I'm MELTiiiiinnnnggg....

[rolanni]

It's 81 degrees (F) outside. There's a small, considerate breeze going on, the better to spread the pollen around.

The galleys for "A Night at the Opera" have been gone over, corrections made, emailed, and accepted. Go, us.

Of the six projects we outlined for Madame the Agent, she feels that three are Definitely Marketable, one needs work, and two are Best Forgot. I'm not surprised that the one about the parole officer failed to find favor, but I am startled that the contemporary fantasy was thought to have a "limited" market. I'm thinking it's because the viewpoint's a middle-aged woman, but I may wrong. In any case, we now have Detailed Synopses and Sample Chapters to write. Starting Monday, I think. I want to finish up with the first draft of The Nameless so the characters will be -- not placated, never that. Not these characters. But they may at least consent to let me think about something other than their worthy selves for a while.

Raided the video store last night and came home to watch _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_, which I haven't seen since it came out. It's held up surprisingly well. Still in the unviewed pile: _Big Fish_, _Master and Commander_, and _Cowboy Bebop_. I'm hoping these are enjoyable; my experience with _Kill Bill_ has made me a little leery of some definitions of "fun," "worth seeing," and "gotta see it!" I hadn't thought my sensibilities were so tender. Comes of not watching television, I guess.

The royalty statements have arrived. The good news is that we made money (go, us). The bad news is that a check was not enclosed. Adding up all the money promised, we've got quite a respectable income. If only it would, you know, come in.

No word yet on who will be reading _Local Custom_ for the audio production. Color me curious.

And now -- to work.

Comments

Re: MELTIiiiiinnngg

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I like to give readers the benefit of the doubt, too. Which is why we tend not to repeat details; we expect that people will remember. This comes from the way we both read -- which alas allows us to discuss in depth books and characters we read a decade ago, while being unable to pull up the name of a real person we deal with every day.

My agent told me that if an editor wants a book, that editor will ask for a pseudonym if there's a concern.

Ah. This is good to know.

But on the other hand, I haven't managed to break through with any older protagonists, either--nice comments, but no bites.

I do think there's some editorial resistance to older heroes. I think, she said optimistically, that it can be overcome. But, in the meantime, this would explain why there are so few "Mrs. Brown" stories in the genre.

(Oddly enough, younger protagonists are looked upon as YA. So exactly where is this mythical age point we're currently aiming for?)

The Age of Wonder is still fourteen, isn't it? Problem is, fourteen-year-olds nowadays have lots of things other than reading to claim their attention -- and many of those things, like movies, television, video games, scratch the SF itch -- while people who might be interested in stories involving older protagonists are likely to have a life-long investment in reading.

Do you like the idea of a pseudonym?

No, I don't. I have this "name magic" thing going; I really believe a pseudonym would write differently. While that may be a good thing where we're talking about branching out, I'm not comfortable with the idea. Mind you, that wouldn't necessarily stop me, but it would add an extra, unknown, dimension to doing the work.

Would you keep it a deep, dark secret, or have one of those flaps like "The pseudonym of a couple of well-known authors who are branching out...."

We'd thought of letting it be known that "Robert Silverberg" was a pseudonym of "Sharon Lee and Steve Miller", but we can't quite work out how to get his checks mailed to us... *g*