“When I write I aim in my mind not toward New York but a little east of Kansas.”
John Updike
“I don’t write for my friends or myself…I write for it for the pleasure of it.”
Eudora Welty
“I’ve always tried out material on my dogs first.”
John Steinbeck
HALLIE:
When I first started writing, I had no idea if what I was writing was any good at all. My sister Delia, whom I trust completely because she never sacrifices honesty for nice-ness, was the first person who asked me that awful question when I gave her an early essay: “And what exactly is the point you’re trying to make?” To which I said, uh, ah, well… because I didn’t really know. She was also the first person to say, “You’ve got talent.” Her saying it made me believe in myself. Is that pathetic or what?
So, who do you write for? Whom do you trust to read your work in progress?
RO:
Good questions. This is probably a little scary (especially if you're my editor) but I wrote Pushing Up Daisies for myself. The only platforms I thought about were in a shoebox in my closet. I thought I had a pretty good story to tell and wanted to see if I could tell it. And I did. And eventually two other people thought it was pretty good. So now I guess I'm writing for the three of us. Nobody reads my work in progress. After a third or fourth draft, I'll let my pal Kathy read it, and trust her to tell me if I've lost my mind. Are you volunteering?
HANK:
I'll read it! I'll read it! I can't believe you haven't let me read it yet, as a matter of fact.
When I was writing Prime Time, I would bring in my daily pages and make my husband (a lawyer) read them. He would dutifully read, dutifully laugh. Then then, after a few weeks, about chapter 5 or five, he said, Honey, is something going to happen soon? Yeah, I knew that was a problem. So he still reads, but I fear it's as much for reassurance that I'm not terrible or making some embarrassing legal mistake.
Still, now working on the revisions of book 2 and the proposal synopsis for book 3--at every page, at every word, I picture someone else reading what I wrote. Over my shoulder. Shrugging. Commenting the whole way. Huh, so what's original about that, one hovering 'reader' will say. Oh, that's kind of funny. Yeah, okay I like it. Whoa, unlikely, says another. Predictable. Hilarious. Tangential. The voices are constant. It's like writing with an imaginary but pushy critique group.
If I please the ghost readers, I'll try it on real people. But only when I'm completely finished. No one else reads it along the way.
JAN:
I think in the first draft, for the most part, I'm writing just to make it all work, to make it surprising, and to reveal the characters -- especially the brand new ones -- to myself. I have to figure out who everybody is, what they are after, and how they are going to collide.
On the second draft, I'm thinking a lot more about the reader and I'm looking for ways to make the writing sharper and richer, and the characters deeper. I've got a picture in my mind of the tired, fatigued eyes, reading my book in bed at the end of a long day, and I'm trying like hell to make them jump on to the next chapter -- despite the late hour.
As for who I trust to read my in progress? That's you Hallie. Barbara and Floyd, too. My writers group helps keep me from taking too many wrong turns, along the way. At the very end, I give it to a few trusted volunteers with fresh eyes, usually my cousin Laurie and my friend and fellow writer, Naomi Rand to read the novel as a whole. If I have time, I give it to Robin Kall, a Rhode Island buddy, to catch the Rhode Island mistakes.
HALLIE:
Yes, thank goodness for the writing group. But sometimes I wish I was the kind of writer who was so sure of herself that I could just write without showing it to anyone. That thing about writing being a solitary endeavour isn't really what it's like for many of us. I suppose if I didn't have them there would be little voices in my head, and then you never know where that takes you.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
ON REWARDS
BLUME: Is writing easy for you?
ANGIER: No. Mostly it's a question of trying to quiet the dybbuks--all the voices that tell you you're no good, you can't do it, every kind of criticism you can come up with. You're just trying to shut them up and let yourself go.
*******Natalie Angier interviewed by Harvey Blume in The Boston Globe about her newest book "The Canon"
HANK:
(Forgive me for this before I start, okay? It's somewhat sappy and about my own book.)
I had a once in a lifetime experience this week. Really. A box, actually, two boxes, were on my front porch as I arrived home. They were too big to be my new shoes. And they were too small to be my stuff from Saks.
I know they had to be the advance author copies of PRIME TIME. I ripped the tape of the cartons, and with my (Jungle Red) manicure in jeopardy and putting myself at grave risk for papercuts, I ripped open the flaps. One. Two. And there they were, in all their sleek glory. Forty-eight gorgeous books.
(Stay with me here, I promise this has a point.)
I checked the front, great. I checked the back, great. I checked all the little extra stuff that goes in: bio, thank you page, letter to the reader. All great.
But that's not the end of the once in a lifetime.
I could not go to sleep, I was so thrilled to see the results of my two years of writing and revision, years of worry and delight and of stepping out of the TV world of facts and into the writing world of fiction. And I wondered, would anyone like it?
(Point approaching.)
So I stayed up, almost all night, reading the whole book. Pretending to be someone else, someone else who hadn't done the revisions and changes and who didn't know what I took out and someone who didn't know whether the characters turned out to be good or nefarious and who didn't know whodunnit. Someone who had never met my heroine, Charlie McNally. (I also had to be someone who presumably doesn't need any sleep, which turned out to be a mistake.)
Anyway, I loved it. I laughed. I was interested. I forgot I wrote it, sometimes. And I found things, clues, that I hadn't realized were there. I mean, "were there"--things were only "there" because I put them there, right? So how did they get there without me knowing about it?
So as Natalie (above, you've probably forgotten the quote by now) says, "it's a question of trying to quiet the dybbuks."
Thinking back. There were days, writing PT, where I admit I thought things were going along nicely. But there were certainly days I thought, you know, this ain't gonna work. Now, I see you just have to quiet the dybbuks and if they hush and you just go on, you may power through and wind up with the feeling I just did. My first book. It's real.
HALLIE:
Well, that sent me to the dictionary--dubbuk: In Jewish folklore, the wandering soul of a dead person that enters the body of a living person and controls his or her behavior.
Who knew?
Yes, Hank, it is REAL! And it is wondrous to behold and to be holding that brand new baby book. There's nothing like the first one. Not that it gets old; it just gets, well, tarnished. I'm not going there. But anyone who's interested in why no one has figured how to make money in the book business should have a look at the article in the May 13 NY Times, cover of the Sunday Business Section: "The Greatest Mystery: Making a Best Seller." Apparently book marketing is more about voo-doo than research. ("Most in the industry seem to see consumer taste as a mystery that is inevitable and even appealing, akin to the uncontrollable highs and lows of falling in love or gambling.")
I'm predicting Hank's Prime Time is going to break out because it's got such great heart, it's hilarious, and its smart-smart-smart. And because I have sprinkled good juju upon it.good juju: good energy
(HANK: Oh, Hallie. Thank you. Good ju ju is the sort of thing that comes right back to you.)
JAN:
So a dubbuk is sort of a Jewish vampire, eh? I guess every ethnic group needs its evil spirits.
I've known it as the POS syndrome. (piece of shxx - you get the picture). It's when you've been writing, agonizing, rewriting, mispelling, correcting and getting blurry eyes, and you read whatever you've just written and you say to yourself. Ye GODS! whatever made me think I could be a writer?
This is the WORST drivel I've ever read.
But later, the magic starts to happen. And especially when your book is bound, with a smart, flashy cover and looks like... well hey... this is actually a real book. Then all that drivel disappears and you can see that you weren't kidding yourself. You can write. Tell stories, and even transport readers to a suspenseful, climactic even, scene.
It's wonderful stuff! And Hank, I can't wait to read Prime Time! Enjoy the magic!
RO:
Well, the earth hasn't moved for me just yet. Somehow the uncorrected bound manuscripts I'm squinting at (is that really 5pt type??) haven't had that same effect on me, but I'll take your word for it.Is it easy? Nope. The hardest part for me is getting all the other crap out of my head and sticking with my story. I have been known to be distracted by a good looking bird outside my window. But once it's down on paper I enjoy rewriting...again...and again...and again..
HANK:
Oh, Ro. It's going to be so much fun when Pushing Up Daisies comes out and you're all glowy and bubbly (yes, even you) and we can tease you about how cynical you used to be in your uncorrected maunscript days. (Jan--your Yesterday's Fatal is just new to the stores...is it pushy to point readers to check it out? That's what friends are for, right? And it doesn't happen that often..)
I guess my point--yay! she got there!--is that sometimes we surprise ourselves.
(RO: Hank, you are just like human sunshine.)
ANGIER: No. Mostly it's a question of trying to quiet the dybbuks--all the voices that tell you you're no good, you can't do it, every kind of criticism you can come up with. You're just trying to shut them up and let yourself go.
*******Natalie Angier interviewed by Harvey Blume in The Boston Globe about her newest book "The Canon"
HANK:
(Forgive me for this before I start, okay? It's somewhat sappy and about my own book.)
I had a once in a lifetime experience this week. Really. A box, actually, two boxes, were on my front porch as I arrived home. They were too big to be my new shoes. And they were too small to be my stuff from Saks.
I know they had to be the advance author copies of PRIME TIME. I ripped the tape of the cartons, and with my (Jungle Red) manicure in jeopardy and putting myself at grave risk for papercuts, I ripped open the flaps. One. Two. And there they were, in all their sleek glory. Forty-eight gorgeous books.
(Stay with me here, I promise this has a point.)
I checked the front, great. I checked the back, great. I checked all the little extra stuff that goes in: bio, thank you page, letter to the reader. All great.
But that's not the end of the once in a lifetime.
I could not go to sleep, I was so thrilled to see the results of my two years of writing and revision, years of worry and delight and of stepping out of the TV world of facts and into the writing world of fiction. And I wondered, would anyone like it?
(Point approaching.)
So I stayed up, almost all night, reading the whole book. Pretending to be someone else, someone else who hadn't done the revisions and changes and who didn't know what I took out and someone who didn't know whether the characters turned out to be good or nefarious and who didn't know whodunnit. Someone who had never met my heroine, Charlie McNally. (I also had to be someone who presumably doesn't need any sleep, which turned out to be a mistake.)
Anyway, I loved it. I laughed. I was interested. I forgot I wrote it, sometimes. And I found things, clues, that I hadn't realized were there. I mean, "were there"--things were only "there" because I put them there, right? So how did they get there without me knowing about it?
So as Natalie (above, you've probably forgotten the quote by now) says, "it's a question of trying to quiet the dybbuks."
Thinking back. There were days, writing PT, where I admit I thought things were going along nicely. But there were certainly days I thought, you know, this ain't gonna work. Now, I see you just have to quiet the dybbuks and if they hush and you just go on, you may power through and wind up with the feeling I just did. My first book. It's real.
HALLIE:
Well, that sent me to the dictionary--dubbuk: In Jewish folklore, the wandering soul of a dead person that enters the body of a living person and controls his or her behavior.
Who knew?
Yes, Hank, it is REAL! And it is wondrous to behold and to be holding that brand new baby book. There's nothing like the first one. Not that it gets old; it just gets, well, tarnished. I'm not going there. But anyone who's interested in why no one has figured how to make money in the book business should have a look at the article in the May 13 NY Times, cover of the Sunday Business Section: "The Greatest Mystery: Making a Best Seller." Apparently book marketing is more about voo-doo than research. ("Most in the industry seem to see consumer taste as a mystery that is inevitable and even appealing, akin to the uncontrollable highs and lows of falling in love or gambling.")
I'm predicting Hank's Prime Time is going to break out because it's got such great heart, it's hilarious, and its smart-smart-smart. And because I have sprinkled good juju upon it.good juju: good energy
(HANK: Oh, Hallie. Thank you. Good ju ju is the sort of thing that comes right back to you.)
JAN:
So a dubbuk is sort of a Jewish vampire, eh? I guess every ethnic group needs its evil spirits.
I've known it as the POS syndrome. (piece of shxx - you get the picture). It's when you've been writing, agonizing, rewriting, mispelling, correcting and getting blurry eyes, and you read whatever you've just written and you say to yourself. Ye GODS! whatever made me think I could be a writer?
This is the WORST drivel I've ever read.
But later, the magic starts to happen. And especially when your book is bound, with a smart, flashy cover and looks like... well hey... this is actually a real book. Then all that drivel disappears and you can see that you weren't kidding yourself. You can write. Tell stories, and even transport readers to a suspenseful, climactic even, scene.
It's wonderful stuff! And Hank, I can't wait to read Prime Time! Enjoy the magic!
RO:
Well, the earth hasn't moved for me just yet. Somehow the uncorrected bound manuscripts I'm squinting at (is that really 5pt type??) haven't had that same effect on me, but I'll take your word for it.Is it easy? Nope. The hardest part for me is getting all the other crap out of my head and sticking with my story. I have been known to be distracted by a good looking bird outside my window. But once it's down on paper I enjoy rewriting...again...and again...and again..
HANK:
Oh, Ro. It's going to be so much fun when Pushing Up Daisies comes out and you're all glowy and bubbly (yes, even you) and we can tease you about how cynical you used to be in your uncorrected maunscript days. (Jan--your Yesterday's Fatal is just new to the stores...is it pushy to point readers to check it out? That's what friends are for, right? And it doesn't happen that often..)
I guess my point--yay! she got there!--is that sometimes we surprise ourselves.
(RO: Hank, you are just like human sunshine.)
Monday, May 14, 2007
ON REVIEWERS
"While I'm all for the literary bloggers, and I think the more people that write about books the better, they're not necessarily as regionally focused as knowledgeable, experienced long-term editors in the South or Midwest or anywhere where the most important writers come from."
*****New York Times writer Sam Tanenhaus.
JAN:
As the the New York Times recently noted, the number of newspapers who take the time to review books keeps declining as the number of online book reviews multiplies. The question is not whether this is a tragedy. I think we can all agree that it is both sad and chilling to see more and more newspapers give short shift to the book world.
The question is whether newspaper book reviews are inherently more knowledegable or in any way superior to online book reviews.
I'd have to say from my own experience that I've had at least two book reviews, one online and one in a newspaper, where I suspected that the reviewer hadn't actually read the book. The former because it picked up a factual error made in Kirkus and repeated it verbatim, and the second because it was very vague and could have applied to almost any mystery. And this is not sour grapes, because both those reviews were very positive.
In general, though, I have to agree that for the most part the newspaper or magazine reviews I've received have been detailed, intelligent and insightful. But while I've probably seen a few more "hurried" reviews online, there have been some that have knocked me out with their depth and acuity. And don't forget that many online reviews are written by bookstore owners and librarians.
Okay, let's get our own crime reviewer, Hallie Ephron to weigh in:
HALLIE:
It's like reading a murder mystery -- with newspaper book review sections falling prey to a serial killer. Recent victims:Atlanta Journal-Constitution eliminated job of book review editor; the LA Times merged a standalone book review section with opinion pages, cutting the number of pages devoted to books; last year the San Francisco Chronicle's book review section went from 6 pages to 4. Similar stories from the Raleigh News & Observer, the Dallas Morning News, Orlando Sentinel, Cleveland Plain Dealer. The usual suspects: lack of advertising revenue, competition from online. Let's face it, news pages are shrinking, too.
The National Book Critics Circle has launched a "Campaign to Save Book Reviews." See http://www.bookcritics.org/?go=saveBookReviews.
For authors, if the publisher isn't behind you with a 6+ figure advance, breaking out seems impossible. There's nothing more daunting than that moment, right after your first book comes out, you walk into a big box book store and look around...seeing it as you've never seen it before. SO MANY books chasing so few customers and $$.
Newspapers may be endangered species but the circulation of most regionals swamps most blogs. So in terms of bang for the buck, newspaper reviewers win, hands down. Having said that, blogs and online reviews can generate buzz...if anyone reads them.
RO:
I know I'm supposed to feel distraught about this - and I do in a general, "into what cultural abyss is America descending?" way - but I'm not sure that the decline of newspaper book reviews is going to affect me professionally. Of course it's a drag to think that more ink was spent on Paris Hilton's recent travails than on the thousand or so books published this week - many funny, smart, entertaining, or educational - that writers like us sweated over, maybe for years. But how many of them were going to get reviewed in mainstream newspapers anyway? Maybe newspaper book review pages are shrinking because they'e too busy reliving The Civil War, World War II and the Kennedy administration. And reviewing the umpteenth bio of the same dead white guys.
I confess I do read Marilyn Stasio of The NY Times, and if I had a prayer of getting a review from her I'd walk a hundred miles on broken glass to get it, but seriously, how many books can she review in a week? In a year?
So, I love the online reviewers. They're filling a need. I don't care what their day jobs are, or where they went to school. (Isn't it a little ridiculous to think that someone has to have gone to Yale to review a mystery?) Like anyone else, some reviewers are good and some are less good, but if they know their stuff -mysteries, romances, kids books, whatever - then I'm glad they're doing what they're doing.
HANK:
So how do newspapers decide what to publish? When I was learning about journalism, back in my radio days, we were taught that you gave the public what it "should" want to know about. That somehow, the people who were making the editorial decisions were the ones who were trained to decide what was best and necessary for people to read about. Remember when Michael Dukakis ran for president?(okay, you don't, but trust me on this one) There was discussion about how "eat your peas" he was. In other words, that he would say things you needed to hear, but didnt necesssarily want to. That's what newspapers used to do--decide what was important, and print that.
Now, that in mind. Things have changed. There are 300 cable channels. Newspapers are drying up and dying as people turn to the internet. So, to stay alive, newspapers are printing what they think people WILL read. Want to read. And "they" have decided, apparently, that people don't want to read book reviews. Simple as that. They're selling, we're buying, they've decided we ain't buying book reviews. (Plus, why pay a book reviewer?)
So it's so sad, because a review is so often more than just about the book. It can be writen by someone who offers context, breadth, connections. I'm not saying there's anything less--reliable? educated? insightful?--about on line reviews. It's just another medium, after all.
I don't think that problem is the advent of on-line reviews--you gotta love them. They can be wonderfully smart, they're honest, they're from the heart as well as the brain, and they're free of "the man." It's just too bad that curling up with coffee and the newspaper book review section on Sunday morning could be a thing of the past. Or maybe--it'll just be I'll get cozy with my laptop. (Though that's hard to share with my husband.)
JAN:
I think the bottom line with the continued decimation of the book review page, we all need to be grateful for the online reviewers -- many of whom don't even get paid but review as a labor of book love. Thanks guys!
*****New York Times writer Sam Tanenhaus.
JAN:
As the the New York Times recently noted, the number of newspapers who take the time to review books keeps declining as the number of online book reviews multiplies. The question is not whether this is a tragedy. I think we can all agree that it is both sad and chilling to see more and more newspapers give short shift to the book world.
The question is whether newspaper book reviews are inherently more knowledegable or in any way superior to online book reviews.
I'd have to say from my own experience that I've had at least two book reviews, one online and one in a newspaper, where I suspected that the reviewer hadn't actually read the book. The former because it picked up a factual error made in Kirkus and repeated it verbatim, and the second because it was very vague and could have applied to almost any mystery. And this is not sour grapes, because both those reviews were very positive.
In general, though, I have to agree that for the most part the newspaper or magazine reviews I've received have been detailed, intelligent and insightful. But while I've probably seen a few more "hurried" reviews online, there have been some that have knocked me out with their depth and acuity. And don't forget that many online reviews are written by bookstore owners and librarians.
Okay, let's get our own crime reviewer, Hallie Ephron to weigh in:
HALLIE:
It's like reading a murder mystery -- with newspaper book review sections falling prey to a serial killer. Recent victims:Atlanta Journal-Constitution eliminated job of book review editor; the LA Times merged a standalone book review section with opinion pages, cutting the number of pages devoted to books; last year the San Francisco Chronicle's book review section went from 6 pages to 4. Similar stories from the Raleigh News & Observer, the Dallas Morning News, Orlando Sentinel, Cleveland Plain Dealer. The usual suspects: lack of advertising revenue, competition from online. Let's face it, news pages are shrinking, too.
The National Book Critics Circle has launched a "Campaign to Save Book Reviews." See http://www.bookcritics.org/?go=saveBookReviews.
For authors, if the publisher isn't behind you with a 6+ figure advance, breaking out seems impossible. There's nothing more daunting than that moment, right after your first book comes out, you walk into a big box book store and look around...seeing it as you've never seen it before. SO MANY books chasing so few customers and $$.
Newspapers may be endangered species but the circulation of most regionals swamps most blogs. So in terms of bang for the buck, newspaper reviewers win, hands down. Having said that, blogs and online reviews can generate buzz...if anyone reads them.
RO:
I know I'm supposed to feel distraught about this - and I do in a general, "into what cultural abyss is America descending?" way - but I'm not sure that the decline of newspaper book reviews is going to affect me professionally. Of course it's a drag to think that more ink was spent on Paris Hilton's recent travails than on the thousand or so books published this week - many funny, smart, entertaining, or educational - that writers like us sweated over, maybe for years. But how many of them were going to get reviewed in mainstream newspapers anyway? Maybe newspaper book review pages are shrinking because they'e too busy reliving The Civil War, World War II and the Kennedy administration. And reviewing the umpteenth bio of the same dead white guys.
I confess I do read Marilyn Stasio of The NY Times, and if I had a prayer of getting a review from her I'd walk a hundred miles on broken glass to get it, but seriously, how many books can she review in a week? In a year?
So, I love the online reviewers. They're filling a need. I don't care what their day jobs are, or where they went to school. (Isn't it a little ridiculous to think that someone has to have gone to Yale to review a mystery?) Like anyone else, some reviewers are good and some are less good, but if they know their stuff -mysteries, romances, kids books, whatever - then I'm glad they're doing what they're doing.
HANK:
So how do newspapers decide what to publish? When I was learning about journalism, back in my radio days, we were taught that you gave the public what it "should" want to know about. That somehow, the people who were making the editorial decisions were the ones who were trained to decide what was best and necessary for people to read about. Remember when Michael Dukakis ran for president?(okay, you don't, but trust me on this one) There was discussion about how "eat your peas" he was. In other words, that he would say things you needed to hear, but didnt necesssarily want to. That's what newspapers used to do--decide what was important, and print that.
Now, that in mind. Things have changed. There are 300 cable channels. Newspapers are drying up and dying as people turn to the internet. So, to stay alive, newspapers are printing what they think people WILL read. Want to read. And "they" have decided, apparently, that people don't want to read book reviews. Simple as that. They're selling, we're buying, they've decided we ain't buying book reviews. (Plus, why pay a book reviewer?)
So it's so sad, because a review is so often more than just about the book. It can be writen by someone who offers context, breadth, connections. I'm not saying there's anything less--reliable? educated? insightful?--about on line reviews. It's just another medium, after all.
I don't think that problem is the advent of on-line reviews--you gotta love them. They can be wonderfully smart, they're honest, they're from the heart as well as the brain, and they're free of "the man." It's just too bad that curling up with coffee and the newspaper book review section on Sunday morning could be a thing of the past. Or maybe--it'll just be I'll get cozy with my laptop. (Though that's hard to share with my husband.)
JAN:
I think the bottom line with the continued decimation of the book review page, we all need to be grateful for the online reviewers -- many of whom don't even get paid but review as a labor of book love. Thanks guys!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
