Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Sadly, I must agree with the reviewers who had problems with this movie. For one thing, if I'm noticing the camera work? That's a bad sign.

Secondly, I never thought I would say this but...there was too much Clive Owen. Too many close-ups of Clive Owen. Yes, he's good looking and a heck of an actor, but at a time when there was so much going on, I could have used less of Sir Walter Raleigh. (After the movie I went to the fast, if not always accurate, source of info, Wikipedia, to find out what the dealio was with Raleigh. Apparently his wife carried around his embalmed head for 29 years. Some may call that devotion. I call it, "Eeeuuuw!")

I really got the impression the director was more interested in making pretty pictures/tableaus than telling a good, or even coherent, story, let alone being historically accurate. The execution of Mary Stuart stands out in this regard.

Now, to give the director a break, there was a lot going on in this period of Elizabeth's reign, so there was a lot to choose from, and you can't please all of the people all of the time. However, he's apparently decided to make a trilogy about Elizabeth and that, I think, added to the problem. Things are introduced here and take up time/space for no apparent reason except to set up the next film -- or at least I'm assuming little Isabella of Spain will figure prominently in the next film, or else what the heck was she doing so much in this one?

And if you're talking about the Armada, shouldn't we at least get a glimpse of, oh, say, Sir Francis Drake, if not the guys who really did the planning and the fighting instead of Sir Walter?

But really, one of the things that bothered me most was the portrayal of Elizabeth as a woman on the edge of a breakdown. Or like the worst stereotype of a menopausal female (although they gloss over Elizabeth's actual age). I get that you might want to show her as a normal woman, with fears and doubts and longings. In fact, one of the best parts of this movie for me harkened back to the first, and showed her fantasizing. I could get buy that. But the hysterics seemed over the top for a woman who held her own in what was very much a man's world for so long.

All in all, I was disappointed and not even the excellent actors could save this film for me. I kept thinking about the wonderful version of Elizabeth's reign, Elizabeth R, starring Glenda Jackson, although I haven't seen it in a very long time. It was a six hour mini-series made for TV, so there's more room for history and character development. I've put it on my Christmas list. I will not be asking for Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

No Internet Sundays

I'm trying a little experiment the next couple of weeks, in part as a reaction to all the interruptions/distraction I've had the past couple of days. I'm going to try not going on the internet on Sundays. No email, no blog, no Google, no Television Without Pity. My work computer is deliberately not hooked up to the net, so I'll still be working, just with no internet breaks.

Today, it would have been nice to go to our RWA chapter meeting. For one thing, I enjoy conversations with live people. Instead, I worked a solid four hours revising one scene. One scene. To be sure, it's an important scene, but this isn't even the final draft.

Now I need a break. A Clive Owen In a Historical Movie break. I think you know where I'm heading.

Look for my mini-review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age on Monday.

And so it goes

The mayhem continues! I did get some work done yesterday, despite a very late start, but not as much as I would have liked, and this morning was a (ha!) write off. So I'm staying pretty close to home over the weekend, although I do hope to see Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Clive Owen. On deck. Oh my!

I'm grabbing a few moments before lunch for a quick TV potpourri, because I want to get in a few solid hours of work this afternoon and not stop until it's time to make dinner.

Survivor: Soaking. Well, at least they looked dry for once. But please, could they get some clothes? I don't know if the producers are aware of this, but that show used to be considered family viewing for many people. But if they're going with the skivvies and the blurring? Never mind. Also, a relatively bland cast. Those shows really depend on the casting, and the latest season is something of a disappointment. Also, do they get to shower and wash what remains of their clothes before Tribal Council? Or were all the Tribal Councils filmed back in NA? They look so clean at those things.

Pushing Daisies. One viewing was enough. Too cutesy-woo by far.

Prison Break. We recorded this in favor of Chuck. Still haven't seen it. Haven't missed it. Farewell, pretty Capt. Wentworth.

Enjoying Chuck. Good cast. Adam Baldwin, aka Jayne from Firefly, one of all-tme fav characters, playing a CIA agent working at a big box electronics store. I love it!

Ugly Betty: I don't like frantic, stressed Betty. Last season, she was the sweetness in a sour workplace. Now, not so much. I fell asleep watching it (taped) last night. I think that's it for me.

The Office: still loving it. Kelly and Darrell? Heeee! We saw Andy and Angela coming, but still funny.

Life: Taped it, haven't seen this week's episode yet.

Journeyman: Taped over it before watching. Oops, yet not terribly upset. Sorry, Lucius Veranus, it ain't workin' for me.

The Sexalicious Tudors: Yep, that Henry was quite the lascivious guy. But why did they portray him as so excited over the birth of Henry Fitzroy in the latest episode? He'd had sons by Katherine. They just didn't live that long. So the birth itself shouldn't have put him over the moon. The first birthday, maybe.

Heroes: continues to hold my interest, although I could do without the repetitious nature of the scenes of the two young folks trying to get to the US. Oh, and the amnesia thing. I've never been a fan of such plots. Now watch me come up with a story idea involving...amnesia!

That's it! Time's up! Gotta eat, then write.

One of them thar days

I've had one of those days -- things happening unexpectedly and interfering with the writing schedule. I'm not happy about starting my work day at 4 p.m. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do, or the book doesn't get done and the deadline doesn't get met.

Time Period Popularity

A couple of things have conspired to have me thinking about the popularity -- or unpopularity -- of certain time periods in historical romances this week. One was an article in the paper talking about a TV show called Mob Stories II. The executive producer of the show, Peter Gentile, is quoted as saying, "Mafia stories have replaced westerns on television."

The other is the commercials for the new movie, Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

I'm not sure about mob stories taking the place of westerns on TV, but I do have a couple of theories about why Westerns became unpopular in romance novels.

One reason also dogs the medievals and Victorian era romance novels, and I call it the Hygiene Issue, aka Reality. A lot of modern readers get their ideas of history not from school or books, but from movies or TV, and for a long time, Hollywood portrayed the old West as dusty, but not filthy. Ditto the Middle Ages. Take a look at Errol Flynn's Robin Hood. Those folks are clean, and so are their castles. But then Hollywood got a little more realistic. The reality of the lack of hygiene came in, along with more violence.

Thanks to adaptations of Dickens, a lot of people think poverty, ignorance and dirt when they think of Victorian England.

I find it interesting that Elizabethan and Restoration England apparently do well as settings for historical novels, but not romances. Elizabethan England also seems to work in movies. (Shakespeare in Love was just on the other night, too.) Actually, in the case of Elizabethan England, I think it works better in movies in part because of the clothes. They can look sumptuous on the screen, but if you try to describe those bloomers in a book? Sounds a little silly -- and that's without the cod pieces. Don't want a hero wearing silly outfits!

Then there's Regency England, the most popular setting for historical romances at the moment. Again, I think there are a few reasons for this, but one is certainly due to Jane Austen, who confined her stories to the upper middle class. That's the level of society most often portrayed in current historical romances, too. Everybody's clean, everybody's polite, and all the factories, child labor, pollution and riots are out of sight.

Do historical romance readers really have a much lower tolerance for, well, history? Are they truly unwilling to face the realities of the past? Do they just want what's basically an adult fairy tale? This is something I grapple with all the time, because I hate to think it's true, even if the market seems to tell me so.

Task Management

Once again I'm indepted to LW for today's blog subject, task management, because I empathize with her plight. When you've got kids and another job, how do you get it all done? In the writing biz, I think it's especially difficult before you're published. Unlike say, sewing or knitting or decorating, when you've finished an unsold manuscript, you've basically just got a pile of paper. How do you explain the use of that time to people who only see the pile of paper, who don't see creative effort and optimism? It ain't easy.

I also think there's more pressure than ever before on authors to promote their work. So now it's not enough to write your book and get it published (no small potatoes!). No, you've got to be thinking of a web presence and public appearances and -- oh, how I hate this one -- "branding." (I have yet to comprehend the difference between "branding" and "stereotyping.")

So what's an author to do? I got one really good piece of advice from a business book, by Kate White, called WHY GOOD GIRLS DON'T GET AHEAD... BUT GUTSY GIRLS DO. She wrote this years before she became a mystery writer as well as the editor of Cosmo.

It's a little technique called "slice the salami." Instead of thinking of a job, like creating a website, as this huge mountain to climb, break it down to smaller tasks. I'd also add, spread over time.

For example, instead of thinking about the website as one major task, break it down into a series of small tasks, spread over time, with manageable deadlines. For instance, "This week, I'll register a domain name." That's it for this week. "Next week, I'll ask my friends or other writers I know if anybody can recommend a good web designer." All you have to do that week is compile a list of names. Next week, you contact one or two and ask for prices. That's it for that week. And so on.

In that way, you're working on the problem, and getting things done, just more slowly.

In my case, I realized over the weekend that my characters are apparently inhabiting the equivalent of a ghost town. As they move through what should be areas with a lot of people, I never mention anybody else. Ooopsy. So my task in one chapter, in addition to the general tightening to keep the focus on the main couple, is also to add people where there should be people. Simple, easy to remember, relatively easy to do. I'm not thinking about the overall plot - just what I need to do at that one place.

That's my slice of salami for that chapter.

Blogs, Website and other PR

I wrote a long comment in response to a comment on my most recent blog posting, then decided to use it as a blog entry instead. You can scroll down and read the comment first, if you'd like, or just read the answer here. It's about PR, and the pressure to do a lot of it if you're an author.

I think in this day and age, a website is a must. If I did nothing else for PR, I would do this. It's a fast and easy way for your readers to find out about your books -- what's out, what the books are about, and what's coming. You can keep the personal info to a minimum, if you'd prefer. If time is an issue, you can pay somebody to set it up and update it for you. I used to update mine every week, but with the blog, it got a bit much, so I don't update the site as often. I enjoy doing it, so I still update it fairly frequently.

Re author pics. Some readers apparently like to see what an author looks like. Your publisher may require one, so this might not be optional.

Booksignings -- I find these pretty much a waste of time and effort. Agents don't, I gather. But they aren't the ones sitting there alone, like Oliver Twist asking for "more," thinking of all the other things they COULD be doing. FWIW, I think being president of your RWA chapter is better PR. Also writing articles for your chapter newsletter, which may be picked up by other chapter newsletters (and which, come to think of it, I should be doing more of, as well!). Ditto giving workshops at smaller conferences or RWA national -- and booksignings at such events are usually well attended, too. So if it's personal appearances your agent wants you to make, local booksignings may not the best in my experience, but there are alternatives.

As for blogs, I think this is much more up to you and your time. I cannot even imagine trying to write a book with four kids under ten, let alone blog, etc. etc. However, you don't have to blog daily, but could do it weekly, or whenever you have the time. And they don't have to be long entries. But I would consider the blog the most optional of all PR ventures, at least at present -- unless you choose to have only a blog. I gather some authors do this. My concern would be that you wouldn't be able to have a lot of information about your backlist there. If you're not yet published though, this might be a good way to start an internet presence, and you can do a website when you have a second book on the way.

As for a change in profile or sales from a website or blog? I couldn't point to either one and say, "Ah ha! Lookee there! What a surge!" The effectiveness of most PR is hard to measure, especially author-driven (and paid for) PR.

I can appreciate that an agent wants an author to be out there promoting herself in this day and age, especially on the internet. However, I still believe no amount of PR an author can do can top writing good books. If your writing is really going to suffer because you're on the internet or at booksignings instead of writing, that's not good.

Writers who have other jobs, whether it's another paid gig or motherhood, have to find the balance that works for them. For me, it was family first, writing second and PR a distant third. Still is. Maybe I'd be more successful as a writer if I had other priorities.

But I wouldn't be nearly as content, and that's the bottom line for me.

No Thrill in this Thriller

As part of my resolution to read more books from different genres, I got a book out of the library based on an ad in the NYTimes Book Review section. The back cover quotes call the author "one of Britain's finest thriller writers."

While there is a mystery and some dead bodies, I'm just not feeling the thrill, or the suspense. I personally find the pace slow, and that's without a couple of major pace-killing distractions.

The characters all have nicknames, which means not only must I remember their real names, I have to remember their nicknames. Unfortunately, I'm not sitting down for a leisurely afternoon's read -- I read when I can grab some time during the day or evening. That means I keep forgetting what nickname applies to what character. That takes me out of the story. A lot.

The characters keep referring to each other by name during conversations, even if there are only two people involved. "So, what do you think, Sammy?" "I don't know, Davie." That feels false to me, so it, too, pulls me out of the story.

Then there's the setting. It's very, very English. The writer's English, so I shouldn't really be quibbling. It's just that with some writers, I know I'm in England without feeling like a fish out of water. The references are enough to give me a sense of place, but not so much I'm distracted by the differences. Sadly, not this time.

These things are cumulatively enough for me to give up.

There was one other thing that struck me about this book, and it had nothing to do with the text. There is absolutely no information about the author on the book jacket. No bio, no picture, nothing. No doubt I noticed this because a day doesn't go by that I don't worry I'm not doing enough PR, whether it's on the internet or elsewhere. Authors seem to be so pressured to promote themselves. But this guy? He doesn't even have a bio on the jacket, let alone a website. I confess part of me thinks, "Good for you!" Another part thinks, "I wonder what his background is?" So I googled him. Somebody did a Wikipedia entry for him, so I found out a few interesting things.

I'm still not going to finish the book, though. I have a pile of books by my bed, so it's on to the next one.

How many hours a day do you spend writing?

So I was revising away yesterday, and I had an idea for a new version of the scene I was working on. It passes the "gut test," as in, I feel it's a good idea. That means more revising and finding a way to make the new idea fit into the scene. I've spent the better part of this morning figuring out how to do that.

The question of the day is, should I count that as writing time? After all, it yielded zero pages.

I've long suspected that when many people ask about "writing time," they're really thinking about what I'd call typing time -- the time spent at the keyboard, resulting in x numbers of pages.

This is why I always hesitate a bit when people ask me how much time per day I spend writing. Do they mean time at the keyboard? Should I include thinking time? What about reading time? What about the time I spend researching things like street lighting or a typical meal in a castle in 1204?

That's why I find "How many hours a day do you spend writing?" one of the toughest questions about the writing life to answer.

Unintentional Amnesia

Amnesia is a plot device that's been used many times in romance novels. I understand the appeal. It provides instant dramatic tension: Will the amnesiac remember his or her past? What will happen when s/he does? And in romance, will s/he return to his or her "old" life, or begin a new one with the hero or heroine?

However, I have once again discovered an unintentional amnesia element in my current work-in-progress -- a character apparently has no memory of a key event from a few scenes before. It's as if it never happened, because he or she never thinks about it afterward.

In the case of the current wip, it's a kiss. The first passionate kiss between the hero and heroine. This is -- or should be -- an important development in the romance, right? But for the next few scenes, neither character thinks about it.

Ay yi yi. Bad author, bad!

Just goes to show that no matter how many romances I write, I still make some major blunders when I'm writing the first draft.

A Wish List

There was an article in the most recent Romance Writers Report called "Surviving Your Career" by six New York Times bestselling authors. It was interesting, yet something occurred to me while reading it that also goes to the complaints I hear from time to time about the overall relevance of Romance Writers of America.

I don't expect RWA to be all things to all romance writers. Frankly, I think some of the complaints are just plain unreasonable for an organization of such a size, with such a diverse group of authors.

But while I was reading that article, I realized that I'd appreciate more articles from and about authors who haven't reached the top of the mountain.

I'd love to hear long-time category authors talk about why they stay in that arena.

I'd be interested to hear from the author whose line has been dropped, maybe more than once. How do they keep going?

What about the writer who, not having achieved sterling sales, switches genres and/or changes names in an effort to reach the top of the mountain? Did it work? Was it a mistake?

If somebody's career has stalled, what happened with their writing friends? Were they still supportive, or did a sense of "you might have cooties" creep into the group? Did family support dwindle, or did having sold even once keep everyone positive?

I'm sure there have been some articles like these in the time I've been in RWA, and people could point them out to me. However, it seems to me that while there are many articles relevant to the unpublished, along with how-to craft articles, market news and what I'd term "inspirational" articles, I don't often find pieces that seem aimed at mid-listers/category authors, unless it's how to get out of there.

I also realize there's a hurdle regarding articles of the sort I'd like to see. Some of these ideas would require admitting a career blunder in a public forum, and/or a lack of success one might prefer to keep to oneself. This is, after all, a competitive business. So I absolutely understand why people wouldn't want to talk about their struggles.

Nevertheless, I'd love to see more articles for and about those not up and out of the trenches, or trying to get into the trenches, but who have been there for awhile, may always be there and those who are happy to stay there.

And thus I pay for my little holiday

Before the weekend, I finished reading through the first half of my first draft, and making notes. I decided I didn't have to go back and make revisions starting at Chapter One. I felt confident I could start at the second-last chapter, and then carry on to the end. I wrote five new pages for that chapter on Friday.

Then I took the weekend off. I had a great time. And it was wonderful to get out of the house and enjoy a couple of beautiful warm and sunny days.

But alas, there is a price to pay for taking time off from the writing, and yesterday, I found out what it was for me, this time. I started working on the second-last chapter. And then...I realized I was probably going off track. I wasn't sure I was doing what I'd written in my notes, and the tone felt, frankly, off.

Yep, I had lost the momentum.

This is why writers will say you should write every day -- so this doesn't happen. But now it has, so what to do?

Open a new directory that says "second draft," and start revising from Page One, Chapter One. That's the best way I know to get back into the book. Fortunately, I have no major occasions that will require more than one day's break until the book's due -- at least for now. Even on that one day, I'm going to read through the last scene I've written, if nothing else, just to keep things fresh in my mind.

ETA: I've finished revising the first scene, and I'm glad I decided to do that. It feels so much stronger! A much firmer foundation, that's for sure.

Also, The Tudors tonight -- at last. A reviewer today compared Henry to a rock star, and the court as his groupies. Exactly, thinks I. Except that Henry had a lot more to offer his groupies/mistresses (titles, lands, money, political power) -- and their families -- than a rock star does.

A great weekend (even though I didn't win a medal)

I had a really wonderful weekend, aided in part by the abolutely lovely weather. It was more like the end of August than September.

Sunday was the annual Word on the Street book and magazine festival in Toronto. I've attended before, but this was the first time the weather was that magnificent and I'd had so many people tell me that they'd read my books and enjoyed them. Harlequin gets a big thank you for supplying books for me to sign.

I also got to gab with fellow romance writers from Toronto Romance Writers. That's always a delight, because nobody understands being a writer like other writers.

As an added bonus, the event was near the university I attended, and they were having a book sale. I scored several great research books at bargain prices.

On Saturday, another glorious day, my husband and I attended the annual euchre party of our high school buddies, plus spouses who married into the gang known to our kids as "Euchre Party People." We start at noon, and go till about 10. There are two meals and many, many unhealthy snacks, plus drinks. I myself stick to cola, although whatever I drink has apparently no correlation to my playing skill. We play, we gab, we catch up on family news. Medals are awarded (gold, silver and bronze).

I have not won a euchre medal in many years. Yet, lo! This year, my partner and I (chosen by drawing names) made it to the finals. In fact, we won the first round. But then -- oh woe! -- I made a bad call of trump and we got euchred. The last hand, it was nine to nine. And then my very own spouse euchred us on the very last trick. So we came fourth, and thus no medal for us. Whaaa! Maybe next year.

All in all, it was a great weekend visiting with old friends, talking with fellow writers and meeting readers.

Word On The Street

I'll be at Word on the Street, a book and magazine festival, in Toronto, Ontario this weekend. I'll be at the Toronto Romance Writers booth from 11 a.m. - noon, and the Harlequin booth from 12:15 - 1:15 p.m. Come on down, say hi and get a free book!

TV hits and misses

Now that the new TV season is in full swing, here's my take on some of the shows, old and new.

Prison Break: I dunno. Captain Wentworth still brings the pretty, but the plot seems to be calling for an incredible suspension of disbelief I may not be up for. However, that Whistler guy sure cleaned up nice -- and he's got that delicious Aussie accent to boot. I'll give it a few more weeks.

Heroes. What can I say? Hiro in medieval Japan. I'm there.

Journeyman -- I watched this strictly for Kevin McKidd, and was not disappointed in his abilities. But this could get a little repetitious. I'll keep watching for a few more weeks and see how it goes.

Chuck -- I don't get the flashbacks. I find them almost dizzying, and what's with the apple pie? And is Secret Agent Man dead? Too bad. Over at Television Without Pity, they're referring to Chuck's good buddy as Jack Black Lite, and I have to say, I concur.

Reaper -- Chuck 2.0, with a paranormal element thrown in. I suspect I'll forget to watch this next week.

As we did Gossip Girls this week. Bad sign. My main problem with that show, besides being several years removed from high school, is that the lead actress looks, to me, far too old to be a high school girl. I know girls these days look very mature for their age, but if somebody told me she was 32? I'd believe it. Whereas when Buffy started? I could totally buy those were high school kids.

Cane -- aka Jimmy Smits Talks A Lot On The Phone. I guess there was a plot here, and goodness knows Polly Walker should be in anything she cares to try, but this was boring. Not even the young hunks can save it. Eye candy only goes so far.

Kid Nation: aka Survivor Junior. How sweet was Jimmy? How cold does it get there? I went to summer camp in Canada, so I know from chilly mornings and getting dressed in the ol' sleeping bag, but still, this seems a little brutal for the younger kids. This also seems an odd mix of "let's see what the kids do" -- with a lot of planned interference (the caste system comes to mind).

America's Next Top Model: I'm finding this show less and less interesting. I was especially put off by the way Marvita was made to reveal details of her past she might have preferred not to have broadcast nation-wide, then they cut her. Unkind, to say the least.

Bionic Woman: Hey, it's Starbuck! And a couple of other Battlestar Alums! Cool! As for the BW herself -- I can see you'd be a little ticked to find out you've got a lot of new parts, but if the alternative is death? I think you could be a tad grateful -- until you found out about the new wiring in the cranium. THEN I could see getting really angry. Also, it seemed to take forever before she asked about L'il Sis after the accident. I liked the notion of Bad Prototype on the loose -- especially when it's Starbuck.

Life: I watched this solely for Damien Lewis, who will forever be Soames to us. As expected he was good -- but could they tone down his yakkery a tad? I can see his mutterings getting old fast.

Private Practice -- I don't watch medical shows. Not even Lance of the Lovely Lashes can compel me to watch, and not even if it's (mostly) a soap. Downside of a vivid imagination coupled with worry wart tendencies.

The Office -- oh, Jim! Oh, Pam! So cute! And yet, I worry that they'll do something to break them up. Dwight, you have so blown it! Happy to have the gang back!

Ugly Betty. ARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Oh, how could you??? I was so happy, thinking Santos had survived, only to be thrown that curve at the end. I loved the opening, and then... I want the old Betty back. The competent, not going crazy Betty. I actually found her scenes stressful, not enjoyable. And I could live without the Amanda stuff. The kid who plays Justin? Love him! But I tell ya, the slip into dark with this show is not going well with me.

Next week, we finally get The Tudors. A somewhat sanitized version on the local network, but still...The Tudors!

And although I've already blogged about Survivor: Soaking in China, I'll say it again -- Go James!

Surviving, thriving and in between

Thanks to a query from a fellow writer, I've been doing a lot of thinking about what it takes to survive and thrive as a writer or historical romances, or any romances, for that matter. I wrote a long email response, and then thought, hey, this would work for a blog entry! So here, with a few revisions, is what I said to her:

First, a writer needs to know what's important to him or her, how each would define success as a writer, and recognize that it's not the same for everyone. One person's "thriving" may be another's "surviving," one person's "thriving" may be too stressful for another.

For some, the only true measure of success is public and "big" -- making the NYTimes list. For others, it's having a job you can do at home while the kids are small, making enough for "percs" or trips, and without the stress of trying to make it big. Or it can be something in between.

If a writer's main goal is to be on the NYTimes, they should:

1. Pay close attention to what's selling well. At the moment, it's lots of sex (or, conversely, inspirationals) and paranormals. A NYTimes bestselling author once said to me something along the lines of, "If my editor told me the only books that were really selling were set in Bolivia in 1819, I'd be writing books set in Bolivia in 1819."

2. Find a type of story that you do well and works for the vast majority of your readers, and write variations of it. Yes, there will be some differences from book to book, but if brooding noblemen are your forte? Stay with them. Let the differences come from the heroines or the details of the plot.

3. PR is your friend. Do a lot of it, as creatively as you can.

The price to pay for this sort of success? Stress (because you're at the most competitive end of the spectrum), and stereotyping, because editors and your readers may be very vocally opposed to you stepping from that path.
Other writers may also accuse you of basically prostituting your creativity for material success. But they don't understand you, don't know your history, likely have no clue what that goal is so important to you.

On the other hand, if you want to write for other reasons, pay no attention if the NYTimers think you are only claiming not to care about being on the NYTimes because you know, in your heart of hearts, you will never "make it." They will never really understand that a writer can have a different, more personal goal that is every bit as worthy. They don't understand you, don't know your history, have no clue why you hold a goal that is different from theirs.

However, there's a price to pay for marching to your own drummer and writing what you want the way you want. You may never "make it big." It may always be a struggle for you to sell. You may never get the glowing reviews if you veer from what's expected, or whatever a particular set of readers think is necessary in a romance, but you don't. You will not make the big money, either. Or get the plum speaking gigs. In other words, material success -- of the sort anybody can recognize -- and peer recognition may never come your way. But you may have a lot less stress when it comes to the actual writing, don't have to spend hours on PR or worry if you've missed something you ought to be doing that Suzy Big Author did, and can take more time for family and friends or other hobbies. You may not make huge amounts of money, but you can have enough that you don't have to worry about taking a vacation now and then, or helping put the kids through college.

It sometimes happens, for the fortunate few, that what they want to do happens to be what's hot at the moment. They are able to write what they want the way that want while riding the wave. This is the best of both worlds.

But it is rare. For the rest of us, there are decisions and sometimes compromises to be made. Reaching any goal require sacrifices and decisions, but only the individual can decide for themselves what their goal truly is and what they're prepared to do to get there. Or not.

It isn't just publishing

A lot of readers complain about the way authors and publishers jump on the latest bandwagon. Suddenly there's a ton of Regency-set historicals, or paranormals.

But it isn't just publishing that does this. I was really struck by the similarities bewtween two new shows that started this week, Chuck and Reaper. Both feature guys who work in (thinly disguised) large chain stores, who are basically slackers (dead end job, little or no post-secondary education), apparently lacking ambition, suffering from martinet bosses, with amusing yet even more slacker-y sidekicks, and seemingly unable to function around a pretty woman.

These are the offspring of successful films like Knocked Up.

As with any trend, the first example does well because it's new and fresh and different. By the time you've seen/read ten or twelve? They'd better be pretty good, because it no longer seems fresh and different.

So why do publishers and other companies follow a trend until it gets tired and worn out?

It's about trying to reduce risk. Publishers and companies can't foretell the future, or really know when one trend is going to take off, so they go by what's sold well previously.

Authors, like most self-employed people, live with a lot of risk. Will our work sell? Will our editors like what we've done, or will we have to do a lot of revision? Will the book sell well? Will we get another contract?

A publisher can hope to make up losses if something new doesn't catch on by having the "tried and true" in their lists, as well. But for the author to try something really new and different means risking income, and losing readers perhaps forever. That's why some will try something new (often under a different name) while keeping one foot where they've published before.

That's also why some will gravitate toward the trends -- to try to reduce risk, the same way the networks have jumped on the nerds/slackers-are-hot bandwagon.

Readers have cause to complain about a trend when it seems to be overwhelming everything else, but the author who gets on that bandwagon may just be trying to make their career a little less of a gamble.

The best-laid plans....

So there I was, bound and determined to forge ahead with the first draft. Yep, that was my plan and boy, I was going to stick to it! After all, I'd be doing plenty of revising at the end, so if I'd wandered too far from the Path of Synopsis, no big. I could fix it. Eventually.

And yep, I wrote yesterday, and I had notes for what I'd write today. Everything was golden, right?

Except that I sat down at the ol' computer today (and according to some, what I use to write would be an antique), and discovered that my gut was at odds with my brain.

Now granted, it could be that applesauce at lunch coupled with two helpings of peach crisp at dinner yesterday was responsible for a certain queebliness in that region, but there was more to it than that.

I have the uneasy feeling I've added at least one too many characters and subplots, and in doing so, I've wandered too far off course. If I continue, I could wind up so far away from the proposed story line, I'll never be able to find my way back.

So I'm going to read the manuscript through, list the characters, think about the plots and especially make sure I haven't added so much, the main romantic plot and the focus on the hero and heroine has been lost. I really was hoping I could just carry on, but I've decided that would be the wrong move in this case.

I've only had a few books where I knew exactly where I was going every single step of the way (and oh, what joys to write were THE NORMAN'S HEART, A WARRIOR'S BRIDE and THE OVERLORD'S BRIDE). But those are the exceptions, not the norm.

So it's back to Chapter One, Page One for me, red pen and additional paper at the ready to make what will no doubt be copious notes.

I just don't get it

The New York Times has made some changes to its bestseller lists. As of yesterday, the paperback books have been divided into two different lists, one for "trade" paperbacks (larger and more expensive, generally more "literary") and one for mass market paperbacks (smaller, cheaper, generally more genre-oriented). They've also lengthened these lists to twenty books, from fifteen. Hardcover remains at fifteen.

This makes a lot of sense, given the difference in the price between the two types of paperbacks. But you can't completely think of one as "literary" and the other "genre," as I've had both mass market and trade editions, although by far more mass market than trade. Many so-called "chick lit" books were published in trade format, although it seems that the editors of the Book Review section have other books in mind: "It gives more emphasis to the literary novels and short-story collections reviewed so often in our pages (and sometimes published only in softcover)."

As for increasing the number between hardcover and softcover, I think this reflects the difference in volume.

Unfortunately, it seems as though romance is still going to be shut out when it comes to actual reviews. "Regular features, like Crime and Accoss the Universe" are going to continue. There will be other columns, for poetry and horror fiction. And for romance?

Nothing, apparently, despite the number of romance novels that make their bestseller list, new criteria and old, and despite the number of bestsellers in other genres by writers who began in romance.

Romance novels still don't make the cut.

I just don't understand this. Why horror and not romance? Why mysteries and not romance? They have just as much of a "formula" as romance. You can have good writers and bad, cliches and innovation, in romance as much as the other genres. Yet only romance is consistently shut out.

Why? Truly, at times like these, the answer that seems most believable is that they think that because romance is read primarily by women, and written primarily by women, romance must be just so much fluff (women being, apparently, stupid and incapable of, you know, thinking) and therefore the whole genre is not worthy of their attention. I don't want to slam another genre, but I just can't see that horror is so much more august, worthy and of greater literary merit than romance, or some of those cozy mysteries, either.

If it's not sexism at work, what else explains this vast ignoring of a whole genre, a bestselling genre, a popular genre, whose books regularly appear on their own bestseller lists? Why isn't romance worth at least an occasional column, too?

Guarding the Son of Bun

As readers of this blog will know, I get very happy when we spot the Bun-Bun (aka a rabbit) in the backyard. It's a sign of spring, and if I see him or her later on in the summer, I'm still thrilled.

This morning, my husband spotted our neighbor's cat, Rocky, in our yard, with something in his mouth. He dropped it and it was moving. Rocky was sitting about three feet away, just...waiting.

Was it a bird? A mouse? No, says my husband in dismay, it looks like a baby bunny!

What? Son of Bun attacked, possibly dead? Was this even possible? Weren't baby bunnies born in the spring?

Since I was in my jammies and Hubby was dressed, he went out to investigate. Rocky continued to sit where he was.

Yes! It was Son of Bun! Oh, no!

I went out, jammie-clad as I was. Perhaps it was the sight of me striding purposefully forward, or the shock of my hot pink nightwear, or because there were now two people involved, but for whatever reason, Rocky sauntered away through the fence, to take up a surveillance position under the neighbor's deck.

After careful study from a short distance, we determined Son of Bun was alive. Such relief! But what to do? We didn't want to touch it, in case we scared it even more, and we couldn't bring it into the house anyway, where three cats reside. But we weren't willing to leave it alone, on the grass, with Rocky nearby.

As Hubby kept watch, I hurried into the house, got dressed (including a fleece jacket because it was pretty chilly in the shade), got the paper and my tea and went outside. I moved a chair about six feet from Son of Bun, and prepared to protect our little friend.

After about fifteen minutes, I was rewarded by the sight of Son of Bun hopping to the back of the yard, to the edge of the garden, when he proceeded to stay.

A little while later, I saw Rocky strolling along the hedge at the other side of the yard. Almost at once, a bigger rabbit burst out of the hedge and tore across the yard, passing Son of Bun without a pause, through the neighbor's fence into their yard, where he stopped and sat and looked around. Was this a relative, perhaps a parent of the baby bunny? Had Son of Bun been out with Daddy or Mommy and been caught by the cat? Did the larger rabbit realize it had passed the baby?

Bigger Bunny continued through the neighbor's yard and away.

Daughter, by now privy to the morning's excitement, got up and dressed and, with breakfast and a book in tow, came out to join me. We checked Son of Bun and had a moment's panic when we realized there was an ant crawling on him, and his eyes were closed. Had he died after all?

No! As closer inspection revealed, he was breathing. Were we traumatizing the poor thing more by getting close? Fearing we were, we went back to the lawn chairs.

Eventually, after an hour had passed with no sign of Rocky and with Son of Bun still in the (deeper) undergrowth close to the pile of sticks from my spring trimming efforts, we felt we could go inside, and probably should, so Son of Bun would relax and hopefully get home safely.

I just went out to check, and he's gone.

I hope the poor little guy made it home okay!

(If you want to see the map enlarged, go here.)

Fighting the urge...

I have once again reached the point in the first draft where I am past the set-up and into the beginning of the middle. And as always, I have the urge to go back and totally revise what I've done.

I understand why this happens. I don't do an extensive outline. My synopsis is pretty much it, so to go from a fifteen or so page story to a full book means I'm going to be adding material. And characters. That is why I also refer to my first draft as "the kitchen sink draft," as in, "everything but the." So right about a third of the way through, I realize I've added a lot of things that may or may not make the final cut. I also may have wandered off the original path of the story. A little wandering's not bad, but what if I've wandered too far afield? So I start to think maybe I need to go back and evaluate what I've done so far.

However, there are reasons not to. For one thing, I'm going to be adding a lot more before I'm done, and cutting and rewriting accordingly. Why not wait until I'm done the whole manuscript and see what I've got before I start with the cutting and rewriting? Also, I can get stuck revising and rewriting. Well, okay, it happened once, but that was enough and the only way to get out of it was to just write and not worry about it. So I'm thinking the best thing to do is keep going.

What if I've gone off the beaten path? I've already realized I dropped a subplot, and have taken steps accordingly. If I find I've gone too far afield at the end, I can always retrace and fix. After all, revising is not a problem for me, and I expect to do a lot anyway.

Therefore, I shall resist the urge to go back and reread and rewrite and forge ahead.

Oh, and I must say, after watching Survivor last night...one word: James.

Okay, a few more words. James, the comely and quiet and modest. Audience manipulation or not, I've got somebody I care about already. I don't think I've ever been so tense about the outcome of a first challenge so much in the history of Survivor. Go James!

Speaking of dramatic tension....

It's time for another season of Survivor! And I am there!

Now, I appreciate that there's a lot that's not "real" about so-called reality TV. There is a whole lot of manipulation going on. And why? Why, to create dramatic tension. Just like with a book, that's what will keep people coming back.

Since I've been blogging about that a lot, let's use Survivor as an example of some of the ways an author can create dramatic tension.

Characters: Do they, through editing, try to create heroes and heroines you can care about and root for, and villains to hate? Oh, yes, indeedy! I was so invested in Yau Man's success, I was literally on the edge of my seat.

Do they use backstory and motivation to make us care? Yep. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. When it seems really heavy-handed, that tends to backfire. It's like loading down a character with too much emotional baggage at the start of the book.

Are there misunderstandings? Oh, yes. And sometimes deliberate misleading.

Is there conflict? Definitely. There are personality clashes, alliances made and broken.

Is there internal conflict? Yep. Do I trust that person or not? Should I break that alliance, or stay with it?

Complications? The reward challenges.

You've also got the tension of a group of being being "stranded" together, forcing physical intimacy. And there's often emotional intimacy, whether it's friendships forming or an even deeper intimacy, like the beginning of the relationship between Boston Rob and Amber (who I have now seen more than enough of, thank you).

What about public stakes? Well, they've tried. We've had the women vs. men and then the attempt at the ethnic/racial divisions. The women vs. men wasn't the best, because I personally found too many of the young women annoying. The ethnic/racial divisions proved to be essentially meaningless during the show, but certainly sparked a lot of tension among the fans before it even aired. However, it seems to me that their attempts to give Survivor greater social relevance rarely works.

What does make one season of Survivor more interesting and exciting than another? Just like with a book, it's all about the people. The more diverse the group, the more differences in their backstory and experience, the better the season.

That's why I'm a little concerned about this one. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like a very diverse group. But who knows? People, like the best of characters, can surprise you. And that's what keeps me coming back.

Raising the personal stakes through intimacy

When it comes to creating dramatic tension, I've talked about creating characters readers can care about, conflict, misunderstandings, complications and expanding the stakes from the personal to the public. What other ways can you raise the stakes for your characters? After all, too many quarrels can sound like petty bickering; too many misunderstandings that aren't resolved can make your characters seem immature. You can only put your characters in physical danger so many times before your story starts to sound like The Perils of Pauline.

Consider, then, something that can be either good, or bad, but that will certainly affect your characters' relationships, and thus your story: physical intimacy and emotional intimacy.

Think about stories where people are forced to be together, either because of a natural catastrophe or man-made situation -- a prison drama, for instance, or a "buddy" picture. In a romance, think stranded in a cabin during a blizzard, or an arranged marriage. The fact that your characters are, in one way or another, trapped together, adds to the tension and affects their relationship.

There's another kind of physical intimacy that, as a romance writer, I'm naturally going to be thinking about, and that's a sexual relationship. That sort of intimacy has to change a relationship, for good or ill. How much would depend on the characters and their situation, but if it doesn't change it at all, why bother writing about it? They might as well be brushing their teeth.

There's another kind of intimacy that can really up the tension in any novel, but especially in romances: emotional intimacy. Everybody fears rejection, so getting close enough to another person to reveal and share one's innermost feelings, can seem very risky indeed. What if you do that and the other person rejects you? Many of my characters would truly rather face physical danger than run that risk. Even the very thought of being emotionally intimate raises the stakes enormously for those characters.

Dramatic tension doesn't have to come from a big explosion, a natural disaster, shots in the dark, a huge quarrel or some deep-seated trauma. It can exist in the possibility of fingertips touching, or wondering if anything should be said. Who hasn't been reading a book, watching a movie or TV show and thought, as two characters are together, "Oh, please, say you're in love and kiss!"

That is dramatic tension, too.

Birthday! (No, not mine.)

Today is my Mom's birthday. She's out of town but I have spoken to her and sung Happy Birthday and, as usual, shared some laughs.

I probably wouldn't be a writer if it weren't for my Mom. However, unlike writers of a certain sort, that isn't because my Mom was a harpy and lousy parent. Nope, she was and is a fabulous mother. And I've thought about how she contributed to my success as a writer. Here are some of the ways:

When I was little, if anybody upset me at school or elsewhere, part of the "chinwag" afterward would involve this question: "Why do you think they did or said that?"

So because of her, I've been thinking about people's motivations -- looking beyond the actions to the emotional reasons for the why of it -- since I was a child.

My Mom never, ever told me to go outside and play if I was reading. Reading was a-ok with her. I shudder to think how much she spent, while on a tight budget, for Trixie Belden books.

My Mom didn't flinch when I wanted to get a (somewhat impractical) BA in English Lit. My Mom didn't get to go to university, although she certainly had the smarts. My Grandpa thought it was a waste of money for a woman. Instead of being like some parents I've heard of, who take the attitude, "I didn't get that, so neither will you," she had the opposite reaction. You want to go to university? Fantastic! You want to take English Lit? Wonderful!

She is still fantastically supportive. As my sister put it when my mother was seriously ill (now thankfully recovered), "She always makes you feel as if you're doing the right thing." This is a rare and wondrous gift, as I've come to learn over the years.

She can find the humor in those minor frustrations we all experience from time to time, so we generally wind up laughing about them.

She was a fantastic parental role model, and I can only hope I've lived up to the example she set. One of the greatest compliments people can pay me is to say I'm like her.

So Happy Birthday, Mom, and many, many more!

Take It Public

Writers hear a lot about "raising the stakes" when it comes to their story. That means, basically, increasing dramatic tension, creating anxiety in the reader about the outcome of events and their effect upon the characters so that they continue to read the book.

I've talked about creating characters people will care about, and using conflict, misunderstandings between characters and complications to up the tension.

Donal Maas, in his excellent book, WRITING THE BREAKOUT NOVEL, adds another element to the mix, what he calls "public stakes." I touched on this briefly in the blog post about characters (How To Get Tense), when I mentioned Todd Stone's advice from Novelists' Boot Camp about giving your characters an audience, so that their success or failure is more public. That way, they have even more to lose if they fail to reach their goals.

Donald Maas has a different meaning, though. He suggests you create a situation where the outcome of the events of the novel and the conflict you've created have a more extensive impact, not just on the main or secondary characters, but on the novel's society at large. To give an example that immediately came to my mind when I read that part of DM's book (although it's not a novel): in the film Gladiator, Maximus is primarily motived by his need to have justice for his murdered wife and son. However, he will also be exposing and punishing the usurper and murderer of Marcus Aurelius and saving the Roman empire from a terrible ruler. His person goal will have a far-reaching effect on the world he lives in, and if he fails, the catastrophe will extend far beyond him, too. Those are some pretty big stakes there.

In the series I'm currently writing (MY LORD'S DESIRE, THE NOTORIOUS KNIGHT and the upcoming KNAVE'S HONOR), there's certainly conflict between the heroes, heroines and villains -- but if the good guys lose, they won't be the only ones who suffer. So will their extended families, and so will, eventually, the people of England. The stakes are much greater than my hero and heroine's own personal happily ever after.

Note: I can do this because I have a big canvas. If you're writing a short category romance, you may not be able to make the stakes that big. But I would suggest going at least one step beyond the hero and heroine, to another circle of involvement, either family or friends, or perhaps business.

(Think I'm done with dramatic tension? Not quite. Last installment later this week.)

Restin' the Wrist

I suspect I'm like most people who write, type, keyboard or play an instrument for a living, in that I dread doing something or having an accident that will impede my ability to use my hands. So I play close attention to any aches or pains I get in my wrists. This morning, no doubt because I've been sending a lot of long emails this week (planning a family function), writing longer blog posts and writing my book, my right wrist is a little sore.

So it's getting a break. I'm only going to be doing my five pages a day on the weekend, and short emails. Fortunately, all the party planning is now done. Unfortunately, that means no hand sewing, either, so the curtains will continue to be incomplete.

But I'm not taking any chances. Not when it might mean I'm putting myself at risk for carpel tunnel syndrome.

Dramatic Tension: Complications

I nearly forgot about complications when it comes to adding dramatic tension to your book! But my ticking timer has reminded me of them.

Complications are things that happen that make a situation worse or -- no duh! -- more complicated. They can add to the conflict between the characters (I'll call that a character complication), or they can be separate from the characters (I'll call that a plot complication).

A character complication would be something like the arrival of Aunt Minny. On the surface, that may seem like no big whoop -- except that Aunt Minny knows all the family skeletons and is likely to reveal something the heroine would rather keep secret.

Plot complications are things that cannot be changed by any action on the part of the character. For instance, in the character complication of Aunt Minnie, the heroine could get Aunt Minnie to leave right away, so she doesn't have a chance to spill the beans. Or Aunt Minnie herself, seeing the situation, could decide to keep silent. In other words, a decision could be made that negates the complication, or makes it unimportant; a character can affect it. So it may be a major, life-altering complication, or it could just be a minor complication easily resolved after it's upped the tension for a little while -- preferably because something more important has come along.

(Note that character complications create more conflict. With this example, there's going to be conflict (a) between the heroine and Aunt Minny, especially if she doesn't want to leave or (b) within Aunt Minny, as she tries to decide to tell what she knows, or keep it to herself.)

With a plot complication, there is nothing a character can do. For instance, nobody can stop time (well, maybe in a paranormal, but I'm talking generally here). Nobody can prevent a tornado, or earthquake. They can only react to it.

Because they are uncontrollable, plot complications can really up the tension. How is the character going to achieve what he or she needs to accomplish if they cannot have any influence at all on what may prevent the achievement of their goal?

Now that's complicated.

Pattin' myself on the back

It would have been sooooo easy not to write today! We're planning a 25th wedding anniversary that's coming up soon, and I spent all morning doing things for that. Then I went and had tea with my niece and her baby. I have never seen such a happy baby! So cute! However, by the time I got home, school was out and Oprah was on.

Not that I watched Oprah, because then I had to email the latest about the wedding anniversary to various folks. Also, call Mom to discuss.

By then it was 7 p.m. and I still hadn't had dinner. I'd planned an "every man for himself" night, and this man was starving. One of my favorite Stargates was on (the one with the young clone of Jack -- sooo funny), too. So I ate my tuna sandwich and watched it. (Oh, the wildly glamorous life of a romance writer!)

Then I had to send another email (about parking). By then it was 8:30. I hadn't turned on my writing computer, which is not hooked up to the internet, in part for security, and in part to keep me from checking my email or reading blogs when I should be working.

Oh, man, oh, man, I was so tempted to take the night off. So very, very tempted.

But I didn't. I wrote seven pages in an hour. And had one of those moments where a character says something I hadn't planned.

I love it when that happens! But I also have to take some time to decide if I like that direction, or if it's a wrong turn.

Since I've done more than my five page goal, I'm going to sleep on it.

Building dramatic tension, Part II

Conflict creates dramatic tension. Generally, conflict is what prevents your characters from doing what they want to do at the start of the story.

For a romance writer, it's the reason those two crazy kids don't just get married and start a family.

You've got your two basic kinds: internal and external.

External's pretty easy to understand -- it's something that happens outside the character to cause problems. War, business takeovers, different socio-economic backgrounds. It's "I can't love you because I'm a Norman and you're a Saxon and our people are fighting each other." Or "I can't love you because I'm poor and from the wrong side of the tracks and you're rich and your folks are snobs."

Internal gets a little more complicated -- but for my money, this is where the fun really begins. This is where you create interesting, individual people. Why do they each think they shouldn't love the other? What happened to make them think that? How are they going to overcome those issues?

Okay, so far, I haven't really said anything you can't read/find in just about any writing book out there. But I heard something once (and I really, really wish I could remember where) that had a profound effect on me as a writer, and that is:

Every character in your novel should be in conflict with every other character at some time in the story.

It's not enough to have your hero and heroine at odds, fighting the villain. No, you can do. Much more.

To give an example, let's pick four standard main characters from a romance. You have your Hero, your Heroine, the Hero's Best Buddy (BB for short) and the Heroine's Sister, aka Sis. Hero and BB have been through a lot. They are fast friends. The Heroine is close to Sis. She's also a friend and a mentor.

So what kind of conflicts can we mine from these four character?

1. Hero vs. Heroine (no surprise)
2. Hero vs. Sis (she thinks he's going to break Heroine's heart)
3. Hero vs. BB (he thinks it's a mistake to get mixed up with that nutty family)
4. Heroine vs. BB (she thinks he's telling Hero lies about her family)
5. Heroine vs. Sis (she's beginning to think Sis is overprotective)

Is the BB telling lies? Is Sis being overprotective? Those conflicts can keep the tension going when the hero and heroine aren't together.

But I'm not done yet. What about some conflict between BB and Sis? Protective Sis meets guy who's been badmouthing the family. Oh, it ain't gonna be pretty! You could make this funny, to lessen the tension a little, because too much tension is literally exhausting for the reader. You could make it romantic -- a secondary romance plot, with conflict and desire all its own. Or you could make it serious. Indeed, these two characters can, unlike the hero and heroine in a romance, die. That ups the tension if they're in physical danger.

Throw in a villain, and what potential do you have?
1. Heroine vs. Villain
2. Hero vs. Villain
3. Hero and Heroine together vs. Villain
4. BB vs. Villain
5. Sis vs. Villain
6. BB and Sis vs. Villain (probably have to be rescued by Hero and Heroine, which leads to)
7. Hero, Heroine, BB and Sis vs. Villain

What if the Villain has a Henchman? Then you can have:

1. Hero vs. Henchman
2. Heroine vs. Henchman
3. BB vs. Henchman
4. Sis vs. Henchman (My sequel senses are tingling!)
5. Villain vs. Henchman

That's a whole lotta conflict goin' on -- but the more conflict, the more dramatic tension. The more dramatic tension, the more exciting your story, and the more the reader's going to wonder how it's all going to work out, so they won't want to put the book down.

That's exactly what a writer wants.

Jane Wyman

I was sorry to hear about the death of Jane Wyman. I think she was a wonderful actress.

One of my favorite movies of hers was the now relatively obscure So Big, based on a novel by Edna Ferber, who wrote several sagas, like Giant and Showboat. I've only seen it once, when I was a kid, and it was on TV. Yet I've never forgotten it.

So Big is about a woman who marries a poor farmer. He dies at a young age, leaving her with a small son, nicknamed "So Big," and a farm that's considered too swampy to ever grow enough to make a living. She discovers it's perfect for asparagus, among other vegetables. She becomes successful, and sends her son to university to be an architect. He meets up with a woman who pretty much takes over his life. She is not impressed with So Big's mother, and lets it show.

I don't remember the end; I'm going to have to get the book from the library, but I'm pretty sure it's sad.

Perhaps this movie stays in my mind because the idea of farming asparagus seemed so unusual to me. My grandfather grew corn and soybeans and kept pigs. But if my memory is correct, it's the way Ms. Wyman manages to convey determination and dignity without a word that made it stand out. She was really, really good at that.

It's not you, it's me...most of the time

Having just mentioned the Big Misunderstanding in novels, I thought I'd talk about this a bit more.

What do I mean by the Big Misunderstanding? That's when the conflict between two characters is based on, well, a misunderstanding. One thinks one thing, the other another, one is right, one is wrong, or the truth is somewhere in the middle. This conflict keeps the characters at odds during the story.

I have heard/read readers complain about this many times. They don't like it, and if only the characters had had a single, simple discussion like mature adults, the issue would have been resolved. Of course, they also know that would have been the end of the conflict and the end of the story, but they were frustrated nonetheless.

To be honest, my first reaction when I see such complaints is to wonder if those readers have never, ever been in a situation where there was a misunderstanding that yes, could have been resolved with a single, simple conversation, yet that conversation never took place -- and how fortunate they are if that is so. Because I can think of several plausible explanations for not having such a conversation.

You believe you are right and the other person should apologize and speak first. If you speak first, it will be letting the person at fault think they were right, or that they've "gotten away" with something.

You realize you're wrong, but don't want to admit it, either because of pride, the belief the other person will gloat, or that to do so will make you seem vulnerable, weak or stupid.

You believe you're right and the other person is wrong, but don't want to try to convince the other person of their error because they will make your life even more miserable, even though you're right. Also, they may outrank you or have more credentials, so even if you're right, other people may not believe it.

You're really not sure who's right and who's wrong and don't want to find out, in case it's you who's wrong.

You don't want to risk inflaming the situation even more. The situation may not be good, but you don't want to make it worse.

You have no opportunity for such a conversation. There is no time, no privacy or you are far apart geographically.

Perhaps some of these reasons seem immature. No doubt they are.

My chronological age might suggest I should possess a certain wisdom or detachment, but when it comes to emotions? There are some issues on which I will likely never be older than ten and I doubt I'll ever be able to consider them with emotional maturity. I don't think I'm unique in that. I think most readers can relate to that, because they have deep emotional issues, too, based on what's happened in their lives, and will realize they may not always react maturely, either.

However, if the only reason presented for avoiding such a conversation seems to be simply stubbornness, annoyance, frustration, jealousy or selfishness, your characters will likely come across as childish and immature, rather than a character with sympathetic emotional issues based on their past. That is not good. That is what makes readers think they should have been able to resolve their conflict with a simple, single conversation.

The real fault here is what I call shallow characterization. The writer hasn't gone deep enough into the characters and given them solid, understandable, believable reasons for avoiding that clarifying conversation. If the writer does that, even a disagreement over the flavor of an ice cream cone can seem significant.

In other words, it's not the reader who's at fault. It's the writer.

But, cries the writer, I did think of that. I did go that deep.

Then somehow, the writer didn't manage to convey that knowledge and understanding and deeper motive to the reader.

To speak in the writer's defense, though, there are times when that information is there. In fact, there are times when the writer can point to a specific sentence or paragraph on a specific page that clearly spells out why the character(s) will not have that conversation, and an understandable, believable explanation it is, too.

In that case, the fault does lie with the reader. Maybe it was in the sort of scene they tend to skip (a love scene or a scene that's got a lot of description) -- and don't get me started on how frustrating it is for a writer to hear a reader declare, "Oh, I always skip X sort of scenes!"

Maybe they were jumping up to get off the train and lost their place and missed it. Maybe (and I fear this happens with some reviewers) they were reading too quickly, because they wanted/needed to finish ASAP. They rush right over the bit the author labored on for days trying to convey the character's deep emotional issues.

I hate to think that to avoid those disgruntled readers writers need to convey such information several times. I don't want to hammer the reader over the head, as if I think they're too dense to get it the first time. I honestly think once, twice at the most, should be enough, or your characters will wind up sounding like self-involved sad sacks.

So it often seems an author has a choice: repeat the reasons the misunderstanding can't be solved with one simple conversation and risk alienating your readers who do get it the first time and think you're beating them over the head with that information, or risk alienating readers who might miss the one explanation your characters won't sit down and discuss the situation.

It can be a tough call.

Keeping to a schedule

I started writing a new book this week. It's due mid-December.

I also had a few other things scheduled -- painters coming to work on the bathroom, a plumber replacing a faucet, and getting the living room upholstery cleaned. I'm having at least one side of the family for Christmas, possibly both (at different times), and I wanted to get these things done and out of the way in good time, so I wouldn't be rushing to a deadline AND trying to get my house all tiddly-boo. The painters are coming back to tackle another area of the house on October 29, so I chose that as my deadline for finishing the first draft.

So of course, life being what it is, things happened. I got proofreading to do, and there was a Family Crisis. Nothing serious or physical, like a car accident; just one of those Big Misunderstandings that some readers seem to find so unbelievable when they happen in stories.

Fortunately, I had set myself a goal of five pages a day, more if I'm able. Every day, including Saturdays and Sundays. Not ten, which is normally quite doable for me, since writing is my job. I can even handle fifteen if I'm pressed -- provided absolutely nothing interferes with my writing. Five means I should be able to meet that goal even if I can only find an hour to write.

I'm really glad I chose this goal because it means that so far, even with everything that went on this week, I met it. I've even surpassed it a little. So instead of being all bent out of shape by all the unexpected and unwelcome surprises, I actually feel pretty good.

How to get tense

Not in real life. Although I could tell ya stories....

No, today (and for another few blog posts) I'm going to be talking about putting dramatic tension into your stories. I'm going to break it down into three sections: characters, conflict and raising the stakes.

Today, I'm going to talk about characters.

First and foremost, unless your readers care about your characters, they aren't going to care what happens to them. You can come up with the most astonishing, creative plot twists and turns, but unless the reader sympathizes with and relates to the people these things are happening to, they won't care about the book. They'll stop reading, or be left dissatisfied at the end.

There are plenty of writing books out there that talk about creating compelling, interesting and sympathetic characters, so I'm not going to repeat those lessons. However, I do have a few points for you to ponder.

Don't think about your characters as characters. Think of them as people. You're telling a story about people. Not real people and yes, you are the master of their universe, but I think it helps if you yourself call them people.

There's also a reason writers are told not to load the front of the story with the characters' histories and motivations. If you do that, you're losing an opportunity to create dramatic tension. You want your reader asking questions. Why did he do that? What's her problem? If you give them all the answers in the beginning, they won't be anxious to find out more.

Now, there is a line between intriguing and frustrating. That's why one doles out the information. You give a little, not all. Answer one question, but raise another. The question/answer dance can provide a lot of tension.

You can give your characters a secret. You can reveal it fairly soon, so that the reader wonders, "When will the other characters find out and what will they do then?" Or you can reveal it slowly, in tiny steps, so that the complete secret isn't known to the reader until the end of the book. Either way works, and both will add tension.

Here's a really good suggestion from Novelists' Boot Camp by Todd Stone. Give your characters an audience. In other words, make their success or failure public. (I've done this -- trial by combat, for instance -- but I've never seen it articulated before.) This adds to the tension for the character and, therefore, the reader.

Of course, all these elements work best when your readers are invested in the character. Or should I say, your people.

One thing that doesn't work, and I've seen this a lot in unpublished romances, is that writers attempt to create sympathetic characters by loading them down with issues and a terrible childhood. Certainly, they can have all these things, but many a time I'm thinking, "Lighten up, Francis!"

Because there's also a line between sympathetic (and I really think "empathetic" is a better word for what the writer should be aiming for) and pathetic, which is how these characters can come across. If your character does have a lot of baggage, I don't want to hear every detail from the start. It's like being stuck at party listing to a stranger whine about his or her last relationship. No, thank you! And how many people do you meet who do that? (If it's a lot, you have my sympathy. And you must look like a kind-hearted person.)

Keep the reader wondering about your character's history and motives. Make them wait for information. Answer some questions while posing others. And above all, remember your goal is to make the reader see your characters are real people, and to make them care.

This weeks' writing blog post will be....

about raising stakes. Increasing dramatic tension. Making your readers sweat (in a good way). But not today. Today time for blogging has been severely curtailed, because I really, really really want to stick to my goal of writing at least five pages a day and hopefully more until the first draft is finished.

But today I have to tidy for Darlin' Darla (my cleaning lady and one of the main reasons I like earning money), take a cat to the vet, prepare for the painters coming tomorrow and we've got company for dinner.

So the more in-depth blog post about writing will have to wait until tomorrow.

Some Questions For You

I didn't intend to blog on the weekend. I was going to finish the drapes for two rooms, the Red Room o' Doom and, because it's beside the RROD, a bedroom. I decided to start on the BR drapes, as not as many people will see those, so if mistakes were to be made, that was the place to do them. I had purchased panels of drapes, and all I had to do was add some fabric to the bottom, and make tie-backs. Easy, right? Until I discovered one panel was, for some reason, a whole inch shorter than the others. After I'd added the fabric.

The Redecorating Gurus on TV never seem to have problems like this.

So while taking a break before getting the trusty seam ripper, I've come up with another September Resolution, and that's to get some feedback about this blog.

Are there any particular subjects you'd like me to address in my blog?

Any writing questions you might have?

Everybody has a unique path on the road to publication, so I'm wary of answering questions about publishing, but if you have some of those, I'll answer if I can.

Do you like short blog posts, perhaps dividing a subject up into chunks, or do you prefer them in one post?

I'm still going to blog about TV and non-writing-related activities because, well, I want to, but I'll be happy to devote Wednesday/Thursday blog time to answering questions about writing and publishing.