The family of a girl who died kissing her boyfriend’s peanut butter coated tongue has my sympathies.
Month: November 2005
Walk the Line
Great performances, good music, mediocre story. Joaquin Phoenix is a credible as Johnny Cash. Unfortunately, Mr. Cash marched a very self-indulgent path in life, thus his film suffers. The story arc is not the only problem. Much blame rests with the release date.
Timing plays a big role in the audience perceptions. When two thematically similar movies hit the market within a short time span, if both are of comparable quality, often the last one out fizzles. A recent example of the first time home run, second time ground ball effect: Cinderella Man. A solid, well-written and executed story, the Depression era boxing docudrama chased the heels of Million Dollar Baby. Audiences had their fill of boxing and the story of Maggie Fitzgerald and Cinderella Man underperformed. Last year Ray, the story of Ray Charles, stormed the theaters, leaving Walk the Line stale popcorn. Had I not seen Ray, I would have enjoyed Walk the Line a bit more.
Verdict: Worth a look. DVD rental.
Three Down
Another day, another reader review for the manuscript. Verdict: 90 percent ready. Sweet. Recorded three micro cassettes worth of suggestions and corrections. To the five who remain: you’ve been warned; I tape meetings. Pre-submit reader three earns an additional thank you, as they caught an embarrassing glitch others — myself included — missed.
Much of the feedback has been character related, which suggests the narrator is a credible mouthpiece, and that the plot works. Even more interesting, so far each reader focused much of their efforts on a different character, without prompting from me.
Very, very peculiar feeling when someone says, “Character X wouldn’t say _____. They would say ____.†It’s the right sort of odd. The real good kind, I mean.
Two down
The verdict of pre-submit number two: fast read, a little rough in few spots, one character needs less personality. Estimated percent done on a scale of zero to one hundred: eighty-five. While less effusive in their praise than the first reader, that’s understandable. Reader number two comes to the page with a more seasoned eye and a background in publishing. Better to hear it from someone in the biz than not hear it at all, and wonder what happened.
The problem of managing all this feedback quickly revealed itself. Eight readers times three-hundred and fifty-two pages is an unruly mash of loose paper. Working through each pile eight times seemed a bad idea. That kind of brute force repetition begets mistakes, including one most disastrous: drowning out the consensus.
The more times a comment recurs, the more valid it is; I give those sort the highest priority. The problem is how to keep them in view throughout the revision process. Reader one, two and five might agree the same character needs fine-tuning, but yours truly might miss the connection in the paper chase.
Like usual, The Wife saved the day. Her solution for managing all these edits: work from a single master copy. Where a reader identifies a character or plot issue, record the comment on the relevant page with their initials. Corrections in grammar and punctuation remain only on their copies for later attention. This way, the overlap in feedback leaps off the page. The other plus, is the possibility of testing reader ideas on other readers. Whoever goes last in this process has the hardest task, since they will have both the manuscript, plus the feedback from the seven before them.
It’s elegant suggestions like this that make me grateful for The Wife.