I have a very high opinion of my accomplishments, but I honestly think this little short story might not be that much worse than the book on which it's based. But you'll noticed I haven't posted it. Yet.
Why write all these reviews? Why get so frustrated? It's always the books that almost work that are the most intriguing to review, at least for me, though of course good books are certainly more fun to read. This one has a host of problems, but obviously the set up intrigued me. It really is an awful book, with modern sensibilities grafted onto a hopelessly sweet and stupid heroine. Why? Why? Why? Do romance readers want to read about these delicate goodnatured women? I always wanted to be Superwoman (well, actually, Mighty Super President...but that's another story.)
I wrote most of these reviews back in 1998, and typed all the html formatting in by hand, before I had this cute little minilanguage that lets me spit out pages in record time. Thus I spent hours writing the reviews, scanning in covers, etc. I've always written reviews; the craft reviews for the GLBG newsletter, of which I was editor at the time (and everything else–they did me a favor when they kicked me off that board) and the fiction for the Apa. But the reviews collected here represent an enormous amount of effort for books that will probably be forgotten in 20 years, if not already. Why did I bother? (Even at the time, I wondered.) Btw, if you want help in sifting the good from the dreadful, (and there is so much dreadful romance) I recommend this site; it's what I used to up my luck factor from 1 readable book in 10 to maybe 1/3–not bad.
Not till a couple of years later did I realize why I focused so intensely on these books that sort of worked: I was attempting to figure out what makes romance work for me, and how to write a romance of my own, though I didn't understand that consciously at the time. In August or September of 1998 I started writing what I thought was going to be a 40 page short story. It turned into a 200,000+ word novel, that still has that last 10% final polish to go. (I hate polishing. So did Phillip Fike, my metal teacher. The last picky details of any project, in just about any medium, be it building houses or debugging software, always take the longest and are the most boring. And, in many cases separate the amateur from the professional. But I digress.)
Oh and “Fanfic”? That's a SFnal term, meaning fan fiction. –You know, writing your very own Buffy the Vampire Slayer or X-files story. People have been writing Sherlock Holmes fanfic for decades, but Star Trek really got the concept going, at least in the sf community. –I understand the appeal, but have never felt I had the ability to truly duplicate other people's characters: one can get one aspect right, but then goofs up a bunch of others. Now we have (ugh!) braided novels and other atrocities in which professional(?) writers play in each other's universes, which generally is just about as bad it sounds.
That said, I swipe plot ideas and characters all the time, (and, this is the kicker, so pay attention) change a few things around and then stick ’em in. I may not change much, or enough, and thus I freely admit my stuff may be (probably is) horribly derivative, but I hope, at least, it's not fanfic. Since I'm not creative and never have been I admit this is likely wishful thinking. And as I disliked the characters in Wake, strictly speaking the little story I wrote should more properly be called anti-fanfic!
However, I will admit one can write good fanfic: The Beekeeper Series, in which Sherlock Holmes finds a new partner works, and works well. Why? Because the author is clever enough to deliberately interpret the character instead of attempting to reproduce exactly Conan Doyle. She writes about him at a different time in his life, and from a different point of view than Watson's. And it works, splendidly.
Unless otherwise noted, text, image and objects depicted therein copyright 1996--present sylvus tarn.
