How Do I Know What I Think Until I See What I Say?

I've been working on the TNP for a while now, and this week a sudden and horrible thought came to me -- what if this book is unsaleable? NOOOO! I don't write with an eye toward selling necessarily. I don't make character choices or plot choices or language choices with an eye toward "the market" or "trends" or what have you, especially not in first drafts. I write what I would like to read. But still, since I'm in the middle of the query process with The Book, the question crossed my mind. See, The Book fits squarely into a precise genre and subgenre. It's a fairly original idea (in my mind, anyway) and excellently executed, OF COURSE :) , but there's no question where it would go in the book store. But the TNP is not of a type that I've seen before. It's ... less specified. And so, as a result of the query process, I started getting concerned that the TNP--which I am writing, you may recall, as a hedge against The Book not s...

One of the writers in my writing group, Cinda Chima, has written three related books (check Cinda's stuff out here ) and while we were reading the third book for her, she had some questions about how much information to include about what had happened in the prior two books. Her books weren't sequels, like Electric Boogaloo is, but the question is still a tricky one, because you have to assume that a large portion of the readership for the second or third book are going to have read the first one. Since her books were related, but were not direct sequels (meaning each book focused on a different main character, but the books took place in the same world as each other, and some of the characters overlapped - a main character in one book, for example, becoming a supporting player in another), Cinda wanted to make sure that she included enough information for the new readers without boring the returning ones. It's a tricky balance - how much back story to include. This is t...

As I mentioned earlier, I'm currently working on two new projects while submitting The Book. The first is the sequel to The Book (we'll call it The Book II: Electric Boogaloo). The second, in case The Book doesn't sell (in which case there's not a helluva lot of use for a sequel, right?), is a Totally New Project. There are a number of cool things about doing two projects at one time - first, I'm in the same first draft stage on both of them, so it's just about getting the words down on paper. I write super fast at this stage - about 1000 words an hour for a couple hours at a time - and the only plotting I worry about is "what comes next?" Transitional material, connective tissue, plot developments that, you know, actually make sense? All happens later. Right now, it's just about what comes next. TNP is a "normal" young adult book, so no supernatural stuff in there, and it's also the first thing I've written in first person ...

Despite my absence from this blog, I am not dead and/or on a beach somewhere. I wish I were (on a beach, not dead), but I am not. I would sing a song about how busy I am with work (true), and how busy I am with teaching (also true), and how busy I am with working on the new projects (true dat), and how busy I am with life in general (double true), but the real reason why I haven't been posting here is because I've been querying. For some reason, querying has made me especially leery of posting here. I've seen posts from agent blogs that talk about how they don't want to know that the author they're considering representing has been rejected by everyone else in the world. Likewise, I don't think it's good form for me to post about the responses I've received when the agents haven't given me permission to do so, although some writers do it. I know I wouldn't want to see my query letter posted on someone's blog and commented on, although som...

The wonderful thing about the job I currently have as opposed to the job I used to have at the law firm, is that in my current job, I have my weekends free. Not every single weekend, but 99% of them. At the law firm, it was more like 99% of my weekends I ended up having to work, at least part of the time. I'm not complaining - I was well-compensated for my time - but it was well worth the pay cut to have two entire days off in a row. This weekend, I didn't do anything but clean my house and write. Clean and write, write and clean. (I can't just write for an entire two days - I need cleaning time to think about things.) The result of this abundant time? I finished the revision of my novel. whoopee! I finished the line edit of the first three chapters of the novel (which is different from a revision in my mind - the line edit is the clean-up stage, when I print it out and make sure to get all the unnecessary passive voice and lame verbal tags out of it. It takes, like...

I saw War of the Worlds - the Tom Cruise/ Steven Spielberg version - in the theatre when it first came out (this was before Tom Cruise became a total negative for me). It's on television tonight, and seeing it again reminded me of my original opinion of it, which is this: WOTW would have been an awesome and terrifying movie, except that it was made by Steven Spielberg. I've thought for a while now that Steven Spielberg is at war with himself. Although I'm no film conniesuer (or speller of conniesuer), I think it started with (or resurfaced as a result of) Schindler's List. I'm totally speculating and making stuff up, but I think that once Spielberg became aware of the larger things he could do with film and the larger darkness that exists at the heart of humanity as a result of Schindler's List, he became a filmmaker divided against himself. And there is no where that division is clearer than in WOTW. The first side of Spielberg is the side we all know and l...

Right now I'm watching The Star Chamber, a movie from the 80s in which Michael Douglas plays a judge who is so upset by criminals getting off scot-free that he joins a secret judges' organization that kills people who get off on legal technicalities. It's a cool idea - people get off on technicalities all the time. I specifically chose not to go into criminal law because I didn't think I could live with innocent people getting convicted or guilty people going free. But I'm not really getting into the movie because, in short, they're getting it wrong. In this particular case, what they're getting wrong are the legal technicalities that are getting the criminals off. To be fair, these technicalities were probably not wrong in 1983, when the film was made. For example, one guy who is accused of killing five women gets off because he threw his gun in the garbage can in front of his house (!) and the cops can't search the garbage can because it's the c...