May 31, 2006

I got great news from my editor yesterday–the second Gardella book has passed muster with only some minor things that need to be attended to. Yay!

But one of the things we’re discussing is whether to give the details of something that happens in the first book in the second book. (Does that make sense?)

I wrote the second book without giving away exactly what happens to a main character in Book One because I wanted it to be a surprise for someone who reads Book Two first (and then feels compelled to go back and read the first book).

The debate centers around the fact that what happens to the character in Book One deeply affects my heroine, Victoria, in Book Two…and any other subsequent books. It was a sort of defining moment. The question is whether this defining moment, if you will, can be fully appreciated by someone who hasn’t read Book One and doesn’t know the details.

I hate to give away what happens in Book One, but I also don’t want to dangle in front of the new reader the “secret” of what has happened prior. We get the basic idea of what happened–but not how or why.

So what do you think? Would having the broad understanding of something important that happened in Book One be enough for you–or would you feel cheated and excluded if you didn’t know it all?

Does anyone have any examples of series where this occurs?

May 30, 2006

Well, now that we’ve spent the weekend admiring my new cover (thank you all for your excitement, both verbal, comment-wise, and email), I guess it’s time to move on to other subjects.

I found this little snippet and thought it quite amusing. (It’s certainly off-topic, but then, that’s what a blog is, isn’t it?)

Although written many years ago, Lady Chatterly’s Lover has just been reissued by Grove Press, and this fictional account of the day-by-day life of an English game-keeper is still of considerable interest to outdoor-minded readers, as it contains many passages on pheasant-raising, the apprehending of poachers, ways to control vermin, and other chores and duties of the professional game-keeper.

Unfortunately, one is obliged to wade through many pages of extraneous material in order to discover and savor these sidelights on the management of a Midland shooting estate, and in this reviewer’s opinion, the book cannot take the place of J. R. Miller’s Practical Gamekeeper.

(excerpted book review from Field & Stream magazine)

I’m guessing this is what the guilty husband tells his wife when she finds him poring over Lady Chatterly’s Lover–”I’m reading it for the game-keeping aspects! Honest!”

Just like those Penthouses, right?

May 26, 2006

I just love it! It’s so different, yet it screams vampire, and intrigue, and even has a hint of the historical to it with that unlaced corset.

I think the art director at NAL is brilliant and I told my editor to say so! And I love the branding, and the really big quote at the top!

What a way to start a weekend!

May 24, 2006

Since I must be the only person in American (the world?) who hasn’t read The Da Vinci Code, I went into the movie last Friday with only a vague idea of what it was about.

Sure, I’d heard that the premise of the book/movie was based on Jesus and Mary Magdalen having a family, etc., etc., but I didn’t really know how it all fit together.

I have to say, I liked the movie, with all of its flaws (unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard the reviews). I liked it a lot.

Except for one thing that bugged me. Everything made sense, and followed along logically in the story except for the clue to open the cryptex (cryptix? I dunno; I haven’t read the book so I don’t know how it’s spelled. Yeah, I could look it up, but I’m in the throes of a blog entry.).

Why was the word “apple” the password? It’s English. Why would the Priory of Scion make their code word to open its most important document in English?

It should have been in Latin, the universal language of the Church and Opus Dei or barring that, in French, which was the original language of the Knights Templar. It made no sense for me for the word to be in English.

Granted, I haven’t read the book, so if I’m missing something, by all means, clear it up.

But as a writer who has created a world and legends and secret societies, I’ve taken great care to keep in mind the language these people would have used when creating their passwords, terminology, etc., that are meant to span centuries and geography. It seems like such a small thing, yet, to me, it’s a big flaw in the story.

As I was watching Tom Hanks try and figure out the word, I kept thinking of Latin or French words that would work; and when he finally divulged the clue, all I could think of was Gwyneth Paltrow’s baby.

It totally didn’t work for me.

The other thing that niggled at me–and always does in a Tom Hanks movie (even though I absolutely adore him)–are those big deep lines he gets between his eyebrows when he’s serious. They’re getting deeper and deeper, and unfortunately, whenever I see them, I’m always reminded of that scene at the end of When Harry Met Sally… when Harry is telling Sally all of the reasons he knows he loves her, and he says, “…and I love the way you get that little crinkle above your nose when you’re looking at me like I’m crazy….and I love….”

It makes me want to massage them away, or at the very least, call him up and tell him he’s giving himself wrinkle lines!

It’s probably too late for that.

May 22, 2006

Here’s an image of my sis on “24″ tonight, courtesy of my stepdad, just to prove I wasn’t yanking your chain: