Friday, March 9, 2012
Apology: My novel "Only The Lonely" is NOT free today.
I'm sorry but something has gone wrong and my novel Only The Lonely is not showing up for free on Amazon.com. I assure you, I did set it up, but it isn't free today. I will reset it for Monday. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this has caused anyone.
My Novel "Only The Lonely" is free today.
My novel Only The Lonely is free today. See my slideshow to the right for the link to Amazon.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Battles and other stories is free today
My collection of short stories is free on Amazon.com today. See the slide show on the right for a direct link to the book.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Download my books for free
Well, I finally did it. I've self-published Only The Lonely on Amazon.com. Now I have two books available: OTL and Battles and other stories. I'm offering them for free: Battles will be available on March 8th and Only The Lonely will be available on March 9th.
Unfortunately I had a formatting problem with OTL. It's certainly readable as is, but most paragraphs are not indented. I attempted to fix the problem, but I don't think it worked. I believe the problem lies in my Word program. Somehow in trying to set my book up for Smashwords awhile back, I set my program default to Normal, which seems to be causing problems on Amazon. I've been unable to unset it from Normal. If anyone can tell me how to fix the problem, I would be grateful.
BTW, I'm published under the penname R Patrick Hughes. See my slideshow for links to Amazon.com. Thank you.
I hope you download each book and give them a read and let me know what you think. A review (good or bad) on Amazon would be appreciated.
I hope to have a third book out by this summer.
Unfortunately I had a formatting problem with OTL. It's certainly readable as is, but most paragraphs are not indented. I attempted to fix the problem, but I don't think it worked. I believe the problem lies in my Word program. Somehow in trying to set my book up for Smashwords awhile back, I set my program default to Normal, which seems to be causing problems on Amazon. I've been unable to unset it from Normal. If anyone can tell me how to fix the problem, I would be grateful.
BTW, I'm published under the penname R Patrick Hughes. See my slideshow for links to Amazon.com. Thank you.
I hope you download each book and give them a read and let me know what you think. A review (good or bad) on Amazon would be appreciated.
I hope to have a third book out by this summer.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Quandary resolved--"The Sendoff"
I want to thank everyone who commented on my quandary about what to work on next. It was a tough decision at first, but I decided to listen to my heart, and my heart says The Sendoff. I love that book. It's something I want to publish. When I made the decision Friday night in my sleep, and woke up Saturday morning and began revising the first chapter of the book, I was excited, thrilled. I knew I had made the right decision. Thank you all.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
"Write Like the Masters" by William Cane (4) Ian Fleming
Cane chose Ian Fleming as a master writer for a variety of reasons. The main reason I like Fleming is for his use of details. Besides creating suspense and excitement, Fleming uses "sumptuous details." To see for myself, I read Fleming's short story "Octopussy." (Don't you wish you could come up with titles like that? I wish I could.) Of course, it's a James Bond story--and Bond is one of my favorite characters from the movies, and maybe now from literature--but the story has little to do with James Bond. He's a minor character in the story.
Even though it's a short story, "Octopussy" is full of Fleming's attention to details. Some of his detailed descriptions are fairly long; e.g., he uses about 200 words to describe the deadly scorpion fish (a major player in the story). Fleming mentions that scorpion fish are the source of "the rascasse that is the foundation of bouillabaisse." When Smythe (the main character) eats some sausage in the mountains, Fleming writes "Oberhauser's (another character in the story) sausage was a real mountaineer's meal--tough, well-fatted and strongly garlicked."
Fleming's use of details isn't limited to food-related subjects. When Smythe looks at the case containing gold stolen from Germany during WWII, Fleming writes "There were the same markings on each--the swastika in a circle below an eagle, and the date, 1943--the mint marks of the Reichsbank."
When Smythe and Oberhauser reach their destination in the mountains, Fleming writes "Directly above them, perhaps a hundred feet up under the lee of the shoulder, were the weather-beaten boards of the hut." What struck me about the sentence was 'under the lee of the shoulder' and 'weather-beaten boards,' two wonderful details I would have not thought of.
The last description I'll mention that sturck me as something I would have missed is when, after Smythe shoots a man in the mountains, Fleming writes "The deep boom of the two shots that had been batting to and fro amoung the mountains died away." I thought the double-entrendre on 'died' was clever.
One thing Cane doesn't mention that I found interesting is Fleming's use of character names. Of course, we all know James Bond. But the names of the other characters in this story are interesting as well: Dexter Smythe, Hannes Oberhauser, and the Foo brothers.
What does it mean to me as a writer? It makes me want to try harder with details. It means more research and greater visualization of scenes and finding the words that make it the best description I can make it. And maybe a greater consideration of characters' names.
What do you think of these examples of description from "Octopussy"? Do they strike you as better than average? Also, do you find the characters' names more interesting than the usual?
Even though it's a short story, "Octopussy" is full of Fleming's attention to details. Some of his detailed descriptions are fairly long; e.g., he uses about 200 words to describe the deadly scorpion fish (a major player in the story). Fleming mentions that scorpion fish are the source of "the rascasse that is the foundation of bouillabaisse." When Smythe (the main character) eats some sausage in the mountains, Fleming writes "Oberhauser's (another character in the story) sausage was a real mountaineer's meal--tough, well-fatted and strongly garlicked."
Fleming's use of details isn't limited to food-related subjects. When Smythe looks at the case containing gold stolen from Germany during WWII, Fleming writes "There were the same markings on each--the swastika in a circle below an eagle, and the date, 1943--the mint marks of the Reichsbank."
When Smythe and Oberhauser reach their destination in the mountains, Fleming writes "Directly above them, perhaps a hundred feet up under the lee of the shoulder, were the weather-beaten boards of the hut." What struck me about the sentence was 'under the lee of the shoulder' and 'weather-beaten boards,' two wonderful details I would have not thought of.
The last description I'll mention that sturck me as something I would have missed is when, after Smythe shoots a man in the mountains, Fleming writes "The deep boom of the two shots that had been batting to and fro amoung the mountains died away." I thought the double-entrendre on 'died' was clever.
One thing Cane doesn't mention that I found interesting is Fleming's use of character names. Of course, we all know James Bond. But the names of the other characters in this story are interesting as well: Dexter Smythe, Hannes Oberhauser, and the Foo brothers.
What does it mean to me as a writer? It makes me want to try harder with details. It means more research and greater visualization of scenes and finding the words that make it the best description I can make it. And maybe a greater consideration of characters' names.
What do you think of these examples of description from "Octopussy"? Do they strike you as better than average? Also, do you find the characters' names more interesting than the usual?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
I'm in a quandary.
Yes. I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've basically finished Only The Lonely and hope to publish it soon. The quandary is: what do I work on next. Maybe you can help me decide.
I've got perhaps 80-85% of a sequel to Only The Lonely already written called Battlefields of Love. My crude estimation is that I can finish it in 3-6 months, maybe even closer to 3 months. In some ways I think it's a better book than OTL. It will be about the same length, 75-80 thousand words.
I've got another novel that I wrote maybe 8-10 years ago that is probably 99% complete called The Sendoff. It has nothing to do with the OTL saga I have planned. I crudely estimate finishing it in 1-2 months. In some ways, I think it's the best book I've ever written, but it's from when I was first transistioning from literary writing to a more popular vein of writing. And it's somewhat, though not entirely, different from OTL. It's probably a bit shorter than 75,000 words, more like 50-60 thousand.
So, there's my quandary. Which do I work on next? Which one would you work on?
I've got perhaps 80-85% of a sequel to Only The Lonely already written called Battlefields of Love. My crude estimation is that I can finish it in 3-6 months, maybe even closer to 3 months. In some ways I think it's a better book than OTL. It will be about the same length, 75-80 thousand words.
I've got another novel that I wrote maybe 8-10 years ago that is probably 99% complete called The Sendoff. It has nothing to do with the OTL saga I have planned. I crudely estimate finishing it in 1-2 months. In some ways, I think it's the best book I've ever written, but it's from when I was first transistioning from literary writing to a more popular vein of writing. And it's somewhat, though not entirely, different from OTL. It's probably a bit shorter than 75,000 words, more like 50-60 thousand.
So, there's my quandary. Which do I work on next? Which one would you work on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)