Change in Value

While hashing out scenes in my current work in progress, I've been remembering writing advise from Robert McKee in STORY, an incredible book on screenwriting. McKee says for a scene to work, we need to change a value, from positive to negative, or vice-versa, or show an increase or decrease in the intensity of the value.

For instance, if a character is angry, she'll either need to A) grow happy or B) grow less or more angry (if that is the point of the scene). If a character is hungry, he'll need to A) eat or B) become less or more hungry (again, if that is the point of the scene).

In my writing, I've noticed when a scene falls flat, I'm often forgetting to change the value, and once I identify this problem, I can establish the purpose of the scene. Often times while writing first drafts I'll mostly be brainstorming, and when I go back and see nothing has changed, I can ask myself, "What is the point? What does my character want? Now, how can I make it easier or harder for her?"

So I challenge each of us to change the values in our scenes OR, if we're not writers, identify the changed value in a story we're reading and decide how the change strengthened the book as a whole. Stories should be about progression--whether for the better or the worse.

And that is all. Thanks for considering!

*Buries head in manuscript*

Listening

I play the piano; I took classical lessons for ten years, and while I use the majority of my free time on my writing, I can't help comparing the two. My dad used to point out that I had the ability to listen while I played and making it pleasing for the audience (I have my musical faults, but I hope this is true). So I've realized there's a type of listening while we write, too. We slash out our firsts drafts, then go back and listen how our writing might hit our readers. Right now I'm focusing on voice. I'll write a sentence a certain way, then go back and see that my protagonist would never use such words. So I try again, and again until I get it to sound as authentic for them as I can. I'm listening to the writing--the flow, the voice, the pacing, the plotting--and striving to make the story, the writing pleasing for the reader, too.

It's a hard goal to achieve. Do you know of a writer who does just this? Weaves his/her story so perfectly, as if they know what the reader needs? I thought Michelle Hodkin in The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer did this exceptionally well, especially for a debut.

Enough Room for Both

Lately, I've seen myself struggling to know how to feel about my two main manuscripts--the one my agent has, and my current work in progress. Which one do I love more? Which should I obsess over today? If I obsess over characters in Manuscript B, won't the characters in Manuscript A lash out? I need to immerse myself in one of these worlds, but it's impossible, I think, to obsess over both.

But something occurred to me last night while I was contemplating my current work in progress and felt a pang of regret for abandoning my other work: my manuscripts are like my children, I can love them both 100%, 100% of the time!

Now, this may seem obvious to most of you; as I write this, it seems obvious to me. But I suppose while pitching Manuscript A, then turning it over to my agent, I've grown accustomed to obsessing over every bump in the road, who and what and why and when, everything that happens to my manuscript. The same can be said for my oldest child. Raising him has required more work than any of my children. I obsess over his draining yet incredible personality, obsess when I've left him to his own devices, and then I think, you know what, it's okay! I love him, I help him, and I love and help my other two children. I CAN LOVE THEM ALL.

So I'm going to continue working on my current work in progress, and whenever Manuscript A needs me, I will gladly offer my assistance, because there's enough room in my heart for both.

Why Alcatraz Doesn't Work for Me

You know how we often read fiction/watch movies to fall in love with the characters? The same can be said for our villains: though we may not know it, we want to somehow connect with them, too.

Which brings me to my latest show (the one both Grayman and I agree to watch while exercising). Alcatraz has a fun premise: we follow a couple hundred Alcatraz inmates who've been frozen in time and reappear to commit heinous crimes. I was actually stoked to watch this show because Jorge Garcia (the guy who plays "Hurley" in Lost) is a main character and few people are more loveable than him. Also, J.J. Abrams produced this. *love*

But the show falls flat for me, and this is why:

We fail to connect with our antagonist because there are far too many in too little time. Something like two or three hundred inmates escaped, and so far for each episode we follow an inmate commit a crime, then get caught. I've seen four episodes and Wikipedia shows five more that follow the same formula. The show doesn't work because the majority of the time is spent with the bad guys only to be tossed in jail in the end. They're not likeable, and while I think the good guys are likeable, I don't really know because we get to spend so little time with them.

Plus, I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the opening line: "On March 21, 1963, Alcatraz officially closed. All the prisoners were transferred off the island. Only that's not what happened. Not at all."

I love the historical "what if" spin idea of the show, but Sam Neill says the "Only that's not what happened. Not at all" with this weird little Western twang like they're trying to sound like Firefly or something. But they don't . . . Not at all.

Will I keep watching? Hm. I need to find another drama I can talk Grayman into watching with me while we shed our pounds.

He's already lost ten. Gah.

*I know other crime shows like Law and Order are a huge success with the new-bad-guys-every-episode formula, but this is just my take on THIS show. The time spent on the antagonists makes me wish I cared about them.

Phase Two: New Leaves, Old Goals

So the exercising is going well. Last week I hit the elliptical three different days, as well as my abs and some weights. This week I've hit it three days and counting (my goal is to hit five or six). Our family is going to the beach in June so I have a bit of an incentive to get in shape--the last thing I want is to scare fellow beach visitors away.

As for the writing, the 1000 words/day hasn't entirely worked out. Sometimes I prefer to work on the beauty over the quantity, so maybe my goal needs to be time oriented? I'm still not sure. But for the next few days I'll try for the 90 minutes/day, 60 minutes if that's the best I can work out. And other days much longer if I can get Grayman or sitters to help me with the kids.

But I appreciated one blogger's comment calling me a guerrilla writer. I'm not so sure about that, but I did leave the baby in the car in the garage with the sunroof rolled down and the garage door propped open so I can hear him when he wakes up. This can only work in Texas where it'll be 70 degrees today.

Now to my working manuscript!

New Leaves, Old Goals

Grayman and I are turning over a new leaf. We're working out together four or five nights a week after the kids are in bed. Proud of us? I am! I still have a postpartum belly to shed. We got a TV for the exercise room and bought a show--Dexter--which I actually hated, so we're going to try something else. Suggestions? I like the dark and gritty, (but not too dark and gritty!) and Adam likes the light, so we're actually pretty hard to please. Shows we've watched together in the past include Lost, Fringe, House, Arrested Development, and 24. We tried Alcatraz this past weekend, and plan on watching that, but that's only one show a week. Too bad I can't convince him to watch The Vampire Diaries or Pretty Little Liars.

But with this new ambition, I'm hitting the writing seriously again. My goal is to hack 1,000 words per day, as long as my kiddos will allow. But today I was truly brilliant and saw my baby might fall asleep on the way to take my daughter to preschool and since I know he tends to wake up when I take him out of the car, I brought the laptop in the car and--kabbam!--I had 700 words spilling out of my fingertips and another 300 when I hid the laptop behind the tall building blocks while he played. He'll soon get too clever for that, but I'm constantly reinventing ways to keep up with the writing. I'm sure many of you understand, whether it's because of your kids or your day jobs or other commitments. So you tell me, what genius plan panned out for you so that you could write (or achieve whatever goal you set out)?

Review: LOLA AND THE BOY NEXT DOOR by Stephanie Perkins

While Anna and the French Kiss is about the boy, Etienne St. Clair, this book is about the girl, the protagonist, Lola Nolan. Because of this, I think Perkins might have a few disappointed readers--it's less gushing about the the love interest and more about the transformation of the main character. But Perkins does this so well. In my opinion, this is more of a book about self discovery than romance, though the romance is there at every step.

Lola wears costumes; she wears something different every day. And her outfits are extravagant and themed. To be honest, I was a bit wary going into this book. I so loved Anna and the French Kiss and I was a bit skittish about Lola's over-the-top personality. I thought, "What do I possibly have in common with this girl?" But I know Perkins' talent and I actually bought this book, so I kept reading, and I'm so glad because I feel like Perkins is such a rock star at writing contemporary stories. Here's why:

1. Her sense of humor. At one point I was laughing for so long, I had to read the section over again. She writes awkward situations so well; she makes her characters breathe.

2. Her acute glimpses of truth. I LOVE this quote: "I know you aren't perfect. But it's a person's imperfections that make them perfect for someone else." I'm not sure I thought about imperfection and romance that way. I absolutely adore this insight (and it came from Cricket, the love interest, which was an excellent touch).

3. Her authenticity. I've been following Stephanie on twitter for several months now, and it was fun reading this book because for so much of her writing I kept thinking, "That sounds just like one of her tweets!" So I know Perkins is writing in her natural voice. She breathes her happy, witty personality into her books. I can tell she has a creative and fun personality because it shines through in her books.

My only complaint is I don't feel like I got to know the love interest, Cricket, like I got to know Etienne St. Clair. But I don't know if that's a fair complaint, because we got to meet Etienne along with Anna, and Lola's known Cricket her entire life. Plus, we know Cricket's a sweet boy who loves her the entire time (or we learn this quickly enough) so again, this isn't so much the drool-over-boy type of book (because honestly I think I might have liked the mean rocker boyfriend better) but it's a brilliant insight into the self discovery a teenager goes through when learning who they are. Perkins knows how to weave a fun, page turning tale. Kudos to her for writing the perfect companion novel to Anna; it fits the mood (we even get to see Anna and Etienne a bit!) but it's opposite in so many ways, addresses different themes, and this time our journey takes us to San Francisco, a place I've never been.