How to use this Page

After directing Pixar's "Blue Umbrella," Saschka Unseld has moved into the world of VR filmmaking.

Challenges and lessons learned from interactive animation storytelling.

I grabbed this book solely on the back of a tweet from Joss Whedon but it then languished in my TBR pile for months. With the book finally being released in Australia I thought it was time to pick it up and was immediately sucked in. Catherine Lacey’s writing style is electrifying. She skillfully balances […]

Downton Abbey (which I’m discussing elsewhere so as not to put spoilers in Jane’s path) got me thinking about the man behind the curtain (or the woman, as the case may be)—the writer. My frustrations with that show have to do mostly with the way the writing is sometimes so very visible. Much of the conversation I’ve seen around the web today, including in my own post, questions decisions made by Julian Fellowes. In a way, he’s as much a character in the series as anyone on camera. We’re always aware of his fingers on the keys—this well-turned quip, that infuriating plot twist, this theme stated baldly and repeatedly by numerous characters until we feel bludgeoned by it.

It’s unusual, and therefore interesting, to see a show of this calibre (clearly there is something above-the-pack about Downton that keeps us all panting for the next episode, and has so many of us talking talking talking week after week) fail on a suspension-of-disbelief level with such regularity. We’re constantly thinking about the writing, and therefore the writer. This is seldom the case with other fine shows I’ve been hooked on. Mad Men, for example—I hardly ever think about the writing while I’m watching it. Afterward, yes, generally with admiration, always with fascination.

The Wire: I don’t believe I ever once considered the people behind the curtain during the entire run of that show. I was pulled so thoroughly into the world that it became absolutely real. Sometimes I’ll see one of the actors in another role and get a jolt: but I thought you were still walking a beat in Baltimore!

LOST is an example of an excellent show which nevertheless featured The Writing as a supporting character. Indeed, there were entire seasons when I was pretty sure the writers had no idea where certain strands were going, and sometimes The Writing seemed to wander off into the jungle and be eaten by a polar bear. (I mean, that whole thing with ghostly Walt popping up now and then, after he’d been returned to the mainland—did they ever explain that? I have the feeling the young actor grew up too much over a hiatus and they had to just let the plotline fizzle away—which would be an event outside the story affecting the storyline.)

And yet I loved LOST (and still miss it), just as I have loved Downton, despite the enormous footprints The Writing leaves all over the house. (The poor housemaids, always having to clean up after it—and then it repays them by giving them the sack, or throwing their husbands in jail.)

The Downton incident that so many of us are bemoaning today is a particularly egregious case of The Writing leaping in front of the camera and announcing it’s ready for its close-up, Mr. DeMille. An off-camera, real-world decision by an actor seems to have annoyed The Writing, possibly outraged it, and it rummaged through the cupboard until it found a rusty old overused implement and flung it through the fourth wall.

As a writer myself, I like to ponder the people behind the curtain—after the fact. When the show’s over and I’ve emerged from its world, that’s when I like to imagine the discussions in the writers’ room or trace the artful seed-planting that bears delicious fruit somewhere down the line. Arrested Development is one of the best examples ever of a show whose writers are so perfectly invisible that I never think of them at all during an episode—and then afterwards, or four episodes later, or on the seventh viewing, I’ll find myself marveling at their skill, their cleverness, their patience (allowing a joke to bide its time and blossom half a season later). That’s a show in which the writers are never onstage, but upon recollection I’ll wish I could have been a fly on the wall when they came up with some of their bits. What I wouldn’t give for a YouTube clip of the day they came up with Bob Loblaw! Who thought up that name? (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, click the link; you have to hear it spoken aloud.) Did the rest of the team all fall out of their chairs laughing when one of them uttered it for the first time? Were they able to get any work done for the rest of the day or was it overthrown by helpless giggles?

The internet, of course, puts us all in closer contact with the creators of our books, television shows, films, and music. Many of you probably know me better than you know my books. And if you’ve read my blog for a while, it may be hard to approach my books without thinking of me, the writer, on the other side of the page. At least, that’s how it is for me when I open books written by people I know, either in person or online.

Sometimes this familiarity works in the writer’s favor, and sometimes it hinders full enjoyment of the work. Returning to LOST, for example: much as I loved that show, much as I hung on every next episode, I had an uneasiness in the back of my mind the whole time, because early on I’d seen a TED talk by J.J. Abrams, in which he told a story about buying a mystery box at a magic store as a kid—a box marked only with a question mark, so that you didn’t know what was inside until you took it home and opened it. He never opened his. He displayed it right there during his talk, still sealed up decades later. It held more meaning for him as a possibility, a mystery; he’d kept it as a talisman all those years, a symbol of the joy of the unknown. I listened to him describe this—it was early in Season 2, I think—and I thought, Ohhhh NO, he likes unanswered riddles. LOST had us up to our ears in unanswered riddles, and by golly I wanted answers; but knowing what I knew about one of the most powerful people behind that particular curtain, I no longer had confidence answers would be provided.

(And yet I dove eagerly into that quicksand pit of riddles week after week.)

With novels, it seems generally easier to tuck the writer back behind the curtain and forget about him or her. Not always, but usually, if the story is well told. This is probably because there are fewer variables; your novel’s characters can’t quit on you, or send unfortunate tweets, or be arrested for drunk driving. It’s only when a book has plot holes or something clunks that I’m back to thinking about the person behind the page. Sometimes it’ll even be the editor who draws my focus; I’m thinking: Why didn’t you catch that? This story didn’t start until chapter three, and it’s your job to break that news to the writer. 

(Perhaps I think this because I’ve had the good fortune of working with truly excellent editors who perceive all things visible and invisible.)

It’s a strange age we live in. What I want as a writer is to be invisible on the page; I don’t want the reader thinking about me at all. I believe that if I’m doing my job right, you’ll have forgotten about me within a few paragraphs—or perhaps a few pages, if you know me with some degree of familiarity. And yet, as an author (i.e. writer of published books), I’m aware that my publishers expect, and my books’ survival may in part depend on, various kinds of visibility. And then I’m also a blogger, eight years in love with the form—a medium which is all about person-to-person sharing, and which sometimes brings me more direct satisfaction than my books.

(Am I allowed to admit that? It’s true, though. Most writers I know go on being critical of their own work long after it’s been published. Not to mention the blunt reality of things sometimes going out of print.)

So our various selves are all intertwined, these days: the reader, the writer, the viewer, the performer. I’m reading your novel on one screen and chatting about your hellish commute on another. I’m watching your movie and thinking about that perplexing remark you made in a blog post. I’m head over heels in love with your television show—and desperately wishing you’d written yourself out of this particular script.

Which I suppose is where my point is. I don’t mind the intertwined identities; in fact, I rather enjoy them, as long as they don’t affect the work. The more I respect your talent and skill, the less I want to think about you while I’m enjoying your art. I’ll eagerly go and hear you speak about it later—that’s a joy, hearing creative people discuss their work. But I don’t want to be in a writing workshop with every single creator I encounter. I don’t want to think about your writerly choices, and what drives them, not in the moment, not while I’m immersed in your work. Give me invisible craft. Let me believe, just for this hour, that there are no puppet strings, no hands pulling them. Let me believe there’s no one there behind that curtain—let me forget the curtain exists at all.

5 Stars
Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle
Mary Newell DePalma
Eerdmans  Books for Young Readers
978-0-8028-5408-7
No. of Pages: 32    Ages: 3 to 7
...................................
...................
Back Cover: What begins as a playful game of fetch between a     boy and his dog turns into wild goose chase that springs from one       page to the next in this delightful romp of a story.
...............................

A nice summer morning scene unfolds to find a young boy playing catch with his dog.  The boy throws a red ball for the dog to retrieve, the happy little             eye-patched dog runs with glee after every throw, until . . .

“Meow!”

“Growl!”

The chase is on! The dog chases the cat and the boy chases the dog.

“Flutter-Flutter,” a butterfly looks on from above.

The cat jumps a small stream where a frog lives.

“Hip Hop! ribbet-ribbet.” 

“Honk! Honk! Puddle, Paddle, Waddle.  Glide.”

A pair of geese joins the chase, running after the frog, which is running after the boy, who is running after his dog, who is running after the cat

This wild goose chase continues, introducing more animals inthe chase, until . . .

Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle is a charming book for younger children. Each pair of animal sounds rhymes, adding an additional layer of fun. Alliteration is also used. Page to page the chase grows larger. At one point the boy, and all those behind him, get stuck in a bush, and the cat has run up a tree. The dog sits down and wonders where the cat went, and where his friend went, and realizes he is alone. Sadness sets in, and then . . .

Nope, I’m not spoiling this for you by blabbing the ending. I will say it is a great ending. Kids and parents will love the ending. Kids will want to read Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle until they have all the animal noises memorized. This is a great book for a read-along, especially if the reader likes to makes different sounds, inflections, and faces. There is not a pre-scholar around who will not love Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle.

I think this book is adorable, extremely cute, educational, and humorous. Besides learning the noises each animal makes when it speaks, children will learn the value of friendship. The dog is attached to the boy with the boy equally attached to his dog. The cat distracts the dog and he runs after it. Soon, he is by himself and not sure where he is, or the cat, or the boy he loves. When the dog realizes he is lost, the sadness is palpable.

The author is also the illustrator.  Ms. DePalma has done a wonderful job illustrating the chase scenes, adding in each animal skillfully. Children will love pointing to each animal and the words it says. This is cute, adorable, witty, and a treasure all wrapped together waiting for parents and children to open it up. I suggest parents do that pronto—before the cat makes a purrfect getaway, the dog finds the red ball, and the boy remembers the game the two were playing, until so cattily interrupted.

I wish I had a child to read this to every night. Okay, maybe every other night—there are so many great books for the younger kids. Lucky for me, as a reviewer, I get to read all these books even without a kid, and no one thinks it is silly of me.

To read how Ms. DePalma wrote Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle  goHERE!

Bow-Wow, Wiggle-Waggle

Author/Illustrator: May Newell DePalma    FB   website
Publisher: Eerdman's Books for Young Readers website blog
Release Date: August, 2012
ISBN: 978-0802854087
Number of Pages: 32
Ages: 3 to 7
.......................

I had to do something on LOST for this Illustration Friday. It goes along with this posting I did back in 2010, before LOST was over. Whether you loved or hated the ending, it was still quite a show.

Not all who wander are lost.
~J.R.R.Tolkien

Scholastic News,  October 2011

Last night we got terrible but expected news. Our friend Craig has died. My husband and I met him right after we graduated college. He became one of my husband's best friends.

I posted about him over two years ago:

Our friend Craig lives in his own world. He's had a rare type of leukemia for years. He doesn't work any more. He doesn't watch TV or go to movies. He reads all the time and listens to classical music. He reads the paper, but obviously not the entertainment section.

So Harrison Ford is in town making a movie. I guess Callista Flockhart has been or is with him. Somehow Craig ended up meeting them, I think through friends of the woman he's house sitting for.

"I'm Craig _________" he says to Harrison.

"I'm Harrison Ford."

"And what do you do, Harrison?"

Harrison laughed and said it was the best thing he had heard all day. I guess it was a relief to be treated like anybody else.

Far too many of our friends have died this year.

Image via Wikipedia

In spite of all the technology that’s been created to keep us forever found, have you recently gotten lost?

Related Articles

• VOTD: Every Line of Dialogue in ‘The Lost Boys’ is “Michael” (slashfilm.com)
• Scarecrow suggests | Like ‘The Way Back’? Try other tales of wilderness survival (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Lost in Shadow: Stunning concept, mediocre gameplay (thestar.com)

I didn’t take many notes on this one, but there are stories to tell. First of all, I went into it expecting a discussion about the show, the ending, our questions, our theories—I mean, I figured there would be five or six people up front debating and taking comments from the crowd. It wasn’t like that. What it actually was was an info session on DK’s soon-to-be-published LOST Encyclopedia, moderated by a DK rep, with the book’s two authors as panelists/interviewees.

This sounds very market-y, but it was FASCINATING. And before twenty minutes had passed, I had shifted from feeling very shruggy about the notion of an “encyclopedia” for a TV show, even one as intricate and awesome as LOST, to thinking I MUST HAVE THIS BOOK.

So: if it was a commercial, it was a darned effective one.

But it wasn’t really a commercial. It was two intelligent and enthusiastic writers talking about the process of researching, writing, and organizing a complex work of nonfiction. The visuals were interesting enough—sample layouts, even a short video clip from the LOST DVD’s bonus materials—but what really grabbed me was the authors’ discussion about how they worked with the LOST writers and producers to write entries on every single person, place, and thing that appeared on the show, from Aaron (Littleton) to Zodiac (raft). Or, as Paul Terry, one of the cowriters, kept adorably saying, “From A to Zed.”

My sparse notes say:

• Authors: Paul Terry and Tara Bennett. Liked these two very much. Clearly they are passionate about the material.

• The book will include everything that is LOST canon, including material from the not-yet-released bonus scene from the DVD, which of course I AM DYING TO SEE because I’m convinced it will be about—no wait, I can’t say, since my own dear daughter hasn’t made it past Season One yet. Must not spoil!! But, you know, if you’re a Lostie then you probably have a good guess as to what sort of story there might be left to tell…

• Book will offer clarifications, yes, but will not fill in the holes—that isn’t possible, said Bennett. No entries were winged; there are no speculations.

• Entries have levels of importance. A-level is major players, Jack, Locke, etc. D- or E-level would be something like Shannon’s asthma inhaler.

• One particular challenge was that the language had to be concrete, couldn’t leave opening for misinterpretation; the book was much harder to write than Terry and Bennett realized it would be when they took on the project.

• Once they were committed to writing it (seems to have happened perhaps midway through the run?), they stopped reading recap & speculation blogs, boards, etc; needed to keep their relationship to the show pure/uninfluenced by non-canonical theories & interpretations.

So much for my notes. But I said there were stories. The first one is actually from the panel before the LOST one, a discussion about webcomics by several successful creators. I went to this one out of mild interest, intending to stick around for the LOST panel since it was in the same room. The webcomics panel was structured as a “lightning round” Q-and-A: the panelists had 20 seconds each to answer questions from the audience. I’ll write up that panel when I get a chance; it was lively and interesting and funny. But the really funny part was when one of the questioners remarked, somewhat snidely, that unlike many people in the room, he was there for the webcomics panel specifically, not just camping out for a seat at LOST. The webcomics guys said, Wait, what? There’s a LOST panel in here next? And they asked for a show of hands: who was just waiting for LOST? About a third of the people in the audience raised their hands.

Ho-ho, said one of the webcomics guys. And for the next

All righty.  Fun movie trailer time.  Thanks to 100 Scope Notes I was made aware of the brand new Voyage of the Dawn Treader trailer that’s out and about (better check and see how many copies I have ready to go on my library shelf).  It’s a nice enough preview but I do have one objection.  That trailer needed about 500% more Eustace Scrubb.  He sort of gets forgotten in the midst of it all.  One hopes he’ll make a bigger presence on the screen.

And while we’re on the topic of movies, Debbie Reese of the American Indians in Children’s Literature blog recently posted this trailer for a documentary about how American Indians tend to be portrayed in cinema.  She says, “I think it holds great promise for helping critique portrayals of American Indians in the books we give to children.”  I for one like the editing.

I think I’ve cracked the whole can-only-embed-YouTube-videos conundrum.  My evidence: This interview between Jarrett Krosoczka and a fellow who goes by the moniker Daddy Clay from a V-Blog site called DadLabs.  Full credit to DaCla (and I shall now refer to him).  He knows how to pronounce “Krosoczka”.  Now let’s get Scieszka and Telegemeier on the show as well!

I was pleased as punch to see that Peter Sieruta of Collecting Children’s Books has gotten into the video game.  Not . . . not into a video game.  That would be bizarre.  Especially if it was Joust.  I mean, he’s gotten into creating his own videos for YouTube.  In this one, he shows us a gorgeous bookshelf-lined room, then pans across his collection of first edition (FIRST EDITION!) Newbery Award and Honor books.  Hoo-wee, mama!  Talk about a dream collection.

Recently I’ve started receiving books from the publisher Zondervan.  Generally speaking, Christian publishers don’t tend to dip their toes into the greater world of the Kidlitosphere, but Zondervan appears to be different.  For one thing, they’re not afraid to send a couple copies of titles to a relatively secular blogger for review.  For another, they get big names.  Names like “Nikki Grimes” and the l

I wasn't able to dedicate as much time putting pencil to paper as I would have liked on this years drawing day, but I did get a few sketches completed.



The first is of Me, Sayid from Lost and Liza Minnelli as a dangerous trio of rebels roaming a post apocalyptic wasteland in search of the scarcest resource of all - our humanity. It's all very deep and meaningful.



The second is a sketch of a Beaker plush doll in my office. Why Beaker? Why not?

Steve

I watched this last night and thought I would share it with you guys. It's long but really worth watching in my opinion. The weekend is here so it's a perfect time to watch.

As you all may know J.J. Abrams is the creator of LOST, among many other TV shows and movies. I really enjoyed watching him speak. I tell you, this guy is smart. His mind goes a mile a second and his tongue can't keep up with it.

He has an obvious love for mystery and explains where this all started. I particularly loved the story about his grandfather's mystery box. I also loved the last scene of Jaws he showed to the audience. He's right, that was one amazing scene.

To me this was a hint where I could clearly see how strongly he feels for the characters in a movie. Even if they are playing a role in action or adventure films, he sees beyond that, into the many shades that a character has, and wants the audience to experience it too.

This may be partly the reason why LOST'S characters always came first in a way.

I am going to stop talking now and leave you all to it. ;o)