I am terribly sick of reading shit by published writers who have obviously stolen my fucking ideas. And of discovering that plot devices I have used are as common as flies on feces. And of having to consider and reconsider the title of the book.
Over the last few days, I've been reading Angelology, by Danielle Trussoni. The first twenty pages sucked me in, then the quality of the writing and the pace made me suspect that the senior editors had polished up those first twenty pages and quit, handing the rest of it down to the interns. Maybe they figured that once a reader is hooked, she won't put a book down. Fuckers are right, too, at least in my case.
The book is a fictional interpretation of angels, fallen and otherwise, and how they interact with the human world. Published this year. So I have to read it, to stay current and know what to rip off and what I can't, what works in terms of theory and application and what doesn't.
Parts of Angelology made me cackle, and not in a way that Trussoni would appreciate.* At the same time, I am breathing a huge sigh of relief that her take on fallen angels and the Nephilim (their progeny) digresses from mine in several major ways. Also she's hooking her concepts into a big good versus evil/end of the world kind of thing, whereas I just want to write a good love story.
That's another thing that distances me from this novel – it lacks the emotional depth that, for me, translates into the ephemeral quality of soul, of heart. And there are great passions described in this novel, human and “Nephilistic,” but they are described, not evoked. There's a ton of telling and not showing. I kinda thought that wasn't a good thing? Then again, I don't think emotional involvement is what she's going for; this is trying to be a thriller more than anything else. But hell, if I'm not going to get emotionally involved, I'd just as soon read Wikipedia.
Angelology is well-researched, much more so than my paltry efforts, and very imaginative. But the narrative devices, not to mention the names, strike me as more than a little contrived, and I don't really give a shit about any of the characters, not even the ones I want to like. This is uncharacteristic for me. Could be me, could be the writing. Either way, I'll be glad when it's over. Which doesn't really recommend it much.
I didn't mean for this a book review. I was supposed to segue very smoothly into a mention of one of the writer's blurbs on the back cover, you know, where other writers gush about the book in hopes that you'll trust them enough to give it a shot.
Four quotes down is a blurb by Raymond Khoury, author of The Last Templar and Sanctuary.
Goddamn it. Another one. William Faulkner published his potboiler Sanctuary in 1931. Way different from mine, but there it is. Then there's the TV show, which is straight-up sci-fi and has not exactly made enormous waves, critically speaking, but it's been renewed for a third season so apparently it doesn't entirely suck, which is entirely beside the point anyway. Khoury's thriller is actually called The Sanctuary, and I'm actually tempted to read it if only because I can't distill the idea of it into three or four words.
The main problem, as I see it, is Nora Roberts. You may have heard of her. Her Sanctuary is a romance, but, happily, not a paranormal one. There's a town called Sanctuary that's featured in the book, is all, and I haven't read it to find out how meaningful the word is.
It is profoundly meaningful to me. I had some godawful title picked out years ago, thinking, well, this sucks ass but it'll do for now and surely something better will strike me eventually. I can't remember when Sanctuary popped into my head, but as soon as it did, it stuck fast.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that the word is so flexible. In one sense, it means safety, a place of refuge. The other sense is a consecrated place of worship. For my story, it works on both these levels, because there's such a strong religious background to the thing. You can hardly escape it if you're writing about an angel and a witch, and I have no desire to. It works in the other sense, too. My MCs come to find sanctuary with each other, realizing that physical walls can't keep you safe any more than they can define a place of worship. Only love does that.
And ain't that just the cheesiest shit you ever heard? Fucking A.
But damn it, there's no other word that says safety and worship at the same time. I've looked. Extensively. And I've toyed with other cheesy titles, more traditionally romantic, that are so wretched I can't bring myself to repeat them to anyone, let along on a public blog.
Also, I had the names of the next two books picked out, both of which are single words beginning with S. Sanctuary, Serenity, Salvation. I mean, shit, how much simpler can it be, right?
But there are other things to worry about at the moment. For example, the soon-to-be-published fantasist in the critical writing group has mentioned in a crit for another person that using a random homeless person or bum as a plot device is almost a cliché. So, fuck, there's another scene that will need tweaking. Not a big deal, really, it's making me flex my muscles, imaginationally speaking (new word, you like it?).
Then there's the mention of a John Travolta movie called Michael, where the angel smells like cookies to a particular woman. One of my critters mentioned that a while back, too, so I'm having to work in a slightly different direction to keep that original.
Individually, these aren't hard to manage. What worries me is that there are more that I'm missing.
And sometimes I just have to throw up my hands and say, well, fuck, there are reasons for the cliches and they're called goddamned archetypes, you know? Scary things are underground, in basements, dungeons, caves, and catacombs. New York City is a backdrop for so many stories because it's bursting at the seams with them – anything you can possibly imagine has happened in New York City, and probably a lot of shit you can't, or would prefer not to. Homeless people make good stand-in characters because they're so far out of the norm you can make them do anything and it doesn't necessarily have to make sense immediately. Pull in a homeless person, a bum, a lunatic, and you immediately tap into the idea of the fringes of sanity and society, the absence of rules, the absence of safety. The element of chaos, in other words. And deathbed revelations happen because people often try to tie up their loose ends before they die. There's a reason we cherish last words.
Maybe it's not just cliché – maybe it's commonality, a language of story that we all understand. I don't know. Whatever.
It's not slowing me down, it's not messing with my motivation or making me doubt the work or the writing, it's just annoying. That's all.
Hope this post finds you both well, and looking forward to Halloween, even though some evil fucker scheduled it on a school night.
~Andi
*I am basing this on the sometimes pretentious writing, not to mention the author photograph on the inside back jacket. Maybe she does have a sense of humor – but if so, it doesn't show in this book.