How to use this Page

I've always wanted to make a simple video showing the process of how I work. Maybe it's because I love watching other artists work, why is that? I do enjoy it and can spend hours watching them.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Display Comments Add a Comment

Add a Comment

So, I'm on the Cybils YA Nominating panel as many of you are aware, and I was reading (interpret that trying to read) Hunter's Green by Julia Green. This is a book that I picked up at TWU in our October meeting. (Librarians Choices stuff) There are several marks against this book, I'll tell you now, but that is only making me work harder to overcome this handicap of prejudice. You see, first of all it has a gun on the cover. Which tells me right away that this is not a me kind of book. Second, the title. Hunter? Again, so-not-me. But it's a nominated title and I do have an open mind and all. What this book needs is a great opening line right? A hook from the very beginning? Well, unless killing and skinning and eating rabbits is your idea of a good time, the first few pages won't do much to 'hook' you. But what may prove detrimental to Hunter's Heart is the fact that it is written in third person present tense. The dreaded third person present. (That is like a warning sign--like having turquoise bridesmaid dresses with puffy sleeves or something.)

Sarah Miller states it like this: "Third person present just doesn't do it for me. The best way I can explain why is that it feels like telling, not showing. . . All I know is I have a significantly harder time connecting with the characters in a 3PP book." I love her post "Third person present strikes again."

On showing vs. telling TadMack has a great post up today on the issue: "Showing vs. Telling, Process & Meaning." The post isn't about third person present, and it certainly isn't about Hunter's Heart. But reading these sentences was like an 'aha' moment. This is a very short snippet: "the Show-Don't-Tell school of writing rules state that you allow readers to see what you have to say, and gather meaning from the array of options you've given them. In this way, the reading is interactive, and the reader brings something to the book. If you don't allow your readers this connection, you've generally written a very predictable, dull book that will be put down halfway through the first chapter because credible storylines don't spring to life just because the narrator tells us they're credible."

Except for the part about it being 'predictable'...this is a very accurate assessment on my thoughts about Hunter's Heart.

This was both distracting and amusing. The narration of the novel you can almost imagine as being that ever-so-generic commentary used in wildlife documentaries. The behind-the-scenes, moment by moment, resonant but almost whispered tone that lets you know that you are an observer. This is not your territory. You don't belong there. The narration puts up a great distance between the observer and the observee. The characters don't really stand a chance of being 'real' or 'significant.'

Thwack!
The stone from Simon's slingshot hits the rabbit between its ears. Perfect aim!
He crouches back on his heels, heart thudding. At last! He's done it! But there's something wrong. Why hasn't it just keeled over, dead? He watches, horrified, as the rabbit starts to twitch and jerk its body around and scream: a high, shrill squeal like a stuck pig might make. The noise is a shock. Rabbits are silent, aren't they? Pet ones in hutches, they never make a sound, however miserable they are, noses pushed up against the wire mesh. He's never heard a sound like this. You must be able to hear it for miles.
This rabbit is badly hurt, but not badly enough. It's writhing in agony, and Simon knows he's going to have to do it: go up close and kill it properly. He looks about for a heavy stick, or a rock or something, but the filed is perfectly bare--a hayfield, recently mown.
He glances over his shoulder, as if someone might be there suddenly. Someone who could take over. It's not that he doesn't know what to do--he's read it often enough in the survival handbook: 'The way to dispatch a rabbit humanely and certainly.' It's just that it's different now, here. For real. And of course there isn't anyone around to help. No one for miles. Just him and the wounded rabbit on the grass.
He could run home, the sound of the rabbit's cry ringing in his ears. A fox would find it soon enough, wouldn't it? With that racket.
The rabbit's looking at him. Dark pained eyes boring into his own. Why won't it die? He takes a step forward, crouches over the rabbit, reaches out his hand. The terrified animal trembles violently, tries to run, can't. Simon grabs it, one hand round its neck, the other round the hind legs. 'A smart, firm, stretching action.' He breaks its neck. Feels it crunch.
Now the rabbit is silent, limp, a small grey brown strip of fur, unbearably soft. Its eyes have glazed over.' (7-8)

I could go on, but I won't. But the narration style continues. It doesn't matter if he's hunting rabbits or watching the girl next door.

So what I'm asking is this. Is there anyone out there who has read this novel? Or started this novel and got further along that page twenty-one? Did you like it? Was it good? When does it get better? What did you like about it? Why should I keep reading? Is there a payoff? OR Did you read it and hate it? Indifferent to it? I'm looking for the opinions of others on this one. What did you like or not like, love or hate about this novel?

Will I change my mind if I keep reading? Will I fall in love with the characters in chapter ten? Does it have a wow moment? A twist ending that makes this novel unique?

There are no customer reviews on Amazon yet. And School Library Journal's review seemed hesitant, though it didn't sound like the reviewer hated the book or anything. He just called it 'rather flat' once.

Add a Comment

Allowing yourself to stop reading a book--at page 25, 50, or even, less frequently, a few chapters from the end--is a rite of passage in a reader's life, the literary equivalent of a bar mitzvah or a communion, the moment at which you look at yourself and announce: Today I am an adult. I can make my own decisions.

From So Many Books, So Little Time by Sara Nelson, p. 55

Add a Comment

Last week I posted both here and on my Christian blog a post about how I was choosing not to finish a certain book, Converting Kate. The post wasn't a review of the book. In fact, I mentioned it only in three sentences. But it was about two general topics a) the right not to finish a book and b) my personal pet peeve regarding certain depictions in contemporary fiction.

My post got no reaction from this blog. Which isn't a bad thing or a good thing. Comments are something that are out of my control. Once I click "publish post" my work is done for the most part. But my post on my Christian website--just cut and pasted--got several responses. One person agreed with my pet peeve, another did not. And for the record, I respect all commenters whether they agree with me or not. I do not want to put words in her mouth, but my impression was that she was saying that by not finishing a book that I was judging it by its cover...and that was a bad thing. She was essentially saying that it was 'unfair' for me to browse and skip around in a book and then decide not to finish it. Or perhaps the fact that I mentioned it in passing on a blog was what made it unfair. I would imagine it being more the fact that I mentioned it on a blog is what made it a no-no.

Behind-the-scenes Food for thought...

True or false. There will always be more books than there will be time to read.
True or false. Since time is limited--you can't read EVERY book ever published--that you have the right as a reader to pick and choose what you want to read.
True or false. With any given book, at any given time you can browse and skip ahead to see if you want to keep reading. You can read the ending first. You can read parts from the middle. You can open it up to practically anywhere and see if you can decipher what's going on...if you want to bother with reading it at all.

Today's topics are:

HOW DOES A PERSON (ME, YOU, ANYONE) BALANCE THEIR DUAL ROLES AS A READER AND A BLOGGER?

I am a reader. But I am also a blogger/reviewer. (I don't want to get into that debate again!) It is my right and your right to have personal opinions about what we read. I would even venture forth to say that no one would dispute our rights to share those personal opinions about the books we read--even the ones we don't quite finish--with our friends and family. The real question is whether we as individuals have the "right" to share those opinions in the blogging community. Can we say "I stopped reading book "XYZ" because it was boring and still be 'fair' to the author and publisher of book XYZ? And what about the fans of book XYZ? And what about potential readers? Will my saying that the beginning of XYZ was boring cause other people not to pick up that book? Is a person considering reading XYZ going to be dissuaded because of what I said?

As a reader, I don't have responsibilities. I don't owe it to anyone to finish a book. I don't have to read it in the first place. It is pleasure pure and simple. If I'm not enjoying it I can stop at any time. No guilt. That is what pleasure reading is all about. I don't have to try new things. I don't have to get out of my comfort zone. I can read whatever I want whenever I want. It is all about freedom. The freedom to choose. When you're at the bookstore. When you're at the library. You choose what books you want to make time for. You judge based on author. You judge based on the cover. You judge based on reviews. You judge based on the first sentence. Or perhaps you judge on the first paragraph or first page. You read the back cover. You read the jacket flaps. Even the placement on the library or bookstore itself might help you to judge. For example, in the library is the book shelved under popular fiction or nonfiction? Is it part of a display? Is it facing outwards? Does it bear a homemade sign that says "Staff Picks"? And switching to bookstores now...Does the book have a fancy display? Is the cover facing outward? Are there twenty copies on the shelves because the owners know it is going to be a big seller? Or is it a solitary copy with only the spine showing? How are librarians and booksellers choosing to market that particular book? They know that people judge a book quickly. They know that appearance and placement play a huge role. So whether these judgements are "good" or "bad" they are just a part of life.

If you're a reviewer, you've got to train your mind to think differently. You have to think outside your comfort zone. You can't allow yourself to judge a book based on its physical cover. You can't allow yourself to have prejudices against certain genres. You have to learn to seek out new authors, new genres, new types of experiences. You have to grow and expand. You have to be flexible. You have to try to read every book with an open mind. But most importantly, I feel you must always be generous with the book. What do I mean? If you're bored...give it more time. If you're wanting to quit...give it more time. If you're finding the jokes aren't funny and the characters are cardboard stereotypes...give it more time. And you've got to know yourself. You've got to learn to discern the differences between your bad mood and the author's bad style. A book can rub you the wrong way--and be one that you just want to throw across the room--and still be someone else's favorite book. As a reviewer you know your review is a balance between objective responses to the book in hand and subjective responses to the book. You can never be 100% objective. You would be trying in vain to be so. You can't escape your personal views and responses. But you don't have to let that color every word in your review. You can recognize the fact that there are readers out there that would enjoy this book even if you didn't. I honestly believe that a good 85 to 90% of the books out there have the potential to be at least one reader's "best book ever." So one person's opinion is just that, one person's opinions.

Should bloggers review every book they finish?

Should bloggers review only the books they liked?

Only the books they loved?

Where do you draw the line? Should a blogger post what they didn't like about a book in addition to posting what they did like?

Should a blogger say only nice things and leave everything else unsaid?

I don't think a blogger should "officially" review a book they haven't finished. But if they've read some of it, and want to mention it in passing--disclosing the fact that they haven't read it all and therefore may be "rushing to judgment"--that that is fine as well. It would be wrong, in my opinion, for a reviewer to review a book that they've only skimmed and pass judgment on it pretending they've read it when in fact they've not. For example, I think everyone can agree on this fact. A good majority of people commenting on the HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY controversy over the "scrotum" issue had not read the book. Many did not know in what context this word occurred. Some were taking it out of one context and placing it into another all together. Which leads us to the ever-present problem of challenging books. The argument could very easily be made that those complaining about a book(s) in question rarely have read the book in its entirety. They are basing their claims on the opinions of someone else...OR they're basing their claims on a few sentences taken out of context. They rarely take the time to see if there is a bigger picture.

But is judgment always a bad thing? Should you have to finish a book so you can say that you've judged it in its entirety? So you can say that you've been fair? Aren't there some books that you can know you don't like....regardless if you're 50 pages into it or 350? That you can just say enough is enough, let's not waste any more time?

Add a Comment

Sometimes the hardest "right" (in the Readers Bill of Rights) for me to own up to (live by) is the third one: the right to not finish a book.

Why is it so hard for me to set a book aside? To admit that it is just not for me? To admit that I made a mistake? To just realize that the book and I are not clicking, and that we're just not going to make a good match? Why do I feel the need to give a book not one chance to hook me, but seventy-times-seven chances? Why do I feel so guilty abandoning a book? Like I'm letting the author down.

What about you? How many chances do you give a book? If you're not hooked by the end of the first chapter, do you put it aside? Does it get five pages? ten pages? twenty? thirty? How much before you say that enough is enough? Everyone has their own set of unspoken rules or guidelines when it comes to reading...and I am curious to see if I'm the only one that feels *guilty* about not finishing a book.

The book that is bringing all of this to mind is Converting Kate by Beckie Weinheimer. (It is a book I borrowed from the TWU review center. A book that technically should go back for our next meeting on Monday.) From the very beginning, I've been underwhelmed by the style. There's nothing wrong with it by any means, but it's certainly not sweeping me off my feet. It's both passive and present. If that makes any sense at all. And the other thing that is irking me about this book is that it is stereotyping Christianity in so many ways that are just wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'll elaborate on one of my big pet peeves. In children's literature, 90% of the time faith and religion of the Christian sort falls into two extreme categories. Questionable categories at best if you're trying to qualify them as even belonging to biblical Christianity. On the one hand, you've got the extreme conservative sort. These are typically seen as strict, repressed, abusive, harsh, unbending, diatribe-filled, hateful, condescending characters. They're always characters that are *damaged* psychologically by their faith. In the case of Converting Kate, the extreme character is the mother. A mother that *wants* her daughter to wear only long skirts, no makeup, have her hair pulled-back, be a no-nonsense girl. A girl who is a "witness" to the faith and passes out tracts, etc. In almost every single one of these books, there is an alternative portrait of so-called Christianity praised and glorified. The other extreme presented is of the extreme-liberal variety. Here there is an embracing of agnosticism, a rejection of absolute truth, typically a questioning if not out right rejection of the bible or fundamental doctrines contained therein. Sin is dismissed altogether. Morals redefined or dismissed. Anything and everything goes. It's all one big love fest. Often it is more like John Lennon's song "Imagine" where there is no heaven or hell than anything found in the Bible. These so-called "Christians" are so afraid of "judging" or "offending" anyone that they stand for nothing whatsoever. They don't care what you do, how you live, what you believe, if you believe. They just want to welcome you through their doors. Neither extreme is healthy. And neither is what I would call biblical. Yet this is what authors write of Christianity when they address it at all. It makes me wish that if they didn't have anything nice to say they shouldn't say anything at all. Of course, I'm mainly talking about realistic, contemporary fiction. It makes me want to cry out that there should be some author some where that gets it, that understands what it means to be a Christian. It doesn't mean you judge everybody. It doesn't mean you're condescending. It doesn't mean you're hateful. Or disrespectful. It doesn't mean you carry signs or wear t-shirts protesting liberal ideas. Christians are called to love. And being loving and respectful are how they should be shown. But just because we're called to love shouldn't mean we compromise our beliefs. Any "Christian" portrayed as rejecting the Bible and dismissing absolute truth isn't really a good example of a Christian.

[The good "Christian" idolized in Converting Kate? By browsing and skipping I've figured out that he is your typical sort: agnostic, liberal, homosexual...and by the end....he's "fired" from his job for having gay porn downloaded on his office computer. The book hints that he is not really guilty of this last charge, but still...even so...not what I'd call your average role model.]

Add a Comment