fan-fiction-ing

So, two stories now, that originated as Twilight fan fiction, have become actual books. With names changed and seven figure deals. The whole idea of it raises, I think, problematic and interesting questions.

Obviously, at some level, all works of fiction play on central, common themes. Authors retell fairy tales and ancient mythology and rework Shakespeare and nobody thinks of crying foul. Even works no more than 200 years old, like Jane Austen, are considered fair game for reworking, rewriting, and making your own. Because any copyrights have lapsed long ago.

And the thing about using public domain works is that each author brings their own style to it, so that even if it's a reused story it's considered a unique work of literature.

Technically, the same thing could be said of fan fiction, in that the author's personal style and ideas create a unique work. But there's something distasteful about borrowing so heavily from a still copyrighted work, and even more so profiting from it.

If these books had never been published as fan fiction, had simply come into the world as they are now with the names changed, they'd stand on their own without any controversy. They'd like be called derivative, like Hush, Hush. But there wouldn't be this nose wrinkling sort of you're-not-really-a-book disdain. And the gray area of copyright wouldn't be on anyone's mind.

Well, it's on mine. Not that any of this matters to me, since I'm neither the original author or the fan fiction author. So, from my detached point of view, it seems like a musician covering a song. Yes, it's obviously generated from someone else's work. But I like their song, I just want to do it my way. Covers are very common in the music industry and though I'm not a professional in that arena, I assume there's some sort of compensation for the original author when a cover goes up for sale.

And that's a comparison I'm comfortable with. Fan fiction as a cover. As long as it stays on the internet and is passed from fan to fan it's like being a cover band playing in your garage or for your friends. When fan fiction gets legitimized and published the original author gets a piece of the profits, or is paid a licensing fee in the same way the original musician is paid for their work, I assume.

But the real question no one is asking is, why are these published fan fictions crap? I've always thought that Twilight is actually a good story, just badly written. So, if everyone is rewriting Twilight their own way, why isn't someone cleaning up everything Stephenie Meyer did wrong and writing a good novel?

I get that letting not-Edward and not-Bella actually have sex is salacious. And sex sells in every other area of media so I'm not entirely surprised that the romance is being turned into sex. But these pseudo-authors* are keeping the works part of Bella's personality in her victimization and passivity; the atrocious aspects of Edward's control. Why amplify everything that's wrong with Twilight?

Also, turning the romance into nothing but sex undermines what makes Twilight work. It was bewitching because there was no sex; because that forced the characters to interact in a realm full of desire in a world obsessed with gratification. You can argue morally or sociologically all you want with that, but psychologically it worked for these books, dramatically.

That's the part that really bothers me. Especially when there are kernels of interesting themes and character dynamics at play in these stories. Why isn't someone digging into those and writing a better book, now that it seems to be fair game to do Twilight all over again your own way.


*Until they publish an original work of their own and prove they have the talent to actually write and not just to thrill I will not acknowledge them as actual authors.

NPR's Teen Novel vote

You may or may not have heard that NPR is compiling a list of the Best Teen Novels Ever (you can vote here).

In principle I think it's a fun idea. Though the title, and therefore the premise, is a bit pompous. Best Teen Novels *Ever*? Really? I don't know that you, or anyone, has the right to claim that about their list. Especially with so much controversy surrounding it. It may be open to voters, but who are you to decide which books do and do not make the list?

Admittedly, that sort of arrogance bothers me. And then I disagree with pieces of their list on top of that, so... you have a blog entry to entertain you.

First off, there's 235 books to vote on. I get it, there's a lot of books out there on the market and they did a good job of combining series. I've only read, probably, a third of these books and have even heard of less than that. So, granted, I'm not the most qualified dissenter in this matter. But here's what I think of the books I do know about.

Lord of the Rings should not be on the list. Don't get me wrong, I love this book. But it's not a teen book. It's deep and it's complicated and none of the characters are teenagers and none of it is about coming-of-age themes. It's classic, universal fantasy and nothing near YA.

Dune? no. Again, love it. But it's really complex in its plotting, rather mature in its characters. Early college, sure, ok, maybe. But it's not the book I'd hand to a 16 year old and think they'd have the patience of focus to enjoy it.

The Hobbit? eh, maybe... Tolkien wrote this for his children and it's obviously more in depth than any of Madeleine L'Engle's books, which I would categorize as middle-grade. Love her stuff, but A Swiftly Tilting Planet is the only one I'd recommend to a YA audience. And Tolkien is dense, so even though he wrote this for his kids and this obviously skews younger than Lord of the Rings, I don't know. Maybe because I didn't read it as a kid I can't imagine it suiting that audience. Maybe I'm wrong.

And actually, Lord of the Rings and Dune were two of the books mentioned in the follow up debate article (linked above). But their justifications are ridiculous and contradictory.

Pride and Prejudice, in the end, is universal. It's for all ages. The judges looked at qualities such as a book's themes, the age of its main characters, its reading level. But in the end, the most important test was often whether a given book is one that teens themselves have claimed — whether they do, in fact, voluntarily read it.

And that's how Flowers for Algernon made the list? Because teens voluntarily pick that up all the time while Pride and Prejudice is only required reading. And Lord of the Flies - that's a fun one.

On the other hand, there are a lot of books beloved by teens that weren't originally meant for them, like Lord of the Rings and Catcher in the Rye. Those made the list, along with books like Dune and The Last Unicorn that have become rites of passage for teen readers.

I disagree on the rites of passage contention. None of those books were anywhere near my teen years. And I know I grew up in a small town, but I didn't know anyone who read them either. I watched the movie of The Last Unicorn as a kid, but didn't read the book until long after my teen years.
Having said that, I'm sure plenty of teenagers read those books. Probably as many as read Pride and Prejudice. I'd say they're equally universal (as are a lot of classics) and when you compile a list of Teen Novels it should adhere to your earlier criteria that theme, age of the main characters and reading level make it specifically YA in nature, otherwise where's The Count of Monte Cristo and To Kill a Mockingbird and a dozen other books I had to read in high school? Also, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is too mature to be included? I don't agree with that at all.

On the other side, I was almost surprised by some of the newer titles that did make the list while other more recent titles didn't.
Like Cinder, how's that even in the top 235? I mean, the answer is that it's really popular this summer so I'm sure a ton of people mentioned it in their write-in votes. But it's that very transitory nature of the vote that means they should know better than a title like Best Teen Novels Ever. Because next summer Cinder is going to be eclipsed by the new hot title on the radar.

In the hot new title section I would have added:
Enchanted by Alethea Kontis
Fair Godmother (series) by Janette Rallison
Dreamhunter (duet) by Elizabeth Knox (if you like Abhorsen you'd like that)
Mistwood by Leah Cypess

I'm surprised HarperTeen didn't have a giant twitter campaign for the write-in stage. But they probably consider themselves too cool for something like an NPR list. And with some of the titles on that list, who can blame them?

ETA: In case you're curious, here is their final list.

New York

I admit, I'd never been to New York before. Which wouldn't be much of an admission if I didn't also add that I was never really interested in ever going. Something about it always seemed far too east coast and foreign in my mind and I would have been perfectly happy never to experience that particular city.

Until the possibility of going became very real, and then... I was intrigued and excited. What a novel new experience this would be.

Mostly it was work, but it was good work and work paid for the trip so there's not much to complain about.

But when it wasn't work, it was walking around the city for two hours seeing the sights.
(click on thumbnails for larger pictures)

Random walking pictures
Times Square
Rockefeller Plaza
I would have gotten I better shot in the middle of Rockefeller Plaza, but they had this Garden Dining thing going on which, might have been a cool place to have lunch, but just meant there were a lot of table umbrellas blocking my view.
St. Patrick's Cathedral
I took a lot of pictures at St. Patrick's, just walking around with my camera clicking at everything because the whole place is so beautiful.
Grand Central Station
	Dinner at tre dici was amazing. Lobster with tomatoes and shaved jalapenos underneath was so good. We also had calamari in buffalo sauce as an appetizer so it was a very unique and delicious sort of spicy evening.
Headed Home

Overall excellent first trip to NY. And I'm actually looking forward to going back, eventually.

Civil War encampment

I'm not a huge fan of modern history. I like Victorian London and medieval Europe in my fiction. With true history I'm more interested in the sociology and mythology of ancient cultures (particularly Greece and Rome). But that is probably in part because they have the best stories.

So when I got the offer to go see a Civil War encampment recreation, I kind of only went because I didn't have anything better to do. And it might be cool. Admittedly, it was pretty interesting. Everyone worked hard to create authenticity and there's something interesting about history that is tangible; standing in the places where people walked hundreds of years ago and getting a glimpse into what life was like for them.

I'll tell you one thing, it made me incredibly grateful to be alive now; having the convenience of a consistently warm home; not having to worry about how I'll find food or drinking clean water; being able to get so many places so quickly because I have a car and don't have to ride a horse or walk. My life is looks rather spectacular at the moment.

myth vs. fairy tale

I read a comparison and of myth and fairy tale recently and so of course I had to post my own thoughts. Because this is a subject near and dear to me.

Myths are an ancient sort of magical realism. Because they are mostly stories set in our world, but they are tales of what happens when something divine or otherworldly steps into this world. And myths use this supernatural interactions to explore a multitude of humanity's issues, from jealousy to lust and heroism and consequences and life and death. Joseph Campbell would say that myths teach us who we are, both individually and collectively as a society. They are stories of people who are larger than life and gods who are all too flawed.
But myths are something more than simply a story because they reach deep within our psyche, evoke truths we don't even have words for. They define relationships between human and divine things, between temporalities and ultimates*. And, like ancient oracles, they explain in symbols rather than facts.
Also, myths are darker than fairy tales; full of unrelenting tragedy and few happy endings.

Fairy tales have more of an element of magic to them because they happen somewhere else - through the looking glass or in the wardrobe, or even just crossing into the forest or the palace.
And nothing is what it appears to be in a fairy tale, even though all is revealed by its true nature in the end.
The thing about fairy tales is that happy endings are requisite but somehow in our modern world we've become so cynical we've reduced those happy endings to something trite and unreal instead of something wonderfully inevitable - an answer to the hardship and tragedy of life, the eventual outcome of magic in spite of and also because of the hardships and trials between here and there.

*from Richard Slotkin's definition of mythogenesis

the unrecognizable expression

You know what I hate in books? When an author says: "a look she didn't recognize crossed his face." There are a dozen different variations on this but the essence is: someone is feeling something but the first person protagonist can't make sense of it.

It's understandable - the book is written in first person so the reader is limited to what the protagonists perceives.

But I don't like it because I can interpret the expression even less than the protagonist (by virtue of not even actually seeing it). Saying that the protagonist doesn't understand it frees the author from actually having to describe the expression or the emotion. But what's the point in telling the reader something exists that you're not even going to attempt to explain or describe?

I think I find it more frustrating because in real life it's not often you encounter an expression you can't read. People can lie with their expressions. You can see something and not understand what's driving the emotion. But very rarely is there a flicker of emotion that you register but can't interpret.

And I get, an author might want to say something like that to tell the reader that the person in question is keeping secrets; to create a sense of mystery or intrigue. But I think the unrecognizable expression is a bad way to go about it.

The only time it really works is when it's not working at all; when the expression is described but not understood by the protagonist, or when a line of dialog or a moment makes it abundantly clear what the expression actually is but the protagonist is too dense to get it.  Those are usually moments when a look of longing or desire crosses a guy's face and the girl hasn't got a clue.  That works.

But please stop writing about expressions the main character doesn't recognize.  It isn't any fun for me.

C.S. Lewis letter

The Kilns,
Headington Quarry,
Oxford
26 June 1956

Dear Joan–

Thanks for your letter of the 3rd. You describe your Wonderful Night v. well. That is, you describe the place and the people and the night and the feeling of it all, very well — but not the thing itself — the setting but not the jewel. And no wonder! Wordsworth often does just the same. His Prelude (you're bound to read it about 10 years hence. Don't try it now, or you'll only spoil it for later reading) is full of moments in which everything except the thing itself is described. If you become a writer you'll be trying to describe the thing all your life: and lucky if, out of dozens of books, one or two sentences, just for a moment, come near to getting it across.

About amn't I, aren't I and am I not, of course there are no right or wrong answers about language in the sense in which there are right and wrong answers in Arithmetic. "Good English" is whatever educated people talk; so that what is good in one place or time would not be so in another. Amn't I was good 50 years ago in the North of Ireland where I was brought up, but bad in Southern England. Aren't I would have been hideously bad in Ireland but very good in England. And of course I just don't know which (if either) is good in modern Florida. Don't take any notice of teachers and textbooks in such matters. Nor of logic. It is good to say "more than one passenger was hurt," although more than one equals at least two and therefore logically the verb ought to be plural were not singular was!

What really matters is:–

1. Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn't mean anything else.

2. Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don't implement promises, but keep them.

3. Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean "More people died" don't say "Mortality rose."

4. In writing. Don't use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was "terrible," describe it so that we'll be terrified. Don't say it was "delightful"; make us say "delightful" when we've read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, "Please will you do my job for me."

5. Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

Thanks for the photos. You and Aslan both look v. well. I hope you'll like your new home.

With love
yours
C.S. Lewis

obviously they didn't publish it, but I found this delightful letter here

I'm the one that's cool

When I first read Joel Stein's dismissive of YA literature I admittedly bristled, much like Alyssa's reaction at Think Progress.

But then I looked a little closer as research for this post.
First of all, this is part of a discussion by The New York Times on YA fiction, so while Stein is entitled to his opinion, I judge him a little less harshly knowing he's reacting to a given topic rather than idly slamming a genre. And I have to admit that the majority of that discussion is about the virtues of young adult fiction with various authors saying it is powerful - focused on storytelling rather than narrative and not boring, it's emotional, and that YA authors are more daring and take creative risks.

That being said, what bothered me most about Stein's article wasn't that he dislikes YA fiction. It was his admittedly ignorant disdain. But then I looked at Stein's website to learn a little more about his experience as a writer and a critic and I suspect he's trying to be funny about his disdain; using vitriol for comic effect.

But let's not dwell. I could counter his argument with all sorts of reasons YA fiction is awesome, but I think there's something more interesting to look at from all these ideas about why YA fiction is so popular. Because as I was reading through the articles I realized something.

YA fiction isn't really popular.

Fantasy / Sci-fi / Paranormal YA fiction is popular.

And I think that's an important distinction that I don't hear a lot of people making. Because there are books out there written about teenagers and high school experience that are perfectly contemporary and normal and all about falling in love and finding your identity and making mistakes in life that you grow from and experiencing the world. And they aren't international best sellers. In all of the hugely popular books and franchises, there is a supernatural element to it somewhere.

That supernatural element seems to be a necessary ingredient in widespread popularity.

It's not the only thing because there are a ton of YA books out there about angels and vampires and mermaids and all sorts of super powers and fantasy creatures that aren't bestsellers. And there's also a lot of adult fantasy/sci-fi/paranormal written that only geeks have heard of.

It's the combination of these two genres, each undervalued by the mass populace, that seems to strike a chord.

Naming names, we're pretty much talking about Harry Potter (but only kind of - it's popularity has its own very unique causes), Twilight, Hunger Games... those are the ones that have been turned into movies; the ones everyone knows about.

Now, if you're like me and you LOVE reading YA fiction there's about 100 other titles I know and about 15-20 of them I would call popular. A few even that are bestsellers. But I wouldn't except anyone to have heard of them or read them without also being a YA reader. And we're not the mass populace. We're a subset, a niche market. So, I think outside of the names I named we're not talking about popularity, we're talking about respect.

Those who like YA literature don't feel the contempt of literary critics anymore. The general populace will casually pick up a mass market YA title without disdain, though mostly only the titles they find on airport bookshelves. The media can make it seem like it's a more popular genre because a lot of people in the media are now among those who read YA fiction. And they don't want it to seem like they are the only ones who know the difference between Divergent and Incarceron.

Much like the geek.

However much you try to claim that the mainstream audience is embracing geekdom, it's really not true. But thanks to the internet and geeks in influential place in the media, geeks have moved up in the food chain which brings with it respect. Where only a few years ago geeks would be mocked for loving Battlestar Galactica, now people like Felicia Day and Zachary Levi can make geeks seem like rock stars. Geeks are smart and producing some of the most interesting content on tv shows and in movies. The product, as much as geeks being in power, make being a geek kind of cool. But you have to admit Chuck's constant struggle to stay on the air and Serenity's sad box office constantly remind us that not everyone knows who Felicia Day is.
(in a bit of serendipity, Felicia Day and The Guild released their new video this week where they actually are rock stars and while it fits exactly with everything I'm saying, I promise the two were unconnected. Until I started writing this paragraph... )

Both YA fiction and sci-fi/fantasy stories have their individual strengths. But when you combine the fresh voice and point of view of YA fiction, the visceral emotion that's part and parcel of the genre with the wider themes and possibilities of the paranormal and the escape of our commonplace lives you have something that draws people in and entices a fervent, irrational, undeniable love.

That's why people love supernatural YA fiction.

the haunted blog circus

You know what makes me a bad blogger? drafts.

I come across an article or an idea or even another blog that's interesting to the point of being worth discussing or at the very least writing about. So, I throw it into a draft and now it's safe; links won't be lost, text is copied and pasted so it won't vanish from the internet, thoughts are recorded enough to get the gist of what I was thinking but not so much that it's a fully fledged blog. Sometimes it's just the title of a blog about something I want to write about... eventually...

And then it sits, waiting for me to have the time or energy or inclination to actually deal with it. Currently there are 36 drafts trapped in their appropriate date and time - back when it was actually relevant in some way. But that inclination to think and write is a lot harder to come by than throwing ideas and links into a draft.

So I think about writing and blogging more than I actually do. I keep my drafts and I am comforted by the fact that those ideas won't be lost or forgotten. But they also won't be shared or discussed or be anything more than ghosts, haunting the back corridors of my blog.

When I think about it in that light, this blog becomes an incredibly tragic place; all shiny and pretty and fun on the surface but haunted by creatures trapped and waiting to be given form and life. Which makes me some sort of at least callous if not cruel ringmaster at an interesting and tragic circus. who knew.

Storytelling Guidelines

Pixar story artist Emma Coats tweeted a series of “story basics” over a month and a half time period — guidelines that she learned from her more senior colleagues on how to create appealing stories.

Looking at these, you have to consider if they are truly "storytelling" guidelines or if they are media based. Would they be as effective in creating a novel as they are in creating a film? What about a tv show where you have to balance both the short term story of the episode and the long term arc of the season and even longer series?

Hang the Code! And hang the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyway.

#1: You admire a character for trying more than for their successes.
- This is completely true and endemic of Pixar's characters and part of why they're so lovable. They do this really well.

#2: You gotta keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience, not what’s fun to do as a writer. They can be v. different.

#3: Trying for theme is important, but you won’t see what the story is actually about til you’re at the end of it. Now rewrite.

#4: Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___.

#5: Simplify. Focus. Combine characters. Hop over detours. You’ll feel like you’re losing valuable stuff but it sets you free.

#6: What is your character good at, comfortable with? Throw the polar opposite at them. Challenge them. How do they deal?

#7: Come up with your ending before you figure out your middle. Seriously. Endings are hard, get yours working up front.

#8: Finish your story, let go even if it’s not perfect. In an ideal world you have both, but move on. Do better next time.
- This reminds me of a quote by Darren Aronofsky: "Another filmmaker friend of mine said you never finish a film, you abandon a film. And I think that's very true. ... It's always going through your head."
I don't know if I agree with him, though it probably depends on what kind of a deadline is looming over you. I think stories can evolve and can continually be refined but I also think (again, sans intrusive deadline) you reach a point where you know it's finished even if it isn't perfect. And then the story is allowed to be a thing that is complete and can exist in that form and then you can move on.

#9: When you’re stuck, make a list of what WOULDN’T happen next. Lots of times the material to get you unstuck will show up.

#10: Pull apart the stories you like. What you like in them is a part of you; you’ve got to recognize it before you can use it.

#11: Putting it on paper lets you start fixing it. If it stays in your head, a perfect idea, you’ll never share it with anyone.

#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th – get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.
- I don't know about this. I mean, there's probably some value in it sometimes, but this would be one of those guidelines I would think is not so much universally true for writing good stories. A lot of authors write fantastic stories from their first idea.
But I also think that innovation comes from practicing something like this and probably is a better exercise for a movie than maybe for a novel.

#13: Give your characters opinions. Passive/malleable might seem likable to you as you write, but it’s poison to the audience.
Passive/malleable doesn't seem likable to me at all.

#14: Why must you tell THIS story? What’s the belief burning within you that your story feeds off of? That’s the heart of it.

#15: If you were your character, in this situation, how would you feel? Honesty lends credibility to unbelievable situations.

#16: What are the stakes? Give us reason to root for the character. What happens if they don’t succeed? Stack the odds against.

#17: No work is ever wasted. If it’s not working, let go and move on – it’ll come back around to be useful later.

#18: You have to know yourself: the difference between doing your best & fussing. Story is testing, not refining.

#19: Coincidences to get characters into trouble are great; coincidences to get them out of it are cheating.
- I love this one. So very true!

#20: Exercise: take the building blocks of a movie you dislike. How d’you rearrange them into what you DO like?

#21: You gotta identify with your situation/characters, can’t just write ‘cool’. What would make YOU act that way?

#22: What’s the essence of your story? Most economical telling of it? If you know that, you can build out from there.