Dissecting the Potter Sensation

Writers everywhere have wailed and wondered at JK Rowling's success, trying to figure out why these books she created are so incredibly popular.

Well, I've got your answer. That's right, I have the once-and-for-all definitive answer to JKR's success: there's too much to fit in the books.

I will demonstrate what I mean with a poll for Potterheads.

How many facts do you know about Harry Potter, or his universe, or anyone else in his universe, that you didn't learn from the books? You know, things that you learned from her website (those wizard of the month cards, etc) or her post-Deathly Hallows interviews (wherein she tells you about people's future mates or careers). (see A Paperback Writer's blog for a lovely collection of these interviews.)

If you're any kind of normal Potter fan, the answer is Lots.

It's the same sort of thing that happened with Star Wars--I'm pretty sure I didn't learn the structure of a lightsaber or Wookie history from the movies. JKR, like Lucas, has created a world with so much information and richness and wonder that fans long to know more about it--does Neville get married, and to whom? Can Hagrid see thestrals, and why? What does such-and-so's Patronus look like? Readers want to go beyond the story.

I can't think of any other book series where the fans have been so rabid to know so much information that wasn't in the books, and this is the truly amazing achievement of JKR. The skill of her plots and storytelling abilities are open to interpretation/negotiation, but it is the richness of her worldbuilding that caused the Potter Sensation.

I have provided the answer. Let the speculation cease.

Jousting for Peace

So at lunch today my friend and I figured out the best way to solve all the world's problems: a big jousting tournament. No more nukes, world leaders can just joust to solve their differences. Can't you just imagine Kim Jong-Il and Goerge W. Bush trying to knock each other off horses?

Yeah, I know, we're geniuses.

Twain's Stature in the UK

Today's posts are all just going to be links to newspaper articles, apparently. Here's one to a Guardian article about Mark Twain and a Briton's discovery of his influence on American. I am particularly fond of the line, "Please forgive what must be a literary non-revelation on a par with the discovery that Shakespeare was handy with words and Kafka quite imaginative, but, Twain is hot stuff."

I actually find the comments just as interesting as the article.

Rowling Envy

An interesting BBC article about JK Rowling envy amongst less-successful writers (ie, everyone who is not JK Rowling).

RIP Ingmar Bergman

Ingmar Bergman died today. NYTimes obit here.

rant of the day

I just hung up on my first telemarketer.

I tend to be forgiving of telemarketers, they have shitty jobs and everyone hates them, I try to be nice and pleasant when telling them I don't want to buy whatever they're selling. Today, though...

I was going to leave the newspaper anonymous, but whatever. It was the Star Tribune. As a bit of background, this is the second time this summer I've received such a call from them to my work phone. Here is how the conversation went (paraphrased). I will place in bold the phrases that broke the camel's back.

Me: work-specific greeting

Him: Hi I'm calling from.... introductory offer blah blah blah...subscription...blah

Me: No thank you. I don't need to purchase a newspaper subscription.

Him: Where are you getting your news from currently?

Me: Various sources. I am doing fine and don't need a subscription.

(the previous time the paper called, this is where we hung up)

Him: Long salespitch spiel...blah blah...introductory offer...blah blah blah....blah

Me: I'm sorry, I'm really not interested at this time. Goodby--

Him: Long spiel again...blah blah blah...coupons on Sunday...blah

Me: I'm really not--

Him: Who is speaking?

Me: Um...my name is alternatefish.

Him: And who makes the shopping decisions in your household?

Me: Look, I don't want your newspaper. I'm on the verge of hanging up on you, can we just say goodbye and call it a day?

Him: Rapid spiel about newspaper's brilliance.

and I hung up.

Who makes the shopping decisions in your household?! I do, I'm a 21-year-old college student living independently who gets her news from the internet--your website, occasionally--and my weekend NYTimes subscription and I've been very nice to you while you've been very annoying and I've said goodbye like three times now and I don't like the implication that there is somebody else in my household that you should be speaking to about this and now I've warned you I'm about to hang up and you still won't shut up and I have better things to do so Bye.

That's what I wanted to say to him. But I didn't. I ranted here instead.

Did he really think continuing to blabber was going to do any good after I warned him I was about to hang up?

I blame the Strib, and I'm on the verge of writing an annoyed letter. I should probably wait until I calm down a bit.

HP in 50 years...

See, here's my problem with JK Rowling. I like her.

I do. I think she's great. Every word she's written on her website is entertaining, the world she's created is magnificent and rich, and in her interviews she comes across as friendly and intelligent and funny. This quote, from a BBC article (SPOILERS in link), is an example of why I think she's great:

In 50 years' time, if people are still reading them[HP books], they deserve to be read, and if they're not, then that's okay.

How reasonable and rational about her place in history. Granted, she could retire tomorrow and still put her three kids through college and buy a Mediterranean winter home, but I'm sure all writers wonder about how they'll be thought of and JKR's down-to-earth, "meh" reaction is kind of refreshing. And that's why I like her.

I think she's great at being a Writer. I just wish she were better at writing.

yeah, baby!

I'm pretty much the coolest character in Potterland...

Find out your Harry Potter personality at LiquidGeneration!

ok, I got tired of that writing-meter thing pretty quickly. kinda intimidating.

back to the WIP.

It's a Beautifuller Day

Laaaaadies and gentlemen!

In this corner, we have Junie B. Jones, the "spunky" kindergarten/first-grade hero of her own bestselling book series.

And in this corner, we have Spelling & Grammar.

The NYTimes has printed an article today concerning this popular series for youngsters. Narrated by the young Junie B., the books throw grammar and spelling rules to the wind to accurately capture the voice of a child. To quote the Times: "Her adverbs lack the suffix 'ly'; subject and object pronouns give her problems, as do possessives; she usually isn’t able to conjugate irregular past tense verbs; and words like funnest and beautifuller are the mainstays of her vocabulary."

There are two schools of thought on this topic. 1. That's the way kids talk. This is no different than Huck Finn (and you aren't going to argue with Mark Twain's brilliance, are. 2. How are they going to learn to spell and talk properly if this is their example? Many parents have banned the books in their homes--I'm pretty sure mine would have, had they been around. (the books, not the parents. the parents were around.)

I realize this makes me a hoity-toit, but I'm siding against Junie in this battle. I believe it is possible to capture a kid-like voice without using words like funnest (which, incidentally, the annoying blogger spellchecker has not cried out about; unlike "beautifuller," which it wants me to change to beautifuler(?!)). The argument that "that's how they talk" is a good one, but how are they going to improve without proper examples? The Times tells of a kid who was reading this, didn't know a word, and spelled it out loud so her parent could help her. Didn't work so well, since the letters in question didn't actually spell a word. See, that's why we have standard spelling. See my post about the Simple Spelling lady. (she would love these books, I'm sure.)

"But books don't have to be educational!" Well, ok. But they don't have to be...anti-educational, either. Spelling and grammar are hard enough, let's not reinforce bad habits.

This is simply my English-major traditionalist gut reaction. I am not adamantly against these books, and I don't think I'd have as much of a problem reading one to children as I would letting them read it themselves. Then they'd only get the bad grammar, not the spelling, and it would be more obvious that it was a narrative style choice. But...it just feels wrong to me.

"Luke, I have a bad feeling about this..."

Please weigh in.

Writing Down the Imaginary Friends

Sometimes I wonder if I want to be a writer simply because I like playing make-believe. Many of my early stories began as Mary-Sues--for those of you who don't know, that's when an author obviously inserts him-or-herself into a story, usually in an idealized form (and usually in fanfic*). So anyway, my writing started out as a little kid's make-believes. "I want to be in Little House on the Prairie!" "I want to be in The Book of Three!" This is why the work that I consider my first real "novel-like thing" is a direct plagiarism of The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede. It was definitely a Mary-Sue story, except I managed to make my lead more annoying than I am.

But this all leads me to two questions:

Why are my make-believe stories any more important than anyone else's? I guess because I take the time to craft them and polish them and all, but really they are no more than the random wanderings of my fairy-tale mind.

My other question...Do I keep writing just because I don't want to grow up? I especially wonder this with my 14-year-old protagonist who I hope is not at all like me. Especially now that I'm less than a year away from being what I consider "officially" grown-up--a college grad supporting herself.

Sigh.....

Thank you for your time. I appear to be going through a writing/identity crisis. Though I now have an awesome word meter--you like? I wish I could make it smaller.


*check out the best Mary Sue t-shirt ever. I'm not even a Harry Potter nut and I would so wear this. (I feel obliged to say there is nothing like a spoiler in that link.)

convict geneology

ok, I think this is cool. You know how Britain exported all its convicts to Australia in the late 18th-early19th-century? A bunch of convict names have just been made available to the public.

I've always kind of wanted to look into how this convict history has shaped Australia and its perception of itself. Anyone want to recommend a good book on the subject?

I am a sensitive plant

A toast to editors in the form of an article from Salon.com. Hear, hear. I don't quite have a writing career yet, so I haven't run into particularly many editors, but I feel like most of them are nice chaps who aren't actually trying to crush the souls of writers everywhere. (is there a female version of chap?)

So here's to you, editors, whose names never appear on an article, who are unknown except to their peers and to the writers who owe you so much.

oh, you know it's true :)

Which of Henry VIII's wives are you?
this quiz was made by Lori Fury

Katherine Parr spent nearly her whole life married to crotchety old men: Henry was the THIRD old fart she was forced to marry. Is it any wonder she turned to books and religion to occupy her time?

Katherine wasn't just smart, she was a tiny bit uppity, too: she almost got herself thrown in jail for arguing with His Royal Fatness about some theological issues. After Henry croaked, Katherine dropped the prim and proper act and married Thomas Seymour, a handsome, dashing pirate kind of guy who was also as dumb as a post.

Which goes to show you that even bookworms know how to get it on.

Seeing Red. Nothing but Red.

Because it’s no longer enough to be a decent person. It’s no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I’ve always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I’m beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.
--Joss Whedon

The above quote is part of an essay Whedon wrote in response to the April 7, 2007 beating-to-death of 17-year-old Dua Khalil (you may remember this--people stood around and took video instead of defending her). Inspired by Whedon's essay, a group is putting together a commemorative anthology of essays, short stories, poems, and visual art to be published on the 1-year anniversary of Dua Khalil's murder. All proceeds will go to charity. Starting August 1, they will be accepting any submissions you wish to send.

Off to the right is a link.

another updatey thingajig

Seeing as I'm on the verge of passing 50,000 words in the WIP (after an extraordinary 17,000+ word weekend--yeah, I'm kinda stunned too) I'm moving my personal deadline up to Friday, August 3rd. Basically, I'm going to have this draft done by the time Gaelic Storm arrives to play at the Irish Fair. (hear that? that's writer's block tapping at the window.)

Also, I picked up my roommate's copy of HP7, and after the first few chapters I'm liking it much better than the previous ones. Rowling (or her editor) has gotten rid of the stylistic things that annoyed me in 5 & 6. We shall see if the plot holds up, but so far I'm actually impressed.

banning=BAD

A couple of people have mistakenly interpreted my comments in the previous post to mean that I would approve the censorship/banning of the Gor books.

NO.

Banning books is bad. Always. Period.

The statement in question, I believe, is this one: "generally I am all for freedom of the press, no matter what is being published, but these books honestly scare me." What I was attempting to say was that these books do seriously scare the heck out of me because of the reality some people create around them, and this fear had made me for the first time in my life understand why people support censorship. Those people who want to ban Harry Potter because they're afraid of the dark arts and Satanism? Scared. I understand now where they're coming from. But even making that connection (Harry Potter-Gor) in my brain made me realize what I was letting that fear do to me.

If Gor is banned today, how can I argue when Harry Potter is banned tomorrow? (I mean, in more places than it's already been banned.) It's a slippery slope, and once somebody starts making decisions about suitable writing an important facet of human rights gets killed. I personally think the Gor books should be used as winter fuel, but who the hell am I to decide what you should read? People need to make their own choices about what words they want to consume. I can then choose not to associate with people who read the Gor saga.

Part of what makes our country a great one is the freedom to say and write whatever you want, no matter how many people disagree with you. I draw the line at anything actively inflammatory (ie, "let's go kill people!") but even opinions I disagree with deserve to be heard. They deserve to be argued with, as well. The First Amendment cuts both ways.

So that's what I meant. Yes, that isn't quite what I said, but it is what I meant. As I said in the comments of epic fantasy to cold reality: I can't find it in my heart to support the ban of any written word. I have few intrinsic beliefs, but that is one of my strongest.

Dark Horse

I emailed Dark Horse this morning to express my concern about their upcoming Gor omnibus. It's the first time I have ever done such a thing; generally I am all for freedom of the press, no matter what is being published, but these books honestly scare me.

It probably didn't do any good. There are 26 of these novels, so someone's certainly going to buy this. But I feel better having emailed.

I would copy my letter here but I signed my real name to it. If you want to get involved, their contact page is here. Mr. Remy suggests a few other actions you can take, as well.

epic fantasy to cold reality

So I didn't really know what Gor was until about two hours ago, but now that I do I want to go hide somewhere. Or maim someone. The worst part: not only is this 26-book saga set in a disgustingly misogynistic universe, it is infiltrating the real world. This (slightly old) article from Salon.com is an excellent if terrifying introduction to the real-world horrors that have been created from this fantasy universe.

This series is becoming news again because Dark Horse Comics is re-releasing the first three books this November. Go Dark Horse.

I would be okay with this issue, sort of, if it were merely a case of a bunch of misogynistic books. I wouldn't have to read them, and I wouldn't have to be friends with people who did. It's things like the guy in the article who wants to kidnap a woman in order to live out his Gorean ideals that rile me. And I'm pretty hard to rile, really.

Tamora Pierce and J.E. Remy have both blogged on the subject, which is how I found out. This post is basically a combined plagiarism of theirs.

review: Uglies

Not the New York Times Book Review

Uglies, by Scott Westerfeld

I was incredibly dubious about this book. There is just so much opportunity for preaching and morals in a book where society is divided into ugly people and pretty people, and nothing raises my bile quicker than feeling preached at by a YA book.

But wow.

The basic premise: in this society, many years in Earth’s future, your sixteenth birthday brings an operation that turns you Pretty. Tally, an Ugly, is waiting for her sixteenth birthday so she can rejoin all her older friends in New Pretty Town. But when that day comes, her surgery is cancelled and she is given a choice: she can either betray her new friend Shay, or stay Ugly for the rest of her life.

The betrayal doesn’t just include Shay, though, for Shay has run off to a secret city of Uglies, The Smoke. These Uglies don’t want to conform, don’t want to lose their individuality, and have escaped the surgery the only way they can: running and hiding. The government wants the location of The Smoke, and have decided to use Tally and her connection to Shay to find it.

Westerfeld’s writing is young and sharp and clear. Tally comes alive and jumps off the page, and we completely understand her and her dilemmas. Tally is on a journey rife with problems, and we understand her thinking every step of the way even if—at the beginning—we don’t necessarily agree with it.

There were times when I felt vague hints of preachiness, but Westerfeld’s brilliance is in making the reader see deeper than the pretty-versus-ugly debate. He takes the story beyond the surface, making us think while crafting an exciting tale complete with chase scenes, romance, and characters in turmoil.

Finally, I would just like to point out to all my Hollywood-producer readers :) that this would make a good movie. Hint, hint.

Uglies is the first of a series, which continues with Pretties, Specials, and the upcoming Extras. Specials was recently a NYTimes bestseller. (but not reviewed! so it’s totally Kosher for this series.) Scott Westerfeld has a blog here, and his main website is here. Currently he and his wife are the “writers in residence” at the Inside a Dog blog, which y’all should also check out.

click here for info on the ntnyt book review series. I bent the date rules a bit for this review, but they're my rules. so ha.

Dickens Joke

Ok, I saw this headline on Yahoo! and just had to share.

Do fish suffer from exposure to Uriah Heep?

Apparently there's a rock band called Uriah Heep, which is the Uriah Heep referred to, but I think it's funnier if you think of David Copperfield.

tanzanite

Ok, seriously, this is the greatest blog ever, and I don't think it's just because it's three in the morning. (yes, Mom, I'll go to bed soon.) Y'all should check out...

Tanzanite's Book Covers
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in Historical Fiction Book Covers

I've seen a couple of similar blogs that feature solely romance book covers, but I can only laugh at so many romance covers. These are all just fantastic, each in their own special way.

my favorite poem

I was going to write a book review this weekend, but I've been writing nonstop (10,000 words and counting!) so I haven't read the book yet. In the meantime, here's the first part of my favorite poem--the following section is pretty much my favorite arrangement of the English language. Ever.


He did not wear his scarlet coat,
For blood and wine are red,
And blood and wine were on his hands
When they found him with the dead,
The poor dead woman whom he loved,
And murdered in her bed.

He walked amongst the Trial Men
In a suit of shabby grey;
A cricket cap was on his head,
And his step seemed light and gay;
But I never saw a man who looked
So wistfully at the day.

I never saw a man who looked
With such a wistful eye
Upon that little tent of blue
Which prisoners call the sky,
And at every drifting cloud that went
With sails of silver by.

I walked, with other souls in pain,
Within another ring,
And was wondering if the man had done
A great or little thing,
When a voice behind me whispered low,
"That fellow's got to swing."

Dear Christ! the very prison walls
Suddenly seemed to reel,
And the sky above my head became
Like a casque of scorching steel;
And, though I was a soul in pain,
My pain I could not feel.

I only knew what hunted thought
Quickened his step, and why
He looked upon the garish day
With such a wistful eye;
The man had killed the thing he loved
And so he had to die.

Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold.

Some love too little, some too long,
Some sell, and others buy;
Some do the deed with many tears,
And some without a sigh:
For each man kills the thing he loves,
Yet each man does not die

--Oscar Wilde, "The Ballad of Reading Gaol"

all work and no play...

If you're ever bored, I have a great idea for a fun activity:

Watch The Shining at 11pm without any lights on.

I guarantee you won't be bored. :) You also might not sleep for a week, but whatever.

Also, you should watch it with friends who beforehand say things like, "Is it actually scary? How can it still be one of the scariest movies ever, after all these new scary movies have come out? It's probably not going to be that scary."

Then you can laugh at them.

Apparently Stanley Kubrick was nominated for a Razzie for this. What? And how did the soundtrack not win an Oscar?

progress report

Just passed the 35,000 word mark on the current WIP. Not as much progress as I'd hoped to make by this point, but I'm still determined to finish by August 31. Got in 4,000 words already today, so it's definitely doable.

I finally wrote a section that I haven't been able to get through for like a year. So I'm happy.

trust in zoo animals

You're The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe!
by C.S. Lewis

You were just looking for some decent clothes when everything changed quite dramatically. For the better or for the worse, it is still hard to tell. Now it seems like winter will never end and you feel cursed. Soon there will be an epic struggle between two forces in your life and you are very concerned about a betrayal that could turn the balance. If this makes it sound like you're re-enacting Christian theological events, that may or may not be coincidence. When in doubt, put your trust in zoo animals.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

one pint later...

...of ice cream, that is. Ben & Jerry's was on sale at Whole Foods! :D

Ok, I want to preface this by saying there was almost nothing for me to do at work today, so I spent my time following the various Potter stories floating around the web. There's one last thing I want to comment on and--I swear--this will be my last Harry Potter post of the day.

As has been established, I don't particularly like the books (more on that on a future date). Today I ran across quite a few people who dislike Harry Potter with all shades of fervor, but I noticed a common thread among them.

Most of them haven't read the books.

I don't understand. How can you hate the books if you haven't read them? And seriously, I ran across blogs where people ranted against Harry Potter for a few paragraphs and then said something like "but I've never read the books and don't intend to."

What? Do you realize how imbecilic you sound? No, I'm not a fan, but I am basing this opinion on my reading of the six books. You're basing yours on...what exactly? Do you not like the covers?

I'm too tired to analyze this phenomenon further than calling people imbeciles, but feel free to chime in with your own thoughts.

early Harry Potter reviews

Well, the big news in publishing today is the leaking of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Not the "all the pages uploaded" leak--that, as far as I can tell, was a single individual trying to cause havoc. No, I'm talking about the leaking from "official" sources: the online book distributor that shipped the books early, and the two reviews published today by the Baltimore Sun and the NYTimes.

I'm not going to get into the reviews here (the Sun says too much, I think), but I wanted to touch on the subject of these papers breaking the embargo.

Usually, reviewers (at least of NYTimes caliber) are given advance copies of a new book so the review can be published about the time the book comes out. Scholastic and Bloomsbury have famously not done this for the last few Potter books, in fact going in the extreme other direction by locking down the Harry Potter books and threatening legal action of some sort against any person or paper that lets Potter loose early.

Now the Times and the Sun have broken the rules. The response from the publishers is "dismay," but no indication yet as to whether they are actually going to take action (I personally think they should be more worried about whoever leaked the book itself, not the reviewers). But I have to say, I'm glad the papers did this. Nothing could possibly stop the juggernaut that is the final Harry Potter book, not even a review, and this sort of restores the balance somehow.

I mean, I'm glad for JK Rowling, I think the Pottermania is kind of fun even if I don't participate, but the Potter Publishers seem to have gotten a bit full of themselves. I can see why they're worried and all, but even if someone distributed the final two chapters of Book 7 in Times Square and everyone who received a copy read it aloud at the top of their lungs to everyone they met, everyone would still buy this book. See this article. These reviews kind of bring the hysteria down a notch; they remind us that beneath all the mania there is a book. And this is what newspapers generally do with books. Review them.

I don't think I explained my position very well. Please comment disagreeing with me or helping me figure out what I'm trying to say.

But overall, as long as nobody prints up shirts between today and tomorrow saying "X dies" like people did after the last one, I don't see any lasting harm in this.

*edit: Rowling's response.

What Would You Do??

Ok guys, let's play a game. You are a literary agent or publisher. You receive a synopsis and pages from a writer calling herself "Alison Laydee." The opening to the novel, First Impressions, reads like this:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

"My dear Mr Barnett," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Weatherfield Manor is let at last?"

What do you do?

a) Ask for the full manuscript.

b) Send your form rejection letter.

c) giggle.

The correct answer, of course, is C, but the vast majority of British publishers to whom this excerpt was sent simply refused it with language like "original and interesting, but."

Guardian article here.

*edit. The BBC has naturally made a quiz on the subject. 10/10 here. Woop.

did you know...

...if you google "dress up bleach people" my blog is the first hit? The things I learn from statcounter. I don't even know what you would actually be looking for with those search terms.

I'm also up there if you google "toffs fish," which is apparently a restaurant in Muswell Hill.

My Million

A recent comment I made over on Travis Erwin's blog got me thinking about my writing history. There's a commonish idiom that writers aren't really good/publishable until they've cranked out 1,000,000 words, and I realized that I must be about there. Wowza. So I thought I would share my writing history:

Age very young. (5 or younger, probably.) My first work of fiction was a retelling of, I think, Snow White. Maybe Cinderella. I did the illustrations and dictated the words to my mother (I couldn't write yet). I last saw it in our attic many years ago. Someday that's going to be a collector's item.

Age 8 or 9. 3rd grade. We wrote, illustrated, and bound a short book as part of a class project. Mine told the story of 3 chinchillas (don't ask why) who escaped from their owners then realized they actually wanted to go home. Not to ruin the ending, but one died. It was pretty much tragic.

Age 9-10 or 11. Vague recollections of very bad short stories. Many were horse-oriented.

Age 10 or 11. Read Patricia C. Wrede's marvelous Enchanted Forest Chronicles. Over the next few years I wrote 3 novel-length things, a series, that were basically plagiarisms of Wrede's works.

Age 15. Finished my first real novel, with many non-plagiarized aspects. Took me two years to write this. I then read Anna Karenina, realized my work was not up to par (yes, Tolstoy is kind of a high par) and put it in a drawer. I don't think I've read it since.

Age 14-18. Homeschool Writing Group. Mostly short stories. Bad ones.

Age 17ish. Current WIP begun.

Age 19-21. Two college creative writing classes, of varying helpfulness.

Age 21. Current WIP finished. Ok, this one hasn't actually happened yet, but I've set myself a deadline of August 31.

This list does not include the various works I've begun then stopped, or the lesser WIP that I intend to write while in England. (Ha! Like I'm going to have time for that.)

So now I want to know YOUR story. When did you start? What have you written?

Remember the Agent

Here's a Guardian article pointing out that JK Rowling's agent is a very wealthy man. Bet you never thought about Rowling's agent, did you? An "enigmatic but utterly crucial influence," they call him.

I don't mean to be writing thousands of Harry Potter-related posts, but he's kind of hard to avoid on the net at the moment, and since that's where I've been spending all my time...

CyberShower

Yet another amazing Doctor Who gadget that I desperately need. The Cyberman Shower Radio. Oh yeah.

Thanks to Bookshelves of Doom for bringing my attention to this awesomeness.

Toxic Prose?

From the Guardian, a blog entry about how bad JK Rowling's prose is. I concur with his sentiment, if not necessarily the harsh way he expressed it. (hi, Paperback Writer! how's it going? I'm expecting a comment here.)

I wanted to point out one of the comments, because it is something I am often accused of. From "Persephone251;"
I notice that you didn't address the comment about your ability, or otherwise, to write to similar effect. Your article, like so many others that deride popular writers, smacks of jealousy.

Whenever I converse about my lack of appreciation for Rowling, or any other "popular" writer, I am accused of jealousy. So let's clear this up.

Yes. I am jealous that JK is sitting in a Scottish castle on a mound of gold. (oops, vision of Smaug. didn't mean for that to happen.) I am slightly annoyed that someone I consider a subpar writer is fantastically wealthy because of her writing. But the jealousy and the opinion are two separate thoughts.

Here's the author's response to Persephone251:
I am not jealous. I cheer whenever a writer gets some decent money. Rowling has, on a personal level, handled her fame and wealth with dignity and generosity. I wish her well.

Yeah. What he said.

review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Or, as I like to call it, Harry Potter and the Whiny Teenage Angst.

This was my least favorite Potter book. It has now been successfully made into my least favorite Potter movie.

To fit the 700+ page book into a two-hour movie, the filmmakers had to cut out everything except the bare-bones-basic plotline. This means they had to cut out what I like to refer to as "the interesting bits," leaving a skeleton of a story that feels like a connect-the-dots tour of the fifth book.

JK Rowling is good at worldbuilding. Great at it. That, I think, is one of the main reasons for her popularity; she's created a world so rich and tantalizing that kids love to imagine themselves in it. This movie, aside from some awe-inspiring sets, cuts out almost all of that richness. The filmmakers simply didn't have room and kept only the pieces of information that were absolutely vital to the plot. I honestly don't know how they could have fixed this problem without making a 7-hour movie, but this script was in need of some fixing.

The only thing that kept me engaged were the usual fantastic performances by the likes of Alan Rickman, Imelda Staunton, Maggie Smith, and awesome newcomer Evanna Lynch.* (Ms. Lynch apparently only came out of the woodwork to be Luna Lovegood, but I hope she continues acting. Terrific.) Daniel Radcliffe as Harry was somewhat disappointing, but he didn't really have much to work with. ("ok, Dan, look whiny. ok, now in this shot, look whiny and angsty. now, whiny and angsty but in a different way. good job!")

So all in all, I don't highly recommend this film, but I'm sure that doesn't matter. People who want to see this film aren't going to be swayed by me.

And now, since I have to be up at 6:30, I'm going to bed.

*update: I forgot Helena Bonham Carter! Her two minutes as Bellatrix Lestrange were fantastic. That was almost worth the price of admission, actually.

"she writes"

So yesterday I was introduced as a writer for the first time in my life.

My roommate and I went to a baby shower (yup, crazy times up here in the Twin Cities) for some people I didn't know. Roomie was talking to some woman who was going to school to get some degree about environmental writing, who is currently working on a book. Roomie used this as an opportunity to introduce me: "This is fish, she's a writer too."

I was kind of thrown off, and when the environmental writer woman asked me what I wrote I kind of stammered something about mysteries and fantasy and was just incredibly awkward about it all. Someone made a joke about combining mysteries and fantasy ("and the solution to the mystery is--he's a wizard! hah, you didn't expect that, did you?") and the topic turned away, but I'm still trying to figure out why I was so discombobulated by being introduced that way.

I guess I don't consider myself a writer. Not yet. I write, yes, but until I get my writing out into the world, until I am recognized, I don't feel like I can claim that name: Writer. It feels like a title to which I'm not entitled.

This probably isn't the way it should be, but there it is. What do you think?

the Desert Island question

Writing that Agatha Christie post the other day (yesterday?) made me want to do a post on my literary heroes, and why I love them so. And since it's my blog, I'm going to do just that.

Oscar Wilde
My adoration of Oscar Wilde is well-documented and something of a joke amongst my friends. I remember my first exposure to him: the Michael Redgrave version of The Importance of Being Earnest. I was a mere child, but at that moment I fell in love. No, not with Michael Redgrave. With the brilliant man who had penned the words I was hearing (yup, I'm a writer at heart). I knew nothing about him except that he'd written Earnest, but I fixed that right quick.

My love of Oscar (the only writer with whom I am on a first-name basis) is intertwined with my love of Victorian England; he was such a character himself, in the "story" of the Victorian era. Frankly, I find his poetry maudlin (except Reading Gaol--well, that's maudlin, too, but I love it anyway) but for Dorian Gray and most of his plays I would forgive worse sins. I love Oscar Wilde.

Agatha Christie
When picking up Christie's books to reread, I never recognize them when I read the blurbs on the back, but within twenty pages--without fail--I remember whodunit. I may not remember why, or exactly how, but deep in the recesses of my mind that memory is there. I honestly think I've read every single book she's ever written (except for the Mary Westmacott books, but those don't count).

As I've been exposed to more books and writing, I can see the problems with Christie more clearly--for one, she's really a romance writer who just happens to be good at puzzles. And yes, the "least likely person" thing can wear a bit thin. But she was the first author I read voraciously, reading all her books so many times I still remember them. Ok, that's a lie...

Richard Scarry
I do believe my parents hated Richard Scarry after I made them read What Do People Do All Day? for the 1001st time. One of my favorite parts of his books was the intricacy of his artwork; I would sit for hours and make up my own stories about what was going one.

Darn it, now I want to read Mr. Frumble's Bad Day.

Vladimir Nabokov
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Lolita is the greatest book I've ever read. I've already told the story of the first time I read it. Based on this one work, I declare Nabokov the greatest novelist of the past century. Feel free to argue, but you won't change my mind.

Dorothy Parker
Her poetry can be gimmicky, but it's so sharp and caustic and brittle and fantastic that I'm happy even when she's writing about suicide. She's also a brilliant short story writer; see "Arrangement in Black and White" and "Big Blonde." I have never not enjoyed reading her writing.

I do not remember when I first came across her--perhaps in Harpo Marx's fantastic biography--but somehow I feel like I've always known her. She's another artist, like Oscar, that I admire as a character in her own right and if I were to rank this list, she'd be a close second to him.

Evelyn Waugh
I never tear up or cry when reading--except for that once, and Evelyn Waugh is the writer who did it to me. "Bella Fleace Gave a Party." Seriously, I could live and die reading nothing but Evelyn Waugh and I would live and die a happy girl.

The best part about Waugh? I've only read his short stories. I get giddy thinking of all the wonders ahead of me!


So there's my top six.

Honorary mention: P.G. Wodehouse, Langston Hughes, Lloyd Alexander, Dorothy L. Sayers, Patricia C. Wrede.

So who are some of your literary gods?

internet CAPTCHAs

A very good idea.

and the moral is...

In my review of Billy Boyle, I mentioned that I always allow writers two chances/books before giving up on them. I thought I'd mention why--I have a very specific reason--because I think there's sort of a lesson here.

When I was ten or eleven or so, Agatha Christie was pointed out to me as a writer I might enjoy. I dutifully toddled over to the mystery section of the library and picked up the first one my hand fell upon--Third Girl. Loved it. Still remember the final dénouement. I started making my way down the rest of the Christie shelf.

Gaining slightly more knowledge about Christie, I was able to select some of her "classics" to read: Mysterious Affair at Styles, Death on the Nile, Murder on the Orient Express, etc. Every book I read made me like her more and more; she was soon one of my favorite authors. And then.

Then I picked up a stinker. A Poirot, something about Blue, or Clouds, or something. It was awful. Shortly thereafter I picked up one of her Harley Quin books. Barf.

And I realized that if I'd started with one of those books--and remember, my first Christie choice was entirely random--I might not have given her another read and would have missed out on one of my favorite all-time authors.

Since then, I give authors a minimum of two books before disregarding them. Some authors take their second chance and run with it, bowling me over, some authors fail the test completely. At the very least, I feel better about saying I dislike an author if I've sampled more than one of his or her books.

Agatha Christie and I have begun to go our separate literary ways (says the girl who recently started dancing when presented with a box of free Christie books) but for a few of my early teen years she was my hero. Knowing how easily and accidentally I could have missed out on her makes me much less judgemental the first time I read a new author.

Anyone care to guess what lesson I'm trying to impart here?

Not as Much of a Wizard as We Thought

One of the aspects of HarryPotterMania that people constantly laud, even those who aren't particularly fond of the books, is HP's magical ability to turn kids into readers. An article in today's NYTimes, however, suggests that this might not be true.

review: Billy Boyle

Not the New York Times Book Review

Billy Boyle: A World War II Mystery, by James R. Benn

Ok, I tried. I tried for 3 weeks to read this book, but it just hasn’t worked.

I wish I didn’t have to do this, but my review of Billy Boyle is going to be pretty harsh. I don’t really have a choice, considering I’ve been reading this for 3 weeks and made it 128 pages into a 294 page book. I’ll try to keep this short and sweet.

One of the most-oft quoted rules on writing is “Start with action.” I tend to be of the opinion that writing rules are flexible in the right hands, but for goodness sakes, don’t start your novel with 10 pages of backstory. Just don’t. Backstory works if you’re Tristram Shandy, but most people aren’t. And then, once you’ve started with 10 pages of backstory, don’t keep throwing in more backstory as the story slowly plods along, especially if said backstory serves no discernible purpose. I don’t understand Billy better after these little flashbacks. I just wish he were less interested in his past life so I didn’t have to hear about it.

What I actually consider to be the book’s plot begins on page—well, Benn starts working up to it on page 19ish, I guess, but things don’t get particularly interesting until the first body falls on page 85. (I only know it is the first body because of the book jacket; I didn’t get far enough to find the second.) There are many ways to write a mystery, and many writers hold their corpses back, set the scene a bit, but Benn’s writing isn’t strong enough to do that.

The writing in question is vaguely amusing but not as sharp as it needs to be to pull off what it’s trying to do. Benn is trying for a clever, funny, kinda rogue-like first-person narrative but only partly achieves that. At a few of his “clever lines” I cracked a weak smile, but mostly I just saw what he was aiming for and watched him miss it.

Aside from plot and pacing, my main overall problem with this novel is the way Billy Boyle is presented/presents himself. He’s too self-aware. He’s a sorta dim Mick cop from Boston, but he knows it in a way that a dim Mick cop from Boston wouldn’t. This creates a less-believable character; that and the weak narrative voice make Billy an uninteresting character that doesn’t seem quite formed properly. Occasionally it is fun to watch a detective bumble around his mystery even if the mystery itself is mediocre (Columbo), but Billy doesn’t have the character for that.

Mr. Benn knows his World War II. I’ll give him that. I never for an instant believed I was anywhere but 1940s England/Norway. And actually, despite how my review makes it seem, this book showed enough promise that I might pick up the second in the series (it’s coming out this September) to see if he’s improved any. I always give writers at least two books before I give up on them.

Ok, that was longer than I meant it to be.

what is ntnyt book review? click here!

a cry into the dark beyond

So apparently over 1600 people have looked at my profile in the past six months. Who are you people? Do any of you stick around and skulk? I didn't think I was that interesting, but wowza.

Seriously, who are you?

Quack! Quack! Quack!

So I guess the time has come to admit that I have a minor rubber duck collection going (on the shelf next to my Oscar Wilde books). I've found the next addition to my collection:

It's in France somewhere. BBC article here.

simple spelling

A BBC article asks: should we simplify spelling?

Answer: No.

Just reading the garbled English of Masha Bell (aka "anti-real-spelling" lady, head of the Simplified Spelling Society) gave me a headache. If everyone just writes the way they like--well, has anyone ever read Lewis and Clark's unedited journals? 15 ways to spell "mosquito" doesn't help anyone. Neither does "onely" (only). Or "memmory." Seriously, "memmory?"

Also, Bell says, "the spellings of English words give us no clue to their meaning," which is simply wrong. I'm the sister of a Spelling Bee nerd. There's a reason they ask for definitions.

alternatefish is not amused.

because I like free books...

I joined Hal Spacejock's Support Crew

I didn't pay anything,
I didn't sign anything,
and I didn't read the fine print.
Just like Hal!

No space pilot can exist in a vacuum (hah!), and behind every successful pilot there's a talented and dedicated support crew.

Hal Spacejock is one of the least successful space pilots in the history of the galaxy, and a worldwide support crew is needed just to get him off the ground.

What's in it for you?
| Join the team | - - - - - - - - - | Hal who? |

Hal Spacejock ... Après moi le wreckage



alternatefish here--I've been trying to win these books for months because they look fantastic. I have to say, Mr. Haynes is good at this whole marketing thing. He keeps getting people to advertise for him in return for the chance to win free books. Yeah, I feel kinda like a tool, but...free books!!!

warning

alternatefish would like to give the following advice to her dear readers:

Do not break car windows with your face.

Yesterday one of my roommates went facefirst through the rear window of an SUV while riding his bike to work. After a 24+ hour hospital visit, an ambulance ride he doesn't remember ("I saw the back of the SUV and then I was in the hospital"), innumerable stitches and CAT scans, and some slimy hospital pot roast, he's finally home looking vaguely like something from a horror movie.

I'm glad it wasn't worse. And I'm so, so glad he was wearing his helmet.

I've been trying to keep this blog PG, but wear your Goddamn helmets, people. We were waiting for his sister to bring him home this evening and we saw no fewer than six people ride by below us, not wearing helmets. Please. It's so easy. Look, I've even provided pictures for you:

My roommate's going to be fine, by the way. At least, that's what we're told.

zombie apocalypse!

53%
Yes, this is what I'm doing at work today.

In other librarian news...

Well, now I'm confused. First, librarians are hip. Now, they're stressed. Maybe it's stressful to be hip?

home, home on the range

According to the Guardian, my state is the hidden jewel of the midwest: "laid back, quietly hip, and so liberal it was one of only two states to vote for Walter Mondale in his calamitous presidential bid." Yeehaw.

Librarians are Hip!

It's in the New York Times, it must be true. Librarians are hip. There's even a comic strip, Unshelved by Gene Ambaum and Bill Barnes. I've seen them posted in almost every library I've been to in the past five years, but their website appears to be down.

step aside, pyramids

The world has spoken, and we have seven new wonders! This is my favorite:

opinions?

so what do we think of the new bitsy photo of me? (avatar might be its proper name. who knows?) better or worse than the pretty fish?

New Toy

In case you hadn't realized it by now, I get easily distracted by the internet. Here's my newest toy: Mr. Picassohead. Yup, that's right, Mr. Picassohead. Isn't it great?

Their war. Our world.

Erm, ok, I realize my credibility level might go down here, but I really liked The Transformers.

Yes, it was a teenage boy movie with hot girls and fast cars and CG robots and cheesy, awkward one-liners. But man, it was so good. There was actually a story, and John Turturro was in it (seriously, I would watch this guy read from the phone book), and Shia LaBeouf was frankly fantastic, and there were three storylines going at once and it didn't ever get confusing. Ridiculous, maybe. Confusing, no.

The few minutes when the Autobots talked about saving the human race were kind of annoying, and the final battle scene was about forty-five minutes long and could have been trimmed, but really. Aside from that, I have no complaints about this movie. It's 2 hours, fifteen minutes long and doesn't feel it at all.

Many people won't like this film; if you're a huge fan of, say, The Queen, this might not be your cup of tea. (ha. British joke.) Or if you actually want your movie to have, like, a feasible plot and stuff. Or if you're a nitpicky Transformers addict. But basically, The Transformers is just pure awesome in movie form. Well done, Michael Bay.

Ohhh Donna

In important Doctor Who news, the Doctor's new assistant has been announced. Catherine Tate, who appeared in the last Christmas special as unfortunate bride Donna, will be reprising that role next season. This year Kylie Minoge will be joining the Doctor in the Christmas Special.

I'm sure you all were dying to know.

um. what?

For discussion: a post on the Guardian book blog about why people who reread books are "arrogant, narrow-minded, or dim."