the first page. Every word has to count. Each scene has at least six purposes for being included. Dialogue must sparkle like we Turtle Waxed it.

But what we often lose in all of that is the story. What we're really doing is telling a story. And if the story is good enough, the readers really won't notice the other stuff. Because they'll be entertained.

In one of my previous critique groups, I'd often find myself saying to a talented but sometimes too clever for his own good writer," Just tell the damn story."

I think I'll apply that advice to my own writing. How about you? How important it story to you? Can a good story overcome otherwise flawed writing?

What I Learned About Writing From

Top Chef

In the original version of this television series, a group of working chefs compete for $100,000 to start a restaurant. The challenges vary, sometimes making them team up. Other times they compete individually. There have also been a few season of Top Chef Masters, involving celebrity chefs. This week is the finale of the first Top Chef All-Stars. These chefs are those who made it to the final rounds of their season, but didn’t win.

1)      Do your research ahead of time

As with all of these skill-based reality shows, the contestants are not allowed to use the equivalent of notes—no recipes on Top Chef, no patterns on Project Runway, etc. So the chefs have to know their stuff ahead of time.

It’s been surprising that so many don’t bother to learn what others consider “the basics.” Pastry seems to trip them up time and again. If you’re going to the final and it’s held in Singapore, perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with some local cooking methods. 

I love doing research. Time slips away as I look up locations on the Internet. I have wasted a lot of time mid-project trying to find the perfect Italian surname for a character or a particular detail about how a locksmith might try to pick a lock. 

While I can’t foresee every thing I might need to know to write a particular book, I’ve learned to anticipate as much as possible, and do the work ahead of time. Time slips away as I look up locations on the Internet, as does money when I order several books on the same general topic.  But it’s better to use that time before I sit down to right.

How much research do you like to do for a project? When do you research?

2.      Don’t make gnocchi unless you’ve done it—successfully—a million times before

For whatever reason, the chefs love to make gnocchi to try to impress the judges. [Gnocchi is a kind of potato dumpling, but can be made with other starchy items, like pumpkin.]  So many have gone home because of over- or under-cooked gnocchi that I’ve lost count. You can see the doubt on the judges faces when a plate of the stuff is set in front of them.

The ones who do pull it off, however, will win whatever challenge they are in. Because it is so hard to make a good gnocchi, the judges reward those who actually can do it.

Take whatever unusual writing style or format or voice or point of view you can think of and substitute it for “gnocchi.” If you want to write in multiple points of view or use first person past perfect or write the story backwards, please make sure you can and have done it successfully before you send it off. And don’t just take the word of your best friend or mother.

Doing something different and difficult can be a way to make your story stand out.  But, please, make sure it’s in a good way. Are your critique group members taking big steaming forkfuls or are they pushing it around on the plate?

3.      Keep it fresh

“Oh look, Jaime’s making scallops. Again.”

In order to avoid potential gnocchi-style disaster, many of the chefs keep returning to a go-to ingredient or style. The judges notice this. Even if they’re the best damned scallops ever, the question becomes, “Can she cook anything else?”

If you write romance, that doesn’t mean you have to switch to horror. But if your heroine is always a raven-haired peasant girl and your hero is always a tawny-maned noble, perhaps it’s time to shake things up. Can you change the settings? The status of the characters? Maybe the time-frame.

A friend of mine writes mysteries, and she realized she was relying on strangling as the means of murder in both of her series. So now she’s shaking it up.

One of my critique group mentioned that all of my heroines have dark-blonde hair. Oops. 

How could you freshen up your stories without having to resort to trying gnocchi?

4.      The better the chef, the less back-stabbing takes place

Many of the chefs are known for trying to trip up other contestants. If allowed to pick a protein first, they’ll pick a favorite of someone else so that chef can’t use it. They’ll taste another’s dish and not say that it’s under-seasoned. Or they’ll try to get into someone else’s head and make her doubt what she’s cooking.

Top Chef Masters, however, was a revelation. They shared ingredients and tools, gave real feedback on dishes and rooted for each other. The final four drew names and had to shop for that other chef. Whatever ingredients were purchased had to be used in a dish that would get one of them eliminated. What did they do? Every one of the four bought items they knew the other chef liked to use. “It’s not a real win if I’m not competing against his best,” one of the chefs said.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy hanging out with other writers. For the most part, we encourage and support each other. That doesn’t happen very often elsewhere.

But I have seen those few writers who relish tearing down others. The critiques that, at first glance, seem to be trying to be helpful, but that simply undermine the writer’s confidence. The offhand remark about a character trait or plotline that cuts to the heart of someone who has put their work out there for the first time.

What’s your experience with other writers been? Are Masters or line cooks? How about you? Do your do your best to encourage while critiquing?

I don’t know that I always succeed, but I do try to emulate the Masters.

In Defense of "Was"

We've all heard it, right? Avoid all "to be" verbs. They weaken your writing. Find a stronger verb.

I've used Dickens as a defense. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity . . ." I've also heard that countered with, "But he wrote like 500 years ago." The person I was talking with wasn't all that bright, I admit.

Okay, here's one that's a little more current. From the best-seller "The Girl Who Played with Fire." We have learned that Lisbeth Salander has a twin sister. A twin sister quite different from Lisbeth, if only twenty minutes younger. Here is what Larsson writes:

"Lisbeth was first. Camilla was beautiful." 

Six words, two of them "was," that made me stop and say, "Wow." Didn't need much more than that to tell me volumes about these two.

And another thing about this, Larsson is not only using the dreaded to-be verb, but he's telling not showing. And it's better. He could have gone on for pages, and would have had to, to show us the same thing he tells us in six words.

I read a lot of criticisms about The Millenium Trilogy" that centered on Steig Larsson's story-telling style. That he tells too much, and this keeps the reader at arm's length. I must have short arms, because I've been right there with Blomqvist and Salander through two books, and I made sure I had the third on hand before I finished the second.

Your mileage may vary when it comes to the trilogy.  However, the next time you're struggling to get through a passage in a book (whether reading or writing), check to see if maybe that act of showing is what's slowing it down. Perhaps a line or two of telling could get the point across better and let you get on with the rest of the story.

Just saying.

And Another Thing

I learned about writing from Joss Whedon.

5)      People may assume things about you, based on your writing

If you didn’t get it from the previous points, I will say flat out, “I love Joss Whedon.”  His shows are fun and exciting to watch.

However . . .

He seems to repeat a certain pattern.  Namely, the teenage girl/young woman with superhuman strength.  Buffy as in The Vampire Slayer and River in Firefly can both take out a room full of men three times their size.  Echo in Dollhouse can be programmed to do just about anything.

Also, the vampire, Angel, has been cursed with a soul by a group of gypsies.  He will become evil again if he experiences a moment of true happiness.  Does he revert to evil when he saves the love of his life?  Nope.  When his son—a miracle he never thought possible—is born?  Nope.  He becomes evil after having sex with the girl he loves. 

Hmmm. 

In any case, Joss Whedon has given us a lot of wonderful characters and amazing stories.  If he never wrote another thing, he’d be well ahead of most of us.  And it would be a shame. 

I’d love to write one character who is as fully realized as most of Joss’.  Something to aspire to.

What I Learned About Writing From

Joss Whedon

If you don’t recognize the name, you will probably recognize his work.  Joss is the creative force behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Doll House, Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog and Firefly.  After that list, I may not have to say anything else.

But I will.

1)      Write strong characters

And I don’t just mean physically strong, although Joss does tend to like his characters to have some sort of physical strength.  Even the characters who don’t have a particular physical prowess have other strengths—intelligence, humor, tenacity, sympathy, healing, teaching.

Every protagonist in the Whedonverse is surrounded by a group of friends, or colleagues, or crew.  Each one of these supporting characters serves a solid purpose within the group.  Take any one away, and the group suffers.

I’m not there yet with my cast of characters.  But I’m trying.  Reruns of his shows help.

2)      Be original

Yes, there was a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie before the series.  Joss Whedon was the writer, but not the director or producer.  The movie didn’t quite live up to what he had in mind, so he penned the series. 

Let’s look at a few of Joss’ creations:

--A teenage girl with superhuman strength, born to kill vampires and demons.

--A vampire who was cursed with a soul by gypsies.

--A girl whose mind is wiped clean and replaced with memories and personalities of another person

--A spaceship captain with criminal tendencies who ends up saving people

--A wannabe mad scientist who really just wants to get the girl (set to music)

One of these creations would be a coup for me, but Joss just keeps churning them out.  One great character after another.

3)      Well-placed humor can both relieve and heighten tension

Joss Whedon’s shows are full of action and suspense.  And humor.  Quirky, often unexpected humor.  Smart humor.  Things like "If every vampire who said he was at the crucifixion was actually there, it would have been like Woodstock"

Then there are the quips mid-action.  After watching a few of the shows, the viewer realizes that a character who cracks a joke during a fight may just be the next victim. 

Do you use humor in your writing?  Is it used to relieve tension?  Build it? 

4)      Sometimes it’s okay if your protagonist isn’t very likeable

Buffy is a teenager.  A teenager with a huge responsibility.  Occasionally she gets a bit cranky.  Especially when her vampire boyfriend gets all evil and stuff.   Or if she’s trying to protect someone who won’t listen to her.

Angel can switch to the evil Angelus at time.  Even with friends all around him, he keeps secrets.  Secrets that can be dangerous to those friends.

Captain Mal is often sharp-tongued, saying mean hurtful things to his crew.

Yet, we love these characters, because they are flawed.  They work all the time to be better, do better.  But they aren’t perfect, and never will be.  Just like us.  

Are your characters too perfect?  What unexpected flaw could you give them?

More Ch-ch-ch-changes

Saturday we held what I thought would be my last (and possibly THE last) CWC meeting.  I had announced a few weeks earlier that I'm still struggling with my writing and need to step away from even listening to critiques.  I've also cut back on reading agent blogs and those that dispense writing advice.  I haven't canceled my subscription to Writer's Digest, but I have dropped Poets & Writers for now, and WD is going on the shelf until I feel like it won't negatively influence me.

Since Mary and I carpool down to Pueblo, she wasn't sure she wanted to keep making the drive each month alone, especially since she's been struggling with her own writing and might not have anything to submit for a while.  Shane, too, hasn't been able to write, not so much out of writer's block, but because it's his first year as an English teacher and that pretty much eats up all his time.

That would leave just Ali and Jenny.  And Jenny has another critique group (she's fickle that way).  So, death to CWC, right?

Wrong.

I returned to the table after a bathroom break.  Conversation ceased, heads turned.  Oh-oh.  "What?" 

They decided, in the five minutes tops that I was gone, to change the format once again.  We'll still get together once a month for dinner--on Saturday, which works better for everyone--to talk.  About writing, other kinds of storytelling, what we're having trouble with, what's working, our lives in general.  Basically, whatever.  Sorta like the old Pirate days.  If someone wants to submit something, they can, of course.  And, if I still need to avoid all critiques, I can read it and mark it up (for some reason that doesn't bother me), drop Mary off with my feedback so they can discuss, and go somewhere for an hour to hang out or write.  Then I'll join the rest of the group for dinner.

Cool, huh?

Second transformation of the group in almost two and half years.  Most writing groups don't make it a year.  And big changes will kill even the strongest group.  But we seem to be the little Timex group.  We just keep ticking. 

And Another Thing

I learned about writing from  the Sookie Stackhouse Mysteries by Charlaine Harris/True Blood, based on the books.

6)      Keep telling your story

As I said in item 5, the makers of the True Blood, the television show, are not really following the books anymore.  There’s a vague resemblance in some places, but the shows are different.  So much so that a character who dies in the first book is still alive—and a fan favorite—in the Season Three finale.

Even with the changes, Charlaine Harris has continued to tell the stories her way.  The television show introduced Vampire Eric’s maker in Season One.  He is not the maker Harris gives the reader in Book Eight.  That takes dedication to your storytelling. 

Would you be able to continue writing a series the way you originally planned if a hugely popular television show based on your characters  had already given a different version of a situation?  Character?

Brought to you by the letter "F"

for Fleur.

Because Fleur just earned a book deal with Harper Children's.  She is the perfect example of how talent, hard work and perseverance can pay off.  And the ability to say, "This one's not working" and move on to the next project.

Read all about it at her blog.

Maybe there's a little lesson here. 

PS - I wanted to put an exclamation point after the tag, but Blogger wouldn't let me.  So here it is now, with friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I Learned About Writing From

The Sookie Stackhouse Mysteries by Charlaine Harris and True Blood, based on the books

1)      Give your protagonist a problem

Sookie is telepathic.  She hears everyone’s thoughts.  Almost all the time.  Which makes dating difficult since she knows exactly what her date is thinking about her, as well as all of his expectations.  Her gift has caused her to be labeled a freak in her small home town of Bon Temps, Louisiana. 

Groovy problem, right?  And it’s not her only one.  She needs her waitress job at the bar in order to help make ends meet at home, where she lives with her grandmother.  Her parents died in a car accident when she was little.  And her older brother’s a bit of a screw-up.

I’ve said it before, but my critique group always tells me that I’m too nice to my characters.  Well, Charlaine Harris has no problem beating up—sometimes quite literally—on her characters.  Especially Sookie.

2)      The bad guys should be dangerous

In the world of this series, vampires have recently come “out of the coffin.”  The reason?  A synthetic blood substitute, Tru Blood, developed by the Japanese means they no longer need to feed on humans. 

The problem is that Tru Blood isn’t exactly like human blood, so a lot of vampires aren’t about to make the switch.  And even if they are off the real thing, they are still incredibly strong and fast.  Some can fly.

Even when the bad guy isn’t a vampire, he (or she) is still a huge threatening presence.  Bon Temps has any number of really bad characters just waiting to do harm to our protagonist.  In addition to the vamps, there are werewolves, weretigers, werepanthers (you get the idea), evil fairies, ancient goddesses, religious fanatics, witches and just plain nasty human beings.

Wimpy bad guys don’t cut it, but I don’t want to make my antagonists look cartoonishly bad.  I don’t want a mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash.  So how to find that happy medium between not-bad-at-all and over-the-top-evil? 

I once read that the perfect antagonist is the mirror opposite of your protagonist.  Think Harry Potter and Voldemort, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, Krystle and Alexis Carrington.

3)      Too many characters CAN be a problem.

I tend to like a fairly large cast of characters.  Maybe it’s because I’m from a large family.  Or it could be from reading a lot of Dickens as a kid.  Whatever the reason, I don’t get confused by a lot of characters in a book.

However…along about book six or seven in the series, Harris had populated Bon Temps and the surrounding area with more than a dozen named vampires, half a dozen or more important werewolves, at least three fairies, a handful of witches, a shapeshifter, a few weretigers, a whole town full of werepanthers, and about twenty humans. 

Even that wouldn’t have been too bad, except that she tried to fit everyone in for at least a mention.  The main storyline became diluted because of this. 

Early in the next book, Harris started eliminating some of the characters, not all of them violently.  It made for a tighter story.

I’m still working on making sure that all the characters in my books have good reasons for being there.   

4)      First person narrative has pros and cons

By sticking with Sookie, we get to know her.  She’s our window into Bon Temps.  We tend to feel about the other characters as she does.  She becomes us, or we become her. 

The flip side is that we can’t experience anything without Sookie.  The latest book, Dead in the Family, suffers because of this.  Vampire Eric is visited by his maker and a new “brother.”  A lot of really interesting stuff happens between the trio—off stage.  We learn about it just as Sookie does, while the story it told to her.  It loses a lot of the impact that actually being there would have given us.

I’ve used both first and third person narrative.  I’m not always clear why I’ve picked one over the other.  But I think it’s time to take a really good look at the story I want to tell before I make that decision.

5)      You need to let go when you sell the movie/television rights

About midway through each season of True Blood, the television series based on the Sookie Stackhouse books, my friend Jenny asks me what’s going to happen.  Even though I’ve read all the books, I have no idea at this point.  The first season stayed somewhat true to the main plot of Dead Until Dark, but there were lots of people and situations in the television version that weren’t in the book.  And the last episode veered in a very surprising way from the book.

Charlaine Harris is always positive about the series in the interviews I’ve read.  She acknowledges that television is a different medium from books and, therefore, requires a different take on storytelling.  Good for her.

I’ve also read interviews with authors who blast any adaptation of their work.  It tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth of this reader.  Yes, the story is your baby.  Yes, you came up with the idea in the first place.  Yes, the studio/director/producer/network must have liked what you wrote if they wanted to adapt it.  However, you sold the rights.  Period.

The lesson here?  Should I be lucky enough to pen something that someone wants to adapt, I had better consider how much it would bother me to have my baby undergo extensive cosmetic surgery.  Would the money being offered be enough for me to keep my mouth shut about any changes?  Could I smile and nod about the movie/television show/play while thinking about my bank account?

Could you?

Reading Cozies

DB handed out cozies at the CWC meeting on Saturday.  I've read them all my life for a light change of pace.  Jenny did her own study of them a few months ago.  Mary seemed excited about reading one, or two even.  But I don't think Ali or Shane have ever read one.

Ali's already posted about her first impressions of the beginning of the book DB gave her.  It's not looking too promising.

It'll be interesting to see what everyone has to say next month.

Have you ever read a cozy mystery?  Did/do you like them?  What about reading other genres that aren't your normal go-to picks?  Were there any that pleasantly surprised you?  Or annoyed you?

And Another Thing I Learned About Writing

from The Da Vinci Code.

6)      People love conspiracy theories

From the assassination of a JFK to Roswell to 9/11 to Free Mason’s to whatever, there are always those who will question the “official version” of major events.  Sometimes these people are right and they expose a lie—think Watergate.  Sometimes they’re just crackpots. Sometimes we’ll never know  one way or the other.

Dan Brown uses questions that were already being asked by others—which led to a copyright lawsuit or two.  He uses them, though, in a novel.  This gives him the ability to say, “It’s just fiction.” 

Is the Catholic Church covering up the truth about Jesus Christ?  And what is that truth?   Was he simply a profit who caught the imagination of the masses?   Was he married and a father?  Is there an unbroken line of descendants who are aware of their heritage, but who keep it secret to keep from bringing down Christianity as we know it?  Is there a Priory of Sion, dedicated to protecting the secret of Christ’s bloodline? 

None of those things need to be true.  Just posing the questions raises controversy.  And controversy begets debate, or the modern day equivalent of debate—shouting at the top of one’s lungs.  Once that starts, interest is piqued and an increase in sales can follow.

I’m not proposing that everyone should make use of conspiracy theories in their books.  Nor that all books need to spark controversy.  But there should be something about them of interest to readers—even a niche market.  There should be something about the book that people love.

When I start writing, I don’t worry about who my market is.  That would paralyze me.   But as it’s nearing the final edits (maybe Draft 4 or 5), I will begin to think about who might want to read this particular book. 

What about your book will people love?  Is it funny?  Heart-warming?  Scary?  Romantic?  Thrilling?  Some combination? 

When The Universe Conspires Against You

As you may know, CWC has not been able to meet since the beginning of December.  An unexpected death and various snow storms have caused delays that turned into outright cancellations.  We finally agreed on this Saturday, with a forecast for highs in the mid-50s and sunny skies.  And then one of our group got news of another friend's death.  It just seems like the Universe is trying to tell us something. 

Ali received a much more positive message the other day.  I've been getting some mixed signals myself.

This time we're sending a message back to the Universe:  We're meeting.  One of our number will be attending a funeral, and we'll have to figure out times to exchange submissions, critiques, etc. with her.  And while our thoughts with be with Mary, her family and their friends, we're going to go ahead and do this thing.

Maybe the Universe is just nudging us (and with something that big, a nudge can feel like an earthquake) to see if we're really serious about this CWC thing.  Because maybe if we're not, then we might not be serious about the writer thing.  What the Universe needs to know, however, is just how bloody serious we are.  So we're going to prove it.

Ever get the feeling that the Universe/events/gods/life was trying to tell you something?  What did you do with the message?