The Spring Thing

I am usually not much a fan of Springing Forward. Every year, I whine and complain about why we still have Daylight Savings and why do they want to take a precious hour of sleep away from meeeeeee???

Like I said, not my fave.

(I do not, however, have these feelings in the fall).

However, now that we live in a more northerly location, it gets dark. Way dark. Dark by 3:45 in the winter kind of dark, which is really pretty depressing. I know there are far darker locations (say, Alaska), but after a dimly-lit winter, when a friend of mine mentioned we'd have an extra hour of light soon -

- it was the best news, ever! Like getting a birthday gift on a day that is nowhere near your birthday, just for being alive. Losing an hour was a completely fair trade - I would give two for the extra daylight.

One way to get through Daylight Savings, without the sleep-deprivation-angst, is to help your husband move five tons of river rock. It actually works really well.  By the time we were done last night, it felt hours later than the actual time, rather than and hour earlier. Mission accomplished.

Terribly excited about that rock, though. One of the joys of a new-build house is having basically no landscaping whatsoever. Last fall we seeded the backyard (the front had sod) and put cement curbing around the edge. But the grass came in really thin in places - and thick in others, partly because the sprinkler system turned out to not actually be going off.

Which was a problem.

So we've wintered with thin grass, open vats of dust/dirt on either side of the patio, and dirt/dust/weeds on the other side of the curbing.  Let's just say it was prettiest when it was covered up with snow.

Danny picked up river rock on Friday afternoon, and Saturday and Sunday we hauled it off the trailer, wheelbarrow load by wheelbarrow load (with breaks for Danny to pump the tire back up, as it tended to go flat quite often), and dumping it onto the weed cloth-prepped areas. And honestly, the yard looks SO much better! There's more work to be done before we can move on to fun things - like plants - but the yard is off to a great start.

Tesla also thinks the yard is pretty great - in particular, the weed cloth.  We left the unopened rolls outside on the patio, which she discovered is shaped rather like a giant dog toy. There was much joyful leaping and running with the roll of weed cloth until I stepped outside to retrieve it.

So that was our weekend - how did you handle the loss of an hour?

A Little Romance: The Mechanics of a Love Story

I've been asked to appear as an expert, of sorts, for middle school writers.  The subject? Romance.

Yeah, I know.  I struggle with smooshy, mushy romance.  But they asked for romance, so romance they shall have.  I spent some time thinking on the subject of Romance Theory (which seemed to dovetail with the blog on The Vow, come to think of it).

Good romance is the most character-driven of all genres, so if you're going to do romance (or a believable romance subplot/thread), you've got to know your characters and be able to communicate their essence on the page.

I mean, *really* know your characters.  Because the reader has to believe both characters as people, be invested in both of them, and believe that those people could/would be into each other. Obviously, there will be obstacles - that's what drives the turning of pages.  The reader has to:

a.) want the two characters to get together

and

b.) not be certain it's actually going to happen.

If one of those is missing, you've got a problem. If the reader doesn't want them to get together, she (we'll just assume the gender here) will hate you in the end when they do.  And if you make it too easy, there's not enough plot.  The love story can't be a foregone conclusion.  There have to be roadblocks, there have to be difficulties. For your characters - your hero and heroine - to be motivated enough to persist through those roadblocks, they have to be more than likable. They have to be desirable.

(Sorry. The italics just kind of happened there.)  If you skip out on desirability, your reader will sit/read/watch and yell at the character (the one who's romancing the undesirable) to RUN, RUN FAST, RUN FAR, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!

Think of The Bachelor, for this one.  Sure, the girl the guy likes most may be pretty, but if she's also evil, no one will want them to actually fall in love.

Conversely, it can also be a problem (for some plotlines) if your characters are too desirable.  The Vow is a good example -  they were both too pretty and desirable for us to believe they weren't even remotely attracted to each other. If one or both of your characters are very pretty (either inside or out), there had better be some good obstacles!

As far as I can tell, there are three core types of romance -

1.) The "will she/won't she" romance - will the heroine fall in love with him? Will she??  Stories that fall into this category include Pride and Prejudice, Emma, Anne of Green Gables,

2.) The "will he/won't he" romance - will he fall in love with her? Austen examples include Persuasion  and Sense and Sensibility. YA examples include Anna and the French Kiss and The Princess Diaries.

3.) The "can they be together" romance (a variation on this is how long will they be together - especially applicable in Nicholas Sparks books).  The Princess Bride is a good example.

Those are the core types.  Many stories are a combination of the two. Stranger than Fiction is a "will she/won't she" with a twist of "can they be together" - Maggie Gyllenhaal's character has to decide if Harold Crick, the tax man's flours are charming enough, but even after they all for each other, there's this niggling reality that Harold Crick is going to die.

You've Got Mail is a "will she/won't she/can they be together" mashup - they fall in love online first, but have to reconcile their real lives and true selves with their online personas before they can be together.

Something to consider with love-triangle plotlines - it's still a will she/won't she with a twist of  which one should he/she choose (most successful triangles involve a woman choosing between two men).  It can be kind of  a cop out. The question is "A or B?" rather than "Do I love A with my whole heart? Or should I ditch A and B because this situation is disturbing?"  My take is the same in fiction as it is in real life -  if you really can't choose, the answer should be neither - because you don't love one enough to give up the other.

(This is why I'm neither Team Edward or Team Jacob, but rather Team Go Find a Strong, Reliable, and Loving Human Man With Less Baggage. And don't tell me humans are boring within the framework of Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Because: Aragorn. End of conversation.)

My personal preference is for a combo of the core types - it gives the characters two kinds of drama.  While you're figuring this out, though, you've got to make sure you're maintaining both believability and likability.  It also works best for stories where the romance is a subplot. Your main plot throws your characters just as many curveballs as their love lives.

So - there's my short masterclass on plotting romance. What do you think?

Brief Update: Found this rather awesome article about female stereotypes in chick flicks - you know, the women you see onscreen but NEVER meet in real life. Worth the read.

Sweet Nothings

Look at these.

I mean, just look.

I made these for a baby shower, and frankly I'm a little obsessed with them.

Allons-y

My husband has beautiful eyes.

When he was young, his mother told him that, one day, a young lady would fall in love with those eyes. She was totally right

So when he told me that he wanted to drive to Bellingham before driving to Eugene (which happens before we drive to Lincoln City), I was, ultimately, putty.

The Sparkly Shoes Blog

I've been looking for sparkly shoes lately - sparkly shoes for less than $30.  Thing is, I couldn't find any that weren't:

a.) Open toed (too cold)

b.) Too tall (I'm already two inches shy of six feet. I don't need a 4.5 inch platform, thank you much. I'm going to church, not to Vegas.)

c.) Too expensive (though I found the perfect pair... for $149 plus tax.)

Yesterday morning, I *literally* woke up with one thought in my head - could I make sparkly shoes?

I asked my husband. Had to ask twice, actually, because I kept mumbling (first thought, you know). He thought the chances were pretty good.

When I was awake, I poked around online. I found this (rather adorable) video, which was a good start, followed by this excellent post. I used the Dainty Squid's method of mixing the glitter with the Mod Podge, using heels instead of flats and spending a long time taping up the edges before starting.

$16.99 Payless Heels

 I put on four coats, followed by a final topcoat.

Tesla, waiting for me to finish so I could come play.

Honestly, I couldn't be more pleased. Because I mixed the glitter with the Mod Podge, they don't shed at all - every bit of glitter is sealed up. I didn't even get through half of the $5 bottle of Martha Stewart glitter (in Hematite), either. The next time I do this (and there will be a next time), I'm looking forward to using another Martha glitter - the extra fine texture and sophisticated color really make the shoes special.

So there's my Christmas project - what are you working on?

Sur La Table

...is also the name of a store. But that's not what this post is about.

When not traveling, moving, or raising a spirited (read: obstinate) puppy, I've spent the past year cultivating a new book project. Though new is a bit of a misnomer, since it was cooking in my head well before Jayne made an appearance.

But it's been what I like to call a slow-cooker idea, requiring a lot of time to develop. In between, it has changed tremendously in the best way.

One key component of the book has been the same, however - it has always been about the food.

Well, that and two people who find each other. But they eat well.

The two specific kinds of cuisine found in the book are French and Italian. Now, I'm fairly conversant in Italian food. It's really pretty straight-forward and very accessible. Versions of it can be found in Olive Gardens, Macaroni Grills, and in every restaurant where someone boils pasta and tops it with sauce.

French food...it's a bit trickier.

There is often some technique involved in French cookery, and if not, there's the appearance of technique. You don't find Coq au vin in pizzerias, or cassoulet at buffets. Shari's does not have tarte tatin month. Here in Tri-cities, the likelihood of my finding a little French bistro is well below nil.

But I need it for the book, so I popped onto Amazon and picked out a small selection of books, as well as a blue steel crepe pan that I'm really quite in love with.  But along with the crepe pan, it's obvious that I'll also need a proper Dutch Oven soon, as well as a roasting pan and a tart pan (had one, but the bottom is missing and that's a somewhat crucial piece). Oh, and ramekins.

After flipping through the books - which look amazing - it's very clear that I will have to get over my dislike of whole roasted chicken specifically, and my inexperience when it comes to roasting meats in general.

(I've roasted vegetables - does that count for anything?)

But it's been a good year for expanding my repertoire, since I'm now quite proficient with cutlets, sauces, and roux making. Oh, and custard.

Well, off to contemplate making potato leek soup.  Will post later as the food adventures continue...