Feb 9, 2006 | Uncategorized |
Went to Kapolei library last night to see the inimitable Lee Goldberg. If you ever get the chance to go listen to Lee tell you about television writing, do it. You won't regret it, I promise. Though he's been doing the same talk at library after library on this island over the past week, I couldn't detect a hint of fatigue with the presentation. It was his second time doing the talk yesterday, and his enthusiasm was so good you'd have thought he was saying everything for the first time ever. He had us laughing so hard I began to worry about my bladder.
I always thought WALKER, TEXAS RANGER was a bit ridiculous, but who knew it was so much fun you'd want to watch the title sequence again and again? Lee says he can watch it over and over; I think if I were sitting in the same room with him, even I could stand it. Because he's so enthused over his subject, and he makes you howl with laughter when he points out that you'd better watch your back in Texas because there's a ranger behind you. ROFL!
I must confess that I don't want to write for television. Heck, I don't even watch much of it, though I wasn't about to confess that to Lee in person. 🙂 But writers can learn things in any situation that deals with writing. I learned a lot from Lee. I even developed an uncontrollable urge to watch title sequences. (Thanks, Lee! Just what I need, another distraction from writing my novels. Hee hee.) Deconstructing them is much like deconstructing literature, so I found the process fascinating and a bit addictive.
If you want to know what a title sequence is and why it's important, I'll give you the brief answer. For a much better answer, and more fun, either go see Lee in person or buy his book on television writing.
Basically, a title sequence is that 40 seconds or so that you see every week where they say the name of the show, present you with a collage of scenes, and tell you who's starring while theme music of some sort plays in the background. This is where you learn what the show is about and what kind of stories they promise to deliver. The aforementioned Walker, for instance, is about a larger-than-life martial arts ranger with an ego that Texas is barely big enough to hold. The other characters aren't very important. It's all Walker, all the time. If you wanted to write an episode for that show, it better not be about how one of the minor characters has a crisis/epiphany/personal growth moment. It better be about Walker the omnipotent, kicking ass and taking names. Walker is the sun around which the show turns. Forget that and your script gets shitcanned.
Okay, so it's all much more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea. Lee also discussed money, how to get an agent, and the process of cracking a story. Totally fascinating.
Afterward, we spoke briefly about blogs and how informative they are. A lady was taking pictures for her writers' group newsletter and she got one of Lee with me and 3 of my fellow RWA members (how about that, Lee surrounded by romance writers). But, lol, we don't know who she is and none of us managed to trade info with her, so who knows where that pic will show up. I had my camera in my laptop bag, so I snapped one myself. Being the sort of person who never wants to offend others, I asked him if I could blog it. He said of course. 🙂
Without further ado, here's the man himself in his aloha shirt. Notice that he's incredibly handsome, witty, and resembles Pierce Brosnan. 🙂 Thanks for the great time, Lee.
Lee Goldberg, Kapolei Library
Feb 8, 2006 | Uncategorized |
Tess Gerritsen has a great post about writing to the market. I'll bet you know folks who don't know diddly about the market, but who think that what they're writing is just what the public will want to read. Why do they think this? Often, it's because they're convinced their prose is so much better than [insert famous author of your choice]. Been there, done that (and I can laugh my hiney off at myself now).
But you know what? It ain't true. You can write a great book, and you can still write to the market. You don't have to sell your soul to do it. The only conflict between Art and giving 'em what they want is the one you make in your head. A book doesn't have to be obscure to be great. Yeah, Faulkner's prose is difficult and his work is spectacular. But that doesn't mean they all have to be that way. Tess says:
Books are like puppies. You have to give people what they want.
(Man, is this turning into a weird metaphor. And I don't even own a dog.)
Writers may grouse about how their literary novel about Chihuahuas just doesn't sell, and they're disgusted that Ms. Bestselling Author sells tons of books about goldens [retrievers]. I understand their frustration. They labored just as long and hard over their rat-dog novel. They got wonderful reviews. Maybe they've won awards. But they just can't find an audience.
The reason has nothing to do with the quality of their writing. The real reason is that they simply aren't in touch with WHAT PEOPLE WANT.
[. . .]
That doesn't mean that books about golden retrievers can't be just as challenging and literary and rewarding. One of my favorite books is THE POISONWOOD BIBLE by Barbara Kingsolver. It had everything I crave: family conflicts, history, and the rich canvas of Africa as a backdrop. It was an incredibly moving and beautiful book. It was a bestseller because it was loved by women, and I was one of them. It was a golden retriever book — and it was Art with a capital A.
Often, the mistake I see aspiring writers make is that when you ask them what the book's about, they can't tell you. They can't tell you genre, and they can't tell you what the core problem of the novel is. I understand this. I've been there. I've had to learn how to find the marketable hooks and make them my own. And it's only with the latest WIP that I believe I may have succeeded.
See, that's the key. Make them your own. Don't write about vampires because they're selling hot right now. Write about them because you have a story to tell. Maybe it sounds pollyanna-ish of me to say all this, but I really believe that paying attention to the market and figuring out how to fit your work into what the public wants is neither dumb nor selling out your artistic soul.
And believe me, reading Tess's post about popular culture and what folks want sank my spirits just a little. Why? Because I have work to do to understand what the mainstream wants. I don't watch television, I don't read popular magazines, I can't tell you who Jessica Simpson is dating or if Brad and Angelina had an argument or what Jen thinks. I know who those people are, and that's a start I suppose. 🙂 I'm not a snob on purpose, really, but I realize it comes across that way sometimes. Almost a decade living in Europe put me out of touch with my own country. Hawaii isn't exactly the mainland USA either. I am often surprised and dismayed at the things I don't know.
So what am I doing about it? I study bestseller lists, I go to the bookstore and see what's selling, I've even figured out when Law & Order is on (and it isn't bad!). Of course I read newspapers. I've even been guilty of flipping through US or PEOPLE in the checkout line. I don't shun those things, don't think I don't need to know about them or what makes them popular.
My goal is to write the best book I can and to find the popular pulse within it. I don't believe those aims are contrary. I won't chase trends, but if I understand them or understand why people like a certain thing, I'm that much better off in my own quest to sell a book. My mind is a stew of ideas. Something will pop up that I can use.
I know there are people who will disagree with me. At my RWA meeting this past weekend, there was a lot of “write what you love” talk. Even when you don't know what it is or where it fits. I disagree with that, I really do. Why spend all that time working your butt off only to learn your work is unmarketable? OTOH, I've done that too, so maybe it's a rite of passage we all must go through.
Do you think you should write to the market? Or is it about the Art and damn what the mainstream may want? Are the two incompatible?
Feb 7, 2006 | Uncategorized |
Or not. 🙂 Diana Peterfreund had this quiz on her blog and, being a LOTR fan, I just couldn't resist. I'm working on the thesis today, so not sure I have time to write an intelligent post (assuming I usually do, that is–no, no, don't tell me the truth!). A quiz shall have to suffice.
Tomorrow, exciting news, I'm off to hear Lee Goldberg speak at Kapolei Library. It's a drive in traffic for me, but my Wednesday group is going to be there, so I figured I'd make the trek.
And now my pointy-eared self must settle down to business……
Elvish
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla
Feb 6, 2006 | Uncategorized |
Academia and popular genre fiction seem to be polar opposites. And yet, I often find complementary facets when studying one or the other. This past week, I finally got off my behind and started working on my master's thesis in earnest. Part of the process was to refresh myself with the literature I'd been reading for the past year. I picked up Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own. Much of VW's writing is dense and takes time to digest, it's true. But Room manages to go by rather quickly. There is much between the pages to recommend the book, however I want to concentrate on a particular passage.
[…] It is the nature of the artist to mind excessively what is said about him. Literature is strewn with the wreckage of men who have minded beyond reason the opinions of others.
And this susceptibility of theirs is doubly unfortunate, I thought, returning again to my original enquiry into what state of mind is most propitious for creative work, because the mind of the artist in order to achieve the prodigious effort of freeing whole and entire the work that is in him, must be incandescent. […] There must be no obstacle in it, no foreign matter unconsumed.
In other words, a writer must not browbeat the reader with an agenda, or even break into the narrative to allow strong personal feelings to intrude. For example, Woolf uses Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. Bronte puts her own feelings about a woman's role in society into Jane's head at one point, and Woolf argues that this breaks the genius of the book.
Not sure I entirely agree with that, but I do see the point. Writers should be careful to bury agendas deep. I read a romance recently by an author I love who failed to bury the agenda. While I agree with her, I got tired of being beat over the head by all the characters talking about and being consumed by this agenda. What must readers who don't agree with the author have thought?
I think we should use our fiction to further our worldview if that's what we want to do. After all, our fiction comes from within us and our worldview colors what we write. But, we must take care to bury it deeply, to not allow it to overcome the characters and their story in the pursuit of bashing the reader over the head with an idea. Let the idea evolve naturally, feed it in small spoonfuls, and you may just win over more people than you irritate. Woolf would disagree entirely, I am sure.
What do you think? Do agendas have a purpose in the story you write? Is it bad to include them or worse to leave them out (assuming any of us can really do so)? Where is the line between preaching a view and merely having a character espouse a view?
Feb 3, 2006 | Uncategorized |
Terry over at I See Invisible People wants to know what I think about the new Harlequin line aimed at NASCAR. She used to be a member of RWA once upon a time, and we used to lament the babies/cowboys/brides thing back then. She wonders why Harl/Silh doesn't just publish good books and forget about chasing trends. If only it were that easy.
Unfortunately, I think chasing trends (or trying to create them, I suppose) is probably here to stay. I even understand them now (God, I've been corrupted!). It isn't the trend so much as what the writer does with the trend (or hook). Yet I think this kind of trending tends to make romance novels look as dumb as some people (not romance readers or writers) think they are. From the outside, you just know someone's in the store going, “NASCAR?” with a disgusted look on her face. How many people read that USA Today article and smirked? I'm sure I know a few of them.
Personally, I am not interested in reading NASCAR romances. I acknowledge their right to exist, and other peoples' rights to read them, but they don't trip my trigger. I don't know a damn thing about NASCAR other than Jeff Foxworthy's absolutely hysterical impersonation of a driver talking about the race (believe that's on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour DVD).
Susan Elizabeth Phillips was successful with football heroes. Rachel Gibson and hockey. But we didn't start seeing a line of books with little footballs or hockey sticks on the covers. Personally, I think writers should be allowed to take chances. I think someone out there can even write an awesome rock star romance.
I think branding these race car books is premature. If they tank, will editors say, “You can't write a race car hero. Race car romances don't sell”? And just because the article points out that X number of women are NASCAR fans doesn't mean that X number of women are also readers. That's like having a lawyer line because X number of women are lawyers. No guarantee of success.
I would read a race car book if there was a buzz about it. Just like I read SEP's football books and RG's hockey books when I am interested in neither sport. Why? Because there was a buzz, because people were excited and saying, “Oh, you have to read this!” And they were right because both those writers made something very fine out of what was then considered taboo–sports heroes.
But Harlequin is only in a testing phase, with a mere 3 books for 2006. Seventeen are planned for 2007. So it may not last. Lines are folding, others springing up in their place, some lines expanding, others contracting. I don't think the future of NASCAR romance is assured by any stretch. In fact, Kristin Nelson over at Pub Rants was talking about the waning popularity of the chick lit novel. The chick lit novel, people. Who ever thought that would happen?
Apparently, paranormal and romantic suspense is the hot property now. And how. Debut author Allison Brennan hit the NYT extended list with her romantic thriller novel. I don't know everything by a long shot, but I'm guessing that a first time novelist published in PBO doesn't usually hit the NYT. This is a fantastic achievement and it certainly indicates what the buying public is interested in right now. Does that mean we should all run out and write thriller romances?
So, bearing in mind this is all my opinion and I'm interested in the free exchange of ideas, what do you think? Are you interested in NASCAR romance? Do you think it's a good idea? Would you write it if asked? Does it make the genre look dumb? Should we care? Is it just another trend passing through or does it have a shot at being around for a while?
Addendum (found this at Booksquare and couldn't resist):
We are sorry to report this. Very sorry. Because, and we must be brutal here, there is very little variety one can introduce into what we believe (and math is not something we do in public) will be 20 books (or 22 stories, if we have our anthology-counting right) about love and NASCAR. That is too many. It is gimmicky and silly and why can’t at least five of those drivers really be baseball players?Such is our mood that we’re not even going to be nice to the poor person who wrote the article.
First off, there’s either the most blatant cribbing of cover copy we’ve ever read or the mooniest book description we’ve ever read. Then comes the final two paragraphs, which we note because they make no sense — this is the result of throwing something out there without a follow-up. Always have a follow-up. We don’t care that sometimes editors chop off the ending. Our limited patience has reached the end.
