These are the books I finished last month:
Splendid Solution: Jonas Salk and the Conquest of Polio by Jeffrey Kluger
Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCaig
Thank You for All Things by Sandra Kring
There were others, but I honestly can't remember what they are.
Reviews coming soon!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
2009 Young Adult Book Challenge
This looks like fun!
J. Kaye's Book Blog is hosting a YA Book Challenge.
The rules:
1. Anyone can join. You don't need a blog to participate.
2. Read 12 Young Adult novels. No need to list your books in advance. You may select books as you go. Even if you list them now, you can change the list if needed.
3. Challenge begins January thru December, 2009.
4. You can join anytime between now and December 31, 2009.
Here's my list so far:
1. The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman
3. City of Glass by Cassandra Clare
3. Little (Grrl) Lost by Charles DeLint
4. The Astonishing Adventures of Fanboy and Gothgirl by Barry Lyga
5. Sucks to Be Me: The All-True Confessions of Mina Hamilton, Teen Vampire (maybe) by Kimberly Pauley
6. Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan
7. A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray review
8.Rebel Angels by Libba Bray
9.
10.
11.
12.
J. Kaye's Book Blog is hosting a YA Book Challenge.
The rules:
1. Anyone can join. You don't need a blog to participate.
2. Read 12 Young Adult novels. No need to list your books in advance. You may select books as you go. Even if you list them now, you can change the list if needed.
3. Challenge begins January thru December, 2009.
4. You can join anytime between now and December 31, 2009.
Here's my list so far:
1. The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman
3. City of Glass by Cassandra Clare
3. Little (Grrl) Lost by Charles DeLint
4. The Astonishing Adventures of Fanboy and Gothgirl by Barry Lyga
5. Sucks to Be Me: The All-True Confessions of Mina Hamilton, Teen Vampire (maybe) by Kimberly Pauley
6. Boy Meets Boy by David Levithan
7. A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray review
8.Rebel Angels by Libba Bray
9.
10.
11.
12.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Introducing Fanfiction Fridays
Unless you’ve been living in a box, you probably know something about fan fiction. You may love it or hate it; but if you read it at all, you already know the difficulty of finding something decent to read. Who wants to slog through hundreds of terrible stories to find that one gem?
Surprisingly, I actually enjoy digging through the mess, and that means you don't even have to dirty your hands. Every Friday, I’ll recommend some fan fiction from various fandoms. There’s no guarantee that any of it will be to your taste, but at the least you can count on stories minus glaring grammatical errors.
Selections for this week:
Lord of the Rings Fandom
Hands of the King by Anglachel--A novel length fic about the love story between Denethor and Findulas. This story gives depth to a Tolkien character that is often ignored. (If you need your memory refreshed, Denethor is Boromir’s father and the steward of Minas Tirith.) It’s highly readable, well-researched, and full of political goodness.
Star Wars Fandom
Crashing in Time by Siamesa--A humorous little alternate history fic. The writing is a bit shaky in places, but it’s worth reading for the time travel silliness.
Sorry there are only two this week, but I haven't organized all of my links yet.
Surprisingly, I actually enjoy digging through the mess, and that means you don't even have to dirty your hands. Every Friday, I’ll recommend some fan fiction from various fandoms. There’s no guarantee that any of it will be to your taste, but at the least you can count on stories minus glaring grammatical errors.
Selections for this week:
Lord of the Rings Fandom
Hands of the King by Anglachel--A novel length fic about the love story between Denethor and Findulas. This story gives depth to a Tolkien character that is often ignored. (If you need your memory refreshed, Denethor is Boromir’s father and the steward of Minas Tirith.) It’s highly readable, well-researched, and full of political goodness.
Star Wars Fandom
Crashing in Time by Siamesa--A humorous little alternate history fic. The writing is a bit shaky in places, but it’s worth reading for the time travel silliness.
Sorry there are only two this week, but I haven't organized all of my links yet.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Single Character POV: Isn’t it ironic?
After reading ten or fifteen recently published novels, I started to wonder what the heck was missing from these books. Why couldn’t I immerse myself in them? They weren’t awful books, not precisely, but nothing to keep me up past my bedtime. Predictably, it started me thinking--because, ya know, everything starts me thinking.
Here’s what the novels had in common:
Possessed an interesting premise, check
Included vampires, elves, or other androgynous males, check
Attempted witty, witty dialogue, check
Written from a single character’s point of view, che--OH.
It hit me hard, like an epiphany accompanied by choirs of angels. All of the novels were written from a single character’s point of view! That must be the reason! It’s obviously because novels with single character’s POV lack…um…well, um…they lack multiple points of view?
Yeah, as epiphanies go, this one kind of sucked. I clearly needed to think about it some more. Why would the POV make a difference? Why, God, WHY? Two hours and many wikipedia entries later, I’m pretty sure I discovered an actual answer. It’s this: single character POV discourages irony. Since irony is often the machine that moves the plot, builds character development, and generally makes a story worth reading; that’s pretty important, isn’t it?
But what exactly IS irony, anyway? I know I’m not the only one to be shaky on this point at one time or another. None of my teachers ever gave me a simple definition of irony, at least not one that I understood, and it was probably because they were just as confused. (Then again, maybe I was just stupid before the invention of wikipedia.) Whatever. Let’s just call irony a disconnect between reality and perception; that’s as good a definition as any.
It encompasses these three things:
1. Verbal irony, the difference between what someone says and what he means
2. Situational irony, the difference between what actually happens and what is expected to happen
3. Dramatic irony, the difference between what the audience knows and what the character perceives.
In fiction, dramatic irony is the greatest of these. It increases the tension in the novel, makes for delicious “Aha!” moments for the reader, and keeps those pages turning. That’s why this recent tendency for authors to stick with a single character’s point of view is so disappointing. When readers aren’t given a different point of view, how can they know more about the story than the character? Well, duh, they can‘t--at least not very easily. Authors have a much tougher time using this kind of irony when the reader only receives the story from one perspective.
The number of multiple POV novels published in the last five years or so seem to be few. It might just be me, but I can count the number I‘ve read in the past year on one hand. There’s The Boleyn Inheritance by Philippa Gregory, and Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan. That’s it. Everything else has been restricted to stories told from one character‘s perspective.
Damn all well-meant advice to aspiring authors.
Okay, so maybe not, but I think that’s where this tendency originates. Publishing houses, published authors, and “how to write” books all recommend that the author pick one character and write everything from his point of view. I know, I know, it’s not terrible advice. Many inexperienced authors have a tendency to switch POV in mid-paragraph, sometimes even in mid-sentence, and that just results in a confusing mess. Now, I’m all for encouraging inexperienced writers to produce something decent for publication, but does this mean I have to say goodbye to those well crafted, multiple POV stories? I certainly hope not.
Character Development
It’s just plain better when you see a character from another character’s point of view. It gives them both depth.
Consider this bit of (admittedly not very good) writing:
“Don’t be stupid.” Tiffany hated how her voice scaled up to that high, whining pitch when she was nervous, but she could barely choke the words out around her fear, much less modulate their tone. There was something so disquieting about the smell coming out of that cave. "Besides," she continued, "there’s probably nothing down there but a few old bat skeletons."
She squared her shoulders as Raoul nodded. Did nothing fluster the boy? He slid his sword out of his scabbard, looking as unconcerned as any of the grim knights from the Crystal City, and edged closer to the opening in the rock.
And now this bit with multiple POV:
“Don’t be stupid." Tiffany hated how her voice scaled up to that high, whining pitch when she was nervous, but she could barely choke the words out around her fear, much less modulate their tone. There was something so disquieting about the smell coming out of that cave. "Besides," she continued, "there’s probably nothing down there but a few old bat skeletons."
She squared her shoulders, trying to seem as brave as Raoul . He looked as unconcerned as one of the grim knights from the Crystal City. Did nothing ever fluster the boy?
With this POV switch halfway through the scene:
Raoul slid his sword out of his scabbard, hoping that his sweaty palms wouldn‘t cause him to lose his grip at a crucial moment. He considered wiping them on his t-shirt, but damned if he would look like a coward in front of Tiffany again. “Right.” He nodded and edged closer to the opening in the rock. The cave positively reeked of dragon, but how could he suggest turning back when a this slip of a girl spoke so contemptuously of bat skeletons?
Yes, I’m aware that switching pov mid-scene is a stupid move, especially with such a rough transition, but you get the general idea here. Adding Raoul’s point of view lets us know more about both Raoul and Tiffany.
What we now know about Tiffany:
1. She hides her fear better than she thinks she does.
2. She has no idea Raoul is nervous.
What we now know about Raoul:
1. He doesn’t think he’s brave.
2. He’s nervous.
3. He thinks Tiffany sees him as a coward.
See? Multiple POV = Verbal irony x 2 + dramatic irony = character depth. It can help with the plot, too.
Heigh-ho, Moving That Plot Along
Okay, so the plot is what happens in the story. Let’s say a wizard transports Tiffany and Raoul to a fantasy kingdom threatened by a dragon. The kids overcome obstacles which eventually result in the dragon’s death. There is much rejoicing, and the kids, profoundly changed by their adventures, return to their home. Setup, conflict, and resolution; those are the elements of the plot.
There’s no question that the plot could be accomplished from one character’s perspective and without the use of dramatic irony. So how does dramatic irony help? How does it move the plot along, and how does the use of multiple POV make it better?
To go back to the excerpt above, moving the plot along means the kids are going to have to go down into the cave of the dragon. Dramatic irony shown through the use of multiple POV gives them a reason to go there. Why are they going? What’s their motivation? Raoul draws his sword and edges closer to the entrance because he wants to prove to Tiffany that he is not a coward. Tiffany will follow because she wants to be as brave as Raoul. If they would just talk to each other, if they would just admit their fears, they wouldn’t have to go into the cave to meet the dragon at all. They could just go have a nice cup of tea somewhere. Of course, then there wouldn’t be much of a story. It’s that disconnect between their perceptions of each other that is giving them both the impetus to crawl into that creepy cave.
Now, I’m not denying that there still might be a story if we received the whole thing from Tiffany’s perspective. I don’t think, however, that it would be quite as interesting.
And that brings us to…
Tension and Oh, Those Delicious “Aha!” Moments
The most satisfying moments in multiple POV stories come from tensions resolved with each switch of perspective. Something unknown by the character in the first scene becomes known in the next POV switch. “Aha! Joe saw the butler holding the candlestick in the billiard room! If only Sally had seen it, she would have realized the parlor maid lied. Oh, if only Joe and Sally could talk!“ You, the reader, perceive something the character doesn’t. That disconnect is dramatic irony, and it’s what keeps those pages turning long after you ought to be starting dinner for the kids.
It doesn’t even have to end with the conversation between Joe and Sally that solves the murder. The trick to keeping the tension going is to add another conflict along with each resolution--sometimes two or three other conflicts, some that are resolved with the next character switch, and some that are resolved much, much later in the story. It becomes a many layered thing, drawing the reader deeper and deeper into the story.
The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan is the first story that comes to mind when I think about this kind of writing. The man was the master of head hopping. There’s also The Song of Ice and Fire series by George R.R, Martin, almost anything by Maeve Binchy, and if you’re into military type stuff, The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy is supposed to be an absolutely great multiple POV novel. (I haven’t read it yet, to my eternal shame.)
So, would any of these novels and series even be worth reading if the authors restricted their narrative to one character’s perspective? The authors are pretty good, so the answer is probably yes. The stories, however, would certainly lose much of their tension and complexity. In fact, each novel would probably change beyond recognition given the impossibility of telling the stories from so many different settings within their respective worlds. The authors would have to compensate by simplifying the plot so the novel wouldn’t suffer from information dump-itis. (Never, ever fun.)
It’s dramatic irony that moves the plots in these books. It’s what makes them worth reading. If they were written from a single character’s perspective, they would lose that dramatic irony and thus become completely different stories. And THAT, kids, is what tells us what is missing from all these recently published books.
So, in glorious conclusion (or something): A single character POV, isn’t it ironic? The answer is no, it usually isn’t.* At the least, single character POV is restricted to verbal and situational irony; it isn’t dramatically ironic at all.
And that’s too bad.
*Sorry Alanis, it’s also really not like rain on your wedding day. Unless, of course, your biggest fear is that it will rain on your wedding day; and you’re obsessed with the possibility, so much so that you research weather witches on the internet. You meet one and fall in love. The day of your wedding dawns the tiniest bit overcast, so your groom to be starts to cast a spell for clear skies, just in case. But WOE and DISASTER, at the most critical moment he’s distracted by having to rescue you from a villain who kidnaps you to use your great fear as a focus to put a curse on your nuptials. The groom wins the day, the curse is averted, but the weather spell is horribly ruined. Instead of really clear skies, it’s pouring down rain when you finally walk up the aisle. Now, that’s ironic. Pretty stupid, but ironic. Yay for situational irony!**
**Oh, and bonus points if you’re telling this story from the perspective of twenty years of married bliss.
Here’s what the novels had in common:
Possessed an interesting premise, check
Included vampires, elves, or other androgynous males, check
Attempted witty, witty dialogue, check
Written from a single character’s point of view, che--OH.
It hit me hard, like an epiphany accompanied by choirs of angels. All of the novels were written from a single character’s point of view! That must be the reason! It’s obviously because novels with single character’s POV lack…um…well, um…they lack multiple points of view?
Yeah, as epiphanies go, this one kind of sucked. I clearly needed to think about it some more. Why would the POV make a difference? Why, God, WHY? Two hours and many wikipedia entries later, I’m pretty sure I discovered an actual answer. It’s this: single character POV discourages irony. Since irony is often the machine that moves the plot, builds character development, and generally makes a story worth reading; that’s pretty important, isn’t it?
But what exactly IS irony, anyway? I know I’m not the only one to be shaky on this point at one time or another. None of my teachers ever gave me a simple definition of irony, at least not one that I understood, and it was probably because they were just as confused. (Then again, maybe I was just stupid before the invention of wikipedia.) Whatever. Let’s just call irony a disconnect between reality and perception; that’s as good a definition as any.
It encompasses these three things:
1. Verbal irony, the difference between what someone says and what he means
2. Situational irony, the difference between what actually happens and what is expected to happen
3. Dramatic irony, the difference between what the audience knows and what the character perceives.
In fiction, dramatic irony is the greatest of these. It increases the tension in the novel, makes for delicious “Aha!” moments for the reader, and keeps those pages turning. That’s why this recent tendency for authors to stick with a single character’s point of view is so disappointing. When readers aren’t given a different point of view, how can they know more about the story than the character? Well, duh, they can‘t--at least not very easily. Authors have a much tougher time using this kind of irony when the reader only receives the story from one perspective.
The number of multiple POV novels published in the last five years or so seem to be few. It might just be me, but I can count the number I‘ve read in the past year on one hand. There’s The Boleyn Inheritance by Philippa Gregory, and Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan. That’s it. Everything else has been restricted to stories told from one character‘s perspective.
Damn all well-meant advice to aspiring authors.
Okay, so maybe not, but I think that’s where this tendency originates. Publishing houses, published authors, and “how to write” books all recommend that the author pick one character and write everything from his point of view. I know, I know, it’s not terrible advice. Many inexperienced authors have a tendency to switch POV in mid-paragraph, sometimes even in mid-sentence, and that just results in a confusing mess. Now, I’m all for encouraging inexperienced writers to produce something decent for publication, but does this mean I have to say goodbye to those well crafted, multiple POV stories? I certainly hope not.
Character Development
It’s just plain better when you see a character from another character’s point of view. It gives them both depth.
Consider this bit of (admittedly not very good) writing:
“Don’t be stupid.” Tiffany hated how her voice scaled up to that high, whining pitch when she was nervous, but she could barely choke the words out around her fear, much less modulate their tone. There was something so disquieting about the smell coming out of that cave. "Besides," she continued, "there’s probably nothing down there but a few old bat skeletons."
She squared her shoulders as Raoul nodded. Did nothing fluster the boy? He slid his sword out of his scabbard, looking as unconcerned as any of the grim knights from the Crystal City, and edged closer to the opening in the rock.
And now this bit with multiple POV:
“Don’t be stupid." Tiffany hated how her voice scaled up to that high, whining pitch when she was nervous, but she could barely choke the words out around her fear, much less modulate their tone. There was something so disquieting about the smell coming out of that cave. "Besides," she continued, "there’s probably nothing down there but a few old bat skeletons."
She squared her shoulders, trying to seem as brave as Raoul . He looked as unconcerned as one of the grim knights from the Crystal City. Did nothing ever fluster the boy?
With this POV switch halfway through the scene:
Raoul slid his sword out of his scabbard, hoping that his sweaty palms wouldn‘t cause him to lose his grip at a crucial moment. He considered wiping them on his t-shirt, but damned if he would look like a coward in front of Tiffany again. “Right.” He nodded and edged closer to the opening in the rock. The cave positively reeked of dragon, but how could he suggest turning back when a this slip of a girl spoke so contemptuously of bat skeletons?
Yes, I’m aware that switching pov mid-scene is a stupid move, especially with such a rough transition, but you get the general idea here. Adding Raoul’s point of view lets us know more about both Raoul and Tiffany.
What we now know about Tiffany:
1. She hides her fear better than she thinks she does.
2. She has no idea Raoul is nervous.
What we now know about Raoul:
1. He doesn’t think he’s brave.
2. He’s nervous.
3. He thinks Tiffany sees him as a coward.
See? Multiple POV = Verbal irony x 2 + dramatic irony = character depth. It can help with the plot, too.
Heigh-ho, Moving That Plot Along
Okay, so the plot is what happens in the story. Let’s say a wizard transports Tiffany and Raoul to a fantasy kingdom threatened by a dragon. The kids overcome obstacles which eventually result in the dragon’s death. There is much rejoicing, and the kids, profoundly changed by their adventures, return to their home. Setup, conflict, and resolution; those are the elements of the plot.
There’s no question that the plot could be accomplished from one character’s perspective and without the use of dramatic irony. So how does dramatic irony help? How does it move the plot along, and how does the use of multiple POV make it better?
To go back to the excerpt above, moving the plot along means the kids are going to have to go down into the cave of the dragon. Dramatic irony shown through the use of multiple POV gives them a reason to go there. Why are they going? What’s their motivation? Raoul draws his sword and edges closer to the entrance because he wants to prove to Tiffany that he is not a coward. Tiffany will follow because she wants to be as brave as Raoul. If they would just talk to each other, if they would just admit their fears, they wouldn’t have to go into the cave to meet the dragon at all. They could just go have a nice cup of tea somewhere. Of course, then there wouldn’t be much of a story. It’s that disconnect between their perceptions of each other that is giving them both the impetus to crawl into that creepy cave.
Now, I’m not denying that there still might be a story if we received the whole thing from Tiffany’s perspective. I don’t think, however, that it would be quite as interesting.
And that brings us to…
Tension and Oh, Those Delicious “Aha!” Moments
The most satisfying moments in multiple POV stories come from tensions resolved with each switch of perspective. Something unknown by the character in the first scene becomes known in the next POV switch. “Aha! Joe saw the butler holding the candlestick in the billiard room! If only Sally had seen it, she would have realized the parlor maid lied. Oh, if only Joe and Sally could talk!“ You, the reader, perceive something the character doesn’t. That disconnect is dramatic irony, and it’s what keeps those pages turning long after you ought to be starting dinner for the kids.
It doesn’t even have to end with the conversation between Joe and Sally that solves the murder. The trick to keeping the tension going is to add another conflict along with each resolution--sometimes two or three other conflicts, some that are resolved with the next character switch, and some that are resolved much, much later in the story. It becomes a many layered thing, drawing the reader deeper and deeper into the story.
The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan is the first story that comes to mind when I think about this kind of writing. The man was the master of head hopping. There’s also The Song of Ice and Fire series by George R.R, Martin, almost anything by Maeve Binchy, and if you’re into military type stuff, The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy is supposed to be an absolutely great multiple POV novel. (I haven’t read it yet, to my eternal shame.)
So, would any of these novels and series even be worth reading if the authors restricted their narrative to one character’s perspective? The authors are pretty good, so the answer is probably yes. The stories, however, would certainly lose much of their tension and complexity. In fact, each novel would probably change beyond recognition given the impossibility of telling the stories from so many different settings within their respective worlds. The authors would have to compensate by simplifying the plot so the novel wouldn’t suffer from information dump-itis. (Never, ever fun.)
It’s dramatic irony that moves the plots in these books. It’s what makes them worth reading. If they were written from a single character’s perspective, they would lose that dramatic irony and thus become completely different stories. And THAT, kids, is what tells us what is missing from all these recently published books.
So, in glorious conclusion (or something): A single character POV, isn’t it ironic? The answer is no, it usually isn’t.* At the least, single character POV is restricted to verbal and situational irony; it isn’t dramatically ironic at all.
And that’s too bad.
*Sorry Alanis, it’s also really not like rain on your wedding day. Unless, of course, your biggest fear is that it will rain on your wedding day; and you’re obsessed with the possibility, so much so that you research weather witches on the internet. You meet one and fall in love. The day of your wedding dawns the tiniest bit overcast, so your groom to be starts to cast a spell for clear skies, just in case. But WOE and DISASTER, at the most critical moment he’s distracted by having to rescue you from a villain who kidnaps you to use your great fear as a focus to put a curse on your nuptials. The groom wins the day, the curse is averted, but the weather spell is horribly ruined. Instead of really clear skies, it’s pouring down rain when you finally walk up the aisle. Now, that’s ironic. Pretty stupid, but ironic. Yay for situational irony!**
**Oh, and bonus points if you’re telling this story from the perspective of twenty years of married bliss.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Must. Read. Books.
Hi there, I’m a zombie monster who must devour books instead of brains. Mediocre writing is not a deterrent. If I see words, I have to read them. It’s as simple as that.
It all started when I was a child. I wasn’t the kind of kid who merely looked at the pictures on the back of the cereal box over breakfast. I read every bit of advertising, played every game, then turned the box on its side to puzzle over words like “niacinamide” and “monolyceride“. (In case you’re curious, I’m pretty sure niacinamide is vitamin B, and monolyceride is a preservative that also binds ingredients together. I was also the kind of dorky kid who looked things up in the dictionary.)
I haven’t changed much over the years. I’ll still read anything and everything. That trashy romance novel in the waiting room at the doctor’s office? Yep, devoured it despite the paper doll characters and formulaic plot. The book about the polio epidemic in the 1920s? Uh huh, I read it in snippets each night over a month even though the book bored me to tears. That box of science fiction and fantasy books my friend tried to throw away? Rescued, read, and reread. And let’s not even mention those impulse purchases at the bookstore.
I’m not bragging here. Being an avid reader doesn’t make you intelligent. If it did, I’d have transformed that early interest in cereal ingredients to a career in the sciences, instead of being a starving artist with a book addiction. However, after twenty-five years of reading every scrap of print that fell into my grubby little hands, some knowledge of what makes a well-crafted story must have wormed its way into my brain.
I’ll share my thoughts here. If I had my dream job, I’d be that editor who reads through all those manuscripts sent to the publishing house by aspiring authors; you know, the editor who wades through fifty stories to find the one manuscript good enough to send upstairs? Until I get that job (and win the lottery, and grow wings, and have my next carving displayed in the museum), I’ll have to content myself with using this blog to review published works. Hopefully, I can lead others to the good stuff and warn them away from the bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
