I think I have to disagree with Shakespeare...

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;" If you're like me, you read William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" somewhere in high school.  I had to read it as a freshman and our teacher insisted that we memorize the balcony scene and act it out for the rest of the class.  Now, this might be hard to believe, but back then I was not quite the cool, outgoing, awesome person I am today.  I was quirky, but shy with people I didn't know.  So my best friend, Rachel, and I memorized the scene.  She was Romeo, I was Juliet...mostly because she was taller than I was.  (There was an inequality of boys to girls in that class...in the girls' favor, and yet, Rachel and I weren't all the keen, at the ripe age of 14, to act out literature's greatest love scene with some guy.) Those words have stuck in my head all these years, mostly because my husband is a big Shakespeare fan so we see a lot of Shakespeare plays and movies.  A lot. But after crafting my own tales of love lost and what not, I have to say, I think I disagree with Shakespeare, a tiny bit.  I think the name we give things plays a gigantic part in how we feel about things.  I think names, words, are very important.  A rose by any other name might not be something I'm interested in sniffing.  If we called a rose, let's say, a dung blossom instead, who's going to sniff that?  Sure, the flower still smells nice, but the beauty of the flower is lost because the name is all wrong. Look at how parents agonize over naming their children.  (Well, some parents.  I get the feeling these days that some parents just spew out the first word that comes to their head and then the kid is stuck being called "Apple...")  We study names and meanings of names and we think about how the kids on the playground are going to twist that name into something horrible  (a  big reason why our son isn't named "Amos.")  Words, names, are important.  You are going to treat someone you call James with more respect than someone you call Jimmy.  Jimmy is your buddy from down the street who can be counted on to bring beer and try to balance a spoon on his nose.  James will wear a tie to pretty much everything and can do your taxes. And yet...it's the same name.  Right? It's how we as authors have to approach writing.  We have to think about the words we're using.  Language is a big, broad, ever changing landscape.  (Unless you're writing in Latin, of course.)  We want to use words and images that put the reader in a place or time by using words and images that are timeless.  We don't want to get too caught up in current pop culture because that culture will fade and if our books and stories are going to be read beyond our lifetime, the words, the images, have to be timeless.  Sure, we have to use fewer words than our author forefathers did.  (I can't even imagine a 1200 page tome like "Les Miserables" getting a look from an editor now.  And "Moby Dick?"  That would be pared down about 400 pages before anyone would even blink.) We live in a faster world.  We have to get to the point faster.  We still have to use the right words. People like Shakespeare movies because the stories are timeless, even if the language bugs us, the visuals are always good.  Reading Shakespeare is difficult, true, but once you get an ear for it, you realize he used the words he meant to use and said the things he meant to say in a way that even we, how many hundreds of years later, can figure out.  Four hundred years from now, I'm hoping someone will read my novels, Fresh Ice, Dream in Color, and Lies in Chance and feel the stories the way I wrote them because I worked so use themes and words the exact way I meant to. My mother always grumbles because I have adult language in my books.  Well, let's see:  One hero is a rock star.  One is a hockey player.  One is a sort of a cowboy.  I don't see any of those guys saying something like, "Oh shucky darn."  You have to use the right words to set the mood, reveal the character, and say what you mean. Otherwise, a rose by any other name might smell sweet, but no one is going to give it a look.

Well here's a list that will give you a confidence boost!

Good evening all!

One of the biggest drags...and hence the biggest fears...in writing is the rejection letter.  I have a file of them someplace, mostly, though, I ignore the rejections. Nowadays, it's a rejection email, which isn't much better, and not nearly as satisfying to destroy.  BUT, as they say, every rejection gets you closer to publication.  Even when it doesn't feel like it.

To that end, my friends over a Bachelor Degrees Online hae provided me with a brilliant top forty list of classics and ultra popular books that were once, twice, perhaps more than that, rejected.   We've read most of these, we own most of these, and we've seen the movies for most of these books.  In short, inspite of the initial reaction, these books are huge success stories.

Enjoy...take heart....and ignore the fact that Moby Dick is on the list.  Face it...sometimes editors and agents do get it right the first time. 

40 Famous Manuscripts That Were Rejected At First

 

It is one of the weird quirks of literature that people who don't necessarily have the skills to write epic masterpieces themselves are put in charge of deciding what gets published and what gets canned. No doubt they have a difficult job and they correctly weed out much material that does not need to be inflicted on the public. And yet, from time to time, editors make some of the absolute worst decisions that future generations look back on and say, "What on earth were they thinking?" Persistence paid off for the authors of these 40 manuscripts who refused to take no for an answer and were rewarded in the end.

1. A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole: The Pulitzer Prize-winning, cult classic novel was rejected by multiple publishing companies, including, famously, Simon & Schuster. In despair of ever getting it printed, Toole committed suicide.
2. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling: The first Harry Potter book was turned down by multiple publishers, including Penguin and HarperCollins.
3. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig: This incredibly well-known book only exists thanks to the persistence of its author, who endured more than 120 rejections before finding a publisher.
4. Watership Down by Richard Adams: Now Penguin Books' best-selling novel ever, Richard Adams' classic story was rejected by 13 publishers, some of whom later sent him "groveling letters."
5. The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter: Upon seven publishers declining to give her a book deal, Ms. Potter published her book herself. More than 150 million copies have been sold since.
6. Twilight by Stephanie Meyer: Of the 15 manuscript copies Meyer sent out, nine were rejected and five had no response. Only one (wise) company wanted to meet with her.
7. Animal Farm by George Orwell: If T.S. Eliot had had his way, Animal Farm would never have seen the light of day. As the head of publisher Faber and Faber, Eliot called the manuscript "unconvincing."
8. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle: Twenty-six publishers wish they could travel back in time and not reject this beloved children's book that has sold 10 million copies in the U.S. alone.
9. The Help by Kathryn Stockett: Kathryn Stockett was fanatical about getting an agent to represent her and her book The Help, even working on her manuscript while in labor with her daughter. Finally, after 60 no's, she got her "yes."
10. Carrie by Stephen King: The prolific writer got so many no's (30) for his first attempt at a novel he threw it in the trash. Luckily his wife fished it out.
11. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller: One publisher's rejection letter said this book was "not funny on any intellectual level." Today the book is recognized as one of the best novels of all time and the title itself is a household phrase.
12. Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach: This short fable about a seagull by a retired Air Force pilot was rejected 40 times before an editor at Macmillan took it under her wing and helped it become a classic.
13. Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen: Canfield and Hansen heard from 123 publishers that their book had a stupid title, had no sex or violence, and no one would read it.
14. The Shack by William P. Young: Publishers either found this book too Christian or not Christian enough. So 15 photocopied editions led to a self-publishing company and eventually 15 million copies sold.
15. Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell: Nearly 40 publishers wished they had given a damn about Mitchell's Civil War drama when it grossed more than $1 million and won a Pulitzer in its first year.
16. MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors by Richard Hooker: We never would have had one of the greatest TV shows in history if Richard Hooker had been deterred by the 21 publishers who turned down his book.
17. Dune by Frank Herbert: More than 20 foolish publishers turned down Frank Herbert's classic that would become the highest-selling science fiction novel of all time, at more than 12 million copies sold worldwide.
18. The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas by Gertrude Stein: Stein's only bestseller received a famous, rude rejection letter from a publisher who turned her down by mocking her trademark style of repetition of simple sentences.
19. A Time to Kill by John Grisham: On his way to becoming a master novelist, Grisham's first book racked up rejections from 16 literary agents and 12 publishers before landing a deal.
20. Lord of the Flies by William Golding: Although Faber & Faber would eventually publish the book, the first reviewer called this book "rubbish and dull" and "pointless."
21. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand: Rand was already a successful writer when her publisher, who had first rights to her new book, declared it "unsaleable and unpublishable." The book has since been called the second most influential book ever, behind only the Bible.
22. The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank: As crazy as it sounds, 16 publishers declined to buy the story of Anne Frank's experiences in World War II. Doubleday's risk paid off as the book has sold more than 30 million copies to date.
23. Moby Dick by Herman Melville: Publishers initially told Melville his long book about whaling was "not at all suitable for the juvenile market." Ninth-graders everywhere wish he had listened.
24. Dubliners by James Joyce: Because of the edgy content, this classic by James Joyce was not an easy sell. He was shot down 22 times before landing a deal with Grant Richards Ltd.
25. The Spy Who Came in From the Cold by John le Carré: Now known as one of the finest novels of the genre, one publisher rejected the book while saying of le Carré, "He hasn't got any future."
26. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov: One publisher said of this book, "I recommend that it be buried under a stone for a thousand years." If it had been, one of the best books of all time would have been lost.
27. The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy: Alec Baldwin should thank Tom Clancy for being persistent. Without Clancy believing in his book through 12 rejections, there never would have been the bestseller or the great movie.
28. On the Road by Jack Kerouac: The book that defined a generation went through a seven-year gauntlet of rejection from publishers who were put off by the book's talk of sex and drugs.
29. Kon-Tiki by Thor Heyerdahl: Twenty rejections from publishers didn't stop this true account of men adrift at sea from making it into book form in 66 different languages.
30. Auntie Mame by Patrick Dennis: Auntie Mame was on the receiving end of 15 rejection letters for being too outrageous, but it became a bestseller, selling 2 million copies in its first run.
31. The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling: Kipling's timeless story was rejected multiple times, with one publisher commenting that Kipling did not even understand the English language.
32. The Life of Pi by Yann Martel: It would later rack up awards like the Booker Prize, but The Life of Pi met with unbelievers at five publishing houses before breaking through.
33. Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs: At first, publisher Olympia Press turned down Burroughs' book as too controversial. However, when excerpts were sent through the mail and the postmaster general called it obscene material, all the attention got Olympia interested again and they agreed to print the book.
34. The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein: In a classic case of getting it exactly wrong, editor William Cole rejected this beloved children's book because he thought it fell in between the interests of kids and adults and wouldn't sell.
35. Dances with Wolves by Michael Blake: Michael Blake lived out of his car while struggling to finish Wolves, and then every major publisher rejected it. Of course, lucky for him, a young man named Kevin Costner found a copy and the rest is history.
36. Lust for Life by Irving Stone: On its winding road to selling 25 million copies, Lust for Life was denied 16 times by publishers, with one calling it "a long, dull novel about an artist."
37. Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery: Countless girls read this book or watched the made-for-TV movie based on it. But Montgomery was turned down by five publishers before securing a book deal.
38. The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende: On the advice of a receptionist at a publishing house, whose company she told Allende would never publish the book, Allende found an agent who helped her sell it despite "nobody" wanting to read it.
39. Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes: This moving short story that has been made into movies, plays, and TV shows almost never saw book form. It was rejected by five publishers over the course of a year.
40. The Princess Diaries by Meg Cabot: Cabot says her novel was rejected by "almost every publishing house in America." But she persevered and the book and its sequels have sold millions of copies and been translated to the silver screen.

 

Like "Twilight?" No, you're not stupid.

Good evening!

I was at lunch recently with some friends, and I found myself in a weird position...we were talking about the Twilight movies and books and I found myself defending them...and feeling really, really ignorant because I was.

For those of you not in the know, "Twilight" is a four book series  (and yes, for those I was lunching with, there are four books...) that tells the story of Bella Swan, a hopelessly awkward high school senior who meets and falls in love with Edward, a vampire.  Oh, and her best friend is Jacob, a werewolf.  (Hilarity ensues.)

Actually, and I've read all the gripes and complaints about these books from women's groups and from authors and from people who just don't like stuff that's popular, I really liked the books.  Sure, I enjoy the movies, but I really liked the books.  I believe author Stephenie Meyer took something everyone thinks they know and turned it on it's side.  She took the legends of vampires and werewolves and made them...romantic heroes.

And then she made millions.

I liked the books.  My daughter LOVED the books.  The men who live here also enjoyed the books, though Boy child might not admit to it now.  (He's 18...he's not going to admit to liking anything romantic.)  While I understand they aren't for everyone, I don't get the backlash,  and I really don't get why I feel like some uneducated hick whenever the topic comes up.  Like I'm just not sophisticated enough to appreciate that they aren't any good.

Balderdash.

As authors we are always looking for the unique story, that specific VOICE.  But face it, we are working with a very limited number  (I think it's seven) of root plots.  And you take those root plot concepts and work them and rework them over the course of forever, and honestly, everything "new" seems to echo something that came before.

Ultimately, "Twilight" is the story of man against nature.  And there's a little good versus evil tossed in for good measure.  If there's a lesson...and I'm not saying there is, but if there would be, the lesson, the message is "we can overcome our difference no matter how huge if we can find a common purpose and a way to love each other."

Nothing wrong with that.

Do we have a little author envy going on?  Possibly.  Are there horror purists out there who can't stand the idea of a cuddly, loving werewolf?  Definitely.  But here's the thing:  It's all fiction. 

I think Moby Dick is the worst book ever written.  There are those who love it. (Well, there must be...high school and college students are forced to read that pile of steaming pointlessness year after year.)  I believe Wuthering Heights is the greatest novel on my shelf.

I think J. K. Rowlings is a goddess for the universe she created in Harry Potter.

And I think Stephenie Meyer is a genius for taking something familiar and giving it new life.

These are just opinions.  They are my opinions.

And I'm all done feeling stupid  for having them.

So....you've reached "the end." Now what?

Good evening all!

Last night I managed to do something a lot of writers don't:  I got to the end of my story.  I finished, finally, the first actual start to finish draft of "Fresh Ice."  In spite of my best efforts to write this one quickly  (you know, in under a year)  it took me almost two years to get to this point simply because the story I finished is NOT the story I started.

The story I started was about a suburban woman who goes to a Renaissance Faire, shares surprise kiss with a performer, and falls in love with him after her horrible husband dies in a very strange auto shop accident.  I was going to call it "7/8s Time."

Well, the name stayed the same, but everything else managed to change.

What I wound up with was a former Olympic figure skater who's been in exile with her husband for nearly twenty years.  She moves back to Nashville, her hometown, after her husband dies...yes, in a very strange auto shop accident.  There she meets a former NHL bad boy.  They are both in need of a rescue.  I'm now calling it, "Fresh Ice."

But now what?  I've written, and rewritten, and, thanks to the tireless efforts of my critique partner, Linda, REWRITTEN (she has informed me that she can, indeed, recite the first chapter verbatim.) until now I have a rough draft in my hand.  Now what?

Well, now the real work begins.  Now I need to go through and, with the help of my critique partner, fix the grammar, trim the word count, dump the really bad chapters.  I need to tighten, tighten, tighten because, friends, I'm not writing Moby Dick.  My story is going to stay on point.  No one will probably teach my book in an English class...but at least people will enjoy reading it. 

Now, since I will probably again e-publish, I have to also format the book.  Design and pay for cover art.  And Market, market, MARKET myself and this book until my whole body hurts.

Maybe I'll pitch this to a traditional publisher.  Maybe...I don't know. 

What I do know, and I what I want to pass on to everyone out there who is struggling to just finish the beast, is this:  Getting out the words, "The End" is a huge accomplishment.  Yes, there's work after that.  No, the world is not going to do a giant happy dance and line up to buy your first draft.  Or your second.  Or your third.  BUT, pat yourself on the back, if you've finished that first draft because that, my friends is a very big first step.

Now, I'm off to finish the first draft of my work place humor book.

Go forth and write!

If a picture is worth 1000 words are we writing with an eye toward the big screen?

Good day all!

Like most Americans, my children went back to school this week.  I'm especially envious of my son, who is a senior in high school.  He is taking a class called "Music in Film."  Where were those classes when I was a senior?  (Oh yeah, we were taking "Intro to word processing" on these things called computers that were one day going to replace the typewriter.)

I'm envious because I love all things movie.  There aren't many movies I hate enough to never watch again.  (Although "Lost in Translation" would be at the top of the list.)  I am especially fond, as you readers know, of movies based on books.  It's a long debate, the book to movie adaptation quality, and not the point of my blog today.

Today, as I was thinking about movies and books and books and movies, I realized that with both Dream in Color and with Lies in Chance, I wrote with the thought of how the story would look on screen.  In fact, with Lies in Chance, I really wrote it more like a made for TV movie  (Hello?  Lifetime Movie Network?)  than anything else. 

It's certainly not a new concept, this writing with a thought for movie rights.  I know many of my writer friends joke about retaining movie rights and not letting Hollywood WRECK their work.  (John Grisham's "The Firm" stands as one of the all time worst movie adaptations.  People actually booed the film in theaters...and no, I wasn't the only one booing!)  Authors, I think, especially authors of this generation, look at people like Stephanie Meyer and JK Rowlings and think, "That's where I want to be.  Book signings AND movie premiers."

But the question is...should we?  Should we as writers actually plan out plot lines and scenes with the idea that this book may one day be a movie?  Has writing changed so much that instead of winning the National Book Award, we dream of winning the Oscar for best screenplay based on previously published works?  Does writing with this thought in the back of our mind help or hurt the stories we tell?

I recently watched the most recent incarnation of "Jane Eyre."  I'm not saying the movie was bad because NOTHING with Dame Judi Dench is going to be bad.  But it was slow moving, tedious,and not at all the "INTENSE UPDATED VERSION" I was promised in the trailer.  Since "Jane Eyre" is one of my favorite books, I'm well versed in many of the multitude of movie versions out there.  Some are good.  Some are terrible.  Clearly, Charlotte Bronte was not writing for movies or plays or tv.  Yet her book of an orphaned governess and the handsome landowner with a dark past continues to inspire readers and movie watchers alike. 

I maintain that some books, albeit a very few,  are made better by their movie versions.  Ah, yes a mention of Moby Dick, the worst book ever published in the English language!  Yet, there are many movie versions of this dull, unwieldy book, and why?  Because at the core of the 700 pages of drech is an epic story about chasing the impossible dream and then having that dream turn into a nightmare.  So the movie, which cuts out about 650 pages of the book, brings out the heart and soul of the story and makes Moby Dick an American classic.

Some books translate to film well, regardless of whether or not the author planned it.  "Gone With the Wind" is a very visual book as well as a beautifully filmed movie.  (And, while the two have almost nothing in common other than character names, they are both near the top of my reading and movie lists.)  "Rebecca" is a great novel, and, at the hand of the master, Alfred Hitchcock, the movie is sneaky in its creepy vibe, not to mention a very striking visual, especially given that it's in black and white.

So, do you write with dreams of your story on the big screen?  (Again...Lifetime Movie Network...I'm waiting for your call!)  Writing is not, by definition, a visual art.  We are weavers of words, painters of word pictures.  We may have a good story, but if our word pictures aren't clear enough, any attempt at a movie is going to fall flat. 

The business of writing is far different than those of years gone by.  Authors are encouraged to bring out big actions on page one.  Long passages of description are discouraged.  Everything is compressed.  We do not have Melville's luxury of writing every thought we might have on the subject of whaling, whaling in art, whaling in sermons.  We live and write in a "get to the point" world.  I think by simply working under the rules of publication, anything we write now feels more and more like a movie or tv show than a book from a century ago.  Maybe it's part of the natural evolution of things as we progress through a new millennium. 

As for me, I'll just keep dreaming of accepting my Oscar, thanks!  That, or an Emmy for my Lifetime Movie!

Are there some books that should not be made into movies?

Good morning all!

I don't know about you, but I am eagerly awaiting the new movie based on the magical book, "The Help."  I was so completely drawn in last fall when I read this book, I can only hope the movie matches my mental images.

It probably won't.

The idea of whether the book or the movie is better is not a new one.  The book is almost always better.  Maybe that's because we all can envision things better than a Hollywood writer.  That's sort of sad, considering how much talent there is in Hollywood...ummmmm...yeah. 

There are some books that are clearly meant to be made into movies.  The visual images are simply too rich to get wrong.  Sometimes these are books that make better movies than they do books.  (Moby Dick, anyone?)

My mother always used to say that in books you can go only as far as your imagination takes you, but in movies you see everything.  It was her argument for letting me read well above my age group.  (Which is why I was reading "Jane Eyre" at 11 and really not getting why no one wanted to hang out with the lady on the third floor.)  I maintain that the opposite is true in many cases.  Your imagination can create a whole world based on the written word.  If the author is very good, he/she will convey the pictures he/she intends with words, and you will wind up "seeing" what the author had in mind.  I think movies might limit that because movies present one vision of a story.

That being the case, I ask, are there books that should never be made into movies?

I've got one, Laura Ingalls Wilder's writings about her childhood.

Wait a minute, I can hear you yelling, those books were made into a beloved TV show that ran for YEARS!

Yes, yes they were.  But, if you watch, except for most of the characters names, that TV show had very little to do with what Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote and more to do with 70's sensibilities poured into a TV show set in the late 1800's.  Don't get me wrong...I LOVED both the books and the show.  But the two had very little to do with each other.  (For example, the books are really clear that Ma and Pa had plenty to do to keep body and soul together with the four girls they had.  The TV show gives us a Ma and Pa Ingalls who pretty much adopt half the orphans in Minnesota.  While the added characters may have been needed to keep the writing fresh, they had nothing to do with books.)

I think Ms. Wilder's writing is such that a child can read and enjoy it and get a very clear picture of the life of a pioneer family.  I also think that since there aren't any major explosions, political upheaval, or espionage, the books would not translate well into movie form.  And that's not a bad thing.  That just means that her writing created such a wonderful world for readers, that no movie is ever going to do it justice.

On the flip side of the coin: You all know that I believe "Moby Dick" should never have been a book.  A good movie, yes.  A book...not in it's present form.  Had Moby Dick been published today, it would be about 150 pages long, and would probably involve robots.

So now I'm waiting to see what Hollywood does to "The Help."    I'm not sure how ready I am to be disappointed.

As writers...do we really WANT our books made into movies?

Good afternoon!

Ahhhh, what is it about vacations?  No matter how long or short they are, we always come back exhausted?

I just finished reading It's King of a Funny Story.  This is one of my son's favorite books, and was recently made into a movie.  I made the mistake of watching the movie before I read the book.  Always, always read the book first!

The movie was fine, but, as always, the book was better.  Ned Vizzini's heartrending, yet funny tale of a 15 year boy who checks himself into a mental hospital is a story that should be taught in colleges as an example of excellent modern day literature.  The movie...well, the movie cut out a good bit of the heart and a whole lot of the intent of the book. 

Now, according to my son, the film adaptation of this book is not nearly as awful as the one for his other favorite book, Youth in Revolt.  I read that book, the journals of one Nick Twisp, and believe that, too, should be taught in colleges.  And perhaps touched upon in parenting classes.  But the movie, which I have not seen, but the Boy child has, apparently is terrible.

Which brings up the age old question:  Do writers really want their books made into movies? 

Hey, if someone wanted to make Dream in Color into a movie, I would do a gigantic dance of joy.  And then I would probably be one of those writers who does something stupid, like sign away my control of the story.  Which would then mean that Ramona will become some sort of streetwalker with a heart of gold, Neil is some business mogul out to blow up the universe, and Jesse is a reformed CIA agent...or something like that. 

I've seen so many versions of my favorite book, Wuthering Heights, made and remade, it makes my head spin.  How could someone get that story wrong?  And yet, with all due respect to Lawrence Olivier, his version of that book is particularly stupid and unwatchable.  I don't care if it won an Oscar.  It's fairly terrible and I have to believe that if Emily Bronte were alive to see it, she would have pitched a fairly sturdy fit.

How about just about every single Harry Potter movie EVER?

I think we all agree...the book is ALWAYS better.  Well, except for Moby Dick.  In that case, the movies, no matter how bad, are WAY BETTER.

So, as writers, should we even think about the possibility of our books on the screen?  TV or Movies, it doesn't seem to matter...the end result is generally not great.  But movies reach more people, I believe, than books.  (Sorry...but I've seen infinitely more movies than I've read books, and I've read hundreds of books in my life.)  Movies might generate interest in a book that's been forgotten, or missed. 

Besides, I get the feeling some days, as I watch movies like "The Hangover II" come out, that screen writers really do need our help.  This is not a slander on screen writers.  But seriously...do we really need "The Hangover II"?  What ground can a second movie possibly cover that wasn't done in the first movie?

Yeah, I'll be skipping that one.  Instead, I'll be hitting the newest incarnation of Jane Eyre and see how it measures up to one of the best books ever written.

If it isn't broken...mess with it anyway and see what happens!

Good afternoon!

This is actually take two of my attempt to blog today. The wind is howling outside, but it's sticky and humid...and a cold front is promised. So it's pretty much a typical bizarre weather day here in the Cheesehead state. The cold front will be just in time for Girl child to unveil her...sleeveless Halloween costume. Yep, she forgot the first rule of trick or treating in Wisconsin: Have a costume you can wear a coat under.

So I was at my favorite retail website www.cafepress.com earlier this week when I found a T-shirt that read, "No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader."

Truer words were never said...and boy did I need to hear those words this week!

I'm stalled, friends, stalled big time. Stalled so bad that I can't even think about Na No this month mostly because we all know I'm not going to write 50,000 words in a month, let's be honest, but also because I'm STALLLLLLLLLLLLLLEDDDDDDDDDDD!

My work in progress, a dark, dark, dark DARK contemporary romance (did I mention it was DARK?) is moving along nicely...until this past week. All this time to write and no actual words coming out. It's not a matter of creativity. It's not a matter of knowing where the story is going, it's a matter of I just don't like the chapter I'm stuck on. It's not fun, it's not funny, it's not sexy....but it must be there. I can't just jump over it. Things will not make sense.

It's not that there's anything wrong with it. I just don't like it. It's sort of dull. It seemed really fun when I wrote it a few weeks ago, but now that I've inserted it into the flow of the story, it just seems....flat.

So...."no tears in the writer, no tears in the reader."

If the chapter doesn't evoke anything from me, there's no point in keeping it.

Today's fiction world is so competitive, so glutted with authors and books and voices and titles that you simply cannot have two pages of so-so writing. Herman Melville would have been shot for about fifty of his chapters in "Moby Dick..." (You know, the chapters that had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOTLINE? Anyone who thinks that mess of disorganized rambling by the most boring human mind on the planet is a Great American Novel has not read the book. I promise you that!) Everything must flow and flow quickly from page to page to page. Every page must have a hook...you writers know what I mean.

Having gone through this past year of editing with Aly over at Wild Rose Press, I've learned a lot about writing and editing.

So, whilst there's nothing really wrong with that chapter, it's going into the deleted file...and maybe I'll just skip everything and get right to the dead body...or the sex.

After all, I'm not writing a book about whaling...THANK HEAVENS!

Have a great Halloween weekend all!