Book Reviews: Uncaged Books

So I'm not reviewing a book here, I'm pointing you to a book reviews outlet that just happens to be featuring me this month. You can read the magazine free online here. They didn't get quite all the details about Manifesting Destiny correct (it's Dracona, not dragona), but they still rated it 4.5 stars, so I call that a win. And there's a little interview with me in there, too. Enjoy!

The Story Behind the Story of Peter

I was given the opportunity to write an article about my inspiration for The Fall and Rise of Peter Stoller for the literary magazine upcoming4.me. Click here to read it!

Variety keeps sending me their magazine. Which is weird since my subscription lapsed in, like, August or something. And, yeah, I let it lapse. I wanted it to lapse. I'm sick of being confronted with Benedict Cumberbatch every other week, and I'm focusing more on my prose now than my screenwriting (please, God, don't let Cumberbatch write a book), and so . . . Yeah. Publishers Weekly it is.

And National Geographic. Because, you know. ::shrug::

So I was thinking about why Variety is still sending me issues. Because it's not an inexpensive magazine to produce; the trim size, the paper stock, the cover stock (I used to work in publishing, I know about the manufacturing specs for these things) . . . And yet it's probably more costly for them to lose a subscriber than it is to keep mailing me one of the thousands of magazines they make each week. Because in order to stay afloat, Variety needs advertisers. And they only get advertisers by showing they have a decent circulation—that is, a fairly large number of subscribers, which one assumes are also readers. So as long as they keep sending me magazines, they can add my number to their totals, thereby tantalizing advertisers with the notion that those adds will reach many, many readers.

Note to advertisers in Variety: I hardly ever even open the damn thing any more. I skim it sometimes, maybe? But really, it often goes directly into the recycling bin. I'm now so far outside the industry there doesn't seem to be much point.

But sure, if you want to keep sending it, be my guest . . . The kids might could use it for an art project or something . . . ???

Nah. NG is better for that kind of thing, I think.

Woody Allen Shares (a little)

I've never been a fan of Woody Allen. I'll say that up front. By which I mean, we were forced to watch Annie Hall in film school, and I didn't like it. Thought it was boring. Didn't find the relationship at all relatable, or funny, or interesting, or anything.

Then people say, "Well, have you seen Manhattan?" (A: No, but Richard Marx sings about it . . .) "Have you seen Hannah and Her Sisters?" Nope. After Annie Hall, I couldn't be bothered with any of that stuff. Because I was having it recommended to me by people who liked Annie Hall.

Now, I should perhaps mention that I did love What's Up, Tiger Lily? as a kid. But that's a different breed of animal.

Okay, and then later I tried to watch Match Point but ended up turning it off because I thought it was boring, too. Maybe I was just in the wrong frame of mind, though. I mean, I could try watching it again. I understand, of course, that there's a difference between watching (or reading) something because it's required and doing it because you really want to. And I know that reception is in part about mood and environment and just general circumstance. So, you know, it's possible I could go and even try Annie Hall again and discover it's not as awful as I remember.

Then, too, I watched Midnight in Paris during a flight to London and enjoyed it. Came home and watched it again, just to be sure it wasn't that I was fatigued the first time. But no, I really liked it. And that's receptivity again: I'm always happy when on my way to London, so then I watch a movie while on my way over, and my general good spirits color my feelings for what I'm seeing.

Anyway, that long preface finished (because I believe in being honest about my biases), I have to say I also really enjoyed this short little piece in which Woody Allen tells Esquire what he's learned. Because I'm a writer, too, and can at least relate to some of what he says. Yes, sometimes I do surprise myself when I'm writing. When it pops into my head, it's as funny and amazing to me as it is to anyone who might read or see it later. That's why you can't ask a writer where his or her ideas come from; we don't know. They spring like Athene from our skulls. (Okay, not always. But you can usually tell the difference between something that's been worked over and something that is and was magic in the making.)

Also, I never go and re-read or see something I've done. Because, like Woody, I would only find the flaws. At most I might go check one of my books to see if I can remember what happens when, or what a specific line was, but I avoid it if I can. It makes me uncomfortable to see myself on film, or read my work, or see my work performed. And it's like going backward in a way, too; one mustn't dwell on what's already done. One must continue to produce and move forward. And if I were to tangle myself up in worrying about stuff that's already out there, regretting things (or reveling in them), I'd never get loose and be able to do more.

Woody mentions the shower, and I have to say I do some of my best writing in there. Problem is, I hop out and try to go write it all down, and it's never as good as it was in my head when the hot water was streaming over me. I should have some kind of dictaphone for the shower, I guess, but that would kind of ruin it for me.

I don't know if I was born with the gift for writing. I'd like to think so. God knows I didn't get my grandparents' ability to paint or draw (my dad also draws and is a photographer as a hobby as well) . . . My grandfather was a poet, too, but I'm useless with that kind of thing. Writing is all I have. And some acting. As for the achievement side of things, I keep trying. But as Woody points out, I have very little control over what happens in my life. Same as anyone. If I wanted complete control of my writing, it would never leave my laptop. I would keep extra backup flash drives stashed all over the house or something, just to be sure I never lost any of my work. But I wouldn't share it, either. I'd hoard words like squirrels hoard nuts. And the flip side of that is, you can never achieve anything that way. At least not while you're still alive.

Fighting? I don't do it often. I discuss. I'll argue my point, but I keep my cool most of the time. I get hot on the inside, sure, but at the end of the day, I prefer equilibrium. Makes it easier to sleep. Some people love the drama; they equate it with passion. I'm passionate enough in my own way, but as for the fighting and the excessive life drama, I try to save it for my work.

Television: Showrunners in Variety

So I'm flipping through my weekly Variety, and they have all these television showrunners featured, you know, little headshots with pull quotes and what not. I find myself skimming them, stopping only to really read the ones from shows I actually watch, or used to watch, or tried to watch . . . Most of the showrunners mention how television is this great way of exploring character, etc. More so than movies because those have a limited amount of time to tell a story, whereas in TV you're trying to make it last (which sometimes also works against it, but) . . . And most of them are men, of course. But whatever.

Still, I look at Rob Doherty's little blurb about how Elementary is a big hit for CBS. And it is. But it only earned a couple Emmy noms. And Doherty's quote is: "You have to make sure you're telling a pretty intricate tale. Our cases always have to merit the attention of Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson." Which is funny because I'd say the reason they didn't get more Emmy consideration (aside from the remarkably stiff competition) is because the stories weren't good enough. They were, at the end of the day, pretty rote procedurals. Elementary needs to up the depth of its character quotient and find some deeper stories if it wants to continue to do well, I think.

Julian Fellowes of Downton Abbey fame says, "The key to almost every successful TV show is a team not pulled in different directions. If you have a small team of three, it greatly increases the same-mindedness." Put another way: Don't let anyone else have a chance. Keep your system closed. We want homogeny here.

Over in Revolution Land, showrunner Eric Kripke has this to say: "Forward momentum is everything on a show." Pretty funny coming from a guy whose show is all about his characters taking one step forward and two steps back. Maybe he meant to say the illusion of forward momentum is everything—if you can just trick the audience into believing something is happening, they might keep watching. (The Following operates under this same theory.)

I'm one to talk, of course. No one has yet picked up my television pilot, but with such a great need for content, eventually someone may be desperate enough to put it into production. And even then, I don't know if I would have the stamina to run a show indefinitely; I'd be happy enough to hand over the pilot and a bible and let it go. Weird because I can invest a lot of time and energy in characters I love, but . . . Running a television show is work beyond work. So I have to really respect these people, even when poking at them. Yes, sometimes an episode falls short, but look at how many they're doing and how quickly they're expected to turn stuff around. So kudos to them in any case, for at least keeping the ship sailing, even if not always on course.

Less Mad at You, Variety

Still hate your site, but enjoying the new format of my weekly mailing. It's too large for my bookshelves, but other than that, nicely done.

I'm Still Mad At You, Variety

Remember when I told you how your new site sucks?

Your response has been two-fold. (1) You've opted to cease publishing the daily paper version of your magazine. (2) In your final print edition you put in a little how-to for your new site.

Guess what? That didn't make things any better.

You wrote about how your redesign makes things easier. For whom? What your redesign does is make things busier and uglier. You've got three columns of varying sizes going down the page, and then those are sometimes cut across by horizontal columns . . . It's a basket-weave mishmash of information.

Oh! But I'm supposed to use these little navigation buttons at the top of the screen. Considering there's so little organization to the content of the "front page" of your site, one would think clicking over to the section one wants to read about would make things easier. But if I click on the + one thing happens, and if I double click on the text something else happens. How fun. By which I mean "obnoxious."

What about VScore? So, you know, I can get that data I used to be able to get right on the front page when I came to the site? Your how-to tells me this is where to go for ratings and such. Except when I click on it, all I get is "Coming Soon . . ." How soon is soon? Things move fast in Hollywood, and numbers are key, but apparently VScore is still waiting for a greenlight. I give it a MeScore of F.

Yes, yes, I do realize that the far right of the front page has some box office info. Some being the key qualifier here.

I'd say I'm averse to change except I'm usually quite adaptable. It's when the changes are for the worse that I get grumpy. And if I, a 30-some-year-old, finds navigating your site to be the online equivalent of hacking through a jungle with a blunt machete, I'm pretty sure the old guys in the executive suites hate it just as much if not more.

Except they probably have interns to find that info for them.

So hey, Variety: I and the interns all hate you right now. Just sayin'.

Variety's New Site

Sucks.

Seriously, Variety, you've just made it more difficult for me to find anything. So what reason do I have now to frequent your site? Um . . . Hold on a sec . . . Oh. None.

I've tried multiple times since your "relaunch" on Friday to find ratings information. You know, that little chart that was on the front page of the old site? Can't find it on the new one.

Instead, I'm being subjected to annoying ads that have no "close" button.

I get Daily Variety in the mail, of course, but since they can't seem to get it to me on a regular basis, I had been using their web site to keep updated. Alas, with this revamping now even the site is incapable of making itself useful.

And so I will need to go elsewhere for my info.

Books: Schroder

So I was reading People, and they really liked this book, gave it a great review. But when I read the description, it sounded to me like the author just took the Clark Rockefeller story and fictionalized it. You know, changed the names and "made it her own."

From what I read, Schroder is about a guy who lives under an assumed name and kidnaps his daughter after his wife gets custody. "Schroder" is the guy's real name; he's German. Well, "Clark Rockefeller" was really Christian Gerhartsreiter, also German. His true identity came out after he kidnapped his daughter because his wife had custody. So . . . Same story, right? More or less?

I'm not undercutting the author for using a sensational headline as a jumping off point. Television series do it all the time, especially the police procedurals. I was just surprised the review that so loved this book didn't bother to acknowledge the obvious parallels and likely source material. I'm sure the author is really good at putting words together or whatever (I haven't read the book, it comes out on Tuesday), but the plot isn't original to her. That's all I'm saying.

And there's nothing wrong with that, either. I write Sherlock Holmes stories, and the main characters there are certainly not original to me. But credit where it's due and all.

I might be interested in reading Schroder. Or I might just as easily go read a true account of the Clark Rockefeller/Christian Gerhartsreiter case. I suppose it would depend on whether I'm in the mood for nonfiction, or simply not-quite-fiction.

Entertainers of the Year

Entertainment Weekly just put out their annual "Entertainers of the Year" issue, which of course prompted me to think first about how irritating their online surveys have become* and then to wonder who would make my personal list.

You'd be surprised (if you happen to know me, or even read this or PepperWords on a semi-regular basis) that I'd count Steven Moffat as one of my Entertainers of the Year. Go ahead and rub your eyes, blink a few times, and read that again. Look, I know I'm harsh when it comes to Mr Moffat, but I'm only ever hard on the ones I think have genuine talent and can do better than they have done. (Rob Thomas and his bandmates would agree.) Steven Moffat takes the easy way out a lot of the time, but I think—at least in part—that's because of how hard he's working. He's producing two television programs (though only one on a semi-regular schedule, come to think of it, Jesus, what is he doing with his time?), and whatever else I may say or think, I'm still watching both Doctor Who and Sherlock, so that must count for something. So here is my one and perhaps only nod to Mr Moffat. I hope he enjoys it.

I think Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu also make my list. No secret I like Sherlock Holmes, and I really enjoy their chemistry on Elementary. And Zachary Quinto on American Horror Story who, despite it being a bit of a drag to see him playing yet another villain, still does a fantastic job. And Billy Burke and Giancarlo Esposito, the only two truly compelling actors on Revolution. Though David Lyons, too, is doing his best with the little they've given him.

That's television, but what about movies? I'll side with EW and count Ben Affleck as one of the Entertainers of the Year thanks to his great work on Argo, both acting and directing. Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, and Javier Bardem in Skyfall also make my list; that movie was the epitome of "entertaining." Haven't seen The Dark Knight Rises yet, so I can't speak to that. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey might also fit in here, but I don't know yet (though I do have IMAX 3D tix for opening night, and at the HFR viewing, too, so stay tuned).

I have to admit to being a bit outside of things when it comes to music this year. I listen to my iPod more than the radio, so I seldom hear anything really new. I liked that "One More Night" song by Maroon 5 and thought the new Matchbox Twenty album was okay . . . Don't know that I'd call them "Entertainers of the Year" though. I think that honor goes to Train for "50 Ways to Say Goodbye" and fun. for "Some Nights."

Books! I'm almost done with Anatomy of Murder by Imogen Robertson, and I think she'd make my list; I'm really beginning to love Mr Crowther and Mrs Westerman as protagonists. Ben Aaronovitch, too, for Whispers Under Ground. And Adam McOmber for The White Forest.

So that about sums it up for me barring any late entries in the month of December. Or anything I've simply forgotten. It has been known to happen, particularly when I'm hungry (which I am).

*EW has a habit of sending online surveys which first ask me whether I'm interested in [insert egregiously long list of television shows, movies, actors, musicians], then asking me effectively the EXACT SAME QUESTION by forcing me to choose AGAIN whether I'd like to read about [long list of television shows, movies, actors, musicians] in their magazine. Dear EW: you can safely assume that IF I am interested in something or someone, I would also be interested in reading about it, AND if I am NOT interested in something or someone, I do NOT want to read about it. And yet, despite my telling you these things REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY, you still shove stuff like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey (more or less the same thing given the origins of the latter) under my nose on a regular basis. DO NOT WANT. Are we clear?

The Annotated Entertainment Weekly

We still get Entertainment Weekly because I hate their Web site. HATE it. It's ugly and badly organized. Would it kill them to consider tabs across the top so I don't have to slog through a bunch of reality television crap I don't give a shit about? Jesus. Seriously, I HATE EW.COM.

Okay, so rant over, here's the thing: I do enjoy EW's iPad interface. It's very nicely done. BUT . . . I can't annotate it.

See, our copy of Entertainment Weekly comes on Fridays, and it's a house rule that I get to read it first. Then it goes on the bathroom shelf for reading material. And sometimes I like to leave little notes for people to find . . .

It's sort of an Easter egg hunt.

Now when the EW people make it possible for me to add comments to the iPad version? We're golden.

Why I'm Not Renewing My Subscription to Entertainment Weekly

I've been reading Entertainment Weekly since it first came to newsstands when I was a teenager. I didn't have a job, but I dedicated a significant amount of my allowance for a subscription. Because it was awesome. The photos, the articles—I ate it all up. I have many issues of the magazine stockpiled in my collection, and many more were sacrificed to be cut up for my scrapbooks. And while there have been lapses in my subscriptions (lack of funds, too many moves), I've more or less been a consistent subscriber. But we received our renewal notice in the mail yesterday, and I'm thinking I won't be renewing.

Why now? After I've stuck it out through many EW changes in format and tone? The bottom line is that I find less and less in each issue that I actually want to read. The stuff they cover just doesn't interest me. I flip past article after article and can finish the magazine in roughly an hour, whereas it used to be that I curled up with it every Friday evening to read it cover-to-cover and still sometimes fell asleep before I could finish.

This might say more about me than about EW. Maybe I'm just old and EW is looking for that hot, hip young audience. (Sorry to break it to you, Eebz, but those kids don't read magazines; they're all online.) Maybe I've outgrown it, or maybe I'm just too much in the minority when it comes to my entertainment tastes. (For example, I don't watch reality television and couldn't give a rat's ass about Twilight.) Or it's just as likely that I can glean the things I want to know from the Internet. I can follow my favorite shows and musicians that way . . . Though I do miss all the nice pictures.

Meanwhile, I don't visit EW.com much, either. In part because they don't cover much of what I like, and in part because I dislike the format of the site itself, which I find busy and somewhat irritating. They also seemed to have struggled in finding quality writing in recent years, which is kind of a shame since there was a time when I used to think being a writer for EW would be just about the Best. Thing. Ever. But with so many media outlets now—a sea of them as opposed to the pool there used to be—the cream that rises to the top also sort of floats away in various directions.

A few months ago, my parents shipped me one of many boxes of my old stuff they'd had in storage, and there were many old issues of EW included. My husband and I took the time to flip through a few, and he said to me: "Remember when EW was good?" Yeah, I do, even if the memory is faded. And that's why I won't be renewing my subscription now.

Why I Hate Cookie Magazine

I subscribed to Cookie a couple years ago, just out of curiosity. I got one of those cheap offers in the mail, and the colorful letters announcing the magazine's title made it look fun. As it turns out, however . . . Not so much. I let the subscription lapse, but then my husband got a free subscription with some other purchase, and now it is again turning up in my mailbox each month.

Oh, Cookie is probably great for people living the high life in Manhattan--ones who just happen to have kids. Not so much for bumpkin ol' me, though.

Cookie's tag line is: "All the Best for Your Family." Apparently I'm supposed to feel guilty, then, that I don't dress my kids in Guess and Burberry, nor do I plunk down hundreds and/or thousands of dollars on shoes, bags and clothes for myself, either. I mean, take the March issue's page 38, "Style: Smart Cookie." They ask a fashion designer about how she manages to be a stylish mom. Uh, well, my first guess is she's a f***ing fashion designer. Followed closely by, And she makes a f***ing ton of money. After all, Designer Mom actually promotes blouses that are just shy of $600 a pop, a trench dress that is $3,495, and $117 jeans for her 9-year-old daughter.

I will admit, there is a little bar at the bottom of the page that suggest slightly less exorbitant items, but the stuff that gets primo placement is all pricey.

And let me just point out that I buy all my kids' clothes on sale because I know they'll be ruined in a matter of hours, if not minutes, by spilled food, dirt, paint, or baby spit-up. I buy most of my stuff on the cheap, too, for that matter.

Cookie goes on to suggest--as I've noticed in various issues--family vacations in, oh, Italy. No DisneyWorld here, though Disney Adventures does advertise their wares, which would be family tours to places like Machu Picchu and safaris in Kenya. For someone like me, for whom a day trip to a quaint neighboring downtown district is as close as I'm likely to come to a vacation in the next few years, these ads and articles are merely taunts. I hate them.

In fact, I hate Cookie. I hate it for making me jealous of what I don't have, for making me feel inferior as a person, a mother, a family. I hate it for making me second-guess my whole life, for making me wonder what I would have had to do to get where these people seem to be, where I went wrong. I mostly hate that it pushes the buttons on all my insecurities. And while I at least know and can acknowledge these feelings--as G.I. Joe always told us, "Knowing is half the battle"--they're still there. Less and less with each issue, as I find myself more and more able to distance myself. But still . . . I really hate Cookie.