No Need For Introductions

It can be tempting to introduce readers to your world and its inhabitants. I get it. Introductions are important, well-mannered, and knowing how to introduce people at a party can spare everyone the awkwardness of a single unidentified person attempting to be part of the conversation in ways that will always sound like   “will you let me talk to you?”

We’re tempted, I am at least, to provide backstory. How many times have you explained a friend with basic character traits? Amy is a singer. Mike is really  funny. Chris is smart. It helps make connections and establish the parameters of a future meeting, an anecdote about last night etc…

Resist this temptation.  the key to  three-dimensional, authentic characters is that we’re beyond introductions. Think about people you love. Your close friends.  You had a first meeting, once.  Maybe – in the first few minutes – you decided that  Amy or Chris or Mike (for example) were talented, funny, or smart. But now, because you’re friends, when you think of them you don’t think of their traits – you think of them.

Amy, Mike and Chris are the sum of so many things; behaviors, senses of humor, opinions,experiences, stories, neuroses, a preference for chocolate over vanilla, a middle school crush on Jonathan Taylor Thomas.  At some point, you went out for a drink with Amy and she told you about that time she accidentally selected Anne Murray instead of Anne Margaret during a round of Karaoke  and had to sing a Canadian 70′s soft-jam to a crowd of musical theater graduate students.

You’ve had months with Amy, maybe even years. But your readers are on a truncated time table and every word must matter. We don’t have time for introductions, set-ups, or first meetings.  Trust Us. Just chuck us into that Karaoke booth with Amy.

 

Harry Belafonte: man of inspiration

Last night I was fortunate enough to receive a free ticket to see Harry Belafonte in conversation at the New York Public Library.

Harry Belafonte is a singer, songwriter, actor and activist. He wrote “The Banana Boat Song” which is mostly known as “Day-O,” and “jump in the line” which conjures an image of a levitating, goth-kid Winona Ryder doing some sort of merengue  at the end of Beetlejuice.

Harry was also a serious activist. The man bailed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. out of jail.

Harry told us a story last night that I want to share.

Sometime in the late 40′s – early 50′s, after his early rise to fame as a singer in New York, he booked a gig in Las Vegas. A native Harlem resident who spent most of his  nights at The Royal Roost (later called Birdland) backed by Al Hague and Charlie Parker and Max Roach etc., Harry was unfamiliar with the social customs of Vegas in all it’s gaudy, shimmering, kaleidoscopic, flash-bulb glory.  So he walked in through the front door of the hotel. This, it turned out, was a mistake. Harry was not supposed to come in through the front door. He was also, it seemed, banned from the cafeteria and rest rooms and main lobby. He was politely, condescendingly, disgustingly showed where he and his people were permitted.

Harry made a call to a powerful uncle, who made a call to his guy in Cleveland, who made a call to Vegas and it all worked out … as well is can when you’ve been told you’re more like a scrappy stray dog than a man.

Anyhow, Harry gets up on stage later that night to perform. He starts doing his whole “let me entertain you!” jazz handed, two-stepping, toothy-grinned shtick. And to quote Harry: “you never heard so much noise in your life, glasses clinking, shouting… they totally ignored me.”  Harry was pissed. So he calls his manager. They argued.

“They ignored me. I didn’t even exist!” fumed Harry bitterly.
“You failed to captivate them.” replied the manager cooly

So, Harry changed his game plan. The next night. He marched out on stage and screamed ‘Tiiiiiimmmmmbbeer! Tiiiiimmmmber!” and launched right into Jerry (This Timber gotta roll), a powerful ballad about slavery. He said he poured all his bitterness and frustration into that song. And everyone shut up. They saw him. They were mesmerized.

So last night, when he was asked about that moment in his life and what it meant to him, Harry paused briefly and said “well, I realized at that point, that the mission was not to entertain, but to be an artist. When I committed to the art, the entertaining just happened.”

Now walk around with that quote for a while. Just for today, don’t think about your reader, your deal, your agent, the small voice in your head that tells you you’ll never make up your mind or find a way to finish (or start), that you’ve definitely got that rare disease that’s killing you slowly.  Just think about your art, find a muse, be inspired.

Harry Belafonte, who knew, right?!?!?

XOXO
V

# Trendz

 

Check this out. I don’t know if it’s a ” Steig Larsson was my muse” thing or what, but these three keep circulating in brain/conversation space and I realize the “noun of noun and noun” formula is gold.

Next on my to read list:

“The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer” which doesn’t quite match up to the formula, but it’s similar enough. And I heard about at BEA on the YA Buzz panel, and thought “I’m gonna read that.”

An inconvenient crash

Hello Everyone,

I’m sorry it’s been so long. I’m writing to address two issues; timliness and guilt. In this case, the former begat the latter.

I’m running desperately behind on answering fulls and partials and getting to queries. I’ve also, in trying frantically to catch up where I could, made things completely disorganized. I don’t know how many I need to get to, what dates they’re from etc…

The guilt has been churning in my gut for weeks. I’ve got indigestion.  I figured I should explain.

Summer was nutty. A lot of things happened at work and personally, for me. Some good things. Some bad things (for those of you who saw the bruise I tweeted, it’s faded to a not unpleasant mottled green )  So I fell a little behind.

Then something catastrophic happened. My poor little HP mini netbook died a horrible, flu-ey death.

Then I fell so far behind that other agents have lapped me, finished the race, and are sipping apple juice boxes on the bleachers and I’m still jogging.

I work from home a lot. Not technically, I work from a cafe down the street where a girl with black-brown curly hair gives me free chai lattes because I order enough to put her kids through a moderately priced private school.  That’s where I get most of my reading, querying, and responding done.

Without  my teeny, gutsy netbook I can’t do that. I’ve hated it to the point that I dreamt about it twice over the summer. Waking to find I’m still earth-shatteringly behind. Someone needs to invent a word that means “the disappointment of reality after a good dream.” Someone German, they’re excellent with words that mean complicated feelings.

I’m so sorry, everyone. I truly am.

Now for the better news: After 30 + hours and weeks of rest, tinkering, virus killing, rest, crashing, re-installing windows, rest, and new drivers – Mr. Netbook has risen!

Like clockwork, I had a mild family emergency (don’t worry, it’s going to be fine) today so I’m off the grid for the weekend, BUT I promise to start catching up, and quickly.

Thank you for your patience.

xoxo

Victoria

R & R: How the Revise and Resumbit is like an Infestation of Bed Bugs.

I wish I were talking about rest & relaxation. I’m talking about the Revise & Resubmit.

You know when an agent is all “I loved X,Y, and Z , but A, B and C need work. Can you revise and send it to me again?”  Yeah, that’s what I am talking about.

First, I can’t speak for every agent, but I generally ask for R&Rs when I love the premise, voice, and characters, but there may be pacing problems, minor plot issues or other concerns I can explain and address.

Revising is not proof-reading, polishing, tweaking, etc… NOTE: If it took you 2 days, you didn’t revise.

Revising is not fixing the one or two examples the agent provided and ignoring the rest of the manuscript.

Revising is extrapolating from the agents’ critique and applying it to the entire manuscript.

Let’s say an agent says, “I love the story of Mack and Rae, but the pacing was a bit slow for me. It seemed to drag, particularly in chapters 4 – 7.  I noticed that during those chapters, Mack and Rae experience very little conflict, tension or action, and the stakes didn’t seem high enough. I began to lose interest.”  So, you have a good example of where the core of your problem is.  Great! This doesn’t mean you tinker with chapters 4-7 and assume the rest of the book is perfect.  Think about what pacing means for your characters, for the present action, for the back story etc. If the story felt slow, what changes throughout the whole manuscript might you make to speed things up? What ways might you increase conflict, tension, risk or what-have-you.  Often, the agent will give you ideas and suggestions, but you still need to go above and beyond.

If the agents notes that “you’ve over-explained too much” and cites a particular scene, consider that you might have over-explained elsewhere. If an agent says “your character is losing my sympathy,”  look for all the possible ways the protagonist might be made more empathetic.

Okay, I’m going to use a gross New York City analogy here, but it’s the only one I have at the moment so stick with me.

Bed Bugs. I’ve been lucky enough to avoid them since I’ve moved here. A friend of mine recently discovered them in his apartment. Actually, his friend found them. She came over and, sitting on his bed skeptically asked “uh, what is that!” and pointed to the small black bug about the size and shape of a sesame seed. They panicked, scoured the house, and found more on the sofa and loveseat! (side bar: EEEW)

So, my poor friend had to upend his chairs, mattresses, rugs etc… and he had to fog the apartment, get an exterminator, bag up his clothes for weeks, run them on high in the dryer, fog the dryer and the list goes on.

That my friend is how your editing should be (less bugs, though, so YAY! . We have identified a few bed bugs for you, we have said “there’s one on your bed (the pacing is a bit slow ) or “there’s one on your chair” (this character starts to lose my sympathy). Now you have to exterminate. In the end, it’ll still be your apartment, but all those pesky critters will be out of the way.

And, just as taking an hour to smash a few bugs won’t get rid of an infestation, taking 3 days to proof read won’t get rid of plot holes or pacing errors.

It takes time, consideration, a certain amount of objectivity, the ability to see the whole picture and tackle changes step by step.

I know some people think “Oh my goodness, I’ll miss my chance if I don’t get this revision done right away,” but that’s not true. You’re far more likely to miss your chance if you rush through the revisions making superficial changes.

So, happy revising, folks!

Rebuttal to Slate’s Writing Young-Adult Fiction

A long time ago I took a course in college on public speaking. The only module I performed poorly on was the “job interview,” where the professor set up mock job interviews so we graduating seniors could understand and prepare for our admittance into the work force. I received a C. When I asked why the professor said, “sarcasm is funny, sometimes, but you came off sounding like you hate the work you’re applying for. Why would they hire you?”

That’s how I felt about the latest piece by Katie Crouch and Grady Hendrix in Slate.

One of a number of recent articles bashing Young Adult literature, (remember this in the WSJ?) Writing For Young Adults: It’s better than going to prom was a particularly disappointing and infuriating blend of sarcasm, disdain, condescension and a thinly veiled attempt to advertize a product.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised. The authors did warn us that Katie Crouch is “teenager-ish and immature.”  I disagree. I have found most teenagers far more gracious, articulate and astute than Ms. Crouch appears to be based on what I’ve read.

The suggestion that immaturity is a quality that lends itself to successful YA authors is kind of mind-boggling. First, successful authors are successful due to a complex blend of luck, skill, more luck, and professionalism. Immaturity is one of the best ways to get oneself in trouble (this whole article exemplifies that fact, if nothing else).

I also hate to be obvious, but immaturity makes a person, well, immature. It’s an adjective, not a badge of honor that teens wear proudly. There is little else more short-sighted or insulting than thinking “teen” is synonymous with “immature.” Teens are not categorically immature. They are also not categorically stupid, and I suspect most will be as insulted by this as I was.

I’d also add that the YA authors  are nothing but lovely, warm and professional people who love and respect the genre in which they write. Which brings me to my second point:

What is “There’s no shame in YA these days.” supposed to mean, exactly?!?!?

Am I to understand that authors like Lois Lowry, Judy Blume, Beverly Cleary, Roald Dahl, S.E Hinton, Lois Duncan and so many other should have been ashamed of themselves?! Please, someone explain to me, when this so-called YA SHAME existed and when it stopped.

I suspect (though I can’t say for sure) the authors meant that writing YA is easier these days or perhaps more respected by non-YA readers than it once was, and that much may be true. But, YA is not a consolation prize!  It’s not the silver medal to Adult fiction’s gold.  Katie and Grady may not have aspired to write YA, but they did. I think, perhaps, a bit of respect for their new peers and audience might be in order. No? Just Me?  This reminds of when Katherine Heigl took herself out of the Emmy race and blamed her lousy performances on the writers (for not giving her better material).

I find it appalling that the authors see fit to not only write in, but judge, an entire genre they demonstrably know little about. “We keep it on the clean side. This isn’t Twilight. No slutty werewolves here.”  I’m not even going to explain the inaccuracy of slutty werewolves in Twilight but, YA novels rarely have graphic sex.

And YA (at least good YA) is not about the author reliving one’s teens years. I wonder, are the authors that clueless or that self-indulgent? Or perhaps they were trying to be charmingly self-deprecating? It didn’t work.

YA is about what all art is about – exploring our own nature and the nature of our relationships with ourselves, other people, our world and the world etc… It is just as provocative, true and real as any Adult novel, and this attack – poorly disguised as silliness – is all the more hurtful because it was written by two ostensible members of the YA community.

I don’t want to vilify Ms. Crouch or Mr. Hendrix.  I think there’s a chance this whole thing will be an exercise in understanding tone and attitude. It’s possible they had no idea how judgmental they seemed.

Nonetheless, after reading this, I felt the authors were nothing more than rude, insufferable, albeit talented, frauds.

If Young Adult fiction is so beneath them they should feel free to stop writing it.

Sympathy for the Devil

Let’s talk about Sympathy

I recently read a post from Sarah Fine who blogs here about psychology and writing. If you don’t read her blog, you definitely should.

Sarah wrote about panic attacks after reading CRACKED UP TO BE, by Courtney Summers.

Perfect Parker Fadley isn’t so perfect anymore. She’s quit the cheerleading squad, she’s dumped her perfect boyfriend, and she’s failing school. Her parents are on a constant suicide watch and her counselors think she’s playing games…but what they don’t know, the real reason for this whole mess, isn’t something she can say out loud. It isn’t even something she can say to herself. A horrible thing has happened and it just might be her fault.

I am not a psychologist so I can’t diagnose Parker, but what I can see is that she is acting out and behaving badly. She’s mean to people;  her ex boyfriend, her former friends, a new boy. And when readers finally learn what happened to make Parker so changed…well, let’s just say not everyone is on “Team Parker.”

It’s so interesting to look at these reviews on Goodreads (don’t worry – Goodreads collapses any reviews with spoilers). Notice how a few people said things like:

She really put everyone in her life through the ringer, and I know I should be compelled to give her some slack because of what she faced, but nope, I really couldn’t.

and, more vitriolic:

I couldn’t have cared less about any of the characters, especially our main character – Parker… Parker was Nasty and Only wallowed in Self-Pity.

SLICE OF CHERRY, about pyschopathic serial killing sisters (think DEXTER for YA girls), received polarizing reviews.  And many people wrote that NEIL ARMSTRONG IS MY UNCLE AND OTHER LIES MUSCLE MAN MCGINTY TOLD ME was told from the point of view of a Bully.

But, as I read NEIL ARMSTRONG IS MY UNCLE, Tamara (MC) didn’t strike me as a bully at all!

So, why do some people sympathize and others don’t? And how do successful authors get sympathy for “unlikeable” characters?

First, accept that not every reader will react to an MC the way you want them to or the ways others do.  That’s why reading is subjective. That’s what it’s awesome.

Second, there are many ways to be unsympathetic, but generally the same rules apply for overcoming an unlikeable character.  In “problem-books,” contemporary books with dark subject matter like addiction, disorders, abuse etc.,  angst can come off as overreaction and silliness.  I think WILLOW, LOOKING FOR ALASKA, CRANK and LIKE MANDARIN are excellent examples of how authors create  real pain without falling into the cliche pitfalls of “the angst ridden teen.”

CRACKED UP TO BE,  SLICE OF CHERRY and NEIL ARMSTRONG IS MY UNCLE are a bit different. In these books, characters aren’t just angst-ridden. They are bad. Bad as in, people-who-have-done-or-are-doing-cruel things.

So, in either case, how do you get sympathy from your readers?

#1:  Beta Readers. What  you might see as “spunky” others can see as “aggressive” and you might see “irresponsible” where others see “reprehensible.”

And, what if it is reprehensible? What if your characters have done something unthinkable?

Here’s my best bets for making them sympathetic:

#2. Are they interesting? 

I’ve “met” several fascinating characters with whom I do not sympathize. But, I do think fascination helps me get  to the point where I begin to understand characters’ motivations, suffering etc… Essentially, fascination or interest is the first step to sympathy.

Is your character interesting? Why? How? Does their thinking and behavior captivate people? Even when (or perhaps because) it’s flawed? Think of Hannibal Lector. Strictly speaking, the protagonist of this series was Clarise Starling, but you still kind of find Hannibal like-able, right? I think it’s because he’s so fascinating. 

# 2. Is your character multitudinous?

I think this is the biggest issue for me. I find that most unsympathetic characters are unsympathetic because they’re one-dimensional. People are never just one thing and you must develop a multitudinous character with many layers for the reader to relate to. For example, in NEIL ARMSTRONG IS MY UNCLE, Tamara can be a bully, but she can also be a victim, a child, alone, and scared.  And beyond that, she has likes, dislikes and quirks etc. Tamara isn’t just “the bully next door,” she’s Tamara. Don’t think of your characters as device, think of them as people. And, as always, show me how these characters have many dimensions, don’t tell me.

#3. What’s really making your character act this way? (HINT: they’re hurting)

Why is your character doing what they’re doing? Why are they behaving badly? why are they making poor or reckless decisions? Chances are they’re suffering. Show me how, even if they themselves don’t know it. In fact, especially  if they don’t know it. If your MC understands that their behavior is dysfunctional, but does nothing to stop it or can’t stop it, why not? Are they afraid? hurt? anxious?  guilty? I need to be part of their struggle. 

#4. Can your character be fixed, saved, or redeemed?

Your character must be worth it. I need to believe that through their suffering, anger, cruelty, etc…your character is redeemable. That they are essentially good souls with bad track records. Show me their redeeming qualities. Show me they’re worth my support. In SLICE OF CHERRY, the girls only kill people “deserving” of death, which means they’re not entirely devoid of reason or feeling.

One of the best examples of a bad kid worthy of redemption is Nick in Alex Flinn’s  BREATHING UNDER WATER (seriously, if you haven’t read this. Buy it. Yesterday.) I can’t spoil it, but:

Nick is one of the chosen few at his high school: intelligent, popular, wealthy. People think his life is pretty easy. Except for one thing. Nick has never told anyone about his father’s violent temper.

When Nick meets Caitlin, he thinks that she is the answer to all his problems. Caitlin is everything Nick has ever wanted – beautiful, talented, and in love with him. But then it all changes. And Nick must face the fact that he’s gotten more from his father than green eyes and money.

In a harrowing journey of self-discovery, Nick learns the truth about himself – and that the phrase “like father, like son” can carry terrifying possibilities.

Nick is a great example of someone you should not sympathize with, but you do.  Alex Flinn demonstrates how Nick suffers through both external and internal conflicts. She shows us why Nick does what he does. How he thinks. How he lives.  For me though, it was all about how Nick struggles with his own identity. And, it’s precisely because he chooses to struggle and fight (even himself) that I root for him.

How do you create sympathy? What other books can you think of that are good examples of characters you sympathize with who aren’t necessarily “likeable?”

Tor