My electricity JUST came back on after being off for about 36 hours. I was living it up, Amish style. Well, okay, so I had running water (even if it was, shall we say, less than warm). I also had a cell phone, which I was able to charge at church this morning. I also drove a car today. So really, I was merely inconvenienced by the lack of electrical power. And it almost prevented me from writing a blog today.
And it's pretty late in the evening and I've got a book I want to go read (NOT by candlelight), so this isn't going to be a long update. Things are getting pretty crazy-go-nuts around here as I prepare for the long-awaited return to the routine, so I'm trying to read as many fun books as humanly possible before I have to pretend to be a grown up again. I've let my discipline slide SO much this summer, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it back again. The routine will help, but I'm annoyed with myself that I have to rely on it as much as I do.
Then I'm reminded that as a human, I was probably made to have a routine. I really think that most humans need a routine of some sort. It's something that is ingrained in us. Or maybe that's just an American thing. All I know is that routine helps me stay on track in all the little areas of my life.
And sometimes I start thinking, does everything in life have to be a checklist? Get up. Check. Put on clothes. Check. Brush teeth. Check. Eat food. Check. Go to work. Check. Because really, that sort of thing helps me, but sometimes it does become monotonous. And I know sometimes I feel guilty because I start treating my relationship with Christ as a checklist. Get up. Check. Pray. Check. Read Bible. Check. NOW you can put on clothes and brush your teeth. Check.
But honestly, there's two sides to that, and I don't think that it does me a bit of good to feel guilty about having Spirituality as part of the daily routine. Because yes, it is weird to think of a relationship as a routine. I wouldn't go up to a friend and say, "Right now is the time I have allotted today to spend with you." If I were married, my husband would probably think it odd if I said, "Honey, I've just brushed my teeth and made the bed. Spending time with you is the next thing to check off my list before I have to go do something else, so lets get a cup of coffee before our time is up."
But then, I know myself well enough to know that if I don't set aside a specific time to pray and read my Bible, I'm just not going to do it. I can SAY I'll do it later, and sometimes I will, but more often than not, I won't. And if I miss a day, it's not a big deal, but this summer I've just let it slide too much. I've not made a priority out of spending intentional time with God, and so my Spiritual life has been reduced to little more than a Santa Claus mentality. I'll go about my business, saying little sentence prayers throughout the day. "My back hurts, God. Make it stop." "My friend is going through something. Help her." "Give me strength to deal with this unruly child." There's nothing wrong with those, and honestly, I think they're good because they're evidence that God isn't just limited to that little time I've allotted Him in my routine. But it's also not very deep.
Maybe if I were married, I'd spend little pockets of time with my hubby. I'd call him at work just to say hi. I'd check to see if he needed something from the grocery. I'd just tell him "I love you" for no reason at all before going off to make dinner. But then there would be times we would set aside for deep, meaningful conversation and affection. I'm not married, but I have a feeling that's how life would be. That's how most relationships seem to go. There are short conversations, brief interactions, little jokes and lighthearted moments. Then there are deeper moments that require greater attention.
And I guess that's what I need to really start making time for. I need to set aside those times for meaningful conversation and reflection with the Lord. I need this time because I need Him. All those little Santa Claus prayers are okay sometimes, but they're skirting the main issue of my heart. I can ask God for things, but what prayer is really meant to do is align my heart with His. When it comes down to it, I don't need more things or more answered prayers. I need Him. And if I don't intentionally make time for deep prayer, it's not going to happen. If I don't take meaningful time to look into His Word, then I'm not going to read it. So, while I don't really like the idea of checking time with God off my list, I think it's something I'm going to have to do. I know that from experience.
I also know from experience that when I do make that time for God, He does remarkable things with that time. And even if I'm checking time with God off a list, it's still something I greatly enjoy. It's still something He uses to change me. And there are also going to be unexpected moments that I didn't plan for--like looking up and seeing a sunset that takes my breath away. Those little times of praise and wonder are so precious, and they aren't part of any routine.
Did I say this wasn't going to be long? Oh. I guess I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Or the last.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Film Adapations of Books
I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today. I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters. I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda. I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book thanthe Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much. The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel. And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Thoughts on Traditional VS. Self-Publishing
In the past few weeks, I've had some loving and well-meaning friends and family show me this article (or a similiar article) about a 26-yr-old named Amanda Hocking who has done extremely well self-publishing her books for Kindle. The article can be found by clicking here.
While I am happy for Amanda Hocking and her amazing success, I'm reluctant to just jump on the self-publishing bandwagon. As a person who has attended Southern Baptist churches all her life (and gone to three private Southern Baptist learning institutions), maybe one would think that I've just got a very Baptist mentality about everything, including publishing. "We've never done it THAT way before...." Only I have never really considered myself Baptist (I consider myself Christian and leave it at that--if you want to know more of what I believe, ask questions--don't rely on labels that often have very little truth). I try to keep an open mind to new things, and one would have to be pretty blind not to realize that the world is changing at a lightning fast pace.
There have been rumors and articles and such about the possibility of traditional publishing disappearing as self-publishing starts to become more popular. If one were to take the success of Amanda Hocking as the new norm, then the eventual closure of all traditional publishing houses would be a logical conclusion to make. However, Amanda Hocking's success is very much the exception and not the norm. This is why I grit my teeth and bite my tongue when well-meaning friends/family try to suggest self-publishing as an option for me. I KNOW they don't mean it in this way, but seriously. Every time someone suggests I try self-publishing, what that says to me is that they don't believe I can make it traditionally. They're saying to me that they think I'll have to self-publish because no one else will want me. While I know that's not really what they're saying, I wish people would think about how they might come across.
Personally, I'm just not going to feel like a published author if I don't see my book IN PRINT and ON SHELVES. I just don't think that having digital versions of my books floating around on Kindles and Nooks is going to feel the same. When reading books, I would much prefer to have the actual book in my hand. There's the feel of the book--the weight of it in my hands, the experience of actually getting to turn the pages. There's the smell of the paper and ink. There's the sound of the pages turning. All of these are experiences I love when reading a book, and scrolling down a screen just wouldn't be the same. According to this recent article, I'm not the only one who prefers actual books over a digital reader. I don't think traditional publishing is dying at all. Self-publishing may or may not be a fad. It may or may not be taking over the publishing world. But I don't think self-publishing is the same thing as traditional publishing. Traditional publishing involves more than just you (it involves people who know what they're doing and who know the publishing business), which, in my opinion, makes it more valid. If you think your writing is good, then it might be...or it might just be you. If an agent and editor think your writing is good, then yeah...it's probably good.
I am NOT trying to say that self-publishing isn't real publishing. What I will say is that there are times when it CAN be fake publishing. Amanda Hocking and others like her have proven that self-publishing can be a legitimate method of getting one's writing out to the world. She's built a strong online presence and has gathered a following. I applaud her for being able to do that. I'm actually a little bit jealous. With that being said, for every Amanda Hocking out there, there are probably about a gazillion John/Jane Does who think they can call themselves an "author" because they've self-published pages full of crappy drivel. I'm sure there are several good self-published writers out there who have put in a lot of time and effort editing and polishing their work before publishing it. I'm also sure there are several bad self-published writers who have not.
I don't have a problem with self-publishing in general. I have a problem with how easy it's become. Amanda Hocking tried traditional publishing before she attempted self-publishing. She put in the effort. It's not like she just decided "I'm going to write a book and self-publish it." She sent queries and got rejected before she went the self-publishing route--and now she's a millionaire. I have a lot of respect for her because she didn't just do things the easy way.
Now, let me also say that there's nothing wrong with self-publishing if you are just wanting to get a book out there for fun or whatever. Just please don't call yourself a "published author" in my presence unless you have some successful sale numbers to back up your claims. If you want to get something you wrote out there and have no goals of making any money or sales, then whatever. It really depends on what you want to accomplish through publishing.
I happen to have a dream of becoming a fairly successful author (and these days, a successful author can mean many different things). I don't just want to self-publish and have it done with. I want to see my name IN PRINT, my books IN PRINT, my books ON SHELVES. That's what I want. I also want an agent to represent me (because I have lousy business sense). The Amanda Hockings of the world apparently don't need agents to make a fortune and a name for themselves. I think that I do.
So I'm going to continue to try the traditional route. If the current book I'm trying to sell doesn't fly (it's my first book--first books are often dreadful), then I will look into small-time publishing NOT self-publishing. And then I'll try to seek representation for another book. Even if I go small-time on my first book (and the series that goes with it), I'm not giving up on my dream of being a successful published author.
With that being said, I have a lot of work ahead of me.
While I am happy for Amanda Hocking and her amazing success, I'm reluctant to just jump on the self-publishing bandwagon. As a person who has attended Southern Baptist churches all her life (and gone to three private Southern Baptist learning institutions), maybe one would think that I've just got a very Baptist mentality about everything, including publishing. "We've never done it THAT way before...." Only I have never really considered myself Baptist (I consider myself Christian and leave it at that--if you want to know more of what I believe, ask questions--don't rely on labels that often have very little truth). I try to keep an open mind to new things, and one would have to be pretty blind not to realize that the world is changing at a lightning fast pace.
There have been rumors and articles and such about the possibility of traditional publishing disappearing as self-publishing starts to become more popular. If one were to take the success of Amanda Hocking as the new norm, then the eventual closure of all traditional publishing houses would be a logical conclusion to make. However, Amanda Hocking's success is very much the exception and not the norm. This is why I grit my teeth and bite my tongue when well-meaning friends/family try to suggest self-publishing as an option for me. I KNOW they don't mean it in this way, but seriously. Every time someone suggests I try self-publishing, what that says to me is that they don't believe I can make it traditionally. They're saying to me that they think I'll have to self-publish because no one else will want me. While I know that's not really what they're saying, I wish people would think about how they might come across.
Personally, I'm just not going to feel like a published author if I don't see my book IN PRINT and ON SHELVES. I just don't think that having digital versions of my books floating around on Kindles and Nooks is going to feel the same. When reading books, I would much prefer to have the actual book in my hand. There's the feel of the book--the weight of it in my hands, the experience of actually getting to turn the pages. There's the smell of the paper and ink. There's the sound of the pages turning. All of these are experiences I love when reading a book, and scrolling down a screen just wouldn't be the same. According to this recent article, I'm not the only one who prefers actual books over a digital reader. I don't think traditional publishing is dying at all. Self-publishing may or may not be a fad. It may or may not be taking over the publishing world. But I don't think self-publishing is the same thing as traditional publishing. Traditional publishing involves more than just you (it involves people who know what they're doing and who know the publishing business), which, in my opinion, makes it more valid. If you think your writing is good, then it might be...or it might just be you. If an agent and editor think your writing is good, then yeah...it's probably good.
I am NOT trying to say that self-publishing isn't real publishing. What I will say is that there are times when it CAN be fake publishing. Amanda Hocking and others like her have proven that self-publishing can be a legitimate method of getting one's writing out to the world. She's built a strong online presence and has gathered a following. I applaud her for being able to do that. I'm actually a little bit jealous. With that being said, for every Amanda Hocking out there, there are probably about a gazillion John/Jane Does who think they can call themselves an "author" because they've self-published pages full of crappy drivel. I'm sure there are several good self-published writers out there who have put in a lot of time and effort editing and polishing their work before publishing it. I'm also sure there are several bad self-published writers who have not.
I don't have a problem with self-publishing in general. I have a problem with how easy it's become. Amanda Hocking tried traditional publishing before she attempted self-publishing. She put in the effort. It's not like she just decided "I'm going to write a book and self-publish it." She sent queries and got rejected before she went the self-publishing route--and now she's a millionaire. I have a lot of respect for her because she didn't just do things the easy way.
Now, let me also say that there's nothing wrong with self-publishing if you are just wanting to get a book out there for fun or whatever. Just please don't call yourself a "published author" in my presence unless you have some successful sale numbers to back up your claims. If you want to get something you wrote out there and have no goals of making any money or sales, then whatever. It really depends on what you want to accomplish through publishing.
I happen to have a dream of becoming a fairly successful author (and these days, a successful author can mean many different things). I don't just want to self-publish and have it done with. I want to see my name IN PRINT, my books IN PRINT, my books ON SHELVES. That's what I want. I also want an agent to represent me (because I have lousy business sense). The Amanda Hockings of the world apparently don't need agents to make a fortune and a name for themselves. I think that I do.
So I'm going to continue to try the traditional route. If the current book I'm trying to sell doesn't fly (it's my first book--first books are often dreadful), then I will look into small-time publishing NOT self-publishing. And then I'll try to seek representation for another book. Even if I go small-time on my first book (and the series that goes with it), I'm not giving up on my dream of being a successful published author.
With that being said, I have a lot of work ahead of me.
Monday, February 21, 2011
My Favorite Writery Things
I feel like making lists. Here goes!
My Five Favorite Fiction Books:
1) A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2) Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis
3) The Return of the King by J. R. R. Tolkien
4) Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
5) The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
My Five Favorite Non-fiction Books:
1) Rich Mullins: An Arrow Pointing to Heaven by James Bryan Smith
2) A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis
3) A Circle of Quiet by Madeleine L'Engle
4) Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham
5) Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul David Tripp
My Five Favorite Authors:
1) C. S. Lewis
2) Madeleine L'Engle
3) Lloyd Alexander
4) J. R. R. Tolkien
5. J. K. Rowling
My TEN Favorite Book Series / Companions:
1) The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
2) The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
3) The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
4) The Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle
5) The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
6) Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
7) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Trilogy" by Douglas Adams
8) The Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery
9) The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne
10) Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
My TEN Favorite Things to Listen to While Writing/Editing:
1) Rich Mullins
2) Mitch McVicker
3) Jars of Clay
4) Tenth Avenue North
5) The Beatles
6) Star Trek soundtracks (don't hate on my nerd music...it's beautiful--no words to distract me)
7) John Williams
8) Switchfoot
9) Chicago (the band, not the musical)
10) K-Love Radio
What are some of your favorite authors, books, series, and things to listen to while writing or...whatever?
My Five Favorite Fiction Books:
1) A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle
2) Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis
3) The Return of the King by J. R. R. Tolkien
4) Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
5) The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
My Five Favorite Non-fiction Books:
1) Rich Mullins: An Arrow Pointing to Heaven by James Bryan Smith
2) A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis
3) A Circle of Quiet by Madeleine L'Engle
4) Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham
5) Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul David Tripp
My Five Favorite Authors:
1) C. S. Lewis
2) Madeleine L'Engle
3) Lloyd Alexander
4) J. R. R. Tolkien
5. J. K. Rowling
My TEN Favorite Book Series / Companions:
1) The Time Quartet by Madeleine L'Engle
2) The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
3) The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander
4) The Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle
5) The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien
6) Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
7) The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "Trilogy" by Douglas Adams
8) The Anne of Green Gables books by L. M. Montgomery
9) The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne
10) Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
My TEN Favorite Things to Listen to While Writing/Editing:
1) Rich Mullins
2) Mitch McVicker
3) Jars of Clay
4) Tenth Avenue North
5) The Beatles
6) Star Trek soundtracks (don't hate on my nerd music...it's beautiful--no words to distract me)
7) John Williams
8) Switchfoot
9) Chicago (the band, not the musical)
10) K-Love Radio
What are some of your favorite authors, books, series, and things to listen to while writing or...whatever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)