Melodrama's so much fun.

It's funny.  I wanted to create drama and tension in the story, but now that I'm in the last few chapters, it's almost like there is too much drama.

I think that's called melodrama.

I mean, it's better to have too much than too little, in the sense that it's probably easier to tone it down than it is to artificially insert drama.  It means the story is working, actually.  I've got all these characters doing all these dramatic things, saying all these dramatic things, because I've been trying to lead the story to a climax, so I guess that's what happens when you do it right.  The wider stream is narrowing and becoming more intense.

I can be try to be more subtle and oblique in the rewrite.

Melodrama to me is when the emotions don't ring true, so I'm hoping that these sentiments aren't phony but a natural consequence of the actions the characters have taken.

So it just has to be handled right.  Not removed, just done with taste.

I'm worried about the main human bad guy.  For me, just about anything the Vampires do is O.K.  They almost can't be too villainous -- they're Vampires!  (These are also the most fun chapters to write.  I've even added in a few scenes, because I like their responses to everything.)

But the worst villain in the book is an abusive corrupt cop ex-boyfriend, and even though I've tried to write about him from inside out -- that is, with his justifications and rationalizations intact --  he is still a pretty bad guy.  So...that needs to be worked on, a little.  Not sure.

Now that it's getting to the final confrontation, just about everything he says is despicable.



I had two really hard tricks to pull off in this story. ( 1.)  Making the main vampire repent and turn into a good guy, even though he commits murder at the beginning.  To make that believable.  He needs to be redeemed.   I drive him down, down, down, and he continues to react in good ways.

And (2.) have the sister of the victim forgive him.  Despite her knowing he committed the murder.
To have a religious response to a repentant, who has obviously paid for his crimes and is willing to pay the ultimate price.

Part of the trick is to have the ex-boyfriend be even worse, in comparison.

But I don't want him twirling his mustache...



I'm at 50K words and rounding into the final stretch.

I'm forcing myself to slow down a little, get these last chapters right, spend a little more time thinking about them.  I've worked out everything but the final battle.  I mean, I know there will be final battle, but I haven't planned it out yet.  Like blocking out a fight scene.

But I have faith my subconscious is already working on it.

Why Write?

Why write, if not for money or ego?

I've been asking myself this question a lot lately. 

For me, writing a book is strangely like reading a book.  I'm discovering the story just as a reader would.  It's a slow-motion read, if you will.  Obviously, it's the kind of book I'd like to read. 

I've always had trouble reading books at the same time I'm writing them.  My comics and book consumption have dwindled to a trickle in the last six months, as my writing has accelerated.

Reading and writing occupy the same place in my brain, somehow.

I feel a rush when something inspirational comes along.  A creative euphoria.  That counts for a lot.
There is some part of my being that is being explored, utilized, that I think is healthy for my overall mood, my approach to life.

Writing takes myself out of myself, which for me is a good thing.  It turns my obsessions and compulsions in a healthy direction. 

Writing has produced all kinds of unintended consequences.  I know people through writing I wouldn't know otherwise. 

I met Linda at a writer's group 29 years ago, and we're still on the same wavelength when it comes to writing.  It is something we have in common, that we can share and help each other with. 

I also ended up at Pegasus Books because of writing.  It gave me the confidence to go in, to talk writing with Mike, and gave me credibility in his eyes.

I started writing the blog because, well, I just wanted to express myself.  I love playing with words and phrases, love seeing what comes out on the screen.  But I've also 'met' a lot of interesting people through my blog.

And there is the not inconsiderable sense of accomplishment when I finish a book. 


Now -- about that money and ego. 

I'm at a point in my life where neither are as important as they used to be.  I can write without them.

But, and this is important, I do need at least the smallest possibility that someone somewhere someday will read my efforts.  Just the chance.  Which the internet provides.

When I quit writing 30 years ago, it was because I needed use my time and energy to make a living.  The way I was writing was difficult with the old technologies.  I felt stymied by the publishing industry.  Not just that they wouldn't publish everything I wrote, but because it was such a slow painful and seemingly arbitrary process. 

But mostly I stopped writing because my manuscripts were ending up in a cedar chest.  Lonely and forgotten.  I couldn't stand that.


So, yes, there are plenty of reasons to write besides money and ego.

But at the same time, I need to know that the books won't just end up in a landfill someday.

Always writing a different book.

Pushing through to the end of the book.  I'm at about 46K words, and I'm thinking it'll be about 60K when I'm done.  More or less the same as THE RELUCTANT WIZARD and FREEDY FILKINS, INTERNATIONAL JEWEL THIEF.

NEARLY HUMAN is 120K.  Twice as long.

These short novels seems to be my comfort zone.  Write a book quick, get down that sense of who the characters are and what the story is before it dissipates. 

Usually, I have to go back and fill in a little.  With FREEDY it wasn't necessary.  I was trying for a quick comfortable read.

With LAST DAYS OF THE IMMORTAL I'm attempting a little more emotional depth, so I think I'll need to spend some time making sure I get that right.

With THE RELUCTANT WIZARD,  I need to spend more time on world-building.  Which I can accomplish by writing a trilogy, and then making sure all the elements are consistent.

I don't know why I'm inclined to write something completely different every time.  I mean, after all the effort at world-building I put into NEARLY HUMAN it would make sense to write another book in that world.  Same with all the books.

But when it comes time to write another book, I always go off in other directions. I don't even stick to the same genres.  I've got an incomplete mystery, an incomplete post-holocaust, a fantasy, a horror, another horror, an modern adventure, and so on and so forth.  

This isn't commercially smart.  It isn't creating a brand.

But it isn't like it matters.

Oh, did I mention?

Oh, did I mention I have Freedy Filkins up for sale?

I did?

Nevermind.

Back to burying my head in writing.

FREEDY FILKINS IS FOR SALE!!!

Aaron came over tonight and we got the cover to Freedy ready.  We already had the text uploaded.

So what the heck.  I just went ahead and uploaded it.

I'm leaving the story on this blog, in parts and backward as it is.  So it's still free.  

If you enjoyed this story, and I hope you did, please click here to buy.  Thanks for reading!

Hey, Someone buy this.  I can't really tell if it's available.  I'll reimburse ya.

An embarrassing fecundity.

This has been such a productive writing session, that I've arranged to get the rest of the week off so I can continue writing.  I'll probably be done with the first draft by the end.   (Nine days or so.)  I'm nearly 3/4th of the way already.

Strike while the inspiration is hot.

Then I'm going to set the manuscript aside for a couple of weeks, come back to it fresh, and see if anything calls out to me to be changed.  Not with any thought of imposing ideas from the outside, but finding the art where it is.

I've been thinking quite a bit about what this all means.  This profligacy. This embarrassing fecundity.  As I mentioned a few weeks ago, "If a book isn't read, does it really exist?"

I've decided that all books are read to a greater or lessor extent -- whether it's the one reader (the author) or the multitudes.  All books have their highs and lows throughout the history of their existence. 

I used to think that writing for my own sake wasn't enough.

I still don't.

I need just the slightest possibility, the wispyist hint that someone, somewhere might read it someday somehow.

I don't need much.

Why that makes a difference, I don't know.

So the online option is all I needed to open the floodgates, apparently.

I'm not sure how I'll respond when reality hits.  Hopefully, I'll keep writing with the above "wispyist hints' still intact.

Writing as sculpting, not painting.

Watching a documentary about art (The Story of Film) may not be the smartest thing to do while writing.

It makes me doubt the "art" of what I'm doing.  I'm telling a story.  I'm telling it the best I can.

I've been thinking a lot about why this newest book is so much easier and more satisfying than my first book (after coming back to writing.)  In fact, each book has gotten easier and more satisfying as I blend work habits with my creativity.

I've been explaining it as "heart" versus "head."  Which is not a bad explanation. 

It's also a matter of "inside" versus "outside."  (Which may be saying the same thing.)

I wrote the original story of NEARLY HUMAN with a concept in mind.  I thought about what elements I wanted to include.  When I was done with the basic story, I kept thinking of things I needed to add.

All of this was an attempt to impose layers of meaning on the story.

From the outside, with certain pre-set conditions.

Since THE RELUCTANT WIZARD, I've been approaching writing differently -- more like I did 30 years ago.

I write from the standpoint of "story."  But more to the point, from the inside out.

Imagine if you will, that the words on the page represent the book, like a painting.  What an outside-in approach would be is to add words, or take out words, or mix the order of words from a outside perspective, like adding layers of paint.  The story is constructed of elements.

Imagine instead that there is some kind chisel that I'm chipping away layers of meaning from underneath the story, that the story comes from under the words.  That it comes naturally, as if the story already exists.

You can tell which approach I prefer.

Watching The Story Of Film.

I'm netflixing my way through a documentary series called, The Story of Film.

It's kind of quirky.

The narrator/writer is a Scottish guy, who if you close your eyes and think "German", you'd swear was Werner Herzog because of the measured way he talks.  (How Scottish can sound German is a mystery...)  So that's a little distracting.

He seemed determined to include all the world cinema in his series.  So sometimes it's seems a little bit of a reach.  He can't quite ignore Hollywood, though it seems like he wants to.  Many of the directors from around the world end up there, afterall.

To his credit, he says right at the opening sequence that he's interested in the art not the commerce of film.  But he's definitely got a love hate relationship with Hollywood.

He uses a lot of street corners and traffic and empty buildings as background, which sometimes seems very tangentially connected to what he's saying. Some kind of thematic symbolism that is not always apparent to me.  (Not sure why he couldn't use a constant stream of movies in the background, though the empty street corners do have a way of making me concentrate on what he's saying.)

His interviews also are pretty odd.  He interviews some very odd people -- like the daughter of an important players best friend or something.  What the interviewee is saying often isn't the point the point he seems to be trying to make.  And, something that's kind of funny, they often seemed annoyed by his questions.

There is a certain lack of awareness of irony in some of what he says versus the interviews.  For instance, he'll talk about 'leftist cant' in French cinema, and yet seems unaware that his narration is full of the same thing. 

There's a funny leftist cant/politically correct aspect (see above about "world" cinema at all costs).  For instance, when talking about the movie 'Napoleon' he throws in this howler about how the invasion of Italy was "a completely illegal act" (I'm paraphrasing.) 

Well, for goodness sake.  It's Napoleon!!

There are a couple of important redeeming characteristics, though.

One, is he really does do a good job of working his way through the important events and directors and studios.

Secondly, he says something pretty thought provoking about every five minutes or so -- which is about ten times more often than most documentaries these days.

They are full hour long episodes, not the forty minute variety, which makes them seem long, and thick, and interesting and thought-provoking, so the quirks become something almost endearing.

The dark horse contender.

I'm officially unAmerican and going to skip the Super Bowl.  When did that happen?

I'm still in the honeymoon phase with my new vampire story.  Turns out, with an outline I write even faster!  Less time wasted trying to work out the logistics of the next step, I guess.  So I'm now about 2/3rds of the way through.  A very productive day yesterday -- three chapters.  Read them to Linda, and she really liked them.  I think I'm on track.

The end of the book is beckoning to me.

I'm liking this book so much, I now thinking about making it my lead effort.

It's the dark horse, coming around the bend, surging to the lead. 

The other books all have problems.  I've detailed how much I've struggled with NEARLY HUMAN.  As much as I enjoyed writing FREEDY FILKINS, it's kind of a gimmick -- a strange mix.  DEVILTREE is readable, but I wrote it 30 years ago and I think I'm a better writer now.  THE RELUCTANT WIZARD is probably the second most consistent book, but I want to develop that world a little more.

The question is -- given the fact that most people are only going to give me that first try, are any of these books something I feel comfortable with?  I mean, they all have value, but I think I'd like to try to start with my best effort first. 

LAST DAYS OF THE IMMORTAL is what it is -- a vampire story.  It accomplishes what it's supposed to accomplish.  It has all the right elements in all the right places.

I think it has a strong lead in, which hasn't had to be worked over too much.

I like the characters and the plot, and I think the themes are deep enough to be interesting.  I don't have an particularly sparse places (where I always think I'll fill in later) nor clunky places (where I pushed ahead and wrote even though I wasn't very inspired.) I think the writing is loose and plotting is tight. 


I'm thinking about changing the title, though.  As much as I like LAST DAYS OF THE IMMORTAL, it doesn't trip off the tongue.

I've thought of RULES OF VAMPIRES as a title.  I'm thinking how it would look on the booklists, with the cover and title.  Martha was saying she wasn't into vampires but might read a book with the previous title -- but, here's the thing -- if she didn't know me, she would find out even before reading the book that it was about vampires.

I can also visualize a photoshoped cover to RULES OF VAMPIRES, which is no small thing.

Decisions, decisions.

I'll probably be finishing this book about the same time I would have been ready to post the other books.  So, to be safe and give myself a little time to go over it again, it might delay my first online effort for another couple of weeks or month.

I may have second thoughts, but I don't think so.  Usually I have a nagging suspicion that somethings not working, and I don't have that feeling with the book.  I'm having the opposite feeling -- that this book was meant to be and meant to be as it is written.

Critical darlings that don't sell -- but should.

I was looking at the top ten graphic novel list on Slate and realizing that I have only 4 of them on my shelves.  Which I don't like.  I'd prefer to have all of them, or at least a majority.

But here's the thing:  I hate saying this, really really hate it, it's lame -- but it's true.

They don't sell.

It's frustrating.

Probably the consensus book of the year is Chris Ware's 'Building Stories.'

My lone copy is sitting there forlorn, I'm pretty sure that no one has even picked it up to look at it.  (I know this, because I have another, much smaller Ware book propped against it in such a way that I'd know if it was moved.)

I haven't sold any copies of the other 3 "best" books of the year, either.

I mean, I sell dozens of Walking Dead.  I consistently sell Fables or Y-the Last Man.  Dozens of other titles.

But not the "independent art" books.

Is it me?  Is it Bend?  Is it the entire country and the idea that these books sell is some kind of myth?

I suspect, it ain't me.  Most years, I've had 8 out of 10 of the top ranked books, and --  they don't sell for me.  Year after year after year.  They get shoved into the crowded bookshelves with the previous years "best" books.

The irony is, there are so many good independent books that I no longer have room for them all, any more than I have room for every good book ever written.

I suspect it's a combination of the other two:  They don't sell all that well in the world.  When they do, an expensive book like Building Stories is probably purchased by those who really want it online at a discount.

And I suspect that Bend simply isn't the audience, for whatever reason. Not urban enough, not collegy enough.  Something like that.

It's frustrating.

I've told Andy at the Bulletin that he's currently my one brave independent reader -- which makes sense, since he's an artist.  I usually have one buyer -- sometimes none, rarely I'll even have two.

The rest are "one-ups" buying one title, usually visitors.  If it wasn't for visitors, I wouldn't be able to have an independent section at all.

It's the equivenlent of "foreign films" or "indy" films.  Lots of support in the critical community, but not much support by the public.

Or the other example I use, is the old Hollywood idea of "prestige" films, that win all the awards but make no money at the box office.

And yet, aren't these type of boundary pushers exactly the point of art? 

I bemoan that people don't understand what's really happening in the art of graphics, so I can't very well ignore them just because they don't sell.

So I try to support them as best I can, without losing so much money it hurts us severely.

It's frustrating.

Doing an outline.

I've written an broad outline for the second half of my vampire book.  This is something I don't normally do, but I felt was necessary this time to make sure that my themes are carried out.  I'll see how it works, and how closely I stick to the outline once I'm actually writing.

I prefer discovering as I'm writing, which is more fun.  But it's a hold up when I can't figure out where the plot goes next.  Usually, I have to spend some time before writing working out where the next chapter works in the overall scheme and then what that chapter is going to be like.

Having a more complete outline means much of this is already done,  more like filling in the blanks.  A certain number of words per day, and I'm done.

Still plenty of inspiration and discovery in the actual writing.  And it keeps me from writing myself into problems.

I've figured out one major change I have to make, but I think it's doable without reorganizing, which is a relief.  Meanwhile, by outlining, I'm hoping to avoid future problems.

For instance, I had the hero hiding in a cave, but once I wrote it out, I realized it made more sense plotwise to have him hiding in an abandoned house or something.  The cave was meant -- thematically -- to be the bottom and his resurrection or birth.  But I've already had him reaching bottom, hiding under a tarp and eating bugs, and the basement of a house can serve the same metaphoric meaning.

So I saved myself some logistical problems by working out the plot in advance.

I do tend to have the rest of a book vaguely outlined in my mind by this time in a book -- usually about a third to halfway in it will suddenly take shape.

I'm just being more detailed this time.

Writing like a demon.

I'm 27K words into Last Days of an Immortal.

I'm at the point in a book when I know I'm going to finish it.

I have to tell you.  I'm amazed by my own prolific-ness.   Astounded really.

What accounts for it?

I think that once the perceived roadblock of Agent/Publisher was removed, I just let loose.    Apparently there was some pent up desire there...eh?

No more waiting for permission.  No more waiting for answers.  No more waiting for someone else to 'get around to it.'

Even if you assume that so much wordage can't be all that great, it is still a prodigious amount of writing.  We're talking about something like 300 thousand words in two years --not counting this blog!

But actually, I do believe I'm getting better as I go along.  It's getting easier as I figure out my strengths and weaknesses. 

I have a scary amount of energy sometimes.  I think over the years that hangovers or sleeplessness were almost a way of self-medicating, so I didn't overwhelm everyone around me.  I'm sure many of my customers have had the experience of me talking their ears off, propounding my views.

Writing this blog every day for six years amazes some people.  Certainly it isn't a common thing.  But for me, it's just doing my thing.  Hell, I've probably written fewer posts than I could because I didn't want to wear out my welcome.

My brain sometimes just can't switch off.  I focus on one thing mono-maniacally.

So if I turn that to writing, watch out!

I don't know.  Maybe it won't last.

But I'm on my fourth book since coming back to writing, and each successful completion just reinforces the next effort.  At the very least, I'm enjoying myself.

There is still the ultimate test of getting it out there.  That's why I put FREEDY FILKINS on my blog, because I was tired of waiting.  It's my easiest effort so far -- most of the other stuff is more ambitious.  But I liked it, so I stand by it.

I'm sure there is much rejection and ignoring me yet to come.  But until then, I'm writing like a demon.

Pioneers of Television -- junk.

Watched "Pioneers of Television:  Superheroes" the other night.

It was junk.  Thin gruel. 

First of all, though there is an ironic nostalgia for Batman and Hulk and Wonder Woman nowadays, it was junk at the time.  Even my 12 year old self was utterly appalled by Batman.  What a let down!

But what I hated most was the condescending attitude toward comics themselves.  There was no one on that show that really knew anything about comiics.

How hard would it be to get someone who knows his stuff?  Instead of actors that don't know nothin'?  (Ego-maniac actors,at that.)

Most shows about comics seem to be produced by people who know nothing about comics and what's really happening, then and now.  Even Kevin Smith -- I can tell you that my shop in no way resembles his show.  Not just that I'm not that funny -- but the values and priorities are all wrong.  I wouldn't last a month with that approach -- if I didn't shoot myself first.

I know, I know -- it's supposed to be entertainment.  But I don't think it needs to be dumbed down quite so much.

I think what's really happening with comics is so much more interesting. 

"Restaurant Crazy."

As the Bulletin mentioned this morning, the Huffington Post has a list of the most "Restaurant Crazy" metro areas in the U.S. and Bend comes in third, per capita.  (More than New York or San Francisco.)

In some ways, this isn't surprising.  We are a tourist town, don't ever think otherwise.  I bet we'd get similar results from overnight lodging per capita.

But I've always maintained that we are completely over-retailed in almost all areas of the economy.  I think people move here and can't find a commiserate level of living and start their own businesses.  Or they come from a metro area that they mistakenly think is similar to Bend and decide we need more of 'that', whatever 'that' is.

Unfortunately, Bend can be misleading.  The very opportunity that being a destination tourist area provides, also has its downsides.  We're very seasonal.  Our base level of support is probably less than most places, our outside level of support is more.

Anyone who wants to open in Bend should have to try to be open the last week of January, for instance.  This week has been horrid.  I'm going to beat last year this month, but only by a little -- because of the last three days.  Bendites come in, and well -- they're broke and they say so.

There's a new book out, "Pound Foolish" by Helaine Olen, and I saw her interviewed on C-span, and she made the case that the reason most bankruptcies occur are 1.) Medical bills...and 2.) Starting a business.

I once tried to talk a woman out of opening a business, and she accused me of "stomping on her dream."  Last I saw her, she had declared bankruptcy, but worse, the rest of her life was also in a downward spiral.

I mean, I love owning a business, but I've always been fairly modest in my goals.  Hopefully, a living.  Control of my fate.  A pleasant place to work. 

But I'd be leery of recommending it to most people.

The economy is trundling along.

If you had talked to me about my business in the late 1990's, you'd have thought I was a real pessimist.  Then again,  I was paying out 40% of gross profits in interest and principle payments on my debts at the time, so pessimism was called for.  As soon as I got the debt paid off, everything changed.

 If you'd talked to me about housing in mid-2000's  you'd have thought I was a real doomster about the economy.  The housing bubble was so clear to me, that I dug down and prepared for the coming collapse.

But you know what?  Actually, I'm kind of an optimist most times.  I just think that I don't try to kid myself when things are bad. 

Anyway, my overall feeling about the economy is that we're moving more and more away from the 'end of the world' scenarios. 

Look -- our economy is a mess.  Always was and always will be.  You will have no problem at all finding evidence for that.

But is it more likely to keep trundling along or to completely collapse?

My instinct is that we're back to trundling along, which is the 'reverting to mean' position we're in 90% of the time.

Not great, not bad.  Just there.

Barnes and Noble, bleeding slowly to death.

Barnes and Noble is planning to close over 200 stores in the next decade, about one third of their existing stores.

But they're, like, totally committed to brick and mortars, whatever makes you think different?

As someone else pointed out, this is the "best case" scenario.  In other words, they is what they PLAN on doing.  Why would they announce closing MORE stores than they plan?


As I mentioned, I'm not in the business of cheering the demise of others.  Not so much that I care about Barnes and Noble, but a lot of people work there and they don't deserve to lose their jobs.


Still, I don't understand this business model of doing your very best to make yourself obsolete.

In the early 1990's, 85% of my sales were sports cards.  But sooner than most shops, I realized that cards had nowhere to go but down, so I started to exit the business.  I couldn't just stop, that would have been disastrous.  I had to keep up a certain level of support throughout the decline, as I looked for things to replace cards.

But I'll always remember the vast sense of relief I got in the late 1990's when I finally spontaneously and genuinely responded to a customer's complaint by saying,  "I'm not a card shop.  I'm a shop that carries cards."

However, I was still in business, I just switched what I was selling.

In B & N's case, they are simply taking out the stores....

So how's that work?

Arguing to save my tooth.

Going in for a root canal update.  They said something about if the hole under my tooth shrinks and heals, they could save the tooth.  If not, they'd have to remove it.

The infection never went away completely, though. I'm going to argue for more time and more antibiotics to give it time to heal.

Not that ever arguing with a dentist or a doctor does any good.

**********

UPDATE:  15 minutes in and out.  Apparently, the point is to let it heal, see if the bone can regenerate; and it may take up to 2 or 3 months.

Especially since there is no pain.

That's a relief.

Who's writing this book? Me or my subconscious?

I'm at the "falling in love with the book" phase.  Doubts have been banished.  All I see are the possibilities.

This Vampire story is getting thematically deeper than I expected.  I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "deep" but it is deeper than I'd originally planned.  The subconscious has thrown me a plot that may be beyond my abilities to fully exploit, but I'm going to try.

I'm still writing swiftly, but I've decided to go back and give it a rewrite.  Not just post it on my blog the way I'd planned.   I think it deserves more of an effort.

(Not that FREEDY wasn't worth the effort, it was just a complete story the way it was...)

Having figured out the overall direction to the end of the book was a big relief.  I wasn't sure I had an ending, but now it's pretty clear in a dim way.


Oh, oh.  An unexpected plot development.  It really throws the rest of the book into a different direction.  Do I dare ignore it?  It seems so obvious!  (When I read the chapter to Linda, she immediately picked up the plot development, which probably means most readers will.  Dare I defy that?)


Other than that, I now have the book fully thought out.

There comes a time in every book when I know I'm going to finish it.

There comes a time in every book where I wish my vision of the story was already completed.  It's as if I have a canvass and I've sketched in the entire surface, and now comes the hard work of painting it inch by inch.   I have the vision fully in my head -- but it's a vision that will be hard to match in reality

"Do that," I tell myself.  "Let it come out the way I want it to."

I have two very difficult things yet to accomplish.  I have to portray the main character's 'conversion' in a believable manner.  And I have to show the main female protagonist's forgiveness in a believable manner.

Everything else works fine.  But those two plot developments are essential to the story working. They are also the hardest things to pull off convincingly.

That's where most of the rewriting will be focused, I suspect.  Pulling off those two narrative tricks.



Later in the day:  I wrote the 'conversion' chapter, and I think it works.  I didn't think I could pull that off, but my subconscious apparently had the solution.

Who's writing this book?  Me or my subconscious?

How did religion get in here?

So there I was, driving my hero into worser and worser straits, one damn thing after another.

And up pops religion.  Now...I'm not very religious, but if you put any credence into vampires, they are all about religion.  They are the damned, the unforgiven, the unrepentant. 

Trading their souls for immortality.

Holy Water, Crosses, Sanctified Ground.

Of course, you can write vampires without these weaknesses.  But since I'm writing a story about redemption and forgiveness, the religious aspect becomes almost automatic.

So once I embraced that concept the rest of the plot became clear.

I needed for the female hero to forgive the male hero for a horrible crime, but if I make the female "sweetly religious" -- as I put it -- it becomes more likely.  If I put the hero through hell before he earns his redemption, then that works too.

So I have to use religious iconography even though I never intended the story to be religious.  Hopefully, not overly so.  Hopefully, it will still be read as a vampire story, not a religious story.  I guess all stories have elements of religion when you get right down to it.

Linda's comment was:  "There's religious, and then there's religious."

Still -- a surprising place to find myself.  And it adds hopefully a little depth.  At least an unexpected dimension.

Style is taking chances.

I'm editing the scanned copy of Deviltree, and it's an interesting experience.

First of all, I'm engaged in the story.  Which, after all, is the most important thing.  The background is interesting, the main character is interesting. 

I'm wondering where it goes next.

How can that be?  I wrote it! 

Yeah -- 30 years ago.

I really don't remember where it goes and how it ends.  I have a vague memory of some scenes, but I don't remember the plot at all.

Whenever I'm writing, I'm wishing I could see it 'fresh', like a reader would.  Well, here's my chance.

So, I can understand how this was almost, but not-quite-there book.  Actually, I think it's good enough.  Based on my interest to keep reading.

What surprises me the most is how straightforward the writing is.  Very few stylistic flourishes.

I can think of  a couple reasons for that.  One, my mentor at the time was pretty insistent that you don't do that kind of stuff unless you know what you're doing.  So, in a sense, I was strictly by the book back then.

The very next book was full of stylistic flourishes, and it was one of the things one of the editors mentioned when they rejected it.  They said, paraphrasing, 'most fantasy is pretty straightforward these days.'

I think I can understand why I wasn't trying to be to fancy.  Style in a way is simply trying to say something in a new way; and when you try to say something in a new way, you're taking a chance that it won't work. 

I'm tempted, seeing as how the rest of the book is developed -- to go back and see if I can jazz it up a little.  I'm much more willing to take chances with language now -- if I think it works. 

But going backward isn't where I want to go -- so I'll probably accept the book the way it is and put it online.