I just wanted to give a quick report on Stella. Refer to this post if you want the beginning of the story.

Things are going splendidly. Somewhere around the beginning of January she really settled in and became a part of the family. Stella and Stuart worked out their differences and now seem to love each other. They even play together, which is something Stuart and Kramer never did.

There are still a couple of problems, such as aggressiveness toward other dogs when we're on walks. I have been shamed on the street many times by my crazy barking girl. We're working on it.

Stella_lay


I'll admit to being rather infatuated with her right now, which feels good after having some bonding issues earlier on. It bothers me to think how very close I came to giving up on her. She's turned out to be a lovely little girl.

Mick and I met online in December 1996. We met in person on January 1, 1997. The first words I said to him were "Here, drink this quick."

I handed him a plastic cup full of champagne. We've been inseparable ever since.

Mick_holly_bcon

I don't believe in fate and I don't believe in soul mates. But I do believe in Mick and I. It is all I need.

E very story has a beginning, middle, and an end, right? That's the easy part. The problem starts when you try to answer the question "Where does my story begin?"

Currently, my novel starts at the beginning of the story; that is, it starts more or less when the actual events of the story begin to unfold. This is an easy, straight forward way to get things moving. But is it the most exciting? Is it the best way to start my novel? My task is to look at my story as a whole and pinpoint the moment when
the novel will start. With so much content, that's easier said than
done.

It's not that I'm unhappy with the beginning of my novel. I'm just not
convinced it's the best possible beginning. And if I'm not convinced, how
can I convince anyone else?

The reality for every aspiring novelist (and even those who are published) is that if your novel doesn't grab the reader (in this case potential agents or editors or whoever might be in a position to get your book published) quickly, your precious pages will go nowhere. Literally nowhere.

I've heard different figures tossed around: grab me in 50 pages. grab me in 5. Hell, if the first paragraph doesn't grab me, forget it. I've heard agents say most writers should throw out the first 5 pages of their book and that's the beginning of the novel.

It's enough to drive a writer a little batty.

We all know the story of Little Red Riding Hood. Her mother fixes her a basket to bring to her grandmother. Unfortunately, grandma is gobbled by a wolf before Red gets there. In order to fool the girl into thinking grandma is alive and well, the wolf disguises himself as the old woman. When Red confronts him, he attacks her and a hunter comes and saves her.

This is the traditional way the story is told, but what if we mixed it up a little. What if it began with a chase scene between the hunter and the wolf where the wolf hides out in grandma's garden then peeks in the window and sees the old woman, thinking he'd like a good meal? (Actually this story has been told and re-told so many times I'm sure it has started this way in one rendition or another).

The answer to the question of where to begin your novel may be intuitive. It also depends to a large extent on your genre. I'm writing a mystery, so my goal is set up the crime as soon as I can. There's a lot of facts that need to be laid out as soon as possible, but if you do too much too quickly, there is a chance to confuse, or worse bore, the reader.

I wish I could give you a no-fail way to come up with your beginning, but unfortunately, I can't. Every story has it's own beginning and it's the writer's task to find out where it is. For me, it will be finding the perfect balance between action, set-up, and intrigue. Seems like it would be easier to spin straw into gold.

The lovely "E" at the top of this post is courtesy of Daily Drop Cap.

I don't mean that the cable went out during a storm or something like that. Mick and I got rid of our cable service about eight months ago, and for the most part, we haven't looked back.

On days like today, though, when a big cultural event like the Superbowl is on (it's sort of a cultural event, isn't it?) it feels kind of weird not to have cable. I don't even like football. But it would be cool to be able to turn it on for awhile, just to see what's going on. It's like that for awards shows, too, or really, any live show we can't watch live on the Internet.

Okay, it's not like I'd be watching it anyway. But I'm reminded of the Superbowl a few years ago when I was working in my bedroom office and turned on the TV just to check out the half-time show. Dude, I got to see Janet Jackson's boob. This year, there will be no such titillation.

Of course, we were invited to watch the Superbowl at a friend's house, and normally, that's where we'd be on this special day. This year, however, Mick and I are both sick and I have an assignment I have to get done by tomorrow. So alas, we will be spending the day at home, Superbowl-less. I don't even have any chips and salsa in the house, and forget the Miller Light.

The only football team I have any feelings for at all is the Philadelphia Eagles. That's because my dad grew up in Philadelphia and I was taught to like them. Since the Eagles are sadly not playing in this year's Superbowl, I am rooting for the New Orleans Saints. Why? Because I remember when I was growing up the Saints were so bad they were nicknamed the Ain'ts, and let's face it, New Orleans is a much cooler city than Indianapolis. I've been to both. I know.

Tomorrow, I will not lament my lack of cable, I will rejoice in it, for it is one less bill we have to pay. But today, I'm feeling a little lonely, a little left out. I think I'll make a run for some chips and Miller Light.

Photo by Bhaskaranaidu via Wikimedia Commons
Photo by Bhaskaranaidu via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve made mashed cauliflower before and it was delicious. However, the recipe called for so much cream and butter it could hardly be called healthy. This week’s CSA box had cauliflower in it and as soon as I saw it I knew I was going to create my own version of mashed cauliflower.

It’s so easy, and frankly, tastes a lot better than the higher calorie version I made. This recipe can easily be made vegetarian or even vegan by substituting the chicken broth with vegetable and the dairy products with non-animal products.

Ingredients
1 large head cauliflower, stem removed, roughly chopped
1 large clove garlic, chopped
1 large shallot, chopped
32 oz chicken broth
1 tbs half & half
1 tbs butter
1/2 tsp seasoned salt
Cooking spray

Bring chicken broth to a boil and add cauliflower. Cook for 5 minutes and drain. Set aside.

Spray a pan with cooking spray and over medium heat, cook garlic and shallot until soft.

Add all of the ingredients to a food processor and blend until smooth.

Serves 4

That’s all there is to it!

Even I was impressed with the way this turned out. Try it in place of mashed potatoes. It’s lighter, lower in calories, and it’s delicious!

 

Wisdom borrowed from the great Sue Grafton:

And if you'd like to see a video of a writer who looks much better just out of bed check out my friend Gretchen when she talks about where she writes:

389px-Charles_II_of_England Someone in my online class asked my why Charles II was my favorite English monarch and this is what I replied:

I suppose part of my liking for Charles II is based on childish romanticism. My first knowledge of him came from Forever Amber, which was a fictionalized and quite idealistic view of him. But even knowing what I know now about his backstairs dealings with France and his tendency toward absolutism, I think of him more as a pragmatist than a tyrant (not that the word tyrant applies in the least) and the English parliament had a much stronger role in his reign than in those of previous monarchs so he resorted to secret deals to get what he wanted on more than one occasion.

Charles was also deeply interested in science and learning and promoted it throughout his reign.

His religious tolerance is of interest but to be honest I think it goes back to his pragmatism, not his morality. His own religion, if he had it, ran mostly toward Catholicism but even in that, not too strongly. He converted to Catholicism on his deathbed but I think he would have done it a lot earlier if he truly believed religion to be an integral part of life. It may have ultimately been a means of salvation, but certainly not something to adhere to day-to-day so he waited until the last minute to convert. He kind of had a live and let live attitude, though critics would probably call him wishy-washy.

Finally, the restoration was a unique period in English history and I find the contrast between puritanism and the "merry" time that followed appealing. He was looked upon as a savior (from puritanism at least) of sorts by the English populace, and though he believed in the "Divine Right of Kings" and his rightful place on the throne, in the end, he was just a man who wanted to enjoy life and didn't mind so much if his subjects did too.

Most of you know I'm an avid user of Facebook and Twitter. I've been active on Facebook for a few years, and on Twitter for just about a year. I consider both of them important parts of my online life, though originally, for different reasons. Now I find the two are merging for me.

From the beginning, Facebook was a place for me to keep in touch with new and old friends, and I've really enjoyed it. For the most part, I only "friended" people I knew and though sometimes that meant a person I only had the vaguest memory of from high school, it was important for me to keep it free from "clutter" by only accepting requests from people I had some familiarity with.

Twitter, on the other hand, began as a place where I created new relationships, mainly publishing and writing-related. It's worked beautifully–I've made so many new friends, acquaintances, and contacts, and I've learned so much about the industry. I've said this before, and I'll say it again–if you are in any sort of field where self-promotion and contacts are important, you gotta be on Twitter. Learn to use it and use it well, because it is your friend.

Because of the different uses I had for Facebook and Twitter, I expressed myself differently on each. On Facebook I tended to post more personal, random things, because the people there knew me. On Twitter, I tried to keep it more professional, sticking mostly to writing links and sharing information. 

But after a year of creating relationships on Twitter, many of whom I've now met face-to-face or at least had conversations with, my Twitter world has intertwined with my Facebook world.  

You know what? I like it. It means the business contacts I've made on Twitter have become more personal–certainly not the same as the ones I've had for years–but I count several among my friends now. And to me, that's what social media is about: creating authentic, mutually beneficial, and yes, personal, relationships.

The only downside I can think of is that I'm a lot more careful now about what I post on Facebook. The merging relationships on Twitter and Facebook mean Holly West, writer, and Holly West, joe-schmoe, are the same and one represents the other. So although I still post a some random stuff on both sites, I'm at least cognizant of the fact that I am, hopefully, creating an audience, and that what I say, whether good or bad, has repercussions.

What about you? Do you find yourself using Twitter and Facebook differently? Has the way you interact on each of them changed over time?

First, I have to say sometimes it's harder to think of pithy blog-post titles than it is to come up with the blog post itself.

With that said, I shall continue. Come Monday, I'll be a student again, kind of. I signed up for an online course through Stanford Continuing Education. The title of the course is "The Essential Art: Making Movies in Your Reader's Mind." It's being taught by Seth Harwood, who wrote Jack Wakes Up. It was a book I enjoyed and having met Seth online and then at Bouchercon 2009 I decided his class was the one I wanted to take; I'd been toying with the idea of taking an online writing course for awhile and this just seemed to be the right time.

I have two goals for the class. The first, of course, is to enhance Diary of Bedlam with the writing techniques I hope to learn. The second is to write a short story which I plan to submit to the MWA anthology. I've never written a short story and it will be good to have Seth and my classmates as a sounding board in this endeavor. I've already got an idea for that story but as always, I'm worried about the writing of it–I wonder if there will ever come a time when I feel confident in my ability to write a given story?

What about you? Are you embarking on any new adventures in 2010? A new job or a class? Do tell!

One of the best things about being a writer is reading. I actually have "read" on my to-do list every day, and I try to do it for at least an hour (this doesn't count bedtime reading). What had previously been a leisure activity for me has now become essential.

Reading

I've read interviews with many writers who said they either don't read at all when they're writing or if they do, they don't read the genre they're writing. I can't imagine not reading while in the midst of a project, especially since I'm almost always writing. I can, however, understand how a writer would choose not to read their genre, and while I still read almost exclusively crime fiction, I've only read one historical mystery since I started writing Diary of Bedlam. I don't want another writer's voice in my head while I'm working so hard on finding my own. 

What about you? What are you reading right now? As a writer, what are your reading habits?