squeetus

Leaner, meaner trim size coming your way!

I'm mostly shy about self-promoting. In my real life, I never bring up my profession with people I meet. When asked about it, I usually answer briefly and then change the subject. I've mentioned here before, I spent years doing school and book store visits usually without ever mentioning my books. But there are two consistent exceptions:

RAPUNZEL'S REVENGE and CALAMITY JACK, y'all!

I don't know why it's so much easier for me to tout these books. Probably because they're not mine alone. I co-wrote them with my husband Dean and artist (no relation) Nathan Hale.

Possibly also because they're FREAKIN' AWESOME.

Here's the thing about these books. Librarians who know them and stock them tell me they can't keep them on the shelves. I hear this constantly from school, public, and classroom libraries across the country: the kids fight over these books. The kids read them again and again. My avid readers read these books. My non-readers read these books. My non-readers became readers because of these books.

They're absolutely life-making for me, these comments.

Then I also hear: I can't find these books. Bookstores don't carry these books.

When we first wrote Rapunzel's Revenge, I couldn't name a single other graphic novel for young readers. Children's book publishers were not yet publishing graphic novels. We thought we'd have to try to publish it with a comics publisher. That world was new. Bloomsbury took up the book, and when we decided on a trim size, we chose a comic book size, because that was what had been established.

Shortly thereafter traditional children's publishing got into graphic novels in a huge way, and they all went for a smaller trim size, one that could fit on bookstore shelves beside other novels.

So my publisher, Bloomsbury, has decided to revisit these books. Since their reception by readers has
been so great but bookstores can't fit them on regular shelves, they are re-releasing both books in a smaller trim size. The smaller size will start replacing all the other books in about two months.

What does this mean?

Hopefully that you will start seeing these books regularly available in your local bookstores!

But it also means that the larger size will disappear. So if you like that size (I do) then BUY NOW!

And may I recommend? Boldly again, since I only speak about these books boldly. Buy the hardcover. They get re-read. Lots and lots. And paperbacks fall apart. So invest in the hardcover. That thing, as Nate says, will stop bullets.

Happy reading, and yee-ha!

How to be a reader: separating author from narrator

When I was in sophomore English class, my teacher Ms. Barnes hit us with a revelation: The Author Is Not The Narrator.

I had never considered this possibility before.

In our essays, we got red marks against any phrase like, "The author believes," or "The author states that," correcting it to "The narrator states."

"In fiction, you cannot assume the opinions in a book are the author's, only the narrator's."

This is more obvious in a first-person narration. The narrator of Catcher in the Rye is Holden Caufield, not JD Salinger; the narrator of Jane Eyre is Jane, not Charlotte Bronte. But things get murkier with third person. Some third-person narrators are invisible, channeling only what the main character sees and knows. Some take a small step back, seeing and understanding a bit more than the main character can. Some go even further back, switching back and forth between two or more characters' POVs. Others are omniscient, understanding everything at once. Some, like To The Lighthouse, flow in and out of characters' consciousnesses. And still others are unnamed and yet have a presence and clearer personality.

The latter kind is the kind I write with for my adult novels: Austenland, Midnight in Austenland, and The Actor and the Housewife. I love the style and humor available to me with that narrator.

I assumed that everyone had a Ms. Barnes who cleared up the narrator/author thing in 10th grade, but I continually hear from adults who are confused.

"I can't tell if the opinions are Jane's or the author's," a reader of Austenland might complain.

The answer is: neither. The opinion is the narrator's. Unless it's stated in dialog, unless the narrator says it's the character's opinion, then the only thing you can be sure of is that it's the narrator talking. I am no more the narrator of my books than Julia Roberts is Erin Brocovich or Heath Ledger is the Joker. I am the artist channeling a character. All the characters, including the narrator.

It's not accurate to assume that the opinion of any of the character's is the author's opinion. Same of the narrator. The narrator is always character.

The narrator of Princess Academy likes to slow down and savor moments. She stays close to Miri and only reports what she knows, but uses words in a way Miri wouldn't. The narrator of The Actor and the Housewife has a lot of opinions. That narrator wants to laugh, sometimes with the characters and sometimes at them. The narrator of Book of a Thousand Days is Dashti, the main character, reporting in the very moment the action happens, though translated from her native tongue into English by an unknown narrator who had license with word choice and expression. The narrator of my book coming out next year is the main character, told in retrospect from a point after the action occurs. The narrator of the Books of Bayern is close to that of Princess Academy with a desire for richness, the dramatic, the imperative of each moment.

It is as fun for me to write different narrators as it is to write different characters. And my narrators are as much me as are all my characters. Ani and Selia, Ungolad and Geric, Miri and Dan, Tegus and Khasar, Rapunzel and Jack--they came from the same place as my narrators, and yet all speak with a different voice.

What books have you read that have an unnamed third person narrator with a prominent personality? I think of Just So Stories and The Tale of Despereaux. Others?

Ebooks and the great equalizer

I was recently gifted a Kobo and now have read three books on the ereader. I like that it's not backlit. After working on my laptop, I don't want to stare at another screen. I like that I can purchase ebooks through my local bookstore for it and check out books from the library and hold many books in one small place. I don't like that it has to be recharged, turned off on airplanes, doesn't feel like a book or smell, I can't easily tell how far into the book I am, the formatting isn't beautiful but functional, etc. I can see the benefits of ebooks in certain circumstances, but I am far from converting entirely to electronic.

I'm not disgruntled about ebooks. I wish I liked them more--I'd love space for a dresser in my bedroom, but all the walls are taken up by book cases. I receive royalties for ebooks just as I do for paper books. But I do believe it's important to consider the consequences if ebooks take up too much market share.

Often ebook retailers who also sell e-readers sell ebooks at a loss in order to promote their e-readers. If ebooks are sold for significantly less than their hardcover and even paperback counterparts, it's less likely people will invest in the latter. Paper books will come to seem ridiculously overpriced. Which they are not. Publishing is not a fat cat industry. No one is getting rich (except a very few megaseller authors, which represent such a tiny percentage of the industry they're hardly worth mentioning). Look at anyone down the line: editor, agent, publisher, publicist, distributor, bookseller, author, and you see that everyone is trying to make a living and no one is wealthy. No one gets into any part of publishing with the intent of striking it rich (unless they're woefully ignorant). They do it because they love books and care about literacy.

So, what happens if ebook prices dip down lower and stay lower? Customers like that because they can buy books for less. HOWEVER, the smaller the print run of a paper book, the more expensive it is to publish, the less profit a publisher makes. If most editions sold of a book are electronic, publishers won't be able to afford printing hard copies. Many books would only be available electronically, and those in paper would be more expensive.

So what? Maybe everything goes digital in the future. Save the trees, right? But what about those who can't afford an e-reader? What about libraries, schools, kids? Right now, public libraries are "the great equalizer" as someone said. Anyone can have access to most any book for free in a library. But if some books are only available as an ebook, only those with readers will have access. Libraries are already underfunded. What will happen if fewer hard copies are printed and the prices go up?

I don't know how this will all play out, but I am concerned. Some say, keep the market open and don't be afraid of change. But the change I foresee isn't just a different industry, it's one that is actually smaller, more prone to monopolies, and less accessible by the poor and by children. I want quality literature. I want freedom of speech. I want all children and adults to have access to thousands of different books, any one of which might change their lives.

Male character function: be a character; Girl character function: love interest

When I was about 18, I was in a community theater production of Robin Hood. As is so often the case with theater, there were more girls than guys who auditioned, but there were more guy than girl parts in the play. I was one of three girls cast as a silent, hooded "Merry Man." During rehearsals it quickly became ridiculous. Though we kept our hoods on all the time, three of us girls playing Merry Men were really bad at walking and moving like men. I remember talking with the lead male actors.

Me: Why do all of the Merry Men have to be men? I could still be a girl and be in the band.
Actor: But if there was a girl in the band, why wouldn't Robin fall in love with her and not Marian? We don't want to confuse the audience.

I was confused myself. Why would that even be an issue? The presence of a single woman in proximity to the lead other than the Love Interest would confuse the audience? In real life, do guys go around falling in love with every girl who happens to be nearby? Obviously, I thought, Marian happens to be Robin's type. He must like the polished, noble, girlie-girl, and a Merry Girl would be rough-and-tumble. What's confusing about that?

But it is. As I look at movies, especially action movies and animated movies, there are rarely any girls besides the Love Interest. Audiences are accustomed to this. The main character's Love Interest can have an elderly female friend, or even a comic-relief female friend her same age (so long as she's overweight, extremely quirky, lacking classical beauty features, etc.). But No Extra Girls Allowed. It's as if the only function of a female character is to be the Love Interest. So if there are, say, two female characters then the audience will be confused. But wait, there are two! Which is the Love Interest? We don't know who to expect will end up with the Lead and the unexpected is upsetting!

Just when I watch a film that's an exception--like Thor, which had several female characters (though male characters still represented the large majority)--I think, hey, we're over it! Then I see 4-5 action or animated movies in a row with an all male cast and one token female--the Love Interest.

I want to be conscious of this. I want all of us to be aware. Because I don't want to see the reverse happen either. In an effort to over-correct, are we doing that with the boys? In YA novels, do we have female characters with 1 male character (The Love Interest) or two if there's a triangle? I'm begging writers of movies and books, be respectful of the girls. Include them in the stories. Girls can be funny and interesting and daring and shy and adventurous and evil and anything a character should be.