Originally published on Birdee Mag in July 2013.
Recently I had an article published in the Sun-Herald called ‘Parenting advice from a teenager’.
Now, hear me out: I don’t think teenagers are universally great or parents universally terrible – I think most people are just doing their best. And I don’t think that I am an expert of any kind.
I wrote my article on that topic because my new novel is largely based on a tricky mother/daughter relationship. I received many nice comments, but also a few rather incensed ones – largely based on the premise that it’s wildly presumptuous for me, as a teenager, to have an opinion.
The writings and opinions of young people are so often criticised – not based on their merit, but based on the age and perceived arrogance of the teenager expressing these opinions.
I don’t think that the opinions of young people lack validity by virtue of the fact that they are young. It’s actually incredibly important that they are able to express their ideas and work through concepts, even if their opinions may change with time, experience and age.
Are we supposed to emerge as adults with fully–formed beliefs without ever having the opportunity to critically examine and express our ideas? Are we supposed to just accept what we are told by older people to be the truth?
Putting your opinion out there is a fairly risky thing to do – people will eat you alive on the internet, and being told that your opinion is irrelevant can be pretty crushing. It can dissuade you from sharing your thoughts in the future, too. (Fortunately I’ve never faced anything especially bad myself.)
dont-judgeSo I’m not entirely sure why everyone feels the need to discourage critical thinking in young people.
There’s a tendency for people to assume my work as a novelist is invalid based on my age (I’m nineteen), and decide against reading my books as a result. Or, if they read my novel and don’t like it, they assume that it’s because of my youth. I don’t want to be treated any differently just because I was born in the 90s.
I’m not the kind of person who wants people to be kinder to me just because I’m young – and I didn’t want that when I was fifteen either – I would much prefer honesty. Preferably not ‘this is a good novel… for a teenager’ or ‘this novel is unreadable because the author is a teenager’. Really, I’d much rather just be seen as a ‘writer’ rather than a ‘teenage writer’, and avoid all the unfortunate assumptions.
I think it’s important that teenagers have access to safe forums and are surrounded by people who are supportive of their ideas. I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t have to accept criticism sometimes, but I do believe that the writings and opinions of teenagers should be judged based on their merit, not on the age of the writer.
It’s unfair to assume that what teenagers have to say is meaningless. Everyone deserves to be heard, and to be treated with respect. We’ve all behaved as if we know everything at some point, but we realise just how much we don’t know when we have the opportunity to hear someone else’s perspective. Really, we’re all just making it up as we go along, and nobody knows everything.
Though on the internet, we’re prone to acting like we do.
Showing posts with label bookish thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bookish thoughts. Show all posts
Are you too afraid to fly?
Monday, July 24, 2017
I’ve got this theory that everyone is at their peak when they’re a baby, brand new (I have no evidence to back this theory up. It really can’t be proved).
You’re full of magic! There is so much genius lurking in your synapses, ready to fire. You figure everything out so quickly – proprioception! Whole languages! How to manipulate your parents! You are entirely fearless during this brief, glittering period of your life, and everything is possible.
Unfortunately you have to grow up. The trouble with growing up is that you stop being this pure angelic thing entirely unto yourself, yet to be impacted by the neuroses of those around you, and start becoming a creature of our world. Our world is confusing and weird and scary at times, and you’ve got all these messages being lumped at you from all sides, and lots of these messages come from fear – the world is dangerous! Money is exceptionally difficult to acquire! Everyone is out to get you!
And then you become entirely mad just like every other living human. It’s okay; it’s a process we all go through. Unavoidable.
Curiosity and fearlessness are two highly undervalued traits that we seem to part with entirely. You arrive at your later years of high school and start being ‘realistic’ about your career prospects. You panic that your dreams are too big, downright impossible. You start having to worry about stuff… It’s awful. Fear can be a really powerful force in your life, convincing you that failure is inevitable, that you’ll disappoint your parents, that it’s not worth even having a go.
I have a photo of myself at the age of three at the beach. I’m wearing a triple j t-shirt and an exceptionally sun-smart hat – the kind with the flap at the back. I appear to be dancing. Maybe I was; I don’t remember the picture being taken. I will never be cooler than I was in that moment. I was an awesome child, which makes up for me being a decidedly mediocre adult.
Whenever I am freaking out about anything – which is more often than not – whether it’s the impossibility of a long-term writing career or a talk I have to do or how rubbish my work-in-progress novel is, I ask myself, ‘What would Young Steph do?’
Young Steph would not freak out. Young Steph would marvel at the awesomeness of Older Steph’s life. Failure would not even occur to Young Steph because Young Steph would be too busy having fun with it. Because books, and writing, and talking about books and writing? Those are the things I love (and the things Young Steph will very shortly love, when she learns to write – at age three she’s too busy being rock ‘n’ roll).
When I was fifteen and an aspiring author, I was keenly aware of the possibility of failure. I couldn’t really shut it out. But authordom was something I had been dreaming of for years, and I knew that all authors had tonnes of rejections. I figured if I started submitting to publishers then, I might be published by the time I was thirty. I could cope with that.
I didn’t get my expected result; instead I ended up with a book deal. If I’d allowed myself to be crippled by the fear of failure and rejection, nothing would’ve happened. My manuscript would’ve languished and I would’ve continued to envy ‘real’ writers and wonder ‘what if?‘.
So, when it comes to pursuing your dreams, you have options (Hint: giving up isn’t one of them! I won’t allow it!). Either get back to the core of what you want to achieve and stop thinking about the possibility of failure – instead think about how you as a kid would view your dreams: entirely possible, and pretty magic. It’s not about deluding yourself; it’s just about shifting the focus away from the negative.
Or, incorporate failure into the plan. It’s part of the journey, and the eventual successes certainly make it worthwhile. The main thing is that you don’t fear failure. The fear of it is worse than failure itself, I assure you! You will have many fabulous adventures, I can tell.
Originally published on Birdee Mag.
You’re full of magic! There is so much genius lurking in your synapses, ready to fire. You figure everything out so quickly – proprioception! Whole languages! How to manipulate your parents! You are entirely fearless during this brief, glittering period of your life, and everything is possible.
Unfortunately you have to grow up. The trouble with growing up is that you stop being this pure angelic thing entirely unto yourself, yet to be impacted by the neuroses of those around you, and start becoming a creature of our world. Our world is confusing and weird and scary at times, and you’ve got all these messages being lumped at you from all sides, and lots of these messages come from fear – the world is dangerous! Money is exceptionally difficult to acquire! Everyone is out to get you!
And then you become entirely mad just like every other living human. It’s okay; it’s a process we all go through. Unavoidable.
Curiosity and fearlessness are two highly undervalued traits that we seem to part with entirely. You arrive at your later years of high school and start being ‘realistic’ about your career prospects. You panic that your dreams are too big, downright impossible. You start having to worry about stuff… It’s awful. Fear can be a really powerful force in your life, convincing you that failure is inevitable, that you’ll disappoint your parents, that it’s not worth even having a go.
I have a photo of myself at the age of three at the beach. I’m wearing a triple j t-shirt and an exceptionally sun-smart hat – the kind with the flap at the back. I appear to be dancing. Maybe I was; I don’t remember the picture being taken. I will never be cooler than I was in that moment. I was an awesome child, which makes up for me being a decidedly mediocre adult.
Whenever I am freaking out about anything – which is more often than not – whether it’s the impossibility of a long-term writing career or a talk I have to do or how rubbish my work-in-progress novel is, I ask myself, ‘What would Young Steph do?’
Young Steph would not freak out. Young Steph would marvel at the awesomeness of Older Steph’s life. Failure would not even occur to Young Steph because Young Steph would be too busy having fun with it. Because books, and writing, and talking about books and writing? Those are the things I love (and the things Young Steph will very shortly love, when she learns to write – at age three she’s too busy being rock ‘n’ roll).
When I was fifteen and an aspiring author, I was keenly aware of the possibility of failure. I couldn’t really shut it out. But authordom was something I had been dreaming of for years, and I knew that all authors had tonnes of rejections. I figured if I started submitting to publishers then, I might be published by the time I was thirty. I could cope with that.
I didn’t get my expected result; instead I ended up with a book deal. If I’d allowed myself to be crippled by the fear of failure and rejection, nothing would’ve happened. My manuscript would’ve languished and I would’ve continued to envy ‘real’ writers and wonder ‘what if?‘.
So, when it comes to pursuing your dreams, you have options (Hint: giving up isn’t one of them! I won’t allow it!). Either get back to the core of what you want to achieve and stop thinking about the possibility of failure – instead think about how you as a kid would view your dreams: entirely possible, and pretty magic. It’s not about deluding yourself; it’s just about shifting the focus away from the negative.
Or, incorporate failure into the plan. It’s part of the journey, and the eventual successes certainly make it worthwhile. The main thing is that you don’t fear failure. The fear of it is worse than failure itself, I assure you! You will have many fabulous adventures, I can tell.
Originally published on Birdee Mag.
'Realistic' YA vs the reality of young adulthood
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Remember: when they say that a book is 'realistic' young adult fiction they mean 'an absurd interpretation of our reality wherein people actually have fulfilling relationships/life experiences and don't spend their entire teenage years profoundly bored and wondering if life ever gets any better'.
If I wrote a YA novel that reflected my actual experience of young adulthood, it would be three hundred pages of naps and tomato-and-cheese toasties and waiting for life to begin, which it never, ever does, it turns out.
Fiction is lies. Never forget that. Your life will never contain a satisfying narrative, events are random, other people behave in the most bizarre of ways for no reason whatsoever. The centres of six billion different universes, all of them mad.
If you remember that stories are stories and stop expecting anything of your own life, you won't feel quite as cheated when you discover that the mediocrity never ends, and a new world is never unlocked. There is no coming-of-age, levelling-up procedure.
The amorphous blob that is real life will never shape itself into something more pleasing to the eye, and the power of stories/music/every creative product to perfectly crystallise emotions inside three minutes/two hours/an afternoon will never really be matched. Everything is formless till you're looking at it in retrospect, and you then ascribe to the events their meaning.
If I wrote a YA novel that reflected my actual experience of young adulthood, it would be three hundred pages of naps and tomato-and-cheese toasties and waiting for life to begin, which it never, ever does, it turns out.
Fiction is lies. Never forget that. Your life will never contain a satisfying narrative, events are random, other people behave in the most bizarre of ways for no reason whatsoever. The centres of six billion different universes, all of them mad.
If you remember that stories are stories and stop expecting anything of your own life, you won't feel quite as cheated when you discover that the mediocrity never ends, and a new world is never unlocked. There is no coming-of-age, levelling-up procedure.
The amorphous blob that is real life will never shape itself into something more pleasing to the eye, and the power of stories/music/every creative product to perfectly crystallise emotions inside three minutes/two hours/an afternoon will never really be matched. Everything is formless till you're looking at it in retrospect, and you then ascribe to the events their meaning.
On being published as a teenager, and regret
Sunday, May 4, 2014
I have often heard people say 'I'm so glad I wasn't published as a teenager' or 'I was a terrible writer when I was a teenager'. Which is valid, which is fine, but which is very irritating when they project that experience onto young people, generalising with 'teenagers are rubbish writers' or 'you'll regret being published as a teenager because you are crap/vulnerable/unprofessional'. This is something I hear from people who were not published as kids, generally speaking. This is something I hear less and less of, fortunately - people treat me enormously differently now than they did five years ago, although I hardly behave differently - but I still think it's a really curious viewpoint, and one that discourages young people from putting themselves out there. Kids don't need to be reminded that they're crap as much as you think they do. I think young people being arrogant about their abilities is not a matter of overconfidence but something borne out of deep insecurity, which is what continually putting down their skills and capacities is going to generate.
I don't think the narrative of 'you will regret having your early work published' is necessarily true, either. I think irrespective of your age when you start putting work out, you're going to experience the dread of criticism, the fear of people thinking your work is stupid and you're a rubbish writer, and as time passes and you grow and evolve as a writer/human being, you're going to cringe at what you wrote in the past (hell, I cringe at what I'm writing in the present. I'm cringing at this. I cannot spell cringing for the life of me). There is no way to avoid this. There is no age or number of words or hours of writing experience at which you are a whole and perfect writer of absolute confidence, who will win awards and write a bestseller and find universal adoration. It's a journey without end. You are always imperfect.
People will enjoy your early work and/or your later work and it's all going to be pretty random, because that's what our reality is like. You enjoy writing, you write as well as you can, you attempt to contribute whatever it is you're trying to contribute, you negotiate publishing and promotion and building a career as best you can. You will still make mistakes, you will still cringe at yourself, and your age is not necessarily going to advantage or disadvantage you. Vulnerability is unavoidable. You cannot skip being a beginner. You cannot guarantee perfection.
Additionally, people who have not published a book imagine publishing a book as this event that occurs devoid of context, some odd sort of add-on to your life. In my experience it isn't. Being published and writing professionally has hugely shaped my life. I've done a ton of speaking at festivals and in schools, I've met and learnt from many other writers and readers and kids and teachers, I've learnt a great deal from working with an editor and with a publishing house. These have helped me immensely as a writer. I would not be the same 20-year-old had I not done these things. I also have money, and the freedom some savings affords you is extraordinary. I can pay for my education. I can dedicate life hours to writing I may have had to spend in a day job. I can travel. My aim of owning my own home is marginally less absurd, despite the ongoing absurdity of property prices.
My life is much richer for being an author. I've made some poor business decisions, I cringe at things I've written, and people wrote me off as a silly kid at times (and, look, they'll probably continue to) - but I would've had awkward and embarrassing experiences anyway. I would've struggled and been confused and been silly entering a new field age 25, 35, 45 (having not been these ages yet, I base this on older people I know, who are more knowledgable and experienced, absolutely, but still self-conscious and flawed and human). If I wrote Girl Saves Boy today, it would not be the same book. If I wrote All This Could End today, it too would be different. But fixating on things you can no longer change is pointless, and in no dimension does a perfect version of those books (or any other) exist.
Girl Saves Boy was published almost four years ago, and I continue to get emails from people reading and enjoying it, including one the other week from a Year 12 English teacher who decided to set it as a text for the school's lunchtime YA book club (and who changed one of the English units to a creative writing one, partly inspired by seeing me speak at Brisbane Writers Fest). And that's wonderful. I've been very, very fortunate and I've also worked really, really hard, and I've had a lot of wonderful opportunities and experiences and I've learnt a great deal from all of it. To regret all that would be silly. To focus on the past and the flaws of my earlier work would prevent me from writing the next novel.
It is my sincerest belief that if you enjoy or feel compelled to write, you should, irrespective of your age or profession or location. If you'd like to publish, you should pursue that. If you'd rather not, your words are still worthwhile. Creative expression is a splendid thing. But don't quit writing or put it off out of fear of not being good enough, or that you will hugely regret sharing your work because 'teenagers are crap writers'. You are not less than by virtue of your age or any other factor. You still ought to write your stories if you feel a drive to. Your writing doesn't have to be serious and profound to be meaningful. 'Easy, enjoyable' reads still connect with people, still bring something to the table. I'm not going to be Hilary Mantel or Jonathan Franzen or J.K. Rowling, or even E. L. James for that matter, and you're not going to be either, but the world of fiction has room for a lot of voices, including young ones, including older ones. And guess what? You can like your own books, flawed as they are. Even if they were written when you were fifteen.
I don't think the narrative of 'you will regret having your early work published' is necessarily true, either. I think irrespective of your age when you start putting work out, you're going to experience the dread of criticism, the fear of people thinking your work is stupid and you're a rubbish writer, and as time passes and you grow and evolve as a writer/human being, you're going to cringe at what you wrote in the past (hell, I cringe at what I'm writing in the present. I'm cringing at this. I cannot spell cringing for the life of me). There is no way to avoid this. There is no age or number of words or hours of writing experience at which you are a whole and perfect writer of absolute confidence, who will win awards and write a bestseller and find universal adoration. It's a journey without end. You are always imperfect.
People will enjoy your early work and/or your later work and it's all going to be pretty random, because that's what our reality is like. You enjoy writing, you write as well as you can, you attempt to contribute whatever it is you're trying to contribute, you negotiate publishing and promotion and building a career as best you can. You will still make mistakes, you will still cringe at yourself, and your age is not necessarily going to advantage or disadvantage you. Vulnerability is unavoidable. You cannot skip being a beginner. You cannot guarantee perfection.
Additionally, people who have not published a book imagine publishing a book as this event that occurs devoid of context, some odd sort of add-on to your life. In my experience it isn't. Being published and writing professionally has hugely shaped my life. I've done a ton of speaking at festivals and in schools, I've met and learnt from many other writers and readers and kids and teachers, I've learnt a great deal from working with an editor and with a publishing house. These have helped me immensely as a writer. I would not be the same 20-year-old had I not done these things. I also have money, and the freedom some savings affords you is extraordinary. I can pay for my education. I can dedicate life hours to writing I may have had to spend in a day job. I can travel. My aim of owning my own home is marginally less absurd, despite the ongoing absurdity of property prices.
My life is much richer for being an author. I've made some poor business decisions, I cringe at things I've written, and people wrote me off as a silly kid at times (and, look, they'll probably continue to) - but I would've had awkward and embarrassing experiences anyway. I would've struggled and been confused and been silly entering a new field age 25, 35, 45 (having not been these ages yet, I base this on older people I know, who are more knowledgable and experienced, absolutely, but still self-conscious and flawed and human). If I wrote Girl Saves Boy today, it would not be the same book. If I wrote All This Could End today, it too would be different. But fixating on things you can no longer change is pointless, and in no dimension does a perfect version of those books (or any other) exist.
Girl Saves Boy was published almost four years ago, and I continue to get emails from people reading and enjoying it, including one the other week from a Year 12 English teacher who decided to set it as a text for the school's lunchtime YA book club (and who changed one of the English units to a creative writing one, partly inspired by seeing me speak at Brisbane Writers Fest). And that's wonderful. I've been very, very fortunate and I've also worked really, really hard, and I've had a lot of wonderful opportunities and experiences and I've learnt a great deal from all of it. To regret all that would be silly. To focus on the past and the flaws of my earlier work would prevent me from writing the next novel.
It is my sincerest belief that if you enjoy or feel compelled to write, you should, irrespective of your age or profession or location. If you'd like to publish, you should pursue that. If you'd rather not, your words are still worthwhile. Creative expression is a splendid thing. But don't quit writing or put it off out of fear of not being good enough, or that you will hugely regret sharing your work because 'teenagers are crap writers'. You are not less than by virtue of your age or any other factor. You still ought to write your stories if you feel a drive to. Your writing doesn't have to be serious and profound to be meaningful. 'Easy, enjoyable' reads still connect with people, still bring something to the table. I'm not going to be Hilary Mantel or Jonathan Franzen or J.K. Rowling, or even E. L. James for that matter, and you're not going to be either, but the world of fiction has room for a lot of voices, including young ones, including older ones. And guess what? You can like your own books, flawed as they are. Even if they were written when you were fifteen.
How to support authors when you have no money
Friday, February 7, 2014
I understand! You are a student/creative type/zombie (delete
whichever is inappropriate), and as such you have no money. But you love books,
and you long to collect them all. How can you support your favourite authors
when you lack cash to buy books?
1. Go to the library. If you are not already convinced
of the utter magic of libraries, we need to have a chat.
My local library network is the most amazing thing ever,
because if they don't have a book I want at the nearest library they can order
it in from another library. It mysteriously appears on the holds shelf a few
days later. Marvellous stuff. Saves me a lot of bus travel. Plus, plus,
I can place holds online (they limit it to ten which is sad because I get so
excited about placing holds, I want to place fifty at once) and they
have this whole e-book lending thing. Being that I don't have an ebook reader,
I don't borrow many of these, but it is also awesome. Instant access to as many
books as your heart desires! (Or that the system will let you have out at once.
Also capped, probably due to people like me.)
There is a quite wonderful thing we have in Australia called
Educational Lending Rights and Public Lending Rights, wherein authors are
reimbursed some of the income they've lost from their books being available in
libraries. You know downloading books illegally is super dodgy, so don't do
that. Borrow from the library instead.
Also, libraries have air-conditioning and computers and nice
places to sit (the children's fiction area is the best but frequently has
children in it who are renowned as the noisest of humans, followed by drunk
people. Maybe you local library has a good YA spot too). I am not even
mentioning school libraries here. I am insanely jealous every time I visit a
school with an awesome library. If your school library doesn't have a book you
want to read, ask them to order it in!
My next book is just a 500-page ode to the library. It's my
Narnia, with significantly less evil witches.
2. Talk about the books you love. This was why I
started my blog! Of course, you don't have to be talking about books on the
internet - you can just recommend books to friends and family. I was trying to
avoid driving everyone I knew insane by talking incessantly about fictional
characters. Other people with the same reading tastes as you might read your
review and decide to pick up that book. So, you know, your favourite writer
finds another reader, another reader finds a new favourite writer, everybody
wins.
3. Buy books as gifts. I mean, if you're going to be
buying someone a present anyway, why not make a book? Give the gift of reading,
you guys. It's the best gift ever. Along with baked goods. If you give a book
as a gift to someone you live with, then you can just borrow it from them and
forget to return it at a later point. Personally signed books are also a really
special gift that aren't necessarily any more expensive. Save up your Christmas
fund, go to a writers festival and stock up. Be super nice AND save time by
buying books by the authors that don't have enormous queues at the signing
tables.
4. Write to your favourite authors. Fan mail is the
greatest thing ever and is really encouraging (this is what I think, at least).
If you want your favourite writer to keep on writing, let 'em know!
What happens to Sacha and Jewel? (Or Sophia? Or Nina and Spencer?) What happens after the end of the book?!
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Getting emails from people who have read my novels (and enjoyed them!) is basically the greatest thing ever (I get lots of emails from Spanish readers, which is just incredibly cool). In lots of these emails people want to know what happens after the book ends! The thing people most want to know is about Girl Saves Boy: does Sacha die?
So I thought I would answer this, in case you are interested: what happens after the end of Girl Saves Boy? And All This Could End?
The short answer is: whatever you like.
The much, much longer answer is: This is the thing that I think is absolutely splendid about fiction: there is no absolute truth. There is only your interpretation of the story. For instance, none of the events of the Harry Potter series actually occur! It's all Ron Weasley's coma dream. I read it and I interpret it as I please and thus it is true. (J.K. Rowling would probably disagree, though.)
So, maybe you don't read novels expecting every narrator to be unreliable, and making up conspiracy theories the whole time: that's okay! That's probably how you're supposed to read books! But when a story ends everything is not always neatly tied up. I infinitely prefer stories with open endings, and the ability to interpret and resolve a story for yourself. Much better than an overly cutesy and cheerful ending (though I just explain those away as optimistic coma dreams). While I am a fan of melodrama and a bit of absurdity, I do like my stories to represent real life to a certain degree, and I think an overly resolved story is annoying. There are no conclusive endings in reality. We are in the middle of many, many stories, always.
What I think people really want me to say is: Sacha miraculously recovers! He and Jewel get married and live happily ever after! Sophia goes to prison! (Potentially this turns into a wacky spin-off series.) Nina becomes a vet and saves all the animals! Mr Carr and Sacha's dad skip off into a sunset!
But I'm not going to say that, because I can think of a billion different ways the stories of these characters might continue, and they're all equally possible. If I was dedicated to a very particular path - if I knew in my story Sacha was going to die - then I would've written that.
(I don't really have a problem with killing off characters, but it never seems to happen in the end. Nina died in the original ending of All This Could End, but that didn't quite fit, mainly because ATCE is a lot more comedy than tragedy.)
So: I am absolutely delighted if you are invested enough in my novels and my characters to care about or wonder what happens to them after the end of the book. But they don't have a set path, in my mind. Their future is not yet defined, and there are unlimited possibilities. (Just like real people!) If you read Girl Saves Boy and can't stand the thought of Sacha dying, he doesn't have to! If you read All This Could End and wonder whatever becomes of Spencer, you can decide based on what you know of his character! I absolutely love it when people email me telling me what they think happens after the story ends (and obviously I think fan fiction is one of the greatest things ever).
If you wonder about what happens to that lobster in Girl Saves Boy (does it live? does it die? what's it like being in the ocean after a lifetime in a tank? does it have an anxiety attack?), or what happens when Sacha returns those gnomes to people's gardens (did they notice the gnomes were gone? maybe they sincerely cared about their gnome, and were incredibly distraught to discover it gone?) you can decide. Whether Nina and Tom grow up and revert to crime is entirely up to you. There are lots of little stories there where you can fill-in-the-blanks, if you so wish. It's like magic, basically. No, seriously, how great are stories?
So I thought I would answer this, in case you are interested: what happens after the end of Girl Saves Boy? And All This Could End?
The short answer is: whatever you like.
The much, much longer answer is: This is the thing that I think is absolutely splendid about fiction: there is no absolute truth. There is only your interpretation of the story. For instance, none of the events of the Harry Potter series actually occur! It's all Ron Weasley's coma dream. I read it and I interpret it as I please and thus it is true. (J.K. Rowling would probably disagree, though.)
So, maybe you don't read novels expecting every narrator to be unreliable, and making up conspiracy theories the whole time: that's okay! That's probably how you're supposed to read books! But when a story ends everything is not always neatly tied up. I infinitely prefer stories with open endings, and the ability to interpret and resolve a story for yourself. Much better than an overly cutesy and cheerful ending (though I just explain those away as optimistic coma dreams). While I am a fan of melodrama and a bit of absurdity, I do like my stories to represent real life to a certain degree, and I think an overly resolved story is annoying. There are no conclusive endings in reality. We are in the middle of many, many stories, always.
What I think people really want me to say is: Sacha miraculously recovers! He and Jewel get married and live happily ever after! Sophia goes to prison! (Potentially this turns into a wacky spin-off series.) Nina becomes a vet and saves all the animals! Mr Carr and Sacha's dad skip off into a sunset!
But I'm not going to say that, because I can think of a billion different ways the stories of these characters might continue, and they're all equally possible. If I was dedicated to a very particular path - if I knew in my story Sacha was going to die - then I would've written that.
(I don't really have a problem with killing off characters, but it never seems to happen in the end. Nina died in the original ending of All This Could End, but that didn't quite fit, mainly because ATCE is a lot more comedy than tragedy.)
So: I am absolutely delighted if you are invested enough in my novels and my characters to care about or wonder what happens to them after the end of the book. But they don't have a set path, in my mind. Their future is not yet defined, and there are unlimited possibilities. (Just like real people!) If you read Girl Saves Boy and can't stand the thought of Sacha dying, he doesn't have to! If you read All This Could End and wonder whatever becomes of Spencer, you can decide based on what you know of his character! I absolutely love it when people email me telling me what they think happens after the story ends (and obviously I think fan fiction is one of the greatest things ever).
If you wonder about what happens to that lobster in Girl Saves Boy (does it live? does it die? what's it like being in the ocean after a lifetime in a tank? does it have an anxiety attack?), or what happens when Sacha returns those gnomes to people's gardens (did they notice the gnomes were gone? maybe they sincerely cared about their gnome, and were incredibly distraught to discover it gone?) you can decide. Whether Nina and Tom grow up and revert to crime is entirely up to you. There are lots of little stories there where you can fill-in-the-blanks, if you so wish. It's like magic, basically. No, seriously, how great are stories?
Can you please stop using the word "sexy" in relation to YA novels?
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
I have noticed this trend of every flipping YA paranormal
romance or urban fantasy or dystopia being described as 'sexy' in the blurb or
in the puff piece. I have noticed it creeping into contemporary YA, too, now. I
don't get it. Here are some reasons why:
1. The characters are like 16, 17. The person writing the
blurb or puff piece is 95% of the time a grown woman. I don't care that they're
fictional. It's weird. It's creepy. It's just... strange. Oh, so the
angel-vampire whatever guy is sexy? I do not get how that matters. Seriously,
this is something people care about? God, I've been approaching this writing
business all wrong.
2. How exactly is the book sexy? It just seems like an odd
adjective to apply. (It's important to remember I am not from your planet and
as a result understand very few of your human concepts.)
3. Do you not think we already rampantly overuse the word
'sexy'? Do you not think the entire notion of 'sexy' is focused on far too much
in our society? Do you not think these twelve-year-olds (and up) reading YA are
not really invested in how 'sexy' a book is? Do you not think YA is geared far
too much towards grown women now?
4. I legitimately understand nothing.
5. 'Like such-and-such book but sexier.' I AM THROWING YOU ACROSS THE ROOM NOW, BOOK.
6. To be fair, I was incensed and appalled by The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Thirteen
and three quarters or whatever it is, what an awkwardly long title, at the
age of ten because there was kissing in
it. Disgusting! I've not changed much in the past nine years, to be honest. I
don't think YA has to be devoid of sex but 'books that are sexy' and 'books
that realistically depict teenage sexuality' are two different things.
7. Just stop it already. I refuse to read any book that has
'sexy' mentioned on the cover, or in the blurb, or by whatever other author is
talking about how goddamn 'sexy' it is, especially
if it's a YA novel. This is for ages twelve plus, guys. I know basically
middle-aged women have hijacked it as a genre but I WILL NOT kowtow to their
RIDICULOUS demands of SEXINESS in books about/for TEENAGERS okay?
8. Kowtow, what a weird word. Did you know it's borrowed
from kòu tóu in Mandarin Chinese? Neither did I. Thanks, Wikipedia.
9. Don't use the word sexy, really. There are so many other, far superior, adjectives. If anyone cares to
explain the meteoric/moronic rise of sexy in the description of EVERY YA NOVEL
EVER, please share. Is this what the teenagers demand from their novels now?
Has someone done focus groups? Please explain.
How to be nice to your author friend, for non-writer folks
Friday, June 28, 2013
1. If you have a book dedicated to you, you should probably read it. It's generally a nice thing to do. If a book is dedicated to your memory, try floating your ghostly presence towards someone who is reading the book, or become a poltergeist so you can manipulate physical objects. If you have gone straight to heaven, do not pass go, do not collect $200, see if you can order it online. Maybe Amazon ships there? I don't know, it might be pricey. (You know when shipping on a book costs as much as the book itself? That's annoying.) (ARE YOU READING THIS BLOG POST FROM THE ASTRAL PLANE? KNOCK TWICE FOR YES.)
2. It really is incredibly lovely to buy a copy of your friend's book when it is published. I understand if you are poor, though, so maybe just borrow it from the library and then tell all of your rich friends how wonderful it is. Yeah, I don't have rich friends either. Just yell about it on the internet.
3. If you have a friend who has a book published, and you read that book, and you think it's the worst thing ever written, and you value the friendship, try to lie convincingly when asked what you thought of it. You don't have to say you loved it if you didn't, but soften the truth a little. "It's not really my kind of book" is not really an acceptable answer. I think "I am so proud of you" is better, and not technically a lie (assuming you are proud).
4. That said, don't review your friend's book positively on the internet if you didn't actually like it or even read it. It's very obvious when someone's mates are boosting their ratings on particular sites. (Maybe a little bit of this is okay? I don't know, it's a slippery slope.) And don't get in arguments with people on the internet (generally a waste of time, but you know this), especially over negative reviews (it reflects poorly on the author. And you love the author, so you don't want that).
5. Don't ask how many books your author friend has sold. No author knows the exact number! If you obsess about these things you go mad! I actually have an amazing superpower where the lightning-bolt shaped scar on my head burns every time someone buys my book, but I'm bad at keeping track. Other unappreciated questions include "How much money have you earned?" and "Are you a bestseller?" How much money a writer earns is largely out of their control. You work really, really hard at the writing bit and at the promotional bit but that doesn't guarantee you're going to do well. There's a lot of hoping for the best.
6. Do not alert your author friend every time an awards longlist is released that they are not on, or every festival program they are not part of, or the success of other authors generally. They probably already know about these things. There are a lot of ways to feel lame when you are a writer, and I don't think writers require much help in that department.
7. Don't bring up the fact that they've been working on their book for two years, and that lots of other writers manage to bring out a book a year. It takes a long time, all right? You can't rush it.
8. Continue to encourage your author friend to leave the house at regular intervals and communicate with other human beings. (If the author you know is an extrovert, I feel they will be much easier to maintain a relationship with. I think they're a rare breed, especially among the novelists.)
2. It really is incredibly lovely to buy a copy of your friend's book when it is published. I understand if you are poor, though, so maybe just borrow it from the library and then tell all of your rich friends how wonderful it is. Yeah, I don't have rich friends either. Just yell about it on the internet.
3. If you have a friend who has a book published, and you read that book, and you think it's the worst thing ever written, and you value the friendship, try to lie convincingly when asked what you thought of it. You don't have to say you loved it if you didn't, but soften the truth a little. "It's not really my kind of book" is not really an acceptable answer. I think "I am so proud of you" is better, and not technically a lie (assuming you are proud).
4. That said, don't review your friend's book positively on the internet if you didn't actually like it or even read it. It's very obvious when someone's mates are boosting their ratings on particular sites. (Maybe a little bit of this is okay? I don't know, it's a slippery slope.) And don't get in arguments with people on the internet (generally a waste of time, but you know this), especially over negative reviews (it reflects poorly on the author. And you love the author, so you don't want that).
5. Don't ask how many books your author friend has sold. No author knows the exact number! If you obsess about these things you go mad! I actually have an amazing superpower where the lightning-bolt shaped scar on my head burns every time someone buys my book, but I'm bad at keeping track. Other unappreciated questions include "How much money have you earned?" and "Are you a bestseller?" How much money a writer earns is largely out of their control. You work really, really hard at the writing bit and at the promotional bit but that doesn't guarantee you're going to do well. There's a lot of hoping for the best.
6. Do not alert your author friend every time an awards longlist is released that they are not on, or every festival program they are not part of, or the success of other authors generally. They probably already know about these things. There are a lot of ways to feel lame when you are a writer, and I don't think writers require much help in that department.
7. Don't bring up the fact that they've been working on their book for two years, and that lots of other writers manage to bring out a book a year. It takes a long time, all right? You can't rush it.
8. Continue to encourage your author friend to leave the house at regular intervals and communicate with other human beings. (If the author you know is an extrovert, I feel they will be much easier to maintain a relationship with. I think they're a rare breed, especially among the novelists.)
On what literature is really about, and being a "serious" writer
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Literary snobs annoy me. They annoy me a lot.
I tire of the idea that the only "serious" writers are the ones writing literary fiction.
I tire of the idea that I am less real as a writer or work less hard or am somehow less important because I write books for teenagers.
And I think it is absolutely absurd when people say things like "That isn't what literature is about."
Like, the only stories of worth have to examine the human condition and be about death and some middle-class white bloke wandering about doing nothing for four hundred pages (as written by some narcissistic middle-class white bloke).
About 90% of the time when I read a critically-acclaimed, award-winning novel I am just baffled. (Generally of the books-for-adults variety. I usually like the YA award winners.)
A great deal of literary fiction seems to be about literary fiction which, to me, is very odd. It's like an entire genre of in-jokes.
I dislike the idea that all the important stories must be depressing. I think that literature can and should be about a lot of things. Entertainment and comfort and whatever it is the reader wants out of it. I don't know, I think there's enough depressing in the real world without every novel of "value" (how do we ascribe this value? how does this work?) being so incredibly depressing.
I think the idea of "serious" and "non-serious" writers is stupidly linear. (Maybe I should add "unserious writer" to my bio. I'm not sure I could ever be, or be considered, a "serious" writer.) I am, however, very uncool and not really part of any literary scene and likely not a future award-winner, so perhaps I am not the best person to listen to.
To sum up:
1. I have forgotten how to write blog posts.
2. People who talk about "serious" fiction are irritating.
3. Lots of novels are important and have value and bring people joy and make them think! Stories, I love them all! Stop acting like your genre is by default superior to mine!
I tire of the idea that the only "serious" writers are the ones writing literary fiction.
I tire of the idea that I am less real as a writer or work less hard or am somehow less important because I write books for teenagers.
And I think it is absolutely absurd when people say things like "That isn't what literature is about."
Like, the only stories of worth have to examine the human condition and be about death and some middle-class white bloke wandering about doing nothing for four hundred pages (as written by some narcissistic middle-class white bloke).
About 90% of the time when I read a critically-acclaimed, award-winning novel I am just baffled. (Generally of the books-for-adults variety. I usually like the YA award winners.)
A great deal of literary fiction seems to be about literary fiction which, to me, is very odd. It's like an entire genre of in-jokes.
I dislike the idea that all the important stories must be depressing. I think that literature can and should be about a lot of things. Entertainment and comfort and whatever it is the reader wants out of it. I don't know, I think there's enough depressing in the real world without every novel of "value" (how do we ascribe this value? how does this work?) being so incredibly depressing.
I think the idea of "serious" and "non-serious" writers is stupidly linear. (Maybe I should add "unserious writer" to my bio. I'm not sure I could ever be, or be considered, a "serious" writer.) I am, however, very uncool and not really part of any literary scene and likely not a future award-winner, so perhaps I am not the best person to listen to.
To sum up:
1. I have forgotten how to write blog posts.
2. People who talk about "serious" fiction are irritating.
3. Lots of novels are important and have value and bring people joy and make them think! Stories, I love them all! Stop acting like your genre is by default superior to mine!
New Adult, you confuse me
Monday, April 29, 2013
People I know are on about New Adult now as if it is an actual genre (remember 2009 when everyone thought it was ridiculous?). Look, it has a Wikipedia page. I am not sure anyone who is a non-writer/non-publishing person is aware of New Adult's so-called existence but maybe in five years time this will not be the case. Also I am in the target market for this Brand New Unique Concept Genre (totally not already in existence under the umbrella of Fiction or Romance), so I have thoughts on the topic.
Here are the things that do not make sense to me about New Adult as a genre:
A: University-aged kids do not have copious amounts of time on their hands in which to read, irrespective of whether they're studying or just in full-time work for the first time.
B: 'New Adults' also don't have copious amounts of money to spend on books. Parents buy their teenagers books. I am not sure they buy their adult children books as much.
C: I mean, let's be honest with ourselves, middle-aged women are just going to hijack it anyway, Twilight-style. Is it just paranormal romance minus the paranormal? You can tell me the truth.
D: Isn't it just fiction, people?
E: I don't really get the need to subdivide every novel into a variety of smaller and smaller pigeon-holes until you end up with speculative dystopic urban fantasy romantic suspense chick-lit novellas. But then again I am not very marketing-minded so maybe this is necessary.
F: Seriously. This genre already exists. Fiction. That is what it is called.
G: People are describing it as 'sexed-up' YA ('sexed-up' is such an unpleasant phrase, I mean, really) which makes me wonder if it's actually just romance. It seems to be very tailored towards female readers.
H: Every New Adult book I have read about seems to be very reminiscent of Fifty Shades of Grey. And you know how I feel about that.
Here are the things that do not make sense to me about New Adult as a genre:
A: University-aged kids do not have copious amounts of time on their hands in which to read, irrespective of whether they're studying or just in full-time work for the first time.
B: 'New Adults' also don't have copious amounts of money to spend on books. Parents buy their teenagers books. I am not sure they buy their adult children books as much.
C: I mean, let's be honest with ourselves, middle-aged women are just going to hijack it anyway, Twilight-style. Is it just paranormal romance minus the paranormal? You can tell me the truth.
D: Isn't it just fiction, people?
E: I don't really get the need to subdivide every novel into a variety of smaller and smaller pigeon-holes until you end up with speculative dystopic urban fantasy romantic suspense chick-lit novellas. But then again I am not very marketing-minded so maybe this is necessary.
F: Seriously. This genre already exists. Fiction. That is what it is called.
G: People are describing it as 'sexed-up' YA ('sexed-up' is such an unpleasant phrase, I mean, really) which makes me wonder if it's actually just romance. It seems to be very tailored towards female readers.
H: Every New Adult book I have read about seems to be very reminiscent of Fifty Shades of Grey. And you know how I feel about that.
Plot twists that endlessly delight me but most people hate (because they are ridiculous and melodramatic)
Thursday, February 14, 2013
'It was all just a dream!'
'She's actually in a coma!'
'The girlfriend/best friend only exists in the main character's head!'
'The evil twin is really just the main character's other personality!'
'Everyone is evil and in on the plot except the main character!'
'Main character is actually dead: they'e a ghost, with unfinished business!'
'Every secondary character is the same person in a variety of disguises!'
'Character who supposedly died at sea and is a ghost haunting main character is actually alive!'
'Random middle-aged character is actually main character's long lost parent!'
'They're actually in the Matrix!'
'They're actually characters in a story within a story!'
'They're in an alternate universe!'
'The unreliable narrator is actually the killer!'
'Everyone else is actually a cyborg!'
'Everyone else is actually an alien replica!'
'Everyone else is actually the cast of an elaborate reality TV show that the main character is not aware they are the star of!'
'Main character is a cyborg/alien replica/reality TV star and doesn't know it!'
Plus anything to do with amnesia or mind reading. I love that stuff.
I have been thinking about my love of the slightly ridiculous (and sometimes incredibly ridiculous) in stories lately (I am not a fan of soap operas, though, oddly). I don't think ridiculous and genuine have to be mutually exclusive, or that literary fiction has the monopoly on affecting and brilliant stories. I think as long as there are characters the reader can empathise with, a ridiculous plotline will work (and some degree of self-awareness and irony helps). As a reader at the moment I don't have a lot of interest in overly realistic and serious stories. I am not the sort of person who thinks fiction should always be depressing or always be serious. I think you should get joy out of stories wherever possible (or at least learn something, if it's depressing), and always entertainment. I am tired of people saying 'Fiction isn't supposed to be uplifting'. Because, well, why not? Why can't fiction be weird and fun and still be meaningful?
'She's actually in a coma!'
'The girlfriend/best friend only exists in the main character's head!'
'The evil twin is really just the main character's other personality!'
'Everyone is evil and in on the plot except the main character!'
'Main character is actually dead: they'e a ghost, with unfinished business!'
'Every secondary character is the same person in a variety of disguises!'
'Character who supposedly died at sea and is a ghost haunting main character is actually alive!'
'Random middle-aged character is actually main character's long lost parent!'
'They're actually in the Matrix!'
'They're actually characters in a story within a story!'
'They're in an alternate universe!'
'The unreliable narrator is actually the killer!'
'Everyone else is actually a cyborg!'
'Everyone else is actually an alien replica!'
'Everyone else is actually the cast of an elaborate reality TV show that the main character is not aware they are the star of!'
'Main character is a cyborg/alien replica/reality TV star and doesn't know it!'
Plus anything to do with amnesia or mind reading. I love that stuff.
I have been thinking about my love of the slightly ridiculous (and sometimes incredibly ridiculous) in stories lately (I am not a fan of soap operas, though, oddly). I don't think ridiculous and genuine have to be mutually exclusive, or that literary fiction has the monopoly on affecting and brilliant stories. I think as long as there are characters the reader can empathise with, a ridiculous plotline will work (and some degree of self-awareness and irony helps). As a reader at the moment I don't have a lot of interest in overly realistic and serious stories. I am not the sort of person who thinks fiction should always be depressing or always be serious. I think you should get joy out of stories wherever possible (or at least learn something, if it's depressing), and always entertainment. I am tired of people saying 'Fiction isn't supposed to be uplifting'. Because, well, why not? Why can't fiction be weird and fun and still be meaningful?
Does everyone have to be so attractive all the time?
Monday, January 21, 2013
You know when you're reading a novel (which if you are Steph Bowe is more often than not*) and it's pretty good so far, but then the love interest has to show up? And then it's all downhill from there?
This is usually the worst part of the whole book because nine times out of ten instead of being described normally like a normal character, they are described in ridiculous hyperbole. They are breathtakingly and arrestingly and unfathomably beautiful. They are the most attractive person the protagonist has ever seen.
They are so otherworldly in their beauty, in fact, that everyone in their immediate vicinity stops and stares at them. NO. NO. A MILLION TIMES NO. I don't even care if they are from another world.
Why? Can't they just love normal-looking people? Isn't how attractive people are a fairly subjective thing? I know that people in movies and on TV are really, ridiculously good-looking but when you are writing a book the people can look however you say they look. So why make them generic hotties? Really? Wouldn't it be so much more interesting in your world of amazingly gorgeous folks if the love interest wasn't just one step of hotness above everyone else?
Why aren't there more average-looking paranormal creatures, really? It's all either tall, broad-shouldered super-babes or really evil ugly ones (as if ugly somehow equates to innate evil. How does that work? Does that seem illogical and kind of offensive to you? Those poor Orcs probably weren't even bad guys).
The profundity of people's love is not based on how ridiculously attractive they are, as far as I know.** Always, in these books, it's like they're reincarnated soul mates or magical partners in crime or at the very least they're gonna get married because they have some profound bond. Is them being the most attractive person ever to have lived really necessary if they're soul mates?
(Imagine if you lived in a world actually populated by the characters of these novels. It'd just be all redheads and seventeen-year-olds and people with creepy-coloured eyes and overly muscled immortals. I mean, really. What a nightmare. I'm confident I could be the dorky best friend of the gorgeous-but-doesn't-know-she's-gorgeous protagonist, and then conveniently disappear once the other main characters show up.)
Writers of future YA novels: please don't make the love interest the most attractive person on planet earth. It's not necessary. Especially if it's all about ~true love~. Because it's blind, guys. Haven't you ever seen a romantic comedy? (In which all of the characters are really, ridiculously good-looking, of course.)
*I am hoping to evolve past the need for sleep because I feel like that third of my life could be put towards better use i.e. reading***
**Maybe I'm wrong and us normal-looking folks aren't particularly loveable. I'm going to go and adopt a cat now.
***I'm kidding. You need your sleep, kids.
This is usually the worst part of the whole book because nine times out of ten instead of being described normally like a normal character, they are described in ridiculous hyperbole. They are breathtakingly and arrestingly and unfathomably beautiful. They are the most attractive person the protagonist has ever seen.
They are so otherworldly in their beauty, in fact, that everyone in their immediate vicinity stops and stares at them. NO. NO. A MILLION TIMES NO. I don't even care if they are from another world.
Why? Can't they just love normal-looking people? Isn't how attractive people are a fairly subjective thing? I know that people in movies and on TV are really, ridiculously good-looking but when you are writing a book the people can look however you say they look. So why make them generic hotties? Really? Wouldn't it be so much more interesting in your world of amazingly gorgeous folks if the love interest wasn't just one step of hotness above everyone else?
Why aren't there more average-looking paranormal creatures, really? It's all either tall, broad-shouldered super-babes or really evil ugly ones (as if ugly somehow equates to innate evil. How does that work? Does that seem illogical and kind of offensive to you? Those poor Orcs probably weren't even bad guys).
The profundity of people's love is not based on how ridiculously attractive they are, as far as I know.** Always, in these books, it's like they're reincarnated soul mates or magical partners in crime or at the very least they're gonna get married because they have some profound bond. Is them being the most attractive person ever to have lived really necessary if they're soul mates?
(Imagine if you lived in a world actually populated by the characters of these novels. It'd just be all redheads and seventeen-year-olds and people with creepy-coloured eyes and overly muscled immortals. I mean, really. What a nightmare. I'm confident I could be the dorky best friend of the gorgeous-but-doesn't-know-she's-gorgeous protagonist, and then conveniently disappear once the other main characters show up.)
Writers of future YA novels: please don't make the love interest the most attractive person on planet earth. It's not necessary. Especially if it's all about ~true love~. Because it's blind, guys. Haven't you ever seen a romantic comedy? (In which all of the characters are really, ridiculously good-looking, of course.)
*I am hoping to evolve past the need for sleep because I feel like that third of my life could be put towards better use i.e. reading***
**Maybe I'm wrong and us normal-looking folks aren't particularly loveable. I'm going to go and adopt a cat now.
***I'm kidding. You need your sleep, kids.
Why is it so hard to be a writer and read?
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Like, when you finish reading an amazingly brilliant novel that has won lots and lots of awards, you can't just think to yourself: "Wow, that was a fantastic book." Instead, you think to yourself: "Why can't I be that brilliant? How do they manage this brilliance? Can I steal this writer's brain? Did this writer make a deal with the devil? Can I make a similar deal? What is the secret? I will never be this great, might as well give up now!"
Or, when you finish reading an amazingly terrible novel that has sold lots and lots of copies, you can't just think to yourself: "Wow, wasted three hours of my life there." Instead, you think to yourself: "How come I can't write books that sell seventy billion copies? They don't seem that complicated! What's the secret? Why am I so bad at cliff-hangers? I will never sell this well, might as well give up now!"
It's just demoralising, frankly. The answer, of course, is to always read books that you think are perfectly average, with perfectly average sales, and with a perfectly average number of fans, and then you don't feel bad for not being brilliant or for not selling well enough or for not being universally adored. Which makes no sense whatsoever because what's the point of reading if it isn't finding stories you love?
Hopefully I am not the only one who unnecessarily does this "I wish I was a literary genius" bit every time I read a good book. If you have advice for those attempting to read while being a writer (how could I not! I'd rather not be reduced to reading textbooks and cereal boxes), do share.
Or, when you finish reading an amazingly terrible novel that has sold lots and lots of copies, you can't just think to yourself: "Wow, wasted three hours of my life there." Instead, you think to yourself: "How come I can't write books that sell seventy billion copies? They don't seem that complicated! What's the secret? Why am I so bad at cliff-hangers? I will never sell this well, might as well give up now!"
It's just demoralising, frankly. The answer, of course, is to always read books that you think are perfectly average, with perfectly average sales, and with a perfectly average number of fans, and then you don't feel bad for not being brilliant or for not selling well enough or for not being universally adored. Which makes no sense whatsoever because what's the point of reading if it isn't finding stories you love?
Hopefully I am not the only one who unnecessarily does this "I wish I was a literary genius" bit every time I read a good book. If you have advice for those attempting to read while being a writer (how could I not! I'd rather not be reduced to reading textbooks and cereal boxes), do share.
Dialogue I would be pleased to never read in a work of fiction ever again
Friday, January 11, 2013
- “But that’s just a myth right? Surely it couldn’t be real?” And then two lines later whoever spoke these lines has fully accepted the existence of angels/vampires/chupacabra. This is an idiotic line because it appears in every paranormal novel ever and no one would actually say it. Someone tells you supernatural creatures are real, you don’t ask them in an uncertain voice whether they are being legit. You yell that they are crazy and you run away. Or you at least tell them it’s a myth with a bit of conviction, I mean, really.
- The all-knowing minor character who says “You know he/she loves you, right?” to Entirely Clueless Yet Devilishly Attractive protagonist. This also comes up in romantic comedies at around the forty-five minute mark. The problem I have with this is how could they know? Do people say this in the real world? Do we all have secret spidey-senses that allow us to figure out who’s hot for whom and I’m just not tapped into it? I feel that characters should only be able to inform other characters who they’re loved by if a) they are directly told by the unrequited lover, or b) they are Edward Cullen. Then again I don’t think Edward Cullen should either. There’s just too many casual observers able to figure out other people’s feelings. A bit unbelievable.
- “I don’t trust you.” “You shouldn’t.” This causes me to throw the novel across the room. 92% of all paranormal romance novels contain these words. It’s always Vulnerable Teenage Girl speaking to Powerful Supernatural Guy (who’s secretly an oldie but still looks young and hot. How is that even okay?). There’s just a lot of poor decision making generally when it comes to supernatural romances. I could write a book of advice for the lady protagonists of paranormal romance novels. Never go to a second location with a stranger, no matter how attractive they are! Preferably have age-appropriate romances with other mortals! Don’t move to dreary regional towns in America! Eat plenty of garlic!
If there are any terrible,
recurring lines of dialogue you’d like to see banished from literature, feel
free to share. (I will likely hate them too. Sorry. Strongly dislike.)
'Next Big Thing' Meme
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Woo, first post of 2013! Memes, you guys. I haven't done a meme since 2009. I'm not entirely sure what a meme is. This one seems kind of arrogantly titled. But Will Kostakis and Sue Whiting both tagged me, so here we are!
1. What is the working title of your next book?
All This Could End is the final title. The working title This All Could End. As you can see, dramatically different.
2. Where did the idea come from for the book?
The idea for this novel started as almost all of my ideas do: by wondering ‘what if’. What if I went to the bank one day and someone I knew was robbing it? What if this was someone I’d been close to? What if I were robbing a bank myself? Why would I do that? And how would someone I know react to me holding them hostage in a bank robbery? (This was followed by how cool would this be to write about?) When robberies are reported on the news, I always wonder what these robbers would be like personally. Would they seem perfectly ordinary in person? What are their families like? And from there I progressed to writing about a family of bank robbers.
3. What genre does your book fall under?
Contemporary YA. And there's crime stuff, obviously. It's a bit dramatic. Really, it's the same genre as Girl Saves Boy, but instead of somebody dying it's about a bank robbery.
4. What actors would you choose to play the part of your characters in a movie rendition?
I wouldn't choose. If a movie were being made I would leave everything up to the movie-makers. I don't really have actors in mind for what characters look like, because I don't really imagine my characters being especially conventionally beautiful like the majority of actors. I would like the actors to look like ordinary people, thank you.
5. What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?
"Teenage girl takes former friend hostage in bank robbery, hijinks ensue"? Clearly I am not that good at one-sentence synopses. That is a very condensed version.
6. Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?
It's being published by Text Publishing on February 27th of this year.
7. How long did it take you to write the first draft of the manuscript?
Maybe six months. And then almost two years editing after that, on and off.
8. What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?
I should probably have a whole lot of titles in mind here, and I did for Girl Saves Boy, but I guess I haven't thought about it as much this time around. Comparing yourself to others is necessary in a marketing sense but crap for your own writerly self-esteem, I think. I will let other people read it and figure out what books to compare it to, because I can't be objective about my own writing.
9. Who or what inspired you to write this book?
I dedicated the novel to my sister, and lots of things I wrote in the novel were because of her. There are two younger siblings in the novel, because my sister was a preteen while I was writing it, and I wanted to explore the relationship between older and younger siblings. Younger siblings tend to be equal parts hilarious and frustrating, and the sense of obligation and love is often at odds with how short-sighted people can be as teenagers.
I very much wanted to write a book teenage readers could relate to, and I think having people read my first novel and write to me about how much they enjoyed it and identified with the characters was a big motivating factor. The things that Nina and Spencer individually go through in the novel – not knowing their place, their shared sense of uncertainty about the future, the complexity of familial relationships – are things I hope readers will be able to relate to.
10. What else about the book might pique the reader's interest?
Well, there's a bank robbery.
Okay, maybe I should think of something else. There's a sister that communicates only through lollies, a crazy but delightful mother (it's very much a book about realising that your parents are not always right, especially if they are dangerous criminals), an obnoxious best friend with an obsession with bassists, a little bit of grand theft auto, and lots of secrets. It's a novel that attempts to be both silly and heartfelt and I very much hope it succeeds.
--
You're supposed to tag people with these meme things but I'm not very good at that. If you do this meme (or have done it), you should comment the link so I can read it! I am always very curious about what people have to say about their own books.
1. What is the working title of your next book?
All This Could End is the final title. The working title This All Could End. As you can see, dramatically different.
2. Where did the idea come from for the book?
The idea for this novel started as almost all of my ideas do: by wondering ‘what if’. What if I went to the bank one day and someone I knew was robbing it? What if this was someone I’d been close to? What if I were robbing a bank myself? Why would I do that? And how would someone I know react to me holding them hostage in a bank robbery? (This was followed by how cool would this be to write about?) When robberies are reported on the news, I always wonder what these robbers would be like personally. Would they seem perfectly ordinary in person? What are their families like? And from there I progressed to writing about a family of bank robbers.
3. What genre does your book fall under?
Contemporary YA. And there's crime stuff, obviously. It's a bit dramatic. Really, it's the same genre as Girl Saves Boy, but instead of somebody dying it's about a bank robbery.
4. What actors would you choose to play the part of your characters in a movie rendition?
I wouldn't choose. If a movie were being made I would leave everything up to the movie-makers. I don't really have actors in mind for what characters look like, because I don't really imagine my characters being especially conventionally beautiful like the majority of actors. I would like the actors to look like ordinary people, thank you.
5. What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book?
"Teenage girl takes former friend hostage in bank robbery, hijinks ensue"? Clearly I am not that good at one-sentence synopses. That is a very condensed version.
6. Will your book be self-published or represented by an agency?
It's being published by Text Publishing on February 27th of this year.
7. How long did it take you to write the first draft of the manuscript?
Maybe six months. And then almost two years editing after that, on and off.
8. What other books would you compare this story to within your genre?
I should probably have a whole lot of titles in mind here, and I did for Girl Saves Boy, but I guess I haven't thought about it as much this time around. Comparing yourself to others is necessary in a marketing sense but crap for your own writerly self-esteem, I think. I will let other people read it and figure out what books to compare it to, because I can't be objective about my own writing.
9. Who or what inspired you to write this book?
I dedicated the novel to my sister, and lots of things I wrote in the novel were because of her. There are two younger siblings in the novel, because my sister was a preteen while I was writing it, and I wanted to explore the relationship between older and younger siblings. Younger siblings tend to be equal parts hilarious and frustrating, and the sense of obligation and love is often at odds with how short-sighted people can be as teenagers.
I very much wanted to write a book teenage readers could relate to, and I think having people read my first novel and write to me about how much they enjoyed it and identified with the characters was a big motivating factor. The things that Nina and Spencer individually go through in the novel – not knowing their place, their shared sense of uncertainty about the future, the complexity of familial relationships – are things I hope readers will be able to relate to.
10. What else about the book might pique the reader's interest?
Well, there's a bank robbery.
Okay, maybe I should think of something else. There's a sister that communicates only through lollies, a crazy but delightful mother (it's very much a book about realising that your parents are not always right, especially if they are dangerous criminals), an obnoxious best friend with an obsession with bassists, a little bit of grand theft auto, and lots of secrets. It's a novel that attempts to be both silly and heartfelt and I very much hope it succeeds.
--
You're supposed to tag people with these meme things but I'm not very good at that. If you do this meme (or have done it), you should comment the link so I can read it! I am always very curious about what people have to say about their own books.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Friday, December 21, 2012
But then you're reading this book, and cringing at regular intervals, and thinking, am I reading the same book here? Have the pages of my copy been swapped out with another, really crappy book? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!*
Is there a part of my brain missing which is required for me to like universally-liked things, like the Harry Potter series**, and bacon?*** Does this count as groupthink?
Is there some Emperor's New Clothes going on here? Will no-one admit to disliking something that a lot of other people like, for fear that they are just not intellectual enough to get it? Is it really possible I am the only one who doesn't get it?
I think the tendency to believe that your subjective opinion is the absolute objective truth is a natural human thing. But there seem to be a lot of people who will take major issue with anyone expressing a contradictory opinion, and regard it as just blatantly untrue. Especially on the internet. Especially about someone not recognising the genius of a book they love.
You should tell me what you think. Surely you dislike books that seem to be universally loved, too?
*I hope you got that reference. I'm just going to put this here (it's totally relevant):
**This post is not specifically about the Harry Potter series. Please don't hate me for not loving the Harry Potter series.****
***I'm not a fangirl generally. I wrote about this two years ago, and unfortunately it hasn't changed. Being a terrifying intense fan of something seems fun. I feel like I'm missing out. On the upside I don't think I'll ever be a stalker.
****I wrote about some classics I read here, and I was really disappointed that I didn't really get a couple of them. I can't be a fan of everything, sure, but I enjoy understanding why other people like what they like. Maybe I'll appreciate Catcher in the Rye in ten years time.
A novel I am very excited about the release of: Girl Defective by Simmone Howell
Monday, December 3, 2012
This is the blurb: We, the Martin family, were like inverse superheroes, marked by our defects. Dad was addicted to beer and bootlegs. Gully had "social difficulties" that manifested in his wearing a pig snout mask 24-7. I was surface clean but underneath a weird hormonal stew was simmering...
It's summer in St Kilda. Fifteen-year-old Sky is looking forward to great records and nefarious activities with Nancy, her older, wilder friend. Her brother – Super Agent Gully – is on a mission to unmask the degenerate who bricked the shop window. Bill the Patriarch seems content to drink while the shop slides into bankruptcy. A poster of a mysterious girl and her connection to Luke, the tragi-hot new employee sends Sky on an exploration into the dark heart of the suburb. Love is strange. Family Rules. In between there are teenage messes, rock star spawn, violent fangirls, creepy old guys and accidents waiting to happen. If the world truly is going to hell in a hand-basket then at least the soundtrack is kicking. Sky Martin is Girl Defective: funny, real and dark at the edges.
Here it is on the publisher's website, and here is the author's very nice blog.
America is not the centre of the known universe
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Things I wish non-American writers would stop doing: set novels vaguely in America for no apparent reason, and get all of the details wrong.
You can tell when a novel is set in a country that the writer is not particularly familiar with. I do not want to use Fifty Shades of Grey as an example, but it is such an obvious example that I feel it will illustrate my point quite well: it is set in America (I imagine because Twilight is set in America), but the author is English. The characters use phrases that are not used in America, because the author is familiar with how people speak in England. There are impossible uses of geography, because the writer does not know how long it takes to drive between, say, Portland and Seattle, because she lives in England.
Things do not ring true if someone is writing about a place they are not familiar with. I am Australian, and I have never been to America, and I can tell if you are writing a book about this place and you have not actually been there yourself. This is because I have consumed a lot of TV shows and books and movies and everything else that is set in or is about America ('consumed'. I just imagine myself eating DVDs like the Cookie Monster). There is an excess of novels and films and TV shows about America. That's okay. But that doesn't mean you have to set your book there, too, and please, not if you don't know a thing about the place. Then it's just awkward and factually inconsistent.
I am not saying that you are forbidden to write stories set outside of your country, but if you are going to please do it reasonably well. Maybe go to that country for a while, or get someone from that country to read your manuscript and correct you. Set it in a foreign country only if you can write it in a convincing and believable way. And don't set it in America by default if you are non-American. I mean, think about it. Do you not think we have enough narratives about America already? Try to bring something new to the table, please. (Example: Hollywood Ending by Kathy Charles. Australian writer! L.A. setting! But convincing and believable and very well-written, and it wouldn't work set anywhere else. Because the author wrote a novel about a place they love and are familiar with.)
And this is not just a problem with novels set in America. I don't want you appropriating other people's culture and writing a novel set in Imperial Japan if you don't know anything about Imperial Japan. Googling does not count. I REPEAT. Googling does not count. (At least not for very much.)
But this post is specifically about America because there are so, so many novels - particularly of the YA paranormal romance variety - that are set in a vague American setting for no reason. Also cultural appropriation is obviously a much more complicated thing which I do not feel informed enough about to write an entire post on it. Plus everyone writes novels full of white people, what is up with that? Let's talk about this later though. We're talking about badly evoked vaguely American settings written by non-Americans.
So, why are people doing this? Do supernatural creatures only exist in America? (Apart from a brief trip to Italy or Transylvania or wherever.) Does everyone just want their novels to become bestsellers in America, and think Americans will only read about America? Will Americans only read about America? I am sure Americans won't mind if we maybe don't Americanize (Americanise?) all of our culture.
IN CONCLUSION: don't be lazy and set your YA paranormal romance novel in Not-Forks-but-similar-to-Forks, USA, especially if you know as much about America as I do (i.e. not a lot, except for stuff from movies). Research! Maybe go there! Maybe consider bringing vampires to the Gold Coast, Aus! No, bad idea. Too sunny. Write about different places! But research them properly and thoroughly.
You can tell when a novel is set in a country that the writer is not particularly familiar with. I do not want to use Fifty Shades of Grey as an example, but it is such an obvious example that I feel it will illustrate my point quite well: it is set in America (I imagine because Twilight is set in America), but the author is English. The characters use phrases that are not used in America, because the author is familiar with how people speak in England. There are impossible uses of geography, because the writer does not know how long it takes to drive between, say, Portland and Seattle, because she lives in England.
Things do not ring true if someone is writing about a place they are not familiar with. I am Australian, and I have never been to America, and I can tell if you are writing a book about this place and you have not actually been there yourself. This is because I have consumed a lot of TV shows and books and movies and everything else that is set in or is about America ('consumed'. I just imagine myself eating DVDs like the Cookie Monster). There is an excess of novels and films and TV shows about America. That's okay. But that doesn't mean you have to set your book there, too, and please, not if you don't know a thing about the place. Then it's just awkward and factually inconsistent.
I am not saying that you are forbidden to write stories set outside of your country, but if you are going to please do it reasonably well. Maybe go to that country for a while, or get someone from that country to read your manuscript and correct you. Set it in a foreign country only if you can write it in a convincing and believable way. And don't set it in America by default if you are non-American. I mean, think about it. Do you not think we have enough narratives about America already? Try to bring something new to the table, please. (Example: Hollywood Ending by Kathy Charles. Australian writer! L.A. setting! But convincing and believable and very well-written, and it wouldn't work set anywhere else. Because the author wrote a novel about a place they love and are familiar with.)
And this is not just a problem with novels set in America. I don't want you appropriating other people's culture and writing a novel set in Imperial Japan if you don't know anything about Imperial Japan. Googling does not count. I REPEAT. Googling does not count. (At least not for very much.)
But this post is specifically about America because there are so, so many novels - particularly of the YA paranormal romance variety - that are set in a vague American setting for no reason. Also cultural appropriation is obviously a much more complicated thing which I do not feel informed enough about to write an entire post on it. Plus everyone writes novels full of white people, what is up with that? Let's talk about this later though. We're talking about badly evoked vaguely American settings written by non-Americans.
So, why are people doing this? Do supernatural creatures only exist in America? (Apart from a brief trip to Italy or Transylvania or wherever.) Does everyone just want their novels to become bestsellers in America, and think Americans will only read about America? Will Americans only read about America? I am sure Americans won't mind if we maybe don't Americanize (Americanise?) all of our culture.
IN CONCLUSION: don't be lazy and set your YA paranormal romance novel in Not-Forks-but-similar-to-Forks, USA, especially if you know as much about America as I do (i.e. not a lot, except for stuff from movies). Research! Maybe go there! Maybe consider bringing vampires to the Gold Coast, Aus! No, bad idea. Too sunny. Write about different places! But research them properly and thoroughly.
Let's stop doing this, shall we?
Saturday, October 6, 2012
There's this scene that appears in every novel ever written that features a teenage girl protagonist*.
It's the old 'catch my reflection in the mirror and talk about how much I hate my appearance for three pages' scene.
This scene occurs near the start of the book. It begins like this: "I look at my dark, shiny hair, deep brown eyes and tanned skin in the mirror" and then devolves into "Why am I so ugly? Unlike my mum/best friend/sister, who is the most beautiful woman alive and gets lots of ~male~ attention. My life is terrible!"
The characters who think they are unattractive all seem to have physical characteristics that are considered very attractive in the Western world. But whether the character is conventionally attractive or not doesn't matter. It is still a very annoying scene.
Please don't tell me people in the real world actually do this.**
I am very tired of stories about self-loathing conventionally-attractive teenage girls realising their worth and beauty because of ~true love~. I feel this narrative is both overused and irresponsible.
In summing up:
Dear Writers of these sorts of scenes in these sorts of novels,
Please stop perpetuating the idea that all teenage girls should hate their appearance.
Please stop perpetuating the idea that all teenage girls should value themselves largely based on their appearance.
There are plenty of other kinds of teenage self-loathing to write about! Or more creative ways to write about this one, that don't involve 1) 'the mirror scene', 2) resenting an attractive friend, or 3) whether the protagonist is liked by boys being of utmost importance.
ILY,
Steph Bowe
P.S. Don't say 'but this is how all teenage girls are in the real world! This is real!' I would say this is influenced by the fact that popular culture/the media is telling them to behave this way. We need to make people liking themselves/their appearance more acceptable.
*If you had to do a breakdown of 'persuasive language techniques' in my blog posts for school, which of course you don't but I'm speaking hypothetically here, this would be an example of hyperbole.
**Every time I see a mirror, here in the real world***, I say: 'Hey! Steph Bowe! Love your work!' And then I get my autograph.
***Not 100% sure this is the real world. You might just be in a coma dream! Well done on inventing me. I'm great. You're very imaginative.
It's the old 'catch my reflection in the mirror and talk about how much I hate my appearance for three pages' scene.
This scene occurs near the start of the book. It begins like this: "I look at my dark, shiny hair, deep brown eyes and tanned skin in the mirror" and then devolves into "Why am I so ugly? Unlike my mum/best friend/sister, who is the most beautiful woman alive and gets lots of ~male~ attention. My life is terrible!"
The characters who think they are unattractive all seem to have physical characteristics that are considered very attractive in the Western world. But whether the character is conventionally attractive or not doesn't matter. It is still a very annoying scene.
Please don't tell me people in the real world actually do this.**
I am very tired of stories about self-loathing conventionally-attractive teenage girls realising their worth and beauty because of ~true love~. I feel this narrative is both overused and irresponsible.
In summing up:
Dear Writers of these sorts of scenes in these sorts of novels,
Please stop perpetuating the idea that all teenage girls should hate their appearance.
Please stop perpetuating the idea that all teenage girls should value themselves largely based on their appearance.
There are plenty of other kinds of teenage self-loathing to write about! Or more creative ways to write about this one, that don't involve 1) 'the mirror scene', 2) resenting an attractive friend, or 3) whether the protagonist is liked by boys being of utmost importance.
ILY,
Steph Bowe
P.S. Don't say 'but this is how all teenage girls are in the real world! This is real!' I would say this is influenced by the fact that popular culture/the media is telling them to behave this way. We need to make people liking themselves/their appearance more acceptable.
*If you had to do a breakdown of 'persuasive language techniques' in my blog posts for school, which of course you don't but I'm speaking hypothetically here, this would be an example of hyperbole.
**Every time I see a mirror, here in the real world***, I say: 'Hey! Steph Bowe! Love your work!' And then I get my autograph.
***Not 100% sure this is the real world. You might just be in a coma dream! Well done on inventing me. I'm great. You're very imaginative.
Live blogging while editing my book
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
- Why is my syntax so bad?
- Why did I decide to become a writer?
- I don't understand what this symbol means.
- I don't understand how to use semi-colons, but I'm going to use them anyway! Damn you, correct grammar!
- I really don't like these characters. They have so many feelings.
- Why did I decide to write this book?
- Everyone who says I'm a good writer is lying to me, I just know it.
- There are too many exclamation marks.
- Why did I think that was funny?
- I'm just confused now.
- Imagine how terrible the reviews will be.
- What is this book even about?
- I really do not like these characters.
- I should just kill them all off in the end!
- I already did that. No one liked that draft.
- Why are there so many pages?
- How do people who write decent-length books manage to edit them?
- Is it possible for overthinking to overwhelm my brain and make it shut down?
- Who invented the em-dash? I don't like them.
- How do other people manage to write actual good books?
- There must be a secret.
- I bet J.K. Rowling made a deal with the devil.
- Can I make a deal with the devil? I promise to give up the internet in exchange for becoming a literary genius.
- Didn't work.
- I've heard the words 'show don't tell' so many times now they've lost all meaning.
- Will this process never end?
- There's only like three hundred things left to change. I can do it!
- I should just take up accountancy.
- Books are totally overrated anyway.
- This is probably a coma dream anyway.
- People are dying of starvation right now and I'm worried about not being a good writer. Shame on me.
- Once this is finished, I will never even think about this book again.
- (Apart from when I have to convince people to read it.)
- (And apart from the next round of editing.)
- (Okay, I will have to think about this book again. But it will be painful for me.)
- This is all Gutenberg's fault. Thanks a lot, Johannes.
(Editing makes me lose all rational thought, clearly.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
