When Musicals Procreate

Good Monday,

As I’ve said before, I’m a big musical theatre buff.

NOTE: “Theatre” is the correct spelling of “theatre.” Don’t let those non-artsy-fartsy people who spell it “theater” fool you.

Anyway, this week I’m focusing on a YouTube video. The summer after my freshman year of college, I was in “Fiddler on the Roof.” I played Grandmother Tzeitel and ever since have developed a propensity to be cast as dead people in musicals. A couple of years later, I went to New York with my high school drama club and saw “Avenue Q.”

For those who aren’t familiar with these two—a bit of background.

“Fiddler on the Roof” tells the story of a Jewish Russian man (Tevye) his wife (Golde) and their family surviving in tsarist Russia as Jews. Tevye believes in tradition, and the entire show centers around him having to give up his deeply held beliefs to adjust to a changing world. Some changes are more difficult to cope with than others.

“Avenue Q” is basically “Sesame Street” for adults. It’s a part human, part human operated puppet show about life on Avenue Q and the challenges that the street’s residents face. It’s without doubt a comedy and focuses mainly on conflicts of romance, money, and interest.

The video I am talking about today combines these two musicals. For World AIDS Day in 2005, the original Broadway cast of “Avenue Q” and the revival cast of “Fiddler on the Roof” got together and presented a ten minute spoof of the two musicals combined entitled “Avenue Jew.” I was introduced to “Avenue Jew” after seeing “Avenue Q” on Broadway and thought it was amazing.

“Avenue Jew” picks up with Tevye’s family (now him, Golde, and their two youngest daughters) when they arrive in America after the closing of “Fiddler on the Roof.” They stumble onto Avenue Jew, which is inhabited by Jewish versions of the “Avenue Q” characters. Songs from both musicals are incorporated into the spoof, and Ben Brantley makes an appearance at the end.

Watch it here.

K, now that you’ve watched it, if you think I have a terrible sense of humor, feel free to stop reading my blog. But I see nothing wrong with what this wonderful Broadway talent has put together. For anyone who has seen either or both of the parent musicals, this spoof stays true to both with its jokes. For those who haven’t seen either, there is enough original content so that seeing the parent shows is not mandatory to get a laugh. Though it does help.

In terms of all the Jewish jokes, if you see or listen to the soundtrack of “Avenue Q,” you hear that it pokes fun at a variety of races and cultures. I’m not in agreement with hate crimes or prejudice. “Avenue Q” does make a very good point with one of its songs--“Everyone’s a Little bit Racist.” Listen to the song. It’s kind of true. Most people, whether they realize it or not, participate in some form of racism.

Hence why I’m all right with the content of “Avenue Jew.” It’s just what “Avenue Q” does.

What’s my favorite part of “Avenue Jew?”
Involving Bryan and Hanukkah Eve (Christmas Eve in “Avenue Q.”) Bryan (in “Fiddler on the Roof” style) sings to Hanukkah Eve “Do you love me?”
Hanukkah Eve’s response: “No.”

Classic.

Writer’s Lockbox
As promised, every Monday from last week on will have a section at the end outlining what can be taken from the analyzed media for our own writing.

-Comedy: Timing is everything. If jokes involve making a reference, try and make references to things that your target audience is likely to know about.

-Mind different beliefs. As I said, I’m a very open person, and my sense of humor encompasses a lot of things other people might not find funny. I’m not telling you to sensor your writing. I’m saying to be mindful of your audience and the affect you want to have on them.

See you out of the box,
Caboodle

Author Interview--Lori Pollard-Johnson

Hello folks,

Welcome to another author interview. This week we have Lori Pollard-Johnson. As always—take it away, interviewee.

-What book and/or experience made you want to be a writer?

My need to write stems from my need to be heard. I learn through metaphor, and find myself understood when I liken my thought to appropriate metaphor in another's life. I use it in my teaching as well as in my personal life; it's a natural carryover to use it in creating stories.

-What genre(s) do you write?

I write children's, YA and adult cozy mysteries in fiction, but I also have a slew of short fiction and nonfiction in print (over 100 pieces). I don't think of myself as a "type" of writer; I'm just a writer. I write about things that are of interest to me. In my nonfiction, I've written about everything from karate to vegetarian cuisine, parenting to travel.

-Current projects?

Currently, I'm working on a cozy adult mystery, tentatively entitled "Corpse in the Craftsman Cutie." It's about two newly divorced women who are attempting to flip a house in a dead market while juggling kids and exes. On the first day of renovations, however, they discover a corpse in the closet of the flip that threatens to derail their plans, as well as their financial stability. Of course, there's a cute cop involved, and at the heart of the story is a true friendship between the women. I love the characters, their spirit and how they go about solving their problems.

-What’s your favorite book/genre to read?

Wow...my favorite piece of writing. That's a toughie. I really love the book "The Ladies of Missalonghi" by Colleen McCullough (of Thorn Birds fame). It has a surprise ending I hadn't predicted. I re-read that book about once a year. I start every day with a poem, however. Some of my favorites are "Beauty" by Tony Hoagland, "Hazel Tells Laverne" by Katharyn Machan, and "God Says Yes to Me" by Kaylin Haught. Love, love, love poetry!

Want more from Lori? Says she….

People can find me and two of my books on Facebook. All four of my books (Toxic Torte--adult cozy mystery; The Lie--YA; The Truth Test--mid-grade children's; and Recipe for a Rebel--mid-grade children's) can be found on Amazon. Toxic Torte and The Lie are available as ebooks (on several venues/platforms) as well as in paperback, and The Truth Test and Recipe for a Rebel are available in paperback and hard cover. The children's books are also on accelerated reader and there are teacher resource books for novel studies.

Links:
Toxic Torte
The Lie
The Truth Test
Recipe for a Rebel

The two children's books are also available direct from Perfection Learning Corporation.

Cognitive Distortions: Dealing with Rejection Part 2

Welcome back,

Last week I started a 2-part series on cognitive distortions and how to apply them to the rejection process. Check out last Wednesday’s post for the first eight cognitive distortions. This week is the last seven.

Before I begin—a jump-starter. Cognitive distortions are automatic thoughts that seep into our minds and work to reinforce negative thought patterns. Distortions are not based on fact but rather expectations of negative outcomes. The fifteen cognitive distortions were developed by Aaron Beck and later popularized by David Burns.

Here we go with the second half.

9. Blaming – Blaming is the process by which we place responsibility for our pain on others or place the responsibility for all problems on ourselves.

“It’s all that stupid agent’s fault that the writing that I forgot to proofread got rejected.” “My agent proofread, but there were still spelling mistakes. I should have noticed. It’s all my fault.”

In either case, not helpful. As my mother tells me when I become unreasonable “Stop feeling sorry for yourself and fix the problem.” If you forgot to proofread, own it and proofread next time. It happens. Similarly, if your agent missed something, I’m only guessing here, but I assume your agent is human. And so are you. It happens.

Solution - Stop placing/taking the blame, fix the problem, and get the writing back out there.

10. Shoulds – Shoulds is when we develop a list of rules by which everyone (including ourselves) must behave—no exceptions.

“The publisher is supposed to take work that is well-written and in the genre they are looking for. That’s what I would do. My work fit the mold, but it got rejected.”

Sometimes it’s just not what they are looking for. Don’t take it personally. Also, don’t call up the publisher/lit mag/whoever and rant about how your work was what they were looking for. Don’t send them an e-mail doing this either. It will only make you feel guilty later, and guilt is not a healthy emotion.

Solution – Remember that rules are meant to be broken. Be open to the possibility that you would make decisions outside the expected mold if you had the power to do so.

11. Emotional Reasoning – Emotional reasoning takes place when we fall into the trap of thinking that how we feel is how we are.

“I feel like a bad writer. Therefore, I am a bad writer.”

Aside from “emotional reasoning” being an oxymoron, it makes no sense to think this way. Emotions fade and change over time. You may feel like a bad writer one minute but not the next. That in mind, try and sit there and tell yourself you’re a bad writer. You can’t because the feeling doesn’t last. Once the disappointment of the rejection letter passes, it’s back to the drawing board…Microsoft Word.

Solution – Remember that emotions are not logical and that they are temporary. (If deep negative emotions persist for several months, seek help. I’m not being funny. That is more than a cognitive distortion.)

12. Fallacy of Change – The Fallacy of change is when we expect people to change if we bug them enough.

“That publisher/agent will accept my writing if I just keep insisting that it’s good.”

If you are concerned about your writing, grab a critique partner. Otherwise, your writing might not be right for that publisher/agent. And no amount of badgering, insisting, bragging, begging, or coercing is going to change their minds. In fact, you’ll probably just irritate them to the point where they’ll ask you to go away.

Solution – “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Corny, yes, but it’s true. If the first publisher/agent doesn’t work out, move to the next one. Don’t continue to bother the old one. The next one could be the one.

13. Global Labeling – Global labeling occurs when we brand a person/situation negatively after one or two experiences.

“(Insert publisher/agent/whatever here) rejected my novel. They’re uncultured, unknowledgeable, deprived idiots.”

Um, down, girl. They might take your next piece. They might take your next ten pieces. They may have taken your best friend’s piece. They rejected one thing from you. It wasn’t what they were looking for. They’re not a terrible person/organization. Not surprisingly, global labeling is also referred to as “mislabeling.”

Solution – Deep breaths. It’s one rejection, and the person who did the rejecting isn’t evil.

14. Always Being Right – This is characterized by the constant feeling that we must prove ourselves correct.

“Listen, this manuscript is amazing. It is. Blood, sweat, and tears went into it, and it’s the best manuscript you could ever hope to publish.”

Bit of advice, don’t let this be you. Don’t be the person who makes that phone call/sends that e-mail. Publishers have a myriad of reasons for rejecting a manuscript. They also reject a ton every day. Don’t give them hell for it. They’re only doing their job. Move on to the next one.

Solution – This is going to sound harsh, I apologize, but as you read it, realize that someone said this to me once. It was a tough thing to hear, but I’m still in one piece.

You’re not always right. And the sooner you realize it, the better off you’ll be.

I know. It sounds mean, but I promise it’s not. It’s good, sound advice that’s helped me on more than one occasion.

15. Heaven's Reward Fallacy – Heaven’s reward fallacy is the expectation that our sacrifice will pay off.

“I’ve put ten years into this manuscript. Ten years of blood, sweat, and tears. It better get published, and if it doesn’t….”

K, enough with the blood, sweat, and tears. Tears, I’ll believe. Sweat—you're typing or scribbling furiously in a notebook. Unless you have some kind of gland disorder, I doubt sweat was a factor, and don’t even get me started on the unlikelihood of the Voodoo rituals.

Also, quantity doesn’t make quality. Let someone other than an agent or publisher look at the ten-year manuscript before you submit it. Four eyes are better than two. And even at that, don’t be bitter if it gets rejected. You’re one of hundreds—possibly thousands—being rejected today. Move on to the next one.

Solution – Remember that success is not imminent just because long hours of work were put in. Substitute the long time for less time with more fruitful results. Also remember that rejection happens to everyone.

There you have it—15 Cognitive Distortions. They can be debilitating, but now that you’re aware of them, you can avoid them when they come to call. If I had to boil it down into a “final points” section for maximum effectiveness, I’d say the following:

Remember that it’s not just you. Remember that everyone gets rejected. Keep trying. Keep submitting. If trouble persists, find people to read your work. But DO NOT GIVE UP!!!

---
Wednesday Word Tally

Character: Hanson Gravel
Hanson is a warlock. For my purposes, warlocks are not evil. They are simply wizards who have gifts in combat magic. Hanson works for MIA as part of the field team and in a combative role when the occasion arises. He does his job very well in both cases. He’s tall, light-haired, and handsome. Oh and a womanizer—to quote Vern—“of the worst, or possibly best, type.” Don’t let this color your judgment too much. Hanson’s really not a bad guy, and he’d probably be offended if you thought he was.

Day	Start Count	Written	Final Count
10-3	45,243	490	45,733
10-4	45,733	835	46,568
10-5	46,568	860	47,428
10-6	47,428	1274	48,702
10-7	48,702	3654	52,346
10-8	52,346	2076	54,422
10-9	54,422	1480	55,902

Total Words Written: 10,659
Average Words Per Day: 1523
Words Remaining: 24,098

First week where I had a day where I didn’t make my daily goal of 531. Considering I was moving that day—and that the rest of the week more than made up for it—I’ll let it slide. ;)

Fiction and Theatre: POV and Breaking the Fourth Wall

Good Monday,

NOTE: New addition to Media Mondays! See below.

On with the show.

For class this week, I had to read “Mechanique: A Tale of the Circus Tresaulti” by Geneveive Valentine. It was like pulling teeth for me. The book alternates between several POV characters, which wasn’t a big deal, and among those it goes between first and third person—also not a big deal. What made this story tough for me was the way it unfolded.

Before enrolling in Seton Hill, I was one of those writers who kept everything in suspense forever because readers love suspense, right? Right, but everything in moderation. I learned that you have to give your readers something. If you don’t, they get upset. That was my experience with “Mechanique.” I felt either like I was being pushed aside or given information as if from a text book. Many chapters began “This is what happens/this is what (character) thinks/this is how (character) feels.” *Whimper*

Valentine made use of another unorthodox fiction choice—second person. Normally I’d cringe openly at encountering second person in fiction, but, oddly enough, the chapters written that way were the only time I ever felt like I was really in the story. And so I will focus on POV today with media examples.

To illustrate my point, I will now dive a bit into my past. I did a lot of community and school theatre in high school and college (intend to get back to it but haven’t had a chance). In theatre, we have a term—“breaking the fourth wall.” The idea in theatre is that the stage is a room (even if the play’s action is outside). We (the audience) are able to watch these people in their everyday lives because one of the room’s walls has been made see-through. It is understood, however, that the wall is still there. The characters are simply on the other side of it.

Sometimes, the “fourth wall” is blasted through. Any play with a narrator breaks the fourth wall. The narrator speaks to the audience. Last week in my class post, I brought up first vs. third person. While this doesn’t immediately seem related, I’d argue that there are two types of “breaking the fourth wall.”

The first type is when someone outside of the play’s action talks to the audience—a narrator. Several musicals as well as the well-known “Our Town” make use of this. The narrator tells a story that comes to life before your eyes. This is like third person—theatre has long been considered its own form of voyeurism anyway. But the narrator is there to give information and extra story detail, much like the narrator in third person.

The musical “Into the Woods” makes use of a narrator for most of the show. In Act II, however, the narrator becomes a character in the story. He is blamed and brought into the conflict by the characters, who are bitter and resentful of the negative turns their lives have taken. The narrator is killed and the characters are left to bumble along, not knowing how the story ends. Thus the transition from third to first person is made. The narrator in first person is part of the action. In “Into the Woods” each character becomes their own narrator once the appointed one is dispatched with. Little George is his own narrator in “Mechanique.” If his passages were in first person present tense, he would be like the characters from “Into the Woods,” unaware of the direction of the story. As it is in first person past, he knows where things are going and even often alludes to that fact—saying that he was still young or hadn’t woken up yet. So instead of not knowing, he is implying that he does know but keeping the reader/audience in the dark to the point where, sometimes, it seems as if he doesn’t know.

Tangent—I found this particularly irritating, especially when he would drop the “I was still young” or the “I hadn’t woken up yet” lines. It’s like saying “There’s something coming, which you know because you are reading this fiction novel and something is always coming at the end of a fiction novel, but I’m going to remind you every so often because I can and because I have to keep reinforcing that I didn’t get it right away either. Don’t feel bad.” Grr…either say something important or don’t say anything.

K, back.

Second person—normally, I’d say it doesn’t work in fiction, but it was what kept me reading “Mechanique.” Another Broadway musical “Seussical” (a compellation of Dr. Seuss stories) makes use of second person in its opening number. The Cat in the Hat takes the stage and proceeds to sing “Oh the thinks you can think if you’re willing to try. Think invisible ink or a gink with a stink or a stair to the sky.” He’s quite clearly telling the audience what to think (imagine), but no one cares because the story is so colorful and the music is so fun. The same concept needs to apply to non-interactive second person fiction. For it to work the story needs to be so fun, so otherwise engaging, that the reader doesn’t care that it’s in second person.

As I said, it was the second person sections that kept me reading but not because the story was so entrancing. I just enjoyed the sense of interaction the second person sections gave me. “You go over here. You do this. You see this. You feel this way.” While similar to “This character feels/knows/understands this way,” there is a difference. In second person, I’m being told what’s around me but also being generalized. It’s as if “you” refers to a group of people—anyone in my position. It’s like interactive fiction. “You walk into the room. There is a jeweled box in the center of the floor. What do you do?” Incidentally, never open the jeweled box, but it’s that same idea. The “you” is universal. Thus, I’m not offended or put out by being told what to think/pay attention to.

Writer’s Lockbox

I felt as if I was getting away from the blog’s title. I needed something to make it fit. So I am adding “Writer’s Lockbox” to my Media Mondays. Carpenters have toolboxes. Writers now have lockboxes. What can be taken away to apply to our own writing from the media that I examine each week?

“Mechanique”

-Don’t get so caught up in suspense that you forget that your reader is trying to stay engaged in the story.

-Don’t use second person unless the story is engaging enough to warrant it. You don’t want your readers thinking what I was thinking: “When is the next second person section so I can feel part of the story again?” That’s bad.

-Don’t textbookify your information. “This is what happens when” sounds like something I had to read for chemistry class. “This is what happens when you mix oil and water.” I hated chemistry class.

See you out of the box,
Caboodle

Author Interview--Joe Borrelli

Hello folks,

Welcome to another author interview. This week Joe Borrelli is in the hot seat, and as usual, the interviewee will do the talking.

-What book and/or experience made you want to be a writer?

My flip answer is that I found a copy of “How to Write Horror Fiction” by William F. Nolan in my local library. It broke down the way a story is constructed in simple, conversational language. I spent my adolescence writing rip-off monster stories without much skill or brains and convincing myself I was deep and sensitive.

Even then, I knew the stuff I was writing was crap. I kept at it, but everything felt half-formed and frustrating. Around the same time I got into running role playing games. Aside from playing to my strengths at public speaking and improvisation, it taught me how to structure a story so that it survived the whims of a bunch of destructive nerds, how to keep people interested, how to create characters with distinctive voices, and how to convey powerful images with a few simple words.

There came a point when I got all I could out of telling small stories to a small handful of people. I had ideas that needed a bigger home.

-What genre do you write?

I write…shit, I dunno. I write horror stories, I guess. But either I’ve got bad information on the genre’s potential or it’s a bunch of underachievers, but I’m a bit embarrassed about my genre choice. My shit involves ghosts and zombies and monsters, so I guess it’s horror. When I’m at my pretentious hipster artsy fartsy parties I tell people I’m writing literary fiction.

-What project are you working on now?

The big project is my thesis novel, The Torment Game. From my somewhat ham-fisted write up:

After accidentally killing their friend in a bizarre bullying ritual known as The Torment Game, our hapless trio arrives in San Francisco to be their lives as exchange students in the richest private Catholic school in the city. As they struggle to acclimate to their new home, their relationship has frayed from the strain of getting away with involuntary manslaughter. Unbeknownst to them, the spirit of their dead friend has followed them. She’s lonely, wounded, and very, very angry….

It’s my love letter to J-Horror, featuring psychic teenagers, homicide investigations, anime, and dead girls with hair in their faces.

I also do a graphic novel called The Doom That Came To Toonland, which is a fusion of Looney Tunes and Lovecraft. My buzz phrase is what would happen if Pinky and the Brain tried to summon Azathoth in order to take over the world.

Finally, I do a great podcast. Go to iTunes and search Creature Cast. It’ll knock your socks off.

-For other aspiring writers, any tips?

Demystify the process. It’s just writing, dawg. Don’t make it a thing.

Your first job is to figure out the way you write. What’s your process, how do you work. Do you write a little bit daily? Once a week? Figure it out. It helps you get comfortable.

Write. If you are spending way more time either:
1) Reading books about writing or…
2) Blogging about writing
than you do actually writing then you are doing it wrong!!!

“Be regular and ordinary in your habits so you can be spontaneous in your creations!”

-What’s your favorite book/genre to read?

Strangely enough, I read very little horror. I mostly read non-fiction, especially social and cultural studies, but I also read a lot of crime fiction or “literary fiction.”

The three biggest influences on my style are Joe R. Lansdale, Lawrence Block, and Natsuo Kirino. My entire friggin’ thesis is basically a riff on Natsuo Kirino’s work, especially Grotesque.

-What’s your favorite thing you’ve ever written?

I love the doomed trio from my thesis. They have helped get me through some tough times recently. I privately fantasize that one day some kid at a convention will come up to me in cosplay of my characters. That’s when I’ll know I have made it.

Want more from Joe?

Like his comic book’s Facebook page. Check out his podcast and blog.

Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeAverageSF.

Cognitive Distortions: Dealing with Rejection Part 1

Hello folks,

This and next Wednesday will be a 2-part installment regarding writing and psychology.

Cognitive Distortions

Originally developed by Aaron Beck and later popularized by David Burns, cognitive distortions are, often, automatic thoughts that promote negative feelings. These feelings can seem real, but they are truly based on negative thought patterns rather than facts. Cognitive distortions are a common roadblock hit during psychotherapy, and the goal is to replace the negative thought patterns with more positive, rational ones.

In other words, cognitive distortions cause us to feel as though something is wrong and keep us reinforcing the negative ideas.

There are fifteen cognitive distortions. I will talk about eight this week and seven next. And I’d like to discuss them in terms of something all writers face—rejection. As I’ve heard many times, it is getting that first acceptance that is the toughest, and it often takes many, many, many rejections to get it. That many repetitions of “Sorry, your work just wasn’t right for us” can cause very negative feelings indeed. My goal with these two posts is to introduce cognitive distortions so that you may recognize them and not let them get the better of you and, most importantly, keep you from continuing to submit.

Here we go.

1. Filtering – Filtering is the process of taking all of the details of a situation, filtering out the positive ones so that only the negative ones remain, and amplifying the negative ones as much as possible.

“I was rejected. They said my work wasn’t right. They’re not going to publish my work. They don’t want my work.”

Never mind if the publisher/lit mag/agent/whoever also said that your concept was interesting or that your writing was pristine or that they provided feedback to help spruce up your work. With filtering, all that matters is those negative details and cramming as many of them into your brain as possible.

Solution - Find the positives and cram them into your head, forcing the negatives to make room and eventually leave.

2. Polarized Thinking – Polarized thinking is thinking in black and white.

“I’m the most amazing, talented, interesting writer in the world.”
“My writing is the absolute worst thing that has ever been written in the history of the universe.”

At first glance, this doesn’t look so bad. We categorize a lot of things in black and white, right? Murder is bad. Water is good. However if you look a little deeper, you will find that not everything is so easily categorized.

Music is good—unless it’s music that was written with lyrics specifically for demeaning a race of people.

More than this, polarized thinking when applied to your writing can be dangerous. If it’s not the best thing you’ve ever written, it’s crap and must be stricken from existence. You’ll lose a lot of potentially great work/ideas like that.

Solution – Look for mediocre qualities in everything. If you think something is downright terrible, challenge yourself to find one thing about it that’s good. The rest will follow.

3. Overgeneralization - This occurs when we come to a conclusion based on a single piece of evidence.

“That e-zine rejected my short story. I can’t write.”

Not true. You can write. That e-zine obviously doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Lol

No, seriously, it’s one failure. It doesn’t rule your life. My senior year of high school I auditioned for the district chorus. The year before I’d gotten into districts and gone on to All-State. Senior year, I had a terrible day and a terrible audition. When we got our results back, I wasn’t surprised (though still very let down) to see that I’d scored pretty badly. At the tender age of eighteen, I’d been ready to throw in the towel with singing. I’d gone to my seventh period class (Musical Theatre) in a not-so-great mood. The teacher (not even close to my favorite) came in and cut off the chatter about district scores and who got in and who didn’t. Naturally there was some overflow from choir to musical theatre. He proceeded to tell us “All right, let’s put it away until the bell rings. Not everyone made it, and I don’t want those who didn’t to feel bad. It’s one person judging you on one aspect on one day in your entire life.”

That made me feel so much better. I was still upset, but I recognized my audition for what it was—unfortunate bad timing. If a teacher I barely liked could say that and make me feel better about myself, anyone can beat overgeneralization.

Solution – Try again. Keep trying. Someone will take that short story. You just have to find the right person.

4. Jumping to Conclusions - Jumping to conclusions is the belief that you know how people are going to react/feel about everything. Specifically, you know how people feel about you.

“I just know that publisher thinks my work is terrible.”

Beg pardon for asking but if you haven’t submitted, how do you know they think you’re terrible? Or if you have submitted and they rejected you, how do you know they thought your stuff was terrible? In the case of the first, they have no experience with you. Why/how would they not like you? In the case of the second, it is possible that the publisher has developed a deep, seething hatred toward you based on your manuscript, but I doubt it.

Solution – Think. Logically, people who have never met you/read your work can’t hate you/it. People who have rejected your work rejected it because it didn’t fit their mold, not because it was bad writing. Though, if you have had repetitive rejections and you are concerned about your writing, it never hurts to have someone look it over.

5. Catastrophizing - This is the expectation of disaster, often in the form of “what if” questions.

“What if they don’t accept my manuscript?”

Answer—you move on to the next publisher/agent. To quote the Broadway musical “Into the Woods,” “But what if! But what if! Will only a giant’s foot stop your arguing?” Sounds like a silly line, but think about it. If you spend your time asking “what if,” you’ll never submit your work. If you never submit your work, no one will ever get the chance to accept it. And if they do reject it, so what? Their loss. And if a giant foot comes down from the heavens to crush them….

Solution – Just submit. To quote another Broadway musical—“Avenue Q”—“Don’t stress. Relax. Let life roll off your backs.”

6. Personalization – This is taking everything that others do or say and believing that it applies to you. This also involves comparing yourself to others in a less than flattering light.

“I can’t write as good as J. K. Rowling.”

It’s not a question of whether you write better or worse than J. K. Rowling. In my opinion, it’s not a fair comparison to even make. The woman wrote “Harry Potter” and is legend for it. You write how you write.

Solution – Be proud of what you do/accomplish. Don’t compare yourself to people. As I said above, if you are truly concerned about your writing, seek critique partners. But otherwise, it’s not a question of better. It’s a question of different. Voice is unique.

7. Control Fallacies - This is a state in which you assume control of the happiness and pain of everyone around you.

“The publisher is upset because my work is terrible. That’s why he rejected me.”

Again, I doubt you personally had anything to do with it. Maybe he just got back from dental surgery. Unless you’re his dentist, you had nothing to do with it. He just happened to reject your manuscript the same day. If his e-mail was a bit harsh, not your fault.

Solution – Step back. Repeat to yourself that you are not responsible for how others feel. Because you are not.

8. Fallacy of Fairness – This is when we feel that we know what is fair and no one else agrees. It leaves us feeling resentful.

“That publisher doesn’t know what’s good writing. It isn’t fair.”

Again, your manuscript probably didn’t fit what he was looking for. It is possible that the publisher/agent doesn’t know what good writing is. Since no industry is perfect, I will not say this is never the case. It may be the case sometimes, but, more often than not, is probably not. The important thing to remember here is that everyone has their own sense of fairness and what’s good or bad.

Solution – Remember that people are individuals. You might not like what some people write. People may not like what you write. It’s not a question of fair. It’s a question of preference.

Come back next Wednesday for the final seven cognitive distortions.

---
Wednesday Word Count

Character: Warren Gazeban
Inspector Warren Gazeban is the head of the New York branch of MIA (Magical Investigation Agency). He’s got a quick mind, a fondness for his team (with the possible exception of the fairy), and a memory the size of Russia. He’s protective of Vern—something he often gets yelled at for—but, overall, his intentions are good. His crew wouldn’t replace him in a million years.

Day	Start Count	Written	Final Count
9-26	34,691	590	35,281
9-27	35,281	1861	37,142
9-28	37,142	1077	38,219
9-29	38,219	1005	39,224
9-30	39,224	1565	40,789
10-1	40,789	2230	43,019
10-2	43,019	2224	45,243

Total Words Written: 10552
Average Per Day: 1057
Words Remaining: 34,757

Goal is 80,000. Here’s to crossing the half way mark!

Field Recon--Enriching a World

Good Monday,

I mentioned reading “The Mortal Instruments” by Cassandra Clair a few weeks ago. Two nights ago, I read the first two books in Clair’s “Infernal Devices” trilogy. I am now very irritated that I have to wait till March of 2013 to find out what happens with “Infernal Devices” and until March of 2014 to learn the fate of “The Mortal Instruments” characters.

My irritation aside, I’d like to talk on this Media Monday about something very fun and interesting that Clair does. She showcases the same universe at two very different times in its history. “The Mortal Instruments” takes place in modern-day New York, and “Infernal Devices” is set on the streets of London in the late 1800s. And yet, I never question that I am in the same world. The shadow-hunters are what they are; the down-worlders are still down-worlders, and the rules for each all apply the same way in both series.

This, though, is only good story telling. It would be both very irritating (though less irritating than having to wait for BOOKS!!! *deep breaths* I’m fine) and confusing if the basics of “The Mortal Instruments” didn’t carry over into the “Infernal Devices.”

What Clair does (that makes the two series so fun to read back to back) is show how the events of “Infernal Devices” affect “The Mortal Instruments.” The demon sensor—a device used repeatedly throughout “The Mortal Instruments”—is in its beginning stages in “Infernal Devices.” Clair shows the sensor in the hands of its creator—Henry. The sensor—so pivotal to Jace and Clary’s success in “The Mortal Instruments” is given its own history, much like the characters.

Speaking of the characters, it’s very cool to see the ancestors of the “Mortal Instruments” characters and how relationships among shadow-hunters have changed. The Lightwoods, Herondales, Fairchilds, Waylands, and Starkweathers play important roles in both series, and the differences are fascinating to watch. Benedict Lightwood (for example) shames shadow-hunters with his non-covenant behavior in “Infernal Devices.” By contrast, the Lightwoods of “The Mortal Instruments” are fine, upstanding people. How times do change things—even in fictional worlds.

I also love that Clair’s characters are not carbon copies of one another. I was hesitant to pick up “Infernal Devices” because I was afraid I’d see Jace, Clary, Simon, Alec, and Isabelle in the characters. My fears were swiftly banished. Will, Jem, Tessa, and Jessamine are nothing like their future counterparts. I was also glad to see that the internal conflicts befalling the individual characters were not similar. Jace and Will do both have trouble with love but for two vastly different reasons. Jessamine resents and refuses to be a true shadow-hunter, whereas Isabelle is a brilliant fighter. Clary is the outcast who becomes a shadow-hunter, and Tessa…Tessa Grey of “Infernal Devices.” That is all I will say about her. I’ve noticed something missing from “Infernal Devices,” and I have a theory. As I’ve said, I don’t believe in true spoilers—read the books. They are fun and interesting. But, when I find out (in six months…) I will explain my theory and if I was right or not about Miss Tessa Grey.

Now—what to take from this? Clair creates a rich universe in both series. What she has done, though, by writing both is enriching the world even more. As I read “Infernal Devices,” I thought “oh, so that’s where that came from.” That level of realism in a world is something to applaud. Thank you, Cassandra Clair, for showing me just how real fiction can become.

See you out of the box,
Caboodle