Don't worry, I haven't snapped. Completely. That's my current total for the year in word count, right at the start of week 22. So proud of myself.
Only took 4-and-a-little pages of Reunited to get there. I'm starting to get antsy about planning book 4 now.
I've also done 2030 towards today's 100k in 100 days, so that's a pretty cool achievement.
And I've broken my jegging virginity. Today is full of win ;)
Tuesday, 7 January 2014
Monday, 6 January 2014
Siobhan's Sporking: Billy and Me, final thoughts
So, I'm not going to type this into word and paste into the window. This is raw, no cursory proof-reading (I always suck at that anyway) and probably the worst way I could do this. I'm going to create a list of topics now to try and stay in some form of coherence throughout. So the themes that I noticed in Billy and Me?
1-Rural England is idyllic.
2-Only people who read classics can have an opinion on anything relating to them.
3-The way to a celebrity's heart is through cake and insults.
4-You can stay in the same town for 26 years for fear of change, then move in with your celebrity boyfriend after a mere few months of dating.
5-Social anxiety problems are never problems when there are photo ops.
6-Your celebrity boyfriend must become your life. You are allowed to resent him for this.
7-It's okay to have goals in life, unless they no longer suit your partner, in which case, they've changed. Change is Bad.
8-Cancer is a good way of removing superfluous characters.
9-The protagonist is always right.
I wish I could make it to ten. Sad times. So the above is a really hazy way of encompassing all those niggly little things within the storyline of Billy and Me that sent me over the edge. That's not including grammar fails, excessive ellipses and unnecessary exclamation marks.
Now, the first point may seem unfair. Rural England can be beautiful, and peaceful, and fulfilling to the soul. But in Billy and Me, it seems to be stuck in the dark ages, and used as a contrast to Sophie's experiences in London. So much of the events connected to London - Billy's stage show and film role, Heidi and Coco, the cast from the stage show dominating Billy's time, hell even the old lady at the bar in the awards show after party - it's all shown in a negative light. It's almost as if she's saying that Billy is being corrupted in the big city, and needs the ease of life in Rural England. It's not just subtext, it was one of the worries that Sophie voices in the narration leading up to her leaving home.
But I think it's unfair. A lot of the negativity associated with London was in Sophie's head. What happened in Kent when she was there? a) her father died. b) she and her mother stagnated in their depressive states for approximately 15 years. c) she found out her alleged best friend had cancer. d)she got papped there. Twice. Compared to the one time in London. e) her best friend died. I don't know about you, but to me, Kent seemed worse than London in this story. This is one of the many reasons I found Sophie to be an unreliable narrator.
The second point really annoyed me, the way Sophie felt about books and movie adaptations. She's like a lot of people you find in life, who's so obstinate about the fact her opinion is valid that she can't see the alternating perspectives. Schoolgirls - not schoolboys - ruin the classics from the library by leaving them in their bags. Do we really need another adaptation of Pride and Prejudice? No one understands P&P as well as Sophie, so of course she's the best choice for Billy to run lines with. But when she opens her teashop she's well within her rights to put her favourite books out for customers to read. You can be sure she encouraged people to read and then told them they were wrong when they gave an opinion about Jude, or Emma, or Lydia, or Heathcliff, unless they agreed wholeheartedly with Sophie.
This actually leads through to Billy's chosen roles. He repeatedly stated that he wanted to grow beyond a typecast, and go for difficult, gritty, intense roles. That's how he even got involved with Pride and Prejudice in the first place, though I still have trouble picturing happy-go-lucky Billy as proud, stalwart Darcy. So he went for a gritty stage play, and Sophie had nothing but negative comments hidden as positive reinforcements to say. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but encouraging him not to read reviews in case someone said something mean? Ignorance isn't the way forward. He went for the film, he spent forever prepping her about the context and subtext and expectation and yet she still played high and mighty over the scene she saw. I still cannot get over that scene of her sitting *as I pictured reading* ramrod straight and haughty in the chair while he grovelled on the floor. Her ignorance and stubbornness changed a guy who would throw his head back laughing, not a care in the world, into someone weak and broken on the floor. You know who does that? Abusers. Sorry, but she must have mentally abused him in some way to have him react like that, with those scenes proceeding. It is sick.
Which brings me neatly onto point three, because their first scenes were of her inept flirting and his cheesy chat-up lines. He was kind and warm despite her opening her foot and inserting mouth. Oh, I'm sure Giovanna meant it to come off as Sophie being socially awkward, with all her anxiety issues, but now I look back, it seems like the first moments of abuse, where he was still Billy and she put him down, insulted him every chance he got. The grovelling seemed out of character at the time, but in retrospect? Guys, we have read an abusive love story FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ABUSER. I'm not over-dramatising this, all the excuses and behaviours are there, hiding in plain sight. How did this go unnoticed? Why aren't more people unsettled by this story? Come on, she even tries to separate him from his friends, he's already isolated from his family. She wants it just him and her and gets jealous if even his boss threatens that, and goes into histrionics if anyone tries to compromise her whims. She leaves her work after assaulting a customer and then guilts Billy over her actions, despite the face she should be contrite over committing an actual crime, and getting the fuck away with it.
It feels like an epiphany I'm having. Sophie May, the girl-next-door, abused Billy Burkin, the film star. Shit. And looking back at the list? It encompasses so much of that. So many of those points are triggers. When she was moping in her room after leaving him, she might as well have signed her note that she was going to kill herself to manipulate the fuck out of him further (I'm not being blasé about suicide, far from it, but that is a form of manipulation common with abusive partners, that mindset of 'if I can't have you, no one can' to ensure their commitment). No wonder he looked so gaunt on that final TV show.
The only part of the list that doesn't seem to be under the abuse-umbrella, that I haven't covered so far? Molly's cancer, which made me feel just as angry. She got sick awfully quickly and didn't have any treatment? She died the same chapter the notion was fully introduced? No. Do you know what unsettled me most about Molly's cancer story? It fit into the pattern of my illness, of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. First time you get it, there's a slow burn of maybe a month. You'll be angry, irritable, beyond tired. You may bruise or get that pin-prick rash. And then one day it all builds to a head and you collapse, becoming a true medical emergency, where if you're not treated within days of collapse you're dead. Breast cancer (what Molly had) is more of a slow burn. It's lazy writing at it's best, just chopping Molly out to give Sophie exactly what she wants with minimal effort. It smacks of lack of research and wish-fulfillment. Why did Molly not get a lumpectomy with radiotherapy and chemotherapy? She would have had a 30% survival rate, which is better odds than I got given. Is there some hidden message that the NHS sucks, or Molly needed Sophie to survive? I honestly don't know at this point.
All I do know, is that I'm so disappointed. I went into this book with excitement, I'd been anticipating it for months. I was hoping for a light frolic, with a good narration from someone who had experience in her chosen topic. I was disappointed when it seemed it would be little better than the most generic of fan fiction. I was nauseated when I realised how awful Sophie truly was. In retrospect, maybe it's not so surprising that she both knows Dorothy Koomson and took her writing advice, since Dorothy Koomson has touched on topics like widowers who have no idea their former wives were prostitutes pimped out by his father, and fifteen year old girls manipulated by paedophilic teachers and accused of murdering him. The biggest difference is that Dorothy writes with a clarity about the baseness of her subject matter and pulls no punches about it being dark and horrific, whereas this book is sold as idyllic romance.
1-Rural England is idyllic.
2-Only people who read classics can have an opinion on anything relating to them.
3-The way to a celebrity's heart is through cake and insults.
4-You can stay in the same town for 26 years for fear of change, then move in with your celebrity boyfriend after a mere few months of dating.
5-Social anxiety problems are never problems when there are photo ops.
6-Your celebrity boyfriend must become your life. You are allowed to resent him for this.
7-It's okay to have goals in life, unless they no longer suit your partner, in which case, they've changed. Change is Bad.
8-Cancer is a good way of removing superfluous characters.
9-The protagonist is always right.
I wish I could make it to ten. Sad times. So the above is a really hazy way of encompassing all those niggly little things within the storyline of Billy and Me that sent me over the edge. That's not including grammar fails, excessive ellipses and unnecessary exclamation marks.
Now, the first point may seem unfair. Rural England can be beautiful, and peaceful, and fulfilling to the soul. But in Billy and Me, it seems to be stuck in the dark ages, and used as a contrast to Sophie's experiences in London. So much of the events connected to London - Billy's stage show and film role, Heidi and Coco, the cast from the stage show dominating Billy's time, hell even the old lady at the bar in the awards show after party - it's all shown in a negative light. It's almost as if she's saying that Billy is being corrupted in the big city, and needs the ease of life in Rural England. It's not just subtext, it was one of the worries that Sophie voices in the narration leading up to her leaving home.
But I think it's unfair. A lot of the negativity associated with London was in Sophie's head. What happened in Kent when she was there? a) her father died. b) she and her mother stagnated in their depressive states for approximately 15 years. c) she found out her alleged best friend had cancer. d)she got papped there. Twice. Compared to the one time in London. e) her best friend died. I don't know about you, but to me, Kent seemed worse than London in this story. This is one of the many reasons I found Sophie to be an unreliable narrator.
The second point really annoyed me, the way Sophie felt about books and movie adaptations. She's like a lot of people you find in life, who's so obstinate about the fact her opinion is valid that she can't see the alternating perspectives. Schoolgirls - not schoolboys - ruin the classics from the library by leaving them in their bags. Do we really need another adaptation of Pride and Prejudice? No one understands P&P as well as Sophie, so of course she's the best choice for Billy to run lines with. But when she opens her teashop she's well within her rights to put her favourite books out for customers to read. You can be sure she encouraged people to read and then told them they were wrong when they gave an opinion about Jude, or Emma, or Lydia, or Heathcliff, unless they agreed wholeheartedly with Sophie.
This actually leads through to Billy's chosen roles. He repeatedly stated that he wanted to grow beyond a typecast, and go for difficult, gritty, intense roles. That's how he even got involved with Pride and Prejudice in the first place, though I still have trouble picturing happy-go-lucky Billy as proud, stalwart Darcy. So he went for a gritty stage play, and Sophie had nothing but negative comments hidden as positive reinforcements to say. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but encouraging him not to read reviews in case someone said something mean? Ignorance isn't the way forward. He went for the film, he spent forever prepping her about the context and subtext and expectation and yet she still played high and mighty over the scene she saw. I still cannot get over that scene of her sitting *as I pictured reading* ramrod straight and haughty in the chair while he grovelled on the floor. Her ignorance and stubbornness changed a guy who would throw his head back laughing, not a care in the world, into someone weak and broken on the floor. You know who does that? Abusers. Sorry, but she must have mentally abused him in some way to have him react like that, with those scenes proceeding. It is sick.
Which brings me neatly onto point three, because their first scenes were of her inept flirting and his cheesy chat-up lines. He was kind and warm despite her opening her foot and inserting mouth. Oh, I'm sure Giovanna meant it to come off as Sophie being socially awkward, with all her anxiety issues, but now I look back, it seems like the first moments of abuse, where he was still Billy and she put him down, insulted him every chance he got. The grovelling seemed out of character at the time, but in retrospect? Guys, we have read an abusive love story FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ABUSER. I'm not over-dramatising this, all the excuses and behaviours are there, hiding in plain sight. How did this go unnoticed? Why aren't more people unsettled by this story? Come on, she even tries to separate him from his friends, he's already isolated from his family. She wants it just him and her and gets jealous if even his boss threatens that, and goes into histrionics if anyone tries to compromise her whims. She leaves her work after assaulting a customer and then guilts Billy over her actions, despite the face she should be contrite over committing an actual crime, and getting the fuck away with it.
It feels like an epiphany I'm having. Sophie May, the girl-next-door, abused Billy Burkin, the film star. Shit. And looking back at the list? It encompasses so much of that. So many of those points are triggers. When she was moping in her room after leaving him, she might as well have signed her note that she was going to kill herself to manipulate the fuck out of him further (I'm not being blasé about suicide, far from it, but that is a form of manipulation common with abusive partners, that mindset of 'if I can't have you, no one can' to ensure their commitment). No wonder he looked so gaunt on that final TV show.
The only part of the list that doesn't seem to be under the abuse-umbrella, that I haven't covered so far? Molly's cancer, which made me feel just as angry. She got sick awfully quickly and didn't have any treatment? She died the same chapter the notion was fully introduced? No. Do you know what unsettled me most about Molly's cancer story? It fit into the pattern of my illness, of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. First time you get it, there's a slow burn of maybe a month. You'll be angry, irritable, beyond tired. You may bruise or get that pin-prick rash. And then one day it all builds to a head and you collapse, becoming a true medical emergency, where if you're not treated within days of collapse you're dead. Breast cancer (what Molly had) is more of a slow burn. It's lazy writing at it's best, just chopping Molly out to give Sophie exactly what she wants with minimal effort. It smacks of lack of research and wish-fulfillment. Why did Molly not get a lumpectomy with radiotherapy and chemotherapy? She would have had a 30% survival rate, which is better odds than I got given. Is there some hidden message that the NHS sucks, or Molly needed Sophie to survive? I honestly don't know at this point.
All I do know, is that I'm so disappointed. I went into this book with excitement, I'd been anticipating it for months. I was hoping for a light frolic, with a good narration from someone who had experience in her chosen topic. I was disappointed when it seemed it would be little better than the most generic of fan fiction. I was nauseated when I realised how awful Sophie truly was. In retrospect, maybe it's not so surprising that she both knows Dorothy Koomson and took her writing advice, since Dorothy Koomson has touched on topics like widowers who have no idea their former wives were prostitutes pimped out by his father, and fifteen year old girls manipulated by paedophilic teachers and accused of murdering him. The biggest difference is that Dorothy writes with a clarity about the baseness of her subject matter and pulls no punches about it being dark and horrific, whereas this book is sold as idyllic romance.
An open letter to Jenny Trout
Hi Jenny,
I've been debating writing this for a couple of days. I don't want to come off as rude, or ignorant, but I think I might have to get this off my chest. Just, please know that this comes from a good place.
I first came across your blog when I was looking for other people who'd reacted as badly as I had to Fifty Shades, who could maybe be more eloquent in their phrasing than I could, who could articulate all that left me cringing without conscious reasoning, and bring it to the fore so that I could look deeper at my own issues with the book. Yours was the second blog I found, and although Cassandra Parkin was humorous, she only touched on a few of the issues that left me so unsettled. Then I found you, and your dry wit and brilliant way with words. Even better, you were from Michigan, which is where some of my favourite people have come from, over the years. I even started reading Das_Sporking through your blog, and a link you had put in the start, back when you still did those links.
I downloaded a few of your books onto my Kindle, as you were starting to blog The Boss. I read the Double Header series, though I don't know as much about baseball as I would like. They were good, a little on the short side but your characters were likeable, and there's a reason why you can critique an erotic storyline. You write it well, giving enough of the characters so that the reader can connect with them, and when they felt things … I can see the reader doing the same.
I read The Boss when it came onto Kindle (I'd gotten to chapter three on your blog before stopping, unable to keep up with your update rate while at my old job) and again, I saw it's merit. I liked Sophie, I loved her relationship with Holli. I liked how she handled Neil/Leif. I even loved the conflict of Emma, or where Sophie's loyalties lay in relation to her old boss versus Neil and his sweeping changes. I looked forward to the sequel, The Girlfriend.
And here's where it gets a little murky. You included cancer. I'm not of the school of thought that only idiots like Nicholas Sparks include cancer as a storyline - I've written it into my story also - and for what it's worth, I think you've been really sensitive to how cancer affects people, how traumatic it is, and how hard it is for the people around those with it. That's not my beef, at all.
My issue came in the scene where Neil and Sophie start connecting, and he stops, because he's exhausted from the Leukaemia. That was uncomfortable to read, as uncomfortable as most of the scenes in Fifty Shades. Like Ana's 'argh', it took me right out of the book and left me cringing.
And then Emir entered the picture. I'm not going to sit on a pedestal of self-righteousness and bleat about how it's wrong to cheat, or how threesomes aren't a good idea. You're writing kink as an antidote to Fifty, and that's certainly both kink and something Erika Leonard never attempted. But the scene - the one where they're in Neil's house, not in Amsterdam - it felt wrong to me. You often post on your blog about how much you hate abuse, how crass Fifty is for the levels of abuse that are hidden to those who don't read much and can't understand subtext. The Boss was meant to be a feminist response to Fifty, a way of empowering women and saying 'own your damn sexuality' and that was so refreshing. Not that it was revolutionary, but that a writer with the talent to prove it was going to take up the mantle. I still love you for that.
But the second scene that Emir is in felt like it contradicted all of that. I'm not trying to imply that you don't know what you're writing, or how to write (I've read enough of your work to know that's the antithesis of what you're about), or even how you come across. I think you were using powerful words for a reason, to make the scene as intense as possible. And you did, but for me it wasn't intense in the manner you intended. It left me really uncomfortable.
That might have been it, just me feeling uncomfortable but carrying on, if it weren't for one of the end moments of the scene. Now, I admit I'm not an erotic writer and I actually feel uncomfortable writing anything beyond an embrace, or a kiss - I try projects occasionally to push myself beyond the embarrassment, but I think because of personal reasons I can't connect in the right way to the notion - but I will try and express what led to me putting down The Girlfriend and admitting defeat, as crass as it may sound in my writing style. I just found it downright off-putting at the end of a scene that was already slightly traumatic for me, to have a girl (or even a man) turn around and make a comment about not swallowing semen because of the taste of the chemo in his system. I can't put my finger on why I've had such a reaction to the storyline, to that part in particular, but that was what pushed me. A threesome and cancer is not an erotic escape, not for me.
I'm not saying this so you know just where you went wrong, please correct it. I'm not saying this because I think you're a terrible person for daring to try and write such a risky piece. I guess I just wanted to express, in the most balanced way I know how, the exact reasons why I won't be continuing to read the series, and why I regret that. I know I'm one person, and that doesn't exactly matter at the end of the day. But I feel like somehow, I've done the disservice because I haven't enjoyed it, despite enjoying your other work. I feel like I'm letting down Trout Nation in some way, for not being a team player and reading it all so I can truly stick my middle finger up at Erika. Please know that I mentally flip her the birdie every day, regardless of my decision about continuing your work.
I guess, the entire summation of this letter is really 'I love your work Jenny, just not all of it', but that really doesn't begin to cover the intricacies of my feelings towards it. I did my best, I got so far, but there's only so much more I could take of the male protagonist suffering cancer. I know that probably makes me a bad person, or weak in some way, and a walking hypocrite to boot, but I'll take that. I just wanted to have the chance to explain.
Siobhan (I post under the name 'zee' on your blog).
I've been debating writing this for a couple of days. I don't want to come off as rude, or ignorant, but I think I might have to get this off my chest. Just, please know that this comes from a good place.
I first came across your blog when I was looking for other people who'd reacted as badly as I had to Fifty Shades, who could maybe be more eloquent in their phrasing than I could, who could articulate all that left me cringing without conscious reasoning, and bring it to the fore so that I could look deeper at my own issues with the book. Yours was the second blog I found, and although Cassandra Parkin was humorous, she only touched on a few of the issues that left me so unsettled. Then I found you, and your dry wit and brilliant way with words. Even better, you were from Michigan, which is where some of my favourite people have come from, over the years. I even started reading Das_Sporking through your blog, and a link you had put in the start, back when you still did those links.
I downloaded a few of your books onto my Kindle, as you were starting to blog The Boss. I read the Double Header series, though I don't know as much about baseball as I would like. They were good, a little on the short side but your characters were likeable, and there's a reason why you can critique an erotic storyline. You write it well, giving enough of the characters so that the reader can connect with them, and when they felt things … I can see the reader doing the same.
I read The Boss when it came onto Kindle (I'd gotten to chapter three on your blog before stopping, unable to keep up with your update rate while at my old job) and again, I saw it's merit. I liked Sophie, I loved her relationship with Holli. I liked how she handled Neil/Leif. I even loved the conflict of Emma, or where Sophie's loyalties lay in relation to her old boss versus Neil and his sweeping changes. I looked forward to the sequel, The Girlfriend.
And here's where it gets a little murky. You included cancer. I'm not of the school of thought that only idiots like Nicholas Sparks include cancer as a storyline - I've written it into my story also - and for what it's worth, I think you've been really sensitive to how cancer affects people, how traumatic it is, and how hard it is for the people around those with it. That's not my beef, at all.
My issue came in the scene where Neil and Sophie start connecting, and he stops, because he's exhausted from the Leukaemia. That was uncomfortable to read, as uncomfortable as most of the scenes in Fifty Shades. Like Ana's 'argh', it took me right out of the book and left me cringing.
And then Emir entered the picture. I'm not going to sit on a pedestal of self-righteousness and bleat about how it's wrong to cheat, or how threesomes aren't a good idea. You're writing kink as an antidote to Fifty, and that's certainly both kink and something Erika Leonard never attempted. But the scene - the one where they're in Neil's house, not in Amsterdam - it felt wrong to me. You often post on your blog about how much you hate abuse, how crass Fifty is for the levels of abuse that are hidden to those who don't read much and can't understand subtext. The Boss was meant to be a feminist response to Fifty, a way of empowering women and saying 'own your damn sexuality' and that was so refreshing. Not that it was revolutionary, but that a writer with the talent to prove it was going to take up the mantle. I still love you for that.
But the second scene that Emir is in felt like it contradicted all of that. I'm not trying to imply that you don't know what you're writing, or how to write (I've read enough of your work to know that's the antithesis of what you're about), or even how you come across. I think you were using powerful words for a reason, to make the scene as intense as possible. And you did, but for me it wasn't intense in the manner you intended. It left me really uncomfortable.
That might have been it, just me feeling uncomfortable but carrying on, if it weren't for one of the end moments of the scene. Now, I admit I'm not an erotic writer and I actually feel uncomfortable writing anything beyond an embrace, or a kiss - I try projects occasionally to push myself beyond the embarrassment, but I think because of personal reasons I can't connect in the right way to the notion - but I will try and express what led to me putting down The Girlfriend and admitting defeat, as crass as it may sound in my writing style. I just found it downright off-putting at the end of a scene that was already slightly traumatic for me, to have a girl (or even a man) turn around and make a comment about not swallowing semen because of the taste of the chemo in his system. I can't put my finger on why I've had such a reaction to the storyline, to that part in particular, but that was what pushed me. A threesome and cancer is not an erotic escape, not for me.
I'm not saying this so you know just where you went wrong, please correct it. I'm not saying this because I think you're a terrible person for daring to try and write such a risky piece. I guess I just wanted to express, in the most balanced way I know how, the exact reasons why I won't be continuing to read the series, and why I regret that. I know I'm one person, and that doesn't exactly matter at the end of the day. But I feel like somehow, I've done the disservice because I haven't enjoyed it, despite enjoying your other work. I feel like I'm letting down Trout Nation in some way, for not being a team player and reading it all so I can truly stick my middle finger up at Erika. Please know that I mentally flip her the birdie every day, regardless of my decision about continuing your work.
I guess, the entire summation of this letter is really 'I love your work Jenny, just not all of it', but that really doesn't begin to cover the intricacies of my feelings towards it. I did my best, I got so far, but there's only so much more I could take of the male protagonist suffering cancer. I know that probably makes me a bad person, or weak in some way, and a walking hypocrite to boot, but I'll take that. I just wanted to have the chance to explain.
Siobhan (I post under the name 'zee' on your blog).
Friday, 3 January 2014
positivity
I always seem to moan on this blog, and on my twitter, which is weird because I feel like a pretty positive person. So here is a list of things that I love, that make me happy in weird little ways:
Double stuff oreos - visiting Wat Tyler's Country Park and sitting by the marshes, away from the play park - when a song I like plays on the radio - sharing in-jokes with friends - reading a new book, by a new author, and falling in love - spotting old characters in a new Sarah Dessen book - checking things off lists - organising things - dying my hair - the feel of fresh clothes after a good shower - how light my hair feels when it's straightened - the moments my son speaks and he sounds like me - hugs - butterflies - cupcakes - wisteria - Supernatural - Sherlock - Dr Who - customers who treat you like a person, and invite you into their lives a little - the way the sun looks across the marshes sometimes on my drive to work - driving in the sun, full stop - the dopey look on Noah's face when you stroke his nose - when I can't stop writing even though my computer's rubbing on my arms and my eyes are closing - finding something you thought you'd lost - when an old friend talks to you, and it's like no time has passed - cheetos - a good soup - Harry Potter - roast potatoes - sweet potatoes - seeing my best friends - London - New York - Florida - Disney - Disney Princesses - doing my son's lego for him - Barbie dolls - the colour red - my old Hama beads - doing paint-by-numbers - listening to an old song you haven't heard for a while - completing jigsaw puzzles.
To name but a few ...
Double stuff oreos - visiting Wat Tyler's Country Park and sitting by the marshes, away from the play park - when a song I like plays on the radio - sharing in-jokes with friends - reading a new book, by a new author, and falling in love - spotting old characters in a new Sarah Dessen book - checking things off lists - organising things - dying my hair - the feel of fresh clothes after a good shower - how light my hair feels when it's straightened - the moments my son speaks and he sounds like me - hugs - butterflies - cupcakes - wisteria - Supernatural - Sherlock - Dr Who - customers who treat you like a person, and invite you into their lives a little - the way the sun looks across the marshes sometimes on my drive to work - driving in the sun, full stop - the dopey look on Noah's face when you stroke his nose - when I can't stop writing even though my computer's rubbing on my arms and my eyes are closing - finding something you thought you'd lost - when an old friend talks to you, and it's like no time has passed - cheetos - a good soup - Harry Potter - roast potatoes - sweet potatoes - seeing my best friends - London - New York - Florida - Disney - Disney Princesses - doing my son's lego for him - Barbie dolls - the colour red - my old Hama beads - doing paint-by-numbers - listening to an old song you haven't heard for a while - completing jigsaw puzzles.
To name but a few ...
This is how I squander my writing time.
So, when I first started writing Uprooted, I wrote exclusively from Lambrini's point of view (well, the version before this. When I first started, it was in third person) and I really struggled. It seemed really uninteresting.
When I wrote Uprooted, in the format it's in now, she came a lot easier. Carter could be a little difficult to write, because at first he was really closed off and he opens up more as the books go along.
So now I'm writing Reunited, which is when I saw the storyline naturally starting to go from being about Lambrini more to being about Carter more. And I'm once again struggling to write Lambrini. Carter's bits come easily. Like, I took a week trying to write Lamb's last section, and Carter's latest one has taken about three hours.
I'm wondering whether I should ditch Lamb all together, but I don't want to. Because I feel weird narrating as Carter sometimes, and Lamb is a welcome break from freaking myself out whenever Carter starts talking about boobs. I just don't want to do what some authors do and fuck about with the narration too much. Even if the start of this one is about 50 straight pages of Carter.
I'm just spleening. Ignore me. I'm obviously not going to fuck about with it now.
**edit**
Nerdy things of note - I'm now doing the 100k in 100 days challenge. Get in, love having a target! It's a good motivator to write! Day three and I've done 4587 … well on target ;) Reunited (Uprooted book 3) is now 77566 words long, and I have done 142294 words of the 150000 target I set myself in August for the year. I now have around 8 months to write just 7706 words. I think I need to reset my challenge. or else take advantage of the extra time after the 100k in 100 days to edit and prepare for publishing.
When I wrote Uprooted, in the format it's in now, she came a lot easier. Carter could be a little difficult to write, because at first he was really closed off and he opens up more as the books go along.
So now I'm writing Reunited, which is when I saw the storyline naturally starting to go from being about Lambrini more to being about Carter more. And I'm once again struggling to write Lambrini. Carter's bits come easily. Like, I took a week trying to write Lamb's last section, and Carter's latest one has taken about three hours.
I'm wondering whether I should ditch Lamb all together, but I don't want to. Because I feel weird narrating as Carter sometimes, and Lamb is a welcome break from freaking myself out whenever Carter starts talking about boobs. I just don't want to do what some authors do and fuck about with the narration too much. Even if the start of this one is about 50 straight pages of Carter.
I'm just spleening. Ignore me. I'm obviously not going to fuck about with it now.
**edit**
Nerdy things of note - I'm now doing the 100k in 100 days challenge. Get in, love having a target! It's a good motivator to write! Day three and I've done 4587 … well on target ;) Reunited (Uprooted book 3) is now 77566 words long, and I have done 142294 words of the 150000 target I set myself in August for the year. I now have around 8 months to write just 7706 words. I think I need to reset my challenge. or else take advantage of the extra time after the 100k in 100 days to edit and prepare for publishing.
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Honest feedback required
So, I was thinking lately, how would people feel if I analysed something I loved rather than something that got my back up? I mean, I'm still going to Spork Anna And The French Kiss and it's sister books ... But I was debating doing an episode-by-episode analysis of Supernatural too. My schedule at work is about to open up, so I'd have the time, and I'd get to rewatch. I'd be giving a break down of the narratives, analysing the main characters, including pictures and quotes. What do you think? I don't want to ruin it for anyone, or bore you guys completely, but it might be cool to write positively. I'm always moaning!
Siobhan's Sporking: Billy and Me, Q&A
Hey, so I said I’d do the Q&A and analyse … here we are.
Questions are in bold, Giovanna’s answers are in italics, my comments are basic
font. Sound easy enough? My overall analysis will be done in a couple of days.
Billy
and Me looks at
the price of fame and having a relationship in the spotlight. What made you
decide to write about this subject Did you draw from your own experiences?
Before Giovanna even responds – did it look at the price of fame?
I mean, really? I didn’t see Billy struggle with his lack of privacy or how he
might have protected Sophie from crazy fans. I didn’t see late nights and early
mornings and him struggling to smile and look grateful for what he’d been given
even though it was damn hard work. I didn’t see him telling Sophie that he
missed her and he wished work wasn’t coming between them so much. I saw him
working late shifts and being sociable and enjoying life.
Thanks to
the media, people have certain ideas of what dating a celebrity must be like –
some girls claim that it’s all they want from life. All us ‘WAGS’ just shop and
eat lettuce leaves all day, don’t we? Erm, no. In Billy and
Me I wanted to capture a more rounded
version of that supportive lifestyle. There are incredible highs, but there’s
also the hurt, the insecurities and the loneliness to contend with. And yes,
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t inspired by my own experiences at first, but
that was only when I started. The novel had a life of its own after those
initial ideas.
I always thought the idea of dating a celebrity was heinous. I
mean, don’t get me wrong, I have celebrity crushes and if Zac Efron, Jake
Gyllenhaal, Jensen Ackles or Lee Pace (to name a few) came banging on my door,
it would be damn near impossible to say no to them. But the months apart, the
other influences on them, being out of the in-jokes or made to feel like an
accessory … no thanks. And those girls who say it’s all they want? Five minutes
ago, all they wanted was a dress, two weeks ago all they wanted was a dog … I’m
not saying there’s not people obsessed with the idea of celebrity culture, but
they’re few and far between. For the most part, people just want the free shit
and hot partner.
And doesn’t WAG just apply to footballer’s partners? Actual
question, I always thought it did. Regardless, the only WAGS fitting that
obnoxious stereotype are the ones who want to make their own name on the back
of their husbands/boyfriends. Think of how many footballers there are in the
national leagues, and how many of their WAGs we hear about … just a small
point, Giovanna.
I laughed at ‘well rounded version of that supportive lifestyle’.
So sulking in bed rather than staying up to see your partner and removing all
your interests to stare at the clock waiting for them and screeching at them
for doing their job is all well-rounded?
I’m just grateful that she admits hardly any of the story compares
to her experience.
What made
you decide to set the majority of Billy and Me in a tiny village in Kent? Do
you have a particular connection to this area?
Did Giovanna write her own questions?
I have
lived in Kent – I studied there for three years – but I don’t think Sidcup can
be compared to Rosefont Hill. With Kent known as ‘The Garden Of England’, it
seemed fitting to set my idyllic village there. Also, I wanted somewhere small
and safe for Sophie, with a close-knit community, somewhere vastly different to
the busy streets of London.
She should have made the village Pagford.
Seriously, one of my BFFs lives in Kent, and together we’ve gone
through Dover, Maidstone, Folkestone and another one escaping my memory. My
family did a caravan holiday there in 2012, in New Romney, around the
Hythe/Dymchurch/Dungeoness area. My stepbrother lives in Maidstone. I know
Kent. Nowhere in Kent is how she described, let alone Sidcup. It’s like me
writing a place in Essex that was just full of scholars and nerds … and not
just the Ideas Hub in Chelmsford. Like, a village the size of Stock.
I’m all for writing a quaint little town, but I honestly think
Giovanna’s writing in the wrong century.
One of the
main themes of Billy and Me focuses
on keeping hold of your dreams and not losing sight of who you really are and
what you want out of life. What is it about this theme that made you want to
write about it?
Being an
actress it’s important to keep focused and positive, which is hard when there’s
so much rejection out there. I think of it like being on a bucking broncko –
you sit there holding on for as long as you can, trying not to get flung to the
ground. It’s inevitable that you will be at some point, what’s important is how
you handle it when you do. You get up, get back on and keep striving towards
your goal. I’ve had my fair share of setbacks and it’s so easy to get
sidetracked and lose sight of what you cherish and value – but it’s those
little things that make everything worthwhile! That’s where the magic happens.
Is it me, or did she not even answer the question? She’s talking
about how hard it is to be an actress, not what I would have expected, like
being inspired by a quote or valuing her own dreams. Maybe I’m missing the
point?
How and
where do you write?
Are you freaking kidding me? With a laptop, a pen and paper, in a
chair. Like everyone else.
First, I
create a big summary, letting me know where I’m going with the plot and helping
me focus my thoughts. Then I just get cracking. I aim to write 1,500 words a
day. On a good day I’ll do double that, on a bad day I’ll do half. I write in
my office at home, which is like my little den – it’s full of posters, Venetian
masks, inspiring quotes, books and photos of almost everyone I know and love. I
usually write in there but sometimes, if my room becomes a distraction (there’s
so much to look at), I sit in the garden room looking out at the greenery –
just me, my laptop and a glass of water. Oh, and a cat, or two, or three, or
four …
So she basically NaNos. And 3,000 words on a good day? Awww,
hunny, my best day on NaNo I did 6742. Outside of Nano, on a day off I managed
6626. Of course, there’s days I don’t write anything – I have a week completely
clear on my calendar – my point is, her best days are kinda like my average
day. Just as an example, I have written 771 words by this point. And we’re
barely getting started, plus I’ve done some Reunited. I can do 1200 in an hour –
I did so during a NaNo writing sprint. Her boasting really doesn’t amount to
much. I know a guy who completed the 50k NaNo challenge in 12 days.
Also, her workspace sounds cluttered and distracting and like
someone trying to fit into a role. Don’t all authors have an office full of
inspiration? Um … well, I sit on the sofa and zone out of my parents TV shows
to type like crazy. I get in the zone in the middle of the living room, pissing
off my mum when she fails to make conversation with me because I’m typing
furiously. Apparently, I type megafast as well (no, really mother, no).
Oh God, it’s that answer next, the one that makes me look at like,
four of my books and shake my head in disgust.
Who or
what was your biggest influence in deciding to become a writer?
A couple
of people said they thought I should do it – my husband and my friend Karen. I
knew I’d love to, but had no idea where you start with something like that.
Then I met Hannah, an agent, who told me she thought I’d be good at it … again,
where do you start? Then, I was out for lunch with author Dorothy Koomson one
day and she told me her biggest piece of advice to aspiring authors was, ‘do
it’. So I did!
I’m just going to leave this here.
I love how she only decided to be a writer because her husband and
friend said she should, and then some agent (who was probably shagging Danny,
let’s face it) was like ‘oh, yeah, sure’ and then she needed someone to say
‘you just write’ to know to … just write.
Okay, so little story time that the majority of you may have seen
on my Facebook recently. I was saying how I thought authorship should run more
like a business, and decided it was a story idea I would develop at a later
date (my fourth in a week, and third written down. On fire right now!) and a
friend said he wanted to write, but never knew what to write about. He had
tried before, and knew what genre would suit him best and it’s one I know he
knows well. And I did encourage him to just write it, see what happened. And
then I said – and I think it’s important that this message gets across too –
that the first draft might be bad, but it’s the springboard to go from. I’ve
written uprooted about four times now, and this last version is the one that
feels alive, that I feel comfortable with. So write the crappy version, then
strip away the bad and add the good and find some good beta readers who will
call you out on your shit and reason through plotholes and help make it better.
There are tonnes of people out there who call themselves writers
and never pick up a pen or open a word document. There are writers I know who have
been doing it for years and only just now consider themselves writers. And
there are people (hi, this bit is me) who know they’re writers because that’s
just how they are, but they’re not authors, because authors publish books and
writers tell stories regardless.
And finally, this was the opportunity to talk about her favourite
authors and books that inspired, and … nothing. Wow.
What are
your favourite books?
The question needs to be repeated because she didn’t get it.
I have so
many – I’m a real bookworm. Three books that I read years ago that have stuck
with me are Jemima J by Jane Green, My Best Friend’s Girl by Dorothy Koomson
and Playing Away by Adele Parks. Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte is my absolute
favourite though.
I have the second book, it was my first DK. But what a crappy
answer! Like, my absolute favourite book is Lionel Shriver’s We Need To Talk
About Kevin, but I love Scarlett Thomas’ The End Of Mr Y, anything JK Rowling
puts her name (or pseudo name) on. I love Sarah Dessen, with This Lullaby and
Dreamland being my favourites and Just Listen reminding me strongly of Lamb and
Carter in Annabel and Owen. I still adore Narnia, The Voyage Of The Dawn
Treader being the best one. I loved reading The Count Of Monte Cristo,
Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. Veronica Roth and Ally Condie write
amazing dystopians. I love Jay Asher’s 13 Reasons Why. The Pittacus Lore
chronicles are awesome, even if James Frey made up his autobiography and may
publish under just his name, despite writing the series with his students
(dodgy!) Holly Smale is a new author to watch for, and I recently discovered
Jennifer E Smith. I loved Suzanne Collins, and have you read Septimus Heap? But
also, and I can’t stress this enough, there is a world of beauty in just The Raven.
I grew up on Ann M Martin, Paula Danziger, Judy Blume, Enid Blyton and
Jacqueline Wilson.
All these books – and others I can’t stand – have had such an
impact on me. I would hate to do a disservice to any of those books by
forgetting them.
How do you
most love to spend your time when you’re not writing?
So, the other 23 hours of the day.
I’d love
to say lying in bed while eating chocolate, but I don’t want to appear like a
complete slob. In my downtime I read anything I can get my hands on, see my
friends and remember what it’s like to have a life, and go on great walks in
the country.
I will only say this in regards to the above – Giovanna is now
pregnant. Congratulations and all … but remember what it’s like to have a life
in six months. Try it.
Where’s
your favourite place to escape to?
I’d have
to say my bed!
What a way to end a book!
That’s it. Thanks for sticking through this with me. Enjoy my
summary, when I finally write it. Hopefully it won’t be too long.
Also, currently word count for tonight, including this entire
piece and Reunited? And considering I’ve been on it since 9 and it’s 11.15 now?
1614 Words. Making the point again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)