There's been a firestorm of articles ever since J.K. Rowling announced that her next book would be for adults. Will it be any good? Can it be any good, given that she writes for children? Um, are we forgetting the fact that a good many adults waited as breathlessly for her "children's" books as any kid? At least this article from Open Salon mentions the primacy of good storytelling, but the one thing that strikes me is that this kind of controversy only erupts when a "children's writer" tries to cross over to the "adult" market. When the opposite happens, no one seems to express doubts that the writer will be able to make the transition successfully. And yet, how many of the adult writers become well-known, well-read children's writers? Name one. I think of Sherman Alexie and his hilarious and heartbreaking Absolutely True Adventures of a Part-Time Indian, which won the National Book Award and I believe was a bestseller and well-loved by readers. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone else - but I'll be the first to admit that my head has been a whirlwind lately owing to family stuff, work, and the attempt to finish my novel in time for the NESCBWI conference.
But my point is that people might wonder why a "real" writer would want to write for children (who apparently aren't "real" people) but they don't doubt that they can. Whereas anyone who's been a successful children's writer (and you can't get more successful than Rowling) is automatically suspect for even thinking of such a thing. Now there are examples of people who have failed at this crossover as well: Stephanie Meyer, for one. R.L. Stine, as the article mentions. I would argue these writers aren't very good writers in the first place. But that doesn't mean anything - there are plenty of "adult" writers who are very popular, and not very good. I won't even begin to list them. No, it's all about lingering prejudice over children's literature, and the people who make it. At least there is some grudging acceptance that there may be some skill involved, but we still have a long way to go.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Don't Worry, Mom, It's Nothing Personal
In Ploughshares online literary magazine, Rachel Kadish (MFA faculty at Lesley University) wrote an article about the lack of Moms in children's literature and movies. This isn't the first time I've heard this complaint, argument, observation - call it what you will. It's usually, of course, moms who notice it as they are reading to their kids or watching movies with them - hey, why is mom always dead? It makes them uneasy, and no wonder.
But the fact is, this point has been debated for a long time time in the children's writing community, although every mom discovers this for the first time and so therefore brings it up again - I hear it not just from writer-moms but also non-writers. At least the writers get the storytelling reasons why mom has to disappear. As Rachel Kadish puts it, mom is the adventure-killer. She's the one who is going to keep you safe, and make sure you don't get into trouble over your head.
But therein lies the problem, at least where children's literature is concerned. Reams of paper have been devoted to studies on children's psychology and literature, and the psychological bases of fairy tales. It's not just conflict, that essence of storytelling, that drives the matricide. It's the psychological necessity of metaphorically "killing mom" in order for a child to individuate. Fairy tales and other children's stories allow kids to vicariously try out independence. Sure, they might not literally slay the dragon - but kids have plenty of metaphorical dragons to slay on their way to adulthood, and these stories work on a psychological level to let them know that's it's okay - if someone as lost/clueless/unfortunate as the main character can survive and thrive, so can they. Children's writers are not, on the whole, a bloodthirsty lot with mommy issues.
When I write, not only the mother but the father are conveniently gone. Oh, sure, they may turn up in the very beginning, but from there, the protagonist is on his or her own. And that's the way it is in most children's and young adult literature. Unless the parents are part of the conflict in some way, they have to disappear. They cannot be ever-present, like today's so-called helicopter parents, ready to swoop in and save the day with money, interventions with problematic authority figures or enemies, etc.
But could they be more present? Maybe there is a place for supportive but independence-promoting parents. The ones who can say, I love you, but you have to do this on your own. The problem is, from a storytelling standpoint, it lowers the stakes. In order for a reader to be involved in the story, the stakes have to be raised at every turn. And if you have parents who step in - or are able to step in - when the going gets really tough, then you kill the stakes, or at least make the story unbelievable. Parents don't have to be dead, but they do have to be unavailable, ineffective or threatening in some way. That's the law of storytelling when you write for kids. Break it at your own risk. And if it does, psychologically, teach kids some important lessons about life - your parents won't always be there to help, but you'll be okay - then why would you want to?
But the fact is, this point has been debated for a long time time in the children's writing community, although every mom discovers this for the first time and so therefore brings it up again - I hear it not just from writer-moms but also non-writers. At least the writers get the storytelling reasons why mom has to disappear. As Rachel Kadish puts it, mom is the adventure-killer. She's the one who is going to keep you safe, and make sure you don't get into trouble over your head.
But therein lies the problem, at least where children's literature is concerned. Reams of paper have been devoted to studies on children's psychology and literature, and the psychological bases of fairy tales. It's not just conflict, that essence of storytelling, that drives the matricide. It's the psychological necessity of metaphorically "killing mom" in order for a child to individuate. Fairy tales and other children's stories allow kids to vicariously try out independence. Sure, they might not literally slay the dragon - but kids have plenty of metaphorical dragons to slay on their way to adulthood, and these stories work on a psychological level to let them know that's it's okay - if someone as lost/clueless/unfortunate as the main character can survive and thrive, so can they. Children's writers are not, on the whole, a bloodthirsty lot with mommy issues.
When I write, not only the mother but the father are conveniently gone. Oh, sure, they may turn up in the very beginning, but from there, the protagonist is on his or her own. And that's the way it is in most children's and young adult literature. Unless the parents are part of the conflict in some way, they have to disappear. They cannot be ever-present, like today's so-called helicopter parents, ready to swoop in and save the day with money, interventions with problematic authority figures or enemies, etc.
But could they be more present? Maybe there is a place for supportive but independence-promoting parents. The ones who can say, I love you, but you have to do this on your own. The problem is, from a storytelling standpoint, it lowers the stakes. In order for a reader to be involved in the story, the stakes have to be raised at every turn. And if you have parents who step in - or are able to step in - when the going gets really tough, then you kill the stakes, or at least make the story unbelievable. Parents don't have to be dead, but they do have to be unavailable, ineffective or threatening in some way. That's the law of storytelling when you write for kids. Break it at your own risk. And if it does, psychologically, teach kids some important lessons about life - your parents won't always be there to help, but you'll be okay - then why would you want to?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Congratulations!
To Jack Gantos, who won the Newbery Medal last month... yes, I'm a bit behind. But this article in the Boston Globe reminded me. He's been a visitor to the MFA residency, and I've been impressed by his sense of humor and down-to earth quality, as well as his writing. I love how his books combine humor and deep character - no matter how absurd the circumstance, the characters feel real.
I also like what he says at the end of the article:
Aspiring writers approach him all the time, Gantos says, and it’s often obvious why they are not working writers.
“People dither away so much time,’’ he says.
A good reminder that in the end, if you want to be a writer, you have to write.
Speaking of which, I've signed up for a novel-critiquing workshop at the New England SCBWI conference, which means I have to finish my latest novel by March 9. No pressure! But honestly, that's one reason I signed up. I've been "dithering" for a while on this - to rearrange this or that plot element, add or delete this or that character... I just need to finish a draft, and then go back in and muck around. With luck, I'll get astute readers who might inspire that "aha" moment where everything will fall into place.
I also like what he says at the end of the article:
Aspiring writers approach him all the time, Gantos says, and it’s often obvious why they are not working writers.
“People dither away so much time,’’ he says.
A good reminder that in the end, if you want to be a writer, you have to write.
Speaking of which, I've signed up for a novel-critiquing workshop at the New England SCBWI conference, which means I have to finish my latest novel by March 9. No pressure! But honestly, that's one reason I signed up. I've been "dithering" for a while on this - to rearrange this or that plot element, add or delete this or that character... I just need to finish a draft, and then go back in and muck around. With luck, I'll get astute readers who might inspire that "aha" moment where everything will fall into place.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The Secret Revealed...
Although I no longer have my creativity blog, I'm still interested in creativity in general - how to encourage it, maintain it - all aspects, really. So I was intrigued to read this article on how, basically, altering your mind state from alert concentration can actually fuel creative thought. The article talks specifically about being drunk or sleepy. I've never tried to write drunk (though the history of literature is full of great writers who were also heavy drinkers) - the problem being, I might have a burst of creativity, then get really sleepy, then... sleep. Alcohol in general just makes me sleepy, with very little creative jolt in between. And obviously, as a creative pump-primer, it's a little hard on the liver.
Writing sleepy, however, is a lot easier for most of us to accomplish. I get up early to write, and since me and mornings don't generally mix, I write sleepy. If I write at all, that is. It's frankly a lot easier to get enthusiastic about drinking a glass of wine than it is to get up on a cold winter morning (or any morning) and stumble to the computer to create brilliant prose. No, I'd much rather curl up in my nice warm bed and sleep... or maybe think about my story. Or any other story. But this research may spur me on to actually get up and get going. I can see the truth in it; and writing - especially first drafts - while you're in a state where your internal editor is still half-asleep, can open up new avenues to those surprises that are essential to good storytelling. It's possible to be too over-controlled, and first drafts should be messy.
I have to continually tell myself this since I tend to want to control everything, to know what's coming and how to do it. I have to remind myself to let the story grow organically, that if I'm not surprised, the reader won't be either. Part of the fun of writing is letting the unconscious pop up surprises - images, phrases, characters, plot points - and then figuring out how to use them.
Writing sleepy, however, is a lot easier for most of us to accomplish. I get up early to write, and since me and mornings don't generally mix, I write sleepy. If I write at all, that is. It's frankly a lot easier to get enthusiastic about drinking a glass of wine than it is to get up on a cold winter morning (or any morning) and stumble to the computer to create brilliant prose. No, I'd much rather curl up in my nice warm bed and sleep... or maybe think about my story. Or any other story. But this research may spur me on to actually get up and get going. I can see the truth in it; and writing - especially first drafts - while you're in a state where your internal editor is still half-asleep, can open up new avenues to those surprises that are essential to good storytelling. It's possible to be too over-controlled, and first drafts should be messy.
I have to continually tell myself this since I tend to want to control everything, to know what's coming and how to do it. I have to remind myself to let the story grow organically, that if I'm not surprised, the reader won't be either. Part of the fun of writing is letting the unconscious pop up surprises - images, phrases, characters, plot points - and then figuring out how to use them.
Friday, February 3, 2012
New cubs!
This year the NABC has a den cam in Jewel's den, and they are regularly updating their youtube channel with videos. You can watch them here. Jewel is the daughter of June (the bear in the photo on this blog) and she's had her first litter of 2 cubs a week or so ago. They are tiny but very loud and very active! You can view the live den cam here. They won't know whether they are male or female for a while yet - their eyes aren't even open. Lily and Faith, and Honey and Lucky, also have den cams, so check them out to see a mom with a yearling, or two adults of different genders and ages, denning together.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
This article, "Can Bells and Whistles Save the E-Book?" on Salon.com brings up some interesting points about the advantages and limitations of so-called "enhanced" e-books - the ones that come with video, sound effects. and other additions that supposedly enhance the reading experience. But as Laura Miller points out, when we read, we already create a world within our minds, and these supposed enhancements can actually take us away from that world.
My view is that, like anything else, this can be used well or badly. And these days, publishers are still figuring out how to do it right. I worry about kids whose imaginations are stunted by the fact that 3-D experiences are now provided for them at every opportunity - popular books are made into movies, e-books are enhanced with all sorts of sensory input, animations, video, sound, linked online content... are we simply meeting kids where they are today, or creating a situation that is an increasingly passive experience for the reader? Reading is a participatory experience, at its best. You have to use your imagination to help make the world vivid in your mind, and the best stories and characters make us think about them, and what might happen, for a long time after finishing the book.
I am not against e-books, or e-readers; as a frequent traveler, I've found them a godsend, although I tend to read "real" books at home. And although I say "real" tongue in cheek, what matters - and what I don't think is going away - is story, and the human hunger for it. However the stories are presented, people will always enjoy a good story, well told.
My view is that, like anything else, this can be used well or badly. And these days, publishers are still figuring out how to do it right. I worry about kids whose imaginations are stunted by the fact that 3-D experiences are now provided for them at every opportunity - popular books are made into movies, e-books are enhanced with all sorts of sensory input, animations, video, sound, linked online content... are we simply meeting kids where they are today, or creating a situation that is an increasingly passive experience for the reader? Reading is a participatory experience, at its best. You have to use your imagination to help make the world vivid in your mind, and the best stories and characters make us think about them, and what might happen, for a long time after finishing the book.
I am not against e-books, or e-readers; as a frequent traveler, I've found them a godsend, although I tend to read "real" books at home. And although I say "real" tongue in cheek, what matters - and what I don't think is going away - is story, and the human hunger for it. However the stories are presented, people will always enjoy a good story, well told.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Happy New Year!
Um, since it's almost Chinese New Year, I'd say it's about time. The rest of you are like, "We started 2012 a few weeks ago, thanks." Family emergencies have prohibited regular posting, but I'll try to be better now.
Following on my last post, they are slowly revealing the LOTR Lego characters. Here is the latest, Legolas (LEGOlas, get it?). Love the cheekbones. At least I think they're supposed to be cheekbones, not facial scars a la Inigo Montoya.
In LA recently they did a live reading of The Princess Bride. Fred Savage returned to play the boy. Cary Elwes played Prince Humperdinck (guess he wanted to try life on the dark side). Wish I could have seen it!
Following on my last post, they are slowly revealing the LOTR Lego characters. Here is the latest, Legolas (LEGOlas, get it?). Love the cheekbones. At least I think they're supposed to be cheekbones, not facial scars a la Inigo Montoya.
In LA recently they did a live reading of The Princess Bride. Fred Savage returned to play the boy. Cary Elwes played Prince Humperdinck (guess he wanted to try life on the dark side). Wish I could have seen it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
