I'm Thankful For....

Pumpkin pie, which I started eating yesterday

A hardworking husband with faith as firm as a rock during all our trials

Two giggly little boys who like jumping off of couches and getting tickled by Daddy

One almost-not-a-baby-anymore who wants oh-so-desperately to walk

Finishing all the pre-publication work on Philippa Jane Keyworth's upcoming novel The Widow's Redeemer (which will be released by Madison Street Publishing on December 1)

Reaching 60,000 words this morning on the first draft of Flower of the Desert

Celebrating Thanksgiving at the in-laws and not at the hospital

A God who never leaves us or forsakes us

Happy Thanksgiving!

Covering the Same Ground: Can You Do a "Remake" of a Popular Novel?

We've seen it time and again in Hollywood--remakes of the same story with new actors, a new director, and (hopefully) a slightly new take on the story. Some movie goers (I assume) enjoy new takes on old stories. Others roll their eyes and groan. "Another Spiderman movie?!?!"

I was intrigued to hear about Anne O'Brien's next venture, to write the story of a woman who has already been immortalized in a very popular historical novel. O'Brien goes into the project fully aware of the enormity of the challenge. In a recent post, she writes:

I have decided to write the story of Katherine Swynford and John of Lancaster, to be released in Spring 2014.  Am I mad to do so?  What is it that has made me take on such a sacred subject, to step onto such hallowed ground?  

Katherine, that beautiful love story written by Anya Seton, was first published in 1954.  It is considered to be a classic novel of its kind, read and adored by all aficionados of historical fiction.  I read it in the 1970s and was entranced, carried away by the vivid depth of accurate historical detail and the sheer romance of the relationship.  I could not envisage a better historical novel.

This praise of Seton's novel is something with which I can agree wholeheartedly. Katherine is one of my top five favorite historical novels, and if I can ever write something half as good, I will consider my authorial career a success.

With Seton's book being universally acknowledged as a triumph, is there room for another work on Katherine Swynford? Or is the canon closed on John of Gaunt's famous mistress?

 So what made me decide to place my head on the block and write about these most famous of 14th century lovers? Certainly not a desire to do a better job than Ms Seton.  I would not presume. But perhaps to write something different.... [I]t seems to me that the relationship between John and Katherine was far more than just a simple love affair.  How could a simple falling in love cause this unlikely couple to cast aside all they knew, accepted, and believed to be morally right....   

...I consider it to be a tale of compulsive desire and need, sweeping all before it with the force of a tsunami, and so much stronger than love. I have to write it.

And in the end, isn't that the most important consideration for what subject you choose for your novel? Even if someone else has already told the story, if it speaks to you in such a way that you "have to write it", I think there's room for one more version of the tale.

Mary, Queen of Scots, is one oft-depicted character whom I would like to explore in a future novel. I may not do a better job of those that have gone before me, but I would certainly do something different. I have not gotten to the point yet where I "have to write" her story, but the desire has been growing incrementally over the years.

Are there any stories already told that you would like to tell again in a different way?

Using Primary Sources and Joining the Correct Critique Group: Saturday Links

I've been up at the hospital all week with my son (fourth visit in six months), which means not as much computer time as at home. When he's awake, my laptop must be used for watching Shaun the Sheep, and when he's sleeping, I should be sleeping too--since we'll be woken up every couple hours for vital signs, antibiotics, or blood draws. Despite the dearth of Internet browsing, there were still a few articles that caught my eye this week.

One was Kim Rendfeld's post asking, "What if long ago letters were part of high school history classes?" Primary sources are a subject near and dear to my heart. When I taught history for junior high and high school, we read a couple primary source excerpts a week, and many of their books for the class were primary sources (Joinville's history of the Crusades, William Bradford's Plymouth Plantation, the Diary of Anne Frank).

Primary sources can bring a period to life in a way that memorizing names and dates cannot, but they are also especially important for teaching the concept of inescapable bias. By reading contradictory primary sources, students can learn that how you decide to tell a story and what facts you decide to include, will paint an entirely different picture than someone else recording the same event. For the history student, reading and evaluating primary sources has the same importance as performing lab experiments does for the science student.

Another post that caught my eye was Teralyn Rose Pilgrim's article on critique groups. They work best, she says, when they're in your own genre. She relates her experience of working with writers--good ones--who happened to have no background in history or historical fiction. They wanted her to add lots of explanatory text which ended up bogging down her story instead of helping it.

I tend to agree with Teralyn on this one--it's hard to get a good critique from someone who's not familiar with historical fiction. It's a bit like getting a critique on a cookbook from someone who doesn't cook.

Which reminds me, I need to get on the ball and submit my membership to the Historical Novel Society. They're kicking around the idea of starting a Pacific Northwest chapter, and if that happens, I'd love to be involved in the meetings.

A Place for Everything and Everything in Its Place: Amazon Reader Reviews

There's been a lot of hoopla lately over fake reviews on Amazon, both positive ones and negative ones.  The problems exposed are various: some five-stars have been purchased to unscrupulously boost authors' sales, some one-stars have been purchased to unscrupulously lower rivals' sales, some glowing panegyrics have been written by biased friends and family members, some malicious diatribes have been written by angry trolls.

Throughout the past several months, the statement has been made over and over again that the Amazon reader review system is so flawed as to be worthless. But is it? This post that I read earlier this week gave a good defense of Amazon reader reviews, and after reading it, I wanted to post my own thoughts on the subject.

Sure, I know that some reviews might be originating from biased sources, but I also know that I have posted my own honest reviews on Amazon and that there are other people like me. I believe that I have the ability to discern between the review of a rabid fan, a disgruntled troll, and a discerning individual. I'm not going to buy a book solely because of how many five-star reviews it has. I'm going to read those reviews and see if they discuss the books' merits intelligently and if those merits are something I would appreciate. I'm not going to dismiss a book simply because of how many one-star reviews it has. Again, I'm going to read those reviews and see if the detractors' have any legitimate points.

I'm still going to look at Amazon reader reviews when I buy the baby his next car seat, when I buy galoshes for my boys, and when I buy Advent decorations for my house. I'm still going to look at Amazon reader reviews when I add books to my wish list for Christmas. And though I may not trust implicitly in the honesty of each review, I trust in my own ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. A place for everything and everything in its place, say I. And despite all the negative press, Amazon reader reviews still have a place in helping me decide what books I will and will not buy.

Too Close to Home?--Reading Inside Your Own Genre

One of the reasons I have chosen to write historical fiction is because I have always loved reading it. Last year, almost every single book I read was an HF title, and this year I've had to make a conscious effort to branch out in other genres.

In some ways, however, becoming a historical novelist myself has been a double-edged sword when it comes to enjoying other historical novels. On the one hand, it makes me enjoy good historical novels even more. Besides appreciating the stories, I can also better appreciate the craft that went into writing them. On the other hand, it makes me more critical of poor historical novels. I am unable to turn a blind eye to flaws that I have worked hard to avoid in my own writing.

One example of this is my (relatively) new appreciation for narrative voice. After agonizing over whether to use first person or third person narrative in my novels and weighing the pros and cons of each, it gives me greater delight to see other authors use first or third person narrative well. I recently finished reading two of Kate Quinn's books where she changes between multiple first person narrators and some third person narration, and I was awed by the effectiveness of her approach.

Another example is the use of dialogue tags (e.g. he said, she chortled, they moaned). I've started to work harder on giving each of my characters distinct voices and getting rid of superfluous or distracting   dialogue tags. I also work hard on finding a balance between the invisible "said" and the sticks-out-like-a-sore-thumb verbs like "guffawed", "reminisced", "interpolated". (M.m. Bennetts had a lovely post a couple months ago on her philosophy of using dialogue tags.) Now, as I read other writers, especially historical novelists, I find myself automatically judging the flow of their dialogue--which leads to either a greater or lesser appreciation for their work.

A third example is in the realm of historical accuracy. I find that I can forgive a lot of liberties in eras I know little about. "What? You completely rearranged the chronology of this Roman emperor's reign? Fine by me--it was a great story!" In eras I have extensively researched, however (i.e. the Middle Ages), I tend to take umbrage over too much manipulation of facts. I especially hate having modern ideas superimposed on this time period. Knowing the history behind a brilliant novel like Anya Seton's Katherine makes me love it immeasurably more. Knowing the history behind a hack job like...well, let's not mention any names...makes me despise it utterly.

As much as I love reading books in my own genre, sometimes I find that I need to move outside it a little bit--not out of historical fiction entirely, but at least, into a different time period. I'm curious--do any other authors feel the same? Do you read books similar to your own, or are they a little bit too close to home?