Death Released!

It's July 1, and that can only mean one thing -- Death has been released!

Get the book at Amazon and Smashwords, and get all the new lies.

Books on Film: Anne of Green Gables

Anne of Green Gables is one of the most beloved children's books of all time, and if you haven't read it (or any of the successive books in the series), you've probably seen some pieces of the four films it inspired. Lots of girls identify with Anne, who reads books and hates her hair, but lots of fans are surprised when they start comparing the book to the film.

The Book

The original book, and the first in what would become an iconic series, was published way back in 1908. It remains extremely popular; even today, young girls show up in Canada with their hair dyed red and styled in pigtails. They come to walk the same paths that Anne took and to see the iconic Green Gables farmhouse, located in Cavendish.

Anne Shirley is an orphan girl who has been tossed to and fro for much of her life. The bane of her existence is her hair, which is as red as carrots, though the matching freckles on her face are cause for some concern as well. A pair of elder siblings, Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert, have decided to adopt an orphan boy to help with the running of their farm. The orphanage sends Anne instead, much to everyone's dismay. Anne wishes to stay at Green Gables immediately, but she's a talkative and brash little thing -- not to mention female. At first it seems certain she'll be sent back, but Marilla decides that Anne should stay instead.

What follows is a series of enjoyable hijinks as Anne goes through her teen years. She develops an instant dislike for Gilbert Blythe, and strikes up a great friendship with Diana Barry. She's easily distracted by books and by her own imagination, prone to getting into scrapes and thoroughly lovable in all ways. Gilbert, of course, is wildly interested her and does all he can to earn her affections -- but he is being punished for teasing her about her red hair. At the end of the book, Anne has decided to stay at Green Gables rather than go to college due to a tragic event. The story continues in 7 books that follow.

The Film

Lucy Maud Montgomery is truly a literary icon and an accomplished author, and she created one of the most memorable and beloved characters of all time...but Anne of Green Gables is one of those rare books that's actually better on film.

It's easy to see the book is an early effort from Montgomery, and riddled with classic first-book problems. Frequently, Montgomery has her characters standing in empty rooms simply talking out loud to themselves -- having very in-depth one-sided conversations, no less, and it's disruptive. Much of the book is, in fact, dialogue. It is most definitely a delightful read, but you're missing out if you don't see the book on film, too.

Anne of Green Gables is a popular story, and it's been adapted for the screen more than once. But without question the best version of the book is the 1985 television movie of the same name, starring Megan Follows in the title role. Montgomery's rich characters come to life in this version, and though I have my doubts about some of her early prose there's no questioning the author's gift for creating wonderful characters. The setting is also the same, and positively gorgeous on screen. 

What Got Adapted?

But there are several differences between the book and film versions of Anne of Green Gables. The opening scenes of the film give a very detailed glimpse at Anne's life before she arrives at Green Gables, something the book does not do. Many fans of both are also annoyed by the trial period in the movie, an event which does not occur in the book. Once Marilla makes up her mind, it's made up -- in the movie, there is some suggestion that she might be swayed in one direction or another, but this is not the case in the book. Some characters, particularly the Reverend's wife, fade into the background in the movie more than they should. 

Most notably, the concert Diana and Anne attend in the book is changed to a ball where Anne, in behavior that's outlandishly out of character, attempts to prove her own feminine wiles by exerting her spell over Gilbert Blythe. Anne is sort of accidentally pretty, and through her life never seems to realize it, so this entire scene is out of keeping with the books. Anne and Diana are too aware of boys by half in the movie; Anne absolutely isn't thinking of Gilbert romantically in the book.

That said, it's still an amazing movie and the best adaptation of the well-loved book. The world Anne inhabits, and the people in it, come to life beautifully and the casting is absolutely spot-on. I've loved it for so long, I actually own it on VHS (taped from public television, what). Go and watch it right now.

My Secret Writing Method

How long do you stare at your screen before you start typing away at your latest story? How much time do you spend wrestling with your scenes to get them just so? I always know what I'm going to write next, thanks to a little trick I call pre-writing. It's one of my secrets, and I've shared the entire method in my latest guest post. 

Visit Annalisa Crawford's blog to read all about it, and make sure you take a look at the rest of her site while you're there -- she's one of my favorite bloggers!

Writing 101: Abbreviations Can Ruin Your Books

The world moves fast. Email can be transmitted in moments, practically everything has a drive-through window, and the moment you hit "send" on Facebook your words are out there for everyone to see -- you might even get a comment or a "like" within seconds. Sometimes, it's necessary to use abbreviations (after all, Twitter only gives you 140 characters). But you should think twice, and edit heavily, before you put them in your book. Don't let abbreviations ruin your work.

Everyday Abbreviations

Common abbreviations crop up in writing all the time. They're included in online articles, they're used on blogs, they're great for Twitter and other social media sites where space is limited. It's so easy to use them, you might never even think about it.

But you should, because even everyday abbreviations should be absolutely left out of your books.  Have you ever actually heard someone use one in conversation? When was the last time you said e.g., when you meant for example, or i.e. for that is? People do commonly say et cetera, but if they're doing it in your book it should presented spelled out and not as etc.

Using abbreviations in book writing, even the very common ones, looks lazy and unrealistic. People don't use them in speech, and you certainly should use them in your writing...well, for the most part. Like every good rule of writing, there are plenty of exceptions to this one.

Acronyms

Certain acronyms, which are definitely in the same language family as abbreviations, are used all the time in speech and in writing. PETA, MADD, NASA -- the list goes on. Your book could easily become cumbersome if you're spelling out People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals instead of PETA, and some readers definitely won't know what you mean because the acronym is much more common. 

OMG and other acronyms that crop up frequently in social media are trickier, and still new enough that many standard style guides don't address them. People do commonly use text-speak acronyms in everyday conversation, particularly younger people, so if you're writing a book with teenagers and kids in it these common acronyms are going to crop up. Some writers spell them out phonetically (oh em gee, for example), but it's simpler to just use the acronym itself, and this will create less confusion.

Titles

Titles are commonly abbreviated, and most readers are comfortable with seeing this. Keep on using abbreviations for Mr., Mrs., Dr. and all the other common titles that everyone abbreviates in writing. The exception to this is when the name isn't attached to the title. If my character says Doctor, what should I do? the title should be spelled out; but it's fine for me to write Dr. Green, what should I do?

Dates

When I'm writing in my notebook or making a notation on my to-do list, I might write "Jul 4" or "Aug 8" -- but I'm not ever going to do that in one of my books. It's all well and good to use shorthand when you're writing to yourself, but not to an audience. Don't abbreviate your dates unless you're specifically quoting something a character has written down (for example, Laurel had written "Mar 12" at the top of the page).

Text Messages, Emails, et al.

Speaking of stuff that characters are writing down, you may have the occasion to include emails, text messages and similar stuff in your book. When this is the case, it's more than okay to write with abbreviations, acronyms and even misspellings because that's how people write their texts and emails. Always make them authentic, and to heck with the rules. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, realism always trumps in writing.

The Second Time Aroud: Cinderella

Some stories are told and re-told in hundreds of different ways; they're being constantly updated for new generations. Most fairy tales are hundreds of years old, but you can walk into any bookstore and find new versions of those old stories, written with today's kids in mind. Most people can probably name at least a dozen different film adaptations of Cinderella, one of the most popular fairy tales of all time. But some writers find ways to take even the oldest and most popular stories and flip them completely upside-down. The most convenient vehicle for re-telling an ancient story in a brand-new way is to simply change the point of view.

The Original 

Cinderella was first published not by the Brothers Grimm, but by a Frenchman named Charles Perrault. Rumor has it that one castle in France lays claims to being the inspiration for the fairy tale castle in the story, but in truth Cinderella's story is ancient. A story originating in Greece, circa 1st century BC, is credited with being the oldest version of the tale.

In most versions of the classic tale, Cinderella is the victimized stepdaughter whose father unfortunately died after becoming newly wed to a vicious woman with two ugly daughters. By contrast, Cinderella is beautiful and kind and good -- so naturally she's promptly put to work as a maid-of-all-work in the house. She sleeps by the hearth at night, so her name is Cinderella. When the kingdom's prince throws a ball with the express purpose of finding a wife, the two ugly stepsisters and the stepmother happily trip down the road to the castle, nastily keeping Cinderella from attending the event. 

 Her fairy godmother arrives  just when Cinderella gives into despair and cries. The young woman is dressed in a glorious gown and glass slippers, handed into a fancy carriage and thus gets to go to the ball. The prince immediately falls for her, of course, and spends the entire night dancing and chatting with her at the ball. She's so carried away, she's almost late for her midnight deadline. This forces her to run away, leaving behind one of those telltale glass slippers. 

After an epic search for just the right foot is conducted all across the land, Cinderella and her Prince Charming are wed. Naturally, the evil stepsisters and horrible stepmother are punished, and all is at last right with the world.

The Re-Telling

I could write a ton of posts about Gregory Maguire's books, but I'm only going to bring up one: Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister. It's a re-telling of the Cinderella story, but with one important twist: an ugly stepsister is the one narrating the tale. It's an amazing version of the classic tale, and if you haven't read it then you just don't know Cinderella.

The novel largely focuses on the life of Iris, younger daughter to Margarethe. Though she is the youngest in the family, Iris must take on many responsibilities because her sister, Ruth, is somewhat dim-witted, clumsy and apt to wander off on her own. They leave England to go to the Dutch town of Haarlem, North Holland. Their circumstances are not good, but Margarethe is crafty and cunning and soon has herself ensconced within the home of the town's richest resident as a cook/maid.

When she is not helping her mother or minding Ruth, Iris begins to learn painting with a master and his apprentice, Caspar. She is an unattractive child, but Iris has a spark of intelligence that others can see and a core of self-reliance that serves her well. Clara is the breathtakingly beautiful daughter of the Van Der Meer household, the richest in the town. When her mother dies, Margarethe cleverly inserts herself as the mistress of the house and Van Der Meer's new wife -- thus becoming stepmother to Clara. 

Of course there is a ball, and of course there is a prince, but there are lots of events that occur both at the ball and before that are never whispered about in the original tale of Cinderella. There is even some hope that Iris, and not Clara, may land the prince for herself...right up until the moment when the prince actually sees Clara, that is.

Of course you should not expect much of a happy ending -- Iris is, after all, one of the ugly stepsisters -- but Maguire throws in a surprising twist at the end that's really delightful (and you know how much I love twists). Confessions is truly a re-telling, and the story feels new and fresh even if it's a few thousand years old. Don't look for magic or talking mice or any of that mess -- this novel is presented as straightforward fact, and it's certainly written in a way that appeals to adults rather than very young children.

Writing 101: Common Phrases Are the Hardest to Spell

Some phrases are so common that we never even think twice about them...not even when we have to write them down. Is Christie a shoe-in for Prom Queen? Or is Edward a shoo-in to win the election? Should I wrack my brain to find the answer...or rack yours? The most common and oft-heard phrases can be the worst ones to spell. Now, find out whether I have a deep-seeded or deep-seated love of proper grammar...

Improper Phrasing

Microsoft Word, and other computer spell-checkers, may not catch your mistakes when you're writing your phrases incorrectly. Because all the words are still spelled the right way, the automatic checkers may not realize that you're actually not making any sense whatsoever. Make sure you double-check your phrases, even the ones you think are very common, because you might be surprised by how often you're actually getting it wrong. 

• Shoo-in/Shoe-in. The phrase means something like "a certain victory," though it's always used with a noun (like I did in the examples at the top of the post). The only correct way to write it is shoo-in. It's derived from an old racing term, actually -- something about "shooing in" the winning horse at the track across the finish line. Shoe-in means nothing, because shoes go on your feet; they don't go in them.
• Wrack/Rack my brain. When you wrack or rack your brain, you're trying to think of or remember something -- like maybe the correct spelling of a common phrase. The phrase rack my brain is especially hard, because both rack and wrack have distinct meanings. Wrack was once used to describe wrecked ships, but today it usually refers to seaweed. A rack is a framework of some sort, used to display or store various items. The phrase rack my brains is derived from the use of the rack in torture. Try to remember that racking your brains is torture, and it'll be easier to remember the correct usage of this phrase.
• Deep-seeded/Deep-seated. When something is deep-seeded or deep-seated, it usually refers a firm conviction, principle or belief. Both phrases look like they could make sense. Deep-seeded sounds like it means planting something deeply, but it actually means nothing at all. Deep-seated is the phrase you're looking for, though this is probably the most improperly used of all the phrases on my list. Even respectable publications get this wrong all the time.

The above phrases are the ones that have, historically, troubled me the most. While looking around the Internet, I found several more:

• For all intensive purposes. The phrase sounds, and looks, like it would make sense. Intensive comes from the word intense, which means passionate or earnest. Saying for all intensive purposes might sound like your motivations are strong and deeply-felt, but it's an improper turn of phrase. For all intents and purposes is the phrase that's actually used. Intent means there's a plan in place, so when you say for all intents and purposes, you're saying practically, yes. You aren't saying anything if you use the other, improper, phrase. 
• Home in/Hone in. Do you hone in or home in on something when you're writing phrases? Both sound like they might work. Home is where you live, hone is a tool you use to sharpen a blade. But you are not a bee, so you can't home in. You can only hone in, which means that you're concentrating sharply and intensely focusing on a goal.
• Moot point/Mute point. Am I making a moot point, or a mute point, when I write about grammar (I hope not!)? Mute is in everyday language, and you know it means to completely silence something. Moot means that conversation is null and void, so of course the phrase you're looking for is moot point. The other choice, mute point, doesn't exist -- even if it sounds like the action you have to use to quiet the TV. 
• Tongue and cheek/Tongue in cheek. Don't let an improper conjunction make your writing look silly! The correct phrase is tongue in cheek, which means to subtly poke fun at something (usually through sarcasm). Tongue and cheek is the stuff that creates your mouth.
• Escape goat/Scapegoat. This is my personal favorite among the incorrect common phrases, because it's hilarious. A scapegoat is the hapless victim in a plot, the person who ends up taking the fall for the real perpetrators of a crime or feat of misbehavior.  An escape goat is a specially-trained magician goat who performs at county fairs -- or, it's just an improperly used phrase that means nothing at all. 

Common phrases are deceptive, because they're used quite often in conversation -- but that doesn't make them easy to spell. If there's more than one way to spell a phrase, take the time to double-check yourself and be certain you're getting it correct. Otherwise, the escape goat might come along and gobble up all your readers.

Writing 101: Setting, Revisited

It's important for writers to do the proper amount of research to present information knowledgeably, and I'm a huge advocate of it, but today I learned a valuable lesson: there's a dark side to it. Storytellers can be a little too diligent in their efforts to keep their work accurate...and end up doing themselves, and innocent parties, a whole lot of harm. I've talked about the importance of setting before, but it's worth looking at the issue from another angle. Sometimes, writing a real location into your work can go very, very poorly. 

Location Writing Gone Bad

Another writer actually called my attention to this, and his post was great, but I'm so fascinated by the topic I thought I'd go a little deeper. 

Lots of writers use real locations in their books. Stephenie Meyer famously used the real town of Forks, Washington, which happily embraced the Twilight phenomenon. There are numerous tours of the town, which is routinely assaulted by eager teenagers throughout the tourist season (Forks now has a tourist season). You can watch numerous documentaries and featurettes about the real-world Forks, which looks just as Meyer promised it would and sits exactly where she wrote that it was. You can even see Bella's truck if you go to the right place. 

But it doesn't always work out so well. Anne Rice ended her iconic Vampire Chronicles, and her character Lestat, in front of an old, abandoned building in New Orleans. But the building didn't stay abandoned. A few months after Rice released the last novel in the series, the property was purchased and turned into a restaurant. Reportedly, Anne Rice was none too pleased when the owner of the building embraced the notion that a famous vampire was living in his building. 

It's not at all the worst-case scenario, but it took another writer to point out the possibility to me. Some books become so wildly popular, towns create tours of various places mentioned in the pages. That's all well and good when the associations are positive -- but what about when they're not?

When Innocent Parties Get Hurt

Thanks to Google maps and the rest of the Internet, any writer can create believable fiction about any real place. You can go to travel sites and find famous landmarks and hotspots; you can even use your computer to move down to street level and get a real look at the locations you use. This is a wonderful tool for writing...and a dangerous one.

Suppose you mention an actual street address in your work (the home of your killer, the domicile of your victim, the place where your character actually lives) and fans start to visit it? It's not at all outside the realm of possibility -- just ask anyone in Forks. Real people may actually live in that home, and they never asked to become a famous stop on self-driven fan book tours. They may feel harassed and uncomfortable inside their own homes, and you may have unwittingly ruined their personal lives. 

That's bad enough for certain, but things could still go one step further: you might get sued. The homeowners could easily file harassment charges against you, and I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure a clever one could dream up several other charges as well. 

It's important to be accurate and realistic in your work...but only up to a point. Don't use real homes with real people living in them; and if you do, don't provide real addresses. Specifics are good, but too many could be your undoing. What's the old saying about having just enough rope to hang yourself? 

Don't let yourself get so caught up in your own fiction world that you forget the real one exists, too, and you won't have to worry about wrecking people's lives or bringing severe legal trouble down on your own shoulders.

From the Trenches: Depressing Rejection

Few things can create as much pressure as being given the label "promising." One success usually isn't enough for any author. Phrases like what have you done for me lately? and you're only as good as your last book leap to mind. Once you achieve something in the world of publishing, you may expect all the doors to fall open for you. So when they stay closed, it can be a pretty brutal letdown. 

This was the case for one very promising poet, flush with potential, who discovered that success doesn't immediately lead to more success...in an very harsh way. 

Sylvia Plath was a very promising and talented poet, and she proved it with the publication of her poetry collection, The Colossus. The book was made up of 44 poems, and it didn't exactly set the world on fire right away...but it did give Plath the motivation to begin her first fiction novel. 

Reportedly, Plath began writing the book in 1961 after being awarded the Eugene F. Saxton Fellowship. It was a rather prestigious grant attached to publishers Harper & Row, and it gave Plath the freedom to work furiously at her literary endeavors.

She was no stranger to awards. Plath went to Smith, where she edited The Smith Review, and won a position as a guest editor at Mademoiselle magazine. She even won a grant to attend Cambridge, and traveled around Europe when classes weren't in session. 

So, after spending many months of working on her first (and what would be only) novel, Sylvia Plath sent a copy to Harper & Row, the benefactors of her Fellowship. 

They hated it. They deemed the book "disappointing, juvenile and overwrought," and pulled her Fellowship.

Still determined to succeed, Plath submitted it to a different publishing house -- this time, under a pen name. The response? Another harsh rejection. The editor who read her work commented "there certainly isn't enough genuine talent for us to take notice." 

Plath quickly responded, this time with the revelation of her real name. "I have now re-read --or rather read more thoroughly-- [the manuscript] with the knowledge that it is by Sylvia Plath which has added considerably to its interest," the editor wrote. "But it still is not much of a novel...there is no viewpoint." Of the plot itself, the editor wrote that "one feels simply that Miss Plath is writing of them because [these] things did happen to her and the incidents are in themselves good for a story, but throw them together and they don't necessarily add up to a novel."

Harsh...and stupid. The novel that Plath wrote was, of course, The Bell Jar. Today it is considered a classic, and it's been indelibly ingrained into popular culture as a representation of depression, suicide and teen angst, among other themes that deal in femininity and the pressures of having potential. It's still selling on Amazon to this day, and it's required reading in many high schools and institutes of higher learning. Plath's own sad story is hopelessly entangled with the book, of course...she died by her own hand very shortly after it was first published. Since The Bell Jar is about suicide, the parallels are inescapable. But Plath's voice lives on in the book, and it happens to be one of my very favorites. 

Many brilliant minds struggle with emotions; genius and raw feeling do not make for happy bedfellows. Sylvia Plath worked in the fiction trenches and battled depression the best way she knew how: by writing about it. In the end, she couldn't overcome her own demons...but lucky for the rest of us, she managed to put them down on paper quite beautifully before she left. She weathered harsh rejection and suffered staggering defeats, and even after she died she was still winning awards for her brilliant work.