Me 2.0

Hi guys.
I know it's been a while. I let myself get swamped under a play and bunch of other things. But, I'm back now, hopefully.

How've you all been in my absence? Good, I hope. Anything interesting happen?

Some of you might have noticed a name change on my profile. When I first started writing, I was very embarrassed. I didn't want anyone to know I'd been silly enough to actually think I could do something like that. So, I used on of my alternate names -- Dominique. Still me, but not something that would show up on a Google search.

But four years later, I'm still writing and reading and blogging (as my life allows). And I've been thinking for a while that I should start using my real name. I'm not embarrassed anymore. I'm a writer, and I don't care if anyone finds out about it. I'm proud of what I do.

On a related note, I've recently done something very stupid: sign up for Twitter. Because what I really needed in my day was one more time vampire. But, you know, if you're ever jonesing for more of my voice, you can follow me. And, you know, say hey, so I can follow you back.

What have you been up to?

Miniskirts -- A Writing Visual

Once upon a time, a friend passed on what I consider some absolutely fantastic writing advice: "Writing should be like a miniskirt: Long enough to cover everything; short enough to be interesting."

A lot of agents mention on their blog what would be about the right length for a book, depending on genre and intended audience. I have heard agents say that after certain word counts, they just put down the query, because they know the book doesn't have a teardrop's chance on a hot stove.

There's some disagreement on the particulars, but basically any agent will tell you that the key is not to waste any of your words. Basically, if you're writing an 93k YA novel, then those 93k better be worth getting through. How do you think J.K. Rowling got away with writing 160k words books? Because people kept on reading them. People thought the words were worth it. At least, worth it enough to keep reading.

Every word should be covering something that needs to be covered. It should not be there covering things that are best left uncovered. This would be one of those areas where underwriting comes in handy. Saying less to mean more (something that I can admit I don't do perfectly. Yet.) is a great way to tighten up your prose and create subtle works.

I'll admit it, when I write out my first drafts, they tend to meander a bit. Sometimes I get a little lost. Sometimes I come up with something I think is a brilliant ideas but end up abandoning or something that just goes nowhere. That's why I edit. I go back and remove the words that aren't contributing to my plots. I go back and remove the words that aren't contributing to my characterization. I go back and remove the words that aren't contributing.

Basically: Long enough to cover what I want to cover. Short enough to be interesting.

What's your policy on text, length, and editing?

Are You Listening?

Once upon a time, some people I know and I had a silly debate about audiobooks. Basically, it boiled down to the question: Do they count?

One of the guys said they do, because you've experienced all of the words the author meant you to experience. The other said it didn't, because you weren't going through the reading process (this appears to be a common objection to audiobooks. I've gotten it from others as well). Me, I'm more of a middle of the line sort of person. I fully believe that listening to an audio counts as reading the book. On the other hand, I know that listening to a book takes less time than reading it and, for me at least, it's easier.

I've taken to using audiobooks a lot more lately. I use them for things like assigned reading. It's more convenient. I can do it on the treadmill (when I'm pretending to exercise) or when I have to walk to the store. I carry the book with me to leave my post-it notes, but mostly I just listen. And, strangely, I think I remember it better that way. I think I've a more auditory than visual memory.

Sorry for the rambly post. Basically, what I'm saying is, audiobooks count, and I'd like to come out in favor of them.

Do you listen to audiobooks? Do you count them as reading the books?

Intellectual Pet Peeves

You know how some people can't stand knuckle-cracking or gum popping? Well, the thing that bugs me are certain intellectual facts that I just can't stand people getting wrong. This probably proves I'm a jerk, but there's stuff that bugs me. That probably makes me has been appearing in a lot of books lately, a fair amount of it wrong.

Now, if I wanted to cop out and blame my childhood, I'd say that my father used to always say that authors and screenwriters should not misrepresent or falsify history and then claim that they are telling truth, because people will believe that it is true when it isn't. (Let's just say, my father did not approve of Disney's Hercules.) I feel no embarrassment in having grown up to share this view.

When it comes to old stories being referenced in new stories, I get frustrated when people falsify the original story, and my flexibility on there is limited.

I mean, if you want to tell me that we were wrong about the Persephone story and it actually wasn't as shady as we've always thought, I'll accept that, at least to a point. Tell me how we got the story wrong and tell me what actually happened, and I'll accept that, so long as you haven't ignored the other facts (original mythos).

If you want to paint Artemis as a self-centered, shrill bint who only cares about clothes, I'm going to stop listening to you, because by that point you're just making stuff up and completely ignoring the entire base literature. To me, this is unforgivable.

So, yes, my intellectual pet peeve: people picking an original set of facts and lying about them/misrepresenting them.

This kind of pet peeve bugs a lot of people. It definitely bugs a lot of writers and artists, Captain Film Major for one. But I stand by it, if and only if because I already know from a lot of experience that it was not stop bugging me, to varying degrees. Just like my pet peeve will probably not stop bugging the people it bugs, again to varying degrees.

What's your intellectual pet peeve? Other pet peeves? Does my pet peeve bug you?

Happy New Year

Hello, my lovelies. I hope your New Year's off to a good start. Sorry I missed the holidays. I went to visit my cousin, which meant lots of good food and lots of museums, but also no Internet. On the other hand, my wonderful extended family picked up its newest member, so we couldn't have been happier these holidays. I hope you had a good holiday season as well.

Now, we all know what New Years means: New Year's Resolutions!

As we all know, I like posting my goals online. Makes me feel accountable. And, as always, I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours. ;-)

Writing Resolution

• Edit and revise Cordamant's Heir, Legal Aliens, and Imogen and Leander. (Once again, I'm resolving to spend the rest of the year getting stuff done. We'll see how that goes.)
  
• Mini Goal: Edit 1k words a day.
• Finish Born of the Knife, my NaNo project. (Yeah, with that one, I basically did my 50k and then stopped, because I'd worn myself out. But, you know, I really liked it, so I'll definitely be finishing it up.)
• Mini Goal: Write 700 words a day until I'm done. (Compared to NaNo rates, I'm wussing out, but it's much more manageable for my life.)
  

Reading

• Read 65+ books this year. (I really came down to the wire on that one last year, so I'm not going to be upping the ante in this department. Still, I really think this goal helps me as a person.)
  
• Read Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Yes, this is a revival from last year, because I didn't really finish it. Still planning on counting just watching the play.)
  
• Read the Bible cover to cover. (Yep, another revival from last year. Let's see how long this one lasts.)
  

Blog

• Post 3 times a week. Most likely MWF, but we'll see.
• Get back into the blogosphere and read more blogs.

Personal

• Exercise 2 times a week. (Yes, I'm actually dumb enough to resolve to do this. It might feel like a painful resolution for me, but I really need to work out more, and saying it here is going to help me keep it going, I hope.)
  

We'll see how all that goes. Probably, I've lost my mind. How are you doing? What are your resolutions?

Wrapping Up

Hi guys.

I know it's been a long time since I posted anything, and there are no excuses, and I should be ashamed of myself for neglecting this blog and my online compatriots. I just got bogged down with work, the play I was working on, and my own writing. There have been some interesting developments -- I've started working with short stories as a medium, which has produced some interesting results -- and some less interesting developments -- which I'll spare you, because they aren't worth talking about.

It's coming down to the end of the year, and I thought I'd turn my gaze back to some of those resolutions I made at the start of the year to see how that all went. Do y'all remember all the things your swore to do at the start of the year? I know I had to go dig mine up to remember them all.

Writing Resolution

• Edit and revise Thief Book, Cordamant's Heir, and Legal Aliens. I actually did this one. I revised all three texts majorly. I have since moved away from the Thief Book, but I'm definitely going to devote some more time in the new year to doing even more work with Cordamant's Heir.
  
• Mini Goal: Edit 1k words a day. Pretty sure that's how the above was accomplished, so I'll call this one a success as well. So far, we are (2/2)
  

Reading

• Read 65+ books this year. I'm still working on this one, but I have high hopes for it. I only have 1 book to go, and I'm currently powering through The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo so that I'll have it done before we go see the movie. So, that gives me four days. I think I'll have that done.
  
• Read Complete Works of William Shakespeare. While I made great strides with this one, I have not completed it. I still have nine plays to go on this front, and I honestly don't think I'll be able to finish this one up in time. Even if I do count only watching the plays instead of reading them.
  
• Read the Bible cover to cover. This got nowhere near accomplished. I read a good hundred pages or so, but there's only so behind in this sort of project you can get before you have to cut your losses and run. I basically gave up on this one in around March. So, basically, we're at (3/5).
  

Blog

• Post 3 times a week. Most likely MWF, but we'll see. I think we all know this one went completely to hell some time around September. Trying to resurrect it and my self-respect as a blogger. My most abject apologies.
  
• Get back into the blogosphere and read more blogs. See above.

That brings my year long total to (3/7). Not my best work, I'll have to admit. So, next year, I'll have to take some serious consideration before I immediately decide to bite off more than I can chew.

Then again, you know, I like dreaming big. I like reaching for a little (sometimes a lot) more than I can possibly achieve. Because, you know, that's the only way I'm ever going to get more than I ever thought I could. If I still try for it.

So, really, 3/7 completed isn't my best score yet. But I made a lot of progress on all fronts, even the ones that didn't look so good at the end or didn't turn out to be everything I'd hoped. And you know what, it's been a pretty great year.

How's your year been, mes amis?

Big Changes

So, Tuesday morning The Other One cut off my hair with a pair of scissors. A lot of it. Roughly 18 inches.

In her defense, this was preplanned, and I'm happy with the result. Still, it's a big change.

Embarrassing confession: The first time she came at me with the scissors, I screamed and ran into a corner -- notably with my hair to the wall to protect it. She carefully set the scissors down and said we'd try again when I was feeling better. This has brought her much amusement. In my defense, The Other One has always had a Use It and Lose It policy towards my hair. If it hit her, she was coming after it with scissors. She never actually cut it off, but there are some associations in my mind, apparently.

Eventually, my hair was considerably shorter, my old hair was laying neatly contained on my counter, and I was jumping up and down to see how my shorter hair bounced. (I promise I'm a reasonable person most of the time.)

The moral of this story is simple: Change is scary. (I know, no one's said that before.) Although I've been thinking about short hair for a while now (read: months and months), but actually gearing up to do it shocked me and took some adjusting.

Now I'm gonna circle this one back to writing, because I like to pretend that's what this blog is really about.

You ever look at an MS you need to edit and think about running away because oh my goshness you just have to make so many huge changes and it's going to be so hard and different? Ever get scared about a new idea, because it's just so different from everything you've ever done before and you just know it's going to be hard and messy? Ever stepped away from one set of characters to realize you've been with them so long you're not sure if you can write other characters half so well?

Growing as a writer develops messy and unpleasant things like thought and diligence and work. Sometimes it even involves changing our ideas, changing our stories and characters, or even changing in ourselves. But we have to do it if we ever want to be better, to be the best writers we can be. Yes, change is scary. Yes, new stuff is scary. But, yes, it is also totally worth it.

Any big changes on your end lately?

Numbers or Letters

For the record, this post was inspired by this video from the vlogbrothers who are, of course, made of awesome. Watch and enjoy.

In the video, John Green talks about this crazy idea that people have that literature is somehow easier than math or that math is this really complicated, incomprehensible thing, and how this just isn't true.

I have these memories of sitting at a table with some friends of my father listening to their son talking about the math he was studying at college and thinking, "Wow, he's really freaking smart." Because I did not understand that math he was talking about, but it sounded really freaking cool. And the characters I write tend to be math people, not literature people, which is weird, since I've always been a literature person.

Then again, my mother did advanced work in Chemistry, and she thinks I'm doing something really complicated by writing. And I've some friends who are math people who think literature is really complicated because it doesn't come with a set right answer.

You're probably asking why I'm rambling about all this. I guess it's just saying that sometimes it helps to remember that things are just hard, because you don't know how to do them, and just because something is hard to you or involves numbers or a foreign language or anything else doesn't make it more valuable than other things.

Boiling it down: Life is cool, and knowledge is beautiful.

So, how about you, numbers or letters or both?

Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?

Just the other day, I was watching a video in which someone explained that he uses the word gay to mean stupid because he is "an ironic liberal." I am not linking anyone to this video, as the arguments it contained were ridiculous (not gay -- ironically or otherwise -- because arguments are not attracted to other arguments of any sort or gender, assuming that arguments even have genders, which I doubt).

Let's clear a few things up:

1) Irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning." Thus, using gay as stupid would imply that the concepts of homosexuality and intelligence were in any way related. This is incredibly untrue. Thus, there is no capacity for the use of the term gay to mean stupid and achieve irony. I would say sorry,but it would have to be ironically, because I in no way apologize for the meaning of these words.

2) As the word gay refers either to homosexuality or happiness (setting aside all overlaps thereof which would be puns and not ironic), the only way to achieve irony using this word would be to use it to refer to things that were either heterosexual or sad (including any overlaps thereof, which would not be puns or ironic). Thus, if I referred to two heterosexuals of the opposite gender kissing as gay, that might be construed as ironic, but more likely we would consider that annoying and ridiculous, and I'd look like a prat.

Ironic does not refer to things that are frustrating, accidentally offensive, or just don't make any sense. I'm sorry, that catchall, quick fix only works on people who don't know what the word means. I'd like to think most of us do.

Remember the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morisette? (Which I will link to, because it's a nice song.) Of course, the real irony of that song is how much of the song is not really ironic. But we know that now.

So, please, people of the internet, stop misusing the word ironic or assuming it's a quick cover for being a prat. You're damaging the English language, misinforming people about the meaning of words, and frustrating the people who know what that word actually means. And because you're making a fool of yourself. There's that too.

Are you a fan of irony?

Shadings vs. Flaws

Once upon a time, when I was new to the whole writing thing (and by new I mean so wet behind the ears, you'd think someone would have handed me a towel) I showed a friend some notes for my second book (because, I was so new that I thought this would be easy and that my first one was already perfect). My friend told me she didn't think it was going to work. She said my characters seemed a little to perfect. She told me they needed flaws.

I was confused. Did I have to turn my characters into bad people just to make them real? Because that seemed to reflect a rather dim view of humanity.

It took me a long time (a really long time, an embarrassingly long time) to realize that my characters didn't need flaws per se. What they needed were shading.

There's a difference between flaws and shading. Shading fills out the character, adding layers and helping a reader see the depth to the character, much like shading in a painting demonstrates the three dimensional nature of the object shown. Flaws and bad things about a character are a type of shading. However, they should not be confused with shading in its entirety.

When painting a three dimensional object, there are shadows, but there are also highlights. You need both to show a three dimensions. When there are negative attributes to a character, there are also positive ones. Maybe your character pops her gum and is also a terrible procrastinator, but she also calls her grandmother every week and grows geraniums. Both make her into a fuller person, and they don't all do it by making her look annoying or frustrating or in the case of some flaws, just plain evil.

Characters need to be filled out so that they look more like people going through something and less like cardboard cut outs just forcing their way to fill out the plot.

It took me years, but I finally figured that out.

How do you feel about shading your characters? Anything that took you a while to figure out?

Stats are Whack (and Wicked Helpful)

Once upon a time, I was discussing Miss Snitch with my dad, and I mentioned that two of the secondary male characters were dating each other. Now, I tend not to bring up my characters' personal business unless it's actually related to what they're doing, and in this case it was. But my dad's reaction was something along the lines of "Isn't that a bit much for YA?"

Me, I didn't think so. Because, near as I can tell, most teens have met LGBT people. There are LGBT people in the schools YA readers go to. Most teens are fans of LGBT celebrities. Some readers will be LGBT people. To boil this down: No, because LGBT people are a fact of life and thus are fit for books.

Once upon a time, in the fantastic play The Importance of Being Ernest by the utterly wonderful Oscar Wilde, "I don't know whether there is anything particularly exciting about the air in this particular part of Hertfordshire, but the number of engagements that go on seem to me to be considerably above the proper average that statistics have laid down for our guidance." This is very useful advice, even when one isn't trying to get engaged.

In life, the shadow (stats) move in response to the sun (people), but in fiction, if you want it to look like life, the the shadows of actual life need to tell us, as writers, where our suns should be pointing.

Hannah from Invincible Summer once posed the question: Why aren't there more characters like me?

This is a good question. Readers want to be able to recognize themselves in the books they read. But, if that's really going to happen, books have to reflect actual life with characters like actual people. That includes the statistical minorities. They exist in life, so why aren't they in the books?

I, for one, think sometimes I try so hard not to make every character in my book just like me that maybe I forget to make them like people. To include a little something for everyone. But it's definitely something I'm trying to work on. Because everyone reads books, so everyone should have someone to relate to in them. No one should be out there thinking, "Why aren't there characters like me?"

How do you feel about this? Do you let stats or your life experiences tell you how to make up your world? Do you have trouble finding characters like you?

A Touch of Light

While I usually compare my writing process to sculpture, today I'm going to branch out a bit and talk about painting. Shouldn't that be fun?

It has been explained to me by a few people that painting with watercolors and painting with oils are very different experience. A key difference between the two is the light.

In oils, light is the last thing you do. You do all your objects and background first, and the light is the final touch of color to show were on the objects you've drawn, your light hits.

In watercolors, things are much trickier. To a certain extent, light is actually the first thing you do, because the light is the space you leave in from the beginning. Light is, in effect, the space where you do nothing.

It seems to me, in some ways, writing is like both of those things, depending on who you are. It's all a matter of the planning.

Some people are planners. They can see right from the beginning where they're going to go, how they're going to get there, and what the scenery is like where they park. They can tell where to leave the light in.

Some people don't know quite so much in advance. They change direction midway through. People appear who weren't even imagined at page one. And, heaven help us all, sometimes we end up somewhere not at all like where we meant to go. Hey, things happen. In that case, you put the light in last, once you've figured out what the picture's really going to look like.

The point is, both styles, while different, produce fantastic artwork.

Me, I think I write like a Cezanne painting. You've done your darks. You've added your light. It's still not done. So you turn your brush around and scrape off some of the paint, baring things down to the canvas. Hey, if it get's the job done...

How about you? How do you paint? Water or oils? Back of the brush?

Evidence of Things Not Seen

Once upon a time, I played the character Douglass in a play called "Party Time" by Harold Pinter. A friend of mine was playing Dame Melissa. When we mentioned to some friends that we were in the same play, they exclaimed, "Cool. We'll come. What's it about?"

That, as it turned out, was where the trouble started. Because, after staring at each other for two minutes, we realized that having auditioned for, been cast in, and read the play, we still couldn't say what it was about.

Of course, two months later, when we were ready to go up, we could answer that question almost succinctly. It just took some explaining.

As it turns out, the thing that made the play so interesting but also so hard to describe that it didn't have the usual sort of plot. This occurred, but they didn't coalesce toward one main character or one main goal. Instead, the real action of the play all seemed to be happening off-stage.

The play was about what all the characters weren't talking about or were being told not to talk about.

This is a tricky proposition. How does one build an entire plot whilst not saying things? How does one delete just enough to leave gaps big enough to see but small enough things don't fall through?

While I firmly believe that black cannot be seen without white and that it is entirely possible to draw a white egg on a white paper using only colored pencils, I wonder how much we can leave not there and have people still be able to see anything at all.

Obviously, it can be done. It has been done. But I find it a tricky and intimidating consideration nonetheless.

I do not favor the minimalist style when I write. In my first draft, I chuck things on the paper. Tons of things, not always with a clear plan about what to do with them or a full understanding of what they mean. In my next draft, I carve things out that I don't need anymore, things that were overstated, things I changed my mind about. I create the white space that wasn't there again. Then again, in later drafts, I also add things back in. I set up things I'd made decisions about later in the process. I change things do not reflect my final vision of the character. I add the black back in.

Writing's a growing process, to my way of seeing it. Each draft is a continuous process of shading and erasing, altering line thicknesses and darkness. To varying degrees, of course. But I do know that, by the time I'm done, it's a piece composed largely of what is said, not what is unsaid.

How about you? Do you favor the spoken or the unspoken when you read? When you write?

Weird = Good?

Sorry, I'm not going to be scintillating today. I know, this is starting to sound like the worst comeback ever. But, for necessary reasons, as a result of yesterday, I am in a certain amount of physical discomfort. (I'm totally fine. I'm just also a total wuss.) I also spent yesterday not thinking about this blog.

But something did occur to me this morning about yesterday. I realized that while I was sore and loopy yesterday, the rational part of my mine was saying, "You have to remember this. It's good empirical experience to draw on when you're writing."

This is not the first time I've had the reaction to a situation.

Is this just me? Whenever some weird/new thing happens, do you start thinking, I need to store this up so I can use it in a book?

You've Got To Look For What You Like

Once upon a time, I sat in a Bio Lab where the prof assigned us a pair of articles and asked for our critiques. After a while, she explained that part of the point was for us to get used to looking at reports objectively, since we'd have to write them later. Then she said, "When you read things, you get a sense of what you like to see. Then you can do that."

That's when I had one of those *ding* moments. Like a little light bulb over my head.

It was like rehearing all of those things that writing sites and books always say all over again:

• Write what you'd like to read.
• Study published books. See how they're put together and learn from it.
• Remember what made you like reading that book, and try to absorb that awesome.

I've been remiss in the reading department lately. Bad on me. Books are an essential for a writer. I do solemnly swear to make time for reading.

What have you been reading lately? What books have taught you about writing?

Kids Are Different

(WARNING: Long post. For abbreviated version, skip down to the paragraph starting with the words "Okay, now that I've gone on.")

Recently, through the power of Netflix streaming, I rewatched the movie Quest for Camelot, which a voice in the back of my mind reminded me I'd once seen at a friends house at least a decade ago. Having rewatched it, I decided that aside from two nice songs, it's only got two real strong points (note: the point of this post is, actually, not to knock the movie).

1. Cary Elwes voicing the leading guy, because, you know, he's Cary Elwes, and his voice ROCKS.
2. Garrett (as voice by Cary Elwes) is blind.

This movie is notable in my mind, because it is the only time I can remember a kids' (as in, animated) film featuring a character, let alone a prominent one, who had any sort of disability. (If I am in some way mistaken about this, please jump in and correct me.)

Firstly, I felt that Warner Bros.'s inclusion a disabled character was, at one point, a step towards acknowledging that there are disabled people in America and saying, "Yes, even disabled people can help save their kingdom from evil." For once, we see a film breaking out of the more common Disney paradigm that the world can only be saved by ridiculously good looking, perfectly abled people (who often have bonus powers from somewhere).

Secondly, Garrett now faced some difficulties the other characters didn't (such as having to flee from a dragon -- which he couldn't see -- by jumping on rocks -- which he couldn't see -- across a pit of lava -- which he couldn't see. Thank goodness for assist birds). This made his struggles as a character all the more engaging. To be blunt,in terms of the story, it rather raised the ante on everything that he had to do. He had a harder time than the female lead, because she could see what she needed to do. Also, his experiences gave him the skills he needs to help save the kingdom. Helpful, that.

Thirdly, his experience of how he'd been treated when he lost his sight shaped his view of himself, her family, and their homeland. These factors all went into the motivations that moved him through the story and escalated the conflict. Garrett manages to both make strong points as to why he shouldn't be defined by his blindness and simultaneously define himself by it. (Oh, character angst.)

Okay, now that I've gone on and on about why Garret is definitely my favorite part of that movie, I'll circle back to my thesis. Namely, the rarity of disabled characters in books and movies. When they're included, it's generally in a "disability genre" and the books focus on being disabled instead of treating disabled characters like the abled ones.

Generally speaking, Disney -- the paragon of "kid appropriate" -- doesn't include things that it thinks will scar little kids, such as scars. Ever notice how the only characters in Disney films that maintain serious injuries throughout a flick are the bad guys?

• Ex: Scar has a scar for all of Lion King.
• Ex: Dorie's scars from the jelly fish attack only last on scene in Finding Nemo.
• Ex: Mulan. Every good guy in the movie gets seriously beat up on. Does it show? Nope. They bruise once then are magically restored. They can even regrow teeth.

• Exception: In Finding Nemo, Nemo has a bad fin, as does Gill. However, these aspects define the characters. They are not incidental aspects. They are essential aspects.

• Exception: The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a hunchbacked MC. On the other hand, that's the primary thing we learn about his character, and he still loses the girl to an abled, and ridiculously good looking (read: Disney ideal) supporting male.
  

Disney believes that showing an injury lasting an entire film will be damaging to kids, so they generally remove indications of such things after one scene. However, this means that kids are rarely shown characters, especially ones in prominent roles, who are not fully abled.

If 18-20% of Americans are disabled, that would suggest that most kids, if they aren't disabled themselves, know or are related to a person with a disability. So would it really be traumatizing to see a disabled character in a book or movie treated the same as the other characters?

My previous works have not included a large number of disabled characters; however, I do have on character in my head with a disability, and her day will come. Disabilities are a fact of life, even in modern times, and I think it might be nice if books and movies written for kids reflected that.

What do you think? How do you feel about disabled characters in books and movies for kids? Have you ever written a disabled character?

** The title for this post derives from the song "Kids are Different," which is the theme song for the group Kids on the Block, a puppet troupe that teaches children about living with disabilities.

Happy New Year

Hi all. Hope your New Year's off to a good start. Sorry I missed the holidays. I went to visit my cousin, which meant lots of good food and too many art museums, but also no Internet. I hope you had a good holiday season as well.

Now, we all know what New Years means: New Year's Resolutions!

And just like usual, I like posting my goals online. Makes me feel accountable. I'll tell you mine if you tell me yours. ;-)

Writing Resolution

• Edit and revise Thief Book, Cordamant's Heir, and Legal Aliens. (That's right. Nothing new. Just making myself get the old stuff done.)
  
• Mini Goal: Edit 1k words a day.
  

Reading

• Read 65+ books this year.
• Read Complete Works of William Shakespeare (This is the one where we know I've lost my bloody mind. Will count watching it as reading it.)
• Read the Bible cover to cover. (Yes, I've lost my mind. But, after years of my Dad telling me I need to understand the Bible to be educated in Western culture, I've succumbed and will actually read it all.)
  

Blog

• Post 3 times a week. Most likely MWF, but we'll see.
• Get back into the blogosphere and read more blogs.

We'll see how all that goes. Probably, I've lost my mind. How are you doing? What are your resolutions?

All the Little Pieces

The other day, Melissa commented on my post Reblocking = Rethinking that "a great story is made up of X,000 perfect words in the perfect order." At the time, I thought that was quite brilliant. Last night, my family and I were watching our collective favorite Christmas movie, Love Actually, and I realized that the reason I love that movie is that it doesn't just have one, two, or three great moments. No, it has a ton of moments where I end up saying, "Oh, I love this part," or "this is such a good moment," or "ooh, I love this bit."

The truly great stories aren't one absolutely amazing bit. They're made up of x,ooo really good moments in a succession. For one fabulous moment, I'll read the book once and occasionally pick it up and flip right to that chapter. For a ton of good moments, I'll reread the entire book over and over again, because all of it's good and all of it feels worth it.

To sum up: You don't have to create a scene that is so absolutely fantastic that people read it and go, "oh, heavens to hopscotch, I'm never going to be that good - I should just give up." It's better to have a lot of little great moments over and over again. Tiny moments that tug at heart strings or inspire smiles and laughter or make me want to read that bit aloud to a friend total up to a book that moves someone, makes someone laugh every time they read it, and they want to give it to friends. 100 one-pointers is better than 1 ten-pointer.

Thoughts? Are there stories you love that are just a lot of good moments? What are you better at, little moments or big scenes?

Books, Books, and Books

Once upon a time (read: January), I posted my New Year's Resolutions on the blog. While some of them (such as my resolution to post five times a day), didn't last until the end of the year, others actually made it through. The one that actually surprised me was reading 50 books this year. I felt reasonably sure I'd be holing up on New Year's Eve to finish the last few, but I actually rounded that one out back in October. Made me feel accomplished.

When I finished 'em up, I told myself I'd do a post about it here on the blog. Well, this should be an indication about my fantastic capability to procrastinate. But here goes my efforts:

Names that appeared multiple times on my list (yes, there was a list) :

• Rick Riordan
• Ally Carter
• Julia Quinn
• Lisa Kleypas
• Simone Elkeles

In hindsight, all of these books contained some manner of a romantic plot, and they all featured something resembling a happy ending. So, I think we now know what sort of story I enjoy reading. And I would personally recommend just about any book written by any of these authors. I haven't read everything they've ever written, but I've enjoyed what I've read.

Biggest surprise on my list: Mauprat by George Bernard Sand. I felt pretty nerdy for reading a French novel. Plus, it's a love story with a happy ending, and I think we know how I feel about love stories with happy endings.
Favorite Debut: Paranormalcy by Kiersten White I loved that this book turned prior tropes on their heads. I think I took a strange amount of joy in the fact that I've followed this woman's blog for more than a year, so I'd heard a lot about the book before it came out. Totally psyched me up for the book. Definitely worth all the hype.
Biggest Surprise: Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson I picked this up at the library, because I saw a movie based on it. I thought it would be dry and boring, because it's old. (I stereotype like that. I'm heinous. Truly heinous.) Then again, there are pirates, and I'd enjoyed the movie I saw, so I had some hope. I actually enjoyed it. Plenty of good plot, even if they don't seem to include in it English classes these days. Surprisingly kid friendly, by the by.

How have your goals been going? What have you read this year? What have you particularly enjoyed? What's your sort of book?

We Made It!

Congratulations, my lovlies. NaNoWriMo 2010 is over! We've made it to the end with your sanity (mostly) intact, and hopefully with some more story written. I suggest a massive communal happy dance, followed by some well deserved sleep.

I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but I won NaNoWriMo. This makes me feel epic, especially because I never thought I'd actually get a chance to do one, let alone win it. November isn't a month when I have abundant spare time.Okay, so I feel like a bit of a jerk for putting in the sticker, but I'm really jazzed about making it through.

I did feel really good about this story though. I feel like I really knew my MC and Leading Man really well going in, and I think I had a firm idea of what was happening when, which really helped smooth things along.

How'd your NaNoWriMo go? Or your November in general? I can see a few of my writing buddies are NaNoWinners. A tip of my hat to anyone who won, because I recognize your epicness. Heck, a tip of the hat to anyone who got a lot done in November, no matter what. Take this moment to give yourself a pat on the back. Please do. You deserve it.

Also, a special notice to any Jewish readers. Happy Hanukkah.