More on Jack of All Trades

I really should make it a point to write on here more often.  I've been busy lately, with the last few weeks of the fall semester in December, then my day job, babysitting for a friend of mine's daughter to try and make things easier for her after their house was damaged in the hurricane, and all in all, I just felt completely uninspired to write.

But then, several weeks ago, I started drawing stuff, including some pictures for co-workers of mine (which came out really cool, if I do say so myself,) and I knew it was only a matter of time before creative writing juices started flowing again.

They haven't, completely.  I haven't really written anything new to further complete Jack of All Trades, but I started typing it up.  Once I have that done, I'll have familiarized myself with the novel enough again that I'll be able to continue the handwritten version and finish it.  Then comes the editing process, which I hope won't take more than a month to complete.  Then, it'll finally be published.  I'm not sure what kind of timeline it'll take me to finish typing and then finish the handwritten version, so I hesitate to give a month when the book'll actually be out, but it is coming.

How Reviews Influence a Writer

Well, this writer, anyway.  Honestly, I wish there were more constructive reviews of my books on Amazon.  There are two that I continually come back to and read/reread.  Ange de Mystere's and Sand Under Foot's.  It was when I read the former's review of Rendezvous that I realized, "Oh, crap.  Not everyone's gonna get why I went so close to the lyrics from Phantom for this book."  But seeing how a reader felt about it helped with my Jekyll and Hyde one, because I reference the lyrics numerous times in that one, but I don't rewrite them.  There are simply subtle hints that, if one knows the lyrics as well as I do for that show, they could pick up on it.  For instance, there's a line in 'Facade' that goes "Look around you, I have found you cannot tell by looking at the surface what is lurking there beneath it.  See that face, now I'm prepared to betcha what you see's not what you get cuz man's a master of deceit."  My tip-of-the-hat to that line came in Erik's letter to Holmes: Of course, you can never tell what may be lurking underneath the surface.  There are other such examples where I hint at lyrics rather than thinly rewrite them, or quote directly.  (I wonder how many people realized the title was a lyric?  Lost in the Darkness.  Go check out the lyrics.  It's there.)

Anyway.  I know that one of the pieces of advice for writers is to not read their reviews.  To an extent, I see why and I perfectly agree.  I mean, especially when people don't like it, who wants to read something that tears their book to ribbons?  No one, honestly.  Though there are exceptions.

This YouTube review is one of those exceptions.  It's the second part of a video review (supposed to be a miniseries about mine and the other Phantom/Holmes crossovers, but no more videos were put up, as far as I can see,) about Rendezvous at the Populaire.  In the first part, she talks about the two characters and their appeal (which includes a picture of Megamind and an unintentional slash implication,) and says, "So, how many crossover stories have been written, with Holmes and the Phantom having the face off of the century?"

Four.

Which leads into my favorite part, where fun, carnival-type music comes over and the screen says, "Thank you for your patience while we attend to some technical difficulties."

I swear, click on the link.  I'll wait.  Cuz the picture she found of Erik when she comes back from the technical difficulties is priceless.  Seriously, go watch it.  I'll be right here.

.............

Did you see it?  How great is that?  It just fits perfectly!

Okay, so I don't ramble about stuff liek that the whole time, I'll get back to my main point.  To a degree, I understand not reading reviews.  For instance, years ago, my dad told me this story about an actor who was in a play, I think it was.  His publicist told him over and over not to read the reviews of his performance because he didn't want it to affect how the actor would be onstage.  The actor didn't listen, and read one particular review where the writer criticized how a certain line was said.  Afterward, the actor was never able to say it the same way again, even after being told the reviewer didn't know what they were talking about, that he'd done it perfectly, etc.

I admit, I don't look over the more negative reviews a lot (for instance, I've only watched the three things Ange de Mystere didn't like about Rendezvous twice,) but I greatly appreciate the criticisms.  Sand Under Foot's criticism that I've humanized Holmes too much and that they'd like to see more of Watson was invaluable to me.  Honestly, I was kind of disinterested in Watson for these novels.  Of course, I was going to keep him in them, but had it not been for that review, he may have just become more and more of a background character, instead of so fully invested the way he is in Jack of All Trades.  In fact, I don't think I thought of everything I'm doing to Watson until after that review.

I suppose my main point in all this rambling is that while I don't like or appreciate the purely negative reviews of "this books sucks," "the author's horrible," "why did this ever get published," I do appreciate the well-thought out ones that have honest criticisms and suggestions for improvement.  There are more than just Ange de Mystere and Sand Under Foot, for instance, Alistair Duncan's blog review where he mentions me writing that Watson was looking at Holmes's pant leg.  It never even occurred to me, an American, that someone British would say 'trousers.'

Anyway, the constructive reviews I've received thus far have helped me greatly to up the bar for the next novel.  I'm hoping that my deadline will work out, because I want to have Jack of All Trades typed, looked over, and sent in in time for it to be available for purchase by mid-July.

Anyone who hasn't reviewed, please do.  Offer what you like, what you don't like, what you'd change, what you'd keep the same, anything you wish.  As long as it's respectful and thought-provoking, I welcome it.

Rendezvous at the Populaire

 I Will Find the Answer

Jack of All Trades - Writing Freak Out 2

The way that I'm doing this novel is different from the previous ones.  I've already mentioned the more historical element as opposed to the fictional one.  Then there's the fact that whereas before, I was more interested in what Holmes's thoughts would be, and how he was handling the things coming at him, now I'm more interested in sitting back and observing his actions through Erik's or Watson's eyes.

This novel is made up of three narrators and then third person POV's of the murders.  Watson and Erik have the majority, but Holmes will narrate about three, maybe four, short segments.  One of which is the reveal for who Jack the Ripper is.  I imagined this in his perspective the first time I wrote a draft of it, and honestly, I can't picture it being in anyone else's perspective but his.

My issue now, though, is that I worry about it being too short.  I'm hand writing it first before I sit down and type it, and I'm already up to the double murder night, and I'm only on page 56 or thereabouts.  Fifty-six?!  I admit, when I transfer it to typed page and then it gets reformatted to what the page size is for MX, I may be pleasantly surprised, but it still seems very short right now to me.  And considering I felt this was gonna be one of the longer ones, that's not good!

I know, I know.  It doesn't matter how long or short something is.  If a book is five hundred pages, but it's five hundred pages of crap, the book sucks and people will hate it.  If it's a hundred pages, but it's a hundred pages of good, quality material, people will love it and appreciate it even in its shortness.

And I will admit, I still have to get through the double murder, Watson's issues, Erik's issues (which is what I'll handle after the third person perspective of the double murders,) different parts with Holmes, Watson determining that he's angry enough at his situations that he wants to pour over Holmes's notes and file on these killings and discover who the Ripper is himself, the half a kidney in the mail and the letters coming in, all supposedly from 'Jack,' which means I'll have to do another third person perspective part where 'Jack' is actually writing the 'From Hell' letter that mentions the kidney, Mary Kelly's murder, then there's the reveal itself and the repercussions that has on all the characters, the resolution of Erik's situation and his feelings about that clouding his mind so that he didn't see clues to help Holmes solve this sooner, then Mycroft--

Well, can't give that part away.  You'll have to read to find out what I'm doing there.

I guess I shouldn't worry so much about it being too short right now.  I have a lot more to cover in the month and a week between the night of the double murder and Mary Kelly's murder.  Then there's wrapping everything up after Mary Kelly's murder, and including Holmes's file on the killings, which is going to be at the end of the book.

I admit, I could have done a better job on Rendezvous.  And should have.  I just felt the lines from the musical were so perfect, it was hard not to write those exact lines down.  And I suppose I had too much of an influence from Angel of the Opera by Sam Siciliano, because I more or less modeled my Raoul after his.  I stepped it up with I Will Find the Answer, though.  Luckily, to my knowledge, anyway, there are no Jekyll and Hyde/Holmes stories where Holmes is dealing with the play version of Jekyll, therefore including Emma Carew and Lucy.  I had to truly mold my own version if I wanted to fit Jekyll's fiancee and the Unfortunate who draws him, and therefore Hyde, into her life.  I did model it somewhat after the book, because in Stevenson's novel, Sir Danvers Carew is the only man killed, and the deed is done with Jekyll's cane.

I raised the bar for myself when I wrote I Will Find the Answer.  I only hope that Jack of All Trades raises the bar even further.  I want it to be the best one yet.  I want people coming away from this novel, hungry for more.  Saying, "Damn . . .  God, I can't wait for the next one!"

Because, let's face it.  For the next one, I'll have to raise the bar even more.  And despite these little freak-outs on my blog, I will rise to that challenge.

The Crack in the Lens, Part 2

I thought about just editing my last entry, but decided against it.  I forgot something I'd wanted to mention.  Ms Cypser mentioned that the title of this novel was an integral part of it and too important to even consider changing.  Early on in The Crack in the Lens, Sherlock and Violet are talking by a river, and Sherlock has brought the magnifying glass that I believe it was his grandfather gave him.  Violet is holding it when she slips and falls into the river.  Sherlock rescues her, but she dropped the magnifying glass and an upper part of it cracked.  She says something about how it can still be used, if he doesn't look through the cracked part of the lens.

I thought it was an interesting way to incorporate the title into the book, but it didn't seem to be such an unchangeable aspect of it as was implied previously.  And as the book was drawing to a close, with a snowstorm, Sherlock in the throes of a devastating fever, and then his emotional despair, I was wondering when the true importance of the title was going to come into play.  I was wondering if it would, period.

The ending did not disappoint.  Sherlock has recovered from the fever, but is succumbing to that emotional despair.  Sherrinford, in something of a panic, tells Mycroft to come as quickly as he can, and convinces Sherlock to hold on until his other older brother comes home.  Sherlock agrees, and when Mycroft arrives, they talk.  And that's where the true importance of The Crack in the Lens comes into play.

As I said, I loved this book, and I'm so thankful to Ms Cypser for sending me an earlier copy, because otherwise, it would have been several weeks before I could have procured and read this gem of a book.

Going into more detail of what I touched on in the past entry, there are so many things about this book that are handled so well, yet in another author's hands, wouldn't have worked well at all.  The romance between Sherlock and Violet, as well as his clashing with Professor Moriarty, and his frustrated acceptance of his father's berating all work in a practically perfect balance.  The reader can clearly see in the young Holmes many aspects that will stay with him to adulthood, as well as many aspects that he refuses to tolerate in others once he is in a position to fight against them.

 Of course, with things he will fight against, Professor Moriarty comes immediately to mind.  I admit, part of me was asking why she picked Moriarty to be the professor.  Was it just a plot device to help the story along?  Was it generally accepted that Moriarty really taught Holmes?  (Was Moriarty really that much older?  I always had the impression that while he may have looked older, that they were of comparable age.)  As per her comment on the last entry, I see it's generally accepted that Moriarty was his tutor.  (Also, to Larry, as far as I know, Rathe, aka - 'Moriarty' in Young Sherlock Holmes wasn't Holmes's math tutor.  Fencing teacher, yes.  Mentor of a sort, yes.  But I don't believe it's ever said that he is Holmes's math teacher.)  Anyway, I love how the insidious plots of Moriarty to discredit Holmes to his own father don't fall into the normal cliches.  There's one part where Holmes enlists the aid of a young boy named Jonathan.  He's helping Jonathan learn to fence, and in the part I'm thinking of, Jonathan gets Violet and while she hides nearby, Sherlock and Jonathan fence and when Sherlock can, he ducks into the shadows and steals a few precious minutes with Violet.  Moriarty looks out the window and sees Holmes fencing and then disappearing out of view for minutes at a time.  Any other novel would have seen something like the following scenario happen: Moriarty would decide to follow Sherlock one day, catch him with Violet, a confrontation would erupt, Moriarty and Sherlock would race back to see who would get to the father first, but it wouldn't matter because not only would Moriarty be automatically believed, but Sherlock would be discredited for being with a woman 'below his station,' and that's how the romance would end.  Ms Cypser picked a much more tragic, much less cliche way to go about things.

I love how she went into detail with the lives of at least Sherrinford and his wife, Amanda.  It fleshed out the story in a very realistic way.  Unfortunately, I feel like Mrs. Holmes kind of got lost in the background.  Indeed, I actually forgot she was around most of the time.  But Sherrinford, Amanda, Squire Holmes, even Mycroft, who is absent for a good deal of the novel, one has the sense that their lives are truly going on in the background of the story, and that very much made this a more enjoyable read, because it gave it so much fuller of a feeling.

I just wanted to come back and give a more thorough review of this novel, because honestly, I can't praise it enough.  As I said when I finished the previous entry, I can't wait to read the sequel trilogy.

The Crack in the Lens - Darlene Cypser

Darlene Cypser's The Crack in the Lens, I can honestly say, is not a book I liked.

It is a book I LOVED.

(MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. READER BEWARE.)

Sherlock Holmes is seventeen in this novel and has just returned to Mycroft Manor after spending two years in France, recovering from an illness and building up his physical strength by learning fencing and boxing.  When he is back at the manor, his father, Squire Holmes, doesn't let him dillydally for long,  He gets him a math tutor, because he expects his youngest son to go to university and become an engineer.  I should have seen it coming.  I really should have.  But I didn't until I read the father telling Young Sherlock Holmes (sorry, had to get that movie title in,) that his new tutor "wrote a treatise on the binomial theorum," and my mouth dropped open.  Because who, as a Sherlock Holmes fan, doesn't know who wrote that treatise?  Of course, it is the one and only Professor James Moriarty.

Holmes and Moriarty clash, but Moriarty wins over everyone else in the household and is able, throughout the novel, to completely discredit Sherlock to his father.

But that's only part of it.  Sherlock, while riding on the moors, meets a young woman named Violet Rushdale, who works on the land that the squire has.  They fall in love, but I won't give too much away about that.

I got a slightly earlier edition of this novel, straight from Ms Cypser, for which I'm very grateful.  One thing I noticed with this edition, though, aside from the occasional missed quote at the beginning or end of a line, and (I admit, this is just what I'm used to, others may feel differently,) the non-italics French lines within the novel.  It was just odd to see something in French not written like this.  Anyway, I noticed not misspellings, but extra words added into the lines at times.  This isn't a direct quote from the book, but an example would be something like as follows:

"Sherlock mounted his horse again and as he as galloped across the moor..."

That extra 'as.'  There were quite a few examples of things like that throughout the book and as a reader, it threw me a bit.

Again, though, this is a slightly earlier edition, so perhaps Ms Cypser went through and checked/corrected these things.

Anyway, this novel, in anyone else's hands, probably would have been a horrible mess.  But Ms Cypser handles it with care, knowledge, and excellence.  It truly is a story about Holmes's character being forged through fire, so to speak.  The kind of character Sherlock Holmes is is not created easily or pleasantly.  And this book deals with those issues with absolute excellence.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in Sherlock Holmes, and anyone interested in quality literature.  I, for one, can't wait for the trilogy sequel.  :)

Being a Published Author

I know I said my next entry was going to be about Darlene Cypser's book, The Crack in the Lens, but I'm not done reading it yet.  However, I am immensely enjoying the experience.

I've been writing fairly steadily since I was fourteen.  The writing bug first bit me during my freshman year of high school.  You see, from the time I was four, I wanted to be an actress.  One day, during freshman year, though, I was cleaning my room, and I found a notebook in my closet.  When I opened it, I saw about two pages' worth of a story I'd begun, probably around the time I was ten.  It was about a young girl, trapped in a warehouse, with a deformed (we're talking deformed, like Phantom of the Opera has nothing on this guy's ugliness,) monster closing in on her.  A policeman showed up and shot the monster.

I was intrigued by what I honestly didn't remember writing until I found it in that closet and I decided I would continue it and actually make a novel out of it.  I wrote on this thing all through freshman year, and it wasn't until the summer that I reread what I'd written and discovered one very important thing . . .  It had absolutely no plot whatsoever!  But I was bitten by the writing bug.

My sophomore year was when I wrote my first young adult novel, and though it has yet to be published, I'll get there one day.  I have about forty ideas for different young adult novels, in addition to my five book Holmes series, the short story Holmes book I want to write, and the stand alone Holmes novel I came up with that is my own explanation for where he was during the Great Hiatus.

Anyway, one thing that I've noticed now that I'm actually a published author is that I'm taking a lot more notice of the books I read, especially when they concern our favorite detective.  I'm a lot more observant with how things are written and I find that's incorporating itself into my writing.  I'm more conscious of the vocabulary used, when something sounds "Holmes-ish," how well the story is told, and when things are informative yet largely unnecessary, or have a larger purpose in the grand sweep of the story.

And once again, I'm being interrupted by my temperamental little parrot who refuses to just quietly sit on my shoulder . . .  I'll come back to this as soon as I can, because I do have other thoughts on it.