Monday, August 17, 2009

Will Pulling Back The Curtain Help Popularize Books?

Last week I was in Newport, Rhode Island attending a scientific research conference. Discussed topics included iron-sulfur cluster biosynthesis, heme transport, and my personal favorite, visualization of labile zinc in vivo. I was inspired by the groundbreaking work that was being done, but at the same time, I was frustrated. The fact was, a hundred and fifty scientists were sharing their passion with each other, instead of with the rest of the world.

Enter Julie & Julia, starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I won't give away too much of the story, but one point that was made evident was that communicating our passionate pursuits to the general public was important in building popularity. And, I'm not talking about popularity for ourselves, but for the art form.

Think of all the television shows that have helped to create new markets. The Food Network, or HGTV. ER. NYPD Blue. The Deadliest Catch. By revealing the details of what it takes to get a job done, people become more interested in the job itself.

I love that book series like Harry Potter and Twilight have gotten millions of people to read again. But, right now, the downside of this is that the publishing world is more focused on finding only the blockbusters. I wonder if we, as writers, could get people to read a wider range of books by focusing more of our attention on explaining to laypeople what it takes to complete a book and get it published. This wouldn't be easy. I know a lot of us are still afraid even to admit to that we are actually writers. But, I really think if people better understand the vastness of the literary world we are building,including the struggles we face, they will be more willing to explore works by unknown writers, self-published books, and experimental fiction. By pulling back the curtain, people will see that it's not such a scary thing to read something they haven't heard of before.

What do you all think? Can we talk to the rest of the world about what we do?


  1. Welcome back, Davin! These are some good thoughts, and ones I've briefly thought of before.

    First of all, yes, I think helping the general public understand how difficult it is to write a novel - and different kinds of novels, nonetheless, is a start. As I'm understanding it, you're trying to get rid of the "built-in" blindness that blockbusters cause, correct?

    I'm thinking the Academy Awards - that's where all the smaller, more artsy films, including the non-blockbusters, are shown and recognized on a huge scale. That certainly makes different genres seen!

    How awesome would it be to have something like that for NOVELS publicized on television? Is there something like that already? I don't watch television, so I don't know. It seems to me that if something were broadcast on a large, large scale not just to writers then other genres and all those books that go unnoticed would be more recognized and read. It would help the publishing industry too.

    So why isn't there a reality show about writing, I wonder? Or an awards ceremony? You'd think publishers would have gotten around to it by now! Haha. I can think of all sorts of reasons why not, but I won't get into that here.

  2. I think it's tough to do this with writing.

    I think if you has a time-lapse of a novel sped up to 20 minutes, you would see a computer screen with a manuscript (or a pad of paper with Scott's hand hovering over it) for about 18 minutes, and a flurry or writing, typing for 2.

    Singing, dancing, and stand-up comedy prosper at TV adaptations because they can be expressed in a matter of minutes. Most of us tremble with fear at the distillation of our novels into a short blurb (e.g. in a query).

    What do you think, an author stands up and reads / recites a 2-minute book pitch, which is then critiqued by judges and voted on by the public?

    American Idol style competition, but early rounds are queries, them sample pages and synopses.

  3. Rick, Anita just went to something like this! It sounds like it worked well, and was great for everybody involved.

    You can read her post here.

  4. Rick, I see that you already read the post, sorry! But others can look up the link as well. *smile*

  5. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood this morning (Monday), but I say no. I don't think nonwriters will care. A lot of people already think it is easy to write a book, and I think if you try to explain to them that it's actually quite difficult and takes forever, they'll just think something's wrong with you, and you're not doing it right.

    Also, there are so few readers compared to people who don't read, and it would be difficult to get the nonreaders interested.

    I don't think I'd like to watch an American Idol style show where people pitch their queries. I can barely stand to read a lot of them floating around on the Internet. It would be like watching all the awful singers on Idol tryouts and groaning in despair from my livingroom. At the same time, if we popularized writing on TV, just think how many more people would come out of the woodwork saying, "I could do that," and then suddenly the world is filled with more awful manuscripts and queries. Talk about having more writers than readers, even worse than now.

    Also, Michelle, I disagree that the Academy Awards showcase more artsy films. Sure, they show movies that are more serious than, say, Funny People (ick), but it's still all the same major studios and actors making the movies that win Academy Awards. Sometimes they try to make these films look independent, but I think more often than not, they aren't.

  6. Annie: I disagree about the Academy Awards. Some of the films are independent, since I have seen them shown here at the Sundance Film Festival, which is independent movies. I haven't been to the festival, but since it is near me, I hear a lot about the films. I intend to go sometime.

    I don't watch the Academy Awards, but because of them, my husband and I have found a lot of good movies we wouldn't have heard of otherwise if they hadn't had that exposure. Sure, not all of them are great. And much of it is just like a popularity contest, but it also does some good, in my opinion.

  7. Interesting post, Davin......but I'm not sure what I think. Listening to people talk about writing is not quite the same as reading their writing....

    It seems like (to me) that everything right now is about "buzz." People buy books because of the buzz about them. I feel like the cranky old grandpa with the wrinkly prune face who wheezes, "Back in my day, we had to go to the bookstores by ourselves and decide what we wanted to read. That's right, we didn't have Oprah picking books for us, or big book displays telling us what we would like. We had to pick up books and read the backs of the covers....(insert crusty cough, or phlegmatic wheeze) young whippersnappers have it so easy..."

    You've got me thinking....


  8. I think most people won't care about what it takes to get the book done. (until after they've read it and enjoyed it) It's the end result that pulls them in. If the book is a great read, then they will want to read it. The best way to get excitement about reading is to spread the news about great books. The more someone finds good books to read the more excited they become about reading.

  9. Lois: That may be true, but look at the reality shows that suck people in these days. Like fancy food - many people could care less how that fancy French dish gets to them in the restaurant. They just want to eat and enjoy. But there's apparently lots of people who DO care, otherwise why all the traffic on those cooking shows? I think it could possibly be the same thing for writing. However, like Rick makes the point, I'm not sure how writing a novel could get too exciting... it's such a personal and quiet thing, you know?

  10. Wow, this is an interesting discussion!

    Michelle, thanks for jumping in! FYI, there have been a couple of writing award ceremonies floating around. I don't think any of them have gained any sort of popularity. I was thinking more along the lines of what you are describing as an American Idol version of things. (They've also tried this, and it failed, but maybe it wasn't done correctly.)

    Rick, I think you bring up some good points. But, I wonder if, just as we are able to revise our stories, couldn't we also "revise" what we would broadcast? Sure, much of the writing part would be boring and time-consuming. But, that's not all there is to writing, and I'm sure you know that. There are critiques and the personal dramas that come from them. There are writer's conferences, pitch sessions, query letters, waiting for responses, contests, research, accusations. I honestly think if I recorded a year of my "writing journey" then I could find several hours of interesting things that don't involve me sitting in front of my computer.

    Annie, thanks for your thoughts! What comes to mind is a show called the Deadliest Catch and another called Food Unwrapped. Both of these shows cover things that I would have initially said are boring subjects: crab catching and food manufacturing. Yet, the creators of these shows manage to show the excitement in things. Again, it's just like how we construct our stories, right? We avoid the boring stuff and focus on the interesting. I think a lot of people may, as you say, try their hand at writing as a result of this. Personally, aside from the traffic it causes for agents, I think it's a good thing.

  11. You know, Davin, this makes me think of all those novels that are ABOUT writers writing or painters painting or chefs cooking. I know they're out there. If those can be interesting...

  12. While I think this is a great idea, I'm not sure about the 'feasibility' of the idea.

    I absolutely love 'Project Runway'. I don't like 'Top Chef'. I discussed this with a friend once, and we finally decided that while the food looked pretty, we couldn't really get a sense - taste, smell, texture - of the food. To us, the show was interesting because it was lacking a more intimate connection. Now, watching Food Network is different because they are teaching you how to make the food. Top Chef doesn't do that.

    I think it would be the same with a writing reality show. How would you convey the process in a way that wouldn't bore the viewer? The emotions - frustration, passion, and all that jazz - are easy to convey. I think it is the process itself that would be the downfall of such a show.

    I also think that we, as writers, should also promote books, and not necessarily our own. I mean, vampires and wizards are all the rage, but there are other good books out there as well. The problem: they're not being marketed. I believe Lady Glamis did a post last week where she asked for ideas of books to put on her 'must read' list.

    I mean, I love epic fantasy, but it's very hard to find. I love good mysteries as well. Both are not currently on the 'hot' list, but don't we as consumers control that 'hot' list? Aren't are buying habits the source?

    If that's the case, then perhaps, we need to market the books we love to read, we need to make them 'hot' again. It's just a feeble thought on a Monday morning!


  13. Shelley, Yes, the fact that the buzz is doing all the work is worrisome to me too. I think that's what got me onto this topic. I wonder if there is another way to get people to learn about books. I just feel like the more comfortable we are with something, the more courageous we can be about exploring it. When we learn to cook, we might only be willing to heat soup or make popcorn. But, as we gain more experience, we'll try things like lobster bisque. I wonder how their buying styles would change if readers knew more about what is happening in the publishing world. Just a thought.

    Lois, I think you are absolutely right. But, how do WE find good books? I know I have a hard time perusing the book aisles and trusting myself enough to buy anything new. I get pulled into the buzz just like everyone else. Revealing the stuff that happens behind the scenes doesn't necessarily help that in anyway. But, I wonder if something will.

  14. Scott, I think those are great thoughts. I'm not familiar with Top Chef, unfortunately, so I don't have a personal opinion on that, but I get what you say. As for buying habits driving the market, I'm honestly not sure if that's the case or not. After all, it's the publishers and book buyers that determine what is available to us, for the most part. (Self-publishing may well fix this problem if good writers are more willing to go this route.) I think there is a lot of guessing involved. People try to guess what buyers will like. Buyers buy what's available to them. So, while we may partially control what sells, we don't start off with all the options. Of course, blogging is one way to bypass that initial roadblock.

  15. It would be great to figure out some sort of format that would work for promoting books on TV. I immediately think of Reading Rainbow. That's a great show for kids and getting them to try books that they haven't read. I wonder if there were a way you could do a show along those lines for adults. Make it more current, etc. There's nothing quite like someone raving about how good a book is to get others checking it out. A celebrity host wouldn't hurt either.

    The problem for something like Oprah books is that not everyone likes the sort of books that she recommends. I for one am not a huge fan of a lot of the books she promotes. I wouldn't have the host recommending books I would have random people telling about why they like a particular book.

    This could be a great forum. I bet we could even start something on Youtube that could be a trial for it. If it gets enough hits, it could easily become a TV show.

  16. I'm in close agreement with Annie's post about the results.

    I've wondered about a writing reality show too...and then I see the ongoing writing reality show on the web, one I've been part of myself for years, where I've poured everything I had out there, tons of passion and ideas, and still got comparatively few reads, still sold comparatively few books. I'm not the only writer who's done this to the same result.

    Recently I've heard more people complaining that personal writer sites have been turning them off--they don't want to know the mechanics of everything a writer's going through; these people only want to know the end-results. I think too much mystery has been destroyed, and all the revealing writers do today is becoming more the contents than the contents themselves. This is what may happen with reality shows sometimes: the shows are often more popular than the topic of the shows.

    I want to sell my fiction, not me, not me writing that fiction. Yet in publishing I've seen an increasing focus on writers and not their writings--this has been bad for writing, in my opinion. Whenever writing is Hollywoodized, a popularity contest of the "cool celebrity people" ensues. This isn't a recipe for recognizing genius outliers.

    Though, as I often say, you probably can't know outcomes with high accuracy until you've acted and then can observe the outcomes. I think writers should try everything they can--just try everything while having no expectations of success. I soooo wish things were different though; I wish people got rewarded more for trying different ideas. But the world doesn't seem ready for much "different."

  17. David, what you said to Annie about more people trying writing would be a good thing--I used to say this same thing. Now, I've been swinging the other way. More people need to try READING first, must become good readers before they try becoming good writers. The proportion of poor writers seems to be going up all the time. Today, too many people are talking and not enough people are listening.

    I think reading is the second best way to learn how to write; the first, of course, is by actually writing. But reading the actual end-results in the form/genre a person intends to write in is much more important than reading writing how-to books. For example, plenty of new screenwriters seem to think they can write screenplays when they've never read any actual screenplays! That's ridiculous. And I think it's been happening somewhat with other forms of writing.

    Plenty of people seem to be writing now, and fewer and fewer people are just readers; this has been bad for writers overall. In this one way I've become snobbishly annoyed, like I've worked so hard, too hard, and then I see people basically scribbling and acting like we're automatically equivalent as writers when we're not. Writing has been nearly my whole life for years. Stupid of me to do that, I know, but them's the facts!

    This is a good important discussion, though, and I'm glad you started it, Davin.

    Lotusgirl, I've seen locally produced shows like that, but I have no idea how effective they've been.

  18. FP, maybe the world can't be different when money is so involved, especially in THIS ECONOMY.

    Lotusgirl, yes! Reading Rainbow! I was totally thinking of that. The whole show could be that segment where the three kids talk about their favorite books. Because I see what you're saying about a host like Oprah. For me, I've liked the books she recommends, but I don't like her, so I tend to shy away from most she suggests just because she suggested them! Same way that, if publishers and booksellers are only letting us read some things, I won't buy them, either. Like, once something gets too popular, I don't even want to read it anymore.

    Davin, again about publishers and book buyer determining what we read... I remember life before I ever saw a Barnes&Noble, and my closest, biggest bookstore was Waldenbooks, and they mostly carried trade paperbacks. Then I saw B&N and was amazed by the variety. Now, I still think B&N carries a lot of books, but I somehow feel the variety has declined. I guess there's Amazon for that, but it's hard to search for books you don't know about.

  19. Welcome back. I was wondering what had happened to you.

    I completely agree with you here though. I can tell you that I read a series of posts on Rachelle Gardner's blog (I hope I spelled her name right) recently that fully explained the whole publication process nicely. It opened my eyes up to a great many things (some really daunting), and I gained a greater realization of what to expect. As in all things, knowledge is a treasure to be shared, not hoarded.

  20. I really think that the solution isn't necessarily to make more people aware of writers so much as it is, as F.P. says, to make more people aware of READING. This needs to be stressed in schools from early on, and the humanities need to be supported better in higher education as well. Readers can save writers, but only if there are readers.

    But certainly writers need to be their own advocates, need to publically broadcast their excitement about books and writing. I don't think that the writing process will interest many people, but certainly if there was more time devoted in mainstream media to books, we'd all be better off. Book critics used to be the prime public advocates of new authors and interesting, non-mainstream books, but those critics' jobs have been steadily disappearing for decades. And stuff. This all gives me a headache.

  21. F. P. First, a major digression, but I think that some people DO get rewarded for coming up with new things. The creators of the internet, or Facebook, or other things that don't come to mind right now have been well-rewarded. It's not enough, obviously to be different. We have to be different and good and timing probably also has a lot to do with success.

    Okay, as to the actual topic, though, I think you bring up a bunch of really good points. Exposing too much, may well demystify the writing for the worse, and the focus may well be on the wrong thing: the people rather than the writing. I honestly don't know. To me, based on no evidence, I feel like if a reality show about writing got a billion viewers focused on writers, then it might get a million people focused on the writing. So, while much attention would go the wrong place, it might still help the market. And, as I understand it, I think the more people who are interested in buying books, the better our chances of getting published.

    I'm also not sure if having more people try their hand at writing would be a good thing or a bad thing. I know the frustration of being surrounded by bad writers who think of themselves as equals. Honestly, for me, part of that frustration comes from insecurity. I am constantly doubting myself, and a part of me says that it is indeed quite possible that someone who has been writing for three weeks will be as good as if not better than me. That sense of unhealthy competition is a problem I deal with personally. But, the benefit that I can see from more people trying to write is that they may become better readers. Just as you say reading is a big help to our writing. Writing can be a big help to our reading. As someone who focuses on craft, I think that the more people can see what I'm doing, the more they will appreciate my efforts. And, in my own life, I find that I buy more books now, as a writer, than I did when I was just a reader.

  22. Davin - ultimatelym, don't the buyers drive what the publishers publish? I mean, before the success of Harry Potter, books about boy wizards weren't so numerous. After Harry took off, well, it's hard not to find books about boy wizards. The same thing goes with Vampire books . . . one takes off and everybody writes one and publishers see the next great craze and . . . well, Epic Fantasy dies a horrible death! : )

    So, to some extent the publishers control the book markets, but if people don't buy, then publishers aren't going to be so eager to push the 'next greatest thing'.

    I think, in the end, the consumer should be the barometer of what succeeds or doesn't, which is perhaps that double-edged sword since conumers seem to want books about vampires and boy wizards.

    SIGH. Maybe I should write about a boy wizard who's also a vampire?? : )


  23. Hmm... (sorry, I am commenting up a storm today. We seriously have nothing happening at work)

    I agree the focus should be on reading, and that reading is the best way to learn to write, after writing itself. I mean, isn't reading what made us all want to be writers in the first place?

    Now that I am thinking more about explaining to nonwriters about the writing and publishing process, maybe more people should know. Because for me, after the last several months reading agent and writer blogs, I want to write less now than I ever have. Everyone sounds the same, and the agents keep screaming about queries and networking and adverbs... I just don't care anymore. Like Scott said, Headache!

    (although, i do love discussions on this blog)

  24. Annie - whatever you do, don't stop writing. Not everybody can write. You obviously can. Write for you first and the rest of the world later.


  25. Scott, I think having schools help out with the reading would be great, but in my opinion, schools haven't figured out the best way to teach reading yet. I don't think their current system is working, personally. Forcing students to read books they don't want to read and analyze them in unnatural ways (symbols and irony, etc.) often intimidates people, I think. It just seems like so many people I encounter are afraid of writing and reading and math and science, the things that we learn about in school. Meanwhile, people love to go and watch movies or listen to music, things that weren't taught. I've often tried to figure out how I would teach reading to young people, and I haven't come up with a good way yet. Luckily, J. K. Rowling is helping out a lot.

    Scott, I think buyers control a significant part of the market, but not all. Before buyers could like Harry Potter, an agent, publisher, and book buyer first had to decide that it was worth it to make the book available to us. How many other books might we love that we're never going to hear about? We can't answer that. The success of Harry Potter may have allowed other boy wizard books to be published (I honestly don't know) but that's not necessarily because it's the only thing readers want to read about. Sellers just figure it's a sure bet. They may find far more success selling something completely different--like Margarita Nights!--but that's initially a gamble on their part. (This is as I understand it.)

  26. Sorry about writing David once above instead of Davin! I know some different stuff gets rewarded, but not enough times, that's why I said I wish different ideas got rewarded more. I see way too much disproportionate rewarding going on in society. I know things probably can't be Nirvana-ish completely perfectly equal, but they could be much better. Timing definitely is very important--and "luck," whatever that is. And, whatever that is, I seem to have NONE, not just w.r.t. writing.

    Your second paragraph--the thing is, I think the web is that writing reality show and since its inception, it seems book buying has gone down. Now, as I've argued on my blog, how that translates into actual reading--I don't know. I tend to think, web or not, the overall amount of actual reading going on has remained the same (but then that would mean each person is reading less now because more people exist...). Just the KINDS of reading people do may have changed; they've moved from reading in-print to on-screen, and briefer content is the preference now.

    I don't mean to "disprove" what you've said--I can neither prove nor disprove it; probably no one could at this time. I just think the feasibility Scott mentioned is the real issue here.

    But writing and reading in general seem to have taken a hit in human society--even assuming people are reading the same overall amount, as I've sometimes argued, or maybe they're actually reading more. The thing is: what about the QUALITY OF THE CONTENT they're reading?

    I'm on twitter, and I like some of it. At the same time, I'm not a soundbiter writer or soundbiter reader. I see tons of wasting-bandwidth-and-therefore-electrical-energy writing on twitter; it wastes resources, which are dwindling, it probably serves no lasting societal purpose, is mostly just people expressing themselves.

    I see so little idea development today. Good ideas are quite common; good developments of ideas are not. I think a writing TV reality show would probably increase the soundbite factor in society even more.

    I once worked in educational testing grading high-school standardized-test essays for development, and this has increased my focus on execution and development even more. Maybe I'm now quite anal about this--I don't know. But I'd rather experience better quality writing from fewer writers than worse quality writing from more writers--though there are limits. Like the writing pool must be a healthy size to maintain diversity. However, too much diversity can be just as bad as too little. It depends on the subject in question.

    Annie--"Everyone sounds the same, and the agents keep screaming about queries and networking and adverbs... I just don't care anymore."--yep. I've been feeling this way for years, as I think you've heard from me. Just try to separate this from your writing. You can write in spite of all this negative noise--the hell with everyone else.

    "Nobody knows anything."

    --William Goldman about Hollywood, but it applies everywhere in the arts, in my opinion at least.

  27. Davin - I agree that agents, publishers, editors, etc. make the initial decision, but if nobody buys what they think is a 'hot' book . . . well, I'm sure they would rethink their decision.

    It always amazes me when what I consider good television shows (and there aren't many) are abruptly cancelled. Why? Because not enough people are watching. I guess the same could be said about books . . . if not enough people are reading, if the market isn't there, then why would a agent, publisher, etc. even consider a query for that type market?

    I guess we're all at the mercy of an ever-changeable society that finds boy wizards popular in 2008 and margaritas popular in 2010. : )


  28. Okay, that's it. My next book will be about a boy wizard bartender who makes magical margaritas.

  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

  30. "but if nobody buys what they think is a 'hot' book . . . well, I'm sure they would rethink their decision."

    --Scott, I think the problem is: bean counters can be dense-headed and so are often on a lag-time, in years. If something had sold several years ago, they will continue publishing those have-solds for years afterward, even as those have-solds have been selling less and less. A significant enough number of readers seem to just love reading and will read almost anything they're given--they keep the have-sold side of the business in business. And, therefore, because (I think) the have-solds are the biggest part of the business, those readers ultimately help keep the business IN the business.

    In my opinion, publishers drive what's-published markets more than the reading public does.

    Publishers, agents, editors--no matter how much they like to promote themselves as "knowing their business," they aren't perfect and they don't know "the business" that well. And IMO no one knows "the public" that well. It's ultimately too diverse, and while I think many people unfortunately herd, people can also be surprising and assert their individuality unexpectedly. The publishing industry does NOT want to recognize that. It would rather look at the public as a manipulatible monolith. This is why probably many more published books fail than succeed, according to the publishing world's definition of monetary success. But then it too rarely admits failure there, so people are seduced into thinking the industry is quite infallible, the industry knows so much.

    At the same time, (big) publishers have lots of money available for marketing, aka, propaganda. Though many of them deny it, publishing people have their own tastes, and they've been effective enough at marketing that they've seduced many people to keep buying the same-old content publishers put out, and they put that out because publishing that by-rote way is probably less time and money consuming, probably requires less thinking and reading for individualism with individualized tastes.

    However, I think people aren’t THAT stupid and in hard economic times especially, the truth comes out when people quickly stop buying the same-old same-old partly because they no longer can. BUT but-but-but, if they loved what they'd been reading that much, I say they'd find a way to buy it. Yet, today, many people seem to give up buying industry-published books all too easily, and I think this is because industry-published books typically don't contain what many people really want, don't contain anything "new."

    At some point manufacturers of anything must recognize that sales have probably been dwindling because the manufacturers have gotten lazy and greedy, and are no longer supplying a good-enough product. Too bad the publishing industry--and the arts as a whole for that matter--seems to operate on a publishing exceptionalism mindset. It thinks the basic rules of society, of humanity, and human business ultimately don't apply to publishing.

  31. I should add that I worked at/for a large nonfiction publisher, so I'm not just talking out of my butt here. I've seen this issue from both sides.

  32. Scott B - LOL! That's way too funny, and much needed on a dreary Monday! Thanks for the laugh.


  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

  34. The behind the curtain view has to be highly sensationalized in order for it to take hold with the American Public. Watching someone sit quietly in front of a PC (or Scott's notepad) and stare off into space, silently beckoning the muse...That's boring.

    Cussing out the librarian Gordon Ramsey-style for a worthless reference book suggestion...that would get you some viewers.

    I think Scott and Davin have good points about teaching kids to read, I'd add this to it:

    Schools teach kids how to read, but they don't show them how to enjoy reading.

  35. Rick said "Schools teach kids how to read, but they don't show them how to enjoy reading."

    I'm sure that's true. Reading is presented as a task, not as something to do for pleasure. I don't know how to change that. I doubt the new standardized tests and other restrictions of the No Child Left Behind Act help matters much.

  36. Thanks for opening up this topic. It's important.

    This year, I slowly began talking about my writing journey with people I meet. I used to not mention it, but my confidence has grown and frankly, I'm really proud to be a writer.

    When you work hard at something and believe it has value, it's impossible not to talk about it. And people have been interested, which warms my heart.

    By the way, I can't wait to watch Julie & Julia!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.