Dear Young Steph, don't eat the octopus ink jelly!

If I could meet my slightly younger self (say, me aged twelve) without tearing the universe apart, I would impart the following advice/life lessons (or maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I'd just tell her the next Saturday's lotto numbers. Actually, no, that's a bit morally wrong. I wouldn't do that. I'd just give her a hug. Maybe whisper the lotto numbers, so nobody finds out! Shh, don't tell anybody).

Dear Young Steph,

1. External circumstances don't make people happy. Nobody ever reaches a particular weight or gets a book published or some other goal and instantaneously has inner peace. There's always something else.
2. Octopus ink jelly is really awful. Just don't go there. (Source: An unfortunate yum-cha experience.)
3. Everything you fear - apart from rational things, like fear of the zombie apocalypse - is not half as scary as you might expect. Get on public transport, kid.
4. Everything will be worthwhile. Everybody has a different path in life. Feel free to rebel against norms and be yourself, and never feel regretful or as if you're missing out.
5. Being a vegetarian is not as crazy and difficult as everyone makes out. You'll feel better about yourself.
6. Happiness and family and love and being a good person are all far more important than money, though it helps if you have a roof over your head and food in the fridge.
7. It isn't the end of the world, ever. It doesn't matter what it is, or how big and impossible it feels, everything keeps going and it'll get better. But 2012 might be the end of the world. I'll keep you posted on that.
8. I know you like thinking about stuff. And that's okay. But sometimes you have to actually go out in the world and live life. You can only do so much living in your head before you start getting a bit stir-crazy in there.
9. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. And treat yourself the way you treat the people you care about - with love and kindness. You're kind of stuck with yourself for life, and you're better off thinking good things about yourself. There's more than enough people in the world who'll tear you down without you helping out.
10. Don't be so sarcastic. Laugh more, even when people say 'You laugh too much' (and they will, because people are no fun!). Give everybody a hug. Be yourself, but a bit more confident. It helps.

Love,
Slightly Less Young Steph
x's and o's to infinity and beyond
What advice would you give your slightly younger self (or dramatically younger!), if you care to share?
(I wrote another post called 'Advice for my 12-year-old self' in April, but the advice here is different. I've got lots of advice for myself, obviously!)

I Am Not A Fangirl

So I saw the new Harry Potter film Friday night, and it was probably my favourite of all seven so far (not including the first, because the adorableness of the young terrific trio makes that film win overall by default). I cried, but I always cry in movies. It's a good excuse to.

Now, I'm not a fangirl (not a fanboy either, for that matter). I read up to halfway through book four when I was about ten. I'm not sure whether or not I saw the sixth film (I should just borrow it, I know). I kind of semi dressed up for the film (I wore a Rita Skeeter-esque jacket and skirt, but couldn't get any rectangular glasses), because I felt like it. But the Harry Potter series didn't define my childhood. I like the movies, and I can't remember the books very well, but the final movie coming out next year is not going to mark the end of an era for me. It's just going to be a movie coming out.

I'm not a fangirl for anything. I like lots of books and I like lots of authors, but I'm nobody's number one fan. I doubt I'm even in the top ten for anyone. I like lots of music and lots of bands, but I don't pay much attention to when albums come out or when they visit Australia and I don't dream of meeting them (my favourite band is probably the Killers, and I only found out Brandon Flowers had an album out a couple of weeks ago in Kmart. I still haven't got around to buying it). I like plenty of movies and actors. The closest I ever came to being a fangirl was liking Ricky Martin when I was seven, and quite liking Frodo in Lord of the Rings when I was twelve (hobbits = total babes). But neither lasted especially long, and neither really said much about me as a person (except that I liked the song Livin La Vida Loca when I was seven and Elijah Wood when I was twelve).

I'm never going to be part of a screaming horde. I don't want to line up for hours to have a poster signed by some pop star. Seeing Harry Potter doesn't fill me with a sense of nostalgia. I don't regard any celebrity as especially fantastic or God-like. I'm not really invested in anyone's life that isn't my own or those close to me.

I'm not sure whether this is a character flaw or not. I am passionate about some things - reading and writing in general, my love for my family, being a good person and impacting positively on the world. But I feel distanced from other people's reality. I feel like a bit of a fraud in a sea of people who are extraordinarily interested in a specific series or actor or band. Yeah, sure, I like that. But I don't write fan fiction about it. I don't really want to see them live. I don't care if people dislike the books. The idea of never meeting Justin Bieber is actually a pleasant one for me.

Is this a lack of commitment on my part? Is being a fangirl an important part of the teenage/human being experience that I am missing out on? Is this connected to my dislike of groups and the associated mentality?

If you are a fangirl/boy/person, I'd love to hear what you're a big fan of. Or what you thought of Harry Potter!

Being in love with a fictional character is probably not a good thing. But I'm not really in a position to judge.

When I was eleven and twelve I had a super-massive, heart-rending crush on a kid in my class. For two whole years. I consulted my Magic 8 Ball (which I think I got from Maccas at some point). I did those love calculation things on paper, so-and-so loves so-and-so. I can't even remember how they worked. But it was meant to be! For realsies!

There was, at a school camp, a highly orchestrated plan to ask him out. ('Going out' at my primary school meant telling everyone you were going out and not talking to the other person out of embarrassment. I think a couple of kids were a little more advanced and did the whole 'kissing behind the bike shed' thing. Not that there was a bike shed, to my knowledge. It's a metaphorical bike shed, okay?) I'm not going to go into details of this plan, partially because I don't remember particularly well, and also because it's not that funny. But the plan didn't work out, otherwise I'd be disappeared into the sunset by now.

I can't remember the exact moment when my preteen infatuation stopped. There was no dramatic realisation, or turning point, or anything like that. So it must have been gradual. But you know what it's like - going from thinking someone is perfect (gorgeous and nice and smart oh my!) to thinking, why on earth did I ever like them? Was I crazy?

This is how I feel about my characters. This is how you might feel about yours.

Now, you know, my characters: I probably wouldn't be friends with them. Not that they're not nice or anything, because they are, but they're just a tad extreme for me. But they are the sort of people who I'd have massive, heart-rending, admire-from-afar crushes (unrequited love is the best kind, fyi). Especially True, because she's kind of fierce. And Little Al and the rest are all right.

While you're writing, they're beautiful and perfect. You like them so much, you don't want anything bad to happen to them. You want them to be safe and happy and to find the love of their life and be reunited with their family.

Here's the thing: A book where everything goes right is not an exciting one. There's no opportunity for the character to grow, or learn. Sure, they can get what they want in the end, maybe. But between introducing the character and the last page, your job as a writer is not to care for your characters, and love them, and let all their dreams come true. You have to inflict pain on them. You have to figure out what they are most afraid of, and confront them with it. You have to hurt your characters. It's for their own good. Or the good of your story.

(You may also grow to resent your character, when you finish the novel and step away and your massive crush disappears. Why is their life so wonderful? you'll ask yourself. They wouldn't exist without me! This is crazy territory. Avoid it.)

And maybe you're not infatuated with your characters when you're writing, and maybe you don't have the whole they're not what I imagined them to be at all! revelation. But regardless of whether you're crazy like Steph Bowe, if you write stuff, remember that smooth sailing for your character usually means a boring book. Make someone spontaneously combust. Give them lactose intolerance. Make crazy stuff occur. (It's a book! There's no budget! You can do whatever you like!)

But seriously, if you start consulting a Magic 8 ball over your infatuation with a fictional character (or even a real person), I think you might have crossed the line.

(Also, True and I, 27% compatibility, according to my love calculations. Even though I'm like totally over her. Coincidentally, the same percentage as my primary school crush. Yes, I know, crossing the line. What was my point again?)

Question: Do you have crushes on fictional characters? (Your own or of other people's creation.) TELL ME.

"Same-sex marriage hurts kids."

So, as I write this, it's terrifically late at night. And once I get to a certain point in the night I tend to get filled with either a sense of possibility and limitlessness and rejoice in the wonders of the world, or I become consumed with all the terrible things that are going on and feel like crap and like I should be doing something about young kids starving and hate crime and global warming but I can't because it's too late at night and I'm exhausted.

And I just read this article on the Courier Mail website (entitled, terrifically, "Same-sex marriage hurts kids"), and it's kind of nudged me towards the 'oh god why does the world have to be like this?' direction. Why do people have to be intolerant idiots? Why do some feel so compelled to fight against same-sex couples having the right to having a family when there are undoubtedly so many kids in the world who are in terrible situations with heterosexual parents?

If you didn't click through to the article, I'll sum it up for you: A GP in Toowoomba believes same-sex marriage is a terrible thing, because raising a child without a male and female parent will result in damaged children. Or, rephrased: Same-sex attraction goes against nature, you evil homosexuals. Does nobody think of the children?

Now here's my whole stance: I've been raised by two people of opposing genders. They are wonderful people. They're not perfect people or perfect parents, because no one is. But they are brilliant. They are smart and creative and kind. (I dedicated my book to my family because I'd never have written it without them.) They've raised me to be my own person, and a good person, and someone who really thinks about things. I hope that they're proud of me, and I know that I could have been someone entirely different if I'd been raised by someone else.

Neither of my parents are particularly masculine or feminine, I don't think. They are individuals. My mum could be my dad or my dad could be my mum or they could both be female or both male - and they might be a bit different, because of brain chemicals and hormones and being treated differently by society, but I know that they would still be the same people at their core. My dad is capable of being a nurturing individual. My mum can fulfill a traditional dad role in my family. They would still be wonderfull parents. I am immensely lucky to have them both, and a supportive network of grandparents (Hi nan! I know you're reading!) and aunts and so on and so forth. Kids aren't just raised by their parents; there are a lot of influences growing up on children, and a statement like 'gay parents damage kids' is just as ridiculous as 'straight parents damage kids'. Any kind of parents can damage kids. Any kind of parents can be wonderful. People are individuals, and made up of more than just their sexuality.

I would prefer to have same-sex parents than, say, heterosexual parents that are abusive, or drug-addled, or totally damaged. Just because a de-facto couple are both of the same gender doesn't mean they aren't capable of giving a child all the support and love that they need. Familial love is a beautiful and wonderful thing, and everyone should be able to experience it. Children find gender role models in people other than their parents - relatives, teachers, older siblings, friends - otherwise we'd all just turn into carbon copies of our parents, wouldn't we?

But I'll tell you what does damage children: Sending out the message that being gay is wrong. That loving someone who's of the same gender as you is not a possibility if you ever want a family of your own. That there'll be something wrong with you if you have same-sex parents. That they should repress their true self, because they'll be vilified by all the people who are still living in the dark ages and are morally opposed to something that doesn't even affect them. THAT is what messes people up. Not having two mums or two dads or being raised in a single parent household.

These things - the right to marry, the right to have children - are basic human rights. Rights everyone should have. I mean, gosh, what year is this? 1900? Gee, we're lucky people still don't think women are meant to be seen and not heard.

I'm trying to see where you are coming from, dear GP in Toowoomba, but I'm just not seeing it. I'm seeing people stuck in old ways and feeling threatened by the idea that people cannot be confined to gender roles. I'm seeing intolerance and a total lack empathy. I want to understand you, I really do, but I can't. I was raised to be accepting, and to see people as individuals rather than genders or races or religions. I'm sorry, but how can stopping people from loving each other and loving their potential children make anything better? Isn't there enough hate and intolerance in the world already without you adding to it?

Please be nice in the comments. I'd really appreciate that.

(A couple good blog posts about this you ought to check out on Jack Heath's and William Kostakis' blogs.)

Mini-reviews #1: Pretty Monsters, The Wrong Grave & Fierce

The 'authors named Kelly edition'. Except there are only two Kellys reviewed in this post - Link and Osbourne - and I'm not sure whether you can properly say that a celebrity whose book was definitely ghost-written is an author or not. But I digress. Onto the mini-reviews!

Pretty Monsters by Kelly Link
Text Publishing / May 2010 / 208 pages
I don't know where Kelly Link gets her ideas from, but they're equally disturbing and absolutely enchanting. According to the page in the inside front where all the copyright information is, the book is 'for juveniles' - but I think your age doesn't particularly matter; if you like crazy and imaginative and very bizarre stories (and that's bizarre all in capitals), then you will most definitely like these. A few are a bit disturbing though, so I wouldn't recommend them to young adult readers at the lowest end of the age spectrum.

The stories are about all sorts of strange things - aliens and werewolves and monsters - but never the kind you expect. They're quite unlike anything else I've read. My favourite story was probably 'Monster' - about kids on camp, and a monster that is both absolutely monstrous - it rips them all to shreds - and strangely intelligent - it writes down people's addresses in a notebook is carries, and has an odd conversation with the narrator - and absolutely crazy. It was so weird and unexpected. But all of the stories are good. I think occasionally they were a little long for me - the fact that you have no idea where any of the stories are going is both great and perplexing - so perhaps not the kind of stories you'd read in one go while on a bus. I recommend it to upper YAs and adult readers looking for short stories that are extraordinarily out of the ordinary.

The Wrong Grave by Kelly Link
Text Publishing / August 2009 / 208 pagesThe Wrong Grave and Pretty Monsters are companion volumes, each with, I think, five stories. They're both bizarre and fabulous and I find them quite inspiring - after reading a story by Kelly Link, you sort of think about things differently. My favourite story in this volume is most definitely 'The Faery Handbag' - everything about it is fantastic. The idea of a strange world inside a handbag that you can disappear to for a night, and when you get out of twenty years may have passed (it's a sort of Narnia, I guess, except time travels very fast in Narnia compared to the real world, and in this story it's the opposite) makes the story immediately interesting, but the main thing I love about it is the way in which it is told - Link's writing is very evocative, and this story probably makes more sense than the others, but it's still delightfully weird. The descriptions of the thrift store and the hairy handbag and the narrator's grandmother are all wonderful.

Fierce by Kelly Osbourne
Virgin Books / September 2009 / 304 pages
I'm not much of a fan of Kelly Osbourne - I don't know much about her at all - but I find celebrity autobiographies fascinating, so i was interested to pick it up. Also, it's called Fierce (though I'm not entirely sure why) and you can't really go past a book titled that.

This book is about Kelly's life. It's easy-to-read, written in a very conversational manner (at one point she says she dictated the novel to someone for them to write it, because she's dyslexic, and you can tell), and sprinkled throughout with advice about different things - from drug and alcohol abuse, to hair and make-up. I believe it's geared towards a teen audience, but I was never quite sure.

It was a little disappointing in that it skims over things - her drug addiction is the focus of a few chapters, and she warns people off drugs, but goes into little detail about being rehabilitated and the worst aspects - it lacked a depth that I think would've given it more impact. That said, I think it's still an enjoyable book, but I was left unsure about what I thought of her - in some aspects, she (and her family) seem pretty crazy, and terribly spoilt, but she still seemed like someone who grew up in the working class.

Have you read any of these books? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Mini-interview with Randa Abdel-Fattah about the Inkys

Continuing on from my 2010 Inkys shortlist & interviews post, I have a mini-interview with the winner of last year's Gold Inky and one of this year's judges, Randa Abdel-Fattah!

Steph: Tell me a bit about yourself (perhaps your favourite books!), and how you came to be an Inkys judge. Are you a writer yourself?
Randa: I'm a writer and lawyer. I write young adult novels (Does My Head Look Big In this? was my first and my most recent is Noah's Law, a teenage legal thriller). I also now write junior fiction and I'm releasing my first junior fiction titles in March 2011- The Friendship Matchmaker is the first and Buzz Off is the second. Oh and I've just signed up for my first adult novel. I was invited to be an Inkys judge as I had the honour of winning the Golden Inky in 2009 for my novel, Where the Streets Had A Name.

Steph: Have you read differently as a judge than you read normally, for enjoyment? Have you enjoyed the judging process? (The discussions, etc.)

Randa: Actually, I made a point of not approaching the books any differently. I didn't want to make an artificial assessment of each book's worth. The things that make me love a book as a reader- character, plot, voice, style, that extra magic- are equally relevant when I read with a judge's hat on. I think it was extraordinary that the shortlist for the Golden Inky was virtually unanimous- a clear indicator that the books truly deserved the recognition they received.

Steph: I know you're not allowed to talk about favourites... but I'm just wondering, do you have a clear favourite to win at this point? (Don't tell me what it is!)

Randa: No I don't. I honestly think the shortlisted books are neck to neck and equally worthy of the final prize. I can't wait to see what Australia's young adults have to say!

--

Thanks so much, Randa! For more details about the Inkys and to vote, head to Insideadog and check out Randa's website here.

On reviewing books & being an author & the challenges of doing both

In recent months I've been reviewing far less than I did earlier. It wasn't something I did conciously. As I've become busier - with schoolwork, writing another book, and promoting Girl Saves Boy when it came out - I haven't had as much time for blogging or the other parts of my life (sleeping, eating, reading, occasionally leaving the house), so I haven't been requesting books as much for review, or buying many books to review, or going to the library at all. And the books that I do have have been woefully ignored. They're sulking on top of my bookcase (I have my books sectioned into reviewed and not reviewed, with little subsections like British authors and teen chick lit and people I know) as we speak/as I blog/as you read.

I don't find it a whole lot different, writing a review of a book with a book of my own out, compared to before when I didn't have a book out, but I do have a different perspective of it, and I think I more consciously try and write the kind of review I'd want to read. One that's fair and well thought-out, but that doesn't speak rubbish for the sake of being nice. I still feel like an amateur at reviewing - and I am, and I'm working on that - but hopefully the reviews I write help whoever is reading decide whether or not a book is for them.

On receiving reviews myself, it wasn't quite as I expected. I expected to be absolutely devastated by bad reviews, and I haven't gotten anything particularly nasty, but the not-so-good reviews I've gotten haven't bothered me much at all (people saying 'Oh, the Goodreads average rating for that book isn't high enough, I'm not going to read it' bother me more. Don't read books based on their average rating on Goodreads! They're not that reliable!) because whether or not you like a book is a highly subjective thing.

And, okay, being super honest here (honesty is something I am frequently cautioned about. Everyone! You must hide your feelings! People knowing them will ruin your life!): I do get the feeling that some people review me differently because of my age. Now, I know I'm sixteen. All anyone ever says about me is 'she's a writer' and 'she's sixteen'. And in a lot of aspects I'm a young sixteen. I'm not going to go travelling the world or moving out of home or doing something dramatically adult in the near future. But writing and being an author is my thing. And I do function on the same level in regards to writing and being an author as most adult writers. I put a lot of effort into being professional. I would prefer an honest review to a review saying 'I'm going to approach this differently because the author is sixteen'. Believe me. I can take having my work ripped apart, but I dislike being patronised.

I think a lot of people think reviews written by published writers are going to be somehow different and less honest than reviews written by book bloggers who don't have a book of their own out, because authors don't want to offend other authors (honestly, I don't want to offend anybody. You can write a book review, positive or negative, and manage not to offend anybody. Really). But a lot of authors are online and a lot of book bloggers are online and some book bloggers have their own books out and everybody knows each other (either online or in real life). A book blogger is just as likely to write a dishonest review because they don't want to offend the author.

I'm still reviewing, and I'll write more reviews when I'm less busy, and I honestly don't care what anyone else thinks I should or shouldn't do - because for every person who tells me to do one thing, there's another person telling me to do the opposite (and everyone is telling me to do multiple things, and it's just not possible to do all of them). I enjoy reviewing, I love book blogging, I love getting reviews (even the negative ones are helpful in some way). My personal policy on writing a review is:

1. Be honest but tactful. Think about how I'd feel receiving the review, and make criticisms constructive.
2. Don't spoil a book, but offer enough information so the reader can make a decision (or be helped toward a decision) on whether or not the book is for them

I'm still developing it.
What are your thoughts on reviewing?
And the relationship between reviewer and author?
Do you think most reviews are honest?
(Sorry for multiple questions, but I'd really love to know your thoughts.)