Random 13th - Books

First off, my thoughts and prayers go out to Japan (and every other place touched by recent earthquakes). I only have one acquaintance there; she is safe and her blog is very interesting.

So at the Tucson Festival of Books, in at least a couple panels, discussions arose about what books influenced the authors. It was fun to hear what books children's book authors Grace Lin and Candace Fleming used to love. Grace Lin cited the Anne of Green Gables series on two separate occasions; she said she wished the books went on longer because Anne was so real. Candace Fleming loved "The Witch of Blackbird Pond" and "Island of the Blue Dolphins," but her favorite was "Misty of Chincoteague"--she even got a signed first edition with Misty's hoofprint (!) in it. She also reminisced about the old Scholastic Book Club days, when they used to have real quality books you could order. I think I remember those days. Now I feel old, but I DO remember most of the books they mentioned. (Then Louis Sachar went and had a grown-up answer that he didn't really enjoy reading until high school, when he got into J.D. Salinger and Kurt Vonnegut. Oh well. I liked "Wayside School" when I was a kid anyway.)

What about me? Three that influenced me:

The Little House Series: I think I've always been interested in other cultures/technology levels, and that series has it all over. Also a very light touch on the romance (I hated the very thought of romantic threads in books when I was a little girl!). I've read them a ridiculous number of times; I'm the type that likes to reread books. I'm pretty sure if I went back and read them with a more critical eye they might not be quite as good as I remembered. But then again, I re-read "The Long Winter" (my least favorite as a child, unless you count "The First Four Years") fairly recently, and it held up pretty well, I thought. Though, it's my understanding that kids today aren't at all interested in pioneers anymore. I've even heard it argued that due to the prevalence of electronics, they can't even find that world interesting anymore. I think that's sad.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Honestly, I think it would be a pretty unusual Christian fantasy writer who doesn't at least kind of like them, and I REALLY like them, still. I was fairly young, sleeping in a cousin's bedroom (I think) at my aunt and uncle's house, when I discovered "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." I stayed up late reading and was absolutely enchanted with the whole idea, though I'm not sure I picked up on the Christian allegory just then. I checked out all the rest of the books from the library and read them multiple times before we finally bought a boxed set for the family. I actually read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" more critically before the movie came out, and it wasn't quite as good as I remembered...I think I found a typo or something, though given how many printings the book has had, that could've been the publisher's fault. If I recall correctly, I think the others have held up pretty well, though. I'm sure they gave me a push toward writing about other worlds.

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH: I think I actually read this one AFTER the cartoon Rescue Rangers came out, though I imagine I've always been interested in tiny parallel societies and the like. Anyway, it's a fascinating exciting story AND has little mice behaving like people. I adored it, even though the ending was bittersweet. (The movie adds a lot of magic that I didn't care for; I thought their world was interesting enough.)

Robert C. O'Brien also wrote "Z for Zachariah," which I believe is a YA novel, but awfully dark--in some ways even darker than "Hunger Games," I'd say (maybe not moreso than the sequels, which I haven't read). Not a bad book, but I'm really glad I didn't read it until I was an adult!

Flashback Friday - Daylight Saving Time - March 11, 1921

I don't personally like Daylight Saving Time because it makes me horribly jetlagged if I visit the East Coast. Timeanddate.com has a comprehensive rundown of Arizona's history with DST.

General history:

'An Act to preserve daylight and provide standard time for the United States' was enacted on March 19, 1918. It both established standard time zones and set summer DST to begin on March 31, 1918. Daylight Saving Time was observed for seven months in 1918 and 1919. After the War ended, the law proved so unpopular (mostly because people rose earlier and went to bed earlier than people do today) that it was repealed in 1919 with a Congressional override of President Wilson's veto. Daylight Saving Time became a local option, and was continued in a few states, such as Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and in some cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago.

--Webexhibits.org

This is an older article from January 1921, but I thought it was appropriate here:

DAYLIGHT SAVING REPEAL.

Mr. Betts Wants to Save the State "Annoyance" of Two Times.

To the Editor of The New York Times:

--The New York Times, January 29, 1921

New York State actually DID repeal DST, much to the New York Times' dismay:

MILLER SIGNS REPEAL OF DAYLIGHT SAVING

This City Unaffected, Though Clocks May Not Change Until April 24.

Special to The New York Times.

--The New York Times, March 12, 1921

This article rather biased. It came from a sort of column; I hope it was considered editorial.

The People's Will Is Defied.

--The New York Times, March 12, 1921

RAILROADS PERPLEXED OVER 2 KINDS OF TIME

New York Central Warns Commuters Their Daily Schedules Are Likely to Be Upset

--The New York Times, March 6, 1921

So why all the fuss anyway? National DST was repealed by Congress in 1919. The primary source articles I saw all claim that DST was now for the benefit of recreation, etc, but secondary ones claim that New York kept it to be closer to London for more arbitrage (or to gravely oversimplify, I think more hours of trading between different markets).'

At this point, the whole country was a mish-mash of areas that did and did not observe DST, and it wasn't until mid-March that New York even ruled on when DST would start:

DAYLIGHT SAVING PASSED FOR CITY

New Ordinance Provides for Change of Clocks on April 24 and Sept. 25.


--The New York Times, March 16, 1921

Eventually, World War II brought "War Time."

I had no idea that between 1966 and 1986 (excepting 1974 and part of 1975), Daylight Saving Time started the LAST Sunday of April and ended the last Sunday of October. For much of my life, I remember when it started the FIRST Sunday of April. And of course, in 2007 it got stretched out about another month, to start this weekend!

Snopes has a rundown of the whole affair.

At any rate, overall, my window to travel to the East Coast without getting horribly jetlagged continues to shrink...

*All articles except quote from Webexhibits.org believed to be public domain per US law.

Writing Wednesday - Too Much Tension?

So most advice I see nowadays says to make sure you include conflict in every page, end every scene or chapter with a cliff-hanger, and end most or even all scenes with things getting increasingly worse for your characters. That can make a gripping page-turner (Hunger Games, some romances). But I think it has potential to get dull and predictable, and/or to be ridiculous.

Spoiler alert if you watched ABC Tuesday night about 3 weeks ago.

Now, I may have misunderstood this scene, seeing as I didn't even make it through the actual pilot episode of this superhero show, and haven't seen a full episode since. But I tuned in about 10 minutes before the end, and saw a shape-shifter (in the form of Hero) fighting with Hero in Hero's home. After a long fight, one of them finally goes down.

Some time later, Wife of Hero comes in the door. (At least, from the little I've seen of the show, that's what she seems to be primarily--not so much the Heroine.) Anyway, Wife sees Hero on the ground, apparently dead, and starts crying over her dead husband. Eventually Hero comes out FROM UPSTAIRS and explains that no, he's alive, don't be sad, etc.

I know television men are not much for cleaning up, but seriously, Hero, the polite thing to do would at LEAST be to leave your wife a note! "Sorry, honey; killed shapeshifter in living room. Will clean up later. Love, Hero." Even better would be to clean up the body, or at least be in the same room so your wife doesn't think you're dead.

If I saw that scene correctly, that was a trademark example of when supposedly "increasing the tension" is just plain gratuitous and silly.

In the show that followed, the female lead's long-lost divorced or separated husband finally returned to her life. After about 3 episodes, the pair were rekindling their love, it looked like they were going to be a family again, etc.

Right then, I figured lead's ex was not long for this world. Sure enough, by the end of the episode he was full of bullets (and yes, really dead...to date, anyway; characters on that show tend to rise again...).

So in that case, following the plan of "how can we make things worse for the characters" actually led to a certain predictability. I even found that true somewhat in Hunger Games, where you knew things just HAD to get worse, to the point where I got somewhat jaded to the horrors. As a Christian, I don't like when that happens.

Now, in fairness, most advice saying you should have "conflict" on every page specifies that by "conflict" they don't necessarily mean violence. But I don't know...one of the reasons I read (and write!) is to feel and share joy, and I feel like lately there's a really heavy focus on the drama and angst, with very little joy and wonder. Can't there be a balance? Of things I've read that were written fairly recently, I'd say maybe the first few Harry Potter books achieve this--the joy and wonder of the wizarding world coupled with some darkness. Romance novels can sometimes pull it off (again, I haven't read many, but they can couple horrific danger with the wonder of meeting one's soul-mate).

I don't know. Tough call. Do you think writers can take "tension" and "conflict" too far?

Media Monday - Review - The Gunman's Bride - Catherine Palmer

So here's my little review of the first book (of 4) that I won from Love Inspired's Historical line. Bear in mind that have read fewer than 10 romance novels in my life, and this is only the second "category" romance. I actually don't think I'm quite the target audience for Love Inspired--I honestly don't really have a desire to read roughly one romance novel a week....

And yes, I freely admit, what drew me to this novel was primarily a) the word "gunman" and b) the train on the cover, with a dash of c) pretty dress (I'm no expert on Victorian fashion so I'm hard-pressed to discern the accuracy).

Back cover:

They were running from the past...and looking for a new beginning

Bart Kingsley had followed her to New Mexico, ready to lay his love--and his life--on the line. But spirited Laura Rose had made a fresh start for herself. She hadn't left her controlling father in Kansas to let some gun-slinging outlaw ruin her hopes--no matter what scandalous past they shared six years ago. Or how his green eyes beckoned!

Rosie was his light in the darkness--Bart would do anything to win back her trust. But he was a wanted man. Would the past, with its dangerous demands and debts, conspire to destroy their new beginning? Or would his faith in God--and in Rosie--be rewarded?

The majority of the conflicts can be summed up by Bart's line: "It's not other people who come between us, Rosie. It's us. We keep tearing this thing apart. Why? Why do we do that?"

So if you love romances based around misunderstandings and distrust, this is your kind of book.

2 things I liked:

*The male lead is actually half-blooded Native American. (I do think it's a bit sad that of the books I won, it's the only one that doesn't depict the male lead, which makes me wonder if they worry about what their audience might think about a non-white male lead...)

*I was surprised to find that quite a few minor characters were based on or inspired by historical figures--there was more research here than I'd expected.

2 things I found a touch peculiar:

*At one point in the book there are numerous wanted posters for our green-eyed, half-blooded Native American hero Bart. I would have thought the townspeople would instantly recognize Bart from the description, but they didn't seem to. So I would've liked to see that issue more clearly addressed. Were men with those features actually fairly common in 1880s New Mexico? Or were the townspeople going easy on Bart and I missed it?

*Bart's obsession with Rosie's feet made me squirm (mercifully, that obsession seems to wane). Now, in fairness, I do believe the legs were considered indecent in Victorian times (I've even heard that instead of saying "leg" they would have to say "limb" or "extremity" to be proper!). But that doesn't mean I didn't find it uncomfortable.

1 more thing I liked:
*Bart's literal answer to Rosie's prayer near the end, which hearkened back to the very beginning of the book with the near-climax, made me laugh out loud in delight. Given that I'm not huge on romances, that was pretty good.



*FTC disclosure--I WON this book and didn't pay a thing for it, not even shipping. Though I still try not to pull my punches.