squeetus

Morals and values and lessons, oh my!

Last week I sent an email to various YA writers, whose works and opinions I respect, saying, "Frequently on my blog I get into the top of morals in literature. I have claimed that as an author, I cannot be the bearer of morals, cannot create morals in my books but can only be true to the story and allow the reader to create her/his own morals...Many of my readers push back, parents who believe that children's and young adult writers have an obligation to have moral standards and create boundaries in their books so as not to expose children to issues/situations that are age inappropriate." I invited those writers to respond to this issue any way they wanted, to agree or disagree. You'll notice by their responses what a broad topic this is! Many responded to different aspects of the topic, and none saw what anyone else wrote, so this is not a conversation but a collection of individual reactions. Get ready for a long post! But I find them all fascinating and powerful, and I hope you do too.

A.E. Cannon:

Occasionally I’m taken to task by readers (usually adults) who feel like my characters should be centerfolds for Christian magazines.  But what if my character isn’t that kind of kid?  And that’s the point of the story?  Am I being honest if I don’t go there with a character?  And isn’t honesty a virtue?  And didn’t Jesus eat dinner with the publicans anyway?  What is everybody so afraid of?

If parents are doing their job at home, they should have enough confidence in their kids to handle what a book throws at them.

Mette Ivie Harrison:

I suspect that it is impossible for me to write a story in which my morals did not show through in some way.  Yet, strangely, it seems that readers are often misunderstanding the way in which my morals show through.  They accuse me of having certain viewpoints which my characters express but which are not my own, for example.  Or of accepting situations because I write about them, even though it seems clear to me that the whole point of the novel is to show how bad the situation is and how the characters are trying to get out of it.

My objection to the idea of morals in YA or children's literature is generally people being too literal in their interpretations.  Because I have a divorced character in my book does not mean I advocate divorce.  Or teenage pregnancy.  Or child abuse.  Or war.  Or vampires eating people.  I mean, seriously, I do not think vampires should eat people, even though they eat people in my books.  Do I have to say that?  Perhaps I do.

I really dislike the whole movie rating system mentality that we have currently in America.  We keep kids from watching moral movies that show difficult actions instead of keeping kids from seeing trivial movies because they have no bad words in them.  Which isn't to say that all R rated movies are deeply moral.  They're not. But neither are all PG or G rated movies.  Having a morality rating would be impossible, however, and I'm not sure I want that, either.

As a parent, I try to read most of the books my kids read first, and then we talk about them afterward.  I think this is a great way for my kids to see how I deal with different points of view, and it allows them to do the same.  They are going to have friends who have different moral values than they do, and will need to be able to remain friends with them.  Or I hope they do.  I do.

Brandon Mull:

I agree that it would be tough to impose lessons on a story. I believe that as conscientious characters face tough choices, some themes or morals tend to appear naturally. So I would say that writing about thoughtful characters with moral backbones could help bring moral considerations into a story, but that tends to work best when the author lets it happen rather than forces it.

Janette Rallison:
I once had someone write me an email criticizing Twilight because Bella  lied to Jacob and led him on.  She was clearly not a good role model for girls because of this and therefore girls shouldn't read the book.  I wrote back and explained that if characters never made bad choices literature would be very boring and unrealistic. 
 
In that way, I don't think authors could or should try to make their characters role models.  But in other ways, I definitely think that authors should think about morals.  One of my pet peeves in today's YA literature is the high incidence of teen characters having sex without any bad consequences.
 
I feel like authors are not only encouraging kids to have sex by normalizing it in literature, but they're out and out irresponsibly misleading kids about the consequences.  Eighty percent--yes, really, eighty percent--of sexually active people have at least one sexually transmitted disease.  Some of these diseases are incurable--one of them is deadly, and many of them aren't prevented by using condoms.  If you get herpes or genital warts, sorry baby, you've got them for life.
 
And yet I don't see this issue anywhere in books where kids are having sex.  I don't think YA authors can just wash their hands of that responsibility and pretend that what they write doesn't have an influence on their readers.
 
My two cents.

Lauren Myracle:

I want to be all blank-slate-y, let the story be the story, and all that. I know that's the fashionable view of literature, and I know that a reader brings her or his own values and beliefs into the interpretation of a text. Yay! Hurrah!

But--and I'm just speaking for myself--I know that I bring my own morals and value system into the books I write. Of course I do, because I write from within my own particular world-viewing framework. Can I see beyond it? I try. Do I agree with everything a given character of mine says, does, or thinks? No. But do my books have a moral compass that matches up with my own moral compass? Yeah, and here it is: Be kind. Love yourself. Love the world. And don't be afraid to laugh.

Carol Lynch Williams:

Our job as writers is to tell stories. Our job as writers is to tell our characters' truths. Sometimes our own truths are mixed up in our words of fiction because we are a bit of our characters.

As soon as we start to preach or teach something, our readers shut us out. They shut us down by setting our books aside and picking up other titles that resonate with them instead of our books.

I tend to write a bit darker story and it's been funny how many of my writing 'friends' have not appreciated my looking at the darker parts of the world. "There's too much darkness out there. Why contribute to it?" they say.

Why? Because there is so much darkness and because even kids in good families are seeing it and because I hope that my books might offer a bit of light. A glimmer of hope.

When I let people push me to write what they want, my stories become artificial and they start posing the way someone else wants them to pose--like a mannequin in a store window.

The truth (for me) is that people look for what they want to look for.  "See the truths (insert famous writer name ) taught here: being anti-abortion." We color the dots the color we want them to be, huh? Those teachers of 'the way it should be'--can read books that seem innocent and look for what they want to be there. And vice versa. The True Colors of Caitlynne Jackson was banned for a sex scene. I was surprised, too, as there is no sex scene in that book. Sheesh! How embarrassing!

So we writers must do what we do best--tell our stories.
And critics must do what they do best--be critical.
And hopefully, what will happen as readers read our books is that they will find their truths in our pages.

M.T. Anderson:

Oh, sure, I'll disagree. I'll take up the puffy gloves and engage in fisticuffs, my dear!

I would argue, first of all, that our world-view is already wound into our narratives, whether we're aware of it or not, and that we can't help broadcasting it to our readers. Our idea of what a "happy ending" is, of who is evil and who is good, of who should triumph and who should fail (or whether anyone *should* do either) -- all of that is played out in our writing. Just because we don't overtly talk about it doesn't mean it doesn't structure our stories, without us even thinking about it.

And I would argue, second of all, that we shouldn't be embarrassed of the world-view that's wrapped up in our stories. (Although we should be embarrassed if we're being boring and clumsy about it.) What's wrong with acknowledging that children are not just learning about the world, but actually building their own world, as they read? They're making themselves. What's wrong with wanting to be there by their side as they do that? I think that's one of the incredibly exciting things about writing for kids.

Incidentally, I have a little essay on this on my website.

Megan Whalen Turner:

Okay, this is a subject I think about a lot. 

This is a monster-long response to your question, but I'm a parent as well as an author and it's a subject I feel strongly about and I have let myself drop into total lecture mode. Sorry about that.  (Just so you know, every paragraph here could have been a page. I really did try to control myself.)

So . . .

I wish people would stop saying "adult" when what they mean is "sex." I don't think sex is dirty and I don't think it's shameful.  I think the activity is for adults, but I don't think it is wrong for children to know what it is. Cats, dogs, horses, the animals at the zoo, people, we have sex.  We have body parts and we should be comfortable naming them.  When something makes us *uncomfortable* it is vital that we feel able to talk about it.  So, I don't think "Sex" is an adults-only topic or should be an adults-only topic.

It bothers me when people use "adult" as a synonym for "sex" because I do in fact believe there are "adult topics" and I think that this weird prudery about sex confuses the issue.  Sexual violence. The Banality of Evil.  Suicide. Depression. Other forms of Mental Illness.  And there's all that foul language! I don't think that children should be exposed to those things prematurely.

But what is prematurely? This might go over like a lead balloon, but I believe that the person who determines the right time is the child reader.  I think that in the same way that most toddlers will select a reasonably balanced diet if you give them the choice, that pre-teens and teens can select reasonably appropriate books for themselves if offered the chance. 

This means that I do think YA books should look like YA books, and that Jacket Copy should accurately reflect the contents of the book.  I think publishers do a pretty good job at this [speaking as a grown-up who learned early on to avoid like the plague any book with the word 'poignant' on the jacket.  Nothing signified adult content like 'poignant.'] And I think the idea that these signifiers of jacket design and copy are insufficient and that some sort of parental advisory label is necessary is nonsensical.  Let me cap that NONSENSICAL. I will add exclamation points NONSENSICAL!!!!

I think most authors do a good job of signaling in the first few pages of a book what kind of story they are telling.  It's not an accident that I used a curse in the first twenty or so pages of my book.  If you aren't old enough to handle that, you aren't old enough for The Thief.

Do I believe that it is okay for a parent to take the skin off their kid's knee with a flail?  Gosh, no.  Do I think it is okay for a parent to let kids go off on a bike *knowing* that there is a very good chance for skin abrasion coming their way?  Yes.  I'd argue that someone who *won't* let their child run the risk of a skinned knee is not doing their kid any favors.

Kids feel very differently about those skinned knees when they know they are self-inflicted. 

Are your kids going to read something you wish they hadn't?  Oh, yes.  And sometimes they'll read stuff THEY wish they hadn't.  They are going to get a few bumps and bruises, and I am afraid, a few adventurous ones might end up with a scar from something that needed stitches to heal.  But unlike bike accidents, I don't believe that any of the injuries will be life-threatening.

Teach kids the rules of the road, teach them to look for those clues on the book jackets and teach them to glance through the pages before they let themselves get sucked into the story.  Remind them that when they are uncomfortable they can stop reading. Tell them you're there to talk about these things if they want to.  Tell them you trust them to be careful. Then take off the training wheels and let them go.

Hope this makes sense.  If you'd like Lecture 213-2.b "On the Evils of Assigned Reading," let me know. : )

Holly Black:

Teenagers are in the process of deciding who they want to be as people.  Books provide them with different identities to try on -- and take off again.  All we can do as writers is be honest and write books that ask questions.  The thing that I wish parents would remember is that there are lots of readers out there who aren't their kids and who need books that reflect their reality, their moral quandaries, the way they speak, and the issues and situations which they are not only exposed to but already experiencing.  Not every book is going to be right for every kid, but for every kid there should be that right book.

To ban or not to ban

In a recent post I recommended the Bone series by Jeff Smith, and a commentor asked what I thought about a volume of the series being challenged in one state by a parent who objects to depictions of smoking and drinking. This is always a delicate subject so I hope I'll be clear here in my response. I'm amazed how often people will assert that I have this or that belief based on something I said in a blog post and it's not something I believe remotely. So I cry and I plead and I beg not to read into what I say but assume the best!

First let me grandly state that I am opposed to CENSORSHIP. I don't think there are many authors in the world who aren't. Let me explain why in this case and please add your thoughts in the comments as I know every issue has many sides.

I believe absolutely in parents' right to monitor what their children are reading and watching. But book banning goes further. Book banning takes the book out of many children's hands. Book banning states: "This book isn't right for my child; therefore it is right for no child and no child should have access to it." While I believe that those who seek to ban books usually have the absolute best intentions, I don't think banning a book from a library or school system accomplishes what they want.

For one thing, book banning brings the challenged book MUCH more attention. [SIDE NOTE: Please challenge my books! Ban away! It's great publicity. Go ahead and perform some public book burnings. My sales numbers will only go up.] Those who oppose a book are doing it a great favor by talking about it so publicly. I know a couple of authors whose books were among those most challenged last year, and they do not celebrate that fact. It hurts. It makes them sad. But realistically, it really does help sales.

Banning seems such an extreme action to me, especially as it is so strongly based on opinion. It represents a few people's (or often, one person's) opinion of what is not okay. Opinion is so personal, I think it's a very tricky thing to assert that because one parent found a book inappropriate for her child, that means it's inappropriate for all children and the book should be out of access. Here's an interesting list of the most often banned books in the US in recent years. I'd bet that even a person who is passionate about banning certain books from libraries could find several books on this list that they love. They might think, "What on earth could anyone find wrong with that book?" But of course many others might be asking the same about a book like Bone.

In order to ban a book, I should think one would need to prove that the book is detrimental, that it does more harm than good. The Bone series has gotten so many kids reading books and done a great service to literacy in general. Much good has come out of these books. I would be very surprised to find any child who decided that smoking and drinking is a good idea based on reading those books. I hesitate to talk too  specifically about these books because I haven't read every volume in the series, but my impression was that the story didn't glamorize drinking and smoking for kids. The main characters don't smoke and drink. But I'll go a step further: to my mind, the presence of alcohol and tobacco in a book isn't necessarily a bad thing.

What a shocking thing to say! How on earth, Mrs. Hale, can you justify that? You who don't smoke or drink alcohol and don't want your children doing it either, how can you possibly believe that a book who demonstrates characters enacting in such behavior could be beneficial?"

Thanks for asking, and with such passion! I discovered recently that my six-year-old didn't know what "smoking" meant or what a "cigarette" even was! It's just not common anymore, and we don't know anyone personally who smokes. Depictions of smoking in books is already anachronistic. And yet cigarettes still exist, and it's likely that one day my son will be offered a cigarette. I'd like him to be prepared. I've found it very helpful when a book showed someone smoking because it gave me an opportunity to talk about it with my son. I explain what it is and why we don't do it. I tell him about times when people offered me a cigarette and how I said, "No thanks," and that was fine. I brought up the subject again with him a few months later, and he remembered the conversation vividly. We've had similar conversations about other things based on what we read in books.

I spoke with a neighbor recently who was uncomfortable with her twelve-year-old daughter reading Twilight. She is morally conservative and told her no, no, no, based on what she'd heard about the books. But the daughter was getting desperate. EVERYONE read the books and she felt left out. So the mother used this as an opportunity to connect with her daughter. She read the Twilight books along with her daughter and talked to her about sexuality. The stories allowed her a way to communicate with her daughter on a subject she felt was very important. She reads most of her daughter's books now and says it's deepened their relationship.

My brother when he was five was offered chewing tobacco by a neighbor boy. While my parents had talked to him about smoking, they'd never mentioned chewing tobacco because it wasn't relevant, they thought. He was unprepared for the invitation. Perhaps if he'd read a book where someone chewed and asked about it, my parents could have explained what it is and why it's bad, and then when the situation arose, he would have known how to respond. Books are, in part, about education. If books only show virtuous characters who never do wrong and a world sanitized of any possible offense or harm, how educational is that? What good is such a book? Burn that book, I say! Burn it, burn it! (okay, not really, I just wanted to shout that textually.)

I think the important thing for worried parents is parental involvement. When parents read to their kids and/or read what their kids read, that opens doors to conversation. Sometimes kids don't know what to ask, and sometimes parents don't know what their children are facing. Reading together offers more conversation possibilities than regular life because stories take us to places and situations we might never face together with our children.

Really, though, my opinion is based on a certain key belief: I don't believe that children imitate what they read in books. I believe they absorb and learn from books, but I don't think they smoke because a minor character in a book smokes. A child's behavior is much more influenced by parents, siblings, and peers. But books do affect how a child sees and makes sense of the world and her place in it. Books are powerful, I have no doubt. But even more powerful are parents. Books + parents can change the world.

Unrelated to book banning, this story is just too wonderful.

Tasty graphic novel morsels

Hey Chicago-ites, I'll be speaking at the International Reading Association's annual conference next week and will be stopping by Anderson's bookstore in Naperville, Tuesday, April 27, at 7 pm. This is the last out-of-Utah signing I'll be doing for quite some time, perhaps 2-3 years. So come by!

Hey teachers, Bloomsbury just made teachers' guides to using calamity jack and rapunzel's revenge in the classroom! I think they look great, and they were created by a teacher according to NCTE and IRA standards. You can download the pdf for free from my website anytime. I'll have them permanently on my site in the rapunzel and jack sections. I'm thrilled that they did this. As we talked about last post, it can be hard for librarians and teachers who want to use graphic novels in schools to convince parents/administrators/other teachers that they are legitimate forms of literature and worth classroom study, and having official teachers' guides like this can help.

Several commenters asked for recommendations for graphic novels. Here are some that our family has enjoyed. These are all appropriate for younger readers. In another post I'll list some great YA and adult graphic novels too.

Tiny Titans - we love these! My 6-year-old will sit and read these alone more than any other book. They are about a bunch of superhero sidekicks (like Robin, Batgirl, Supergirl, and Cyborg) in elementary school. They're funny and simple and violence-free. My three-year-old enjoys them, but I think a 4th grader could easily dig these as well. I've heard some adults make fun of them for having superheroes without any fighting, but I love that about them. Have I mentioned we love these? Aw yeah, Titans!

Owly & Yam - both of these can seem kind of strange when you first look at them. They are all/mostly wordless graphic novels, and so accessible to kids or don't read yet, whether for age, language barrier, or other reasons. Both our kids love them. It took me a few reads to get into them myself, but now I heartily agree. Yam especially seems more in tune with the child mind than I could at first comprehend.

Bone - Everyone knows Bone. Funny and epic fantasy for young readers. I recommend the colored versions. I think the illustrations are a little easier to follow. There are several volumes so make sure you start with the first.

Babymouse - she's a sassy, grumpy, 4th grade mouse with big dreams. Fun to read aloud, as her dialog is witty and the narrator voice overs are often funny. After reading a book like this once to a kid, they are often eager to read it again alone.

Lunch Lady - another fun series. The Lunch Lady is a secret agent fighting crime, and three kids at school discover her secret and join in the adventures. Silly and action-packed.

Many of you have said you've only read our graphic novels, so I might want to prepare you that rapunzel and jack are different in structure and style from these others. GNs like Tiny Titans are episodic with several mini-stories. Each volume of Babymouse and Lunch Lady read like an episode of a TV show, while rapunzel and jack are more like a full-length feature film. (Someone in the biz told me yesterday that no one but Bloomsbury would have taken on an ambitious project like a 144-page full color, highly detailed story, which is very expensive to print, and I'm sure no one else but Nathan Hale would have committed a year to it.) I like that there are many different kinds of GNs for different readers.

What other GNs for young readers do you recommend?

Seeking a good home: Books

So, we've kind of got this recession going on, and I don't know anyone who hasn't felt it, but add the book business to the list of those treading water. As this industry is obviously close to my heart, I'd like to make a plea--buy books. Please buy books. I don't mean mine, just any. If you aren't already, consider becoming that person who only gives books as gifts. Birthdays, holidays, whatever.

As December approaches, fill up your shopping list with books. And consider buying those at your local bookstore. Bookstores are going out of business, and we can't have that. For those of you who are hoping to be published writers one day, you especially have an interest in keeping bookstores alive. Without them, debut writers get lost. Without booksellers who hand sell, readers won't discover unknown authors. And without a book industry, known and unknown writers alike get lost.

Buy books. And God bless us, every one.

p.s. If after buying all those books, you have another $88 dollars to spare, 88 Bikes is one of our family's favorite new traditions for the holidays.

The Christmas Book Challenge

Teachers can spend time very little time on reading for fun. Megan commented on a previous post, "As a teacher, I'm fighting a losing battle to keep these kids interested in reading. On a survey that was sent home, only ONE parent circled yes on "Does your child read for pleasure?". ONE! And unfortunately, with the focus on testing, reading instruction isn't too exciting."

First Book, a wonderful charity that gives children books of their own, has oodles of research on how much more likely children are to read (and be literate for life) if they have age-appropriate books in their homes.

If you're a parent reading an author's blog, you're most likely the kind of parent who fills your home with books, knows your local librarian by name, and has a favorite neighborhood bookstore. But I bet your kids have friends whose parents aren't the reading sort. You can help them, too.

So, let's challenge ourselves to give books. This Christmas, buying gifts for your children's friends? Let your kids choose books for those gifts. For neighbors, friends, teachers, family: give books. You can find $3 books in bookstores (mass market paperbacks or early reader books), or go all the way up to a $30 hardcover for nicer gifts. There are so many to choose from. Let's make it a literary holiday. Get books into people's hands! Flood the earth with stories!

Someone directed me to this illuminating blog by an editorial assistant on the state of publishing in this economic climate.

Winning losers

First, the very cool James Dashner is donating all his royalties from copies of The 13th Reality that are sold in the first week of publication (which would be now, I think). More details at his blog.

Dean and I were talking about wanting to read some graphic novels that had been recent award winners.

"But which kind of awards are they?" I asked. "The kind that awards to really great reads, or the kind that recognizes the genre breakers and innovative styles?" I.e. the kind that might be "important" but also "boring." Personally, I think there's room for both kinds, both contributions to literature are vital to keep it alive and growing, but also keep readers reading. But as a reader, I want to read the rippin' good tale most of all.

So my question is, do you select your reading list from the winners of certain awards? Do you always trust the Newberys, the Pulitzers, the NBAs? Do you shy away from the Hugos but embrace the Nebulas, or vice versa? Are there obscure awards that you think always choose really great books? My new favorite awards are the CYBILS. What do you mean that's because they chose book of a thousand days? I scoff at your unfounded accusation! Those peeps just know good reads, that's all I'm saying.

A day of glee! (in memory)

Today is the biggest day in children's literature--the announcement of the ALA awards! Here are the results:

Newbery:

Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! by Laura Amy Schlitz

Honors:

Eliza of Buxton by Christopher Paul Curtis
The Wednesday Wars by Gary Schmidt
Feathers by Jacqueline Woodson

Caledcott:

The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Bryan Selznick

Honors:

Knuffle Bunny Two by Mo Willems
The Wall by Peter Sis
First the Egg by Laura Vaccaro Seeger
Kadir Nelson-- HENRY'S FREEDOM BOX

Printz

The White Darkness by Geraldine McCaughrean

Honors:

Dreamwake by Elizabeth Knox
One Whole Perfect Day
Repossessed
Your Own Sylivia by Stephanie Hemphill

Good Master! Sweet Ladies! is a collection of wonderful monologues, each character a denizen of a medieval village. This is going to be a fabulous book in the classroom. Teachers are going to love using it to incorporate drama, literature, history, and social studies. (and I'm feeling a bit smug, having predicted this one as the winner last night to my husband.) The Invention of Hugo Cabret was definitely one of my favorite books of last year--it's really a novel with some scenes told in illustrations (like a silent movie) rather than words. It's one of the most innovative novels I've ever seen and kids will love it. I wonder if this choice will cause some controversy, since the Caldecott usually goes to picture books. And my son is a big fan of the Knuffle Bunny books, so we're always happy to see Mo Willems grace the lists. I haven't read the rest of the winners.

It's fun for me to think about all those authors and illustrators getting their early morning phone call. The magic of that call still lingers for me, two years later. It's perhaps the best gift I've ever received--the newness doesn't fade, the wonder of it keeps going. I feel like I went wandering in a forest and the lady of the wood bent down to kiss my forehead, and I've carried that charmed mark ever since. It was a gift better than I deserved, and I should be content for the rest of my life just to have received it.

And yet, I was guilty of hoping (rather passionately and anxiously at times) that I might get a second call this morning. I'm embarrassed to admit that. I wish I was beyond such petty mortal concerns, like those Star Trek aliens who have evolved to an intangible state and no longer are burdened with human emotions. But I have my feet firmly in the muck of the world, it seems. And this morning (after a bad night's rest) I've been wandering the house and officially in Wallow Mode. I ate chocolate chip cookies for breakfast. I'm having chips for lunch. And it feels good, darn it! And I'm questioning myself, why did I care? Am I so greedy that I want another award? Am I tempted by that rush of elation that getting the award brings and I must have more, like some yellow-eyed opium addict? Am I so desperate for the approval of others? In my wallow, I've tried on many reasons, but I don't think any of those reasons are right. What I keep coming back to is the award has never felt about me--it was about princess academy. And any disappointment I feel now is because book of a thousand days is such a precious book to me, and I was hoping to see Dashti earn a little shine (or a big one). What an award does is bring more readers to your book, and I wanted that for Dashti. And that reason, though it feels less selfish to me, also seems more certifiably crazy. I mean, sad for the character's sake? Don't tell anyone--I already have one arm in a straight jacket as it is.

But it's noon now, and I don't feel sad anymore. I still feel that tickle of excitement that it's an awards morning, and that there are authors out there who got a phone call that changed their lives. It's all about books and people and stories and kids, I remind myself--the best things of life. And I have a new list of books on my to-read list, which will never run out. And I get to spend all day with the cutest kids in the world. Life is very, very good.

Enna whispering in my ear

Full Cast Audio gave me another tremendous gift recently--enna burning on audio. This has become a hallowed experience for me, to listen to the books I wrote and be transported into the story via a new medium, so that the story doesn't seem like my words anymore. It's been the only way that I think I get to experience my books like any reader would. It's really magical. And the production of enna burning was just tremendous. The narrator is Cynthia Bishop, who also narrated the goose girl audio book, and her voice feels like home to me. The actor playing Enna is particularly outstanding. I'm very impressed with her, and pleased to hear that the same actress played Dashti in their just-completed recording of book of a thousand days (which will be out this spring, I imagine). And for you book nerds out there (like me), you'll get a kick out of hearing that authors Tamora Pierce and Bruce Coville both lent their voices to a couple of characters. It's an outstanding production. FCA received an Audie Award for their production of goose girl, and I think (dare I say?) they even topped their performance here.

I hadn't read enna through since the final proofing pass back in early 2004. I've skimmed it, looked up parts to fact check, but I hadn't just gone through the story, through Enna's struggle, from start to finish. And I was amazed. I'd forgotten so much, and the experience of that story is sometimes quite intense. I don't think I would write enna burning now, not the story that it is. I don't think it's something I could've or would've written after having children. And by that I don't mean that I'm sorry for the story I wrote then, nor that I don't think I'm capable of writing with intensity now. I'm just different. Since I wrote enna, I've had two children and lost one sister, and my soul is more sensitive, and my eyes see things differently. I found myself flinching from time to time. I'm so glad that I got the chance to write that story then, before I changed and didn't get the chance. I find it interesting that so few people have had any issues with the violence in that book, and those who have reported it to me have been mothers. The kids I know love the action and don't internalize any of it. It's not the least bit graphic to them--in truth, I don't think the descriptions are graphic, just the images a reader might visualize for herself. I remember being very careful with that. It's been over six years since I finished the first draft, so it's hard to remember what I was thinking at the time.

If I wrote the goose girl now, it wouldn't be the same story either. For one thing, it would be much shorter, and I don't know that that's a good or bad thing. I hope to keep developing as a writer, I hope to keep changing. I hope in twenty years I'm writing completely different things. I want to keep challenging myself, pushing myself in new ways. I'm very pleased with enna burning. I'm happy it exists. And I don't feel like I wrote it--which is precisely the way I like things to be.