The Princess and the Frog

I am very excited to see Disney's latest movie The Princess and the Frog for a number of reasons. First, I have always loved Disney's ability to re-tell a traditional fairy tale. When I was growing up, Disney's movies were considered cannon - they were the ultimate authority for fairy tails. But now that I am older, what I really like is Disney's ability to re-tell a story (that is, take a traditional tale, but some sort of spin on it). In this case, set the familiar story in 1920's New Orleans. What an interesting way to re-tell an old, familiar story.

But that isn't the main reason I'm excited to see it.

I am also very excited because it is the first Disney movie to feature an African-American heroine (I refrain from saying princess as I so dislike that term. Princess, to me, denotes royalty, but little else. Heroine, on the other hand, can be anyone from a princess to a poor girl on the streets - it is her pluck that drives the story - but I digress). When Beauty and the Beast came out, I was very excited because it finally featured a heroine with brown hair and brown eyes - finally, a heroine who looked like me! Before that time, it seemed that only blonde, redheads, or girls with snow white skin and black hair were the standards of beauty. But what I felt cannot even compare to how hundreds of little girls (and their mothers) must feel right now.


But that also isn't the main reason why I'm excited to see it.

The main reason I'm excited is because of what I refer to as

It's the Story, Stupid!

Back in the 1990s, the Walt Disney company made what I consider to be their biggest blunder of all time - they decided to lay off all their traditional animators and focus solely on computer animation. I do not know the full reasons for this idiocy. I suspect it came at the time when Pixar was king of the box office, while Disney movies were lagging far, far behind. Among this hoopla for the new computer animation, Disney must have thought that traditional hand-drawn animation was as dead as the dodo and sacked all their traditional animators. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I am a fan of animation. I have always enjoyed its ability to tell stories and take us places that we may not otherwise be able to go. But I enjoy it as an art form. I love the beauty of traditional art to capture human movements and expressions in a way that computer animation still cannot (notice I do say human - computer animation has always been great at depicting non-human things, but when it comes to humans, the people always seem to me more like bubbles than humans. It could never make that leap in the way traditional animation always could.) Just look at this frame. It is so much more beautiful than anything a computer animated movie could do. To me, this looks like a work of art and to me, that was what animated shows could be - moving works of art.

But having said that, if the story is great, it could be told using popcicle sticks. It's the story that is most important - more than great animation or computer wizardry. If the story is weak, then everything else falls apart (though Hollywood seems to constantly forget that). Let me go back to the time when Disney sacked it's animators. Pixar was creating movies such as Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Finding Nemo. Disney, as I recall, was doing Lilo and Stitch, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet. Hmmm, not exactly the most memorable of movies. Why did Pixar succeed where Disney failed? Because Pixar has great stories! This is as true then as it was now. Disney had forgotten then what were it's great stories and went with the trend of the day. I don't know about you, but the thought of a traditional fairy tale done in computer animation seems about as appealing as Mickey Mouse rapping. Just because things look good doesn't mean they hold up (take a look at most of the movies made by Dreamworks and other such companies). In the end, it is the story that people come back to.

I have not seen The Princess and the Frog, but intend to soon. I will give my review next week.

Greetings After a Long Hiatus

Over a year has passed since my last blog post. Much has changed during that time including two deaths in my family, one birth, and a move from the east to the west coast. I hope my fans (two goldfish, a cat, and a golf ball!) can forgive my lax postings because of these major interruptions. I plan to not only keep up with this blog, but to post much more regularly as well. I plan to keep the focus on children's literature and writing, but will expand my focus to areas that I am interested in as well, just to keep things interesting. I hope that you'll enjoy this more expanded Slush Pile Chronicles and hopefully I'll be able to garner more fans (three goldfish!)

#3 Too Long

MORE IS LESS!!!

One of the biggest problems I find with a large number of picture book manuscripts is that they are too long. The average I see is 1,000 to 2,000 words. For modern picture books, that's just too many words. It's no longer a picture book, but a short novel.

The average picture book these days is :500 to 700 WORDS!
Yep, that's it. Yes, you can go down to the bookstore and find many books that, but if you are a unknown, unpublished author, I would highly recommend sticking within those guidelines.


TRUST YOUR ILLUSTRATOR

Because you're a writer with pictures in your head and only black words on white paper, you may be tended to use descriptions. Resist this temptation! A good place to shave off excess words is in the descriptions. This is where you have to trust the illustrator. Your illustrator is a professional who will be using pictures instead of words to convey an image; beautiful pictues that will make your descriptions null and void. Unless it is absolutely, one hundred percent needed for the story, leave the descriptions out.

THINK OF A PICTURE BOOK LIKE A POEM: MAKE EVERY WORD COUNT.

#4 Rhyme

We all love Dr. Suess. He set the standard for children's literature. His timeless classics are still loved and cherished by young and old alike. He set the bar very high for picture book writers.

And he also ruined it.

Most people today think that if they are to write a picture book, they have to do it in rhyme.

PLEASE, DON'T!

About 90% of the children's picture book manuscripts I look at are in rhyme. The worst part is, 99.99% aren't very good rhymes. They are usually off in beats or meter or are strained to make the words fit, at the sake of the story.

Do most editors take rhyming stories anymore?

Sure. We like rhymes. But we like good rhymes, and as I just said above, most of what we get are not good rhymes.

Does that mean you should never do a rhyming story?

Of course not. Go ahead. But I would highly suggest that unless you are a poet (a real poet) and know what you're doing in terms of beat and meter, then by all means, tell a rhyme. But if you're not sure, remember this simple rule:

IF YOU CAN TELL THE STORY IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN RHYME, PLEASE DO SO.

#5 Illustrating It Yourself

Or Your Friend, or your child, or your spouse, illustrate it.

Unless you (or your friend, etc.) are an accomplished artist, I would never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never recommend that you try to illustrate your own picture book.

WHY?

1. Because publishers already have a great pool of talent at their fingertips. There are artists out there just yearning to be called and asked to help illustrate a picture book. Publishers must have hundreds of them, so they really don't need your drawings.

2. When an editor reads a picture book manuscript, we like to see the images in our head. Sometimes we may have very different ideas of what we might think the pictures should look like than you do.

3. It's a pain photocopying the artwork in full color anyway.

4. Realize that the pictures you thought were masterpieces look like this:

compared to professional artists that look like this:

BUT WHAT IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST?

Then go ahead and submit your pictures. However, be prepared for a few things:

1. That the editors may feel that while your pictures are good, they may not express depth or motion that they feel the story needs.

or

2. They look too commericial. (A word thrown around a lot. What this means is that they look too slick, like Strawberry Shortcake, or Spongebob Squarepants.)

or

3. They just don't match what the editor had in mind for the story.

So if you are an artist and a writer, be prepared for the possibility that the editor may like your drawings, but not your story, or s/he may like your story, but not your drawings. What you decide to do in that situation is always your call, but remember that it helps to be flexible. If you're unwilling to compromise, it may end any possible relationship you might have with the house and limit your options in the future.

A Tribute to Calvin and Hobbes

The Name Game

Giving birth to a new character is like having a new baby. You want to care for it, nurture it, but most importantly, you want to give your character a good name. You obviously want to give a good name to your bouncing baby girl or boy. You think very carefully, think of the characteristics of your child, even consult family and friends, and in the end, make the choice that you like and feel will suit the baby.

The same goes for your characters.

What Doesn't Work?

If your main character is a penguin or a peacock, please do not give the name Petunia, Pearl, Petal, Patty, Patrice, Patricia, Paul or Paula, or even Penelope.
Likewise, if your character is an owl, steer clear of Olivia, Oscar, Opal, Opie, or Otto.
If your character is a jellyfish, don't even think of Jerry, Jelli, Jene, Janet, or Jane.

Do you see where this is going? Paula the Peacock, Patty the Penguin, Otto the Owl, or even Jerry the Jellyfish don't inspire much in the way of creative thinking.

Whether your charcter is an animal or a human, it's most important to think of what you want to say with a name. Just as our names say something about ourselves, your character's name will say something about him or her.

So What Does Work?

Obviously, that's a harder question to answer. That's up to you and your character. What characteristics does your character possess? What do you want to project about her or him? And what names do you like? J.K. Rowling chose the name Harry because it was one of her favorite names for boys. But what does it also say about him? It's a rather common name, not very distinguishing. But that's good for Harry. He believes he's a common boy until he gets his letter to Hogwarts. Readers are able to relate to Harry because we feel that he's one of us (except that he gets to go to a magical school). Can you imagine what the books would be like if Rowling decided to name her main character Draco, for example? Not the same, is it?

On the other hand, the name Artemis Fowl really stands out. This, again, is on purpose. Artemis is supposed to stand out. He's not one of us, he's a mastermind criminal.

I recommend purchasing a baby name book with lots of names from traditional American to Zulu and everything in between, preferably with meanings to the names. You can also use the internet to search names. Choose them carefully and wisely and you'll really see your character come to life!