Trunked Novels

It was recently announced that actor Jason Segel is going to be the latest celebrity to write a YA novel. What's interesting is that he's basing it on an unproduced screenplay he wrote when he was 21. I wonder how many authors, once they get published, return to trunked novels and ideas and try to make them shine.

From one Siegel/Segel to another, good luck! (photo via imdb.com)

I'm sure authors have been tempted. Your publisher is asking for a second novel in half the time you wrote the first one. And oh, look. Here's this completed novel that was subpar when I first wrote it, but that was before someone considered my work publishable. A little read-through and some spackle, and tada -- shiny new manuscript. Right?

Should trunked novels stay trunked?

There's a reason why a novel was trunked, and it wasn't because you had to get published first. Nobody wins by you trying to prove that everything you've ever written is worthy of getting published. I have two trunked novels. The first one is near and dear to my heart, and I gave up on it after four drafts. I always loved the writing in it, but something wasn't clicking storywise. I'll admit, though, once THE BREAK-UP ARTIST sold, I seriously considered polishing it up and sending it off to my agent. I even had a writer friend read it and give me notes -- notes that were nearly identical to the feedback I'd received years ago.

That's when I realized that this novel wasn't a failure. It was a moment in time, a point on my journey as a writer. The problems I saw in this novel I've since overcome on my next books. When I look back on my two trunked novels, I don't see failure. I see progress. I pinpointed where those books floundered and applied that moving forward. Trying to fix them up and make them publishable would diminish their value. You don't need to validate your trunked novels, your aborted attempts, your former SNI's. If you can learn and grow from those experiences, then they are all successes.

Don't go backward. Keep moving forward. If you want to have a career as a writer, you'll need to develop new ideas. If you are *seriously* attached to an old story, don't salvage the old manuscript. Use the idea and redraft from scratch. Make it your own, for the improved, wiser you.

Do you try to rework trunked novels? Have you recycled old ideas?

Five Things I Liked About Anna and the French Kiss

I want to try something new on the blog: a recurring series. I've considered them in the past, but I kinda figured I'd never keep up with them. Until now! I've resisted posting reviews on my blog because a) I hated doing book reports in school. Why start again now? and b) I would never give a negative review in public. (disclaimer: yes, I did review one movie on the blog eons ago. It's a great movie, and you should see it.) However, if there are books or movies or shows that I really love, why NOT tell the world the few people who stop by this blog about them? Instead of giving a whole drawn-out review, though, I'm just going to list 5 Things I liked. It's more interesting for me to learn why somebody liked someone rather then that they just liked it.

I'll start this series with a recent favorite: Anna and the French Kiss. Lots of people have read it and loved it. And for a great take on this book, check out Real Man Read YA's review. I was hesitant to read Anna because I'm not a romance fan, and because I assumed it was about an impossibly beautiful girl who frolics around in Paris with an impossibly beautiful boy and they lived impossibly happily ever after.

But I. Was. Wrong. 

As soon as I began reading it, I realized why so many had fallen in love with the book. Here are 5 Things I liked about Anna:

1) Etienne was short: He was not impossibly beautiful. Have you ever read books where the male love interest has no personality except for being hot? That's what I was expecting here. So it was such a pleasant surprise when Etienne turned out to be short and pasty. He was still good looking, but in a normal, earthbound way. He had flaws. He was a mere mortal real person with a real personality. The most attractive part of him was his charm.

2) Anna's a movie buff: And she has great taste in movies! She mentions Rushmore, one of my favorite movies, and Lost in Translation, which is a gem. I wish I could go to those old movie houses she frequented in Paris. When I studied abroad, I'd go to the movies out of homesickness, but the theater by me was a multiplex (which did make me feel at home).

3) Anna's circle of friends: The fivesome had a great group dynamic. They all had chemistry with each other and read like a genuine group of friends, with their teasing and banter. Perkins writes authentic, funny dialogue.

4) Nobody kissed at the Eiffel Tower: In a book that takes place in Paris, I was waiting for it - and waiting to roll my eyes. The Eiffel Tower is the most overused landmark in stories. But nobody kissed here. In fact, Anna only went to the Eiffel Tower once, and very briefly. We got to see other landmarks, which was refreshing.

5) The kiss: Yeah, it was pretty hot.

What say you, readers? Have you read this book? What did you like most (or hate)?

Holiday Reading List

We are smack dab in the middle of my favorite time of the year - holidaytime! Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, New Years. I love it. I am a sucker for anything holiday. Crappy ABC Family hoilday movies. Store displays. I'll salivate over anything red and green. (Sidenote: Yes, I am Jewish and I celebrate Hanukkah, but I love American Christmas, which strips away all religious components of the holiday and replaces them with pure cheese and commercialization. It's not about Jesus's b'day for me; it's about Home Alone.)

And yes, as I write this, I am listening to 24/7 Christmas music on 93.9 FM Chicago.

An added bonus to the holiday hijinx is all the free time I have in these next 6 weeks. I get off from work between Christmas and New Years. I am taking the rest of my vacation days before they expire. Plus the office should be quiet without any necessary late nights. This means more time for writing and reading -- and this year, I am prepared. I have made a list of books I plan to read. And yes, I've checked it twice.
All photos from Amazon.com

#1 - The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen

I read this book a decade ago, but don't remember anything about it except that a guy falls off a ship. I read Freedom two years ago and loved Franzen's writing, which delves deep into seemingly normal American society. He uses the 3rd person omniscient and lets you know every detail about every character, all with a spelling-bee-level vocabulary. (No mention of xylocarp, though) I'm 100 pages in, and so far it's great!

#2 - Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

Everyone and their mother (and my mother too!) has been raving about this book, and I want to read it so badly! The concept hooked me, and I heard there are twists and turns you will never see coming. I've done my best to avoid all spoilers.

#3 - Back to Blood by Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe only publishes one book per decade, and he makes them count. His novels are sprawling tomes that hold a mirror up to our current society and capture every detail. The Bonfire of the Vanities is one of my favorite books, and he's definitely had an influence on my writing. Wolfe started out in nonfiction, and it's still reflected in his journalistic 3rd person style. While I write 1st person, my heart will always belong to 3rd person. I fear that it's a dying breed.

#4 - The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

Every YA blogger, writer, reader and their mother has been raving about this book all year. Amazon just put it in their Top 10 of 2012. It's by far the most successful YA contemporary book of the year. I hear its Green's best book and a total punch in the gut. Sometime in 2013, I want to read Looking for Alaska, too. It'll be the only JG book left that I haven't read. 

#5 - The Future of Us by Jay Asher and Carolyn Mackler

This book has an incredible hook: Two teens log onto AOL in 1995 and discover their present day Facebook pages. I was a teen using AOL dialup in the '90s, so this will be a pure nostalgia trip for me. The book came out last November with a lot of hoopla, but then I never heard a peep about it afterwards. Did it not live up to the hype? I think when Fault in Our Stars came out less than 2 months later, it completely stole the book's thunder. I'm still insanely curious to read it.



What books are you planning to read this holiday season?

How to Include Technology in Your Writing

Remember me?

Reading the Perks of Being a Wallflower was a blast from the past. The book takes place in 1991, before cell phones and computers. The characters make each other mixtapes and call each other on their family's landlines. It's easy to write around fashion and design fads, but technology has become its own beast. Constantly changing technology makes films and TV outdated instantly in a matter of years. (Anyone still use the T-mobile sidekick from The Devil Wears Prada?)

How the heck are you supposed to write a contemporary YA novel then?

You can't keep up with technology, especially with the 2-year lag time it can take books to get published. Think where we were 5 years ago. The iPhone just came out. The Motorola Razr and Myspace were huge. Think where we were 3 years ago. Nobody had iPads or Instagram. Teens are the most tech-savvy, so they'll notice any obsolete technology. Here are some Dos and Don'ts I try to follow when incorporating technology in my writing:

1) Don't get specific: Staying general will buy your book some time before the technology becomes obsolete. While specific products may change, the product categories will be around for a while.

• If your characters are on a cell phone, don't say what kind it is. Just say they are using a phone. Don't even specify how they use it. For instance, "flip open" and "clap shut" imply flip phones, which are so mid-2000s. 
• Don't elaborate on what type of computer your character uses. Desktop PCs are on their way out, and over time, even laptops will fade away in favor of tablets. 
• For social networks, Facebook seems like it's here to stay, and it's so ingrained into our social lives that it's hard to ignore. However, just say that your characters are on Facebook, and if they must be on the site, only have them do basic, broad tasks like looking up people. Don't mention any nitty-gritty features or Facebook language because that is constantly changing, e.g. profiles are now timelines, fans are now likes.
• Avoid mentioning specific web sites or web properties like Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, even Words with Friends. Your characters can see something someone wrote online or posted online, but it's best to not mention where they saw it and what exactly they saw. Let your reader fill in those gaps him/herself.
• I would avoid referencing DVDs, and even Netflix. Home entertainment is changing so rapidly. All you need to say is that she's watching a movie at home. Nobody cares about the specifics.
• Technology may move fast, but not for everyone. Some people still use dial-up and a desktop computer. Approximately 85% of Americans have a cell phone, but that means that 15% still do not.

2) Do include technology when it's logical for characters: I've already ranted about characters using pay phones in YA. I haven't seen a pay phone in years. You can't avoid technology altogether, and trying to will look ridiculous. Your main character can't be the only person at her school without a cell phone. She can't listen to cassette tapes just because it's cool. However, you can get away with this if you provide a good enough reason -- she lost her phone, it got stolen, she's punished. In Thirteen Reasons Why, Hannah left behind a dozen cassette tapes, but at least Clay pointed out how old school that was, and how he had trouble finding a Walkman to play them on. It would've been strange if he just had a Walkman lying around like it was no big deal. Remember, for your readers today, CDs were popular when they were born, but they came of age in the era of MP3's.

3) Don't feel the need to rely heavily on technology: Yes, kids today are hooked to their gadgets. Get off my lawn! They communicate primarily through texting and online chatting; they're on their phones or computers constantly. But if you wrote your book like this, it would be kind of boring. Have characters talk face-to-face, even if kids wouldn't do that in real life. Do you ever notice how characters on TV shows are over each other's apartments all the time? Can't they have half of these conversations over the phone or via text? Nobody would watch a show like that. It's dramatic license, but we want to see characters interact in person. Books like Will Grayson, Will Grayson do a great job with turning Instant Messaging into compelling fiction, yet the most memorable and impactful scenes in that book are ones where characters have to face each other.

4) Don't let technology take over your story: This is the most important rule. Technology is forever changing, but emotions and conflicts are not. People read books for the characters and the story, not for the technological accuracy. Don't obsess over how to incorporate technology into your story. The Perks of Being a Wallflower takes place in 1991, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. The characters in that book felt real and relatable, even if they didn't have cell phones. Holden Caulfield is still a wildly popular character, even though he never had a Facebook profile. Readers aren't going to throw your book out if your protagonist doesn't have a smartphone.

What are your rules of thumb for including technology in your writing?

Why 50 Shades of Grey is fine by me

50 Shades of Grey recently beat out Harry Potter/Deathly Hollows to become Britain's best-selling book of all time. In any language, in any country, the book is a smash -- except with critics and those in the literary community. 50 Shades has been bashed as a poorly-written piece of crap. I haven't read the books, so I can't judge, but all I hear are negative things about it. Awkward dialogue, paper-thin characters (which are based on someone else's characters), simplistic plot. I'll admit, when I first heard about 50 Shades' success, I got ticked off. We perfect our manuscripts and query letters and get rejected over the slightest shortcoming, but then EL James comes out with amateurish Twilight fan fiction and is a hit. And even Twilight has received its fair share of crappy reviews. Add it to the list of ways the world is unfair.

But you know, I'm actually happy about 50 Shades' record-breaking success. I'm always happy when a book sells like gangbusters. Books like 50 Shades and Twilight are bringing in a broad audience outside the demographic of hardcore readers. People who usually never step foot inside a bookstore are charging in and buying books. They're choosing reading over watching TV, surfing the net, or going to the movies. Maybe some of those sporadic readers will turn into voracious ones thanks to these critically-maligned books. They'll continue to buy books, share them with their friends. None of this is bad for the publishing industry. True, it would be nice if people were going gaga over more well-regarded books, but the real victory is that they're reading. In an industry that's fighting off decline, that's nothing to turn your nose up at.

Also, a handful of mega best-sellers can fund the publishing of a ton of smaller, acclaimed books. The film industry is loaded with loud, expensive tentpole films. Many of them receive critical drubbings. The Transformers trilogy comes to mind. Critics HATED those films. As an action fan, even I couldn't stand them. They had weak story, bloated action sequences, and unnecessarily long running times. But they also made billions of dollars worldwide. Why do these films make a boatload of cash, but better films like The Artist and Moonrise Kingdom can't even top $50 million? Add it to the list of ways the world is unfair.

But without Transformers, there would be no smaller, artsy films. Studios make a bulk of their profits from these tentpole films, which allows them to bankroll riskier, cheaper films. Even if they lose money, the studios still have their cash cows to keep them in business. In the same year as Transformers: Dark of the Moon, its studio Paramount also released the great film Young Adult. That film only made $16.3 million in the US -- 1/20th of Transformers:DOTM's gross. Summit made bank on the Twilight films, which allowed it to release The Hurt Locker and 50/50. Thanks to 50 Shades' and Twilight's (the book) success, those publishing houses were able to release lots of books that may not contribute much to the bottom line, but still hold a place in readers' hearts.

So yes, 50 Shades of Grey may not be the best thing that's happened to literature, but it's a pretty good thing that's happened to publishing.

When Fact and Fiction Collide

All writers get their inspiration from real life. Even if you imagined your new WIP out of thin air, chances are, you can trace those thoughts to a real life trigger. Suzanne Collins got inspired to write The Hunger Games while channel surfing. As a fan of non-fiction, I love when the writer can take an actual event and turn it into a gripping story. They delve deeper and find hidden meaning in the facts. Here are some of my favorite examples of clever uses of fact in your fiction.

Six Degrees of Separation by John Guare (Broadway play)
plot: A black con-man charms his way into the homes of uber-wealthy Upper East Side couples, passing himself off as the son of Sidney Poitier.
How much actually happened? 75% Con man David Hampton did charm his way into high society homes in the early 80s. Some of his marks were Gary Sinise and Melanie Griffith. John Guare's friends also fell victim. They let Hampton stay in their guest bedroom, and they found him in bed with another man the next morning. (That exact scene made it into the play.)
Where fiction took over: Guare took this news item and turned it into a play that explored race, class, and the inter-connectedness of the world. Six Degrees revolved around fictional couple the Kittridges, who were profoundly effected by their night with Paul, even as they turn him into an anecdote they tell at parties.
Where fact and fiction diverged: In the play, Paul is eventually arrested and nobody knows what happened to him, or even what his real name was. In real life, Hampton went in and out of jail for the next twenty years, conning families from NY to Seattle before dying in 2003.

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote (novel)
plot: On an ordinary day in sleepy Holcomb, Kansas, the entire Clutter family is murdered without warning or reason. The book traces the investigation, capture, and ultimate execution of the two killers.
How much actually happened? 100% Capote transcribed conversations with dozens of people involved in the case, and the killers, too. Every word is true, he claimed.
Where fiction took over: All the events and conversations were fact, but Capote's brilliant, beautiful writing kept it from sounding like a news article.
Real-life inspiration: Capote first read about the murders in a 300-word blurb as he casually flipped through The New York Times one day. His desire to learn more, to understand who would do such a thing, prompted him to travel to Kansas and begin his research.

Mean Girls by Tina Fey (movie)
plot: New girl in school Cady Heron gets adopted by popular clique The Plastics and its evil, yet seductive leader Regina George, whom she both idolizes and plots to destroy.
How much actually happened? 10% The movie is based on a self-help book for mothers of teenage daughters called Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughters Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence by Rosalind Wiseman. Fey took real-life examples from the book and wove it into her screenplay. The scene, for instance, where one of the Plastics explains to Cady the rules for eating at their lunch table, was transcribed almost verbatim.
Where fiction took over: The characters and plot are all made up, yet they are inspired by the factual examples laid forth in Wiseman's book.

What are some of your favorite non-fiction works or "based on a true story" works?

Dialogue vs Description

What's a good balance between dialogue and description in novels? (Note: Description here refers to all non-dialogue.) One of my insecurities as a writer is that I write too much dialogue and am light on description. I have a cut-to-the-chase style of writing. I picked it up from writing screenplays before transitioning to books. In scripts, it's suggested that you never have more than 3 lines of description at a time. It's a well-known fact that people in Hollywood don't like to read. Blocks of description turns them off. Also, scripts are used more as a blueprint for the director and actor. Description tells them what's happening, but they will use their own interpretation to create the tone and feel.

I am incapable of writing long passages of description. That's why I like YA. Kids like having a good mix of white space on the page. They feel they aren't reading a textbook that way. Do you ever cringe when you turn a page and it's a block of description? I sometimes do. When I read, I want description that's long enough to just give me a sense of what's going on. I don't need painstaking detail about physical description, a play-by-play of the characters' thoughts, or a journalistic recounting of backstory. Make it succinct; my mind will fill in the rest. I always think to that scene in Pleasantville when the kids discover blank books. Reese Witherspoon vaguely describes what a book is about, and the pages fill in with text. I would rather reveal information via dialogue.

On the same token, I don't like dialogue that goes on and on. Writing dialogue is fun, but it also needs to have a point. It must move the story along. I tire of scenes with dialogue that goes nowhere. Pulp Fiction is a famously talky script, but it's all leading somewhere. Characters don't talk just for the sake of talking. Long stretches of dialogue reveal character and explore the movie's theme: what does it take to be a righteous man?

Recently, I read The Giver by Lois Lowry and loved it. I devoured it in two days. It's an award-winning book, and I was surprised at how dialogue-driven it was. Most of the description are action lines. As I kept reading, I realized that the writing style echoed the colorless, emotionless world of the story. Still, I got a very clear sense of the main character and place. When Lowry does switch to more description in the end, they are short and sweet. They tell us where we are and what Jonas is doing. She did an amazing job at conveying so much in a few lines.

Which do you tend to write more of: dialogue or description/action?

Update: Revisions, AWP, Books, and Remembering Your Nose

Happy Friday!

I'm looking forward to the weekend. The AWP (Association of Writers Programs) conference is going on in Chicago through Sunday. Professors, students, and alumni of MFA writing programs are flocking to the city to mix and mingle. There are a slew of readings happening in bookstores, coffee shops, and bars. I went to a poetry reading on Wednesday night. To be honest, poetry is not my forte, but I still enjoyed being around other writers. I'm planning to go a fiction reading sometime this weekend. Since we spend so much of our time alone staring at a screen, it's nice to meet other pale, socially awkward writers in person. Their schedule can be found here.

I've also been revising every single day this week. I'm not hitting my chapter-per-day goal, but I'm still proud of myself for keeping up this daily pace. I thought I would dread revisions, but I quite enjoy having a base to go off of.

In my descriptions, I've been adding more sensory images, especially smell. We take smell for granted, opting to use visual and tactile description. But people have a strong attachment to their sense of smell. You can evoke a feeling or memory or setting quickly and effectively with sense of smell. You see, the sense of smell is our only sense that's connected directly to our brain, making them more vivid. The sensations don't have to be transmitted and translated like they do with the other four senses. That's why when I smell Cool Water on a guy, I'm instantly taken back to 7th grade sitting in front of this kid Jason who poured it on. Whereas if I see an old picture of him, it would take a little more thinking to picture the classroom. Try to intersperse some olfactory descriptions into your WIP. If you have a minor character, maybe you don't want to spend time describing his/her appearance, giving your reader yet another person to remember. Instead, describe how they smell and distringuish said character immediately.

In book news, I lent my copy of Small Town Sinners to a friend who's a youth minister. She loved it! She really appreciated how the protagonist questions her faith, how organic her development felt, and how the book doesn't put down religion. She's going to recommend it to her kids. I love when people love books I recommend. It's like a job well done...I'm currently reading Stephen McCauley's The Object of My Affection. Yes, I'm breaking my rule about reading the book after seeing the movie. And yes, I keep picturing Jennifer Aniston as the main character, even though in the book she is very different and not as glamourous. But I am enjoying the novel, especially its datedness. (It was written in 1985) The main characters are debating whether to invest in an answering machine. At least it's not a pay phone.







 How is your writing coming along? Any fun weekend plans?

Writing YA for Dummies

Happy Presidents Day!

I'm taking full advantage of my day off by starting the second draft of my WIP. After receiving feedback from my writer's group, letting it marinate for a few weeks, and then reworking my story to fix plot and character problems, I am ready to go! My banana cream pie-in-the-sky goal is to revise 1 chapter/day. A more realistic goal might be 1 chapter every 2-3 days. I'm aiming to finish draft #2 by May 1. (If only I didn't have a full-time job that's in its busy season currently...) I know -- I shouldn't set such firm goals in a public forum where I can be judged held accountable. But I'm hoping this spurs me on to finish in time. How long has it taken you to finish a second (or third or fourth) draft?

An unlikely tool in getting me psyched up for revisions is Writing Young Adult Fiction for Dummies by Deborah Halverson. My friend gave this to me for Hanukkah, and I let it collect dust all through January. When I decided to read it one morning on the train, I was hooked. I had never read a writing advice guidebook for novels. I figured I knew how to write a story from studying screenwriting in college and from reading lots of books. YA for Dummies didn't teach me new tricks; rather, it helped clarify parts of writing I thought I knew. I had about five epiphanies about my book after reading this.

My biggest takeaway from YA for Dummies was how to write a theme and weave it into my story. The theme is the central idea in your novel. In screenwriting, they call it the controlling idea. In Robert McKee's book Story (a must-read for any screenwriter), he says that Paddy Chayefsky, writer of Network, would keep his controlling idea next to him while he wrote. That way, he could make sure everything he wrote stuck to that theme. After I wrote my first draft, I couldn't state my theme in one sentence. I had about 3 themes garbled together. With draft #2, I've streamlined, and my story feels much clearer and focused. Halverson includes a theme-building exercise in the book, which at first I scoffed at, but came to find helpful.

I recommend picking up this book, or at least flipping through it at Barnes & Noble. Unlike Story, it's written in a nuts-and-bolts fashion, which I can appreciate. Just the facts ma'am. No matter how much you know, you're bound to learn something new. I haven't read other how-to books like Save the Cat or Writing the Break Out Novel. Have you? Thoughts?

Finally, a random comment on a YA book I'm currently reading. Said novel was published last year and takes place in present day. In one scene, the protagonist is searching for a quarter to use a pay phone, and then her friend takes her to a record store. The record store part I will let slide...barely.

But who still uses a pay phone? And they sure doesn't cost a quarter anymore.

I live in Chicago, and I've only seen maybe 2 pay phones. I doubt suburbs have them anymore. Most teens today have never and will never use a pay phone. They carry cell phones. If they don't, they would ask a stranger to borrow one before thinking to use a pay phone. That small detail pulled me out of the story for a moment. So for those of you writing contemporary, leave out the pay phones. I know people are wary about writing in technology that could be outdated in a year. But trust me, cell phones aren't going anywhere.

Questioning Your Taste: Is it them or me?

In the spring of 2010, the low-budget comedy Tiny Furniture premiered at the South by Southwest Festival and was hailed as a brilliant, insightful, funny coming-of-age story. It won the top prize, and its writer-director-star, 24-year-old newbie Lena Dunham, was called a fresh new voice in comedy. Critics adored the film. Judd Apatow is now producing a TV series Dunham created, Girls, which premieres on HBO in April. After hearing all of this hype and adulation for Tiny Furniture, I decided to watch it one night, excited about what I was going to see.
And I hated it.

The movie wasn't awful, but it was slow, plotless, and not funny. I was so confused. How was this film being hailed as the new coming of comedy? Why was Hollywood going gaga for this film and for Lena Dunham? Was it them or was it me?


Taste is subjective, but nowadays, it seems that it's only subjective if your opinion matches general consensus. If you don't like it, then you are not smart enough. Or you just suck. We see it with Oscar season. Critics fall over each other to slather a film with praise, and then I see it and am unimpressed. I always second guess myself: maybe I just didn't get it, maybe I have lofty expectations. Recently, I saw The Descendants with George Clooney. It's a frontrunner in this year's Oscar race, directed by Alexander Payne who did the sublime Election and Sideways. My reaction at the movie's end was "Meh." I couldn't understand why critics were drooling over this. Just like I couldn't understand why they loved Sideways -- a movie which I found good, not great.

My pet peeve is when people criticize me for not liking something they did. Last month, I saw The Muppets. Again, I enjoyed the film, but I didn't LOVE it, putting me in the minority amongst my friends. And at a party, one of the guests called my morals and my soul into question because I only liked it. Judging by the way The Muppets has nosedived at the box office, I wasn't the only one. Just because I don't like or love something doesn't mean I'm a heartless snob. When it comes to art, people were not meant to be lemmings.

I used to be like them, though. I used to get up in arms when someone didn't like a movie or book that I loved. I took it personally a little. But now I've learned that we all have different opinions, and nobody should make you feel like yours aren't valid. The key is backing up your opinions. Many times, we don't think about why we like or don't like something. We go with our gut. Since I've gotten into writing, I now work to articulate my reasoning. All writers should do this. Next time you read a great book, think about why you liked it so much, and not just because everyone else liked it. This will help you in your writing to figure out what works.

Over Christmas break, I read Franny and Zooey by JD Salinger. Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books, and I also loved Nine Stories, so I was excited to read F&Z. And I hated it. I rarely hate books, but I hated this one. I was afraid to say that, because F&Z is such a classic, it must be me. But this is why I so disliked the novel: It was 200 pages of people having extremely long, rambling conversations that went nowhere -- a short story idea that Salinger strained to stretch into a full-length. Maybe this just isn't my type of book. I realize that I prefer plot-driven novels. But that doesn't make my opinion invalid or my taste "off." 

What books/movies/shows have you hated that everyone else loved? And if you have opinions about any of the movies and books mentioned, please share!

Team Buffy or Team Bella?

(In case the print is too small, under Bella it says: Edward, you watch me sleep at night, you treat me like a child, and you think about eating me for dinner. Under Buffy, it says: No guy is worth your life. Not ever.)

I have never read or seen either, so I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the infographic above is the main gripe I hear about Bella.

Thoughts?

Now get back to writing, NaNoers! :)

Does YA Give You Body Dysmorphia

I recently finished a YA contemporary novel, a well-written coming-of-age story about a girl standing up for what she believes in and finding out who she is. I enjoyed the book, but the part that bugged me was her love interest: the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, preppy, built, cute boy. The most generic 'boy' stereotype across all media. And the girl protagonists in these stories usually believe they're dull-looking, yet still manage to attract the attention of the cute boy.

Why are these characters always so good-looking?

Our culture has a serious body image problem with no cure in sight. TV, movies, and magazines inundate us with impossible standards for male and female beauty: blonde, skinny, six packs, big boobs, long legs, no body hair, chiseled chin, etc. Women have it 100X worse than guys. In Hollywood, guys like Seth Rogen, Kevin James, and Woody Allen wind up with women like Katherine Heigl, Amber Valetta, and Diane Keaton. Guys can be schlubs, but women must always be stunning. Men have it rough, too. Every female-targeted romcom has the women ending up with some lockjawed, ripped dude. This has been going on forever. I know that. But why are books, especially YA novels, embracing these stereotypes, too?

TV and movies are visual media. They use hot actors to attract paying customers. Books don't need to use that trick. Readers don't pick up a book (with the exception of romance novels) because it's about attractive people. And if they start reading the book and find the main character isn't gorgeous, they don't automatically put it down. Teenagers are particularly insecure about their looks. I spent way too much time on my hair in high school; no wonder half of it's fallen out! Teens are bombarded all day by images of supposedly ideal body types. Why do we perpetuate those body types in YA books? Not all girls are attracted to the hot/dreamy guy, and not all guys are into the Heidi Montag look. If that were the case, then only supermodels would date. People have different ideas of what they find attractive. We should strive to write characters that have physical quirks to them - like actual teens. Let's not try to recreate a CW show. I'm sure readers will love your book even if the boy of your MC's dreams has unruly hair or a bony chest. And guy readers won't throw a book across the room if the girl love interest has blemishes or love handles. Don't save all odd body features for your side characters. I worry that many female protagonists in YA novels suffer from Laney Boggs syndrome: they think they're so ugly when it's glaringly obvious to the reader/whole world that they are total knockouts.

 
In Tina Fey's book Bossypants, she said that most successful shows centered around normal-looking, even slightly unattractive, casts. Friends was the exception. The casts of Cheers, The Office, Seinfeld, 30 Rock, and CSI among others are not filled with models. Whereas how many series with sexy casts got canceled?  *cough*Coupling*cough*

Believe it or not, there have been successful books with protagonists who don't fit the beauty mold. Skeeter Phelan of The Help was tall, lanky, flat-chested, and had embarrassingly frizzy hair. Katniss Everdeen had few discernible female features. She was kind of described as looking like Sandra Bullock in the first half of Miss Congeniality. Even down to the hairy legs. I know that readers love pining after the same guy/girl as the MC; that's part of the fun of reading a book. But you don't have to make them generically attractive. Create your own form of sexy. Leave the generic body types to Hollywood.

What do you think, readers? Is there a body image problem in YA?

Social Media Overload

Recently, Google+ opened the floodgates officially and now everyone can join yet another social media site. For months, I've seen other bloggers talking about Google+, putting the link in their sidebar, etc. A co-worker tried to sign me up for Google+ over the summer. I asked her why should I sign up for G+ over Facebook. "G+ is awesome. You can put people in circles." That wasn't reason enough for me. I told her plain and simple that I would only sign up for G+ if all of my friends left Facebook and joined. I'm such a trailblazer! I have nothing against G+, but I don't have the time or energy to join ANOTHER social media site. I'm already on Facebook and Twitter, and that feels like more than enough.

Agents love talking about platforms and social media presence. The quality of your writing is first and foremost, but online prowess is not far behind. I worry about this because I have limited mental bandwidth for the internet. I'm on Facebook and Twitter, but I don't use them religiously. I have a blog and blog friends, and try to post and comment regularly. To add Google+ to this list is daunting to me. What can G+ bring to the table that those other sites can't? I don't want to be overconnected. I can't be everywhere. I just have to admit to myself that I'll never be a social media maven. Will that make me less desirable to agents and publishers?


For all the authors who have a strong web presence like John Green and Brent Hartinger, there are plenty who don't who've sold lots of books. YA authors need to be online in some capacity, I think, since that's where their audience is. What do you think is the bare minimum of social media that authors should utilize?

I'm Back! With Books!

It's like I fell off the face of the earth or something! I have not blogged in two weeks, and truth be told, I haven't even checked my blog in a few days. *Hangs head in shame* I missed the Second Challenge from Rach Writes and have missed out on tons of your great blog posts. To the writers in my group, I apologize for not checking out anyone's stories and not participating. For the past week, I've been home in Jersey visiting family and friends and celebrating Rosh Hashanah - the Jewish new year, which I will write about in another blog post.

While I was home, I visited a friend up in Boston for the day. We went to a book sale her library was having. But this was not just a little shelf on wheels with some 1980s pop fiction on it. This was a mega sale. Thousands of popular books on sale for twenty-five and fifty cents apiece. Or a whole shopping bag of books for $8. The library didn't open until 1pm, and there was already a mob waiting at the front doors by 12:45. It was like Wal-Mart on Black Friday. It was a great feeling, seeing people still excited about books. I said I was only going to get a book for the bus ride home, but I wound up with much more! I absolutely have no self-control around discounted books. My friend nearly cleaned out the children's and YA section, and is creating a library at her church's youth center. Here are the books that I gorged on and lugged back to Chicago. My suitcase came to 48 pounds!

A suitcase (half) full of books!

I was supposed to get a kindle this month, but obviously that's not happening. I've been hesitant to make the purchase, not because I'm such a fan of physical books, which I am. But a majority of books I read are taken directly from the bookshelves of friends. I love borrowing books and recommending mine to others. With a kindle, you can't do that, at least from what I've heard. When I go over someone's house, one of the first things I do is peruse his/her bookcase. I take pride in my bookcase, too. A bunch of the books I bought I've already read and thoroughly enjoyed, but I never owned a copy. Now I can reread and lend out my favorites. I will probably get a kindle sometime in the future - they're easier to read on a crowded subway car. You only need one hand! But for now, between these books and the ones I bought at Borders before they closed, I am set.

What about you readers? Kindle or Physical books? And do any of my books pique your interest?

Cursing in YA

Kids love cursing. We want kids to read our books. Ergo, we should make our stories chock full of the seven dirty words. Right?

Well, that's up to you. Fantasy/sci-fi/dystopian novels generally have no cursing. It seems in scary, futuristic societies, people watch their language. And middle grade novels don't have any curse words because those readers are too young. Cursing seems to be an issue in contemporary YA. We want our books to feel real, and let's face it: real kids curse. But does that mean we need to use curse words in our books? 

The more serious your novel is, the more likely it is you will involve cursing. If you've written an issue-driven book about drugs, abuse, or violence, then chances are you will use dirty language to emphasize the scariness of a character, or the harsh reality of this world. But for regular, contemporary YA, I don't think cursing is needed unless it has a point. To this day, controversy surrounds teaching Catcher in the Rye in schools because Holden curses. Yet his cursing is viewed as a symbol of rebellion against the phony, upper-class society he inhabits.

Personally, I rarely curse, so I don't feel comfortable writing characters who drop f-bombs left and right. And when I read a YA book or watch a teen movie, I'm taken out of the story when the characters begin swearing excessively. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino and David Mamet LOVE swear words, but it's natural to their adult characters: mobsters, hitmen, gangsters, shady businessmen, angry power-crazed men. Some YA characters will curse more than others since it's part of their characters, like if they were lower-class or poor. But for a suburban teen, is it necessary?

To garner a PG-13 rating, a movie can only contain one f-word; any more, and it's instantly rated R. PG-rated films can only have maybe 1-3 s-words. G-rated films can't have anything filthy. When PG-13 movies cash in their f-bomb, they usually have a strong reason, i.e. the protagonist may be in a climactic fight. In She's All That, Laney Boggs shouts the infamous "Am I a bet? Am I a f--king bet?!" The f-word gives that line more power, makes it more jarring. For the most part, curse words are used sparingly, and that doesn't make audiences enjoy these movies any less. Luckily, books don't have that kind of censorship, but I think there should still be some responsibility on the author and editor's part not to take advantage and load up on swearing. Yes, kids swear, but that doesn't mean they won't enjoy a book with clean language. You don't need f--k and s--t to have your characters sound like real kids; you need them to have conflicting emotions and complexity.

I'll leave you with what my dad always said about swearing: The English language has hundreds of thousands of words. Why do you have to continually use the same 4 or 5?

What are your thoughts on cursing in YA? Do you have it in your story?

Sparkfest! aka Thank You Amy, Lois, Caroline, Cecily, James, and Kody

I am participating in Sparkfest 2011, brought to you by The Writer Coaster. I couldn't participate in the Star Trek blogfest also happening since I have never watched the show. But I have seen Galaxy Quest. Does that count??

For this blogfest, Christine Tyler @ Writer Coaster asked us the following:

What book made you realize you were doomed to be a writer? 

What author set off that spark of inspiration for your current Work in Progress?

Or, Is there a book or author that changed your world view?

 

I thought about this for a while. I wish there was one moment, one writer that provided the spark for me to write. I've wanted to write ever since I was a kid, unlike every other author in the universe... :) It was a steady stream of movies, TV shows, and books that gave me the enthusiasm to pursue writing.  

Amy Heckerling - Clueless

I've watched tons of movies and am known as somewhat of a movie buff. Clueless, however, will always be my favorite movie. Even though it is loved the world over, I still feel that it's underrated. The screenplay is one of the best in modern movie times. It's true! If any aspiring screenwriters are reading this, Clueless is a paragon of voiceover usage, and its dialogue is flawless - revealing, true to character, doesn't try to be cutesy (cough *Juno* cough), and darn funny. I've watched this movie around 13242 times, and I can probably quote it start to finish for you, if you'd like. The spirit of Clueless hangs over everything I write, and I aspire to write something 1/26th as good as Heckerling's movie.

Caroline B. Cooney - The Face on the Milk Carton

Lois Duncan - Killing Mr. Griffin, I Know What You Did Last Summer

My comments section blew up when I posted about I Know What You Did Last Summer the book. For good reason. I was a couch potato in middle school, but when I did read for fun, I read Cooney's and Duncan's books. Their hooks drew me in - what if you received mysterious letters taunting you about a deadly secret, what if you saw your face on a missing child poster, what if some students plotted to kill their nasty English teacher. They made reading fun for me, and their twisty, suspenseful novels provided the spark for many of my early short stories. Even today, these books still hold up. 

Cecily von Ziegesar - Gossip Girl

On a 2004 flight from London to New York, I needed a book to read to pass the time. I had heard about this hot new young adult series and decided to give it a shot. It would be a fun read for the flight. And I was hooked. I read five books in this addictive series about spoiled New York teens. (I stopped when the plots got too ridiculous and repetitive) This series inspired me to write YA. I read it and thought, "Hey I can totally write something like this." It was sharp, snarky, risque, fresh -- a notable difference from the YA of my childhood. Gossip Girl seems passe now, its references to the Hilton sisters and brand-name labels a quaint reminder of Bush-era excess. But YA had grown up, and I wanted to ride the wave. 

James Frey - A Million Little Pieces

Say what you will about the veracity of the story, but this is a compelling, well-written book. I read A Million Little Pieces post-scandal, when I suddenly found myself unemployed and didn't know when I'd get back on my feet. It was fall 2007, and I was trying to make a career writing in television with no luck. The book gave me hope and reassured me that no matter what happens, it will be ok. I reexamined the type of writing I wanted to pursue after reading it, and a few weeks later, I began my first attempt at writing a novel.

Kody Keplinger - The DUFF
I'm just not that into paranormal romance. I have full respect for writers and readers of those books, but I am simply not one of them. My genre of choice is regular contemporary. It can difficult for me to find the kind of books out there that I want to write. The Duff restored my faith in the genre. I count is as my "I wish I wrote that" novel. It gave me hope that these issue-with-a-lowercase-i books can get published and find an audience - in TV terms, a Dawson Leery can survive in a world of Edward Cullens.

All of these authors inspire me in some way, their influence molding together to give me a swift kick in the butt with my writing. Who inspires you?

***p.s. Follow me on Twitter --> @FillupSeagull ***

I Fear for the Hunger Games movie

Note to Hollywood: The Hunger Games trilogy is NOT the new Twilight.

I loved the first Hunger Games book, and I'm not alone. And I'm not alone in anticipating the movie adaptation. But the more information I read about the movie, the more I worry that I'm going to be extremely unhappy with the finished product. It was fun to speculate on the director and cast. (I always imagined Lenny Kravitz as Cinna!) Yet I think the movie is getting too much exposure from the media, especially Entertainment Weekly. They've already had two covers dedicated to The Hunger Games - and the movie is still shooting! Photos from the set have trickled out to mainstream websites. It's beginning to feel like overkill. I know the movie biz has changed; fans are more invested in certain properties starting at the pre-production stage. (I don't get why people were so up in arms about a brunette being cast as Peeta. Could you not watch the film if he didn't have blond hair?) Some of us want to be surprised when we walk into theater, not know every detail of the script, story, special effects. I want small glimpses and teases, and I think The Hunger Games production is borderline guilty of oversharing.

Now, all that will be forgiven if the movie turns out to be incredible. The producers just have to remember that Hunger Games is not Twilight. I'm get the feeling that they are pushing the Katniss-Gale-Peeta love triangle. To me, that was one of the weakest parts of the trilogy. This is a series about war and man's cruelty towards each other; it's not about what boy Katniss wants to date. I am dreading the day when I see girls wearing Team Gale or Teem Peeta shirts. I get it. Twilight has been a huge success. The Hunger Games appeals to a similar audience. Lionsgate (the studio behind the movie) wants to make boatloads of money. Ergo, Hollywood is viewing Hunger Games as the new Twilight. Romance was a natural element in Twilight; it was the crux of the story. But in The Hunger Games, it's a subplot. In the first book, it's hardly developed. I don't want the director to pander to the Twilight crowd. I want them to make a thrilling, suspensful, cunning movie.

Hollywood has an obsession with franchises and pre-sold concepts. (you did hear that they're releasing a movie based on the board game Battleship starring Rihanna, right?) Now that Harry Potter and Twilight are ending, all eyes are turning to The Hunger Games to be the next big thing. I don't want the movie to carry such lofty expectations. Just because it's garnering heaps of advanced press doesn't mean it will be a blockbuster. It may not reach the heights of those two. Will that automatically make it a bomb? And just because Harry Potter and Twilight split the last books into two parts doesn't mean Mockingjay deserves the same treatment. Those books were split just to milk more money out of the series. I don't think Mockingjay has enough material to warrant two films. Let's be honest: the first half dragged. I wonder how they will make an entire movie out of it.

Do you think The Hunger Games movie is getting too much exposure? And do you want them to beef up the romance part?

***and now you can follow me on Twitter --> @FillupSeagull ***

Goodbye Borders

Hello readers! I apologize for my absence. Life gets in the way. My parents came into town last weekend, work picked up this week, and this weekend I helped on my friend's film shoot. I stalled on my WIP, but I am pushing myself back on the wagon!

The Borders next to my office is in the middle of its goodbye firesale. I've taken to swinging by once a week on my lunch break to check out what the discounts are. You can read a million blog posts about what Borders closing means to publishing. I will spare you another one.  I love wandering through bookstores. I love the smell of new books. I find the whole setting inspiring. Skimming the titles on the shelves and their first pages always made me want to write or create reading lists in my head. Bookstores were a fun place to hang out when I was younger, to meet up friends or just hang out. I wonder where kids today hang out. There are no record stores, no video stores, and now very few bookstores. Do they hang out at Starbucks? I feel bad for kids today.

I also feel bad for Borders. The store has been insanely busy every since it began liquidating. Where were these people before? But each time I've walked through the store these past few weeks, the same sad thought runs through my head: I understand why they are going out of business. I peruse the front covers and first pages as a book lover and writer. But I check out the price sticker on the back like a consumer. Books are expensive. When did that happen?

It's hard to justify paying $25 for a book, especially in a recession. Most people only read a book once, then either pass it along or add it to their bookshelf. People who buy DVD's will watch that movie several times, and as the market shrunk, the price of DVD's came down drastically. I feel like the opposite happened with books. One of my friends said she'll only buy a book if it will impress people who peruse her bookcase. A lot of my cash-strapped friends and I just rent from the library. I love borrowing books from my friends and vice versa. Someone told me she goes to goodwill to buy books for a dollar because they have a decent selection. Every time I go into Borders, the prices have dropped, and I keep telling myself that I will buy a book. But it never happens. I still can't justify $10-15 for a paperback. I ask myself if I need to buy it, or if I can just get it from a library or friend. I can justify paying $10 to see a movie because I enjoy the moviegoing experience on top of the actual movie. It's an evening activity. Consumers are better bargain hunters today. Our dollar has less value but has to go further. Stores like Wal-Mart and Target - and the internet! - have trained us to search out low prices. As I walked through the aisles at Borders, I got the feeling that they were still operating like it's 1999. I know there are financial reasons behind book prices - bookstores get a cut, publishers get a cut, the author gets whatever is left over. Publishers can't charge a dollar for books. I just find it strange that in these times when bookstores and publishing and families across America are hurting, Borders prices have remained exactly the same, which make them seem steeper than a decade ago. In their music section, I saw CD's priced at $20 and laughed to myself. Do you think that books seem too expensive today?

Every time I look at the shelves at Borders or any bookstore, I always think of how much hard work went into each book. Pick any random novel in the fiction section, and that author and editor works for years to get it perfect. It's a shame that our society does not value art like it used to; now cost is paramount in the consumer's mind. It's sad, but that's the world we live in, and we just have to deal with it. Musicians today know they aren't going to make money off their albums. They've found other ways to generate income: tours, merchandise, endorsements, TV shows, clothing lines, perfumes.
 What do you think the corresponding revenue streams will be for authors in the future?

Novel Film Blogfest - Day 2

This is part 2 for the Novel Films Blogfest hosted by Madeleine at Scribble and Edit . You can check out part 1 here.

For today's post, I am going to talk to you about a rare occurrence: sometimes, the movie is better then the book.

This doesn't happen often. Movies by their very nature are forced to condense and simplify in order to fit into a 2-hour time period and appeal to mass audiences. Books can delve into characters. They can take their sweet time revealing the story. It's a more personal medium than movies - you and your imagination vs. you and a theater full of strangers. Of all the books I've read that've been adapted into movies, I have always enjoyed the book more. Except once.

The Devil Wears Prada movie far exceeded the book. It hewed closely to the book's plot - smart, non girly-girl Andie Sachs (Anne Hathaway) gets a job working as assistant to Miranda Priestley (Meryl Streep), the demanding, crazy editor of fashion magazine Runway, and she must perform outrageous tasks to keep her boss happy. Both book and movie were huge hits; the movie single-handedly kept female-driven films afloat for a time.

So what made the movie better than the book?

The book was a roman a clef by Lauren Weisberger, the former assistant to Anna Wintour, legendary editor of Vogue. It was pretty much 400 pages of the author saying "I'm so smart. These people in fashion are so stupid. Look how stupid they're being. Read about the ludicrous things they do and say. My boss is a crazy bitch. Why am I here?" The movie managed to convey the outlandishness of Runway magazine and Miranda Priestley, while also making us understand the world of fashion. In both book and movie, Andie, a wannabe serious journalist, is totally out of place at a fashion magazine. She guides the reader/audience through the ridiculous world of couture. In the book, she constantly demeans this world; her views never change. In the movie, she learns what the big deal is all about. She has a discussion with Nigel, Miranda's right-hand man, about how people at Runway think they're curing cancer or something. He tells her that some of the "greatest artists of the last century have walked these halls," that fashion is the best kind of art because "you live your life in it." I thought that was such a profound statement. (And for the record, I have very little fashion sense and most of my wardrobe cost under $10.) Up until that point, I had the same views on fashion as Andie. But then I got it. I understood why people were so enraptured with this world, why they would spend so much money on a shirt, why they dress for work like they're walking a runway. They get to be curators everyday. A scene or two before that, Andie gets eviscerated in a fashion meeting by Miranda for snickering over a life-or-death decision about which blue belt to use. In a brilliant minute-long monologue, Miranda tells her how the decisions made on the runway and at Runway affect every single person, down to bargain shoppers like herself.
The epic scene: http://www.hulu.com/watch/13046/the-devil-wears-prada-cerulean-sweater
(p.s. for you Lost fans, that's Charlotte Staples-Lewis in the beginning!)

In less than 5 minutes, the movie managed to give credence and respect to the fashion world - something the book refused to do.

Secondly, the movie humanized Miranda. We saw that she neglected her family in order to get ahead, and she wound up paying the price. Again, Meryl Streep has another great scene when Miranda learns she is getting a divorce. The scene is very true to her character -- not sappy, just blunt and calm. Miranda came off as demanding and mean just like in the book, but in the movie, she also was shown to be a very knowledgeable editor. We understand why she's at the top. In that cerulean sweater scene, as in another scene when she's at a meeting discussing the new issue, she comes off as smart and savvy. We may not like Miranda, but we sure respect her. The author of the book, probably with an ax to grind, portrayed her as one-dimensional, leaving out the respect part.

Finally, and most importantly, the movie centered around the struggle between your personal and professional life - a real issue with which many people can empathize. The book just wanted to make fun of the fashion world. There is a place for that type of expose. I won't sit here and tell you that the book was unreadable. It was a fun, light read. But the movie dug deeper. It took great pains to find out what makes these people tick. It dared to make us understand the lunacy of high fashion and empathize with a character as seemingly evil as Miranda Priestley. That's why in this special case, the movie was infinitely better than the book.

How about you, readers? Are there any movies out there that you thought were better than the book? And if you haven't seen The Devil Wears Prada, rent it!

Novel Film Blogfest - Day 1

I guess it's technically Night 1. Er...sorry for the delay with this post! I am blogging as part of Scribble and Edit's Novel Film Blogfest...

I warn you. My list of titles that I have both seen and read is not long. I established a rule a few years ago not to read the book after I see the movie. Election is one of my favorite movies. It's also one of the best movies of the past 20 years, but that's another blog post for another time. I had decided to read the book, since I loved the movie so much. And much to my dismay, the two are very dissimilar. The premise is the same, but not much else. The Tracy and Mr. M in the book didn't sound at all like Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick. In short, I hated the book. I found it dull.

The best part about reading a book is using your imagination to fill in the gaps - visualizing a character in your head, picturing the setting. But a movie does that for you. Tracy in the book was not like Tracy in the movie, among other differences, and that made it difficult for me to enjoy the novel on its own terms. So from then on, I would not let myself go back and read books if I'd already seen the movie. Currently, I am actually breaking that rule. I picked up The First Wives Club at a thrift store en route to the beach because it was the only book they had that seemed interesting. Even though I'm picturing the actresses in the 3 main roles, I'm working hard to not think of the movie and remembering that the two are separate entities.

Without further ado, my small list of books and movies I have both read (and there's probably a few I may be forgetting):

The Devil Wears Prada
Along Came a Spider
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
The Time Machine
Pride and Prejudice (the Keira Knightley version)
The Bonfire of the Vanities
I Know What You Did Last Summer
Gossip Girl (this is a TV show)
The Rules of Attraction
The Help (I will see this movie when it comes out in 11 days)
Bringing Down the House (movie version: 21, not the Steve Martin/Queen Latifah movie)
In Cold Blood (movie: Capote)