Remember Googlewhack? That was the game where you entered two, hopefully disparate search terms with the goal of returning one—and only one—hit on a Google search. It’s become harder to do (did you know there are 816,000 hits if you search for cantankerous vortices?) which might be why I don’t hear people speak of it as much.
I’ve created a new game but I don’t have a name for it yet. Maybe you can help me. The game goes like this:
1)Â Â Â Â Â Identify a blogger who is obsessive about checking their stats: number of visitors, from whence their visitors came, and, most importantly, what search terms were used to arrive at their blog.
2)     Google the following without the quotation marks: “[person’s name] eats babies for breakfast.†(The more specific you can be about the person’s name, the better. If they’re an author, put ‘author’ before their name. If they’re a painter, put ‘painter.’  If you know the city where they live, add the city. The object is to get a hit that will take you to their blog.)
3)Â Â Â Â Â Click on any result that leads to their blog.
4)Â Â Â Â Â Sit back and watch that person freak out (on their blog, on Facebook, via Twitter) about the weird stuff people Google to find them.
5)     Repeat with other weird phrases [(person’s name) undulates with saturnine munchkins] for added amusement.
What’s a good name for a game like this? I feel like ‘evil’ should be in the title….
Today’s true confession: I used to watch GENERAL HOSPITAL.
I got hooked as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s when the Cassadines attempted to freeze the world with the Ice Princess. (Mom was watching it and it had a sci-fi angle. How
Elizabeth Taylor as evil matriarch, Helena Cassadine. Do NOT mess with her.
could I not watch?) Over summer vacation, I continued to watch it off and on, even when the sci-fi like stories stopped, into the early 90s. I’m stunned to learn that many of the characters that I watched back then are still on the show today (some even played by the original actors). Haven’t tuned into GH for quite some time, although they’ve tried their best in recent years to lure me back (Robert Scorpio and Anna Devane came back?!?).
But soap operas are dying. The last few years have seen these daytime staples, some that started as radio programs back in the ‘30s, get picked off one by one. ABC recently announced that two of its juggernauts, ALL MY CHILDREN and ONE LIFE TO LIFE, are being cancelled, leaving GENERAL HOSPITAL as the sole soap (for how long, no one knows). NBC long ago vanquished most of their line-up (DAYS OF OUR LIVES remains) while CBS clings to THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS and THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL (again, no one knows how long they’ll last).
What does this have to do with anything, Brian?
I think it’s very telling. It’s the clearest evidence there is that storytelling tastes evolve. This is absolutely true of individuals.  If it wasn’t , we’d all still be reading picture books exclusively (not that there’s anything wrong with adults reading picture books). As we mature, our tastes change. We require different sophistication in storytelling.
What’s interesting about the demise of the soaps, in my mind, is how it demonstrates this can happen across a culture as well. In fact, I think if you were to look at TV writing by decade, it would be very easy to see how the way stories are told has changed. Compare a sixties sitcom (I DREAM OF JEANNIE, let’s say) with something more contemporary (RAISING HOPE). We see a lot less slapstick today (although sometimes, in the case of the BBC show MIRANDA, it still works). I think the last time we had a sitcom dealing with some sort of magical premise was in the eighties (I could be wrong; it may have spilled over into the early 90s). Nowadays, magic seems reserved for drama. Strangely, our sitcoms have become more grounded in reality.
I had a bit of a rude awakening recently when I had a chance to stream some episodes of SCARECROW AND MRS. KING, a show from the 80s that I LOVED. Let’s just say it didn’t stand the test of time. I often think of 80s TV as high on concept with very archetypal characters. Plot holes in the writing and implausible situations were irrelevant as long as the PREMISE was intriguing.  A show like SAMK wouldn’t fly today on the sheer implausibility of the government hiring a scatterbrained housewife to regularly work with one of their top agents on matters of national security. No one would buy that today.
The soap opera successor?
Does this mean our tastes have become more sophisticated? Not really. Look at GLEE. In fact, I might have expected a resurgence in the popularity of soaps, given the success of GLEE, which shares many of the same storytelling elements as the soaps (extreme melodrama, fly-by-night relationships…maybe soaps can be saved by some in-your-face musical numbers).
While the demise of soaps is sad in that it marks the end of an era, it’s not really surprising. Art is far from a constant. Just as the tastes of viewers (or readers) have changed, writing styles have evolved over the years as well. It’s not always immediately obvious. Every ten years or so, some writer, feeling vilified, attempts to prove that editors today don’t know what they’re doing. They take something like JANE EYRE, submit it as their own work, then gloat as it gets rejection after rejection and claim that editors are stupid. But, really, the editors are responding to the current market. JANE EYRE, if it didn’t already exist as a classic, wouldn’t sell in today’s market. The tastes of readers have changed. And so has the way we write.
The clock is ticking...
We can argue ad nauseam as to whether or not this is a good thing. You might say that things like TV and movies have fed society a diet of easy, making it harder to appreciate the lush prose that once was a hallmark of good writing. Maybe. In the end, I don’t think there’s any way to fight it.  I think it can be a tricky balance for a writer, trying to write what they want but also keeping up with the times.  Does that mean you have to rewrite everything you’re doing and mimic the style of whatever’s at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list? Absolutely not. If anything, it’s more important than ever to be a unique voice, shouting against the din.  But it’s also important to have a strong understanding of where writing has been and where it’s at.  It’s often hard to predict where it’s going. I think that’s because it’s up to those unique voices to set the course. To be something unlike anybody’s seen and to be prepared to go with the flow. Daytime soaps kept their heads above ground as best as they could. In the end, the formulas that once made them successful are what brought them down.  The key to having a successful career as a writer? The ability to adapt.
After an absence of (mumble, mumble) months, THE BLOG IS BACK! What’s the reason for this mysterious absence? Why the sudden reappearance? Why should anyone care?
To answer these and other probing questions, I have gained unprecedented access to myself for a no holds barred, down-and-dirty interview that asks the questions no one else dares. For the first time ever, I ask myself the questions that must be asked and demand answers.
Disapproving interviewer
Me: So, Brian…. Whatever happened to that “I swear to blog at least once a week. Probably on Mondays†thing. You know, the one you mentioned in the new manifesto of your blog.
Me: Ugh, I know, right? I suck. That’s all I can really say. I suck on toast. But, if it means anything, I’ve been busy.
Me: We’re ALL busy, Brian.
Me: I know, I know. Remember? I suck. But here’s the sitch. The short version is that I found myself on deadline for two books simultaneously. I needed to turn in the second book of my middle grade series and, at the same time, I got my editorial notes on the first book. This was actually kind of cool, because it gave me a chance to look at both books back to back and address some continuity issues. But it made for a TON of work in a relatively short amount of time.
Me: Cry me a river.
Me: Hey, I’m trying here. So most of my life for the past couple months was devoted to finishing the second book and re-writing the first. It was great to have my editor’s notes on book one while working on book two. It allowed me to tailor it a bit more, knowing which elements she wanted me to bring out and which could be softer.
Me: How’d it go?
Me: Pretty well, I think. Wrote a lot of new material for the new book, based on my editor’s awesome notes. I’m feeling much more confident about it now. I’ve even got a shiny new (non-official) synopsis up on my Middle Grade page that gives a clearer idea of what the book is about. It’s currently set to publish in Fall 2012. And I’ve heard some exciting things about the cover. Can’t wait until I have stuff to share in that regard.
Me: Okay, fine, you were writing. But lots of people are busy writing. Andrew Smith is working hard on his books and manages to blog every day. What’s your excuse?
Me: Well, Andrew Smith is a god. How can I compete with that? Also, that thing about me sucking? Yeah, that.
Humble, repentant interviewee
Me: Maybe you need a class in time management.
Me: Maybe yo momma does.
Me: What?
Me: Nothing. I do feel bad. But busy is busy. I even had to neglect my monthly post to Smack Dab in the Middle (the guilt of which still gnaws at me). I think I’m back on track now.  I mean, I’m not convinced that troves of people read this blog anyway. The only comments I get are spam. Lots and lots and LOTS of spam. But, hey, I’d like to have a web presence. And Twitter (@BrianFarrey) is just soooo much more geared to my attention span.
Me: So, you’ll be blogging weekly again?
Me: That’s the plan. You’ll forgive me if I get off track?
Me:Â No.
Me: Oh.
Me: Mercy is for the weak, man.
Me: I’ll keep that in mind. I’ve got a few posts planned for the near future so, fingers crossed, this will once again be a hub for the inane and unusual.
I know! I know! Eat some ice cream to stave off the crippling disappointment. Â I’m on lockdown until Book 2 in my middle grade series is acceptable for human consumption. No tweets. No blogs. No nothing. Â Will return soon with the promised award presentations. Stay frosty!
First of all, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for helping me spread the word about WITH OR WITHOUT YOU. I’m very pleased with the response and I’m incredibly glad the winners were chosen randomly as, if was totally up to merit, I wouldn’t be able to decide because you are all quite clearly awesome.
The Random Number Generator (whom I’ve named Bubba) has spoken. The following winners will be contacted via Direct Message. (Or you can write me on the Contact page to claim your prize.) All prizes also include a signed copy of WITH OR WITHOUT YOU. Congratulations to everyone!
FOR WRITERS
The winner of 1st prize—a full manuscript critique of up to 60,000 words—is:
Justin Olson @Olsonwrites
The winner of 2nd prize—a critique of the first 50 pages of your manuscript—is:
Mandie Baxter @MandieBaxter
The winner of 3rd prize—a critique of the first 10 pages of your manuscript and your query letter—is:
Vivian Lee Mahoney @VLeeMahoney
FOR READERS
The winner of 1st prize—the collection of signed YA hardcovers—is:
Laura Stewart  @lalalalaurajane
The winner of 2nd prize—the collection of signed YA paperbacks—is:
Adam @RoofBeamReader
The winner of 3rd prize—a $25 gift card to the book retailer of your choice—is:
Cheyenne Schenck @TheCheyShow
Now, before you all unfollow me en masse, let me just say:  I’ve got another book coming out next year. And who knows if a very similar contest will emerge to celebrate the release of that book as well. Might be worth keeping me on your follow list (even if it means an endless torrent of DOCTOR WHO fanboy slobber) for the next giveaway…
This is it! Â At 11:59 pm this evening, I’ll be closing off entries for the Contest. Â You have until then to tweet your heart out for a chance to win fabulous prizes such as a manuscript critique or signed first edition books from today’s hottest YA authors.
At some time on Tuesday, I’ll fire up Ye Olde Random Number Generator (seen below) and randomly select six winners from all the entries. Â I’ll post the names/Twitter IDs of the winners on Wednesday (and contact them via DM) and then the fun begins! (In other words, everyone who followed me solely to win swiftly unfollows me and I’m left friendless and alone once more…. *sniff*….)
Ye Olde Random Number Generator (steam powered)
Coming later this week… Some of you may recall I was involved in a Bet. Â Some of you may recall I won said Bet. Â Some of you recall that I announced there would be glitter and prizes for the stories generated by the Bet. Â Well, the inaugural Brian Awards will be announced this week, complete with star studded gala. Â Stop back to see who’s wearing what, who was nominated, and who wins!
Today marks the 30th anniversary of the first diagnosis of AIDS in the United States. The disease had been killing silently around the world since at least 1978 (much evidence suggests it had been around longer but the pieces of the puzzle started coming together in ’78).
Of course, at the time, they didn’t have a word for it. The words “gay cancer“ were floated around. Later, the grotestque ‘gay-related immune deficiency’ (GRID) popped up. The more accurate, and less vilifying, AIDS was coined in 1982. By then, it had become an epidemic, owing largely to extreme denial on the part of the Reagan administration and the reluctance to acknowledge that a problem even existed.
This was homophobia at its ugliest. The mere perception that the disease was exclusive to homosexuals made the people who could have done something about it ambivalent at best. (If you’re interested in learning more about the history of AIDS, I highly recommend Randy Schilts’ excellent AND THE BAND PLAYED ON.)
Back in the ‘80s, everyone was scared because nothing was known about HIV. Today, we know it can—and does—affect anyone. But sometimes it seems that, 30 years on, we’re still as much in the dark now as we were when this was just a condition whispered about with a mixture of fear and shame. Advances in the treatment of HIV and AIDS have fostered complacency in many. A lack of strong education on the dangers of HIV—supported by those who still live with the idea that it’s strictly a “gay diseaseâ€â€”have seen a return of reckless sexual practices that endanger thousands of men and women—gay and straight—every day.
The shadow of HIV/AIDS hovers over WITH OR WITHOUT YOU. To be clear, it’s not a book about HIV/AIDS. I consider it a book about acceptance, belonging, and love. These are all concerns of anyone living with HIV/AIDS. These are concerns we all face.  Almost daily, I remind myself to reflect on this often overlooked intersection.
There’s still much to learn. Â There’s still much to say. And I can’t escape the feeling that the most important fact that needs to endure is: This is not over and it does affect you.
Have a brief but incredibly meaningful conversation with the current DOCTOR WHO showrunner, Steven Moffat, a man whose work you greatly admire.
Also of note: 11 hours later, the tweet to me was still at the top of his Twitter feed. As if he couldn’t bear to tweet someone else and move me down a notch from such a place of importance.
The subtext might as just well say, "Yes, world, Brian Farrey and I are BFFs."
Henceforth, I shall be known as Brian Farrey: Editor, Author, Drooling Husk.
It’s hard to be down given the terrific response to the Contests and all the kind things people have been saying about WITH OR WITHOUT YOU. Â Thanks to all who’ve entered the Contests. Â There’s still one week to go before I haul out Ye Olde Random Number Generator and choose six lucky prize winners. (Hint: There are for more entrants into the writers’ contest than the readers’ contest so if you’re just looking to win SOMETHING, tweet about contest 2 too.)
Here we are, the end of the blog tour. Â The Teen Book Scene people have been so kind and generous, I can’t thank them enough. Special shout out to Kari for being the Puppetmaster behind the whole thing. Â In this, the final week of the blog tour, you will learn:
My favorite opening line from a YA novel.
Why being pedantic means I’ll be the first to die in the zombie apocalypse.
The majority of WITH OR WITHOUT YOU is set in Madison, Wisconsin, a city I love a lot. One of the story lines involves Erik, an amateur sculptor, unveiling a commissioned piece in a Madison park. Erik’s sculpture is of a pair of angels, fashioned from steel, who rise up over the park to defend the defenseless. The location in my book is fictional but it’s loosely based on Olin Park.
So I enjoyed reading about this installation by Christopher Murphy that can be found in Madison’s Olin Park. Â The sculptures are awesome and this picture has a wonderfully creepy vibe. I think it would make an awesome book cover.
