Monet's Cathedral Within Us

Above is the Rouen Cathedral painted by Claude Monet. Below is the same cathedral... also by Monet.

Series of paintings were not unusual for painters. In fact, this was not even the first series of paintings that Monet did. What was unusual was the number of paintings. He painted more than thirty paintings of the cathedral. He, in fact, rented a place across from the cathedral. For two years, Monet painted and painted the same subject. He was fascinated by the play of light across the cathedral. He painted it at different times of day and in different weather. He painted and painted and painted.

What I find interesting about this series of paintings is:

1. It is of a man-made object. As writers, we're telling a story that has already been told. If you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself. All the stories have been told in one form or another. At the heart of a story are core motifs that repeat and repeat and repeat. There are not a million stories out there... not really. There are several stories with some changes. I remember reading a post by a person who insisted they had something that had never been done. Never. They were shocked when this wasn't greeted with excitement but more amusement at their naiveté. It's been done. It's been done well. It's been done differently, but it's been done. Now, you can try to bang your head against the originality obstacle, but this will produce crap. There is a reason that the stories have been told. They're honest and real and the story is in the journey. So, sometimes, as writers, we can choose to find the beauty in something that was created by others... in stories that exist and breathe.

2. None of the paintings are alike nor facsimiles of the original. For a more significant sampling of the complete series: The Rouen Cathedral Series. None seem like a forgery of the other. As artists, it isn't enough to be accurate. We must put the readers there. They must see what we see. If it's the fog of a cold morning obscuring our vision... then that is what must be. No one goes to the galleries to see the blueprints for the Rouen Cathedral Series. It's quite possible that some of the paintings are not *gasp* accurate. Art can be in the details, but it's mostly in the vision.

3. I wonder which one, if any, felt the best. Was there a "right" one for Monet? Was there secretly one that captured what he felt in his heart? Is that even possible? He spent two years working on this. Painting the same image over and over... and yet... not. As writers, we're often faced with POV questions when beginning a story. Whose story is it? Should it be in first person or third person? Should I write it in past or present tense? I've come across two recent "series" where the book was written from more than one POV. I'm thinking of Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" and "Midnight Sun" and then Julia Quinn's "Mr. Cavendish, I Presume" and "The Lost Duke of Wyndham." I know in Julia Quinn's situation, the books were written at the same time and they were intended to be published. I'm curious if she felt like one was "better" than the other.

The reason I'm thinking about this is that I just realized I need to rework the beginning of the WIP I'm working on, the Sentinel's Run. Unlike Monet, I can see that I haven't got the light right. I realized I need to rework the voice of both characters. While it'll retain many of the original characteristics and features, it's going to be a heavy makeover most likely. I'm trying to psyche myself up for this. Unfortunately, as previously noted, I have restless brain syndrome. I don't like to approach the same subject a second time. I can't tolerate repetition. It's the right thing to do, but it's not the easy thing to do. I believe the predominant thought in my head was "Damn! Really?" followed by a groan.

Above is a photo of the cathedral. It's beautiful... like our core stories. In its own right, it's a work of art. It's beautiful. It was crafted by Masters. We are not improving on a story. If we are merely retelling it. Sometimes the difference between a work of art and a nice painting is getting the light "just right."

So, it's back to work for some of us. Le sigh.

Oh... I'm still on vacation and my grandparents are here. Ta!

"Careful with all the smiling."

That's a direct quote from Diana that I found in my manuscript last night that nearly made me spit all over my lap top. It's true that it was late at night and my brain was slightly fried, but it still struck me as funny. Today, I'm dealing with the cold hard realities of rewriting.

She's right, of course. I like to micromanage my character's actions to death sometimes. "Here, you will smile... there... a sigh." Sometimes my rough draft reads a bit like Old McDonald's Farm for writers. "Here a sigh. There a sigh. Everywhere a sigh... sigh." Usually, around the third or fourth rewrite, I've managed to yank those out and convey mood in other ways, or I've realized that there really isn't any reason that everyone needs to know every littlest action from my characters. I mean... honestly... is knowing that my character smiled going to change the entire direction of the plot. Besides... of course they smiled--they're not the Easter Island of characters. They frown. They smile. They sigh. How often does that matter? Rarely.

Adverbs-- Slowly... my old nemesis. Once again, on rough drafts, when I'm just typing as fast as I can, a whole lot of adverbs slip in. I've been working on taking those out also. I was reading something today that said adverbs are a sign of ineffectual verbs. Why would a character run quickly when they could sprint?

I'm also trying to get rid of redundancy--there is nothing worse.

Gerunds and the passive voice-- blech. Enough said.

Plus, I'm trying to get rid of redundancy.

Finally, today I'm also targeting the ellipses. I love me some ellipses. I'm trying to drop them or switch them to dashes.

I've gotten into the habit of going back through all my manuscripts about every six months. I'm learning so much with each manuscript. It makes me glad that I've had so long to work on writing. I think my writing is a hundred times better than it was a year ago when I started this. It's been a good year for practicing... even rejection is sometimes a good thing.

Well, I should get back to rewriting. It's a fun and neverending process.

No post for you! (Say it like the soup nazi)

It is indeed ironic that I'm posting to say that I don't have time to post today. I got a request for a partial yesterday... so, of course, insanity commenced. Even if your manuscript is awesome on a stick, you still go a little crazy... I hope.

I like to think that even the great Hemingway got a little nuts when someone requested a partial, but... probably not. It's a nice image.

Today was already going to be busy too. I have to go make capes for the kids and I just got back from yoga. I'm so tired, but back to editing.

Have a wonderful Wednesday, everyone... especially Diana and Heidi.

(Thank you so much, Diana and Heidi for helping me. You both rock.)

Can I get a weigh-in on a translation?

Okay... so I just visited with my sister, Heidi, and I was telling her about the changes made to "Honor Among Thieves." Removing adverbs, adding a prologue, and removing all the passive voice really gave me a lot of help in fixing many of the problems addressed by DAW in the letter they sent me. I just did a before and after comparison of the document and "boo-yah" to how much went under the knife for improvement. I never would have guessed I could be that brutally efficient. Seriously, bravo Sue Grafton for thrashing those people's works... it was really helpful. Anyway, Heidi asked if I was going to resubmit and it threw me because I hadn't even considered it. She told me to go back and read the "rejection" again. So, I did.

Dear Ms. Sparrow,

I passed your ms along to our second reader, and she wrote the following:
This is interesting, but not really there yet. The author's sense of pacing needs work. Some stuff probably needs to be brought out sooner to make better sense to the reader. Better character development would help too. I think she has talent, but isn't publishable yet.

I'll add, please consider us in the future, and best possible luck with your writing.

So, I've tackled all of that stuff... even though it was really a side effect of a thorough rewrite. I'd assumed they were telling me "thanks, but no thanks" in a nice way. When I read "please consider us in the future," I was reading "hey... you're not half-bad and maybe if you have different manuscripts in the future you'd like to send our way... we won't hate you." Heidi says they were saying "this is what needs to be fixed... fix it and resubmit." The husband said that they were most likely assuming that I was, like many other writers, focused entirely on just this single manuscript. He thinks they meant that they didn't want to focus on editing this manuscript, but it has potential, and they would reconsider after I'd attended to these flaws.

What is your translation on this?

(I feel all anal and nitpicky for even bringing this up. It reminds me of the after-date breakdowns among females when I was still single. "So... he said goodbye in like this really final way, but maybe he meant for me to call him every twenty minutes... what do you think?" )

After I've smoothed through any rough edges on this last re-write... should I resubmit or move on to other places?

OH Butterflies and Kittens!

No... it's not a new-fangled profanity... it's what I plan on thinking about after finishing Scott Smith's book. Someone needs to mail that man a copy of the rules... seriously. There were people that died... that were not supposed to die. Some people die... some people don't. Those are the rules.

Shudder.

Butterflies and kittens. Butterflies and kittens.

I just finished going through my manuscript for adverbs, but I'll do a reread tonight and tomorrow for passive voice... probably. I picked up a book at the book store that Heidi has been telling me to read for like two years, "Carpe Demon" by Julie Kenner. I also bought an anthology of Paranormal Romance short stories. So, I might get side-tracked by those... just as I was side-tracked from cleaning by editing. I just hate cleaning so much. Why must we clean?

For those that think "Wait... but she has OCD... she should be very clean." No... there are a plethora of kinds of OCD. Mine is severe... but in no way useful. Off of meds, OCD eats me alive, and I can't function because of the hours devoted to obsessions.

I hate cleaning. It was one of the things that inspired me to write. If I have something better to be doing... that I can earn a living at... I can hire someone to clean. Woo! I'm sure the American Dream is different for some, but I'm a simple soul.

I'm tired. B's late night last night means I'm dragging today. I should have started the day with a dose of caffeine. It seems rather unfair on my week break from insomnia... B has a problem sleeping. It's not even my fault. The husband let her watch a Daffy Duck cartoon that was a parody on "Ghostbusters" and it scared her. (Before you assume that she scares easily... she doesn't. She is scared about very specifically odd things. She is scared of zombies... not because they are what they are... but because they eat weird things. She freaks out at the thought of weird things being eaten. Her oral sensory problems are pervasive. ) Anyway, my insomnia cycles based on hormones and in less than a week, it'll be hard core again. If only there were a cure for being female... though I suspect the husband would complain and none of my clothes would fit right.


Scott Smith, here are the rules for those you're allowed to kill... peruse:

1. Any person who doesn't speak the same language as the rest dies.
2. Any person having sex before the age of consent or outside of a monogamous relationship (this excludes James Bond) are fair game.
3. Anyone who loses a family member, spouse, or child.. or goes through a bitter divorce is fair game.
4. In a family film, the dog dies.
5. All mentally disabled people live.
6. All physically disabled people... fair game.
7. Lawyers and politicians... fair game. Doctors... typically not.
8. Evil minions... fair game. Evil mastermind... can escape or die but must "nearly" be killed.
9. Old nosy female neighbors will die.
10. People without names... fair game. (aka Star Trek Ensign rule)
11. The female or male love interest, not a lead, of the main character is fair game.
12. Anyone who swears profusely or gets drunk... fair game.
13. Anyone with a heart condition is fair game.
14. Unfaithful spouses or lovers absolutely should die.
15. Those that exploit the environment die.
16. Kindergarten teachers and nuns always live.
17. Children main characters can only die in a lingering way if at all.
18. The old king/ elderly mentor... always dies. (Later ghostly visits acceptable.)
19. Crooked cops and drug dealers die.
20. Evil Scientists or doctors... die. Evil scientists must be killed via their experiment rebounding on them.
21. Someone who causes the conflict is fair game.

These are the rules, Scott. Without the rules, chaos ensues. You can't just kill people willy nilly. Anarchy. Plus, people put down your book saying, "What the crap was that? I feel disatisfied. The world seems dimmer and duller. It was that book! Arr...." Then, they jot off some hate mail and go burn their book in a garbage can in their driveway.

I'll let it go this once, Scott... because we're tight.

It may seem to some of you that there should be twenty rules, but it's an even number, and I don't like even numbers. Also, twenty-one is the product of two prime odd numbers. So, that's your daily dose of OCD. Feel free to let your brain explode.

I should really go get something accomplished. Butterflies and kittens. Butterflies and kittens.