(passes Erin a toasted Xanax)
Willow ,'Conversations with Dead People'
The Great Write Way, Act Three: Where's the gun?
A place for Buffistas to discuss, beta and otherwise deal and dish on their non-fan fiction projects.
HA! I'ma take it!
Grazie, bella!
Good girl, Erin! YAY!
Good luck, Erin!
Etr the me me me stuff.
Good luck, Erin!
Thanks, guys! Now it's just the waiting game.
Good thing (I mean that) that I have other stuff to work on that's fun and keeping me from thinking 1 week, 2 weeks, etc...
that I have other stuff to work on that's fun and keeping me from thinking 1 week, 2 weeks, etc...
and if that doesn't work, try "Good work, Wesley, good day. I'll most likely kill you in the morning." What? It's kind of working for me atm. [link]
Bwah! Duly noted, Sox.
Another no on my Defenders query. I'm starting to think about e-pubbing the thing and having done with it; as a first novel I'm proud of it but I don't know if it's likely to find an agent.
I'm starting to think about short descriptions of my graphics book, not to describe substance but style. One is "a picture book for adults" or "a picture book for grown ups". Hopefully that conveys the idea of a book with a layout and look and feel of a children's book, but with adult vocabulary and complexity of content. Hopefully the use of "adult" does not lead to an expectation of porn or sexual content. Hopefully the alternative use of "grownup" does not lead to an expectation of preciousness.
Another description is "a snarky survey of a serious topic". I'd say about one third of the book is snarky. One third tries is somewhat emotional but not funny or sarcastic, and one third use colorful metaphors to help make complicated concepts simple to understand without snark or emotional content. Is "snarky" a fair description for that amount of snark, or is it misleading?
Also, one description I rejected is "environmentalism without a stick up its ass". Is there a polite way to say that, without the false implication about other environmentalists?