Books DO Burn Up

Often ideas or novels being written will go on the back burner. For any number of reasons. Perhaps it’s not fully formed quite yet. Or it’s not flowing. Or another project demands action instead. Whatever the cause, there always seem to be simmering stories.

But can they ever burn up completely?

Probably not officially, as one can just never tell what will rise from the ashes if they do. But that’s not to say that they can’t become ash first.

I suspect They Never Left, a novel of mine on said back burner, will no longer have more written upon it. It’s kind of sad, I suppose. But then again, there’s so much else to be done, I can’t really cry over blank pages. Why is it allegedly defunct now? A few reasons, actually.

Not in order of importance, one factor is that the world in which it takes place is rapidly diminishing. The irony here, of course, is that I’d set it in non-fictional Chicago. Sounds like it’s not possible, right? But back in this post, I explained how many of the actual locales I’d written into the tale no longer exist. Lots which have been vacant for many years have been built up, for instance, or shops have gone away. How can I create real-Chicago on paper when the places I want to use keep disappearing - or else have new additions? Turns out Gil lives very near one of the most important locations in the book... and I see there’s now a statue there. [I don’t want the statue there! ;) ]  (Not to mentiion a crucial bit being painted over.)

Another issue is that I’m finding the “point” behind the tale might better be served in a different book on the back burner. It seems issues I’m addressing in narrative form have a bit of crossover. That’s to be expected, given the issues are important to me. But if one tale is able to carry the same message just as well as the other, do both need to be written?

That, I suspect, depends on the power of the story. Does each hold enough merit to warrant its own novel? If I’m to be honest with myself, thinking back on it, there’s not much excitement to hold interest in They Never Left. At least for me. And if I’m not "gung ho" about it, can I really expect others to be? They Never Left, as it stands, tells of two buddies (a guy & a girl) who are out to assemble a particular group. Thus, right now it’s naught more than solving puzzles to find each member and convince them to reconvene... fun and engaging as it happens, sure – but on the whole? Once the group is assembled, it will likely turn out to just be a “heady” novel without much action. Probably best not explored, especially when the seed concept can be incorporated into a better tale  It is true, though, that two folks read what I have so far [Doodles and Air] and they enjoyed what they read.  But to reiterate, it doesn't have the potential to pan out into something great.  There is one particular line that I’m reluctant to lose, though. But it’s certainly not worth completing the novel for that one stab at reality. Maybe I can work it into the other novel, but it doesn’t fit as well that I can see at this moment.

I will, however, absolutely hate to abandon the one character. I’ve gotten pretty darn fond of him. Mostly because of his defiant nature. Not so much within the storyline, but with me. He’s a strong-willed creation who has no trouble telling me what he does and doesn’t like or just what’s up in general. [Such as that hairstyle as seen in the pic.  He INSISTS on it!]  Sometimes I miss him... which stands to reason that I shouldn’t throw him away. And I don’t have to, certainly, but then – how can I get rid of his best friend? He’ll squawk at me for sure! Don’t get the impression that I dislike her. On the contrary. It’s just that she’s the catalyst for the novel’s progression – she’s the one who’s determined to find the group. Besides that, she’s sort of set up to be in this story. And I just don’t see her truly functioning outside of her namesake.

I also really like the ending.  It's the sort that establishes another part of the story, too.  A la sequel.  In fact, They Never Left had been meant to spawn any number of sequels, limited only by the resource materials.  And there'd been quite a bit.  Truth is, though, that beyond book two the notions were too vague.  But it would have been a terrific conclusion/cliff-hanger!

One might think that the solution is easy... to place these two friends as characters in the other novel instead. Won’t work, however. At least not how I conceived the other novel. This one is the “ghost story” that I’m dealing with – and the living characters in it are not meant to be prominent. As I’ve already said, the guy I like is quite outspoken and he just wouldn’t stand for being secondary. Or not hearing his name.  [It's quite a name.]

And thus, I’m thinking that They Never Left to have charred away instead of simmered. 'Tis a pity, for a ton of research and work went into this book.  But then, that's true of any book I write.  Naturally, I can rescue the guy and girl from the pages. They might not fit in the other novel, but who’s to say they won’t have another adventure I need to write? I hope so. For I really do like him.

But one thing is for sure – should these two show up again in my pages, they’ll be living in a fictionalized Chicago – or at least one that's not so damn accurate.

We Dream of What Now?

So the other day I sort of caught an episode of I Dream of Jeannie.  I say sort of because I had it on in the background while doing other things.

In the show, Major Tony Nelson learned that Jeannie had not been a genie for very long, as she said she'd been imprisoned at a young age into the bottle.  So to try and help her get over her apprehension of doing it right, Major Roger Healy suggests to Tony that he give her 1001 Nights: A Middle Eastern Folktale Collection (a.k.a Arabian Nights) so she can see how a genie behaves.

Tony likes the idea and buys it for her.  He tells her to read it cover to cover and he wants her to do all the things the genies do in the book.  Well... Jeannie reads it and gets very upset.  For she does not want to act like the genies in the tales.  For the genies are often cruel, manipulative and deceiving.  She begs Tony not to have to obey his command.  But he insists she follow it to the letter.

Distaught, Jeannie goes to Roger.  But Roger says she better do it, as it had been one of Tony's favorite books as a kid and he wants to see it just as it appears.  She reluctantly agrees.  And before we know it, Tony's hanging from his wrists above his head in a dank dungeon over a pit of snakes.

You see, Tony didn't quite remember the book for its actual content, rather his glorified recollection of specific parts.

I just found it interesting.  For isn't it the truth?  How often have we gone back to something and had a very different perspective on it, or been surprised at what we somehow forgot beyond our own picking and choosing of cherished sections?

I bet there are plenty of people for whom this is the case with Peter Pan!

Oh Pooh! - Part 2

I’ve often been told that I can be over analytical. I’d have to agree. Chewing something to pieces isn’t always good, no. But then, not having any kind of discriminative eye is also not good. Either way, there’s always something to find below the surface.

When it comes to Winnie-the-Pooh, it seems there’s a great deal underneath all that stuffing.

I’ve already mentioned The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff. Who knew that such a “simple” tale would harbor an ancient philosophy of life? Trust me, it’s a marvelous and eye-opening read. One has to wonder if A.A. Milne did it intentionally. I’m not suggesting he did... but it often seems like it! Plus, it retains the charm and cuteness of Pooh, with him talking with the author.

Well, someone else delved a little further into the Silly Old Bear... and, as it turns out, John Tyerman Williams says the clandestine underlying power of Pooh also extends to Western philosophy as well. Pooh and the Philosophers demonstrates how elements of Pooh and friends’ sayings, behavior, personality and stroylines can bring to light the likes of Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Hobbes, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and a plethora of others. It’s been a great many years since I’ve read it. I do remember enjoying it as well as being impressed with the arguments. In general, at least, one really can find examples of the basic principles of classic schools of thought from across time.

As fun as it is to make the parallels, there does come a time when less is more. Williams brought out Pooh and the Millennium. Please don’t take that statement about it too harshly. The truth is it’s a lot fun and does have merit. Finding the likes of subjects like Astrology, Tarot and the Arthurian Legend within the world of Winnie-the-Pooh takes great creative insight. And again, as I recall, I enjoyed it. I mostly remember the stunning way in which the secrets of the Qabalah manifested in the pages of Pooh. Granted, it’s not as if my knowledge of the Qabalah amounted to a hill of beans prior to reading this book. So naturally the deck had been stacked in favor of the parallel. Nevertheless, I recall it as downright freaky. However, it’s almost as if the joke went too far. I’m sorry to say that for me it stretched the boundaries of the original mystical relevance that begin with The Tao of Pooh. Of course, it could all be meant as a joke. But then, that’s not what I’d been looking for in the concept.

Upon looking it up on the internet, I discovered that many more "Pooh and..." books have come out as well.

I'm just one of those who likes to poke around and see what can be gleaned, infered or connected.  And it’s amazing what can arise from poking deeper into subjects as cute and poignant as Pooh.

Oh Pooh! - Part 1
Oh Pooh! - Part 3
Oh Pooh! - Part 4

REVENGE of the SEQUEL: PART II

OK, yes. I am actually going to talk about sequels.
Certainly I do think they have merit, lest I wouldn’t have written Peter Pan’s NeverWorld. In this post I explain a little about the wherefore of having written it.

I’m not speaking out against them. But a conversation with Clara and Banky a while back comes to mind.

Banky had finished my novel Midnight Chaser and still thought about it many days after reading it. (Yea, me!) Now, the thing is, which I’ve said many times, even on this site, that I really want Midnight Chaser to stand alone in book form. I don't envision a sequel…and I wondered if there could be one. Readers told me it certainly can go on…lots of adventures could still happen for some of the characters. So, why not write those? Because there is no substantial and plausible conflict to drive the story. Sure, seeing what else the characters get into would be fun… but not as amusing as for readers to think about on their own. Me writing it would just be a series of anecdotes. And where I can see that being appealing, again, in this instance, anything I could come up with is going to pale in comparison with the reader’s imagination.

But that didn’t stop Banky. He’d come up with a new scenario every so often. Complete with support from the text. But I’d always say no. Not in a cold “shoot first” way. I’d mull them over with him. But again, the compelling factor that would drive me to write it just did not exist. Banky seemed to agree each time. Even he admitted he'd been reaching. It would just be forcing it out.

That’s when Clara spoke up.
“Why are you TRYING to find a sequel to it?”
“Banky is, not me,” I said with a smile.
She then threw my protestations at me, pointing out that I’d go around asking people if they found a sequel in it. As if I wanted to find it…thou protest too much? Well, as I assured her, I can assure you, that adage doesn’t apply here. I really would like it to be self-contained. I’d ask people if they could continue it because I put effort into making it airtight other than the proverbial “leave them wanting more."

Clara, gladdened that I actually wanted a singular book, then expressed her displeasure at the sequel boom. If a book or movie is successful, BAM! there’s a sequel. Sure, it’s lucrative. But that’s a double edged sword. Is it always a good idea to create a sequel just to squeeze out more cash? No, of course not.

Now don’t get Clara wrong, she does see that in some cases a sequel is necessary. Or deserved. Or worthy. Or just happens. I pointed out The Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis didn’t know at first that there would be more. Whereas J.K. Rowling knew the arc of seven books in advance. Some stories expand.

But doesn’t it, just sometimes, seem like enough is enough? She's concerned that we're doing it "because we can." Art for profit, rather than profit from Art. Okay, as I type all this out, it no longer seems as profound as I once pretended it might be. Downright cliché. But if you could have heard the disdain and longing in Clara’s voice, maybe, just maybe, you’d be ponderous right now.

To cap this up, where did my intense wish that Midnight Chaser remain one book stem from? Being both the perpetrator and the victim of sequel crimes. I’ve wound up with a few series that I've set to finishing. And like Lewis, I had no idea there would be more to each book at the time. Yet like Clara, I felt overrun. But believe me, if the subsequent stories weren’t worth writing, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Sequels. A blessing AND a curse.

Holy Tome-moley

I came across ronbrinkmann's post of

The Library of Neil Gaiman

Jeepers! Wouldn't you love to get lost there?

See just how lost you can be

with the rest of the pictures...

here.

Jones-in for More

Last night I attended a local author book reading and signing at The Book Cellar here in Chicago. I went especially because author Andrea Jones would be there with her new book, Hook & Jill. I mentioned coming across this novel in a previous post.

Ms. Jones read a portion some ways into her novel. I found it delightful for two reasons. First, her flair for reading. She inflected in a way befitting the scene and characters. (I hope I can do as well reading aloud from my own work!) Secondly, it proved quite nice to hear a part that dealt with characters from the story of Pan that I did not have in my novel. (Tinker Bell and Captain Hook) I mean that in the sense of hearing more about these two, as I could not provide it or work with them in my own tale. Ms. Jones did them more than justice.

Afterward, I approached her and introduced myself (and my work.) Fortunately, she’d been just as eager to discuss Barrie. We talked of various versions, found we shared a common interest in remaining true to his work, the process of writing and shared tidbits we’d learned along the way. Let me tell you, just being able to share thoughts with someone who is as obsessive in admiration of Barrie’s genius proved quite thrilling.

I have begun Hook & Jill… and I very much like it so far. What Ms. Jones has done is intriguing and commendable. I explained this last post, but I have further information. This work is not an extension of Peter Pan in either direction. It’s not meant to continue the story. Rather, it is the same story… sort of. You see, she (and I say for the sake of description only) glossed over the events of the Darling's nursery when Peter Pan came back for his shadow. For she did not need to or intend to retell what Barrie already achieved. Instead she is playing a "What If?" game later on in the events in the Neverland, inspired by the P.J. Hogan film. Unlike Spielberg’s “What If?” which, in my opinion, undermines the very fabric of the story (to say nothing of its major contradictions.) I won’t spoil the “What If?” of Ms. Jones, but suffice to say it seems Peter Pan will not be very happy with Wendy in an ironic twist.

I did ask Ms. Jones about the idea of the Neverland being “darker” this time around. Apparently, that’s just a “marketing” issue. For she, too, sees and appreciates the dual-sided nature of the island. Sure, it’s charming, happy and beautiful…but not always! Glad to know she’s just as immersed in Barrie. As for the other question I raised... I'll let you to discover the answer yourself.

I also liked the fact that her “love” is Captain Hook. In this way, we are like the dual nature inherent in the story and characters. (For I, as can probably be inferred, gravitate toward Pan.)

I’m looking forward to not only finish reading her book, but to chat and visit with her more.

All the best to you, Andrea Jones!

(Sorry about the very bad pun for the title... it's just one of those "had to"s)

Pan's at Yet Another Window...
I'm HOOKed.

WARNING: Hook & Jill is not a novel for children, as Ms. Jones will be quick to say herself. This adventure explores the grown-up side of Barrie’s tale.

"Notes" for a Book

Back in this post I explained how I found a song long after writing which fits just about perfectly with the character Michael Pan, from Peter Pan's NeverWorld. I didn't base him on the song at all. It's just hindsight.

Well, it seems that I might be influenced by songs more than I realize. They have a tendency to rattle around in my head and leak into my story ideas.

I'd been three-quarters through with What If It's a Trick Question? when I noticed how freakishly the song "Mad World" (originally by Tears for Fears and a grand version also exists by Gary Jules and Michael Andrews) fit with Jeremy's plight. Did my subconscious interweave it into the plot? It might have. But I can assure you it had not been intentional. I did, however, pay homage to the freakishly fabulous find by inserting some of the lyrics into the text. Very recently, I found another tune that sounds quite like what Jeremy would say and think, "Pork and Beans" by Weezer. Granted, Jeremy doesn't normally listen to such 'contemporary' music, so he might not know about it. But I feel pretty confident that he'd like it over other current hits.

I'd been well into MC (initials of the title of the book I'm currently working on) upon discovering that "Nature Boy" miraculously describes scenarios in the story. So much so that ZJ, the main character, now sings along, coming to the same conclusion of connectivity himself. (His portable media player had already been established.)

I wonder what else my subconscious is developing out of the musical depths...
I'll just have to take note...

Holy Children's Fiction, Gaiman!

While surfing the web, I came across a rebuttal to an angry email. The email had been written to a Mr. Rob Oakes of Apolitcally Incorrect concerning his feelings on children’s literature. He did not like a popular novel/series and critiqued it, only to have this line be part of his disgruntled, slanderous, anonymous reply:

It’s just a children’s book, can’t you cut it some slack?

I bet you can guess that this would set me going…
But fortunately, I do not have to do so. For Mr. Oakes already provided an eloquent response peppered with humor. Even better, he quotes Neil Gaiman.

Like Gaiman says, Children’s fiction is holy.

I’ve commented on and thanked him for his justified rant. He also said I could send you his way. So please, take the time to read his delightfully embittered rebuttal: Some thoughts on children’s literature

What Can You Bake of This?

Perhaps you recall a post of mine where the titles of books and authors’ names were pun-ished with humorous food-related monikers. Such as: Red Wine of Courage, The Scarlet Lettuce Soup and Gulliver's Truffles.

Let me again give credit to The Golden Girls episode "Dorothy's New Friend," where I first enjoyed this ‘game.’ You can find the post and more about the episode here.

I’ve just run across a group of people who take this idea one step beyond.
Yes, they actually produce the foods! Thankfully, it’s in the context of a contest and not a random and time-intensive act of silliness. (Although, that would be just fine, too!)

Here are some of my favorites:

Peter Pan(cakes) with Berries - Laura Larkin (I think it should be with J.M. Berries, no?)
The Pelican Beef, by John Grisham - Emily Love
Sword and the Scone - Lisa Fager

You can find the article and more photos here.

Obscurity Batch III

No offense to anyone living or dead who had any hand in these, but sometimes you just have to wonder...

"Oh dear!" cries the orange-clad boy in the foreground. "Somehow Captain Hook doesn't look so scary when he's drawn so cartoonishly in comparison with Peter Pan." He sighs. "But then what's going on there? Is that supposed to be a red-headed Mary Martin? And why would they draw attention to the fact that the 'little boy' is being portrayed by a full-grown woman? I mean, sure, it's theatrical tradition, but let's face it, this isn't the stage!" He eyes the crocodile, but deems him a shadow of what fierceness she should entail. With a final sigh, the boy in orange thinks, 'Well, at least they got the hook on the correct hand!'

The hook is in the correct hand, but they missed something.
Where is John?
Is Captain Hook's funky dance in joy because he captured John?

If so, why isn't he going after Pan now that Peter's vision is obscured by a fairy as big as his head and a silly grin on his face?

And why are Pan and company seen...walking?

Taking the "sylph-like" quality a bit too far, don't you think?

And perhaps a little more color for the mermaid tail to make it look less obscene?

The crocodile is odd...perhaps odd in a good way, as if it's some ancient saurian creature that never aged nor died out in waters of the Neverland?

Sure, Peter Pan could be considered a trickster.

But a full on Jester outfit?

Perhaps for this version the setting shifts from London to New Orleans...

Off to Never Not Mardi Gras Land...

Obscurity Batch I

Obscurity Batch II